OK, here's my rant (or question).
It astounds me that corporate interests once again seem to have halted an attempt to lay the foundation for a basic American health care system - medicare for all. No other first (or third) world country would give up their less costly systems for our expensive and heartless corporate profit-based system. A medicare for all system would cost no more and probably less than we now spend on our combined health system costs and provide better care to boot. Certainly that is the case in countries that have it such as Canada. They are now as proud of their farsighted health care system as we are of our National Parks system.
Consider:
• The under-employed and under-insured middle class are losing homes and savings when a medical emergency strikes. This should not be happening. The last thing we need in a struggling economy is people being knocked down by avoidable health care costs.
• The truly poor and homeless have no health care insurance at all and have to show up a the emergency room of the hospital. Since by law they have to be treated this cost is shared by all of the rest of us, and emergency room care is far more expensive than treating the problems early with less costly staff and measures.
• At 66 I have recently enrolled in Medicare. The coverage (out patient) is not complete but is quite good. I pay perhaps 20 dollars a month additional for copays and non-covered prescriptions. Hospital care is very good and there is no issue of being dropped or prior conditions. All this for less than $100/ month. Recently, when my wife and I were paying our own insurance it was running over $800/mo. This is for two healthy people - many folks pay much more.
Why can't we extend Medicare coverage to all? We have a proven and tested system using standard doctors, clinics and hospitals. No new scary "socialist" infrastructure needs to be built - the system already works and the people using it generally like it better than their old private insurance. Extending Medicare and including healthy young people, should cost less per person than the current elder population coverage.
What am I missing here? Do most people really think that the high profits and huge CEO salaries of the insurance and drug industry is something we have to preserve?
I am confident we will fix health care. Americans always do the right thing, even if they have to try everything else first.
But in the mean time, there are a lot of powerful forces with a lot to lose if the status quo changes. I think the current system is so broken, that even Greed isn't strong enough to prevent the change that is needed to keep the wheels from falling off the cart. In 2007, 16% of the gross domestic product went to health care; the Congressional Budget Office has projected that will rise to 25% by 2025. Other industrialized nations with universal health care average 8-9%. Employers cannot continue to absorb the 10% per year increases in health care premiums, and they cannot continue to compete with foreign manufacturers whose employees are covered by government managed health insurance.
Our current system simply is not sustainable. The special interest groups that are opposing meaningful health care reform can delay change, but change is inevitable. It will be less painful if we address it now, but ignoring it will not stave off the day or reckoning forever. Change is very frightening to some, especially when they have been conditioned by demagogues to believe the lie that private industry is always better than the government. Our health care is no longer the best in the world; we rank 17% in infant mortality, and worse in life expectancy, well behind other industrial nations with universal health care.
The free market has failed miserably at providing a system of health care that keeps America healthy and productive enough to compete on the world stage. The time has come to stop treating health care as a commodity that is sold to the highest bidder, while allowing those at the bottom of the economic ladder to die of neglect. It is wasteful, and will lead to the ultimate destruction of our country.
I believe at least one of your statistics is erroneous-----life expectancy rates in the US factor in all deaths, including accidents----the rates for the rest of the world do not count accidental deaths, thus producing a false "apples to oranges" comparison. I can't cite a specific source for you but, I have seen it.
>:( I wish my experience with medicare was as good as yours. The reimbursement rate for primary care doctors in Alaska is so far below their overhead costs there are virtually none who will accept medicare patients----out of over 700 doctors in Anchorage, only 17 will do so and none will accept new patients. I had to agree to not seek medicare coverage with my doctor and thus I pay 100% of his charges. I do have to pay my medicare monthly charge and my former employers retiree premium (since I am over 65 it is now secondary to medicare and will also not pay since I can't bill medicare). So, I now pay both premiums and 100% of my doctor bills and pay into medicare so you can get your bills paid (don't blame you---just the way it works out) Oh yes--because I had some fairly big capital gains two years ago, my medicare premiums were doubled----I pay over $230 a month now for my non-existent medicare "benefits". Our congressional delegation is trying to get the reimbursement rates changed, but Obama needs to cut $500 Billion out of medicare so it doesn't look good. Getting Washington's attention is even harder then getting an insurance company's attention----at least I may be able to sue an insurance company for fraud.
My experience with medicare through helping with my wife's parents has been good. Being self employed my coverage is poor and I do not hire very often due to the costs. I've heard nothing in the proposals so far that made me think the situation for me would get worse than what's in place now.
John R,
I think you said a few things that caught my interest. You ae rare that your experience with medicare has been good. However the key to the success you are having imo is that you are healthy.
Once you spend 23 hours in a ER or a Rapid Care Unit and you get a bill for the full amount becasue technically you were not admitted to a hospital (depends what medicae plan). I have seen people crumble because they were not aware they were responsible for the bill. They believe they were admitted to a hospital. An ER is affiliated with Hospitals but techinically they are different, because as you noted even the poor who can not pay will be treated at an ER but this does not mean they will get hospital care. ER's and Hospital are two different entity's.
Depending on the state and even the county you live in will depend on your care. I have seen medicare and tricare (each federally runned) and how they work and many docotors will not continue in their practice and will move on if they are mandated to take coverage that cost them out of pocket to treat someone. Now for tax reason there are those doctors who do take on a handful of medicare patients because their practice can absorb the loss and they get a nice write off. However, business is business no once can afford to treat people if there is no money left at the end of the month to pay staff, rent and supplies.
If i were to place it in numbers I think that medicare isgood only 20% of the time and the other 80% is horrible. Now if those numbers where reversed I think there could be an argument made for it.
I am a strong believer in medical reform but it really is a state issue.
Quote from: John Raabe on October 04, 2009, 11:26:15 PM
.... Do most people really think that the high profits and huge CEO salaries of the insurance and drug industry is something we have to preserve?
Right on!
QuoteNo other first (or third) world country would give up their less costly systems for our expensive and heartless corporate profit-based system.
If it wasn't for other benefits we found here in the USA (compared to Canada, my birth country and home for 30 years)
The US health care system was not the reason we moved from Canada to the USA. There were many other reasons. However, looking back I have to wonder at times. I have family still in Canada. As I have said in other threads here, they are content with Canada's system. My mother received great care in the last few months of her life. As I also said someplace else, I believe that the greatest asset of any country is the hard working people who make the country work. They should all be taken care of.
My father and mother ilaws received great care here in the NM under Medicare in their last months/year of their lives.
There are 2 reasons why healthcare cost so much.
1. Lawyers
2. Politicians
A single payer healthcare system would obviously be financed by taxes. Taxes are money collected at the point of a gun. It seems obvious that most people will pay in much more than they get back, in order to make up the difference for those who have huge medical needs. Is it right to force people to do this? And then there's the question of the dismal record of gov't mismanagement of just about anything they've involved themselves in.
I would prefer to take my chances with the profit driven system, purchasing as much or as little healthcare as I think I need, making my own decisions as to when, where, and who from, and donating to Children's Hospital, etc., as I think appropriate to help the less fortunate.
Beyond all that, I just don't want the gov't involved one iota more in my life than they already are, period. Liberty requires taking responsibility for one's life, both the good and the bad, and finding ways to deal with it on our own. We can do that and enjoy liberty, or we can delegate more of our resources and prerogatives to be dispensed according to the infinite wisdom of bureaucrats in exchange for empty promises of security. Thanks, but no thanks.
There are no proposals in congress for a single-payer health care system. The public option proposed in the House is estimated to cover less than 10% of the country. If you don't want public option coverage, you don't have to pay the premium. This is not free health care for everyone, paid for by taxes.
It might not be paid for directly by taxes, but the money has to come from somewhere. Here in Minnesota, we have MinnCare. It is a state "pool" which individuals can opt for if they meet certian income requirements. It is paid for by a 2.5% tax on ALL health procedures.
Until we, as consumers, stop going to the doctors for the little things and use our heads, nothing will change.
5 years ago, I had siatica(sp?) really bad. I knew what it was, and the doc knew what it was. I had to go take a battery of tests which told me...drum roll please... that I had a bad back.
Went to a specialist, who gave me 2 options...surgery or physical therapy. I chose pt as it was the least invasive. It got me to 90%. At that level, I can do the things I want to, and the flare ups are few and far between. I could have elected surgery to get to 100%, but the cost/benefit wasn't there in my eyes.
My brother does not have insurance. He makes good money, but didn't deem it important. He pays cash at the docs. That is and should be his choice.
Pox, the question of health care reform is replete with misinformation and misunderstandings. I see nothing wrong with the offering of a public option, to me that is imperative. To make insurance mandatory and not have a public option serves only the large insurance companies and their over compensated CEO's. For my money, under the present system, there is no real competition in the health insurance field.
Many people feel trapped, are trapped, into working at jobs they do not like, only because their employer provides them with health insurance at a rate that is much less costly then what they would pay if they left Corporate America and struck out on their own. I've been there, done that. $900 a month to cover two adults, one of them with catastrophic only type of coverage, is nuts.
Quote from: fishing_guy on October 06, 2009, 09:31:46 AM
He pays cash at the docs. That is and should be his choice.
I have no problem with people who want to opt out of the health insurance business, as long as they also opt out of accepting any care they can not pay for.
There are few who have the resources to cover their own care is cases such as being the victim of a drunk driver crash with a resultant long term rehabilitation, or worse yet if they are paralyzed. Ditto the costs for the long term care for a child born with some greatly debilitating condition. Ditto for the guy diagnosed with something like colon cancer, who gets treatment, survives only to have a recurrence several years later. There goes another round of treatment. Who can afford to pay for those kinds of expenses out of their own pocket, without bankrupting the family? There are some, but I don't know any personally.
Call me a cynic, but I believe that a "public option", once in place, will crowd out private options over time, simply because gov't run programs don't have to show a profit or break even. After the giveaway prices offered by the public option have driven the private option alternatives out of business, service will become more arbitrary and we'll never really know what the cost is. I would even predict that it will cost more in the aggregate, when all the administrative costs are considered, than we are paying now.
How about instead of using healthcare as an excuse to grab more of our money and force us further under the gov't thumb, a tax credit is developed that gives maybe $1.05 for every $1.00 given for healthcare for patients who seriously need help? Let the tax exempt foundations administer the program, like the ones that make grants to public tv, etc.
There has to be a way to improve things without more taxes and coercion, and without more gov't intrusion into our lives. Relying on my ability to locate and pay for the medical care I need in a free market seems infinitely preferable to relying on my ability to convice bureaucrats to dispense the care I need when I need it.
As long as purchase of insurance is voluntary, providers must maintain an acceptable level of customer service, or they will quickly be out of business. When purchase becomes mandatory, service and prices become more arbitrary because the customer has less leverage. When the insurance is tax financed, the customer is completely at the mercy of the bureaucrats in charge. I am simply not interested in being put in that position. IMO, healthcare is simply not a proper function of gov't. Gov't involvement in healthcare will inevitably make gov't grow, and that's absolutely the worst thing that can happen to us.
Quote from: MountainDon on October 06, 2009, 09:45:49 AM
To make insurance mandatory and not have a public option serves only the large insurance companies and their over compensated CEO's. For my money, under the present system, there is no real competition in the health insurance field.
I agree 100%. As a lefty liberal, I am going to be very angry if a bill passes with mandatory health insurance, but no public option.
Quote from: harry51 on October 06, 2009, 12:09:59 PM
Call me a cynic, but I believe that a "public option", once in place, will crowd out private options over time, simply because gov't run programs don't have to show a profit or break even.
This is not true. The public option plans proposed in both the House and Senate must be self-financing, self-sustaining insurance plans. The money comes from premiums paid by the insured. The public option is not free health care.
Quote
How about instead of using healthcare as an excuse to grab more of our money and force us further under the gov't thumb, a tax credit is developed that gives maybe $1.05 for every $1.00 given for healthcare for patients who seriously need help?
Of what use is a tax credit to someone who does have to pay taxes? Nearly 50% of the households in the nation pay no income taxes except Social Security and Medicare, which cannot be reduced by a tax credit.
There is no reason that we cannot fix our health care system and make it affordable for all who are willing to work.
There is a reason why we cannot create a new socialized system in response to "we need to fix health care".
You see, the problem is viewed one sided.
One side believes that Government is the answer.
One side believes Government is not the answer.
The first side, the side that believes that uncle Sam should take care of you and all, is not usually willing to hear other side of the coin. They want their Socialized care and are swayed by those who claim other countries have better care and care for all. They rarely consider the Constitutional legality of taxing to pay for health care (redistribution of wealth) and really don't seem to care. Nor will they accept that the problem (aka losing a home) is caused by poor fiscal management as much as the cost of care and to reduce one while improving the other will do as much to solve the problem, if not more, then just putting Government in the mix.
The second side, the free marketeers, aren't willing to listen to the other side either. They're not interested in Government handouts and socialist programs. They beleive in the American Way -- the whole idea that if you work hard you can get more stuff, better care etc etc -- and feel that smaller government, less taxes and less regulation is the way to go.
So why can't we fix the problem? We can't unless the Socialists are willing to accept that their system requires 'fundamentally' changing America and that creating a bigger 'nanny state' is going to cost more (Government does not cost less ever) and reduce wealth while creating a new class of political elites (Study Russia please).
We also can't fix the the problem becuase the Capitalists are not willing to accept big government and it's social elite and their 'cradle to the grave' entitlements all the while accepting welfare, unemployment insurance, social security etc etc.
But I have the answer :)
For those whom beleive we need Government care I suggest you start a moment in which you voluntarily give up a large enough portion of your salaries to pay for the care and all other social programs desired. At the same time the Capitalists agree NOT to give up ANY of their income for those reasons and agree to NEVER collect them either.
We get cards, my card will say "No Thanks" and I won't pay the portion of taxes that goes to any social program (Public Ed, Health Care, SS, Medicare/Caid, etc etc) and I won't ever be allowed to collect it either (but you'll have to pay me back too) and you get a card that says "Yes Please" and if they need to take 75% of your income to do that and take away your rights then ok. You agree and can't opt out once you've used the system.
That would be fair and might just work.
But seriously, the real issue is that you want to force me and others to pay into YOUR system and we don't want it. What we want is less government, less regulations, less interference, less lawsuits, cheaper care (which it would be) and a true free market system (do away with the dollar while you're at it).
But hey, you know I've been thinking -- maybe we ought to let you take it all and get your Socialist health care (not being mean either, that's just what it is) becuase while Gold hit $1040 today and the dollar continues to tank you won't be able to pay for it anyway and will have to ration care like crazy while canceling all kinds of programs which will tick off American's who will vote out the socialists who put it there and ask for the old system back because at least then if they can get a job and earn a living they can afford care.
By the way, anyone earning $10 today can get care...heck kids making $8.50 an hour can get care and it isn't that expensive. Most of what you hear is propaganda and you're falling for it like crazy.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/KJ06Dj04.html
If you don't follow economics and you don't read the bills they are trying to pass and you actually believe Government can do something without costing you more then you really aren't intellectually honest are you?
I don't know why I get so passionate about this but perhaps it's every time someone says "public option plans proposed in both the House and Senate must be self-financing, self-sustaining insurance plans" it indicates to me that you either don't really know what goes on in Politics or don't care and aren't willing to be honest about it.
It's kinda like Obama saying he can save billions right now in health care just by improving things...ok so prove it, I'm from Missouri so show me (ok I'm not, but you can still show me).
Where is the proof? If there are millions or billions of savings just in how business is done today in Medicaid and Medicare then why not just start now and make those savings.
The truth? It's something different. For one Medicare and Medicaid are BANKRUPT!!!! Run by Uncle Sam they are broke. The writing is on the wall.
Social Security? broke. bankrupt. Kaput.
And you actually think these politicians (who clearly aren't honest) can run a NEW program any better?
Why not fix Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac first? How about cleaning up the budget now? Why not get rid of the 1.7 TRILLION dollar deficit first? There is NO PRIVATE health care money in there after all.
So, the post office has a boss who makes $800,000+ a year (more then they wanted to allow a big CEO of a bank to make remember?) and they are losing millions -- bleeding money -- and they gave him a raise and you actually are so naive to think they can run health care cheaper? better? for all? Without increasing the tax burden?
Please! Really?
Come on guys and gals, it's a scam. It's crazy talk, it's nonsense and you know it.
I know you want poor so-and-so to get health care (other then the emergency room care they get now) and I know you want to feed the kids and save the wales but seriously, can't we just first get our finanances in order?
The Obama crowd likes to say "we inherited..." ok so FIX IT! You cannot be serious.
You inherited a Government that had a deficit of $400 billion and you drove that UP to $1.7 TRILLION. It's yours now. So fix it and stop making excuses.
I'm willing to talk about socialized medicine when you're willing to go deficit ZERO and budget SURPLUS with LOWER TAXES and the option to opt out completely,.
The rest is dishonest and not the American way.
By the way, after they ram health care down our throats it will get thrown out by the Supreme Court -- it's unconstitutional. Though that probably doesn't matter.
Anyway, sorry John, I shoudl stick to cabin building ;) I need to stay out of politics becuase I don't see there's any willingness to listen to either side.
Quote from: OlJarhead on October 06, 2009, 01:30:27 PM
By the way, anyone earning $10 today can get care...heck kids making $8.50 an hour can get care and it isn't that expensive. Most of what you hear is propaganda and you're falling for it like crazy.
What type of care? Who's paying for it?
I'm not talking about antibiotics for an infected cut. How about finding blood in your stool for months on end, finally going to the doctor and he says we need to do a colonoscopy to see what's wrong. That's after other more simple tests do not resolve anything. The colonoscopy is $5K, not exactly pocket change that the $10/hour laborer is likely to have handy. Or you find a melanoma on your back.... the list goes on....
And that reminds me of another question I have about our health insurance system. Why is it the vast majority of people here in the USA believe their employer should provide subsidized insurance? I have never understood that expectation. I do understand the benefit to the employee of working for a huge corporation and being able to join in one of the many offered plans. Businesses are in business to provide goods and/or services to people in the marketplace. They are not in business to be a conduit or health or any other type of insurance. But I digress.
Also, please note: the propaganda street is a two way street. The misinformation (lies or exaggerations) is going fast & furious in both directions.
We need health care reform both in the health care system , ie legally treating. We also need to have reform with insurance companies that charge outragoues rates and pays their ceo's incredible amounts of money.
The insurance commissioner in each state needs to be an elective position. Insurance companies do not wake up one day to randomly rise your rates. They need to get state approval first. The people in each state need to make their government wake up and smell the coffee. IMO technically our insurance is run my the government. Without the government they can not operate in your state.
Quote from: OlJarhead on October 06, 2009, 01:42:52 PM
... Medicare and Medicaid are BANKRUPT!!!! Run by Uncle Sam they are broke.
Medicare is not quite bankrupt, but is dipping into reserves from what I read. However I believe it is disingenuous to lay the blame solely on Uncle Sam or the managers of Medicare. The fault lies with the proliferate and escalating costs charged by the health care provider industry.
QuoteCall me a cynic, but I believe that a "public option", once in place, will crowd out private options over time, simply because gov't run programs don't have to show a profit or break even.
This is not true. The public option plans proposed in both the House and Senate must be self-financing, self-sustaining insurance plans. The money comes from premiums paid by the insured. The public option is not free health care.
Who's going to audit them? We'll never know what any gov't run program really costs.
QuoteHow about instead of using healthcare as an excuse to grab more of our money and force us further under the gov't thumb, a tax credit is developed that gives maybe $1.05 for every $1.00 given for healthcare for patients who seriously need help?
Of what use is a tax credit to someone who does have to pay taxes? Nearly 50% of the households in the nation pay no income taxes except Social Security and Medicare, which cannot be reduced by a tax credit.
Pox, maybe I didn't state the idea clearly. The suggestion was that the wealthy, the foundations, and others with heavy tax liability be given a profit incentive (tax credit) to pay healthcare costs on behalf of those who can't afford to pay. Of course, that approach would result in less net revenue to gov't, so that idea couldn't possibly be considered a viable alternative, could it?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/05/tracking-taxes-medicare-waste/?test=latestnews
Good article on waste in Medicare.
Medicare is bankrupt -- it just doesn't know it yet.
I've read several articles that show the bankruptcy would normally occur in 2011 however bieng run by Uncle Sam means they won't actually ever go bankrupt. Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae are also bankrupt but Uncle Sam bailed them out...just like GM and Chrysler.
Again, it's not the government that will solve this problem. They will make it worse.
Mark my words.
Speaking of an earlier comment I made, gold is now at $1042 an ounce. Seriously, how exactly are you going to pay for socialized care when you're flat broke? The dollar is sliding and will continue to do so with the Middle East now joining the call to abandon the dollar.
What most I think fail to see is that you cannot monetize the debt by printing billions or trillions of dollars without serious economic consequences. The Keynesians are wrong, always have been and always will be.
So, while the Austrian Cycle continues and the next major bust approaches i ask: how will you pay for it?
You won't.
QuoteThat the programs will ultimately go bankrupt is clear from the trustees' reports. On pages 201 and 202 of the Medicare report, you will find the conclusive arithmetic: over the next 75 years, Social Security and Medicare will cost an estimated $103.2 trillion, while dedicated taxes and premiums will total only $57.4 trillion. The gap is $45.8 trillion. (All figures are expressed in "present value," a fancy term for "today's dollars.")
http://www.newsweek.com/id/199167
QuoteThe news report said that instead of increasing by $4.7 billion in fiscal year 1995 and continuing to rise for another year as the administration had predicted, Medicare's trust fund had actually declined by $35.7 million for the fiscal year ending Oct. 1.
This decline suggests that the trust fund's reserves are sliding downward faster than expected and the trust fund might go bankrupt before 2002, the currently predicted insolvency date.
http://tech.mit.edu/V116/N1/medicare.1w.html
What's amazing is the 2nd post was from 1996 (or was the '95?)....
Anyway, the system is failing and has been for a long time -- we all know that right? So what makes you think that a system that's clearly had major funding issues for the last 13 years or more (more obviously) won't be the same sort of thing we will face in the future?
Come on people, we know these systems don't work. They are feel good measures at best.
The answer isn't in Government, it's in American's.
I beleive in you and me I do not beleive in Mr. Politician.
Thanks
Quote"In light of the fact that the Medicare program already faces $38 trillion in
unfunded liabilities according to the most recent trustees' report, and is
predicted to be bankrupt in a few years,
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS169941+18-Aug-2009+PRN20090818
It's not hard to find these kinds of reports...just search in google for them.
Medcare is bankrupt. Maybe not filing today, maybe they won't ever file (they can increase taxes to pay for it after all) but it's a clear indicator of what's to come.
Here's my issue... I have great insurance, AND MY HEALTHCARE STILL SUCKS!!!!!
Want to improve overall healthcare? It is not going to happen with making healthcare immediately available to everyone. Give everybody what they will consider to be a free ride, and they are going to use it. Need that colonoscopy? Too bad. 400 people are in line before you.
Want to improve healthcare? Pouring money the gov't does not have into another freebie handout / bailout program to build the US into even more of a socialist quagmire is not the answer.
I do have an idea though....
Want to drive costs down? Basic economics. Increase supply and competition for customers (patients).
Let's build great doctors, nurses, PAs, NPs, technicians, research centers, test facilities, and promote technology development for new instrumentation and techniques.
More Clinics! Pinkeye / Strep / Flu shots / don't need direct doc supervision.
Make med school FREE for qualified, smart, and hardworking students (yup, let the gov't pay for this instead). Then, these docs have to work in reduced rate facilities for a couple of years, or set aside xx% of their openings for patients with reduced incomes. Whatever.
Reduce or completely remove taxation on Docs and other healthcare workers.
Reform the FDA. Figure out a way to allow drug companies to safely test and pass their products without a 7 year, $xxxM cost.
Tort reform. Did you know that docs have to maintain their malpractice for 5 years after they retire? For a OB, that can be $250k or more a year.
No free med help for non-tax paying aliens.
I'm not heartless, but I am practical. Life is hard. We are all on our own to take care of ourselves and our families, and I work hard to provide my family with insurance and cash to cover the deductibles. Everyone seems to think that if the government covers the insurance, "well, that's pretty much free to everybody then, right?". Nope. We are all ready spending way more money than we have, and putting single payer / Gov't provided healthcare will be a breaking point.
To get a good visual idea of how much money we are already in the hole, look at the penny video regarding the $100M budget cut on http://www.freedomnuts.org/Home.html
Quote from: StinkerBell on October 06, 2009, 02:33:03 PM
The insurance commissioner in each state needs to be an elective position. Insurance companies do not wake up one day to randomly rise your rates. They need to get state approval first. The people in each state need to make their government wake up and smell the coffee. IMO technically our insurance is run my the government. Without the government they can not operate in your state.
The state insurance commissioner has absolutely no authority to control employer-based group health insurance. If you get health insurance through your employer, it is governed by the federal ERISA statutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Retirement_Income_Security_Act#Health_benefit_plans), which supersede all state insurance regulations. The ERISA statutes forbid lawsuits for punitive damages against an insurance provider. So, if they deny your claim for, say, chemotherapy, and you can't get treated until you sue them, they might have to pay for the chemo, but they can't be punished or held responsible for your now-metastasized, Stage IV tumor. The worst that can happen to them is they have to pay for the benefits they should have paid for in the first place.
So you go ahead, write some letters to the utterly toothless insurance commissioner, if it will make you feel better. But don't expect it to change anything.
Pretty sweet deal. It didn't happen by accident.
The Insurance commission might be toothless but they have the power and the authority for the regulation. Insurance comapny can be denied the right to do business in your state if the insurance commissioned see's fit.
The problem imo, is indeed a toothless position. It should not be. Hence why I truly think it needs to be an elected position and a position held accountable. Right now its a poistion that is generally filled by the current governors administration. A job given to someone who helped the current administration get into office.
If you get Health insurance through our employer, then you ahead of the ball game. You are insured and employed. I am not sure when it became mandatory for a employment to give insurance. Thought it was always a benefit not a right. But with all the Federal rules when you have more then 15 employees things have changed. Personally I would never own a company with more then 15 people. imo you lose your right to run it as you see fit.
I was writting understanding that those without insurance do not have full time work hence do not qualify for it at work. There are those who can not afford individual polices, self employeed for example.
As far as I know it's not federally legally mandatory (yet) for any employer to offer any benefits of any kind. It has become customary and employers find themselves forced by the competition to offer benefits.
Some states have mandatory employer coverage laws in place. Hawaii is one I believe, as is MA. Others are thinking about it.
Hmmm, Maybe the 15 employee rule was for Washington state.
I like the approach Arizona is taking.
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/06/26/arizona-hcr2014-national-health-care-nullification/
But then again, I am going to say. It's a statehood issue. I am kinda stuck on that ;)
This issue is very simple to me. If you want health INSURANCE, then buy it. If you want emergency health care and cannot afford it, simply go to any ER in the country and they are mandated to treat you. If you want car insurance, buy it. If you want life insurance, buy it. If you want home insurance, buy it. Health Insurance is not a right. If anyone tells me that they are going to come into my home and take my money to pay for another person's health INSURANCE, then I simply ask them where they believe they get the right to do so. There are many differences of opinion out there regarding this issue, but the fact is, the overwhelming percentage of Americans like their health care and do not want it changed to reflect those successful government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the DMV's...... For an alternate view to the myth that you will be able to keep your health care if you like it and we are not going to be giving illegal aliens health care, check out the site below. Oh, and what about that claim that 500 Billion dollars of waste is going to found within Medicare? Now, that's a hoot. ;)
http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/home.html
Quote from: Woodsrule on October 07, 2009, 12:10:23 PM
This issue is very simple to me. If you want health INSURANCE, then buy it.
AMEN!!!!
Quote from: Woodsrule on October 07, 2009, 12:10:23 PM
If you want emergency health care and cannot afford it, simply go to any ER in the country and they are mandated to treat you.
That's rather short sighted. ER care for non-emergencies is much more expensive than seeing a primary care physician. Hospitals don't just eat that expense you know; it gets passed along to insurance companies in the form of higher fees for those who have insurance. Insurance companies charge higher premiums to their customers because of fees inflated by those using the ER as their primary care doctor. So you are paying for the care of others anyway, and at a much higher rate than if we had a public option health care plan.
But if paying higher premiums is OK with you, who am I to tell you otherwise?
Pox Eclipse,
You may have missed my point. I was trying to impart the fact that no one here in the US gets left behind. We are all covered for any traumatic injuries we may suffer. I happen to value my health INSURANCE, so I buy it. I could use that money for vacations, cars, electronics or what have you, but I CHOOSE not to. Everyone has the right to health insurance, much like we all have the right to other types of insurance or any other commodity. Health insurance is simply a commodity and mandating me to buy it would be an intrusion into my privacy.
Pox Eclipse and Woodsrule touch on things that concern me.
The point about those without insurance or cash in pocket using the ER and getting treatment at no expense to themselves is bang on. The rest of us with insurance pay, or the money comes from a state or federal government program.
If someone has the right to refuse to buy insurance then they should not expect to be able to sponge off the system via the ER.
The constitution may not make any guarantees about anyone receiving health care, but as long as people opt out of the insurance, and are otherwise able to purchase insurance, they should not receive what to me amounts to health care welfare. Now, that said, I really do not think we should discard people who are down on their luck. Nor should we subsidize people who elect to spend their money on large screen TV's, fancy cars, oversized homes, and any other number of non-necessities, instead of providing for their own possible medical costs. They are being irresponsible in my book.
We don't (directly) pay for fire department protection, 911 EMT service or libraries. There are no high-overhead profit making corporations selling us insurance to cover those services. You don't have to think about it - you're covered whether you're responsible or foresighted or not. Whether you need them or use them or not. They are there if and when you need them.
Of course, our taxes pay for this, and everyone wants lower taxes - but, in the end, it is clearly the most fair and inexpensive way to provide these types of services.
Health care should be one of those "taken for granted" services. It is almost everywhere else in the civilized world.
Quote from: John Raabe on October 07, 2009, 03:05:50 PM
...fire department protection, 911 service or libraries....
That's a very good comparison. Just like health care for a serious illness or accident, I never really want to have the need for the services of the fire department. Oh wait a sec, I did have need for the services of the fire department last May. That was up in the mountains and the fire was not caused by myself or anyone on my property. The neighbor to the east started the blaze in the woods and it was only because of the combined efforts of the paid fire departments from two forest service departments, one national monument in addition to the local volunteer pumper/tanker truck, that the fire was stopped at our property line. Well, okay we contributed by having cleaned up the ground debris. Without them we could very likely have suffered some loss.
Of course there are those who decry all these services and the taxes involved to pay for them. I've heard retirees here and back home complain that they should not have to pay school taxes because they don't have kids. Well, too bad. Other people do and we are all in this world together.
Enough rant....
This presumes that anyone who wants insurance can buy it. This is not true; many people with pre-existing conditions cannot buy health insurance at any price. Are they doomed by their bad luck to suffer and die simply because the insurance industry can't figure out how to make money off of them? Or should government create regulations on the free market, requiring insurance companies to cover anyone who applies, at a reasonable rate? Or should there be a public option, available to those who the insurance industry doesn't want anyway?
The position that health care is a luxury available only to those with the ability to pay ever increasing costs is a very cynical and selfish argument. If I am having a heart attack, I am in no more of a position to dicker with the hospital about the price of my care than I would with the fireman who could force me to sign an invoice when my house catches on fire.
Quote from: Pox Eclipse on October 07, 2009, 04:15:19 PM
.... many people with pre-existing conditions cannot buy health insurance at any price. Are they doomed by their bad luck to suffer and die simply because the insurance industry can't figure out how to make money off of them? ...
Exactly!! That is where we both are. If it was not or the NM state health insurance alliance neither one of us would be able to find health insurance. I must give credit to Gov Bill for that even though we don't see eye to eye on many issues. In my case it's because of something that is partially hereditary. In K's case it's because she has had several pre-cancerous skin "bumps" removed over the past 15 years. [She is a fair skinned blond (hereditary again)]
Emergency services are a different thing entirely. If you have blood pouring out your leg, your house is on fire, or the police bust a meth lab, I'd say that those are well supported needs that should be attended to.
We already have an overload on medial services in the US.
If you have "Y" amount of resources, and divide that by "X", you come up with a value.
If you divide that Y by 3X, the value goes way down. Here's a simple model :
inexpensive
high quality
fast access
Pick any two of the above and throw out the third.
I am furious that I might have to pay additional TAXES in order to provide healthcare to others which would also further decrease the quality of service that I would receive.
So folks that pay nothing (in taxes) have access to the same product and services that I pay increased taxes for? You will never sell that idea to me. I already am upside down as are many of you when it comes to benefits received vs. taxes paid.
The overwhelming opinion of socialized medicine in other places in the civilized world is that it sucks.
I am a pure capitalist. I believe in competition. I believe in working for a living. I think that cash is king, and that anyone who goes bankrupt due to mismanagement of their lives should never be allowed credit of any kind again. I think that you should not buy, nor are you entitled to anything you can not purchase on your own.
Why do we nurture those who provide little or nothing in return?
Quote from: Pox Eclipse on October 07, 2009, 04:15:19 PM
This presumes that anyone who wants insurance can buy it.
No. This presumes that anyone who wants healthcare can buy it. Insurance is a game that big companies play. They don't do it to be magnanimous... they do it to make money.
Okay.. how about a compromise.
Let's let the government collect increased taxes only from those who want socialized medicine. From these funds, the government sets up their own healthcare system... much like the VA hospitals. No additional funds will be used to support the program.
Other folks can just stick with the insurance and healthcare they can buy on the free market.
Since I work in a healthcare setting (hospital) - and it is a Federal institution - the Veterans Administration Medical Dept & also work in the ER I see things 1st hand.
There's pro's & cons for the basically socialist VA medical care. We (my co-workers & I) see tons of abuse of the system by those who don't have the income to even have to pay a small co-pay. Instead of waiting to see their primary care provider, they just drop in on the ER - so we are backed up all the time in seeing non-emergent cases. Some of these same people will call the ambulance when they have a pain in their finger - believe it or not, we had a patient come by ambulance for a finger that was aching - of course, because they didn't have much income, they won't have to pay for the ambulance.
Those who have worked, maybe have a home & saved a bit during their lifetimes are the ones penalized for being responsible. They get no freebies but carry the weight of paying for everything. Just last week, there was a patient who came in on the weekend, from out of town who had run out of some medicine. He has spent all he has on medical care for his wife who is dying of cancer - none of it has helped. But he still has to pay full price for his medications & a large co-pay to be seen at the VA ($50 a visit).
The same thing happens in the community & private hospitals. They are inundated with people on welfare & illegal aliens - that is why so many ER's have closed down across the country. I have friends & my sister who work or worked in ER's. My sister finally couldn't stand it anymore & got out of the ER - went back to school & got her nurse practitioner.
Yes, I feel like if someone needs emergent care, they should be able to get it - the key word is EMERGENT.
I go to the doctor, actually a nurse practitioner about 1-2x's a year & have to pay a co-pay although I have good insurance that I pay for. Yes, my employer picks up part of the cost but I still pay the insurance & a co-pay. I was very thankful I had it when I ended up in ER & then the hospital for a week & had surgery last spring. I still had to pay a hefty co-pay.
What I see happening is a lot of those who don't have to pay take total advantage of the system for every little ache, pain or sniffle. They'll even call an ambulance out if they don't have transportation. Since they have no responsibility for paying, they seem to feel entitled to EVERYTHING!
What checks & balances will there be since there doesn't seem to be any for Medicare, social security, welfare, or the public school - as of right now you don't even have to be here legally to get these benefits that are breaking the back of US citizens & those who have had to jump through hoops to be here legally. Even all the foreign docs & nurses I work with think it is crazy how the US pours out all these freebies on people who have no intention of paying into the system or are breaking the law.
Sure, the pharmaceutical companies have to go through years of testing on new medicines but seems like they - at least those at the top are making plenty of money. The VA has contracted with the pharmaceutical co's for a discounted price on medications. The lobbyists are spending millions $$$$ to fight that with this new health care plan. I know someone who is an attorney that investigates Medicare fraud - he says it's terrible.
I also know docs that can't make it in private practice because they can't afford to pay their staff, keep an office open, pay for malpractice insurance & see patients, due to the poor reimbursement. I see very few new docs who aren't from other countries. I could name on 1 hand the doctors I work with who are from the US & that is at the VA! These docs have come over here legally to get their education & are working legally.
There's only so much blood letting that can continue until the whole system crashes on itself - right now it's being held up by smoke & mirrors as it is. Those that are paying for the systems are tired of those who laugh & kick us in the teeth as they rape the systems. Our politicians & those taking advantage of all the lack of requirements or system checks are laughing at what fools we are. There are a few who have some dignity & a moral compass of what is right & wrong, but most of our leaders are showing the way for taking advantage of the systems put in place as a safety net with a total disregard for the rule of law. Make them be under the same health insurance systems & the same social security system as their constituents, then we'll see some changes!
Quote from: Pox Eclipse on October 07, 2009, 04:15:19 PM
The position that health care is a luxury available only to those with the ability to pay ever increasing costs is a very cynical and selfish argument. If I am having a heart attack, I am in no more of a position to dicker with the hospital about the price of my care than I would with the fireman who could force me to sign an invoice when my house catches on fire.
We have friends who had Glenn clear all the brush off their property last spring. They were burning the small stuff & it got out of control so they called the fire dept. They were told that since they were doing what was required for clearing the land to prevent fires, there wouldn't be any charge. Then a couple months later they get a big bill for the fire dept coming out. Yes, at least in our county, they will charge you, if they have to come out, even though they just levied another hefty tax on land owners for the fire dept. So much for tax paid services... d*
Sassy... I understand your last few post. I get it!
Quote from: StinkerBell on October 07, 2009, 05:31:15 PM
Sassy... I understand your last few post. I get it!
:) [frus]
Quote from: NM_Shooter on October 07, 2009, 04:41:09 PM
I am furious that I might have to pay additional TAXES in order to provide healthcare to others which would also further decrease the quality of service that I would receive.
Is that what the Republicans are proposing? Because that is not in the bills proposed by Democrats in either the House or the Senate.
Quote
The overwhelming opinion of socialized medicine in other places in the civilized world is that it sucks.
If this is what you have heard, you have been grossly misinformed. Most people in countries with universal health care wouldn't trade places with you in a million years, and think America is terribly backward in its health care system.
Quote
Why do we nurture those who provide little or nothing in return?
Why do you defend a health care system that inflates your insurance premiums and fees for medical services? Do you like spending more money for medical care than any other industrialized nation?
Quote from: NM_Shooter on October 07, 2009, 04:57:30 PM
Okay.. how about a compromise.
Let's let the government collect increased taxes only from those who want socialized medicine. From these funds, the government sets up their own healthcare system... much like the VA hospitals. No additional funds will be used to support the program.
Other folks can just stick with the insurance and healthcare they can buy on the free market.
You have just described the public option plan that the Democrats proposed in the House of Representatives. Those who want to be covered by the public option will pay premiums to the government; those who want private insurance can pay inflated premiums to the health insurance company of their choice. The bill is specifically written to ensure the plan is self sustaining, with no increase in the deficit.
Congratulations, you are now a liberal.
Would that be why thousands of Canadians come to the US every year to seek healthcare?
You have not read the bill and obviously have no global awareness.
You think taxes won't go up to support nationalized healthcare? Where do you suppose all the extra money is going to come from to pay for all the healthcare? The money fairy? Their premiums will not cover the costs of everyone seeking care. Name one thing the government has ever done cheaper or better than the private sector.
I'll stick with my healthcare thanks. And you know what? As long as I am paying for it, and it is my choice, it is none of your business. Anyone who puts their hands deeper in my pocket should expect to lose them at their neck.
Why are you defending a bill that no one has read, was thrown together in a liberal panic, stuffed full of BS in the dark of night, and is being shoved down the throats of America?
Hold on... let me check...I'm still telling the truth, using logic, thinking for myself, possess an I.Q. over 75,working for a living, volunteering in my community, active in my church, participating in my kids' lives, expecting nothing for free, buying guns, and generally being productive. Nope! Not a liberal yet. I'll let you know if it ever happens. We can go and stand in the soup line together and whine about how bad things are.
Interesting reading.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33214558/ns/politics-health_care_reform (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33214558/ns/politics-health_care_reform)
This article on msnbc today says it will cost close to a trillion dollars and will be paid for with..."drumroll please"...increased taxes and spending cuts. So much for no cost to the taxpayer. Here's a hint...what has the government ever done that didn't cost alot of money?
Just for fun I'm going throw out my solution. This is simplified for the sake of time.
1. Pass a law that no insurance company or parent company of an insuance company can own any intrest in a hospital, doctors office, drug company etc.. Also remove the trade restrictions on insurance.
2. Remove the lawyer like licencing system that doctors have and replace it with a standard test for each field. Allow nurses more power to treat minor illness.
3. Eliminate the mountain of regulations that doctors and hospitals must comply with.
4. Make it impossible to sue a doctor or nurse for malpractice. If they do something wrong charge them criminaly and let a jury decide.
5. Put a stop to the ER free clinic system.
6. Educate people not to go the ER for every sniffle.
Quote from: NM_Shooter on October 07, 2009, 09:02:42 PM
Name one thing the government has ever done cheaper or better than the private sector.
The Interstate Highway System. Does this mean I win?
Quote
Anyone who puts their hands deeper in my pocket should expect to lose them at their neck.
I wish you had that kind of passion for the insurance companies. They're stealing you blind.
Actually, the best paved roads I've seen have always been private ones; they always seem to be maintained better, that includes the landscaping around them. I-95 & I-64 here are crap, as are most of the roads the Feds and State are responsible for around here. I give the Counties credit, however, for doing a better job at maintaining most of their roads. Also, the Feds like to use the Interstate System funds to blackmail states into doing things they want. The drinking age is one example.
Quote from: ScottA on October 07, 2009, 09:27:54 PM4. Make it impossible to sue a doctor or nurse for malpractice. If they do something wrong charge them criminaly and let a jury decide.
5. Put a stop to the ER free clinic system.
6. Educate people not to go the ER for every sniffle.
I like those!
We cannot fix healthcare because our elected "leaders" grant themselves the finest benefits in the world while denying those same benefits to everybody else. The quickest way to fix healthcare is to put every elected politician into Medicare.
Quote from: ScottA on October 07, 2009, 09:27:54 PM
Just for fun I'm going throw out my solution. This is simplified for the sake of time.
1. Pass a law that no insurance company or parent company of an insuance company can own any intrest in a hospital, doctors office, drug company etc.. Also remove the trade restrictions on insurance.
2. Remove the lawyer like licencing system that doctors have and replace it with a standard test for each field. Allow nurses more power to treat minor illness.
3. Eliminate the mountain of regulations that doctors and hospitals must comply with.
4. Make it impossible to sue a doctor or nurse for malpractice. If they do something wrong charge them criminaly and let a jury decide.
5. Put a stop to the ER free clinic system.
6. Educate people not to go the ER for every sniffle.
I like these as well. #4 would be tough though, as in some instances docs do horrible things that result in personal injury. I don't know how to keep the crap lawsuits out though.
On #5, maybe we need to have some sort of triage person at the front door who boots those who do not have emergency issues. I took my 10 month old baby to the ER on a Sunday; she was running a 104 temp and had discharge from her left ear. We had to wait 6 hours to be seen, and I was livid that there was a kid who had spilled elmer's glue on his back who got seen before her. After 2 hours, I called my wife to bring Tylenol and washclothes, and we were able to get her fever down to 101 but she was still screaming. Longest 6 hours of my life. I was ready to strangle someone.
The Obots declared that this "Crisis" had to be acted upon by August 1st or else. When good Americans stood up to this lunacy, all of a sudden the "Crisis" ceased to exist. Also, the Obots once stated that 46 million folks had no health insurance, but I heard the president state 30 million during one of his many speeches. No matter; they are now proposing draconian measures to force you to toe their line. Don't want to buy health INSURANCE? No problem, simply fork over a fine to us! What's next, a fine for not buying life Insurance? Why not? Are we not entitled to life insurance, car insurance, blanket coverage insurance, house insurance, free food, free housing, free heat, free electricity, and anything else we can think of?
I have read here and elsewhere that other countries love their mandated health insurance. I don't know who you are talking to, but my many relatives in Canada hate it. They come over the border for cardiac care and eye care on a regular basis. One of my relatives needed a knee surgery. The govmint told him that he could have it - in 9 months! He needed to get back to work now, so he crossed the border a paid a few grand for it. It was more economically feasible for him to do so due to the RATIONING. d*
Website of interest...
http://healthcare.procon.org/
"It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it."
--Thomas Sowell
For those who believe rapacious insurance companies are driving the increases of healthcare, you might investigate the most profitable industries. For 2008, healthcare insurance companies placed at #35, well below Pharma @ #3, Medical Products & equipment @#4, Health care @#30 and so on.
available here:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/performers/industries/profits/
The reason YOUR medicare costs so little is the same reason MY health insurance costs so much - I am subsidizing your healthcare since medicare often does not pay the actual cost. Which brings us to the real cost driver - government involvement. There is virtually nothing one can do in medicine without the current involvement of government bureaucracy - many, many layers. From training to certification to waiting room to treatments the overwhelming problem IS government - all useless activities that PRODUCE NOTHING but unnecessary cost and wasted time. Consider the three areas which increase in cost the most, year after year - public "education", healthcare, and government in general. The cost driver is government involvement - there is no free enterprise in healthcare or health insurance.
Solution #1
Get government out of this field.
Now, compounding this is the foolish expectation that insurance be virtually no cost while paying for everything, from hangnails to open heart surgery to "gender reassignment". We would not be able to afford car insurance that paid for oil changes, new tires etc. Or home insurance that paid for painting, gutter cleaning etc. It is not reasonable to expect that insurance be anything but what it was originally intended, to indemnify oneself against catastrophic heath care cost.
solution #2
People MUST pay their own way for routine care - only through this way will cost be driven from the system. Would you bother checking the cost of a meal if you knew insurance was going to pay the tab?
"America's health-care problem is not that some people lack insurance, it is that 250 million Americans do have it." - John Stossel
Other things I see raising the cost of healthcare are free treatment for illegal aliens - of course they are not going to consider the cost, since they aren't going to pay for it. Another is those on public assistance don't give a 2nd thought about calling an ambulance for anything from a pain in a finger to wanting to be seen by a doctor for a minor problem & don't have transportation... so they call an ambulance to bring them to ER. We also have an extremely high number of patients who are alcoholics who are brought in on a regular basis because someone saw them weaving along the streets in an erratic manner - we provide a bed in ER, give them a "banana" bag (IV fluids w/folate, multivitamins & thiamin - alcohol depletes the body of these nutrients & also dehydrates). We let them sleep it off & offer detox, usually they don't want it & leave AMA (against medical advice), only to return again by ambulance, sometimes the same day/night. Others come to ER for minor problems that should have been taken care of by a regular MD on an appt basis but they don't want to wait for a couple days for an appt.
There is such an "entitlement" mentality in our country. You are correct, MikeC on what you said.
Other problems that have been mentioned are the pharmaceutical companies advertising their drugs making everyone think they need the newest thing. Everyone thinks they need to be seen for every minor problem... what did our grandparents, even our parents used to do? Most rarely ever went to a doctor except for major problems, just dealt with it & tried home treatments. Like Homegrown, who finally went in to the doctor because she was so sick for so long & nothing she had tried, worked. The media has taught us that a doctor needs to see us for every little ache & pain, every sniffle & sneeze, every little cut & scrape, if we are feeling a little blue - there's a treatment or a pill to fix all our ills & they all cost lots of money & have their side effects.
House Dems reach deal on key health care elements
House Democrats reached agreement Wednesday on key elements of a health care bill that would vastly alter America's medical landscape, requiring virtually universal sign-ups and establishing a new government-run insurance option for millions.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi planned a formal announcement Thursday morning, but details were still being finalized, lawmakers and aides said. Officials said the legislation could be up for a vote on the House floor next week.
The rollout would cap months of arduous negotiations to bridge differences between liberal and moderate Democrats and blend health care overhaul bills passed by three separate committees over the summer. The developments in the House came as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., tried to round up support among moderate Democrats for his bill, which includes a modified government insurance option that states could opt out of.
Reid met Wednesday with Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln, who faces a potentially tough re-election next year.
The final product in the House, reflecting many of President Barack Obama's priorities, includes new requirements for employers to offer insurance to their workers or face penalties, fines on Americans who don't purchase coverage and subsidies to help lower-income people do so. Insurance companies would face new prohibitions against charging much more to older people or denying coverage to people with health conditions.
Full article...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9BKC37G0
life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness.......
I am alive. so that is covered but the liberty and the pursuit of happiness is so impeded on that I can no longer pusue it.
The taxation and over reaching laws have completely ruined it. How can anyone truly pursue happiness?
I am rather tired of hearing how the rich must pay more. Keep tax the mega rich and they will just leave, I would.
There is no equility under the law. I am forced with such taxation to contribute to everyone else. The redistribution of wealth robs me. There seems to be this idea that people will not help their neighbors or local communities or churches. I do have great joy when I am able to help out, that is part of my faith. It is what I am suppose to do. BUT it needs to be a free will thing and not a mandated thing. By mandating me to give robs me of my pursuit of happiness and my goodwill to man. Our burdens now are so much that I really can no longer help the way I once did.
What is my motive to work hard? especially when there are all these entitlements? why must I be a model of excellence when it will only be robed? I have those days where I just rather sell everything I own have no vested interest in this country, If I have nothing nothing can not be taken away.,
If you believe individual income tax rates are too high now, what would you say is a fair tax rate?
Taxes haven't been this low since 1933.
I would say a fair individual income tax rate would be zero.
Having to account to the gov't for our earnings is absolute anathema to liberty. If we're going to suffer along with a fiat currency based marketplace, then let the gov't pay its expenses through expansion of the money supply and abolish the irs and all the misery and wasted, needless work that is foisted upon us by its existence. BTW, this was suggested by Paul Volker, at a G20 meeting IIRC, in Mexico during or shortly after his stint as Federal Reserve chairman.
From 1951 through 1964, there was a 91% tax rate on income over $200,000 per year. Not only did the the rich not flee the country, we had the largest peacetime expansion in the economy ever recorded.
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf
Taxes are good for the economy. The rich get richer during periods of high tax rates than they do during periods of low tax rates, even if you subtract the taxes they pay. Who do you think benefits most by increased government spending? The poor?
The problem comes when the wealthy begin to believe they can have the growth they enjoy with expanding government spending, and not pay taxes. In short, greed is not good for anybody.
The problem is not taxes people.
We are the most under-taxed people in the world, and it is destroying our economy.
Volcker suggested that gov't expenses could be funded from the expansion of the money supply, i.e., planned inflation. I can't find the quote now, but he made the remark at or following a meeting in Mexico during or shortly after the Reagan years. Since the gov't has the constitutional authority to coin money and regulate the value thereof, they could just create it out of thin air and spend it to finance the military or whatever else. Lots of folks believe they're basically doing something very close to that right now through the federal reserve system in addition to the taxation system.
"100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government."
-Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan - January 15, 1984
The U.S. got along fine without any federal gov't intrusion into personal finance until 1913. Until then, the federal gov't was financed mostly by excise taxes on imports, which would be vastly preferable to what we have now. IMO, the current system is intrusive, abusive, punitive, and disgustingly wasteful of the time and energy of both the tax payers and the tax collectors. Individual income tax as we know it is coercion in its most blatant form and in a nation conceived on the principle of personal liberty, it's just plain wrong, arguments about taxes and gov't spending being good for the economy notwithstanding.
Quote from: Pox Eclipse on October 30, 2009, 07:57:40 PM
We are the most under-taxed people in the world
Hijack time... :D
Tax rates around the world...
http://www.worldwide-tax.com/
and...
http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14340551
Quote from: harry51 on October 30, 2009, 09:01:10 PM
Volcker suggested that gov't expenses could be funded from the expansion of the money supply, i.e., planned inflation. I can't find the quote now, but he made the remark at or following a meeting in Mexico during or shortly after the Reagan years. Since the gov't has the constitutional authority to coin money and regulate the value thereof, they could just create it out of thin air and spend it to finance the military or whatever else. Lots of folks believe they're basically doing something very close to that right now through the federal reserve system in addition to the taxation system.
"100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government."
-Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan - January 15, 1984
The U.S. got along fine without any federal gov't intrusion into personal finance until 1913. Until then, the federal gov't was financed mostly by excise taxes on imports, which would be vastly preferable to what we have now. IMO, the current system is intrusive, abusive, punitive, and disgustingly wasteful of the time and energy of both the tax payers and the tax collectors. Individual income tax as we know it is coercion in its most blatant form and in a nation conceived on the principle of personal liberty, it's just plain wrong, arguments about taxes and gov't spending being good for the economy notwithstanding.
"Here, here! Preach it brother! ;D
Quote from: harry51 on October 30, 2009, 09:01:10 PMThe U.S. got along fine without any federal gov't intrusion into personal finance until 1913.
Well, yeah, except when it didn't get along fine:
the Panic of 1857 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873),
the Panic of 1873 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857),
the Panic of 1893 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893),
the Panic of 1907 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907).
How would the individual income tax have avoided the "panics"? And even if it would, is being insulated from the pain of shaking out malinvestment worth sacrificing liberty for? Not for me.
One man's liberty is another man's tyranny.
The US is teh ONLY country that allows health insurance companies to make a profit
The US is the ONLY country that allows prescription drugs to be advertised
France Japan andGermany all have better health care than the US by virtually any measure
maybe we aren't doing this health care thing in the best way .....
Quote from: Windpower on October 31, 2009, 09:30:52 AM
The US is teh ONLY country that allows health insurance companies to make a profit
The US is the ONLY country that allows prescription drugs to be advertised
France Japan andGermany all have better health care than the US by virtually any measure
maybe we aren't doing this health care thing in the best way .....
Certainly there's room for improvement, both here and there. But using the coercive power of gov't to force people to buy insurance they don't want is not the right answer.
EMCVAY----I'm with you---I'll stick to cabin building. We can all agree---Everyone regardless of our
political views has good cabin building ideas!
I will give all of you this to ponder----the purposed public health care bill wouldn't take effect till election
year 2012! I thought there was this emergency to get every American healthcare which we all desperately
need? The government for the good of the people? Good Figure! Something to think about as I put up my
siding on my shed/cabin.
I'm going to dredge up this slightly old thread with a question or two. :D
How many of us have family members or friends who have lived in other countries for many years? I'm specifically thinking of countries like Germany and Switzerland, but any place will do. From what I have read those two countries seem to have systems that work better than ours when measured in terms of at birth life expectancy and infant mortality rates.
ScottA has family in Germany IIRC. I think the Frit Sticks are the memory jogger. ;) Anyhow what kind of feedback do you get from folks you know in other countries. Tales of woe as some of our politicians are relate, or stories of good care delivered with a minimal amount of dealing with paperwork?
National Health Service.....England...Not so good.
Don, you asked whether or not folks had relatives living in other countries with communist medicicine. I have many family members who live in Canada and HATE their health care situation. Many of them have to cross the border for procedures that we would consider routine. They love their country, but hate that they have to pay confiscatory taxes every day in order to provide free care to anyone who crosses their border. Speaking of which, their immigration policies are tightening up. I think it's a little too little and a little too late for them. Case in point - the Premier who travelled to Florida for a heart procedure.
MMM...I miss fritz sticks. In Germany health coverage is mandatory at your job. They take a small cut from your pay. It's not all that much. Nothing like what insurance costs here. When you go to the doctor or dentist you pay a small co-pay of around $20. If you are unemployed the government covers you till you get another job. I think the German system is one of the best in the world in terms of what you get vs. what you pay. What our government is proposing is not even close to what Germany has. Having said all that, I'd still prefer a free market system without all the insurance companies and government meddeling. I suspect costs would be much, much lower. I have access to Indian health services now and always have. They are state run medicine and they suck big time though there has been some improvement since the tribe took over control from the feds.
Wow. No wonder we can't get anything passed. My take:
1) "They" (the politicians) are us. We live in a democracy by mutual consent. Sometimes your guy wins, sometimes he doesn't. The only way it all works is if you agree to abide by the rules whether you win or loose. There is nowhere you can go in the world today to live 'independently' - sad but true.
2) If you don't want to pay taxes, you shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the benefits - you don't get medicare, you don't get to ride on public roads, you can't use public sewers or water, the military doesn't defend you, and neither do the courts. Society is, unfortunately, somewhat 'socialist' by definition.
3) It's easy to say "if I want it, I'll pay for it" when you're healthy and/or well off (as I am). If any of you here are terminally ill and poor, I'm happy to seriously consider your 'stay out of my pockets' argument. My father was a fierce libertarian until his wife was diagnosed with kidney cancer and he was diagnosed with non-Hodgekins lymphoma; now he's not so sure universal healthcare is a bad idea.
So I've sounded like a lefty to this point, but, most importantly:
4) The best way to lower healthcare is by making insurance illegal. You really want to emphasize personal responsibility and eliminate waste from the system? Make healthcare providers directly responsible to the consumers for every dime, and make consumers feel the pain of every penny. Insurance does nothing but transfer your money - through the glorious capitalist system - to the sickly, the CEO, and the system.
And I say this as someone making good money working for an insurance company. Your insurance premiums are raising prices and lining my pockets, and I still think it stinks.
Quote from: cabinfever on March 12, 2010, 07:57:02 PM
So I've sounded like a lefty to this point, but, most importantly:
4) The best way to lower healthcare is by making insurance illegal. You really want to emphasize personal responsibility and eliminate waste from the system? Make healthcare providers directly responsible to the consumers for every dime, and make consumers feel the pain of every penny. Insurance does nothing but transfer your money - through the glorious capitalist system - to the sickly, the CEO, and the system.
And I say this as someone making good money working for an insurance company. Your insurance premiums are raising prices and lining my pockets, and I still think it stinks.
And oddly enough, as a lefty-liberal, I agree with you. I think health insurance is the worst scam we ever imposed on ourselves. Like a casino, the only winner is the house. The problem is, I can't think of any way to get off this mad merry-go-round without suffering irreparable damage. Dependence on the current system is so ingrained in both provider and patient that going cold turkey would utterly shatter the system into a million pieces, and hundreds of thousands would die in the short term before it put itself right again.