Time to join the libertarian party?

[Jerk]

Sorry, Mr. Socialist, but healthcare is not a right.

Bush to Urge New Tax Plan for Health Care Coverage
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 — President Bush intends to use his State of the Union address Tuesday to tackle the rising cost of health care with a one-two punch: tax breaks to help low-income people buy health insurance and tax increases for some workers whose health plans cost significantly more than the national average.

White House officials say Mr. Bush has decided to forgo the traditional formula for the State of the Union — a laundry list of ideas, many of them dead on arrival — in favor of a more thematic speech that will concentrate on a few issues, like health care, immigration and energy, on which he hopes to make gains with the new Democrat-controlled Congress.

The basic concept is that employer-provided health insurance, now treated as a fringe benefit exempt from taxation, would no longer be entirely tax-free. Workers could be taxed if their coverage exceeded limits set by the government. But the government would also offer a new tax deduction for people buying health insurance on their own.

“I will propose a tax reform designed to help make basic private insurance more affordable,” Mr. Bush said in his weekly radio address on Saturday, “whether you get it through your job or on your own.” He did not offer specifics, but an administration official provided details of the plan.

The proposed plan is a startling move for a president who has repeatedly vowed not to raise taxes. And it is certain to run into opposition from business groups, labor unions and, most of all, the Democrats who now run Capitol Hill.

“It’s a bad policy,” Representative Charles B. Rangel, the New York Democrat who is chairman of the House committee that writes tax legislation, said in an interview Friday night. “We are trying to bring tax relief to the middle class. The president is trying to increase their tax liability. This proposal is inconsistent with what the majority is seeking in the House and the Senate.”

White House officials say the health tax plan would neither increase spending nor reduce tax revenues. Supporters say it would expand coverage to some of the 47 million uninsured. But critics say it would, in effect, tax people with insurance to provide coverage to those without it.

That would amount to a tectonic shift in the way people get and pay for their health coverage, and historically it has been all but impossible to win Congressional approval for such changes. When President Ronald Reagan made a proposal similar to Mr. Bush’s in 1986, it died in Congress, with Mr. Rangel helping to lead the opposition.

As he heads into the address, his first delivered to a Congress controlled entirely by Democrats, Mr. Bush faces intense skepticism from lawmakers over his new strategy in Iraq. But while he will not be able to avoid the subject of Iraq in the speech, White House officials hope to use the address to shift the national conversation away from the war and toward the possibility of bipartisan cooperation in Washington.

“What they want to accomplish is to have the average American believe that Bush really does want to work across party lines and he’s going to do it,” said one Republican strategist close to the White House.

In his radio address on Saturday, Mr. Bush described his proposal as a way to “treat health insurance more like home ownership,” giving people tax deductions for their health insurance in much the same way as they get tax deductions for home mortgage interest. He said the current system “unwisely encourages workers to choose overly expensive, gold-plated plans,” driving up the overall cost of coverage and care.

The federal government does without tens of billions of dollars each year in potential tax revenue by making health coverage tax-free. The idea of limiting such tax-free coverage has circulated in various forms for more than two decades and is “quite controversial,” said Dr. Mark B. McClellan, a former White House economist and Medicare administrator, who has consulted with Bush officials on the plan.

“The conventional wisdom is that there would be too much political opposition to propose” such limits, Dr. McClellan said.

In preparation for the president’s speech, the White House has been shopping the idea around Capitol Hill, trying to sound out lawmakers like Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, and Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon.

The administration official said Mr. Wyden’s plan contained tax provisions similar to the one proposed by the president. But in an interview, Mr. Wyden was skeptical. He said any tax changes must be coupled with regulations that would encourage private insurance companies to offer affordable coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions.

“The market is broken,” Mr. Wyden said. “Private insurance companies cherry-pick. They’re trying to take just healthy people and send fragile people over to government programs more fragile than they are, and I’m not sure what this does to fix the broken market.”

The Census Bureau estimates that 175 million Americans obtain private health insurance through employers, while 27 million people are covered by insurance bought outside the workplace. The rest, with the exception of the 47 million uninsured, are covered through government programs like Medicare and Medicaid and military health care.

Under Mr. Bush’s proposal, people buying health insurance on their own would receive a tax break similar to the one that has historically been available to people who receive coverage through their jobs. The plan is tied to the average cost of family health coverage, which is currently $11,500 a year.

It would work like this: The administration would cap the amount of benefits that can remain tax free at $15,000 for a family and $7,500 for an individual. Anyone whose health insurance cost more than that would pay taxes on the difference. For example, a family with coverage costing $16,000 a year would pay taxes on $1,000.

The cap would also be used to establish the amount of the new deduction for people who lack coverage. In this example, a family buying insurance on its own could take a $15,000 deduction — even if the insurance cost less. The cap would rise with some measure of overall inflation, but would not necessarily keep pace with the costs of medical care and health insurance.

A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity so as not to upstage the president, said, “The vast majority of people with employer-provided coverage will benefit as well.”

One of the nation’s leading experts on tax policy, C. Eugene Steuerle, a Treasury official in the Reagan administration who is now a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, said the proposal “would probably help increase the number of people with health insurance at no cost to the budget.”

The administration official said the White House envisioned health insurance companies offering new plans to meet a growing market. But employers expressed doubts.

“This is a classic case of robbing Peter to help Paul pay for coverage,” said E. Neil Trautwein, a vice president of the National Retail Federation, which represents retailers of all sizes. “I do not think the president will find many backers in the employer community for this proposal.”

In trying to address the problems of the uninsured, Mr. Trautwein said, “we should not start by endangering coverage for people who already have it.”

[SicEmBaylor]

I've gone Constitution Party, but I may go Libertarian.

[Jerk]

You've already seen the light, huh?

[Mongo]

I have thrown keg parties with more people than Libertarian and Constitution party has. I like yalls vigor in the political spectrum, but they wont make an impact.

[SicEmBaylor]

You've already seen the light, huh?
Oh yeah, starting about 2/3 years ago and I've been saying conservatism in the GOP is dead and the assassin is George W. Bush.

Clinton declared the era of big government to be over; Bush resurrected it.

[tbl]

I've been a member of the libs since 2000, and I pretty much vote that way when there's somebody on the ballot.... but we'll never make an impact. NEVER. Too many naysayers.

[Widescreen]

Clinton declared the era of big government to be over; Bush resurrected it.
You really think Clinton ended big government? You do realize he lies. A lot. Bush didn't resurrect it - he expanded it. And that's why I don't like either one of them.

[SicEmBaylor]

You really think Clinton ended big government? You do realize he lies. A lot. Bush didn't resurrect it - he expanded it. And that's why I don't like either one of them.

I don't believe Clinton expanded the role of the Federal government after January of 1995 as much as Bush has thus far. Clinton sure as well would have if he had free reign but he was pragmatic and in touch with the country enough to know better.

[crawfish]

Let's see:

I can choose the party that promises small government but lies, or...
I can choose the party that promises large government and delivers.

Yeah, I'm more Libertarian every day. :mad:

[SicEmBaylor]

Let's see:

I can choose the party that promises small government but lies, or...
I can choose the party that promises large government and delivers.

Yeah, I'm more Libertarian every day. :mad:

You've summed up the situation perfectly.

[olevetonahill]

I always thought I was a Conservative Republican ;)
I took a political quiz one nite . The results didnt really surprise me .
It said I was Libertarian , Border line Anarchist. Loved it , it described me to a T :D :D :D :D

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Oh yeah, starting about 2/3 years ago and I've been saying conservatism in the GOP is dead and the assassin is George W. Bush.

Clinton declared the era of big government to be over; Bush resurrected it.You didn't hear what Clinton said very well. He said "This is the era of Big Government. Bend over!
We appear to be doomed to socialism. The MSM and the public schools are just too powerful.

[SicEmBaylor]

You didn't hear what Clinton said very well. He said "This is the era of Big Government. Bend over!
We appear to be doomed to socialism. The MSM and the public schools are just too powerful.

It's not the MSM and public schools. The latter of which is a bigger contributor than the former.

The problem started when the right to vote was expanded to the "have nots" and decided they wanted a little bit of what the "haves" had and the only way to get it was from the government and the best place to do that was the Federal level. As soon as people realized they could get government to cut them a piece of the pie politicians learned, very quickly, to pander to that desire and give the voter what they wanted.

Now you have a situation of Americans wanting their pie and eat it too. They generally indicate they want to be left alone by the government, but they don't want to give up the piece of pie that would allow them to do that.


It's the fault of the people not CNN. We were "slouching toward gomorrah" long before CNN came around.

[OklahomaTuba]

Well, I don't know what the answer for health care, but something has to be done reform wise at the very least.

No saying the gumbment should have socialized medical care, but it seems to be a broken system that could be fixed.

I still wish they would have privatized Social Security. I just might have had hope in seeing all that money I lose someday.

[yermom]

what was the hangup with Social Security?

i'm not sure why someone would be worried about losing the tax money from paying for healthcare benefits, why not tax something like the retirement plans or something?

[Vaevictis]

Well, I don't know what the answer for health care, but something has to be done reform wise at the very least.

At the very least we could save a buttload of money by cutting the administrative fat out of the industry. I saw a study awhile back that stated that Medicare has an administrative overhead cost of about 1.5%, while the private industry cost is usually 15% or greater. If we folded all payments into a Medicare-like single payer system, it would save an awful lot of money.

The good part about this is the money savings, and the fact that it would not substantially change coverage choices, just the insurer/provider payment mechanisms. The bad part is that all of the people who were in those administrative jobs would be looking for work. Long term a plus, but short term it would hurt a lot of people.


I still wish they would have privatized Social Security. I just might have had hope in seeing all that money I lose someday.

To privatize SS in the manner they wanted would be to destroy it. It's meant as a fall-back in case all employment and investments fail.

I would like to see reduced benefits for individuals who are wealthy enough not to need the income supplement, and I wouldn't mind seeing treating it as real insurance (ie, it kicks in to protect you from poverty in old age, not so much as an investment vehicle, with underwriters and premiums paid by the agency).

The biggest problem -- and easiest problem to deal with -- today is how the government is chosing to invest SSI funds: by buying government bonds. "Hi me, I'd like to borrow some money. And I'll pay you back later with interest." Yeah, like that'll work.

[Frozen Sooner]

I'm surprised nobody has pointed out what this really is: a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class wage earner to the self-employed.

Nothing against the self-employed, but good Lord, this helps people who can't afford health insurance almost not at all. Poor people with crappy jobs can't afford health insurance even if they DO get a tax deduction for it.

[olevetonahill]

all I know is the really POOr folk in My neck of the woods can go to the Same Hospital , Get the Same treatment as any of us . Which Is a good thing IMHO .
Now as to Social Security ? Im gonna have to try REAL hard to Memeber what My Yellow Dog Democrat Dad said the Gov , Promised when that Shat 1st started !
Ill get back to you .
I gots a feeling It ranks up there with " Go in the service and we will take care of you for Life ( medical and stuff wise )"

[Jeopardude]

The problem started when the right to vote was expanded to the "have nots" and decided they wanted a little bit of what the "haves" had and the only way to get it was from the government and the best place to do that was the Federal level.

I hated it when poor people got the vote too. Where is a monarchy with a feudal system when you need it?

[OklahomaTuba]

To privatize SS in the manner they wanted would be to destroy it. It's meant as a fall-back in case all employment and investments fail.
That's kind of the point. The SS system cannot continue to be a fall-back end all for everyone the way it is now, or the system will fail and SS will be destroyed anyway. It needs drastic reform or needs to be ended and something else put in its place, like a private system.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The problem started when the right to vote was expanded to the "have nots" and decided they wanted a little bit of what the "haves" had and the only way to get it was from the government and the best place to do that was the Federal level. As soon as people realized they could get government to cut them a piece of the pie politicians learned, very quickly, to pander to that desire and give the voter what they wanted.

Now you have a situation of Americans wanting their pie and eat it too. They generally indicate they want to be left alone by the government, but they don't want to give up the piece of pie that would allow them to do that.


It's the fault of the people not CNN. We were "slouching toward gomorrah" long before CNN came around.You are correct, sir. But, it is the MSM, dim party, and their subsidiary, the public school system that espouse that socialism.
and the republicans...those that are for freedom and minimally intrusive govt.-they are just overwhelmed by the aforementioned and the spineless members of their own party.
I have not seen the power of the MSM demonstrated so powerfully as it was leading up to the Nov. election, and continues to be. The bastages actually want us to lose the war in Iraq, and the GWOT while Bush is in office.

[sooner n houston]

To privatize SS in the manner they wanted would be to destroy it. It's meant as a fall-back in case all employment and investments fail.

Parrot the party line much? The Govt can't even "save" any part of the money people have been paying into this system since its insecption. Time to try something else!


I would like to see reduced benefits for individuals who are wealthy enough not to need the income supplement, and I wouldn't mind seeing treating it as real insurance (ie, it kicks in to protect you from poverty in old age, not so much as an investment vehicle, with underwriters and premiums paid by the agency).

Ahh yes, and how would that work? Would you have restrictions, like Welfare does now, where you cannot own a car worth over 6K? How much could your home be worth before you were disquallified from receiving the benefits you had been PAYING FOR for all those years?



The biggest problem -- and easiest problem to deal with -- today is how the government is chosing to invest SSI funds: by buying government bonds. "Hi me, I'd like to borrow some money. And I'll pay you back later with interest." Yeah, like that'll work.

What a joke! SS funds go into the general fund. There is NO SS FUND!!! No magic SS slush fund out there folks. Our wonderful congress has chosen to spend this money as fast as it receives it. No saving, no investing, just spend spend spend.:mad: :mad: :mad:

[jk the sooner fan]

I'm surprised nobody has pointed out what this really is: a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class wage earner to the self-employed.

Nothing against the self-employed, but good Lord, this helps people who can't afford health insurance almost not at all. Poor people with crappy jobs can't afford health insurance even if they DO get a tax deduction for it.

i guess the govt assumption is that those who get that tax break will be responsible enough to put that money towards an affordable healthcare plan

[Frozen Sooner]

That's the thing, jk-to get the tax break, they have to buy the health plan first.

Not a lot of poor people that I know who can afford to just shell out $450 per month (the unsubsidized cost of my company health plan) then get a bigger tax refund.

[jk the sooner fan]

there has to be an easier way to do that without over taxing the upper middle class who have affordable healthcare plans........shouldnt penalize them like that

[FaninAma]

There really should be 4 major parties in the country:
Democratic, Socialist, Republican and Libertarian.

I think if voters really voted their conscience the Democratic and Republican parties would be smaller than the Socialist and Democratic parties.

Actually there could be three parites: the moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats are essentially the same political animal and could form a party that has no hardcore principles and whose members simply follow the blowing wind of popular opinion.

[Jerk]

there has to be an easier way to do that without over taxing the upper middle class who have affordable healthcare plans........shouldnt penalize them like that

Penalize the responsible to reward those who aren't.

Welcome to the way of the modern American politician.

[Jerk]

It's too late to change the system and too early to hang the basterds.

[Mongo]

Penalize the responsible to reward those who aren't.

Welcome to the way of the modern American politician.


I am waiting for the people's movement to quit paying SS. I would join that in a heart beat

[Frozen Sooner]

I agree, jk.

Why not a subsidy for insurance premiums? Say the government picks up 1/3 of all health plans sold, but then makes health premiums non-deductible?

[FaninAma]

Penalize the responsible to reward those who aren't.

Welcome to the way of the modern American politician.

That's because the irresponsible are an ever increasing majority of the American electorate. Alexander deToqueville predicted this 200 years ago.

It happens in all democratic societies: the voters discover that they can vote themselves benefits and unprincipled politicians give the voters what they want.

The US is about 10 to 15 years behind Europe in terms of having a socialistic type of government.

[FaninAma]

I agree, jk.

Why not a subsidy for insurance premiums? Say the government picks up 1/3 of all health plans sold, but then makes health premiums non-deductible?

Medicine is too beaurocratic as it is now. Getting the federal government involved n the private payor system would be a nightmare. Costs would skyrocket, even more than they are now, and quality of service would plunge.

And of course my kids would be left to pick up the tab of an even larger national debt.

[Jerk]

The US is about 10 to 15 years behind Europe in terms of having a socialistic type of government.

This just brightens my day. Thank you!

:mad:

And to add salt on the wound, I'm sure were about to give amnesty to half the population of Mexico - and you know they are well versed in the principles of limited government, private property, and free enterprise. GW thinks he's about to make alot of friends and import a bunch of Republicans...bwahahhahaa. We're screwed. Someone lower the flag.

[Frozen Sooner]

Medicine is too beaurocratic as it is now. Getting the federal government involved n the private payor system would be a nightmare. Costs would skyrocket, even more than they are now, and quality of service would plunge.

And of course my kids would be left to pick up the tab of an even larger national debt.

I see it as removing one bureaucratic system (the deduction of health premiums from taxes) and adding a simpler one (company submits list of premiums paid, gets a check for 1/3 of it.)

I'm just suggesting an alternative to the plan proposed yesterday where the only beneficiaries are those who make enough to pay insurance premiums out of pocket and the majority of the work force gets penalized.

[FaninAma]

I see it as removing one bureaucratic system (the deduction of health premiums from taxes) and adding a simpler one (company submits list of premiums paid, gets a check for 1/3 of it.)

I'm just suggesting an alternative to the plan proposed yesterday where the only beneficiaries are those who make enough to pay insurance premiums out of pocket and the majority of the work force gets penalized.

Mike, I understand what you are saying and the problems caused by that system would not be the all the making of the federal government. The private payors are greedy little bastages and if they knew there would be a 33% subsidy I can guarantee you that the premiums employers paid would magically rise 33% fairly quickly.

Then, the federal government would have to spend millions of dollars auditing the sytem and develop an entire new beaurocracy to monitor compliance.

IMO, this has to be an all or nothing conversion. Either we decide that healthcare is a right and go to the Canadian system with no opt out or we leave the system where it is and allow market forces to find solutions. I know there is no going back on progrmas like Medicare and Medicaid but more government involvement always leads to incresed prices and rationing of services.

[Jerk]

I think in 10-15 years I'm going to take a buck knife, a bolt action rifle, a fishing kit, and a tent, and parachute deep into British Columbia and never be seen again.

ETA - no, change that to Leflore County.

[Frozen Sooner]

Mike, I understand what you are saying and the problems caused by that system would not be the all the making of the federal government. The private payors are greedy little bastages and if they knew there would be a 33% subsidy I can guarantee you that the premiums employers paid would magically rise 33% fairly quickly.

Then, the federal government would have to spend millions of dollars auditing the sytem and develop an entire new beaurocracy to monitor compliance.

IMO, this has to be an all or nothing conversion. Either we decide that healthcare is a right and go to the Canadian system with no opt out or we leave the system where it is and allow market forces to find solutions. I know there is no going back on progrmas like Medicare and Medicaid but more government involvement always leads to incresed prices and rationing of services.

Yes and no. On the bright side, we already have government oversight of premiums-no additional bureaucracy needed, since rate increases already have to be audited.

[FaninAma]

Large employers can negotiate pretty well with a carrier to get decent rates. Carriers do have to get approval before raising rates but their way around that is to increase co-pays, decrease coverage for specialty care and procedures and ocassionally decrease reinmbursement to primary care providers. Again, price controls may be necessary but the result is often decreased coverage and decreased access for those covered.

And from what I've seen as a provider and an employer it's not all that hard for payors to get premium rates increased. I know in 10 years of covering my employees our rates went up at least 5 times.

And as an employer(now former employer) it would scare me to think about the extra paperwork and documentation my small business would have to provide to get the 33% subsidy. Perhaps the insurance companies would include that in their services but that's certainly not a given.

And where does this leave the currently uninsured? Even with a 33% subsidy this group will probably still not be covered.

[jk the sooner fan]

Actually there could be three parites: the moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats are essentially the same political animal and could form a party that has no hardcore principles and whose members simply follow the blowing wind of popular opinion.

i think they're called Independents

[jk the sooner fan]

i am totally against more federal government being involved in health care, at least directly

make it easy for the lower income people to get affordable healthcare,.....give incentives to those companies for making those types of policies possible

but i dont want government beauracracy involved

[mdklatt]

all I know is the really POOr folk in My neck of the woods can go to the Same Hospital , Get the Same treatment as any of us . Which Is a good thing IMHO .


Exactly. We already universal healthcare in this country. The problem is that it's universal emergency care, which is a hell of a lot more expensive than universal preventive care (i.e. routine doctor visits) would be. Paying for somebody's doctor visit when they have a cold is cheaper than paying for their ER visit if they wind up with pneumonia. There's also public health considerations: Sick people spread disease long before they end up in the ER (or dead). Regardless of how it gets paid for, we'd all be better off if everybody had at least some level of basic health care.

[Vaevictis]

Parrot the party line much? The Govt can't even "save" any part of the money people have been paying into this system since its insecption. Time to try something else!

When it's the blunt truth? Sure. If you turn SS into just plain investment accounts, then it's not SS anymore -- it's just investment accounts. Might as well end the program at that point.

Really, it's a value judgment. Do you see value in some entity guaranteeing a minimum income for the elderly, if it means that you have to pay taxes to see it happen?

If you do, then you want SS as it is currently envisioned (if not currently constructed). If you don't, then you might as well toss the thing and cut the government out of it altogether.


Ahh yes, and how would that work? Would you have restrictions, like Welfare does now, where you cannot own a car worth over 6K? How much could your home be worth before you were disquallified from receiving the benefits you had been PAYING FOR for all those years?

Sliding scale. And it's not about worth, it's about income. Set the minimum ensured income level to X, and if someone sits at less than it, the insurance system covers the difference. Set X high enough that these people aren't in poverty, and set it low enough that people who can earn more won't want to artificially stay below the line.


Don't make it an entirely a 1:1 ratio, so that people who go out and earn get some benefit -- so say you set X at $15k, and the recipient goes out and earns $5k. Instead of knocking his SS income down to $10k, maybe knock it down to $12.5k, for example.


What a joke! SS funds go into the general fund. There is NO SS FUND!!! No magic SS slush fund out there folks. Our wonderful congress has chosen to spend this money as fast as it receives it. No saving, no investing, just spend spend spend.:mad: :mad: :mad:

Really.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/funds.html

[Jerk]

Exactly. We already universal healthcare in this country. The problem is that it's universal emergency care, which is a hell of a lot more expensive than universal preventive care (i.e. routine doctor visits) would be. Paying for somebody's doctor visit when they have a cold is cheaper than paying for their ER visit if they wind up with pneumonia. There's also public health considerations: Sick people spread disease long before they end up in the ER (or dead). Regardless of how it gets paid for, we'd all be better off if everybody had at least some level of basic health care.

It's hard for me to make a good argument against children and handicapped people having some sort of healthcare, even if it's government provided health insurance.

But I don't want to pay for millions of able-bodied people too lazy too improve themselves and get a job.

You have got to seperate between these two groups of people.

You can also let the government run the healthcare system for the poor. I'll stay in the private sector, my own insurance, and my own Doctor. Thanks.

[Ike]

i am totally against more federal government being involved in health care, at least directly

make it easy for the lower income people to get affordable healthcare,.....give incentives to those companies for making those types of policies possible

but i dont want government beauracracy involved

I'd rather see the government enact sensible policies that combat skyrocketing costs to the consumer. I think this would help more (and probably for less money) than just paying people for medical care.

[Vaevictis]

You can also let the government run the healthcare system for the poor. I'll stay in the private sector, my own insurance, and my own Doctor. Thanks.

What a lot of people don't seem to get is that just because the government *may* offer universal healthcare coverage doesn't mean that you have to structure the laws enabling it such that private practice is outlawed also.

The Brits have a combined public/private system which apparently works quite well. You always have the fallback of the public system, but if you want private insurance and you want to privately pay doctors, you are quite welcome to.

[mdklatt]

But I don't want to pay for millions of able-bodied people too lazy too improve themselves and get a job.



So hospitals should turn everybody away without insurance?

[Jerk]

So hospitals should turn everybody away without insurance?

Of course not, we just need to go out and pick money off the money tree so we can pay for it.

I'm sorry, but I don't see healthcare as a right. You'll need to re-write the constitution or add an amendment for that.

[mdklatt]

Of course not, we just need to go out and pick money off the money tree so we can pay for it.

I'm sorry, but I don't see healthcare as a right. You'll need to re-write the constitution or add an amendment for that.


I'm not even talking about this as a moral issue but a practical one. You're willing for your tax money to pay for $1000 ER visits but not the $50 doctor visit that would prevent the ER visit? Our current health care system is penny wise but pound foolish.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

The cap would rise with some measure of overall inflation, but would not necessarily keep pace with the costs of medical care and health insurance.


This is where I have significant problems with this. In addition to increasing my taxes, AGAIN.

I have lost all faith in Bush. This RINO, first immigration, second, not supporting our Federal Border Agents now in prison for shooting a messican drug runner, now this, needs to go!!!

[Jerk]

I'm not even talking about this as a moral issue but a practical one. You're willing for your tax money to pay for $1000 ER visits but not the $50 doctor visit that would prevent the ER visit? Our current health care system is penny wise but pound foolish.

Good point, but remember, you can sure f*** something up by "fixing" it.

[Ike]

Good point, but remember, you can sure f*** something up by "fixing" it.

In this case though, theres not far to fall if it gets f***ed up...

[OklahomaTuba]

The Brits have a combined public/private system which apparently works quite well.
Works well?? Thats a laugher.

Heh. The Brits hate it actually.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=486

[Jerk]

In this case though, theres not far to fall if it gets f***ed up...
Yes, well..the system worked well for me. I pinched a sciotic nerve, went to a doctor, didn't like him, chose another doctor who was awesome, paid my co-pay, got my MRI, got my meds, done.

Now when I think of being in a system where wait times for MRI's are 6 months and a person CANNOT chose their own doctor, it makes me :mad:

[TexasLidig8r]

So, what are you called when you are ultra conservative on business issues, i.e, keep the federal government away from private business and let the marketplace dictate policies... and

Liberal on social issues, i.e., keep the federal government away from private and personal issues and let individuals dictate the manner in which they live their lifes?

And, you believe the purpose of the government is to protect our shores from foreign invasion and protect the safety of its citizens on the streets.

When someone finds out.. let me know.

[OklahomaTuba]

So, you want to trust politicians with your medical care huh?

I think we should just let the liberal states do it and see how it works. Let them be the test cases and see if the medical system actually works well or if they have lines and waiting lists like in Europe and if jacking up taxes to pay for this in those states doesn't drive people and business away.

Would be a great test me thinks.

[Sam Spade]

Hey, Jerk. Honest question...

If a person is in a serious car accident and a doctor comes across the person, does the doctor have the right (or is it okay in your opinion) to decide, "Nah, I don't feel like it," and just walk on without giving that injured person treatment?

Perhaps it's because he's late for something, perhaps it's because the doctor knows that the person can't pay for his/her services, but either way, the doctor denies service to the person. What's your opinion?

[Vaevictis]

Works well?? Thats a laugher.

Heh. The Brits hate it actually.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=486

The poll says that 34% of Americans "rate very positively" the American system, and 15% of Europeans "rate very positively" the British system.

Which doesn't tell you a goddamn thing about whether the Europeans hate the British system or not. For all you know, the rest of the 72% could have said, "Very positively? Nah, but we do like it."

EDIT: Europeans for this study's sake are apparently, "German, French, British, Italian and Spaniard." You don't know how many in those numbers are of any one nationality.

[jk the sooner fan]

Hey, Jerk. Honest question...

If a person is in a serious car accident and a doctor comes across the person, does the doctor have the right (or is it okay in your opinion) to decide, "Nah, I don't feel like it," and just walk on without giving that injured person treatment?

Perhaps it's because he's late for something, perhaps it's because the doctor knows that the person can't pay for his/her services, but either way, the doctor denies service to the person. What's your opinion?

wouldnt that violate the hippocratic oath they took?

[C&CDean]

So, what are you called when you are ultra conservative on business issues, i.e, keep the federal government away from private business and let the marketplace dictate policies... and

Liberal on social issues, i.e., keep the federal government away from private and personal issues and let individuals dictate the manner in which they live their lifes?

And, you believe the purpose of the government is to protect our shores from foreign invasion and protect the safety of its citizens on the streets.

When someone finds out.. let me know.

A bowtie wearing fag?

[jk the sooner fan]

Dean never lets me down :)

[Scott D]

So, you want to trust politicians with your medical care huh?

I think we should just let the liberal states do it and see how it works. Let them be the test cases and see if the medical system actually works well or if they have lines and waiting lists like in Europe and if jacking up taxes to pay for this in those states doesn't drive people and business away.

Would be a great test me thinks.

Actually Maine has had an active one for over a year. A handful of other states are attempting the same thing based on the model of Maine's system. Maine itself is tweaking the system they have in place.

[Vaevictis]

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=486

Oh, by the way, did you notice how 49% of Americans rate the Canadian system very highly in that poll? Clearly that means that we should go right out and implement the Canadian style system, right? Right? :D :D

(That would be sarcasm, if you missed it.)

[Jerk]

Hey, Jerk. Honest question...

If a person is in a serious car accident and a doctor comes across the person, does the doctor have the right (or is it okay in your opinion) to decide, "Nah, I don't feel like it," and just walk on without giving that injured person treatment?

Perhaps it's because he's late for something, perhaps it's because the doctor knows that the person can't pay for his/her services, but either way, the doctor denies service to the person. What's your opinion?

I don't know. You going to shoot the doctor if he decides not to? I wonder how many doctors have been sued after these situations by the car wreck "victim" because some sleazeball attorney made a case that the doctor was negligent for some reason. Even If said 'yes', there is still a long jump from that to socialized healthcare. And yes, I'd hope the doctor would help, and I'm sure most would.

[Scott D]

It's hard for me to make a good argument against children and handicapped people having some sort of healthcare, even if it's government provided health insurance.

But I don't want to pay for millions of able-bodied people too lazy too improve themselves and get a job.

You have got to seperate between these two groups of people.

You can also let the government run the healthcare system for the poor. I'll stay in the private sector, my own insurance, and my own Doctor. Thanks.

Jerk, you left out the group of people whom are able-bodied and employed, however their employers don't offer any sort of health care insurance to them, or they can't afford the cost to cover either themselves, or more specifically themselves and dependants and bring home enough in wages to cover basic expenses.

[Jerk]

Jerk, you left out the group of people whom are able-bodied and employed, however their employers don't offer any sort of health care insurance to them, or they can't afford the cost to cover either themselves, or more specifically themselves and dependants and bring home enough in wages to cover basic expenses.

So, whose responsibility is it to pay for that?

[OklahomaTuba]

The poll says that 34% of Americans "rate very positively" the American system, and 15% of Europeans "rate very positively" the British system.

Which doesn't tell you a goddamn thing about whether the Europeans hate the British system or not. For all you know, the rest of the 72% could have said, "Very positively? Nah, but we do like it."

EDIT: Europeans for this study's sake are apparently, "German, French, British, Italian and Spaniard." You don't know how many in those numbers are of any one nationality.

Opps, read it the wrong way, my apologies. I had recently read one showing how badly people in the UK thought of the NHS. I will look for it later.

[jk the sooner fan]

is employee healthcare an employer responsibility?

or a benefit?

[Jerk]

Does everyone have the right to live somewhere? Or do they have to get a job and pay either a mortgage or rent?

[Jerk]

I have the right to a car! My wife took my jeep. I want you taxpayers to buy me a new car, now! It's necessary!

[OklahomaTuba]

is employee healthcare an employer responsibility?

or a benefit?

Depends on who you talk too.

Liberals who salivate over the dream of the nanny state think its some God given right for it to be provided to you by either the state or forcing a company to pay for it.

It wasn't this way until the wage controls of WW2 came into effect and companies started offering it as a way to attract people. Some how economics seems to go out the window when medical care is concerned.

[Vaevictis]

Opps, read it the wrong way, my apologies. I had recently read one showing how badly people in the UK thought of the NHS. I will look for it later.

No sweat, I occassionally suffer from haste also ;)

Most of the Brits and ex-pats in Britain that I know really like the system over there because while NHS is less than ideal, it does provide a minimum level of coverage *and* allows for you to go outside the system if you can afford it.

Most people would prefer not to use NHS, which is probably reflected by the poll you're remembering, because it does suffer from a lot of the problems people worry about in socialized healthcare -- lines, refusals for "unnecessary" procedures, etc.

The key, however, is that there's an outlet -- if you can afford private treatment, there's nothing stopping you from getting it. That's a large difference from the Canadian system (which prohibits private practice), and it tends to combine the best of the Canadian system (a base level of care for everyone), and the best of the American system (market forces, at least for everything beyond that base level of care).

[Jerk]

Sam Spade, what are you going to do if Hillary-Care gets passed in the fashion it was drawn up in 1993, and you are assigned a doctor by the government, and you have no right to chose another doctor? Let's say this doctor got his degree from Wylie Coyote Medical School in Bogota, Columbia, and he doesn't even know the difference between a common cold and meningitis?

[TexasLidig8r]

A bowtie wearing fag?

:rolleyes: You are such a homo!!! (with all due respect)

:D

[Jerk]

I also have the Neal Bortz question:

Do any of you believe it should be made illegal for a person to pay for a doctor to perform a medical service for him?

[OklahomaTuba]

Hey, Jerk. Honest question...

If a person is in a serious car accident and a doctor comes across the person, does the doctor have the right (or is it okay in your opinion) to decide, "Nah, I don't feel like it," and just walk on without giving that injured person treatment?

Perhaps it's because he's late for something, perhaps it's because the doctor knows that the person can't pay for his/her services, but either way, the doctor denies service to the person. What's your opinion?

Well, if its on OU game day, and said dumbass hurt person is wearing orange, one would hope the doctor does the right thing by pulling out his concealed handgun and putting the poor bastard out of his misery.

[Scott D]

So, whose responsibility is it to pay for that?

Therin lies the question my friend. How do we go about not punishing hard working people whom happen to fall into circumstances that they are unable to copay for health insurance with an employer. I had a previous employer drop the kind of coverage they had for employees, to limiting what employees were eligible by the amount of hours they worked, then proceeded to mandate a huge slash in hours for all non management personnel.

[Vaevictis]

Do any of you believe it should be made illegal for a person to pay for a doctor to perform a medical service for him?

For me, absolutely not.

Look, ask yourself why it often is cheaper to get health insurance through your employer. The reason? Part of it is the employer will often subsidize it -- but you can look at that as part of your compensation package, even if you never see those dollars directly. The other part is that the employer will go to an insurance agency, say "I have X employees, surely you'll give a discount for such a large number."

The insurer will often do so, because s/he wants all of those customers, and also because the more customers the insurer has -- assuming they're not mismanaged -- the less it costs them to support each individual customer, which drives up their profit margins or lets them reduce premiums.

I think that the government can exploit those same economies of scale on a much larger level if they pull everyone in, and I suspect that it will drive costs down enough that we can cover everyone *and* spend less than is currently being spent in the piecemeal system.

[Jerk]

Therin lies the question my friend. How do we go about not punishing hard working people whom happen to fall into circumstances that they are unable to copay for health insurance with an employer. I had a previous employer drop the kind of coverage they had for employees, to limiting what employees were eligible by the amount of hours they worked, then proceeded to mandate a huge slash in hours for all non management personnel.

I know this sounds like such a simple fix, but my solution would be to find another employer. Maybe I'm spoiled because of the line of work I'm in, but I could find another job in 5 minutes if I had to. I realize not everyone has that luxary, but then again, no one is forced to stay at a company.

[Jerk]

I think that the government can exploit those same economies of scale on a much larger level if they pull everyone in, and I suspect that it will drive costs down enough that we can cover everyone *and* spend less than is currently being spent in the piecemeal system.

You have more faith in .gov than I do.

Once upon a time, they said "we're going to set up a system that you workers pay into and when you retire, well give it back to you."

I'll be shocked if I see this money when I'm an old man.

[Scott D]

I know this sounds like such a simple fix, but my solution would be to find another employer. Maybe I'm spoiled because of the line of work I'm in, but I could find another job in 5 minutes if I had to. I realize not everyone has that luxary, but then again, no one is forced to stay at a company.

Now we've reached the next problem, which is how job markets can vary. Both in pay, and available jobs. The following problem we now run into is the spiraling increases in the cost of health care.

The best way to create reform with health care, and in turn make health care more affordable for more people is to begin at the care level itself. Perhaps rather than using taxation as a way to attempt to make health care affordable, they need to look at something akin to farmer subsidation. Perhaps they need to look into a way to find a way to get costs down rather than trying to cover costs. Perhaps the best answer is to have the government take bids from either individual health insurance companies or a group of them acting together to provide affordable health insurance that can be tagged onto the income taxes paid by the individual, with the federal government picking up the tab normally reserved for the employers freeing the employers the ability to pay their employees more to cover the small increase in their taxes in their paychecks.

Personally I'd rather the federal government stay out of the picture, and leave the issue of Health Care to be a state to state matter to resolve. But then again, the only things I think the Federal government should be responsible for is supplying a military, and maintaining interstate travelways.

[Vaevictis]

You have more faith in .gov than I do.

Medicare seems to do a half-decent job of it now. It provides a lower level of coverage (but probably sufficient) than most private plans, but the real key is that the damn system only has about 1.5% of administrative overhead, compared to private industry, which apparently ranges from 10%-15%.

When you're talking about multiple companies that have billions of dollars of revenue a year -- that's a whole lot of savings that could be spent on insuring the uninsured, and that doesn't include the savings available by efficient scaling up of the system.


Once upon a time, they said "we're going to set up a system that you workers pay into and when you retire, well give it back to you."

Once upon a time they said that they would do away with elderly poverty. They've since extended that mandate into "We're going to provide retirement income for everyone." Which was a bad idea.

Poverty in the elderly is a social ill that causes problems beyond just the immediate impact to one individual. Allowing old people to retire and sit on their ***... well, not so much.

[NormanPride]

You have more faith in .gov than I do.

Once upon a time, they said "we're going to set up a system that you workers pay into and when you retire, well give it back to you."

I'll be shocked if I see this money when I'm an old man.

Amen.

Back in the day, was health insurance a luxury?

[Vaevictis]

Back in the day, was health insurance a luxury?

Back in the day, people didn't need health insurance for anything but long term care. Because back in the day, people didn't get charged several times their annual income for a single procedure.

(Of course, back in the day, they didn't have heart transplants either...)

[Sam Spade]

wouldnt that violate the hippocratic oath they took?

Yes, but that wasn't the question.

[Sam Spade]

I don't know. You going to shoot the doctor if he decides not to? I wonder how many doctors have been sued after these situations by the car wreck "victim" because some sleazeball attorney made a case that the doctor was negligent for some reason. Even If said 'yes', there is still a long jump from that to socialized healthcare. And yes, I'd hope the doctor would help, and I'm sure most would.

So, you feel that the doctor should help.

Okay.

That means that you feel that people in emergency situations should get healthcare regardless of whether they can pay for it or not.

Now, which costs the Health Care industry more per year? Emergency treatment or preventative care?

Do you fix a car only when it breaks down or do you take it in for regular maintinance in order to make it have a longer, healthier life?

Where do you draw the line on a patient's right to treatment? At the point of emergency? At the point of diagnosis? At the point of a checkup?

And where does that right to life begin/end? The baby has the right to treatment, but when it goes home from the hospital, do its rights disappear at that point? Should the mother and father's insurance cover it and, if it doesn't or can't, is the baby up a creek? What about when it's a child? A young adult?

I think that saying, "Health care isn't a right" is a bit of a blind statement which can't hold up to any form of logic. And to say, "You want it to be a right, then put it in the Constitution," is also a logical fallacy. "We hold these truths to be self-evident." There are certain truths that are self-evident. Certain things that an able government should provide you when you pay your taxes. One is protection, another is a working legal system and another, many would clearly argue, would be health care for all.

[yermom]

can we send a bill to Mexico when one of their nationals needs healthcare?

[Vaevictis]

You have more faith in .gov than I do.

And actually, it's not so much that I have more faith in .gov, it's that I have as much distrust for market based solutions as I do for government based ones.

In my view, markets work great for awhile, but they tend to naturally distort over time, especially in markets where the buyer doesn't really have a choice -- such as in health care.

To me, the corporations in the market being a bunch of thieving sh*tbags is as forgone a conclusion as the government being a bunch of thieving sh*tbags. So to me, it's a wash on that front. At that point, I'd rather the one that I can extract more value from... and in this particular case, I think that because the government can put together much greater economies of scale, the government gets the nod.

[Vaevictis]

can we send a bill to Mexico when one of their nationals needs healthcare?

Sure, but good luck collecting.

[Jerk]

So, you feel that the doctor should help.

Okay.

That means that you feel that people in emergency situations should get healthcare regardless of whether they can pay for it or not.

Now, which costs the Health Care industry more per year? Emergency treatment or preventative care?

Do you fix a car only when it breaks down or do you take it in for regular maintinance in order to make it have a longer, healthier life?

Where do you draw the line on a patient's right to treatment? At the point of emergency? At the point of diagnosis? At the point of a checkup?

And where does that right to life begin/end? The baby has the right to treatment, but when it goes home from the hospital, do its rights disappear at that point? Should the mother and father's insurance cover it and, if it doesn't or can't, is the baby up a creek? What about when it's a child? A young adult?

I think that saying, "Health care isn't a right" is a bit of a blind statement which can't hold up to any form of logic. And to say, "You want it to be a right, then put it in the Constitution," is also a logical fallacy. "We hold these truths to be self-evident." There are certain truths that are self-evident. Certain things that an able government should provide you when you pay your taxes. One is protection, another is a working legal system and another, many would clearly argue, would be health care for all.

Well, good luck with that government run health care system you want. I'm done with this. Hillary-care is coming, I'm sure. You'll all have a chance at a free civics lesson in the efficiency and speed of government bureaucracy. Government can solve everyone's problems, right? That's all we need, is more, and everything should be free.

They're going to have a rebellion if they assign doctors.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This is where I have significant problems with this. In addition to increasing my taxes, AGAIN.

I have lost all faith in Bush. This RINO, first immigration, second, not supporting our Federal Border Agents now in prison for shooting a messican drug runner, now this, needs to go!!!Cool. Who ya gonna find that's going to do the right things from either party?

[Jerk]

Cool. Who ya gonna find that's going to do the right things from either party?

I think they're both out to screw us. One wants to do it hard and fast, the other nice and slow.

[yermom]

And actually, it's not so much that I have more faith in .gov, it's that I have as much distrust for market based solutions as I do for government based ones.

In my view, markets work great for awhile, but they tend to naturally distort over time, especially in markets where the buyer doesn't really have a choice -- such as in health care.

To me, the corporations in the market being a bunch of thieving sh*tbags is as forgone a conclusion as the government being a bunch of thieving sh*tbags. So to me, it's a wash on that front. At that point, I'd rather the one that I can extract more value from... and in this particular case, I think that because the government can put together much greater economies of scale, the government gets the nod.

it's worked so well with the schools

[Jerk]

You guys realize that Cuba has universal health care.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

i am totally against more federal government being involved in health care, at least directly

make it easy for the lower income people to get affordable healthcare,.....give incentives to those companies for making those types of policies possible

but i dont want government beauracracy involvedThat is entirely too logical, and would not be popular with dims and all socialist-types. They don't like the govt. giving up anything to the private sector.

[Sam Spade]

Well, good luck with that government run health care system you want. I'm done with this. Hillary-care is coming, I'm sure. You'll all have a chance at a free civics lesson in the efficiency and speed of government bureaucracy. Government can solve everyone's problems, right? That's all we need, is more, and everything should be free.

They're going to have a rebellion if they assign doctors.
You realize that you completely dodged answering any of my questions and, instead, went for the hysteria/paranoia rhetoric instead?

[Jerk]

You realize that you completely dodged answering any of my questions and, instead, went for the hysteria/paranoia rhetoric instead?

Probably because I got tired of arguing about it?

And, yes, I'm paranoid when it comes to socialism, given its massive failures. Oh, wait, the provision to assign doctors was actually part of the Hillary-Care system proposed in 1993. So, I'm paranoid?

Why don't you give universal healthcare a shot in California and let us know how it works out. If it did, I'm sure other states would adopt it.

[Sam Spade]

Probably because I got tired of arguing about it?

And, yes, I'm paranoid when it comes to socialism, given its massive failures. Oh, wait, the provision to assign doctors was actually part of the Hillary-Care system proposed in 1993. So, I'm paranoid?

Why don't you give universal healthcare a shot in California and let us know how it works out. If it did, I'm sure other states would adopt it.

I still haven't stated where I stand on this issue, so you're making a FEW assumptions in your post (including where I live)

I can understand you may be tired about arguing the issue. But if you decide to continue, please address my questions instead of going on weird rants that are based on flimsy assumptions.

Thanks.

[Stoop Dawg]

Anyone still reading this?

I blame large insurance companies. They essentially corner the market on health insurance by signing large companies with lots of employees then using their huge consumer base to force care-givers to give them discounts.

So, if being a health insurance company is so lucrative, why hasn't Stoop Dawg started an insurance company? Barriers to entry. If I have no consumers I can't obtain the deep discounts given to the big boys. If I can't get the deep discounts, I can't get consumers. Catch-22.

My simple fix is two-fold:

1. Prevent companies from forcing employees onto a company plan. A company can pay X dollars to each employee for health insurance, but the employee can pick any plan they want. This forces insurance companies to compete on the individual level instead of the corporate level.

2. Prevent doctors/hospitals from giving discounts to insurance companies. Everyone pays the same rate, regardless of insurance provider (or lack of insurance).

With an even playing field, I think competition will drive costs to a reasonable level.

This seems waaaaaay too simple. Someone tell my why it wouldn't work.

[Scott D]

Anyone still reading this?

I blame large insurance companies. They essentially corner the market on health insurance by signing large companies with lots of employees then using their huge consumer base to force care-givers to give them discounts.

So, if being a health insurance company is so lucrative, why hasn't Stoop Dawg started an insurance company? Barriers to entry. If I have no consumers I can't obtain the deep discounts given to the big boys. If I can't get the deep discounts, I can't get consumers. Catch-22.

My simple fix is two-fold:

1. Prevent companies from forcing employees onto a company plan. A company can pay X dollars to each employee for health insurance, but the employee can pick any plan they want. This forces insurance companies to compete on the individual level instead of the corporate level.

2. Prevent doctors/hospitals from giving discounts to insurance companies. Everyone pays the same rate, regardless of insurance provider (or lack of insurance).

With an even playing field, I think competition will drive costs to a reasonable level.

This seems waaaaaay too simple. Someone tell my why it wouldn't work.

Hi Stoop Dawg, meet the Health Insurance Lobbyist Group.

[yermom]

i think Stoop Dawg should watch his back for the next few days ;)