Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[TheMercenary]

Massachusetts has been held out as an example of what the greater country is striving to achieve. About 3 or 4 years ago they inacted a health program that will cover up to 97% of their citizens. As in the proposed national plan, they have made having health insurance mandatory, through business or personal means, with incomes up to about 66k being subsidized to some means through taxes. The problem is they are about to bankrupt the process and are straining the budget to near busting. Why? they can't control costs. So now they are looking at a new (not so new) solution. I can see that this is where we may all end up at the national level.

Mass. Panel Backs Radical Shift in Health Payment

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/he...tml?ref=health

After that we will need to have some form of care rationing. This is the best proposal out there but it will need to happen if we are going to make this work. It is a solution we may all need to get use to for our future. A radical change from a country based on free choice and cafe health care:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/ma...l?ref=magazine

[TheMercenary]

Wow. This is incredible...

O'S BROKEN PROMISES
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY


July 17, 2009 --
PRESIDENT Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests.

Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.

And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).

When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).

It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.

Nowhere does the legislation say how much health plans will cost, but a family of four is eligible for some government assistance until their household income reaches $88,000 (House bill, p. 137). If you earn more than that, you'll have to pay the cost no matter how high it goes.

The price tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to $1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). Half of the tab comes from tax increases on individuals earning $280,000 or more, and these new taxes will double in 2012 unless savings exceed predicted costs (House bill, p. 199). The rest of the cost is paid for by cutting seniors' health benefits under Medicare.

There's plenty of waste in Medicare, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates only 1 percent of the savings under the legislation will be from curbing waste, fraud and abuse. That means the rest will likely come from reducing what patients get.

One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?

Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to "community transformation grants," home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers -- and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages.

The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.

They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.

Congress should pursue less radical ways to cover the uninsured. We have too much to lose with this legislation.

Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York. betsy@hospitalinfection.org

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/...ses_179667.htm

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

57 cents of every dollar earned would go to the government!?!?!?



http://www.nypost.com/seven/07162009..._ny_179525.htm

Why would that only be in NY? Aren't federal taxes the same for every state? And I have a hard time believing taxes would be that high. I DO know the STATE of NY has raised taxes, extremely high, but what does that have to do with the federal govt.? That is a STATE issue...

[sugarpop]

They need to be addressing how much friggin' things cost. The medical industry is friggin' outrageous with how much they charge for most things. Like those plastic boot things you wear if you break a leg. They cost a fortune, but I'm quite sure it only costs a few dollars to make them.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Why would that only be in NY? Aren't federal taxes the same for every state? And I have a hard time believing taxes would be that high. I DO know the STATE of NY has raised taxes, extremely high, but what does that have to do with the federal govt.? That is a STATE issue...

State taxes differ, you should know that.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I DO know the STATE of NY has raised taxes, extremely high, but what does that have to do with the federal govt.? That is a STATE issue...

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

State taxes differ, you should know that.

[Cloud]

the title of this thread bugs the shit out of me. just saying

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

State taxes differ, you should know that.

And as Happy Monkey pointed out, I addressed that in the post I made, which you actually quoted. WTF Merc. You are losing it here. :p

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Cloud

the title of this thread bugs the shit out of me. just saying

It is an accurate description of merc's position though.

[TheMercenary]

Obama: Top Income Earners are just Lucky
July 17, 10:02 AM · Rick Robbins - Louisville Economic Policy Examiner


In an interview with CBS News, President Barack Obama noted that increasing taxes on the wealthy is a ‘good idea’ when it comes to finding a way to pay for his proposal to nationalize the healthcare industry. As noted in my previous article, increasing taxes is nothing new for Obama or any other Democrat – it is simply what they do. However, it was somewhat disturbing to hear how Obama described the wealthy. Here are a couple of statements from his interview:

I think the best way to fund it is for people like myself, who have been very lucky and are in the top -- not just 1 percent, but top half percent -- of the income ladder to pay a little bit more.

The general notion that those of us who are the best off can pay a little bit more upfront to help reform a system that will save us money over the long term, I think that's a good idea.

First off, the latter statement is certainly reminiscent of Obama’s ‘spread the wealth around’ comment that he made to Joe the Plumber during the presidential campaign. Of course in this case he is saying that the wealthy should pay more so that the poor will save money. But as the CBO has just reported, there is no guarantee that the current healthcare reform proposals will do anything to actually save money and are more likely to increase costs instead.

Obama’s first statements were much more disturbing though. He implies that wealthy people, like himself, have merely been ‘lucky’ to achieve their status in life. Perhaps that is true in Obama’s case - who used the Chicago political machine to advance his career, used his career and Senatorial earmarks to advance his wife’s career and get her a $200,000 pay raise and used his racist reverend to develop the title of one of his best-selling books. Being lucky and/or having the right connections seems to have benefited Obama quite nicely.

However, most wealthy people are not just lucky. Instead they are hard-working and/or brilliant entrepreneurs, creative and/or persistent salespeople, dedicated former students who were able to graduate from the best universities, researchers who develop products that enhance all of our lives and a countless number of small-business owners. Sure there are some people in the upper tax brackets who are just lucky like heirs to mass fortunes like those in the Kennedy family, lottery winners and actors. But a survey of the wealthiest Americans would certainly find more people who achieved their status by working for it than those who got there just by luck.

That does not seem to matter to Obama and the Democrats though – mainly because they view our money as their (as in the government’s) money. Therefore, Obama proposes to spread that wealth, to level the playing field and to make the ‘lucky’ feel a little bit unluckier. Obviously by now we have all figured out that Obama knows very little about economic theory but once again here he seems to be forgetting a very core principle of a capitalistic society – incentives matter.

All of the ‘unlucky’ wealthy people I mentioned above had an incentive to get where they are today. Certainly one of those incentives was the accumulation of wealth to provide financial security for themselves and their future generations. Currently that incentive is still fairly strong because the top combined federal and state income tax rates are under 50% in all states. However, if Obama and the Democrats get their way, in over 30 states the combined top tax rate will be over 50%.

The psychological impact of knowing one will get to keep less than half of what he/she earns would have to be very disheartening and very discouraging. As a result, people will work less hard, be less creative and lack the dedication they once had. And for the small business owners, some of them will be unable to employ more or maintain current levels of workers, and some may even be forced to go out of business entirely. There is a major cost in raising taxes just as there is a major benefit in lowering them – as Reagan showed us in the 1980s.

Maybe we will all get lucky and Obama and the Democrats will not ram these tax increases down the throats of the American people like they did their massive stimulus bill and budget plan. However, there is really nothing that can be done to stop them because they currently have the votes. Only public opinion against these plans may cause them to change their views, but the Democrats seem to have figured out that they have only until November 2010 to push through most of their high spending and high taxing agenda. They may suffer at the polls in the coming elections for advancing their socialistic agenda, but Americans will suffer for generations to come as a result of their actions.

Rick Robbins

http://www.examiner.com/x-6996-Louis...are-just-Lucky

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

They need to be addressing how much friggin' things cost. The medical industry is friggin' outrageous with how much they charge for most things. Like those plastic boot things you wear if you break a leg. They cost a fortune, but I'm quite sure it only costs a few dollars to make them.

That is because you are paying for the peope who get the same boots for free plus the usual profit.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

And as Happy Monkey pointed out, I addressed that in the post I made, which you actually quoted. WTF Merc. You are losing it here. :p

You aren't following very well. State taxes matter significantly because you are going to pay them as WELL as the federal tax. So if you earn enough to pay among the higher taxes, when you add state tax you could be paying over or near to half of everything you earn to TAX. And that is total BS, when others pay nothing in income tax.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You aren't following very well. State taxes matter significantly because you are going to pay them as WELL as the federal tax. So if you earn enough to pay among the higher taxes, when you add state tax you could be paying over or near to half of everything you earn to TAX. And that is total BS, when others pay nothing in income tax.

I didn't say state taxes didn't matter, I said they had nothing to do with the federal government or with federal taxes. If a state govt. raises taxes to balance their budget, that is a STATE ISSUE, and the federal government has no say in the matter, as far as I now. So you can't blame that on Obama. New York has apparently raised all kinds of taxes on their citizens, and other states probably are not far behind.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

That is because you are paying for the peope who get the same boots for free plus the usual profit.

If someone is only making minimum wage, they cannot afford to pay for insurance, so it falls on everyone else. I am going to state, yet again, my opinion about such things:

IF CORPORATIONS WERE FORCED TO PAY AN ACTUAL LIVING WAGE, AND INSURANCE COMPANIES WERE FORCED TO PLAY FAIR BY THE RULES, PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO AFFORD INSURANCE AND HEALTH CARE. Cut the wages from the top and raise the ones at the bottom, then make insurance mandatory. At the same time, cut costs that are ridiculous.

Another problem is some people get better rates because they get to buy "in bulk" so to speak, as a part of something, like a corporation or a union. I say the cost should be the exact same for everyone. No more discount buying. This (price) is what it is for whoever wants this plan. Period. That should help make it more affordable for some people.

The problem isn't that people don't want to pay for insuracne, the problem is, people want affordable insurance that PAYS OUT when they have a claim. After all, that is what you are paying for, and it's just WRONG that insurance companies get away with denying claims for people after they have been paying for years. And, then those "profits" from not paying those claims goes into the pockets of sharefholders.

Personally, I don't think the system will ever be fixed the way it is now. Health care should NOT be about PROFIT. As long as it is, we will continue having problems. THAT is why I support a single-payer system. (not necessarily government run, government pays for it)

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

The problem isn't that people don't want to pay for insuracne, the problem is, people want affordable insurance that PAYS OUT when they have a claim.

From what I hear, this aspect may be improved. I think it will be harder for them to drop people, but we'll have to wait until the final version comes out of the joint committee.