Wealth redistribution

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Those are valid points...
However, most do not pay for health insurance outright, they do pay through higher taxes, true. Yet they do not have co-pay,or deductibles, pre-existing conditions. And every citizen is covered, and businesses are not responsible for providing health insurance to their employee's.

Over 45 million Americans are not covered,

Most of those choose not to buy health insurance. Medicaid, state children's health insurance programs, and other state programs are available to people who actually can't afford insurance.

The rest of us who are in good health would do better buying high-deductable plans for under $50 a month and filling up a tax-free health savings account than living some place with "free" health coverage and higher tax rates.

Quote

and most insurance has co-pay and deductibles.

Co-pays and deductables are good because they discourage people from clogging up the system with trivial problems.

They're even better when the insurance is provided by for-profit companies and the premiums are coming out of your own pocket.

Quote

As you all know, the cheaper the insurance the higher the deductible. As well as pre-existing conditions not being covered and a host of other things that must be paid for out of pocket.

Pre-existing conditions are a problem for people who've had insurance through group plans. Extending COBRA beyond 18 months or requiring companies to allow conversions to individual plans would help there.

As far as deductables, when you're paying for it you don't want a low one. Insurance rates are structured so that they still make a profit when they have to pay for everything. With what you'd spend on deductables and co-pays going directly to the health providers it costs you less.

At my current job where we outsource our insurance to a company that lets us pick the insurance plan and company. I found that it was cheaper to put enough in a use-it-or-loose-it pre-tax flexible spending account to cover the entire $1000 family deductable and 40-co pays than it was to pay extra to have a $600 deductable and $5 lower co-pays.

Quote

life expectancy is definetly affected by our lack of exercise, but is also affected by people waiting to last minute to go to the doctor because they can't afford it.

I've talked to people making half what I did who lived in bigger homes and drove newer cars who claimed they couldn't afford health insurance which was obviously not true. They just decided that insurance and retirement savings weren't their highest priority.

Maybe we could have our government sign off on people's budgets? I'm sorry sir, but you get a Festiva instead of an Escalade since you need enough to cover insurance. Mam, you just don't earn enough to have insurance and a house with a yard. You'll have to make due with a 2-bedroom condo instead.

[Amazon 7]

You just cant fix stupid and greedy.

[billvon 3,006]

>We're still GIVING them money though.

Agreed. Which is why I am against it.

>Are you saying that the people who got the stimulus checks either didn't
> spend it or found some way to use it to destroy our artificially inflated
> economy?

?? No, not at all. However, given that it was touted as a way to "put our economy back on track" I don't think it fulfilled its goal.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Most of those choose not to buy health insurance. Medicaid, state children's health insurance programs, and other state programs are available to people who actually can't afford insurance.

rushmc pm'd this to me today. He did not ask me to post it.

Hawaii Ending Universal Child Health Care After 7 Mos.

"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program."

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Trent 0]

Quote

?? No, not at all. However, given that it was touted as a way to "put our economy back on track" I don't think it fulfilled its goal.

Well, if it increases spending for the EITC folks, then it probably will do so for the rest of us. I know I spent mine. Lots of people I know spent theirs. In an economy where spending was one of the only problems, it'd work. I don't think it was a good idea and we could have surivived fine without it. In general, I don't think "trickle up" works very well at all. I wish someone would tell Obama that.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,006]

>I don't think it was a good idea . . .

I agree!

>I wish someone would tell Obama that.

I'll get on the horn to Obama if you call McCain and tell him his tax credits are a bad idea as well.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

The "it's not fair" and "I should get 'x' too" crowd will never understand that personal responsibility is the basic argument that those arguing against these "x"s have.

You're using labels like this not to rebut the merits of a perspective with which you disagree, but to demonize the people with whom you disagree. I suggest that kind of stridency is divisive. In other threads, you've made quite clear your disdain for people who use rhetoric that you find to be imperious, or dismissive of other people. Shouldn't that standard be applied evenly? How would you like it if someone referred to fiscal or social conservatives as "the let them eat cake crowd?"

I don't understand why you took such a personal insult to my issue with those that just want to take my money without effort on their part. Unless you feel that you are part of that problem, the comment was not meant directly for you.

I have made it know that people "be nice" and debate with more logic and fact than emotion or rhetoric. But I do not feel that I have crossed that line. I stated my opinion that MY ARGUMENT is about personal responsibility or lack thereof.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

[I don't understand why you took such a personal insult to my issue with those that just want to take my money without effort on their part.
.

Why don't you just come right out and say that you don't like taxes, because your description applies to ALL taxes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

[I don't understand why you took such a personal insult to my issue with those that just want to take my money without effort on their part.
.

Why don't you just come right out and say that you don't like taxes, because your description applies to ALL taxes.

I don't mind paying MY SHARE to the community. I give to support what I use and expect others to do the same. I carry my weight and I would guess the weight of others that don't want to. Yes, I did say don't "want" to.

I have no problem with welfare plans that help those that need the support in times of crises (I've seen and helped MANY of these). I agree with government support for those that HONESTLY can't. It's the "don't want to" that annoy me. How do we differentiate between them? Sometimes it's hard, but I think when you come into the OB/Gyn office pregnant and on Medicaid, then play with your iPhone while the doc is trying to do some teaching... SOMETHING IS WRONG.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

[I don't understand why you took such a personal insult to my issue with those that just want to take my money without effort on their part.
.

Why don't you just come right out and say that you don't like taxes, because your description applies to ALL taxes.

I don't mind paying MY SHARE to the community. I give to support what I use and expect others to do the same. I carry my weight and I would guess the weight of others that don't want to. Yes, I did say don't "want" to.

I have no problem with welfare plans that help those that need the support in times of crises (I've seen and helped MANY of these). I agree with government support for those that HONESTLY can't. It's the "don't want to" that annoy me. How do we differentiate between them? Sometimes it's hard, but I think when you come into the OB/Gyn office pregnant and on Medicaid, then play with your iPhone while the doc is trying to do some teaching... SOMETHING IS WRONG.

What % of your taxes goes to those who choose not to work? Compare with the % that goes to running a war based on false pretenses, running a DoD that outspends the rest of the world's defense spending combined, supporting the country's infrastructure that enables us to be productive, running services like Air Traffic Control, CDC, NSF, the National Labs, the DoE, supporting those unable to support themselves due to health or age issues.......

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

What % of your taxes goes to those who choose not to work?

Less than what is in Obama's plan!

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

[I don't understand why you took such a personal insult to my issue with those that just want to take my money without effort on their part.
.

Why don't you just come right out and say that you don't like taxes, because your description applies to ALL taxes.

I don't mind paying MY SHARE to the community. I give to support what I use and expect others to do the same. I carry my weight and I would guess the weight of others that don't want to. Yes, I did say don't "want" to.

I have no problem with welfare plans that help those that need the support in times of crises (I've seen and helped MANY of these). I agree with government support for those that HONESTLY can't. It's the "don't want to" that annoy me. How do we differentiate between them? Sometimes it's hard, but I think when you come into the OB/Gyn office pregnant and on Medicaid, then play with your iPhone while the doc is trying to do some teaching... SOMETHING IS WRONG.

What % of your taxes goes to those who choose not to work? Compare with the % that goes to running a war based on false pretenses, running a DoD that outspends the rest of the world's defense spending combined, supporting the country's infrastructure that enables us to be productive, running services like Air Traffic Control, CDC, NSF, the National Labs, the DoE, supporting those unable to support themselves due to health or age issues.......

OK. Maybe I'm not as bright as some, but I don't see a relavant response to my comment in your reply.

I said I'm ok with paying for my part of the community. You replied with a random side note on government expenses.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

no that's equal opportunity!!

I guess it's close to Kallend's equal opportunity.
But he, as usual, did not explain what he meant, so I might be wrong.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I think you did your math incorrectly. According the the IRS 2008 tax rate schedule, someone (single) making $500k WITH NO DEDUCTIONS AT ALL OF ANY KIND would pay $153,596.75, not $200k.

You somehow forgot to add extra $12,648 for Social Security and $14,500 for medicare. Which makes it $180,744.75 in mandatory payments. If he lives in state which has state income tax, which will be at least 4.54% (AR), ending up as $22,700. Which makes it already over 200K.

I really wonder why people who calculate taxes skip SS/medicare - aren't you paying them?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

What % of your taxes goes to those who choose not to work? Compare with the % that goes to running a war based on false pretenses

Even spending money on a war is still better than spending money on people who choose not to work, as it only encourages more people to choose not to work. Germany is a good example here, I know a few people who have been living on social last three _generations_ and never worked a single day in their life.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[skybill 22]

Hi Anvil,
Whadaya' xpect', B-rak is a commie and a hoplophobic one at that!!

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

What % of your taxes goes to those who choose not to work? Compare with the % that goes to running a war based on false pretenses

Even spending money on a war is still better than spending money on people who choose not to work,

For most of us that depends on the value of a human life (I don't differentiate between brown or white and American or Other), although if that wasn't the case the dollars and cents would be the determining factor.

We spend a lot more on a military capable of these sorts of misadventures than paying people not to work, with most of the social programs being a fulfillment of promises (Social Security - we'll steal 12.4% of your income which could replace 100% of what you make at retirement if invested in the stock market inspite of problems like those recently experienced in exchange for as little as 25% with nothing going to your heirs) and what are effectively wage subsidies so businesses can pay people less than what it would take to survive at a first world standard of living.

Quote

as it only encourages more people to choose not to work. Germany is a good example here, I know a few people who have been living on social last three _generations_ and never worked a single day in their life.

Yup, that's a problem.

I think people have a right to what they could acquire in nature.

Before civilization, we could all make clubs, build lean-tos, kill deer, gather berries, dress in furs, and have the basics consisting of food, shelter, and clothing.

Since we don't want people homesteading Central Park and eating the bunny rabbits we're better off providing an alternative.

I'd say that dormitories, a healthy diet without junk food, and appropriate clothes for the local climate would suffice. I'd throw in health care from the government since in a natural state you're free to find whatever herbs cure your ailments and we don't want people picking through our gardens.

If you want more you can work. If you're content you aren't any worse off than you were before civilization, and aren't costing the tax paying members of society as much as you would if you stole from them and we had to throw you in jail.

Society should have laws which mean our spending on criminals and people who choose not to work are minimized, which means not working has to be sufficiently more attractive than crime which results in shelter and three meals a day (plus extreme overhead) at government expense.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I think you did your math incorrectly. According the the IRS 2008 tax rate schedule, someone (single) making $500k WITH NO DEDUCTIONS AT ALL OF ANY KIND would pay $153,596.75, not $200k.

You somehow forgot to add extra $12,648 for Social Security and $14,500 for medicare. Which makes it $180,744.75 in mandatory payments. If he lives in state which has state income tax, which will be at least 4.54% (AR), ending up as $22,700. Which makes it already over 200K.

I really wonder why people who calculate taxes skip SS/medicare - aren't you paying them?

You're including the employer portion, which is probably cheating a bit, or you have to say the person made $537k, not 500. Then there is the question of is it a tax, since it results in benefits in retirement, or just a really crappy retirement plan?

And the line was paid to Uncle Sam, so the state taxes cannot be counted.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

You've obviously missed the past arguments on this. Just because Canada provides health care does not mean it's worth a damn. I've never been there or done research but Canadians on this board have said the system is broken. You're buying into the rainbows and unicorns rhetoric. If nobody is paying out of pocket, then all docs are paid by the government. Do they all get paid equally? Shitty doctors paid the same as brilliant docs? What incentive do they have to be good docs? Who gets what doctor? Can we go whenever we want? What about the drugs they prescribe? Are those free too?

All of your questions have answers if you would do a little homework.

Canadian healthcare IS worth a damn. We treat cancer too y'know.... even do heart transplants.

THIS Canadian on this board has never said the Canadian system is broken. And while every system has problems, NO ONE in Canada would ever think of giving up universal healthcare, NOT EVER. People bitch about everything - that does not mean anything gets scrapped just because of the bitching.

Canada is not the only model to follow. The WHO actually ranks Canada 30th and the USA 37th right now in delivering healthcare, so the Canadian system is slipping. There are 15 or so European countries that are in the top 20. Maybe you should do some homework on those countries if you want to find a model to follow. Almost ALL of them are universal healthcare for their citizens and people.

Doctors get different pay for different things, procedures, specialties etc, much like here in the USA, we even have agencies that watch over them by God and make sure they are doing a good job. You can even complain about your doctor and even file a lawsuit for malpractice if you would like to keep that part of your system. ;-)

Drugs are not free, but some are subsidized. A lot of things are NOT covered, glasses, dental, and each province has its own unique programs, just like here in the USA has different programs in different states. We spend LESS per capita in Canada on healthcare than is spent in the USA. but the difference is that EVERYONE has access to it without fear of bankruptcy or damaged credit scores because you cannot pay the bill.

And yes it IS actually easy to say that the USA should have universal healthcare JUST BECAUSE other countries do it. Especially if we want to continue to claim to be the 'best country in the world' How can the best country in the world NOT take care of its own people?

A realistic proposal? Easy, take it out of the military budget. It would be a drop in the bucket. http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf According to this study, less than $70B/year. Military budget currently stands at $500B+

Everyone assumes that t will cost too much. It already costs too much for private healthcare. My wife and I pay $750/month. My insurance is helping to pay for all the people who do not pay. I would rather pay for it in income taxes and 'spread that wealth'

The private system IS NOT efficient. There are so many layers that I have to deal with to have a minor knee surgery to repair a tear in a menial meniscus, I got invoices from 13 different companies. The system is LADEN with levels of bureaucracy - and that all costs money. Universal healthcare would have ONE layer. The government.

So as I said, the information is out there. The CULTURE of the American people blind them to that reality and they simply say NO.

I was told the other day by a rather conservative woman, "Healthcare is NOT WORKING in Europe. It has completely failed" I asked her to define failure and she walked away.

Check the WHO stats on where the best healthcare is. Mostly it is in Europe.

So where do you people continue to get the idea that this cannot work?

"Those of you that say it cannot be done are getting in the way of those of us that are already doing it"

Vote for what you believe in. This country (USA) does a lousy job (right now) of taking care of AMERICANS. For some reason, many think that this is acceptable. It is not. All you do is take care of CORPORATIONS. And we all know that corporations do not take care of people - they take care of themselves.

personal responsibility yes, but it only goes so far. There are many out there that cannot or do not have the knowledge, education, resources to have the level of 'personal responsibility' that you do. So we spread the 'wealth' a little to help them. And using the business case above - it does not actually hurt the country as a whole.

You want rhetoric? Socialism, Communism, etc. What a crock! Look up the definition of Socialism and explain to me how universal healthcare makes this a socialist country.

The USA already has socialized public education and a socialized military, plus many other 'socialized services'. The word has been abused. It does not even apply in this case.

TK

[kbordson 8]

Quote

So where do you people continue to get the idea that this cannot work?

"Those of you that say it cannot be done are getting in the way of those of us that are already doing it"

TK

My belief that it wont work has to do with my DIRECT experience with a socialized version of health care (military and tricare) compared to a DIRECT experience with privatized health care.

I personally felt too much ... restriction in the military. The government mandating which procedure and limiting care. I DIRECTLY saw that. That was one of the reasons that I did NOT take a military scholarship for medical school. Also... when there is no incentive NOT to abuse the system, people will abuse it. While I was in the military, there was an Airman that was recording his daughter with a video camera. He BUMPED his head with the camcorder. Presented to the ER demanding a CT to make sure that he was fine. Just tonight, while on call, I got two phone calls. One at 1:30am - "I had surgery at this other hospital with this completely different doctor, but I think that I want to follow up with you." Why would you call at 1:30 in the morning to wake someone that didn't even do the surgery? A different call at 3:30am - "I have cramps" (No... I do not call in narcotics at 3:30am for cramps) Is it that I'm just exposed to those "few bad apples" or is it a problem with the CULTURE of the American population that is becoming to expect to be given "happiness". When it's "free" - do you really value it?

The civilian side of the house is just as broken, I will grant that. Insurance is complex and challenging. Sometime it seems that you have to fight to make the insurance companies pay their due. And many people don't feel like they have affordable access.

But trading one broken system for a different broken one? I would rather transition to a system that takes care of people in a fair and balanced way without restriction for proper procedures or limitations based on "cost control."

But you're right, that does take money.

Money from where?

The military? Cut their pay or cut the people? If you cut the pay, how much do you think the soldiers should be making? If you cut the people, what will they do for jobs? Everybody always gets all up in arms when a big factory closes because of the poor Union Joe that will lose his job, but how many really understand that GI Joe is now laid off when the military is significantly downsized? There was a GREAT problem with unemployment after the wars when American turned down it's war machine. That GREATLY upset the economy. Cut supplies? You think that will save? I doubt that the big ticket items with connections to the politicians will truly feel a pinch. Instead you will see the man on the front trying to do more with less.

John Q Public? More taxes? Now... we're back to the original point of this thread because you can bet your ass that no one wants their taxes going up for it.... so lets tax the "rich." They have excess lying about anyway, just take it from them.

How about taking it from the legal system? Changing the litigious climate? Making it so that doctors don't have to decide between a million dollar malpractice coverage or not offering services. And yes... the threat of lawsuit, even if everything is done properly, does drive many doctors out - The Impact of Obstetrical Liability on Access to Perinatal Care in the Rural United States

Or... the best idea? CUT GOVERNMENT. Cut Congress. Current salary of US senator - $165k, plus any benefits that are given for looking after "this" project or making sure that "that" doesn't get passed. And how many aides? How much is all that red tape that is used to ensure that nothing ever really gets accomplished?

This thread wasn't initially about Health Care, but even with discussing Health Care... it all comes down to

Who's gonna pay?

[akarunway 1]

"Society should have laws which mean our spending on criminals and people who choose not to work are minimized, which means not working has to be sufficiently more attractive than crime which results in shelter and three meals a day (plus extreme overhead) at government expense."==================================Such as getting rid of people in prison for non-violent drug use would go a long way but hey that's big bucks for the powers that be. And it's taxpayer expense. Not government expense.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

And it's taxpayer expense. Not government expense.

Exactly. And one reason Obama will be elected is that many don't make that distinction.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

[I don't understand why you took such a personal insult to my issue with those that just want to take my money without effort on their part.
.

Why don't you just come right out and say that you don't like taxes, because your description applies to ALL taxes.

I don't mind paying MY SHARE to the community. I give to support what I use and expect others to do the same. I carry my weight and I would guess the weight of others that don't want to. Yes, I did say don't "want" to.

I have no problem with welfare plans that help those that need the support in times of crises (I've seen and helped MANY of these). I agree with government support for those that HONESTLY can't. It's the "don't want to" that annoy me. How do we differentiate between them? Sometimes it's hard, but I think when you come into the OB/Gyn office pregnant and on Medicaid, then play with your iPhone while the doc is trying to do some teaching... SOMETHING IS WRONG.

What % of your taxes goes to those who choose not to work? Compare with the % that goes to running a war based on false pretenses, running a DoD that outspends the rest of the world's defense spending combined, supporting the country's infrastructure that enables us to be productive, running services like Air Traffic Control, CDC, NSF, the National Labs, the DoE, supporting those unable to support themselves due to health or age issues.......

OK. Maybe I'm not as bright as some, but I don't see a relavant response to my comment in your reply.

I said I'm ok with paying for my part of the community. You replied with a random side note on government expenses.

Maybe the highlights in YOUR statements above will give you a hint.

What % of your taxes go to the people that "annoy" you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

I think you did your math incorrectly. According the the IRS 2008 tax rate schedule, someone (single) making $500k WITH NO DEDUCTIONS AT ALL OF ANY KIND would pay $153,596.75, not $200k.

You somehow forgot to add extra $12,648 for Social Security and $14,500 for medicare. Which makes it $180,744.75 in mandatory payments. If he lives in state which has state income tax, which will be at least 4.54% (AR), ending up as $22,700. Which makes it already over 200K.

I really wonder why people who calculate taxes skip SS/medicare - aren't you paying them?

"Why should someone that makes 500k pay 40% in taxes (200,000 to uncle sam)" .

State taxes are not "Uncle Sam", and Social Security/Medicaire are already flat rated (social Security is actually regressive).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

What % of your taxes goes to those who choose not to work? Compare with the % that goes to running a war based on false pretenses

Even spending money on a war is still better than spending money on people who choose not to work, .

I guess we need a few more Reichstag fires! Then we could have more wars and solve all our problems.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.