Health Care Bill

[Petrol]

I am not happy or unhappy with the bill, it effects me VERY little....

I'm sure plenty of folks who now have jobs that provide insurance benifits feel that way.

one question, how will you feel if your employeer finds that it might make more economic sense for him to reduce his contributions/delete your benifits and let you purchase it your own?

[Jack M]

1st point actually implementing that would be hard to do even though it should not be. deciding who's high risk can be a pain. then you'd have to get into race and sex and even religion and ethnicity.

No, I'm not saying "high risk", I'm saying people who live gratuitously self-destructive lifestyles - smokers, heavy drinkers, addictive drug users, obese, etc. That has nothing to do with race.

[bobdea]

No, I'm not saying "high risk", I'm saying people who live gratuitously self-destructive lifestyles - smokers, heavy drinkers, addictive drug users, obese, etc. That has nothing to do with race.

right, statistically speaking black people are more likely to live a a self destructive lifestyle, so are queers. the fat dude you can get easily with BMI but most other people it would be hard to target unless you use other indications, be them genetic or social. particularly if it's up to a private company out for profit to determine who's self destructive.

snowboarding is self destructive/high risk.......

I not much saying you're wrong as I am saying it would never fly for the reasons you stated as well as the people on the right that don't want no stinking pinko doctor telling him not to smoke or he'll tax be taxed for it. it's so arguable that even if it passed people would bitch about it enough it would be struck down somehow.

[BobD]

No, I'm not saying "high risk", I'm saying people who live gratuitously self-destructive lifestyles - smokers, heavy drinkers, addictive drug users, obese, etc. That has nothing to do with race.

Many of these people have other problems, which are not by choice. Many smokers and drinkers have untreated depression. Treat that, and the self destructive behavior, and addictions are easier to manage. For others, the best way to educate them, is to expose them to health care. Having Doctors, and Nurses tell you personally that you are endangering your health, is very different from seeing TV ads.

On another tangent, many overweight people are just not smart enough to know good food from bad, and that a good diet doesn't mean eating less. Much of the problem is the control the food industry has over the comitees and departments in goverment. Again, we can't trust the private sector to do what's best for consummers, or even be honest about their products. Imagine where we would be, if goverment had not eventually become involved in curtailing smoking. Is that something that we should have left to the free market ?

[MUD]

I'm sure plenty of folks who now have jobs that provide insurance benifits feel that way.

one question, how will you feel if your employeer finds that it might make more economic sense for him to reduce his contributions/delete your benifits and let you purchase it your own?

Without going into detail, I don't see that happening.;)

IF it did. It would just be more money out of my pocket for health care. No one really knows how much at this point to use the Gov system. Hopefully it would be less than the $800-$1200 a month I would have to pay now in the current system.

[Buell]

one question, how will you feel if your employeer finds that it might make more economic sense for him to reduce his contributions/delete your benifits and let you purchase it your own?

This was not going on anyway? Many people were having to pay higher deductables and more out of pocke per month, and getting less insurance for it. That trend is not / was not going away since the employer is only willing to compensate each employee so much and healthcare cost are / were taking a bigger percentage of that total compensation.

The idea that the employee is gaining additional compensation in an employer based healthcare system is mistaken. If the employer was not providing free / subsidized healthcare to the employee, the employ could get most, if not all, of the healthcare cost in additional salary.

[Neil Gendzwill]

It may be true that care is rationed to some extent in Canada (any Canadians want to chime in on this?), but it's not clear to me that we're going to have the same issues in the US as a result of healthcare reform.

The long waiting lists here are for elective and non-life-threatening treatments or tests. This is something that undeniably must be fixed. If you need ACL surgery for example, it's months of wait time. Many people here believe that allowing private clinics could fix this problem - those who can afford it get extra insurance or pay outright, and this eases up the pressure on the public system. Lots of people oppose this "two-tiered" health care system, thinking as soon as we allow that that it will degenerate into the US style.

Weird, huh? Both sides of the border afraid they'll turn into the other...

[Alaskan Rover]

Here are some things I would like to see happen in this country:

1) Close pork-barrel IRS tax loopholes for large corporations...many of which pay few if any taxes when all loopholes are facilitated.

---------

2)Replace the current sliding tax rate system with a "flat-tax" of 15% across the board for all citizens that are currently above the poverty-level, currently $14,000 per annum. For those below the poverty level, the current sliding scale will still apply. Close ALL exemption tax loopholes for those making more than $350,000 per annum. Limit certain exemption loopholes for those making less than $350,000 such as calling your residence a "farm" if you have 7 rabbits and a goat. And start taxing churches as the "businesses" that some of them apparently seem to be. If these churches can afford to pay $4,000,000 for a new church building, they can afford to pay a minimal tax, at least!

If above corporate and individual loopholes are limited or closed, there would actually be FAR more money coming into the government yet MOST individuals would be paying FAR less taxes than they are now (unless you are making over $350,000 per year) under the 15% flat-tax.

I think it is currently unfair that someone who makes $17,000,000 a year actually pays, because of a littany of exemptions and loopholes, LESS of a percentage of ACTUAL income tax PAID, then some "joe" making $37,000 a year. I think that is a sacriledge, and those loopholes need closing.

---------

3)Re-submit this nonsense of a new health-care plan so that it includes a "public option". Not a single-payer system, but a public option system. A public option would mean that your 'Basic' health coverage would be paid by taxes, and if you desire more comprehensive insurance, then that would be paid for individually per plan. Admittedly, this would still equate to a health system whereby those with more money get better coverage, but I don't know of any way around it without going to 100% single-payer system. I think a "public/private" option system would create NEEDED competition to a private health system that has run amuck with greed.

---------

These THREE things would be a GREAT start....but it seems with all the non-stop bickering in this nation, it would take a hundred years to get there! :(

Gravity IS Life.

[MUD]

I think it is currently unfair that someone who makes $17,000,000 a year actually pays, because of a littany of exemptions and loopholes, LESS of a percentage of ACTUAL income tax PAID, then some "joe" making $37,000 a year. I think that is a sacriledge, and those loopholes need closing.

With the risk of getting on a tangent.

Please prove this one. Include sales and property tax while you are at it of course..... These are of course a tax.

Do you realize the top 10% pay 70% of the federal income taxes?

The top 1%, 1%, make up 40%.

I realize the top 1% make 30% of the income.

[Alaskan Rover]

With the risk of getting on a tangent.

Please prove this one. Include sales and property tax while you are at it of course..... These are of course a tax.

Do you realize the top 10% pay 70% of the federal income taxes?

The top 1%, 1%, make up 40%.

Mud: Okay...#1) I am talking about FEDERAL taxes, of course...which is why I noted IRS. Presently, this country has NO federal property and sales taxes. These are taxes currently paid to local and state governments, NOT the federal gov.

Point #2) IF all present exemptions and loopholes that the ultra-wealthy use are accounted for...I DON'T think they DO pay 70% of the tax in the country. I am not the IRS and I do not have access to IRS records, so how am I supposed to quantitatively prove that point without a data-set?

All I am saying is that there are a ridiculous amount of tax loopholes out there that need closing. And you can take THIS to the bank...they WILL be closed. The new tracking of American Swiss Bank account tax scofflaws are ONLY a start. With current monetary transaction databasing, originally put into place to track "terrorist" money-laundering...the "flow" of money can now be more easily tracked. You think the IRS is not going to start using that "connectivity"?? I'm not saying this is good or bad, just saying it WILL be the future.

#3) If corporations were required to pay FAIR amount of taxes WITHOUT sheltering profits behind a littany of shelters and useage of loopholes, there WOULD be more $$$$ going towards needed gov programs.

Presently, tax attorneys are becoming wealthy helping the wealthy make use of numerous exemptions that are questionable at best. If these exemptions were CUT, there WOULD be more money flowing into the system.

[MUD]

Mud: Okay...#1) I am talking about FEDERAL taxes, of course...which is why I noted IRS. Presently, this country has NO federal property and sales taxes. These are taxes currently paid to local and state governments, NOT the federal gov.

Point #2) IF all present exemptions and loopholes that the ultra-wealthy use are accounted for...I DON'T think they DO pay 70% of the tax in the country. I am not the IRS and I do not have access to IRS records, so how am I supposed to quantitatively prove that point without a data-set?

All I am saying is that there are a ridiculous amount of tax loopholes out there that need closing. And you can take THIS to the bank...they WILL be closed. The new tracking of American Swiss Bank account tax scofflaws are ONLY a start. With current monetary transaction databasing, originally put into place to track "terrorist" money-laundering...the "flow" of money can now be more easily tracked. You think the IRS is not going to start using that "connectivity"?? I'm not saying this is good or bad, just saying it WILL be the future.

#3) If corporations were required to pay FAIR amount of taxes WITHOUT sheltering profits behind a littany of shelters and useage of loopholes, there WOULD be more $$$$ going towards needed gov programs.

Presently, tax attorneys are becoming wealthy helping the wealthy make use of numerous exemptions that are questionable at best. If these exemptions were CUT, there WOULD be more money flowing into the system.

Fair enough. I just hear this quite a bit around here (rather liberal area), and I have a hard time believing it. I have NEVER had any proof provided, which makes me think it is a product of the political machine, not reality.

The 70% is info directly from the IRS, after all deductions and such.

[MUD]

The reason I mentioned the sales and property tax is that the wealthy SPEND ALOT of money to create these deductions...... It may not be going to the feds, but it does go into the system somewhere.

[Alaskan Rover]

To wax tangentially just slightly more....I guess I should add:

America is an odd duck of a country. Presently we idolize the ultra-wealthy...putting them on a pedestal, while at the same time lamb-basting them as if on a bar-b-que spit. I admit I am guilty of this myself at times...I guess it is part of our "entertainment" psyche.

But...I have to ask: what principles are we teaching our children? That money and the begetting of money trumps ALL? It seems we have become a culture of 'bling' and the begetting of MORE bling.

Good example: The PGA Golf Tour....the ONLY professional sport that gauges 'athletes' based upon how much money they make...(well, there IS horse-racing also, but the monetary purse of the HORSE is tracked, not the rider, so much). Baseball has ERA, etc...football has lifetime rushing yardage, etc,...basketball has Average points per game....boxing has lifetime wins vs. losses...etc etc etc. The PGA ONLY has lifetime purse earnings as a gauge. What's up with the PGA??? "Well, Joe Blow III, with that 33 foot putt, just added ANOTHER $1.25 million to his take for this tourney." What a great and noble thing to teach our children.

[BobD]

With the risk of getting on a tangent.

Please prove this one. Include sales and property tax while you are at it of course..... These are of course a tax.

Do you realize the top 10% pay 70% of the federal income taxes?

The top 1%, 1%, make up 40%.

I realize the top 1% make 30% of the income.

It just illustrates the huge disparity in incomes. It's also why the tax cuts didn't work to help the economy. The poorer you are, the more of you income you will spend on real stuff, that's good for the economy. The richer you are, the more you will put money into financial gimmicks. They may have good returns, but that money has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is the real economy.

[James Ong]

Anyone hear about the Canadian premier who had a heart procedure done in the U.S ?

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/cn-prime-minister-my-heart-my-choice

I don't have a problem with more freebies, as long as the chinese are willing to finance it. When the good times end, prepare for a greatly reduced standard of living.

"A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only last until the citizens discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that the Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, to be followed by a dictatorship, and then a monarchy."

[MUD]

It just illustrates the huge disparity in incomes. It's also why the tax cuts didn't work to help the economy. The poorer you are, the more of you income you will spend on real stuff, that's good for the economy. The richer you are, the more you will put money into financial gimmicks. They may have good returns, but that money has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is the real economy.

It's pretty scary when you look at the numbers, and it is getting worse almost exponentially.

[bobdea]

Anyone hear about the Canadian premier who had a heart procedure done in the U.S ?

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/cn-prime-minister-my-heart-my-choice

I don't have a problem with more freebies, as long as the chinese are willing to finance it. When the good times end, prepare for a greatly reduced standard of living.

"A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only last until the citizens discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that the Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, to be followed by a dictatorship, and then a monarchy."

the last time someone posted that quote I had to look it up, turns out it was at least two partial quotes by different authors mashed together to give neocons erections.

http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html

that quote is wrong anyway in reference to this bill unless you insert HMOs because they are the only big winner here.

[Neil Gendzwill]

The Onion weighs in.

[Jack M]

The Onion weighs in.

meh. not really up to Onion humor standards, imo.

[Alaskan Rover]

The Onion weighs in.

Actually, here in Virginia...the attitude poked at in jest in the Onion, is really TRUE for a lot of the people that I have encountered in this state. Of course, the people of whom I am speaking about have necks more approaching the red part of the spectrum, but still...

I think that essay, while seated in humor, points to an underlying facet that many in this country actually have with Obama...something broiling just underneath the surface that they just don't want to say in today's society.

I would say that essay is actually spot-on, for a limited number of Americans....but MORE than you would like to believe.

Gravity IS Life.

[kjl]

It's the principle that is wrong and immoral, and the action taken are just the results of a distorted logic: that it is right and moral to force me to pay and contribute to someone else's bad fortune...

I think the question of "should we pay for a public service from a common pool of money" does not have an absolute universal answer, where the "correct" answer is NEVER (what you seem to think) or ALWAYS (which I guess some people think the bleeding heart liberals think).

Perhaps in an ideal world you could make a case for NEVER, but in the real world, there are just certain kinds of things which we as a society have decided is worth providing to the public, and it turns out the private sector is bad at implementing.

For example, you are already FORCED to pay for roads, traffic lights, stop signs, crosswalks, and even the highway patrol, even if you never use a car. We've decided that roads are infrastructure that is worth having, and everybody is taxed, and everybody pays for it. It's nice that the government runs it, because despite whatever complaints you may have, imagine the disaster that would ensue if Sprint, Verizon, and AT+T each had separate, competing road networks and were trying to convince you to switch to their exclusive plans with confusing daytime and nighttime toll rates and roads. Things like that are better handled in the public sector rather than the private. Also, nobody would ever pave roads out to small towns if it was privatized because the cost would never be recouped.

Or in another example, I am fine with being forced to pay for NWS/NOAA to give out flood and tornado warnings, despite the fact that I don't live in tornado alley or in a flood plain. It's just another way of spreading the cost of essential public service and safety out around to everybody.

Government regulation is what makes utility companies lay down electrical lines to remote residences way out in the boonies, where it would be economically infeasible otherwise, so the cost of those customers getting power lines is subsidized by people like me, who live in densely populated areas. Again, I'm OK with that, because I think people should have access to electricity.

Health care is just another one of those things, in my opinion. Clearly not working as it currently exists, and I certainly think general health care is something worthy of public dollars, certainly more than the federal corn subsidies, etc.., or even, say, the fact that I subsidize the building of long roads to remote towns.

I do agree with Jack that it is repugnant for me to have to pay for somebody else's avoidable health issues (e.g. smoking, drinking, lack of exercise, etc.). However, I think the good outweighs the bad for the reasons outlined above, and also because it seems like any system but our current system results in lower costs overall anyway. Partly confusing the issue of costs is that for anybody who works for a large company (which is most of us, probably), the cost of your health insurance is hidden from you since your company pays for it, but they pay too much. If my company paid me the money instead and I bought my own government regulated health insurance, that would be fine with me.

[lowrider]

I can see it comming.Two lines. (1) How much did you earn. (2) Send a cheque for amount in line (1)

[Alaskan Rover]

.......//.....For example, you are already FORCED to pay for roads, traffic lights, stop signs, crosswalks, and even the highway patrol, even if you never use a car. We've decided that roads are infrastructure that is worth having, and everybody is taxed, and everybody pays for it. It's nice that the government runs it, because despite whatever complaints you may have, imagine the disaster that would ensue if Sprint, Verizon, and AT+T each had separate, competing road networks and were trying to convince you to switch to their exclusive plans with confusing daytime and nighttime toll rates and roads. Things like that are better handled in the public sector rather than the private. Also, nobody would ever pave roads out to small towns if it was privatized because the cost would never be recouped.

Or in another example, I am fine with being forced to pay for NWS/NOAA to give out flood and tornado warnings, despite the fact that I don't live in tornado alley or in a flood plain. It's just another way of spreading the cost of essential public service and safety out around to everybody.

Government regulation is what makes utility companies lay down electrical lines to remote residences way out in the boonies, where it would be economically infeasible otherwise, so the cost of those customers getting power lines is subsidized by people like me, who live in densely populated areas. Again, I'm OK with that, because I think people should have access to electricity.

Health care is just another one of those things, in my opinion. Clearly not working as it currently exists, and I certainly think general health care is something worthy of public dollars, certainly more than the federal corn subsidies, etc.., or even, say, the fact that I subsidize the building of long roads to remote towns.

I do agree with Jack that it is repugnant for me to have to pay for somebody else's avoidable health issues (e.g. smoking, drinking, lack of exercise, etc.). However, I think the good outweighs the bad for the reasons outlined above, and also because it seems like any system but our current system results in lower costs overall anyway. Partly confusing the issue of costs is that for anybody who works for a large company (which is most of us, probably), the cost of your health insurance is hidden from you since your company pays for it, but they pay too much. If my company paid me the money instead and I bought my own government regulated health insurance, that would be fine with me.

Excellent points and succinctly stated!! I couldn't agree more. I too, find it rather distasteful that I would be required to pay for someone else's largess and lack of medical foresight...however it seems that is just one of the ingredients of living in an organized, fairly structured society. I rather think that the positive facets of a societal system FAR outweigh a few negatives....besides I rather LIKE my NPR, and would shudder to think it were to be taken over by some commercial-intensive station filled with nothing but pop-culture static. ;) ;)

[boarderboy]

I would say that essay is actually spot-on, for a limited number of Americans....but MORE than you would like to believe.

of frustrated, bitter white guys venomizing U.S. politics.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/03/25/405087/obama-has-lost-most-white-men.html

The world is now flat (thanks, primarily, to the computer), crowded (we're going to have to compete with lots of people who'll "produce" much more cheaply than we will), and, probably, increasingly hot - with growing social and economic dislocation. (See Friedman, New York Times.)

Top that off with the aging of the baby boomers (we, the "Me Generation" are historically the country's most greedy and "entitled" - the source of most of its ills, you know) with burgeoning medical and long-term care demands

and you have the makings of political volatility and demagoguery for some time to come. It's going to take the triumph of a host of our "better angels" to survive this with our humanity intact.

Me - I'm just hoping there's some deserted little shack at the edge of the Atacama desert where, after seeing my son through to college, I can "chill" quietly and peaceably for the last years of my life.

Good luck to us all!

[Aisling]

this is funny, i don't care who you are

So they just passed a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he didn't understand it, passed by a Congress that exempts themselves from it, signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay histaxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese and better yet it is to be financed by a country that's broke

;)