Pelosi - $15000 Socialist insurance policy or 5 years in prison

[NM_Shooter]

Harry, I agree with your last post 99%

An issue I take is that if we set up funding to help those who are about to bankrupted by health problems, who decides how much money goes to them?  How much money does a 65 year old overweight diabetic smoker get vs. a 30 year old who has a young family and cancer?  There is not enough money in the world to cover all the needs, and I would not want to wrestle with the morality of distribution. 

One of the things we need to ask (and it seems no one has not)... is why is healthcare so expensive?

Here's an example.  My neighbor went to the ER, as he was suspicious that he had developed DVT in one of his legs.  His three hour ER stay, which included one ultrasound scan from a tech, ended up costing a total of $4500.

I don't know what other folk's experience has been with ER, but it seems to me that I am there for 4 to 8 hours, and I get maybe 20 minutes of actual attention the whole time.  Why in the world would this cost so much for that test?

Could it be that those of us with wallets and coverage are already being billed for those who don't have coverage?  This new health care plan is an extension of that problem.  Now we will be getting taxed to pay for it as well..

We're not all going to have an extra $15k of burden added to us.  Some will be more, some less.  But I bet it's not far off in the long run.

What this will do is devastate benefits to those of us who receive insurance through our employers.  They are going to drop coverage like a hot potato, and we all will now be forced to pay for something that was part of our benefits plan.

At $1000 to $1500 per family for a typical plan today, $15k is probably not far off.  However, remember that those of us with income will be paying those costs for those who have no income.  Add to that the Hispanic caucus wants to include illegal aliens.

I think that if we want to improve health care, the government should get involved on the supply side of care, not the supply side of insurance.  Let's build gov't clinics and treatment centers to increase the supply (leave the private stuff alone, as I don't want anything to do with a hospital that is run like the VA).  Let's do a better job on educating our kids to make healthy life decisions to decrease the demand.   

The idea of using a flat tax to pay for a person's healthcare is complete socialism and should be discarded. 

We have ways to fix this that don't involve a complete rip up and reroute of the insurance industry, and a handoff of responsibility to a government that HAS PROVEN it can't run a social program in a successful fashion.

[NM_Shooter]

God Bless Lieberman!

For a democrat, I like him!

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20091109/US.Health.Care.Overhaul/

[Windpower]

***k Lieberman

[RainDog]

Foreign policy hawk, at least.

Bucked his party completely on that issue, and lost him the democratic nomination for senate in Connecticut. Had to run as an independent.

The far left hates him as much as anyone.

[harry51]

Shooter, I agree 100% about the cost of healthcare being grossly too high. It's incredible to me that an ambulance ride, even a short one, is always $1000 or more, before you even get to the ER!

I don't know what all the factors are that push these prices to these levels. I saw a TV news show a few years ago that investigated a company hired by hospitals to examine their billing and find ways to charge more, resulting in the $10 aspirin, and much worse. They, in turn, were paid out of the increase between the original billing and what was collected after the "upcharges" were in place. I haven't taken the trouble to try to learn how profitable hospitals are in general. I know the local hospital has come very near to closing its doors a number of times, notably only a year or two ago. It's a rural hospital, and one of the problems was getting stiffed for ER services. They have a financial counselor, will take payments, negotiate for cash, etc, but some people just figure it should be free, and being uncollectible, stiff them and go merrily down the road. Then there's the issue of if their affliction really required ER treatment in the first place. I really don't know how to balance the need to provide for bona fide emergency services with the need to avoid abuse and misuse of the ER, but if abuse could be minimized it would have to help keep costs down.

An issue I take is that if we set up funding to help those who are about to bankrupted by health problems, who decides how much money goes to them?  How much money does a 65 year old overweight diabetic smoker get vs. a 30 year old who has a young family and cancer?  There is not enough money in the world to cover all the needs, and I would not want to wrestle with the morality of distribution.

My thought was that foundations and non-profits would be the conduit for funds that would pay medical expenses for those in truly dire financial straits. The funds would flow to the distributing NP or foundation from those with large tax liability in exchange for a tax credit or deduction, or from donations like the ones we make to the United Way, etc. Americans give huge amounts to help others in foreign countries every year in this way, why not help our own in a similar way?

Guidelines would have to be developed by the NPs and foundations to assess the medical aspects and the financial aspects of the applicant's case. Funds would be distributed through a grant process based on the guidelines, and the people on the grant approval committee would have to make the tough decisions, just like the insurance people do now, and the gov't bureaucrats would if the healthcare bill is enacted.

Would it be a perfect system? Absolutely not. Perfection in the affairs of men is not an option. But at least it would be voluntarily funded and operated, and would not be another example of gov't intrusion into our lives and business through taxation, regulation, and sponsored litigation. Force is the single thing the gov't brings to the table in any situation. Not wisdom, not efficiency, just pure, unvarnished force. To be applied to us. Why would we invite that?

[Squirl]

No one ever pays attention to the detail.  Both sides put out press releases with little clauses like [and] and [or] and people pass right over them.  The fine and imprisonment is for those who don't buy insurance AND don't pay their taxes in the bill.  The tax issue is big because it effects most of the people I work with and our clients.  It only kicks in for people making over $250,000 (individual) and $500,000(couple) and that is a 1% tax.  The tax is only on income over that dollar amount so the first $500,000 for a couple is tax free. So if a couple makes $750,000 of income they would pay 1% tax on $250,000 or $2,500 or .0033%. Most of the people I speak to are worried because anyone that makes over $500,000 (individual) or $1,000,000 (couple) has to pay 5% tax on income over that amount.  As stated in the opening quote the average person paying the tax that refused to pay that could be sent to prison would have a yearly income of over $2,000,000.  Sorry, I don't shed many tears for millionaires that choose to evade taxes.  

So in summary the 5 years imprisonment and $250,000 fines are not for people who don't buy the insurance, it is for millionaires who don't buy the insurance and refuse to pay the taxes.

(me shedding tears)

[MushCreek]

I believe one of the main reasons for high medical costs is from lawyers and their outrageous lawsuits. My wife works in a medical lab, and her malpractice insurance is about double what her salary is! And lab work is not very high-risk. A routine colonoscopy takes 20 minutes, and cost $4000. Much of that is for the anesthegeologist, a very high-risk job. I personally know people in the medical field, and they make good, but not ridiculous money, so the money is going somewhere else. And insurance companies are very slow to pay- my doctor said 8 months, in some cases.

Of course, there's the other side of the coin, like the RI hospital that operated 5 TIMES on the WRONG part of a single patient!

[Pox Eclipse]

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that malpractice awards and defensive medicine account for one half of one percent (.5%) of medical spending in this country.  So tort reform is not going to make a big difference the prices you pay for medical care.

[MountainDon]

No one ever pays attention to the detail....

Thanks 

[NM_Shooter]

That's not quite correct.

Dry your eyes and read page 297 of the bill. 

[Don_P]

According to your posts, you feel the money is well spent in exchange for the risk assumed by the insurance company. That's fine with me, but I reserve the right to follow a different path.
I'm having a hard time finding where I've said anything resembling that. I am tired of carrying deadbeats and freeloaders who compromise my care and dig ever deeper into my wallet.

My thought was that foundations and non-profits would be the conduit for funds that would pay medical expenses for those in truly dire financial straits. The funds would flow to the distributing NP or foundation from those with large tax liability in exchange for a tax credit or deduction, or from donations like the ones we make to the United Way, etc. Americans give huge amounts to help others in foreign countries every year in this way, why not help our own in a similar way?

So here's the other path...waiting for a sugar daddy.
This actually can work, with one change. There is no care until you show an ability to pay. That way you are not financially stressed, the doctor or hospital are not endangered by being stiffed for services rendered and my insurance is not diminished or overpriced by having to carry lillies of the field.

[bayview]

   Am I missing something . . . I thought the insurance would be 2.5% of income.  About $1250 for an individual that earns $50000.


/

[fishing_guy]

I've stayed out of this, because the arguments at home are usually pretty heated, but...

1.  Why not detach healthcare from employment/employers?  Buy your insurance much as you do auto insurance.  Plenty of competition there, and fairly good service.  Many states have mandated auto insurance, and it seems to work.

2.  There are those who use the medical system as candy...they go for every little thing.  MD, how much do you think they would have charged you to do what you did when the debris hit you in the face?  Instead , you took care of it.  Others would be hitting the ER for that.

3.  Here in Minnesota, we already pay a 2.5% tax on all things medical to pay for insurance for the poor.  It never seems to be enough.  It is real easy to use something when you get it for free.  When it is your dime, you think a bit more carefully.

4.  IMHO, mandated insurance without reform is unconstitutional.  We are being forced to buy a "product" that we have no control over.  Give me a choice on deductibles/amounts and coverage and I would be happy to see it mandated.  But not the way it is now.  We're slowly approaching the company store syndrome.  Health insurance and taxes are eating up so much of our income, that we are no longer working for ourselves.  And that is a dangerous thing.

Enough ranting.

[NM_Shooter]

   Am I missing something . . . I thought the insurance would be 2.5% of income.  About $1250 for an individual that earns $50000.


/

Yup!  Page 297.  ANDs and ORs included.

[Squirl]

page 297

1 ''SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
2 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
3 ''(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
4 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
5 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
6 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
7 ''(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross in8
come for the taxable year, over
9 ''(2) the amount of gross income specified in
10 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
11 ''(b) LIMITATIONS.—
12 ''(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM.—
13 ''(A) IN GENERAL.—The tax imposed
14 under subsection (a) with respect to any tax15
payer for any taxable year shall not exceed the
16 applicable national average premium for such
17 taxable year.
18 ''(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE
19 PREMIUM.—
20 ''(i) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of
21 subparagraph (A), the 'applicable national
22 average premium' means, with respect to
23 any taxable year, the average premium (as
24 determined by the Secretary, in coordina25
tion with the Health Choices Commis26
sioner) for self-only coverage under a basic

[RainDog]

 Wait, wait. My understanding is that the 2.5% tax has nothing to do whatsoever with income level, that it's for non-compliance.

Wouldn't buy you insurance, you'd still be uninsured.

The taxes that Squirl is referring to are not the 2.5% penalty.

Cut and paste job here:

The bill includes tax surcharges on Americans in the top 1.2 percent of income. It proposes a 5.4 percent surtax on couples earning more than $1 million, a 1.5 percent surtax on couples with income between $500,000 and $1 million, and a 1 percent surtax on joint incomes over $350,000 or individual income over $280,000.

The 2.5 thing is completely separate:

Required participation by individuals, with a penalty of 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income for non-compliance.

What I take away from that is that anyone who doesn't show proof of insurance pays 2.5% penalty, and the rich pay additional taxes.

And yeah, you go to jail if you don't pay your taxes, of course.

[StinkerBell]

I like whole foods does it here in Texas. I believe the plan goes like this. Each employee gets a medical savings account of 5,000.00 per year to draw on. So now they have the power of cash to buy services (You can negotiate with a doctors office, they rather you pay cash up front and some doctors only take cash so they have a very reduced fee) If you do not spend your 5,000 that year I believe it gets rolled into your retirement account. Now after the 5,000 they offer their employee a catastrophic plan that kicks in at the 10,000 mark and pays I think 100%.

[Phssthpok]

So what is the problem here?  If both houses of Congress pass a tax, and the President signs it, do you think people who break the law should not go to prison?  

If you want to debate the merits of compulsory insurance or socialized medicine, those are legitimate topics for debate.  But if you are saying we should not prosecute and imprison those who break the law, I think you have bigger problems with the way this country works than the possibility of socialized medicine.

For the record, I am in favor of tyranny by the majority.  It may not be the best system, but it is way ahead of whatever is in second place.

As a riposte, I offer this man:



Hie thee hence and READ.

[Squirl]

So if you do not buy health insurance, instead of a penalty or fine, you pay a 2.5% income tax on your "net" income (gross excess of section 6012(a)(1)).  So if you are single and make $50,000 your net taxable income is usually around $40,000 after standard deductions and you would pay an additional $1000 of income taxes only if you fail to purchase health insurance and are not covered through work.  If fail to have health insurance and you evade your income tax responsibility you can be fined or imprisoned.  The limit of the additional taxes is national average premium of health care for an individual or around $1500 for someone in thier 20's or $3000 for someone in there fifties.  That does not include the pages of exemptions including a religious exemption.  

I was very worried about the "mandate" to have health insurance.  I thought it would impose a standard penalty if you didn't have it. Say a fine of $1000 or prison regardless of income . To me that would be a straight tax being alive.  Instead, this establishes a progressive income tax instead if you choose not to have coverage.   So instead of taxing life through a standard penalty, they are taxing income. Also unlike most taxes, there is a religious exemption built into this.


*** This does not constitute tax or legal advice.  Any discussion here is does not establish an attorney-client relationship.  No discussion here should be used to evade income tax responsibilities.

[MountainDon]

I like whole foods does it here in Texas. I believe the plan goes like this. Each employee gets a medical savings account of 5,000.00 per year to draw on.

They get $1800 a year in the account. Un-used $$ roll into next years health account and add up. I'm not sure what happens if the employee leaves or retires. The employee has an annual $2500 deductible before any plan benefits kick in.



Just as an aside there are a lot of Whole Foods customers who are upset with Whole Foods CEO Mackey for his opinions on health care. Many say they now shop the competition.  

[RainDog]

Right, so a progressive tax of 2.5% for non-compliance, and the rich get soaked too, regardless.

[StinkerBell]

I am sure I was told 5K.....Hmmmm. This plan was explained as I stated. Hmmm maybe it was an expansion of the Whole Foods model.  Well, I thought it was a good plan with the understanding I had.

[MountainDon]

Mu info may be a year or so old.  Maybe it was increased, or it could depend on length of employment? The fact that the amount left over is retained by the employee is good, otherwise people will find ways to spend it on things they don't need.

[StinkerBell]

I gotta admit I do think that model is a good one.

[NM_Shooter]

As a riposte, I offer this man:



Hie thee hence and READ.

That was a very, very powerful bit of writing.  I can't believe that we are so willing to accept this death-by-a-thousand cuts of our freedom.