Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2010 - 01:22am PT
|
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2010 - 01:27am PT
|
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2010 - 01:39am PT
|
"I call for free very limited basic care for all..."
And fattrad, how do you propose to pay for this 'limited basic care'?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2010 - 01:44am PT
|
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2010 - 12:50pm PT
|
Fatty,
You are close but still not quite there yet.
but keep tryin' buddy, we're here for ya.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2010 - 12:53pm PT
|
"I call for free very limited basic care for all..."
And fattrad, how do you propose to pay for this 'limited basic care'?
Won't a position like this place you completely at odds with your extremist, ideologue 'base'? What Would Sarah Do?
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2010 - 01:06pm PT
|
When my duaghter was born and we had the kind of Ins doctors have, we made $300!
|
|
michae1
Gym climber
san jose
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2010 - 02:21pm PT
|
I don't believe it was the founders idea to oversee all aspects of our live's , personal freedom's
were held in the highest regard , as they should be , all parties in washington have forgotten this in
their quest for power and control , forced healthcare and enforcement of this with the help
of the IRS (penalty's if you don't purchase care) should not be something that a free and
democratic country would embrace, we pay into Soc.. sec. & medicare now i don't see people left in
the street's to die anyone can go to the emergency room at a hospital, yes there will be problem's
but not to the extent that we should change it all
leb, as for the military base and Va. hospital's and the patient's being treated well, I would hope
so don't you think that these people who put themselves in harm's way on behalf of america
should be, and still we hear problem's about care in those place's
|
|
michae1
Gym climber
san jose
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2010 - 03:09pm PT
|
Leb , the insurance company's are not a monopoly's the government is, wouldn't it be nice to
be able to get healthcare insurance where ever you wanted instead of just in your state?
as for elec. the PUC regulates the rates though the state if you don't like it go solar that is your
right, buy it your self , go without if that is what you want, the government telling you what you can
not do in regards to your own welfare would be infringing on the rights of the people, and should
not be done as long as doing so doe's not interfere with those of another
btw, I am not anti government, I just think that if we don't watch what is happening we will end
a socialist country, and that would be a very sad day if that was to happen
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2010 - 05:15pm PT
|
Let's talk about the "unfunded liabilities" of SS and Medicare:
Watch Fatty sell "socialism", watch him sell FEAR and IGNORANCE
Fatty's "The Sky Is Falling": NOT
The notion of "unfunded liabilities" in certain programs is based on the arbitrary assumption that certain designated revenue sources should pay for certain classes of government expenditures. The story that Social Security and Medicare should be paid for out of payroll taxes and their trust funds is not a recent creation of critics of those systems. It has been around for decades. But why? Revenues and expenditures are "fungible," meaning that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. In fact, today's Social Security surplus flows right into the pot with other revenues, while a significant portion of Medicare costs already are paid for out of general revenue. The real question is not "will the designated revenues be enough to pay for the designated programs" but "will we have enough income to afford to keep the promises we have made?"
There is no question that the nation's gross domestic product will be sufficient to meet all of our Social Security promises forever, leaving lots of income for increasing the prosperity of the young. In general, the outlook for economic growth is good. Our average income per person in 100 years is likely to be much, much higher than it is today (more than four times as high). Social Security benefits are predicted to rise from about 4.5 percent of our GDP to about 6.6 percent over the next century. Even though such long predictions are very uncertain, this one should leave us sanguine: if incomes in 100 years are only twice their present level, and incomes of the old rise from 4.5 to 6.6 percent of income, that still leaves us with $1.96 for every dollar we have today, after Social Security obligations are taken care of. We can continue to keep our modest Social Security promises, and young families still will be much better off than families are today.
There also is no question that, if health care costs continue to rise as rapidly into the indefinite future as they have in recent years, medical expenditures will soak up a much, much larger share of our overall income than they do now, leaving a smaller and smaller share for other uses. Unlike Social Security, this could indeed become a grave problem.
What's Generational Accounting Got to Do With It?
Although the notion that we are headed for a fiscal train wreck is stated in the language of scientific prediction, there is a moral element as well. Building on the idea of "generational accounting," those who foresee a catastrophe are implicitly using the ethical standard that people should take care of themselves over their lifetimes-not rely on government transfers from others (including from other generations). The idea is that it is unfair for old people as a group to get back more than they paid into the public trough (using appropriate interest rates).
This is a very odd notion. Why is it that young people in general will be better off than their parents? Fundamentally, it is because of the information and technology that earlier generations produced, the engine of modern economic growth. If the older generation levied fees on all the intellectual property they created, that could amount to an enormous claim by older people on their children: "We invented the transistor and financial derivatives, which is what makes you so productive. Pay up."
There is no need to charge rent on the intellectual property the young inherit from earlier generations. Instead, we can use our common sense. If the old are a growing proportion of the population, and the pie we all have to share is much bigger than it was, we should give a larger slice to the elderly.
Don't Worry, Be Happy
Imagine if in 1950, someone had calculated the costs of educating the baby boomers in public institutions through their college years. What an immense, unmanageable burden! And nothing-not a penny-had been set aside by 1950 to cover the costs of public universities in the 1960s and 1970s! Using the logic of unfunded liabilities that has fueled alarmist media stories, public universities should have been closed; education should have been left to the private sector.
Yet nobody ever claimed in the 1950s and 1960s that the education of the Baby Boomers was an excessive burden our society, or that our public institutions could not afford to accept the challenge. When we needed more schools, we built them. Why should the Boomers' retirement be unmanageable? We need to strengthen social insurance for old people, and we will be able to afford it.
http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=496
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2010 - 05:56pm PT
|
"I'm very happy to pay taxes and help provide some health care resources for those that need some help, but pretty soon the entitlements grow, they seem too in every other government program."
fattrad, is this the most direct answer you are going to provide to my question?
Earlier, you said you would support free minimal level healthcare as a service...I asked you how you would propose to pay for it.
Your answer above seems to insinuate that you would do it via taxes. Are you really committed to that source? Do you realize how far you would be distancing yourself from your 'base' by suggesting such a thing?
Or are you simply saying so because right now, it's politically safe to say so: the PO is truly dead, and there is no way anything like it is going to happen. Seems like a classically political, disingenuous position to hold now.
I'm going to entertain your candidacy fantasy a bit here and say that I sincerely doubt you would ever act on such a position if you were in office. In the same way that Obama and other politicians say one thing on the campaign trail but act quite differently once in office, I suspect you'd do the same, knowing the pattern of your opinion on such things.
Hell, your statement above to Lois shows your lack of commitment: you say you support the idea, but know that it will create a slippery slope to more entitlements. With all due respect, that doesn't sound to me like someone committed to the idea- it sounds to me like someone who would flip-flop as soon as they got into office.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2010 - 11:56am PT
|
Dems are fighting over abortion funding, taxation of "Caillac" plans, and a few other things.
But the Dems and Obama in particular have too much riding on this not to pass something. It may be relatively sucky, but something will get thru.
I'd bet a six-pack of full strength UT beer (Hop Rising?) against the same from CA if you're up for it Fattrad.
|
|
rotten johnny
Social climber
mammoth lakes, ca
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2010 - 02:05pm PT
|
LEB.......i'd love to see all the phony hypocrite christians that are against abortion put their money where there mouth is and adopt as many orphans as their pocket books will afford...in fact drain your bank accounts like the bible advises and adopt all of them....the repubs are against abortion and under bush they took it one step further stripping funding for sex education and family planning which i'm guessing lead to more unwanted births and ......more abortions....smart people those right wing fundamentalist are....!
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2010 - 02:16pm PT
|
Read the bill yourselves, I have posted the online links multiple times.
This is the first piece of major legislation made available to the public
while it is being contemplated.
I wanted transparency in government, not complete behind the scenes as I
know that it not possible, or arguably not "good".
But, this is better access to governemnt in action than ever in our history
To answer the question, which can be found by reading the bill, $50 billion
dollars is the appoximate amount in reveneue raise by taxing high dollar
"cadillac" private healthcare policies.
The current figure is only the amount an individual pays OVER some $8300
a year would have a tax. A family of four would be roughly $28,000 in premiums.
Again, many hours is spent speculating and listening to pundits when all
that is necessary is to take the same time and read the bill yourself.
A suggestion would be to not read every word, but "speed read" the major
summary and the sections one has interest in if the entire task is too much
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2010 - 03:05pm PT
|
"I call for free very limited basic care for all..."
And fattrad, how do you propose to pay for this 'limited basic care'?
Come on, buddy...talk to me about this. Would it be funded by taxes? How do you think that would float with your Repug constituents?
Do you really believe this, or are you just saying it because you can be seen as a moderate at a time when there is no risk of it actually happening?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2010 - 03:09pm PT
|
Leb, IF such a tax on high dollar healthcare plans is passed in the final
legislation, the "tax" is NOT PAID by the insured, people like you and me.
Instead, the tax (35%) of the EXCESS, would be paid by the insurance companies, or MAYBE the employer offering such "Cadillac" plans. Again, NOT YOU.
here is some more information for your reading:
The Truth on Health Care Reform and Taxes
Posted by Jason Furman on December 16, 2009 at 04:15 PM EST
As we move into the final stage of the historic push for health reform, opponents of reform are testing the age old adage that if you only say something enough times you can somehow make it true. Yesterday, we heard a new version of the old, tired refrain that the health reform bills in Congress would raise taxes on the middle class.
So let's set the record straight:
First, the health insurance reform bill being considered in the Senate does not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 – in fact it is a substantial net tax cut for American families. The bill being considered represents a substantial net tax cut for middle income families. According to the independent Joint Committee on Taxation, the bill will provide nearly $450 billion in individual income tax cuts over the next 10 years.
Second, the excise tax levied on insurance companies for high-premium plans, the so-called "Cadillac tax," will affect only a small portion of the very highest cost health plans – a total of 3% of premiums in 2013. The vast majority of health plans fall below the thresholds set in the Senate plan and would be completely unaffected by the provision. And those that are above the threshold would only face an excise tax on the generally small portion of the plan that exceeds the threshold. As a result, based on analyses by the Joint Committee on Taxation, only about 3% of premiums will be affected by this provision in 2013. In addition, the Senate plan provides special protections to plans held by workers in high-risk professions – like police and firefighters – as well as by those over 55.
Third, for the small sub-set of plans that are affected, the primary impact of this provision will be to increase workers' wages. Getting a pay raise is not what most people would call a tax increase. Economists agree by taxing the highest cost plans this provision will lead insurance companies to be more efficient and provide quality care to consumers at lower prices (see this endorsement in a letter from a group of prominent economists – including three Nobel laureates and previous members of both Democratic and Republican administrations and this analysis by CBO 2009). Even a report commissioned by the insurance industry's trade association acknowledged that: "[w]e expect employers to respond to the tax by restructuring their benefits to avoid it." [PWC, 2009]. As a result, employers will be in a position to increase workers' take home pay.
Finally, supporters of the status quo are supporters of continuing the hidden tax of $1,000 that the millions of Americans who get insurance through their job or buy it on their own are already paying each year to cover the costs of caring for those without insurance. Even if you believe that some of the tax on insurance companies is passed along, it would be more than outweighed by the benefits middle-class families would get from not only hundreds of billions of dollars in health care tax credits but from reducing the hidden tax they currently pay for the uninsured. Supporters of the status quo would not only deny middle-class families the tax cuts proposed in the Senate legislation, they would also continue this unfair hidden tax.
Jason Furman is Deputy Director of the National Economic Council
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/16/truth-health-care-reform-and-taxes
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2010 - 03:40pm PT
|
Norton states:
"Leb, IF such a tax on high dollar healthcare plans is passed in the final
legislation, the "tax" is NOT PAID by the insured, people like you and me.
Instead, the tax (35%) of the EXCESS, would be paid by the insurance companies, or MAYBE the employer offering such "Cadillac" plans. Again, NOT YOU."
C'mon, Norton. you're better than that. The sales tax in California is only paid by sellers. Using the logic of the above quote, that means that we consumers will not be affected by raising the sales tax rate. I guarantee you that when I consider whether to hire a new employee, or how much to pay, I consider all the added costs of that new employee, such as health care, worker's comp., employer taxes, etc. Saying that the employee pays none of that repeats pure myth.
I'm always amused when people say that "Nobel Laureate Economists" support a given economic position. Given that economists from both the "Chicago School" and incompetent ones have won Nobels means, essentially, that you can find a Nobel Laureate economist agreeing with virtually any position you want. Put differently, as one of my fellow economists once said, "If all the economists in the world were put end-to-end, they'd still be pointing in different directions."
John
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2010 - 03:51pm PT
|
John, I stated the facts. The facts are not in dispute, go read it yourself.
YOU state ONLY your own personal opinion, of which I could not care less for.
Lois, read the bill yourself as I have.
There are multiple search engines on the internet to answer your questions.
No disrespect, but you seem fully capable of finding any information you
may be interested in very quickly, and thus do not have to take my or
anyone else's word as far as FACTS are concerned.
Personal opinions are another story, there are billions of them.
edit: I am sure John, being a fellow republican, is very capable of
offering his non partisan, totally unbiased, opinion.
Immediately suspicious because I quoted a "government" website, and therefore
believe it a biased source not be trusted?
Then just go to Fox News all day long, or any right wing website, and
I am sure you will find opinion that agrees with your own right away.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2010 - 04:05pm PT
|
It is also a fact that only sellers pay sales tax, Norton.
John
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2010 - 04:08pm PT
|
completely irrelevant fact to the subject conversation, John.
And I pay gross receipts tax on liquor in my state.
What does this have to do with a proposed tax on high cost health plans?
Why, NOTHING, of course.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!