Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

AP Exclusive: Medicaid for the middle class?


R68 Subway Car

Recommended Posts

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110622/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_glitch

 

;):(:P:(:tdown::tdown:

 

We are gonna look back at this Presidency as the the largest mistake in US History. BTW, I was not a huge Bush guy.

 

I don't even think so..... This is some bullcrap.

 

A couple making $64k a year is NOT f-Ing middle class anymore! Let the damn people get some insurance and leave then alone. They sure as hell can't afford any! And God forbid they have children! I see nothing wrong with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, we won't.

 

This is a phenomenal thing. If he were actually a Liberal we'd have universal health care by now, but those nitwit Republicans and pseudo-Dems got in the way of that. In the end, give these people their health care. "Errors" like these are the closest we'll get to universal health care.

 

Really?? And on who's dime?? You think these people are going to get "free healthcare" for free?? Now that's really dreaming. They'll get it and we'll be taxed double. A real sham if you ask me. :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they need to stop giving tax breaks to the super rich first

 

Agreed, they should tax the rich double (or triple) the amount the middle class gets taxed. Rich people should give some money back to the government, so it can go to funding for programs like Medicaid, for people that need free healthcare. I do agree with there being free healthcare for all citizens, however the country needs money for that. Also I do not agree with Obama's healthcare bill. That bill was passed without a lot of reading from congress, just like the USA Patriot Act. Because of that, it will not do any good for this country. Free healthcare=:tup: Obama's version of free healthcare=:tdown:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overtaxing the rich!!! Hahahahahahaha. Oh that's golden. ;D You know how to make a guy laugh. Overtaxing the RICH! HA!

 

Believe it or not there are rich folks who do pay their taxes. The ones really getting the breaks are the super rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they need to stop overtaxing the rich and the middle class first.

 

LOL!!! Overtaxing the middle class i can agree with, but the rich!?!? HA!!

 

I agree with Rick44 with every word he said, by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree that families making 65k a year should receive some sort of discounted health insurance (not free, just fairly priced on perhaps some sort of sliding scale), just dumping them on medicaid will not solve anything-it will exacerbate the existing funding issues. There needs to be an overhaul and actual policing of the existing insurance companies to force them to make fairly priced plans, and perhaps some sort of government run plan to compete with them.

 

Though I fear just how bloated a government pay-insurance program would become, since the government apparently cannot do anything in an efficient, cost-effective manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they need to stop overtaxing the rich and the middle class first.

 

That's funny...... Last time I checked, everyone I know who is rich, or well off, don't mind being taxed a little more at all...... A couple of them are even Republican.

 

I don't mind being taxed a little extra either. But that's just how I was raised. We all have to live here together. It's really too bad that many people like you look at it the way you do.

 

"Share" just isn't part of some people's vocabulary......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to solve the budget crisis you do this:

 

-End tax loopholes for corporations AND individuals.

-Lower corporate income tax rates (yes, me the person who HATES the rich wants to do this)

-Prevent wages paid in foreign currency or to foreign nationals from being a US tax deductible expense. Since most payroll is processed by large clearinghouses like ADP, this is easy to do for the largest corps who are the worst offenders of outsourcing.

-RAISE personal income tax rates for high earners using a ladder tax system (example: first 10,000 of income is taxed at 5%, next 15,000 is taxed at 10%, next 25,000 is taxed at 25%, next 30,000 is taxed at 35%, next 70,000 is taxed at 50%, next 350,000 is taxed at 70%, next 500,000 is taxed at 80%, anything higher than that is taxed at 90%)

-Tax stock options as ordinary income based on their estimated value at time of issue...or just ban them outright.

-Golden parachutes and bonuses are taxed as ordinary income.

-Capital gains (on investments) become ORDINARY INCOME no matter what...unless they are part of an IRA or 401(k) account, in which case they are taxed at a lower rate.

-Separate commercial banks that handle loans from investment banks. This prevents customer deposits from subsidizing investment losses and generally guarantees the safety of money deposited in banks (especially with the FDIC).

-Raise the inheritance tax. The portion of any inheritance above 2 million is taxed at 75%.

-Index all applicable numbers for inflation so no one will ever have to think about this again.

 

Then:

-End corporate welfare

-End aid to nations that are not doing anything productive with it (Pakistan)

-Start paying off chinese debt FIRST to reduce their influence over policy

-Remove nonprofit status for ALL POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS and tax them too

 

Now, you want to fix healthcare you do this:

-Mandate employer raises for all employees to match the health insurance premiums paid by the employer for the previous year.

-End employer provided health insurance. Your employer doesn't buy you car insurance, why should your employer buy you health insurance, and why should employment have anything to do with the cost of health insurance?

-Allow the sale of health insurance across state lines, and allow individuals to choose the provider they want to use, creating true competition and keeping costs down.

-Healthcare will NOT be provided for ANY illegal immigrants unless they can pay for their procedure up front. If they do so, they are deported as soon as they are treated.

-Individuals who choose not to purchase insurance can still purchase care directly from the provider (ie a doctor) without using insurance. Cost is negotiated between the doctor and the patient.

-Dependent children without health insurance will have care provided no matter what. No child deserves to suffer because his/her parents did not buy insurance. If the parents are unable to pay, the public will pay provided the family proves financial hardship, otherwise the parents will be liable for all medical bill costs billed.

-"Family" medical plans would distinguish the number of children. For a father, for example, to purchase care for himself and his family, he would pay one premium rate if only adding himself, an additional cost for his wife, and an additional cost for each child. The current system establishes a "family rate" which charges the father the same rate regardless of if he is adding 1 child or 10, which is bulls&it.

-The elderly receive Medicare only. Medicaid ends. To qualify for Medicare, the individual must demonstrate financial need (ie the super rich are not eligible and must continue buying private insurance if they want to remain covered). Eligibility will be based both on WEALTH and INCOME (not just one or the other).

 

Problems solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really?? And on who's dime?? You think these people are going to get "free healthcare" for free?? Now that's really dreaming. They'll get it and we'll be taxed double. A real sham if you ask me. :mad:

 

And how exactly would you define "they" and "we" here? Simply put, this provision begins to work on closing the donut hole in a way that I'm quite happy to see. $64,000 per year for an indvidual may be solid middle class, but $64,000 per year for a couple no longer is. This essentially begins to ameliorate the screwing over of the struggling working class guy who just misses the income requirements and thus is actually doing worse than the guy with the lower income by raising the income requirements to fall more in line with what people can actually afford to buy. You can't ethically require everyone to carry health insurance and then simply leave the provision of such insurance to the industry in its current state because you won't get free competition; you'll wind up with an inherently inefficient and quite abusive oligopolistic market. Providing a low-cost independent alternative to current plans, be it community-based or adminstered on the state and local levels, would break up that dynamic and wind up driving prices down and quality up for everyone except the very wealthy. Simply raising the Medicaid income limits is a rather narrow and hamfisted way of doing that, but given the current bunch in Washington any attempt to create and effectively implement noncorporate insurance plans would have led to World War III and the president expended so much political capital passing the first bill that he wouldn't have any left to fight that war and we'd wind up with nothing.

 

As for your argument about creating unfair tax burdens on the middle class and the wealthy, it's not that simple. Yes, a certain group of state and local taxes tend to hit the middle class more than the wealthy, but that's more a sign of a poorly developed and articulated tax structure pushed in that direction by the wealthy than a sign of the poor and working class getting over in the way that you seem to see the issue as. Yes, taxes will increase to pay for this, but if this or its successor system does what it's intended to do and the market price for your health insurance sheds a mere $300 per month your standard middle class guy still sees a net benefit right alongside the poor and working class guys whom this was originally intended to assist. Arguing that the current system or anything likely to arise from it in the next thirty years overtaxes the wealthy is patently ludicrous. Under the current system the highest tax rate we have is 35% on whatever income you show after deductions, exemptions, etc. which quite frankly is nothing. I believe that 175K and up should be 50%, 400K and up should be 70%, and a million plus should be 80%. Do that, clean up the tax loopholes and deuctions for corporations and the wealthy, introduce tax penalties for any corporation doing business here with more than a certain percentage of its workforce elsewhere, and actually put some teeth in the IRS as far as those two groups are concerned, and watch a good chunk of the country's financial woes get cut back down to size. Also, on a purely philosophical level: Is there such a thing as too much wealth? No. Is there such a thing as too great an inequity of wealth? Yes. When we have people having to choose between getting something checked out at the doctor's office and buying groceries while others have three and four residences, cutting the latter down to size and using the proceeds to ease the woes of the former is by no means unfair nor cruel nor class warfare or any other term an angry Republican might come up with; it is simply the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my favorite nuggets from the World Ideologies as Cows thing:

 

DEMOCRAT

You have two cows.

Your neighbor has none.

You feel guilty for being successful.

You vote people into office that put a tax on your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax.

The people you voted for then take the tax money, buy a cow and give it to your neighbor.

You feel righteous.

Barbara Streisand sings for you.

REPUBLICAN

You have two cows.

Your neighbor has none.

So?

 

So much truth there on both.

 

------------

Some responses:

 

-RAISE personal income tax rates for high earners using a ladder tax system (example: first 10,000 of income is untaxed, next 15,000 is taxed at 10%, next 25,000 is taxed at 25%, next 30,000 is taxed at 35%, next 70,000 is taxed at 50%, next 350,000 is taxed at 70%, next 500,000 is taxed at 80%, anything higher than that is taxed at 90%)

 

The problem I have with this is the unintended consequence on entrepenurism. With so much tax on income, there would be no motivation to get a higher income and therefore no more wealth. It would be more beneficial to stay poor and have less tax taken away from you. Some people do that even today!

 

Let me give you some exaples:

 

Say you make $50k a year. With your ladder there, you would have to tax at the $15k and $25k marks. ($10k * 0.0) + ($15k * 0.1) + ($25k * 0.25) = $1.5k + $6.25k = $7.75k in tax leaving $42.25k. Approximately a tax rate of 15.5%

 

Say you make $5 million a year. ($10k * 0.0) + ($15k * 0.1) + ($25k * 0.25) + ($30k * 0.35) + ($70k * 0.5) + ($350k * 0.7) + ($500k * 0.8) + ($4,000k * 0.9) = $1.5k + $6.25k + $10.5k + $35 + $245k + $400k + $3600k = $4298.25k leaving $701.75 at a tax rate of 85.965% (!)

 

How is that fair? Why would anyone want to bother even aquiring wealth if the government is just going to tax the bejeepers out of them? If a person earns $5 million on salary, why shouldn't he be allowed to get it just as much as the guy at the supermarket making minimum wage? Just because his pay is so large?

 

-Separate commercial banks that handle loans from investment banks. This prevents customer deposits from subsidizing investment losses and generally guarantees the safety of money deposited in banks (especially with the FDIC).

But.... banks don't make money on loans like they used to. If they lose investment how are they going to make money? They will just charge more and more fees to the consumer. Since loans are less available than they used to be, banks make up the slack by investing in stuff and charging their customers. Remember, they're businesses too. They have to make money in order to keep your money. Which is kinda ironic since they're doing that already with stupid fees.

 

-Raise the inheritance tax. The portion of any inheritance above 2 million is taxed at 75%.

Why? If my dad made millions and he wants to pass it down to me, why can't I have all that he entitles to me?

 

-Index all applicable numbers for inflation so no one will ever have to think about this again.

But.... inflation happens. You can't ignore it. Nominal vs. actual dollars is a HUGE issue that can't just be ignored.

 

-End corporate welfare

Agreed to a point. I think things like bailouts are ridiculous. But I do think that giving tax breaks to well-deserving businesses is legitimate.

 

-End aid to nations that are not doing anything productive with it (Pakistan)

Agreed.

 

-Start paying off chinese debt FIRST to reduce their influence over policy

Yeah, except this will never happen. The debt is simply too massive. That and we looooove to buy Chinese things, even when we don't mean to. As long as China makes things cheaper than us, we will always buy from them first. As long as that paradigm is in place, that debt will never go away.

 

-Remove nonprofit status for ALL POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS and tax them too

Except... they ARE non-profit NGOs. Just because they have a political point of view doesn't make them suddenly evil and should be taxed out of business. In fact, I'd say that's dangerous because then the government can favor certain *political* orginizations over others resulting in favoritism. When they're all NGOs, we at least have a modicum of political ballance free of government interfearance.

 

-Mandate employer raises for all employees to match the health insurance premiums paid by the employer for the previous year.

Wait...what?

 

-End employer provided health insurance. Your employer doesn't buy you car insurance, why should your employer buy you health insurance, and why should employment have anything to do with the cost of health insurance?

To the frist one: Cars are not required to work a job (most of the time), but your body in good health is. So it is directly related to your employment performance. To the second one, see above. If an employee is in good health, they can perform their job more efficiantly and happily. Also, Employers can get discounts from the HMOs when bundling many people together onto one policy. This also attracts employees who don't have Health Insurance because then they can have it for "free" at a discounted rate than if they had to get it on their own. Now, naturally, you can opt.-out of Health Insurance if you so desire, but the benefits of the Health Insurance over the boost in income (over the long term) is usually more valuble. This is especially to the employee, for example, that has diabedes who can't afford his medications on his own.

 

-Allow the sale of health insurance across state lines, and allow individuals to choose the provider they want to use, creating true competition and keeping costs down.

Except it wouldn't. It would just raise the costs for everybody. Healthcare is selective to the state because the cost of providing healthcare in each state varies based on a number of factors. So if everyone were allowed to buy insurance everywhere, people in a state that has a higher price would be subsidizing those in a lower price state. Not to mention that each state has different laws with regard to healthcare: what is required to be covered, who needs to provide it, when etc. It would be a legal and logistical nightmare to coordinate all these different laws. It would create a de facto National Insurance system where everyone would pay higher prices. Healthcare doesn't work like typical interstate commerce.

 

-Healthcare will NOT be provided for ANY illegal immigrants unless they can pay for their procedure up front. If they do so, they are deported as soon as they are treated.

Heh. Deportation is the job of the DHS not Hospitals. Immigration status should not be a requirement for care because that makes it a right inherent to all (and only) U.S. Citizens, which its not. Emergency care is inherent to all people, period. This is why, regardless of stats or ability to pay, everyone coming into an ER is treated without question. Once they leave the Hospital, this right ends.

 

-Individuals without insurance can still purchase care directly from the provider (ie a doctor) without using insurance. Cost is negotiated between the doctor and the patient.

This is all legal. One can do this on their own, you just have to do it. So what's your point?

 

-Dependent children without health insurance will have it provided publicly. No child deserves to suffer because his/her parents did not buy insurance.

A child will "suffer" (your word) if the parent choses so. Sometimes financial situations arise where Healthcare is not an option. Sometimes kids get caught up in things they have no control over. It is a sad fact of life. But, why should this fall to the state? There are already many affordable options out there for Health Insurance that people overlook. If you just want a billion free clinics for children, go ahead, but be prepared to burn a hole bigger than a few billion dollars in your wallet.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-RAISE personal income tax rates for high earners using a ladder tax system (example: first 10,000 of income is untaxed, next 15,000 is taxed at 10%, next 25,000 is taxed at 25%, next 30,000 is taxed at 35%, next 70,000 is taxed at 50%, next 350,000 is taxed at 70%, next 500,000 is taxed at 80%, anything higher than that is taxed at 90%)

 

The problem I have with this is the unintended consequence on entrepenurism. With so much tax on income, there would be no motivation to get a higher income and therefore no more wealth. It would be more beneficial to stay poor and have less tax taken away from you. Some people do that even today!

 

Let me give you some exaples:

 

Say you make $50k a year. With your ladder there, you would have to tax at the $15k and $25k marks. ($10k * 0.0) + ($15k * 0.1) + ($25k * 0.25) = $1.5k + $6.25k = $7.75k in tax leaving $42.25k. Approximately a tax rate of 15.5%

 

Say you make $5 million a year. ($10k * 0.0) + ($15k * 0.1) + ($25k * 0.25) + ($30k * 0.35) + ($70k * 0.5) + ($350k * 0.7) + ($500k * 0.8) + ($4,000k * 0.9) = $1.5k + $6.25k + $10.5k + $35k + $245k + $400k + $3600k = $4298.25k leaving $701.75k at a tax rate of 85.965% (!)

 

How is that fair? Why would anyone want to bother even aquiring wealth if the government is just going to tax the bejeepers out of them? If a person earns $5 million on salary, why shouldn't he be allowed to get it just as much as the guy at the supermarket making minimum wage? Just because his pay is so large?

 

This is a classic argument the rich love to use to justify abusing the middle class. After tax this person making 5 million dollars (in the top 1% of all incomes, by a wide margin) walks away with three quarters of a million dollars in INCOME every year. Mind you, this is if they don't have any tax deductions whatsoever. In practice, they're going to get at minimum standard deductions and exemptions. Often times they get much more. Did they contribute to recognized charities? Were their tax exempt expenditures that they made? Did they invest in a tax deferred retirement account? These will all lower their tax bill. And, more so, these tax deductions will be taken off the HIGHEST tax rates. Meaning that a tax deduction of $5,000 at the 90% marginal tax rate lowers the rich guy's tax bill by $4,500. Deductions would therefore benefit the wealthy the most, which is why I added the part about LOOPHOLES being closed. Honest tax deductions should be kept, and can be used to stimulate investment in the AMERICAN economy and nonprofits with this structure.

 

But even at no deductions (the example you provided above which would never happen), the rich guy still has $659,500 reasons to keep going to work after he hits the threshold of the poor guy. And PLEASE don't feed that BS about how the rich "work so much harder" for their money because they don't.

 

ALL economics cause money to trickle upward until it is concentrated in the hands of a few and everything is destroyed when the middle class disappears. Any successful long term economic model does not do this. It allows wealth to be obtained, but it does not allow it to become aggregated in the hands of a few.

 

-Separate commercial banks that handle loans from investment banks. This prevents customer deposits from subsidizing investment losses and generally guarantees the safety of money deposited in banks (especially with the FDIC).

 

But.... banks don't make money on loans like they used to. If they lose investment how are they going to make money? They will just charge more and more fees to the consumer. Since loans are less available than they used to be, banks make up the slack by investing in stuff and charging their customers. Remember, they're businesses too. They have to make money in order to keep your money. Which is kinda ironic since they're doing that already with stupid fees.

 

No, no, no, no. Loan banking works because the bank accepts your money as a deposit and lends it out to businesses at an interest rate. Because you are risking your money somewhat with them, they pay a small interest rate to you. They then loan the money out and charge a higher interest rate to the counterparty. Because of fractional reserve banking, they can leverage your deposits as collateral to issue loans greater than the amount of deposits they actually receive, which is risky if uncontrolled.

 

Meaning this: A bank receives 10 million dollars in deposits (it's a small bank) and pays customers 0.5% annually in interest (which would actually be a very high interest rate!). Using a 10% fractional reserve, the bank can make 100 million dollars in loans and charge 5% annually in interest (which is lower than many mortgages).

 

Using that math, the bank pays out $50,000 in interest, and assuming a decent spread of loans being paid back as scheduled, makes 5 million dollars in interest. It also makes money off credit card and bank fees, as well as a slice of transaction processing fees on bank credit cards, overdraft fees, checking account fees, and check printing fees.

 

That's how commercial banks traditionally make money. If they are not doing so it's because they are making subprime loans to unqualified borrowers.

 

Separating commercial lending from speculative investment banking PROTECTS those who deposit funds at the bank. When you allow banks to be both at the same time, funds deposited at the bank by customers can be gambled and lost in the market. If there is a severe market crash and the bank goes under because of investment banking activity, the whole bank goes under. And this means anyone who deposited money in the commercial side of the bank loses the amount of their deposits that exceeds the FDIC limit.

 

Separating commercial banking from investment banking, which had been previously done in this country following the Great Depression before Glass-Steagall was inexplicably revoked), prevents that exact scenario from happening.

 

-Raise the inheritance tax. The portion of any inheritance above 2 million is taxed at 75%.

Why? If my dad made millions and he wants to pass it down to me, why can't I have all that he entitles to me?

 

No one is entitled to anything except life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If your dad made millions, he earned them and you didn't do anything. He's earned the right to enjoy those millions for the rest of HIS life. You haven't earned anything. If you want to reap his millions, then make them for yourself. Somewhere, someone else isn't inheriting millions. But meanwhile you'd still be getting at least 2 million for nothing...that's more than enough.

 

-Index all applicable numbers for inflation so no one will ever have to think about this again.

But.... inflation happens. You can't ignore it. Nominal vs. actual dollars is a HUGE issue that can't just be ignored.

 

Umm...do you know what "indexing" something for inflation actually means? It means every year automatically adjusting the numbers upward or downward based on the actual inflation so that tax numbers do not become obsolete. In 1920, an individual making $50,000 a year was very rich. Today, that's highly middle class. Hypothetical example: if there had been a "wealthy person tax" put on the books in 1920 for all amounts over $50,000 and the number was not INDEXED FOR INFLATION a lot of NOT wealthy people would be getting killed with that tax today because they made more than $50,000. However if the number was INDEXED FOR INFLATION, the tax would only apply to people who made more than $539,000 last year.

 

-End corporate welfare

Agreed to a point. I think things like bailouts are ridiculous. But I do think that giving tax breaks to well-deserving businesses is legitimate.

 

Tax breaks to businesses are a joke. The corporate tax code should be exceedingly simple, which is why I've said what I've said before about the need to lower corporate tax rates. Lowering corporate tax rates and simplifying the code encourages businesses to reinvest in themselves and their workforce, and lowers their accounting costs. It reduces their costs of doing business in this country and fights the spread of outsourcing - tax "breaks" not necessary. If they choose to reinvest in their workers, then a stronger middle class is the result. If they choose to only pay their top executives even more lavishly, then that money will be recaptured by the government with the high personal income tax rates on high earners.

 

-End aid to nations that are not doing anything productive with it (Pakistan)

Agreed.

 

-Start paying off chinese debt FIRST to reduce their influence over policy

Yeah, except this will never happen. The debt is simply too massive. That and we looooove to buy Chinese things, even when we don't mean to. As long as China makes things cheaper than us, we will always buy from them first. As long as that paradigm is in place, that debt will never go away.

 

Got to start somewhere. Run a budgetary surplus for a few years and PAY OFF CHINA EARLY. The deficit to China is not because of outsourcing. It is because of GOVERNMENT BORROWING. Our dependence on foreign good is another problem entirely. But see the forest through the trees here...what I am suggesting makes American businesses competitive globally and reduce their costs of producing goods HERE.

 

-Remove nonprofit status for ALL POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS and tax them too

Except... they ARE non-profit NGOs. Just because they have a political point of view doesn't make them suddenly evil and should be taxed out of business. In fact, I'd say that's dangerous because then the government can favor certain *political* orginizations over others resulting in favoritism. When they're all NGOs, we at least have a modicum of political ballance free of government interfearance.

 

Not true at all. If I donate money to the Transit Museum (to use an example), it's a personal tax deduction. Political contributions, however, are not. So how come these organizations can claim non profit status like the Transit Museum in the above example? Political organizations exist to shape policy in ways according to certain ideologies that benefit their members. This is very much a "for profit" activity. I don't know where you see claims of favoritism given that ALL political organizations and lobbyist groups would lose non profit status.

 

-Mandate employer raises for all employees to match the health insurance premiums paid by the employer for the previous year.

Wait...what?

 

Old: Employer pays employee $65,000 a year and pays $5,000 in insurance premiums. Using his salary, employee pays $5,000 in insurance premiums.

New: Employer pays employee $70,000 a year and is no longer responsible for providing insurance. If he decides he wants it, the employee pays the full $10,000 cost of coverage.

 

-End employer provided health insurance. Your employer doesn't buy you car insurance, why should your employer buy you health insurance, and why should employment have anything to do with the cost of health insurance?

To the frist one: Cars are not required to work a job (most of the time), but your body in good health is. So it is directly related to your employment performance. To the second one, see above. If an employee is in good health, they can perform their job more efficiantly and happily. Also, Employers can get discounts from the HMOs when bundling many people together onto one policy. This also attracts employees who don't have Health Insurance because then they can have it for "free" at a discounted rate than if they had to get it on their own. Now, naturally, you can opt.-out of Health Insurance if you so desire, but the benefits of the Health Insurance over the boost in income (over the long term) is usually more valuble. This is especially to the employee, for example, that has diabedes who can't afford his medications on his own.

 

If an employee becomes sick and misses work, the employee has to take time off and not get paid. People take care of themselves regardless of who is paying for it, and the fact that the employer is paying for healthcare reduces the amount the employer is willing to pay the employee. You've been reading too many insurance provider comments on the issue. No employee gets free health insurance. The overwhelming majority of employees have amounts deducted directly from their paycheck to pay for coverage every pay period. Not to mention, any money the employer is paying for their coverage is money they never get.

 

Employer provided health insurance allows the employer to pick a plan, and the employee loses choice which ends the "competition" that makes a free market system work. It creates an oligarchy where insurance providers can raise premiums as much as they like and the employee, due to the employer, is bound to continue coverage with that same company despite the existence of a possibly cheaper alternative (because the employer "doesn't support" that plan).

 

Yeah, you can "opt out" of employer provided coverage...but you don't get the cash the employer would pay for your coverage. You only get YOUR share of the premium back. So you're still playing with half a deck of cards.

 

A new system would require everyone to "opt out" of employer provided coverage AND mandate the employer give you YOUR share AND your employer's share of the premium back. Then, it would allow you to purchase insurance at your discretion with a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD of ALL insurance providers, choosing the plan you deem to be the best value, and giving you the option to discontinue that plan and choose another one if you see a better value, which keeps the insurance companies honest and away from the profiteering they are doing now.

 

-Allow the sale of health insurance across state lines, and allow individuals to choose the provider they want to use, creating true competition and keeping costs down.

Except it wouldn't. It would just raise the costs for everybody. Healthcare is selective to the state because the cost of providing healthcare in each state varies based on a number of factors. So if everyone were allowed to buy insurance everywhere, people in a state that has a higher price would be subsidizing those in a lower price state. Not to mention that each state has different laws with regard to healthcare: what is required to be covered, who needs to provide it, when etc. It would be a legal and logistical nightmare to coordinate all these different laws. It would create a de facto National Insurance system where everyone would pay higher prices. Healthcare doesn't work like typical interstate commerce.

 

OK there you've got a point. I misspoke earlier. I did not mean allowing interstate insurance. What I meant was state specific insurance (similar to car insurance), but I misworded. Competition keeps costs down. The company that provides the best value is the one that wins market share in each state. Providers should be encouraged to do business in as many states as possible for the greatest number of options.

 

-Healthcare will NOT be provided for ANY illegal immigrants unless they can pay for their procedure up front. If they do so, they are deported as soon as they are treated.

Heh. Deportation is the job of the DHS not Hospitals. Immigration status should not be a requirement for care because that makes it a right inherent to all (and only) U.S. Citizens, which its not. Emergency care is inherent to all people, period. This is why, regardless of stats or ability to pay, everyone coming into an ER is treated without question. Once they leave the Hospital, this right ends.

 

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness only apply to American citizens and LEGAL visitors living or visiting in this country. LEGAL immigrants have the right to ER care. ILLEGAL immigrants do not. No, the hospitals are not responsible for deporting them, but it should be their responsibility (as anyone) to report illegals to the proper authorities so they can be deported. LEGAL immigrants and citizens should NEVER be refused ER care. ILLEGAL immigrants absolutely should be, unless they can pay for it UP FRONT. And regardless, illegals should be deported.

 

-Individuals without insurance can still purchase care directly from the provider (ie a doctor) without using insurance. Cost is negotiated between the doctor and the patient.

This is all legal. One can do this on their own, you just have to do it. So what's your point?

 

Not under the bill that was approved last year. Every citizen is going to be mandated to carry insurance. The point of this is to state that someone should still have the option to choose not to carry insurance and use this method under any PROPER system.

 

-Dependent children without health insurance will have it provided publicly. No child deserves to suffer because his/her parents did not buy insurance.

A child will "suffer" (your word) if the parent choses so. Sometimes financial situations arise where Healthcare is not an option. Sometimes kids get caught up in things they have no control over. It is a sad fact of life. But, why should this fall to the state? There are already many affordable options out there for Health Insurance that people overlook. If you just want a billion free clinics for children, go ahead, but be prepared to burn a hole bigger than a few billion dollars in your wallet.

 

Try again. Look at the money government wastes on inefficient programs like Medicare advantage. If a society can't provide for it's young, it has failed. And a "billion" free clinics for children? Get real. This would be limited scope stuff and only publicly financed where the parents demonstrated financial hardship otherwise they'd get a bill for the care at the end of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to solve the budget crisis you do this:

 

-End tax loopholes for corporations AND individuals.

-Lower corporate income tax rates (yes, me the person who HATES the rich wants to do this)

-Prevent wages paid in foreign currency or to foreign nationals from being a US tax deductible expense. Since most payroll is processed by large clearinghouses like ADP, this is easy to do for the largest corps who are the worst offenders of outsourcing.

-RAISE personal income tax rates for high earners using a ladder tax system (example: first 10,000 of income is taxed at 5%, next 15,000 is taxed at 10%, next 25,000 is taxed at 25%, next 30,000 is taxed at 35%, next 70,000 is taxed at 50%, next 350,000 is taxed at 70%, next 500,000 is taxed at 80%, anything higher than that is taxed at 90%)

-Tax stock options as ordinary income based on their estimated value at time of issue...or just ban them outright.

-Golden parachutes and bonuses are taxed as ordinary income.

-Capital gains (on investments) become ORDINARY INCOME no matter what...unless they are part of an IRA or 401(k) account, in which case they are taxed at a lower rate.

-Separate commercial banks that handle loans from investment banks. This prevents customer deposits from subsidizing investment losses and generally guarantees the safety of money deposited in banks (especially with the FDIC).

-Raise the inheritance tax. The portion of any inheritance above 2 million is taxed at 75%.

-Index all applicable numbers for inflation so no one will ever have to think about this again.

 

Then:

-End corporate welfare

-End aid to nations that are not doing anything productive with it (Pakistan)

-Start paying off chinese debt FIRST to reduce their influence over policy

-Remove nonprofit status for ALL POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS and tax them too

 

Now, you want to fix healthcare you do this:

-Mandate employer raises for all employees to match the health insurance premiums paid by the employer for the previous year.

-End employer provided health insurance. Your employer doesn't buy you car insurance, why should your employer buy you health insurance, and why should employment have anything to do with the cost of health insurance?

-Allow the sale of health insurance across state lines, and allow individuals to choose the provider they want to use, creating true competition and keeping costs down.

-Healthcare will NOT be provided for ANY illegal immigrants unless they can pay for their procedure up front. If they do so, they are deported as soon as they are treated.

-Individuals who choose not to purchase insurance can still purchase care directly from the provider (ie a doctor) without using insurance. Cost is negotiated between the doctor and the patient.

-Dependent children without health insurance will have care provided no matter what. No child deserves to suffer because his/her parents did not buy insurance. If the parents are unable to pay, the public will pay provided the family proves financial hardship, otherwise the parents will be liable for all medical bill costs billed.

-"Family" medical plans would distinguish the number of children. For a father, for example, to purchase care for himself and his family, he would pay one premium rate if only adding himself, an additional cost for his wife, and an additional cost for each child. The current system establishes a "family rate" which charges the father the same rate regardless of if he is adding 1 child or 10, which is bulls&it.

-The elderly receive Medicare only. Medicaid ends. To qualify for Medicare, the individual must demonstrate financial need (ie the super rich are not eligible and must continue buying private insurance if they want to remain covered). Eligibility will be based both on WEALTH and INCOME (not just one or the other).

 

Problems solved.

 

One more:

-Cut Military overspending. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my favorite nuggets from the World Ideologies as Cows thing:

 

DEMOCRAT

You have two cows.

Your neighbor has none.

You feel guilty for being successful.

You vote people into office that put a tax on your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax.

The people you voted for then take the tax money, buy a cow and give it to your neighbor.

You feel righteous.

Barbara Streisand sings for you.

REPUBLICAN

You have two cows.

Your neighbor has none.

So?

 

So much truth there on both.

 

------------

Some responses:

 

Yeah, I mean I don't get people. It's like so I'm not as wealthy as the other guy so let me drain him of his wealth to even things out because he isn't entitled to enjoy what he's busted his @ss for. If one guy made his money honestly through hard work, why shouldn't he be able to keep it and not be overtaxed to death? It's his money and why does the gov't have to take all of it pass it around to those who are less fortunate? Is it the rich guy's fault that that the other people didn't push as hard as he did? NO.

 

Now should he pay his fair portion of taxes?? OF COURSE. Should he be OVERTAXED?? NO.

 

Should the middle class be pay their fair share of taxes? OF COURSE. Should they be OVERTAXED?? NO.

 

Should the poor pay their fare share of taxes?? YES.

 

Should they be OVERTAXED?? NO.

 

Should the gov't stop wasting our tax dollars on BS?? YES and if they did that everyone could pay a reasonable rate of taxes and live alright. :mad:

 

Of course no one looks at the wasteful spending that gov't does. Instead they say TAX THE RICH. TAX THE MIDDLE CLASS. LEAVE THE POOR ALONE. I say BS! :mad: :tdown:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I mean I don't get people. It's like so I'm not as wealthy as the other guy so let me drain him of his wealth to even things out because he isn't entitled to enjoy what he's busted his @ss for. If one guy made his money honestly through hard work, why shouldn't he be able to keep it and not be overtaxed to death? It's his money and why does the gov't have to take all of it pass it around to those who are less fortunate? Is it the rich guy's fault that that the other people didn't push as hard as he did? NO.

 

Many rich people that are not actors or sports stars did not bust their @sses, as you say. Many just inherit what their family did before them. Most poor people push harder than the rich, but because of the heirarchy of the rich, they get nothing for their efforts. I'm not even talking about a serious raising of taxes for the rich. A jump from 8% to 12%, in my eyes, is sufficient.

 

Also, I believe in harsh inheriting taxes, maybe as high as 80% of the raw money, and 15% of goods. If a child of a rich person wants to be rich as well, have them bust their @sses, not take the "easy way out" and inherit their wealth from relatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.