Cheers Paul, fantastic job explaining why the proposed plan cannot work! Lest we forget that it WILL NOT be free, instead of you or your employer paying for your health insurance, the Federal government will take it out in the form of new and higher income taxes, period. Now let's take the leap and say that ALL the premiums payed by you and the employers presently are sent directly to Washington, DC so that the government can provide/pay for our healthcare. Do you really think that we would have as good or better healthcare than we presently recieve and do you think more people will have the same quality of healthcare?? No one disagrees that the present system needs to be worked on, but through TORT reforms and regulations, and cross state line competition, not another Federal beaucracy. For those that insist on more government, maybe some sort of insurance commission that would approve across the board rate increases much as they have in many states for auto insurance and utilities would work.... I, for one do not want to pay for someone's healthcare because they are to lazy to get an education, learn a trade and work for their living, which INCLUDES their healthcare. When my wife and I started our own small business years ago, we went with out healthcare insurance for a couple years until we were able to afford it. Insurance was a direct benefit of working hard and making our customers happy and we never expected others to pay for it...
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.
The fact that Rasmussen et al can identify as one demographic in their polls "The Political Class" and the fact that these people poll VERY differently than most of the other demographics on most issues proves your point. There is most definitely a "ruling class" in today's America - it is *not* "citizen government"... and those who rule us claim to not know what marijuana looks or smells like when their boyfriend gets busted for growing, possessing it, and smoking it. And are shocked... SHOCKED... that, when people who can not afford to qualify for a mortgage are given one anyway, they default. En masse. But are completely certain that they know what's best for us when the topic is _______________. (fill in the blank with any policy area you choose. Again, as I've said before, both Republicans and Democrats are members of this class. I'm not just blaming the Democrats here... with very few exceptions, they're ALL Douchebags. And, as the Pew Poll proves, perhaps I agree with Matt - American gets the government it deserves.
Trying to be a more aware american in light of my poor score on the Pew test We can have a discussion about becoming numb with a feeling of abject powerlessness to the issues of the day on another thread. If your like me and want to get the current skinny check this out. BBC NEWS | Americas | Q&A: US healthcare reform I really like checking out the news from the BBC. I often find stories about what is going on in the US that I don't find in US websites. That is when I am not checking the sports section, researching that next mod and otherwise goofing off.
Or closer to home ;CBC News - Latest Canada, World, Entertainment and Business News. CBC is world renowned for it's international news coverage. Mark
Just want to make sure I got this right? Five more Congressmen (douchebags) thought that the only way to provide health insurance for the roughly 15% of Americans (of which roughly 25% of those are illegal immigrants) that do not have it, is to nationalise one sixth of our economy........:rolleyes5:
Still waiting for my FEMA trailer and H1N1 vaccine. But I'm sure they'll do a fine job with this healthcare thing.
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:
Quoted from Matt: 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! Sorry Matt but this is one place your argument falls apart... If Healthcare is nationalised and this IS exactly what they want, the impending federal beaucracy in a very short time will require way more money to sustain than all the corporate profits combined... Then take in the waste and the fact that efficient and government can not even be used in the same sentence, it's an oxymoron at best.. A good example would be the Department of Energy which when formed by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 had as one of it's main edicts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil... We now import 58% of our oil, highest ever and more than in 1977. This year President Barack Obama requested a budget of 26.4 BILLION dollars for the Department of Energy in 2010... A magnificient success wouldn't you say and the Department of Energy will look like a nat on a.....donkey's butt in comparison to the proposed Healthcare beaucracy... When based on the assumption that Washington (aka federal government) will manage/spend effieciently, your arguments just don't hold water. History proves it in every case. PS: 30% less is way to low, a good guess would be more like 300 to 3000% less.
So what does this mean for me now that the bill has passed? Can't afford to purchase insurance in the open market and if I could it would not cover pre-existing conditions. Self employed start-up willing to risk low income now with the potential to increase to above poverty levels as the business grows. Based solely on income level can qualify for food stamps and other state and federal programs but since I knew what the risks involved in the path I chose are I don't put my hand out. Responsibility for my own actions here... Damn I miss track days... Am I going to be forced to take the federal option or be fined?
The Bill still has to go to the Senate where passage will be more difficult where a super majority is required... Sadly we do need health care reform so that insurance/care can be cheaper and more accessable for everyone, but the folks in Washington insist on wasting (hopefully) all this time on this bill when they could be working on a real American reform Bill. We've been just where you are at Nathan and it's a little scary but if ya work hard and succeed, it will be worth it. You might investigate a policy with a high deductable for now or soon that will at least protect you in an extreme case... Remember to work your health insurance into your business as a business expense, then the cost will come off your profit and loss and you will not have to pay income taxes on it.... At least right now, I do beleive they have also proposed income taxes on healthcare...another oxymoron when you think they say they want healthcare to be easier to afford...:crazy:
Hmmmm we'll see where this leads... It's hard to imagine that we could do a worse job than we had... But I'll grant it's possible. Matt
Matt it's like having a child who you give an allowance to and every week he goes out and spends it within a couple days on candy and is crying that he needs more money to get him through the week. Do you raise his allowance and give him more responsiblity before he gets his candy spending under control? In a perfect world what you propose would be great but the world ain't and never will be perfect.. So until we can multiply zero and get more than zero (get the politicians under control) we can't give them more, they'll just spend it and be back wanting more.:sad: It's time to put our foot down and demand more from our leadership and our citizens too...
And just as we thought that this issue was complicated enough, here comes a new twist: House votes strict ban on abortion subsidies House votes strict ban on abortion subsidies - Yahoo! News
No so new a twist. This has been bubbling for quite a while, and was the compromise that got Pelosi a majority in the House vote yesterday.
You know, maybe I've been looking at this all wrong. Maybe this time they'll get it right. Hot Air Blog Archive Maybe this time…
Enroll in College? I was pleasantly surprised to find out I got redundant health-care when I enrolled after the military, now that my post-deployment military benefits have lapsed it saved me the trouble of having to shop for private health-care or seek a part-time job that provides such benefits. Perhaps I'd have more faith in a government run program if we didn't spend more per-person with our current system than anyone else for the coverage we have now. To be honest if someone came up with a plan that insured everyone and spent less I'd be pretty supportive of it. I think that plan would probably entail cutting a check to every citizen that they can then use to buy health-care but I don't see that happening.