Paul, and that's the point, they serve not the constituents but themselves and their allies. Apparently most have generally become so insulated from us *(we the people) that it is now an us and them position. If truth were told, the majority of these politicians believe that they are a special class of people and the majority that deny it speak from both sides of their mouths.
If it is an acceptable plan then they should of course lead by example and adopt it for their own family and selves.
Page 5 of 14
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A couple of points...
If the government were to become 30% less efficient than the current system, but with elimination of the profit the current system skims off the top, we'd get cost neutral supply of the very same services. The amount that is skimmed off the top by commercial insurers is a bit over 4% of GDP! It's huge!
Distortions like this don't help the debate. Increasing the requirements structure of commercial entities is far from nationalization. All vocabulary like this does is inflame an allready contentious issue, but doesn't really add value. We have NOT nationalized healthcare, any more than the requirements that CA drivers must have car insurance has had the CA state gov "own" auto insurance companies in CA. Regulation is not nationalization. This more properly goes under the heading of "managed markets". One can talk about how the market should be managed, but it's still not nationalization.
If you think about it, pretty much every market in the US is managed to some extent. The least managed are just covered by fraud regulation, the more managed are covered by more extensive oversight and regulation. The debate should not be about whether to manage or not, as that really misses the issue, it should be about what managment is appropriate for what market. Once again, with healthcare, the debate has been spun to subjects that polarize and don't really matter, so that those who have an interest in influencing the outcome can tilt the table in thier desired direction.
I'm not trying to pick on you, but between the last time I visited this thread and now, parts of these posts illustrate how distortion doesn't help achive a rational consensus....
Now it's Pauls turn....
Where's the enumerated power in the founding documents that created HSAs? And another point on HSAs. They're only effective for those with enough income such that the tax savings provides a benefit. They only save money at the marginal tax rate of the person participating. For most Americans, this is a much lower number than those that percieve it as a benefit. In a way, it's a subsidy for the rich, cause they're the ones that really get a benefit for it. For the less well off, at best it's a way to put aside income for health issues, should they come up. But don't do the math wrong, or the money you put aside gets taken at the end of the year!
Matt -
The enumerated power is the same as the one that took the money from me in the first place via income taxation. Oh - wait - there isn't one for that either. That power was added later via the 16th Amendment... which, like several other amendments, had MANY unintended consequences and proves that the Framers had better foresight and spent more time considering these things than any Congress since. I favor repeal of the 16th Amendment, and replacing the income tax with a consumption tax like the "Fair Tax".
A HSA, like any other reduction in income tax, moves us back closer toward original intent and enumerated powers than the individual income tax without such vehicles.
Since "The Rich" are the ones paying the vast majority of the taxes, and thus are the ones funding this country, I don't mind "subsidizing" them a little by letting them keep a little more of the money THEY ACTUALLY EARNED instead of forcing them to use it to subsidize those who haven't earned SQUAT.
You'll get a similar response from me on any argument based on the fallacy that "thems who has" have some obligation to pay the way of "thems who aints".
As for your "gets taken at the end of the year", you're confusing HSA's with FSA's, which I have never argued for. With HSA's, the money is rolled over in YOUR account from year to year - it's not a "use it of lose it" scheme like the FSA. Another question I wish had been on the Pew Poll, as it would have proven my superior intellect or knowledge of trivia.
Regarding your "managed vs. nationalized" argument... I understand and agree that *appears* to be the short term, overt effect of much of the legislation. But, due to the manner in which the regulations and mandates are structured, the fairly obvious outcome, if you honestly run the thought experiment over the period of a decade or so (maybe quicker) will be the migration of many who are now "happily" privately insured into a "public option". See "unintended consequence" - except I believe this to be fully the intention of the legislation.
I laid out some criteria for better "management" earlier in my argument. We evil conservatives aren't just able to say "NO!" - we actually recommend less intrusive solutions that don't have the "intended consequences" of the House bill. :lol:
As for the supposed profits and inefficiency of the healthcare / insurance industries... and the supposed efficiency of our benevolent government.... that would be a never ending debate, fueled by an inexhaustible supply of conflicting facts and figures. But a combination of tort reform, transparency, direct relationships and direct payment would create the same efficiencies we see at WalMart. Which can sell toilet seats and hammers far less expensively than the Gubmint. :lol: -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Well, this bill MUST be a good thing - because the evil Wall Street Journal thinks it's a bad thing. And we all know - what's bad for "Business" is GOOD for America!
Pelosi's Health Care Means Rationing Politics - WSJ.com
I'm glad the BBC and Canadian press have such a good handle on what Americans need and want - so they can balance out the WSJ!
Page 5 of 14