|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
1st String
|
OP
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449 |
Health insurance ‘haves’ to pay for ‘have-nots’? Senate considers curbing tax-free status of employer-provided benefits By Tom Curry National affairs writer msnbc.com updated 6:38 a.m. ET, Mon., June 8, 2009 As part of a health insurance reform package now before Congress, some of the 164 million Americans who are covered by employer-provided health plans could be asked to give up at least part of the longstanding tax exemption granted to such compensation. It’s an idea likely to be met with howls of opposition if it makes it into the final version of health insurance legislation that President Barack Obama is pushing. The idea of limiting the tax break for employer-provided insurance gained momentum last week, when Obama told senators that he’d consider it as one ingredient of the health insurance reform bill he wants Congress to pass by early August, when the Senate starts a one-month recess. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who conveyed Obama’s willingness to consider the idea after a White House meeting Tuesday, has said the tax treatment of employer-provided health insurance ought to be made “fairer and more equitable for everyone.” Will you end up with more taxable income? While details of such an approach are still sketchy, it would likely involve employees paying tax on a percentage of their employer-provided health benefits. So if Congress decided that all such premiums in excess of $11,000 for family plans would be taxable income, and your company paid premiums worth $16,000 for your coverage, you’d have to pay taxes on $5,000. Obama’s new openness to the idea stands in contrast to what he said six months ago as a presidential candidate, when he harshly criticized his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, for proposing that employer-provided benefits should be taxed. Scolding McCain in their debate on Oct. 15, Obama said, “This is your plan, John. For the first time in history, you will be taxing people's health-care benefits.” Obama also pledged last year not to raise taxes for families making less than $250,000, and a health benefits tax, depending on how it was structured, could run afoul of that promise. The tax exemption on employer-provided health insurance, which dates to 1943, has already survived one attempt to limit it. An echo of Ronald Reagan In 1984, President Ronald Reagan floated the idea of requiring workers to pay taxes on employer contributions to their health insurance exceeding $2,100 a year. A Washington Post editorial the following year called the proposal “surprisingly lucrative yet eminently fair,” and speculated that “(it) might have helped hold down health care costs in the bargain.” But opposition, especially from labor unions, scuttled the proposal. Obama’s new receptivity to the tax springs from the massive sums of money needed to pay for expanding health coverage to the uninsured. Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors last week cited a figure of about $125 billion a year to insure the uninsured. But the president aims to do more than that. He also wants to subsidize the cost of coverage for lower-income people, subsidize COBRA coverage for those who lost their jobs and make other changes. MIT economist Jonathan Gruber told the Finance Committee last month that curbing the health insurance tax break was “both the most natural source of financing for health care reform” and “one of the few that is clearly large enough to finance the subsidies needed for reform.” According to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, the Treasury misses out on $226 billion a year because employer spending on health insurance isn’t counted as taxable income. That figure dwarfs any other potential health-related revenue sources that have been identified as possibilities to help fund the health care expansion. Among them are a 3-cent-per-can tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates would raise about $50 billion over 10 years, or increasing taxes on beer, wine and distilled liquor which, under one CBO scenario, would raise $60 billion over 10 years. A boon for upper-income people According to an analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation, curbing the tax break for employer-provided health insurance would primarily affect the wealthy, who “receive the greatest tax benefit from the exclusion from income.” According to Gruber, “about three-quarters of these dollars go to the top half of the income distribution.” But opposition to the proposal may be as big a problem for Obama as it was for Reagan. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey in April that asked whether workers “with the most generous health care benefits” should be required to pay taxes on their coverage found 52 percent of respondents opposed to the idea. Of those who currently have employer-sponsored health insurance, 62 percent opposed it. (The poll of 1,203 adults had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.) Will Americans bridle at loss of tax break? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned Baucus in a letter last month that workers view employer-provided insurance “as duly-earned income” that should be “protected from the tax collector. This perception perhaps explains why the president was so successful in campaigning against Senator McCain’s health reform proposal — Americans generally do not support tax increases.” The American Benefits Council, which represents principally Fortune 500 companies, is also opposed to the idea of limiting the tax break for employer-provided insurance. “It is likely to lead to higher deductibles or co-pays, so there’s higher cost sharing” by workers, said the group’s health care spokesman, Paul Dennett. If Congress were to set the threshold for taxation of benefits at $13,000 for a family coverage plan, then employers “in order to help workers not face taxation, may offer coverage below that threshold. This is a course employers say they would likely take.” Reduction in health benefits? Economist Elise Gould at the liberal think-tank the Economic Policy Institute gave a similar assessment. Employers would see the threshold for taxation as what the government deemed the target level for health benefits, she said. “Employers will respond by reducing the comprehensiveness of benefits. They’ll likely target premiums to fall below the (threshold) value or just at that value, so employees don’t have to pay those additional taxes.” Corporate America also fears that a limit on the tax break for health insurance would create an administrative nightmare, especially for large firms with employees in different states who face widely varying health care costs. And opposition also remains strong among labor unions, which were big Obama backers in last year’s election. Barbara Coufal, the assistant director of legislation at American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, said, “We don’t think we need to look inside the health care system to seek all the revenues we need for health care reform. Over the last 10 years, there have been a lot of tax breaks that have been given to the wealthy and to businesses. We maybe ought to look there and restore some equity.” With momentum growing to enact some limit on the tax break for health benefits, increasing energy is being devoted to develop a workable taxation scheme. Target upper-income Americans? Gruber suggested the possibility of having a baseline so that only families with incomes above $125,000 per year would pay tax on their benefits. Gruber said this would still raise a lot of revenue: more than $40 billion a year if the cap were indexed to increases in the Consumer Price Index. But in its letter to Baucus, the Chamber of Commerce said that such a proposal might “foster class warfare by (repealing the exclusion) … for certain income earners and not affecting others.” Baucur, a 30-year Senate veteran, knows the politics of this issue are delicate. Limiting the tax break for employer-provided health benefits has “got to be done in a very sensitive way, to make sure the limits are high enough,” he was quoted as saying last Thursday by the Capitol Hill publication CQ Today. Yet if Congress changes the law so that the tax bite ends up hitting only the wealthy, it might not raise enough revenue to help pay for health insurance overhaul. “That’s the real dilemma,” said Dennett, of the American Benefits Council. “The lower the threshold is set, then the lower the revenue gain — and the scramble would be on to find other revenue sources.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31106408
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
Another assinine idea by B.O. 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
bro .. if he wants HC the taxes are going up somewhere ... so no matter what he does is going to be a DUMB IDEA .. this one will be NO DUMBER that the next one ...
I am sick listening to all these tax hikes were going to pay on all levels and for all products ...
everytime I turn around .. my state/county and federal gov't are looking for ways to INCREASE INCOME (thats what they call it .. what it really is saying is RAISE TAXES ... ) ... i can't wait to see how much longer we take this ..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
1st String
|
|
OP
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449 |
Quote:
bro .. if he wants HC the taxes are going up somewhere ... so no matter what he does is going to be a DUMB IDEA .. this one will be NO DUMBER that the next one ...
I am sick listening to all these tax hikes were going to pay on all levels and for all products ...
everytime I turn around .. my state/county and federal gov't are looking for ways to INCREASE INCOME (thats what they call it .. what it really is saying is RAISE TAXES ... ) ... i can't wait to see how much longer we take this ..
Problem with this particular way of taxing is that it effects only the people with existing health insurance. The people that would be receiving the HC proposed by Obamašwould not contribute to its existance monetarly. This is a horrible idea. For the HC proposed by Obama to work, it goes without saying that the money has to come from somewhere, but it should come from some place that those receiving it will be putting back into it.
I agree though, I'm sick of all this talk about raising taxes on everything. People can barely afford to get by now, and this moron is talking about increasing taxes over and over. This guy is going to completely eliminate the middle class, and increase the working poor class. But hey, we'll all be eligible at some point for these social programs. 
Last edited by ChiefsFan; 06/08/09 12:19 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663 |
It's not just B.O that has had this idea. It's been one of the recirculated ideas for public healthcare for many many years. Hell, McCain proposed it during the election too. Obama didn't like it then, but now he sees just how difficult it's going to be to implement and doesn't have anywhere else to get the cash for it.
Public health care is coming folks. Don't have to like it, but it's coming.
KeysDawg
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. - Carl Sagan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
Quote:
i can't wait to see how much longer we take this ..
I hope it's within our lifetime 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
Quote:
It's not just B.O that has had this idea.
I know that, but his flip flop (hmmm where have we heard that before) is a bit of a suprise to even me.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
1st String
|
|
OP
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449 |
Quote:
Quote:
It's not just B.O that has had this idea.
I know that, but his flip flop (hmmm where have we heard that before) is a bit of a suprise to even me.
I really hope the sarcasm went over my head.
Has anyone heard "Obama Man" song? Its very funny. Heard it this morning on Bob and Tom.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
I love Bob & Tom, but I have not heard the song yet 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
I agree ... it is unfair to those that actually ahve jobs with HC beni's ... but u know what ..no matter where it comes from .. its going to be UNFAIR TO SOME GROUP ... there theory here is .. lets let the folks getting it for 'free' start paying in to help those that don't have any .. its STUPID .. but thats there theory .. Quote:
but it should come from some place that those receiving it will be putting back into it.
I don't understand this one .. please explain how it would work ..
they have nuttin now .. so how would they have sumptin to put back into it?? ..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
OK, raise taxes on HC benefits and give free health care to those that don't have HC.
Now some companies decide since there's a "free" option, why should we supply HC, and drop the benefit. Now we have more people on government HC and less on private, so now the people on private HC have taxes hiked more to cover the additional expense from fewer tax sources. And the cycle continues.
I just don't see how universal health care is going to work, unless they make some sort of seperation between UHC and private HC, to the point that unless you flat out can not afford it, you will carry Private HC.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
1st String
|
|
OP
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449 |
Quote:
Quote:
but it should come from some place that those receiving it will be putting back into it.
I don't understand this one .. please explain how it would work ..
they have nuttin now .. so how would they have sumptin to put back into it?? ..
An example, and one I'm not too fond of but does work would be increased taxes on a good. Such as gasoline (I don't think the majority will stop using it as a primary fuel any time soon); Some European countries use the taxes from gasoline to pay for a majority of their health care. When we were paying $4+ per gallon, they were spending $4+ per liter. There is about 4 liters per gallon (not precise but somewhere between 3 and 4 liters per gallon), so they were paying between $12 and $16 per gallon. That extra high price paid for different social programs. That is something everyone pays for, even the poor that would be using the health care.
It is just one example, and like Isaid one I'm not in favor of. But like you said, no matter what someone is going to be getting screwed on this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
Ahhhh ..... OK ... i understand now ... thanks for clarifying ... http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/05/democrats.health.care/index.htmlDemocrats mount grass-roots effort for health care reform Sun June 7, 2009 By Kevin Bohn CNN Senior Producer WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As Democrats on Capitol Hill move toward revealing landmark bills to drastically reform the nation's health care system, the White House and the Democratic National Committee are increasing efforts to rally public support. The Democratic National Committee's advocacy arm, Organizing for America, Saturday and through the weekend, sponsored thousands of meetings across the country in which it says tens of thousands of activists gathered -- talking about the problems they encounter and what changes they would like to see and to hear President Obama urge them to get involved and recruit others. In a taped message played at the meetings, the president says he has already brought together various groups to help propel major reform but implores his supporters to get involved. "The most powerful way to break through that noise in Washington is for millions of ordinary people to speak up and say you demand health care reform now and to explain why it matters so much in your lives. So right now please add your name if you, too, support the three core principles I've laid out for health care," Obama says, referencing his goals of controlling costs, guaranteeing choice and access to care. Sixteen people gathered in organizer Sergio Sarmento's apartment in Arlington, Virginia, Saturday afternoon for one of the sessions. Some of the participants urged a national health care system, saying it is the only way to guarantee equal care. Others talked about how powerful the insurance companies are. "This is the time to change it," Sarmento told the group. "Everyone has a say." Organizers say this weekend is a kickoff to what they hope will be a summer of lobbying and other action geared toward major changes in the nation's health care system. "As people come together, they will be planning on going door to door. They will be planning phone conversations that they will be having. They will be planning additional service events," Jeremy Bird, Organizing for America deputy director, said. In March, the group sponsored a canvassing effort and collected hundreds of thousands of pledges of support for the administration's budget bill. It has also mounted an effort to support the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. Activists on all sides are gearing up knowing the next few months will be key to whether major change to the system will be enacted. Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy, who is one of the leading advocates for reform, is circulating a proposed bill that includes a government-run insurance option and gives all Americans access to benefits. Kennedy's committee, Health, Education and Labor, is expected to act within the next few weeks followed by a rapid succession of other action across the Capitol as both the Senate and House are trying to pass landmark health legislation before their August recess. The White House and Democrats clearly are trying to build momentum that will help overcome the huge obstacles and many interest groups that could derail the major overhaul they are envisioning. In a conference call last week with volunteers for Organizing For America, the president tried to rally supporters by reiterating the economic costs the administration has emphasized: Americans now spend more on health care than food or housing, health care costs have doubled in the past decade, and fixing it will greatly improve the nation's fiscal situation. "I think the status quo is unacceptable and that we've got to get it done this year. If we don't get it done this year, we're not going to get it done," Obama said. Listen to the call The White House is leaving the drafting of specific bills to Congress, although administration officials are in close contact with members and their aides. Recognizing that a majority of Americans say they favor major reform and even are in favor of increased government influence to lower costs and increase coverage, Republicans have come up with their own proposals that emphasize choice. They say this weekend's efforts will not help build consensus. "There is a bipartisan effort that could be made here that could result in broad-based support for real changes in our health care system that the American people want," said Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, who leads a House GOP task force. "I would like to be part of that. Lots of Republicans would, too, but we can't get through the door to be really part of this discussion. "Activating the grass-roots effort from the campaign is one way to keep your campaign effort alive. It is not a particularly effective way to create a bipartisan solution to an important problem." This weekend's effort will not only begin a lobbying campaign. The DNC says it will collect real-life examples of the problems with today's system and will use them to help build public support for change. "We are going to be getting out these stories and putting a real face on the need for health care reform," Bird said. "We are going be showing these stories to elected members. We are going to be publicizing them in every single way we can. And our volunteers will be out there talking about the stories." As the first legislative action on the issue nears, interest groups involved in all sides are expected to ramp up their efforts. Conservatives for Patient Rights, which is pushing for less government involvement and is led by former Columbia/HCA executive Rick Scott, just launched a $1.1 million campaign, Health Care for America. On the other side, a coalition of groups pushing for major reform that includes a government insurance option says it will soon release ads and plans to bring 5,000 people to Washington on June 25 to lobby members of Congress.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Oh please GM. Everyone, "flip-flops" in their life. You've done it, I've done it, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a blatant liar. Changing your mind isn't something that's bad. Fear to change your mind due to pride when new evidence comes to light is one of the many problems that has had bad effects on civilization through the years.
Obama changed his view on this because he sees it as a possible avenue to implement his "baby." I'm not defending his idea, personally this is about as bad as it gets IMO, but you can't expect someone to go through life with one non-changing point of view.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
bro .. if he wants HC the taxes are going up somewhere ... so no matter what he does is going to be a DUMB IDEA .. this one will be NO DUMBER that the next one ...
I am sick listening to all these tax hikes were going to pay on all levels and for all products ...
everytime I turn around .. my state/county and federal gov't are looking for ways to INCREASE INCOME (thats what they call it .. what it really is saying is RAISE TAXES ... ) ... i can't wait to see how much longer we take this ..
I'm sure there is a way out there to provide Health Care without raising any taxes, but that will require them cutting something else out there which they would never do.. it's harder to cut programs than it is to create one. Health Care will always be a tough sell because the healthy always underestimate the value of good healthcare until they get sick. Not to mention it's hard for those with pre-existing conditions to get insured even with employer-sponsored programs where they still need to wait an extra time frame before they are covered. If I didn't have health insurance through my jobs, my prescriptions will cost me more than I make per month and these are not the kind that you can just skip and not take.
But Universal Health Care is always a double-edged sword mainly because politicians will look to create new taxes to put it through rather than looking at their wasteful spending and finding stuff they can eliminate to provide it. I wish I can just go up to my employer and say that I need to raise because I decided to take my wife out on the town every friday because I don't want to reorganize my budget by cutting my sunday trips to the bar to provide for my new plan.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
Quote:
Oh please GM. Everyone, "flip-flops" in their life.
Read my lips...no new taxes....  Change...change...change
No tax increase for those making under 250,000
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I know that, but his flip flop (hmmm where have we heard that before) is a bit of a suprise to even me.
I said back in November that Obama's rhetoric was too lofty. The insurance lobby in D.C. is pretty strong, as is the pharm lobby.
We'll end up with the watered down terms those heads agree to...and it's not going to get us anywhere.
The private insurance and pharm companies will be happy because they'll have a new fat subsidy partner, and the federal government will benefit by loads of new taxes implemented on booze and cigarettes and anything else that's unhealthy.
The system will remain broken...the pre-existing condition farce will remain...we will continue to overpay for things we funded the development of, and the health of the people will still be a for profit game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
OK, raise taxes on HC benefits and give free health care to those that don't have HC.
Now some companies decide since there's a "free" option, why should we supply HC, and drop the benefit. Now we have more people on government HC and less on private, so now the people on private HC have taxes hiked more to cover the additional expense from fewer tax sources. And the cycle continues.
I just don't see how universal health care is going to work, unless they make some sort of seperation between UHC and private HC, to the point that unless you flat out can not afford it, you will carry Private HC.
You sir, are correct. Show me a company that is going to continue to pay for health care for the employee when there is a "free" option. Companies will quit offering health care. And add to that the rich people will take the free health care but will still pay for a private health care plan. They'll be covered for the little things under the free health care, and their private insurance will take care of the rest - and then you'll see people moaning about "we need to tax the rich more because their health care is better than ours".
If this goes through we may as well sell our country. Oh, wait - we already have.
Something for everyone - free free free, make the rich pay.
This country won't cease to be great because we get invaded - this country will cease to be great because everyone wants equality - not in terms of ability to get ahead thru work - but in terms of "my neighbor has more than me and that's not fair and I should have it and they should pay for it".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Oh please GM. Everyone, "flip-flops" in their life. You've done it, I've done it, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a blatant liar. Changing your mind isn't something that's bad. Fear to change your mind due to pride when new evidence comes to light is one of the many problems that has had bad effects on civilization through the years.
Obama changed his view on this because he sees it as a possible avenue to implement his "baby." I'm not defending his idea, personally this is about as bad as it gets IMO, but you can't expect someone to go through life with one non-changing point of view.
Go through life? Obama won an election by blasting McCain's ideas as stupid just 6 months ago, then wins the election and turns around 6 months later and adopts the same stupid idea? That goes a bit beyond going through life with one non-changing point of view... He didn't make it through an entire hockey season.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663 |
Quote:
That goes a bit beyond going through life with one non-changing point of view... He didn't make it through an entire hockey season.
LOL, sorry. DC and I don't always agree on some things, but this line made me laugh pretty hard!
KeysDawg
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. - Carl Sagan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,440
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,440 |
But the Hockey season is REALLY long. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683 |
NRTU
Funny how people start getting angry when the definition of "rich" is redefined. This tax will add the value of the benefits to the taxable income. Even the night manager at Burger King and my 15$ an hour file room workers. Anyone smart enough to take a job with benefits is now rich, and Obama wants the people's money back.
And it hasn't even been a year yet.
Universal health care is a joke. Any one who wants health care gets it. Yes, paying customers pay more as a result, same with shop lifting. Want medicine fixed? Fix the problems and stop creating more. Want health care? Get off your but and get a job, or at least fill out the paperwork at you local facilitated enrollment provider.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405 |
j/c Elections have consequences. This country is fast tracking total lunacy. I asked a big BO supporter questions regarding all the recent issues. She wasn't aware of any of them. She's an 18 year old who voted for the first time for BO because she thought JMc was too old and "wanted change." 
"My signature line goes here."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144 |
Quote:
Quote:
OK, raise taxes on HC benefits and give free health care to those that don't have HC.
Now some companies decide since there's a "free" option, why should we supply HC, and drop the benefit. Now we have more people on government HC and less on private, so now the people on private HC have taxes hiked more to cover the additional expense from fewer tax sources. And the cycle continues.
I just don't see how universal health care is going to work, unless they make some sort of seperation between UHC and private HC, to the point that unless you flat out can not afford it, you will carry Private HC.
You sir, are correct. Show me a company that is going to continue to pay for health care for the employee when there is a "free" option. Companies will quit offering health care. And add to that the rich people will take the free health care but will still pay for a private health care plan. They'll be covered for the little things under the free health care, and their private insurance will take care of the rest - and then you'll see people moaning about "we need to tax the rich more because their health care is better than ours".
If this goes through we may as well sell our country. Oh, wait - we already have.
Something for everyone - free free free, make the rich pay.
This country won't cease to be great because we get invaded - this country will cease to be great because everyone wants equality - not in terms of ability to get ahead thru work - but in terms of "my neighbor has more than me and that's not fair and I should have it and they should pay for it".
Cripe, those on the medicaid dole right now have better insurance coverage than I do, and I work in a hospital. There's nothing "equal" about it. Now I'm going to have to pay so those without can get better coverage than I have, without co-pays!
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Quote:
Oh please GM. Everyone, "flip-flops" in their life. You've done it, I've done it, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a blatant liar. Changing your mind isn't something that's bad. Fear to change your mind due to pride when new evidence comes to light is one of the many problems that has had bad effects on civilization through the years.
Obama changed his view on this because he sees it as a possible avenue to implement his "baby." I'm not defending his idea, personally this is about as bad as it gets IMO, but you can't expect someone to go through life with one non-changing point of view.
Go through life? Obama won an election by blasting McCain's ideas as stupid just 6 months ago, then wins the election and turns around 6 months later and adopts the same stupid idea? That goes a bit beyond going through life with one non-changing point of view... He didn't make it through an entire hockey season.
Yes i know, it's amazing that people can change their minds that fast   \
Like I said, he see's his baby dying and is almost at wits end when it comes to working something out so is willing to embrace something he doesn't necessarily like. It's akin to a family saying, "Were putting our daughter through college without relying on loans. Loans are something that is unnecessary at best, and financially harmful at worst." Then turning around when their daughter turns 20 and wants to continue college and the college fund has run dry, the family gives in and takes out a loan instead of telling their daughter tough luck. Again, I don't like this idea, I think it's just a way for him to say "Look what i did, healthcare for all" but at the same time selling his soul. It's just not well thought out.
My main beef with what GM said is about "flip-flopping" and that it's something to be abhorred. There's nothing wrong with changing your mind about anything, it's active thought and logic which pride should have no bearing on. I think we on the board refer to it as "eating crow" then moving on. Too many people go through life knowing-what-they-know and not trying to better understand the world around them; be it natural, political, etc. Finding something new that goes against your current understanding shouldn't be pushed away, but inspected, thought about logically, then embraced or thrown away.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
I think it's just a way for him to say "Look what i did, healthcare for all" but at the same time selling his soul.
Selling OUR soul - the country. At a speed that we can't even understand - all for "health care for all"??????
Any time a politician says something like "we need to get this done now, or it will never happen", I take it to mean "we need to push through this bill no one has read, but everyone has contributed to and added pork to, before the citizens realize what's happening, and if we push it through quick enough, we'll have even more people relying on us, the gov't., and that will make our next bill easier to pass", or something like that.
This administration is acting like a deer in the headlights - and throwing money at dead deer doesn't benefit the deer, the car that hit it, or anyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Selling OUR soul - the country.
I think he meant 'selling his soul' as in backing down from his original assertions/promises regarding health care.
Essentially, this will amount to little more than a big subsidy for the pharm/insurance industry. It may have well been included in the stimulus package...but Obama needs to trot out something and call it 'health care' reform.
Very little will change aside from taxpayer money going to subsidize private industry, who in turn will notch down their already outrageous gouging...and sin taxes will go through the roof. Everybody will win...but you and me and our neighbors.
Quote:
we'll have even more people relying on us, the gov't., and that will make our next bill easier to pass", or something like that.
IMO it's the private institutions that pay for the votes that want the reliance. Especially in regards to the health care debate...remember -- the corporations run our gov't...not the politicians. They get to sing and dance every once in awhile, but when it comes to the big stuff...the votes are lobbied and paid for.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Quote:
we'll have even more people relying on us, the gov't., and that will make our next bill easier to pass", or something like that.
IMO it's the private institutions that pay for the votes that want the reliance. Especially in regards to the health care debate...remember -- the corporations run our gov't...not the politicians. They get to sing and dance every once in awhile, but when it comes to the big stuff...the votes are lobbied and paid for.
I disagree. Remember, Obama won the election due to hope and change AND the ACORN vote. The more people on the public dole - being given something for nothing, even if it's not enough - the more votes he gets.
And regardless - he's tripled spending in what, 120 days? 140 days? He's backed off his promises, and spent like a drunken sailor.....and for what? My gut tells me that even Obama knows he's making terrible financial decisions. But, he does it anyway. Spend spend spend. Bush was bad, but Obama is ripping away any chance this country had - he is NOT helping us at all, no matter how he tries to spin it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Remember, Obama won the election due to hope and change AND the ACORN vote. The more people on the public dole - being given something for nothing, even if it's not enough - the more votes he gets.
If his first however many days are an indication, he's not going to govern like he campaigned. I know the conservative side like to spin him as some radical, on-fire over the top Marxist...but he's fairly moderate. He hasn't budged much from Bush's policy, which itself was similar to Clinton's (and Reagan's as well).
When it comes to presidential campaigns anymore...they're pretty easy to figure out. Give an astute person a debate question, and they'll be able to sum up what both sides are going to say. Obama's going to continue this centrist line -- he knows he's got his side voting for him in the next election...he needs to appeal to moderate conservatives.
He really wants to turn this ship around fast...but even if he succeeds in what he's trying to do...the best case scenario is another fragile bubble. Nothing is being done to fix what got us into this mess.
Quote:
And regardless - he's tripled spending in what, 120 days? 140 days? He's backed off his promises, and spent like a drunken sailor.....and for what?
Private companies to cover their behind for the last few decades of shenanigans.
One thing though...he pretty much campaigned on a platform of ridiculous spending...he just claimed, like they all do, that he was somehow going to spend more efficiently than before.
Quote:
My gut tells me that even Obama knows he's making terrible financial decisions. But, he does it anyway. Spend spend spend.
Yeah, pretty much.
Quote:
Bush was bad, but Obama is ripping away any chance this country had - he is NOT helping us at all, no matter how he tries to spin it.
No, he's not helping us. He's helping banks, the insurance industry, the car industry, various construction companies, etc., etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Phil, your disdain for american companies baffles me. It literally amazes me.
Keep in mind that, if not for profit, no company has any reason to exist - and if not for profit, the ability to pay workers ceases to exist. When workers don't have jobs, the gov't. gets no money.
Here's a lesson in real life phil: profit is not a four letter word that should be shunned. Profit is not something that should be penalized. Without profit, nothing happens. If you don't profit from your work, will you go to work?
I know my butt wouldn't if I didn't see some profit from work.
Sorry bud, american companies making profits is what made this country what it WAS. Companies making profits pay people like you (even though you see no problem stealing music and movies at no cost to you), the companies pay taxes (too much) and you pay taxes (too much - if you work, that is).
Profit is a necessary ingredient in prosperity. You don't need to like it. But you DO need to deal with it, and over the years, it appears you have not been able to. No profit? No country.
Taxes? Too high - the gov'.t is attempting to make everyone equal from a financial standpoint - when the truth is this country USED to make people equal from the opportunity standpoint.
I do get tired of your hatred of this country. I do get tired of you blaming this country for all the problems in the world. Many others are tired of it as well, I'm sure.
And what totally blows me away is your rationalizing of you yourself stealing. Like - it doesn't hurt others that much, so I should be able to - screw that. People like you are part of the problem phil. You have no problem and no issue stealing for your benefit, yet you have serious issues with companies that make a profit??????????????????? Seriously? And you want those companies to cease making money?
Are you Barack himself? You want companies to spend every last dime they make paying employees, and lifetime benefits after 25 years of work? Spread the wealth, right?
Attitudes like yours hurt this country more than you, obviously, will ever know.
I've laughed at your posts recently - albeit to myself. But seriously - come out to the heartland of this country.
Get yourself out of the city, and the big business mentality. Come to Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas........hell, go anywhere but your city - get away from your hollywood mentality - you'll learn alot. IF your open to learning. Which I doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Sorry bud, american companies making profits is what made this country what it WAS.
And their pursuit of bigger and bigger growth is what has buried it.
And I'm all for a company making a profit...but the U.S. government doesn't need to be their providers.
In relation to health care...at no point should a pharm company ever approach a doctor and say 'if you perscribe these expensive pills to your patients, we'll reward you with a trip to the Caribbean.'....that's not cool. Our industry is quite literally designed to provide the least amount of care with the highest profit. Why people fight for it to continue is beyond me...
Quote:
I do get tired of your hatred of this country.
I hate our government, not our country.
Quote:
Get yourself out of the city, and the big business mentality. Come to Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas........hell, go anywhere but your city - get away from your hollywood mentality - you'll learn alot. IF your open to learning. Which I doubt.
Been a long time since I've lived in the city.
Hollywood mentality? Lay off the Limbaugh, bro. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
I hate our government, not our country.
In B.O.'s eyes, we have some common ground here.
Other than that, I've always disagreed with you.
But I will admit, I am one of those that was stupid. I voted for a guy based on an image and likability, and when he started implementing his policies, I realized what was happening and will probably never vote for a democrat again.
I wonder how many others will feel me on that, or has our country totally become jaded.......... Because I voted in a guy who, while may be I'd like to have a beer with him, I absolutely disagree with economically and foreign policy wise.
I also voted out connecticut's best representative (Chris Shays) for some idiot named Himes just because I thought he had to be qualified since he was high up in Goldman Sacks at some point. Go figure................
Quote:
In relation to health care...at no point should a pharm company ever approach a doctor and say 'if you perscribe these expensive pills to your patients, we'll reward you with a trip to the Caribbean.'....that's not cool. Our industry is quite literally designed to provide the least amount of care with the highest profit. Why people fight for it to continue is beyond me...
I'm with you on this too. The amount of money that drug companies put into advertising (whether it be through doc's incentives or commercials) is ridiculous compared to how much money the companies put into research. Simply put, it sucks and shouldn't be that way.
Last edited by PeteyDangerous; 06/09/09 12:15 AM.
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,104
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,104 |
So if this happens: Why on Earth would I keep my company's insurance policy and pay for it; when I can opt out, pay nothing, and let the government pay my bill for free?
The only reason people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Phil, your disdain for american companies baffles me. It literally amazes me.
Keep in mind that, if not for profit, no company has any reason to exist - and if not for profit, the ability to pay workers ceases to exist. When workers don't have jobs, the gov't. gets no money.
My question is Do you really think we should be rewarding companies with bad business plans? That is exactly what we have been doing... We have given the banks billions of dollars because they screwed up which in turn screwed up other parts of the economy... But which way is best to steer the ship straight? By giving it to the corporations who screwed up, or give it to the taxpayers so they can choose what to spend their money on which in turn will give it to corporations that are worthy.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
Quote:
My main beef with what GM said is about "flip-flopping" and that it's something to be abhorred.
Oh come on you see less flip-flops on a crowded beach.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 189
Practice Squad
|
|
Practice Squad
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 189 |
Quote:
So if this happens: Why on Earth would I keep my company's insurance policy and pay for it; when I can opt out, pay nothing, and let the government pay my bill for free?
Exactly what O wants. If private insurance exists, the gov. can't own it. So for national health care to be needed, everyone must be without it first.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Canada's ObamaCare Precedent Governments always ration care by making you wait. That can be deadly. By DAVID GRATZER Congressional Democrats will soon put forward their legislative proposals for reforming health care. Should they succeed, tens of millions of Americans will potentially be joining a new public insurance program and the federal government will increasingly be involved in treatment decisions. Not long ago, I would have applauded this type of government expansion. Born and raised in Canada, I once believed that government health care is compassionate and equitable. It is neither. My views changed in medical school. Yes, everyone in Canada is covered by a "single payer" -- the government. But Canadians wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation in the public system. The problems were brought home when a relative had difficulty walking. He was in chronic pain. His doctor suggested a referral to a neurologist; an MRI would need to be done, then possibly a referral to another specialist. The wait would have stretched to roughly a year. If surgery was needed, the wait would be months more. Not wanting to stay confined to his house, he had the surgery done in the U.S., at the Mayo Clinic, and paid for it himself. Such stories are common. For example, Sylvia de Vries, an Ontario woman, had a 40-pound fluid-filled tumor removed from her abdomen by an American surgeon in 2006. Her Michigan doctor estimated that she was within weeks of dying, but she was still on a wait list for a Canadian specialist. Indeed, Canada's provincial governments themselves rely on American medicine. Between 2006 and 2008, Ontario sent more than 160 patients to New York and Michigan for emergency neurosurgery -- described by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain." Only half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner by national and international standards, according to a government study. The physician shortage is so severe that some towns hold lotteries, with the winners gaining access to the local doc. Overall, according to a study published in Lancet Oncology last year, five-year cancer survival rates are higher in the U.S. than those in Canada. Based on data from the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health (done by Statistics Canada and the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics), Americans have greater access to preventive screening tests and have higher treatment rates for chronic illnesses. No wonder: To limit the growth in health spending, governments restrict the supply of health care by rationing it through waiting. The same survey data show, as June and Paul O'Neill note in a paper published in 2007 in the Forum for Health Economics & Policy, that the poor under socialized medicine seem to be less healthy relative to the nonpoor than their American counterparts. Ironically, as the U.S. is on the verge of rushing toward government health care, Canada is reforming its system in the opposite direction. In 2005, Canada's supreme court struck down key laws in Quebec that established a government monopoly of health services. Claude Castonguay, who headed the Quebec government commission that recommended the creation of its public health-care system in the 1960s, also has second thoughts. Last year, after completing another review, he declared the system in "crisis" and suggested a massive expansion of private services -- even advocating that public hospitals rent facilities to physicians in off-hours. And the medical establishment? Dr. Brian Day, an orthopedic surgeon, grew increasingly frustrated by government cutbacks that reduced his access to an operating room and increased the number of patients on his hospital waiting list. He built a private hospital in Vancouver in the 1990s. Last year, he completed a term as the president of the Canadian Medical Association and was succeeded by a Quebec radiologist who owns several private clinics. In Canada, private-sector health care is growing. Dr. Day estimates that 50,000 people are seen at private clinics every year in British Columbia. According to the New York Times, a private clinic opens at a rate of about one a week across the country. Public-private partnerships, once a taboo topic, are embraced by provincial governments. In the United Kingdom, where socialized medicine was established after World War II through the National Health Service, the present Labour government has introduced a choice in surgeries by allowing patients to choose among facilities, often including private ones. Even in Sweden, the government has turned over services to the private sector. Americans need to ask a basic question: Why are they rushing into a system of government-dominated health care when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are backing away? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451570546396929.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188 |
Nor for nuttin guys and gals ... but a politician saying one thing on the campaign trail on then doing another once is often is about as shocking as daylight ... it has been happening for at least 30 years ...
I can't stand Obama and think he is putting us on a much faster trac to hitting bottom (and maybe thats actually not a bad thing ... cause when we finally do bottom out we'll be FORCED TO FACE REALITY and maybe come up with some "real" solutions) ...
but to bash him for what every politician has done over the last 25 - 30 years is just piling on ...
and GM ,, I do not call it flip flopping .. I call it LYING ,,,,, I watch every political campaign at all levels for the last 30 years and can not understand for the life of me how were going to get all these new programs without raising taxes .. THEY ALL DO IT ... and it is a FLAT OUT LIE ....
but its our own damm fault .. we keep voting the LYING WHORES IN ...
anyhow .. Obama gives us enough to pick on him for .. no need to pick on him for being like every other politician over the last 3 decades ..
ITS WHAT THEY ALL DO ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
but to bash him for what every politician has done over the last 25 - 30 years is just piling on ...
Anyone who couldn't see he was F.O.S. during his campaign is BLIND. It's not Obama I blame, it's the people that voted for him. I'm about ready to sign an impeachment petition...
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 301
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 301 |
Just clicking. . .
I am a health insurance broker. HC reform has nothing to do with helping the little guy. If politicians were truly interested in helping the little guy, democrats would have accomplished a whole hell of a lot more to bring the poor up to the middle class while they had control of Congress for 45 years prior to '94. This is and always will be about CONTROL. This ties into the Carbon Trading and other controls and taxes on business and individuals. These people simply believe they are smarter than you and that someone needs to make the decisions for your dumb a$$. They want to be able to control everything from income to who receives the medical care in order to stay alive (and thus population and political control).
Mark my words, they are going to get Universal HC in steps. They know the American people will never go for it all in one shot. They like to label themselves 'Progressives' for a reason. They implement their changes over the long term. Once they get the 'free' government run option available to those who don't have private insurance available to them, they will start labeling those who do have private insurance as rich and unamerican. They will never make the 'free' plan all that rich in benefits (did you know as a State Licensed Life and Health Insurance agent it is illegal for me to discuss the benefit automatically afforded to Americans under Medicare because the benefits are so poor that it is considered a 'Scare Tactic' to inform people how poor the benefits are so they understand they need to buy Medicare supplemets?). The reason - to continue and create envy for the others who have better private insurance, and thus another tool of class warfare to gain more control - in steps.
I'm going to stop ranting now, but remember, it is about CONTROL - not helping people, not money - POWER and CONTROL. What provides stronger strings for the puppets then controling the strings that directly affect health and life and death?
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Health Insurance "Haves" to pay
for "Have Nots"?
|
|
