printemps
Full Forumite
And a bag of chips.
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by printemps on Dec 18, 2009 10:55:54 GMT -5
NEVER in the history of this country has someone been REQUIRED to puchase an product or service, NEVER, EVER. Paying into Social Security is optional? Driving w/o buying liability insurance? The current system is designed to work for the companies making billions of dollars off of our health care system. The sustainability of universal coverage is beyond doubtful. But the current system is not working for ordinary Americans. It bankrupts them and hamstrings the economy. While our government only does things within a narrow sliver of possibility, pressed in by corporate money, lies, and fear.
|
|
|
Post by rstewart on Dec 18, 2009 11:35:08 GMT -5
NEVER in the history of this country has someone been REQUIRED to puchase an product or service, NEVER, EVER. Paying into Social Security is optional? Driving w/o buying liability insurance? The current system is designed to work for the companies making billions of dollars off of our health care system. The sustainability of universal coverage is beyond doubtful. But the current system is not working for ordinary Americans. It bankrupts them and hamstrings the economy. While our government only does things within a narrow sliver of possibility, pressed in by corporate money, lies, and fear. If you don't work you do not pay social security, right? So I guess stay at home moms and dads should have to pay social security premiums? If you don't own a car you do not purchase any auto insurance, right? I'll bet there are more than 1 million folks in NYC that do not have ANY form of auto insurance. They don't need it because they don't drive.
|
|
printemps
Full Forumite
And a bag of chips.
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by printemps on Dec 18, 2009 12:14:09 GMT -5
Mandates with exemptions aren't mandates...is that your argument?
Like self-employed Amish being exempted from FICA withholding.
To claim that "NEVER in the history of this country has someone been REQUIRED to puchase an product or service, NEVER, EVER" is nonsensical. The Medicare program imposes a payroll tax on Americans as a way to fund coverage of their hospital costs once they reach age 65. People cannot opt out of Medicare; it is an obligatory system of health care insurance.
Further, Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. The health care insurance industry clearly falls within that definition. It may be *wrong-headed* to prohibit insurers from denying coverage or raising prices because of a person's "preexisting" medical conditions, but it's within the scope of commerce regulatory powers.
|
|
|
Post by rstewart on Dec 18, 2009 12:33:51 GMT -5
Not only is it not nonsensical, it's FACT. If you do not earn income you are not REQUIRED to pay Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security taxes. Just like if you do not drive a car you are not required to purchase auto insurance.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Dec 18, 2009 13:41:39 GMT -5
Well, if you don't live then you won't be required to buy health insurance. Actually, those "exemptions" from paying taxes just because you didn't "earn" anything is one of the reason's I support the FairTax. With the FairTax if you are participating in the retail economy you are paying the tax.
|
|
printemps
Full Forumite
And a bag of chips.
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by printemps on Dec 18, 2009 13:48:11 GMT -5
Not earning a living is an exemption. And if the insurance coverage mandate comes with a hardship waiver and a religious conscience exemption, those too will constitute loopholes. Most mandates have loopholes. Since not earning ANY money is an impractical option for the vast majority of Americans, I think your argument is nonsensical.
|
|
|
Post by daworm on Dec 18, 2009 14:43:46 GMT -5
Just because there is precedent, that means it is a good idea? After all, there is a precedent of bigotry in this country, and that's not good either, is it?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Dec 18, 2009 16:36:29 GMT -5
Since you have the responsibility and the right to provide yourself with food, clothing, and shelter, not working is not really an option. (Except we have a welfare state where laziness is rewarded, but that's a different discussion.)
However, you don't have a right to drive a car. It's a privilege. Along with that privilege comes certain responsibilities, such as being licensed and providing liability insurance.
|
|
|
Post by Tsavodiner on Dec 18, 2009 23:03:12 GMT -5
I think Obama is dropping the ball big time. The economy has been in a downward spiral for several years, and even though it seems to be leveling out now some, I don't think it has anything to do with the way Obama or Congress are doing their jobs. If anything, yes, they may be holding it back. Much of this also has to do with the Republican party acting like a bunch of third graders. America wants health insurance reform, but they clearly don't want this monstrosity that is currently being debated, which is nothing more at this point than the usual special interest giveaway. Why not do things incrementaly? Pass a bill that does away with pre-existing conditions and recission. Throw in a little tort reform to please the trial lawyer felators, and maybe some sort of tax credit for individuals or families paid directly an insurance company. It would pass and both sides could pat each other on the back. Instead, they want to try and push through everything every member ever wanted. In the current state of affairs, nobody gives a shit about climate change. Promote clean energy with incentives. Give tax credits for energy efficiency and move on. We can revisit this when we're booming again. A bill that cuts both the payroll tax AND capital gains taxes would pass in 5 minutes and would certainly create growth in spending. Tie it to a balanced budget amendment as soon as the economy demonstrates 4 quarters of growth. Every area of government could withstand significant cuts including, yes, the military. It's time to face the truth that we don't need a yearly defense budget larger than the rest of the world combined. Reconsile these cuts by placating the wealthy and the rest of the Republicans, by forcing people who draw welfare from the government to prove an inability to work on a monthly basis. Figure out a way to end generational welfare. It's bullshit. I personally know only two people who are on disability and they're milking the hell out of that shit. The fact is that both parties are, and have been for a long time, screwing the hell out of us. They've turned us all on each other by party lines when in reality they both do the same shit. Special interests are running and ruining our country. What's in the best interest of the people is no longer a consideration. Just this week, a bill that would have allowed people to once again order cheaper prescription drugs from other countries was defeated. WHY? If we don't get a viable third party this next time around, I may just drop out of the process all together. It doesn't even matter what platform they run on anymore, because once they get up there and the special interests come calling, it all goes out the window anyway. We're not supposed to talk about Bush anymore because he's not the President. How convenient. Why not just tell it like it really is. He was not a conservative. He handed the current POTUS a shitstorm of a crashing economy and two wars to finish. Obama has responded by doing nothing good. He hasn't helped the situation at all. New boss, same as the old boss. Pisses me off. WWAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!! WWWAAHHHHHHHH!!!! "Party of CHANGE! Party of CHHAAAANNGGGGGEEEEE!!!!!!!!" Enjoy your last prosperous Christmas as you "Leader of CHANGE" sells our ass in Copenhagen, and declares VICTORY! as he signs his gutted-like-a-fish health bill. And good luck with your forthcoming shattered illusions.
|
|
|
Post by rstewart on Dec 19, 2009 10:25:03 GMT -5
Not earning a living is an exemption. And if the insurance coverage mandate comes with a hardship waiver and a religious conscience exemption, those too will constitute loopholes. Most mandates have loopholes. Since not earning ANY money is an impractical option for the vast majority of Americans, I think your argument is nonsensical. The VAST majority of Americans are happy with the healthcare THEY have.
|
|
printemps
Full Forumite
And a bag of chips.
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by printemps on Dec 19, 2009 12:22:31 GMT -5
Forget about universal coverage. We don't deliver health care in a cost-effective manner.
Every time a doctor orders tests or procedures not based on need but concern over liability, an angel cries (and a kitten dies). Defensive medicine is one of the biggest burdens on health care costs. Jurors have no background in health care and jury awards are huge.
The other burden on costs is the fee-for-service model in which doctors are paid for the quantity, rather than the quality, of services provided. The Mayo Clinic pays surgeons the same whether they do five heart operations or four. Reduce incentives to do all the extra tests and procedures. Maximal medicine is not optimal care.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Dec 19, 2009 12:35:27 GMT -5
Malpractice lawsuits adds about 1% to the cost of medicine.
Protection from malpractice lawsuits adds about 17%, possibly more that is hidden.
|
|
printemps
Full Forumite
And a bag of chips.
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by printemps on Dec 19, 2009 13:12:49 GMT -5
Malpractice lawsuits adds about 1% to the cost of medicine. Protection from malpractice lawsuits adds about 17%, possibly more that is hidden. Malpractice has both direct and indirect costs, more intensive diagnostic testing due to defensive medicine being the obvious. Exorbitant malpractice premiums are making it harder for doctors to stay in the business. This is news? Approximately 10 percent of the cost of medical services is linked to malpractice lawsuits.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Dec 19, 2009 13:45:34 GMT -5
Laffer's and Moore's numbers include as many hidden costs as they could come up with, not just the direct costs, and they came up with 17%.
But, the fact remains that the ridiculous settlements only cost a little over 1%, but the fear of those outrageous lawsuits adds a lot. Tort reform alone would drop the cost a lot.
|
|
|
Post by mikeydokey on Dec 19, 2009 14:23:11 GMT -5
This is about all the good you can get from poles, that and jumping across big ditches.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Dec 20, 2009 8:13:58 GMT -5
The same can be said for fraud. How much does fraud actually cost the insurance companies and how much do they spend to put checks in place to keep from being defrauded? It takes three people processing claims to get one health care worker paid for their services.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Dec 20, 2009 12:55:52 GMT -5
Health insurance is the biggest single factor in raising the cost of medical care according to some experts. According to others, it's the second biggest cause, right behind ridiculous government regulations.
Of course, health insurance is also behind a lot of the fraud, and a lot of government regulations are there because of the outrageous settlements, so a lot of it is intertwined.
|
|
printemps
Full Forumite
And a bag of chips.
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by printemps on Dec 20, 2009 16:16:58 GMT -5
Health insurance is the biggest single factor in raising the cost of medical care according to some experts. According to others, it's the second biggest cause, right behind ridiculous government regulations. Of course, health insurance is also behind a lot of the fraud, and a lot of government regulations are there because of the outrageous settlements, so a lot of it is intertwined. You don't mean liability insurance, do you?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Dec 20, 2009 17:25:12 GMT -5
Nope. I said "health insurance". You know the stuff that everyone's clamoring to get for free at someone else's expense?
|
|
|
Post by mikeydokey on Dec 20, 2009 21:03:26 GMT -5
Nope. I said "health insurance". You know the stuff that everyone's clamoring to get for free at someone else's expense? No one will have to pay for it, it's gonna be free.
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on Dec 29, 2009 13:05:09 GMT -5
And anyone would find it odd there is an attempt to fix the system? There is very little about healthcare in the "healthcare debate", it was always all about insurance.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Dec 29, 2009 15:20:19 GMT -5
No, just find it odd looking to Sugar Daddy to fix the problem when he's the cause of the problem already.
Wait, not odd, but stupid.
|
|