Universal Health Coverage & Medical Insurance.

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: senseamp
Wait, you used "Reaganomics" and "common sense" in the same sentence? Reaganomics is borrow and spend until this country is bankrupt.

Umm no, I know thats what Al Franken and Michael Moore told you but that isn't really the case.

Reaganomics is the more money the job providers and investors have the better off everyone else further down the totem pole will be. It is trickle down economics, the thought being that wealth trickles down from the highest point to the lowest and everyone benefits.

You just effectively argued that UHC would be ok partly because it would effectively be a "tax cut" on corporations which would provide more jobs and better pay. Did you stop to consider that oil companies would get the same "tax relief"?

OMG TAX CUTZ FOR OIL COMPANIEZ


It just makes me giddy on the inside to see a ray of sunshine enter your thick noggins at just the right angle to make you have some sort of understanding of simple economics. Even if you do jump to suppress that rational thought that reared its ugly head.

But you've had an epiphany man. Let that beautiful flower grow into wonderful gardens of critical thinking and rational thought.

There's hope you could live up to your handle of "Sense"amp yet.

Someone should ask one of the socialists pushing UHC why they are giving a tax cut to big evil oil! Oh wait, that'll never happen.... nevermind.

You seem really concerned about how much in tax cuts big oil gets. I wonder why that is?

OMG CONSPIRACY!

Your skill at shifting the conversation has improved 1 point!

You reach level 8!

I don't think there is a conspiracy, but I am interested in what this Republican obsession with protecting big Oil is. I can see the Republican politicians reasons, but what about the rank and file?

Whats YOUR problem with big oil companies? They make their profits by VOLUME not by markup...whats wrong with that? Do you realize how much money oil companies contribute to our economy in the way of jobs? But this is a health care thread...this discussion is for Dave's conspiracy oil thread I guess.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
See thats the problem you are having Senseamp.

I'm really not a Republican, I'm a JFK Democrat.

I'm almost 100% across the board socially a democrat. But I'm not a communist or socialist. I have also amassed quite a bit of wealth which according to the new Democrat party makes me evil. It makes me an exploiter of others while we take extensive financial risks to produce jobs for those people that I'm supposedly exploiting. This is all despite the fact that our family business has provided thousands of high paying jobs to New Orleans which is one of the most cash strapped cities in the nation.


But I would like to point out that our family business is now shut down. It is shut down because taxes keep going up. It is shut down because when my father dies for example we will have to mortgage off half of what he worked for to pay the death tax. So we all pretty much decided to cash it in and keep giving all our money to the government to see how many high paying jobs they produce for the citizens of New Orleans and the nation.

So far the crime is up and good career jobs are non-existant in the city. But on the bright side with all the crime, drugs, murders, and rapes the current Democrat class warfare card is working tremendously well

OK, so asking you to pay taxes is same as calling you evil now?
You shut down a business because taxes keep going up? Riight, go find some sucker to believe it. If a business is losing money, you don't pay taxes to begin with. If it's making enough money, you pay taxes on your profits, just like the rest of us do. If you aren't making enough profits to pay your taxes, maybe it is best you shut it down and make room for someone more competent to take over.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: senseamp
Wait, you used "Reaganomics" and "common sense" in the same sentence? Reaganomics is borrow and spend until this country is bankrupt.

Umm no, I know thats what Al Franken and Michael Moore told you but that isn't really the case.

Reaganomics is the more money the job providers and investors have the better off everyone else further down the totem pole will be. It is trickle down economics, the thought being that wealth trickles down from the highest point to the lowest and everyone benefits.

You just effectively argued that UHC would be ok partly because it would effectively be a "tax cut" on corporations which would provide more jobs and better pay. Did you stop to consider that oil companies would get the same "tax relief"?

OMG TAX CUTZ FOR OIL COMPANIEZ


It just makes me giddy on the inside to see a ray of sunshine enter your thick noggins at just the right angle to make you have some sort of understanding of simple economics. Even if you do jump to suppress that rational thought that reared its ugly head.

But you've had an epiphany man. Let that beautiful flower grow into wonderful gardens of critical thinking and rational thought.

There's hope you could live up to your handle of "Sense"amp yet.

Someone should ask one of the socialists pushing UHC why they are giving a tax cut to big evil oil! Oh wait, that'll never happen.... nevermind.

You seem really concerned about how much in tax cuts big oil gets. I wonder why that is?

OMG CONSPIRACY!

Your skill at shifting the conversation has improved 1 point!

You reach level 8!

I don't think there is a conspiracy, but I am interested in what this Republican obsession with protecting big Oil is. I can see the Republican politicians reasons, but what about the rank and file?

Whats YOUR problem with big oil companies? They make their profits by VOLUME not by markup...whats wrong with that? Do you realize how much money oil companies contribute to our economy in the way of jobs? But this is a health care thread...this discussion is for Dave's conspiracy oil thread I guess.

Where did I say I have a problem with oil companies? I am not the one who brought them into this thread demanding special lower taxes for them. I think they should pay taxes like every other business does.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Right now I'm paying maybe 25% of my gross pay for pretty poor coverage, so I'd have no issue paying that in taxes if it meant equal or better coverage...especially if it was coverage for everyone.

 

[Deudalus]

OK, so asking you to pay taxes is same as calling you evil now?
You shut down a business because taxes keep going up? Riight, go find some sucker to believe it. If a business is losing money, you don't pay taxes to begin with. If it's making enough money, you pay taxes on your profits, just like the rest of us do. If you aren't making enough profits to pay your taxes, maybe it is best you shut it down and make room for someone more competent to take over.

Since last August I have taken in over 300,000 in cash and 15,000 a month.

That is from 7% ownership of our company.

I just turned 28 and I'm retired. I think I'm doing OK.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

OK, so asking you to pay taxes is same as calling you evil now?
You shut down a business because taxes keep going up? Riight, go find some sucker to believe it. If a business is losing money, you don't pay taxes to begin with. If it's making enough money, you pay taxes on your profits, just like the rest of us do. If you aren't making enough profits to pay your taxes, maybe it is best you shut it down and make room for someone more competent to take over.

Since last August I have taken in over 300,000 in cash and 15,000 a month.

That is from 7% ownership of our company.

I just turned 28 and I'm retired. I think I'm doing OK.

So then why such angst toward the common citizen of America?

I'm sure you would enjoy some posh place like Monaco or Dubai a lot better than country littered with poor people you despise.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: senseamp
That's why it's called "single-payer" not "single-operator" system. Talk about a red herring.

The ignorant and ill-informed cannot comprehend that health care and health care financing are not the same thing. Some doctors sux, some health care providers are fantastic, and others are just doing a job for a paycheck . . . but here's the practical consequences of having a particular employer:

1) for profit entity (insurer, HMO, PPO) - The primary goal is make a profit. Health care is merely a vehicle for extracting revenue from individuals, corporations, and government.

2) government - The primary goal is providing care (or insuring the provision of care). But IF the bureaucracy grows huge and/or fast if may become a beast more interested in feeding itself as opposed to the effective and efficient delivery of care.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Deudalus

OK, so asking you to pay taxes is same as calling you evil now?
You shut down a business because taxes keep going up? Riight, go find some sucker to believe it. If a business is losing money, you don't pay taxes to begin with. If it's making enough money, you pay taxes on your profits, just like the rest of us do. If you aren't making enough profits to pay your taxes, maybe it is best you shut it down and make room for someone more competent to take over.

Since last August I have taken in over 300,000 in cash and 15,000 a month.

That is from 7% ownership of our company.

I just turned 28 and I'm retired. I think I'm doing OK.

So then why such angst toward the common citizen of America?

I'm sure you would enjoy some posh place like Monaco or Dubai a lot better than country littered with poor people you despise.

See what I mean Sense?

If you are successful you are evil.

Dave discounts any other things about my life. The fact that I've spent lots of time donating time and money to charities. He doesn't consider the fact that I actually grew up way below the poverty line. He doesn't consider anything else. Hell, he doesn't even want to know because then I wont fit the stereotype that he has for any rich non-liberal people.

Does your hate extend to the Clintons Dave? What about the Edwards? What about the Kennedys? Or is it ok to be wealthy as long as you are far enough to the left?

By the way Dave, would you mind uploading pics of your house, car, and whatnot? How much do you make a year?

Are you an evil wealthy person like me?

 

[kedlav]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
1. How much are you willing to pay on a per person basis for UHC?
About the same as I'm paying right now. I currently pay ~4% of my gross income each year and I'm in the lowest tax bracket.
2. Are you in favor of a cap on the total amount taken to pay for it?
In theory, of course. In practice, I can see how this would be difficult
3. Should there be a deductible for service?
Negative
3a. If so, how much for routine visits?

3b. Specialist?

3c. Prescriptions

4. Should elective, to include face lifts, breast jobs, and sex changes be covered?
Absolutely. That's not to say all quality of life surgery should be extra (i.e. joint replacements) but guidelines should be in place for elective surgeries on a case by case basis. Cosmetic surgery, with the exception of reconstructive surgery, shouldn't be paid for.
5. Should private insurance still exist?
I see no reason why someone shouldn't be able to carry supplemental insurance
6. Should private practices still exist, as in serving no government paid customers?
I see no reason why private practice shouldn't continue, it does in many places, including France and the U.K. That being said, as most, if not all of a doctor's customers will be from the nationalized health system, he'd likely be spitting himself on his sword
7. Should there be cut off ages for certain procedures?
Only as dictated by doctors themselves. Your doctor knows what's better for you than a HMO or the government. If a procedure is unsafe for children, the elderly, the obese, etc. you're doctor will know that.
7a. MRIs

7b. Bypass surgery

7c. Hip replacement

7d. Knee surgery

7e. Transplants

8. Would there be an needs test for copayment? As in, do you lose benefits for making too much?
No. I can support a tiered tax system to get it to function properly, but a tiered tax and greater copays is just screwball whacky
9. Should insurance cover self inflicted injury? (drinking, smoking, dangerous sports?)
Yes.
10. Would you support NOT being able to choose your doctor?
negative.


IMO, many of the questions seem to be about points most people would like to eliminate from the equation... i.e. the failings of HMO's and private insurance (outside the uninsured)
There are many questions people just gloss over. I am curious how some of the more ardent supporters would reply. Its one thing to pay for your own medical insurance, its far easier to make someone else pay it. I have a SHPS account, do you? I exercise daily, eat right, and limit my risks, do you? What about people who don't? Are you willing to pay for them?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The same as I pay now: $36 per month for BCBS PPO coverage w/ vision, dental, prescription discounts, and reasonable co-payments.

works for me!

You do recognize that your lavish health benefits are not typical in today's American corporations, don't you? You are already enjoying the fruits of taxpayer-subsidized health care, albeit indirectly subsidized through the DoD.

go re-read my lats post. At the moment, as a contractor, I have private healthcare that I pay $36/month for.

Let me get this straight. You're claiming you pay only $36 per month for comprehensive family health coverage, and that this isn't subsidized by your employer/contracting agency but is available to the general public? Is that your claim? If so, please provide a link because I think you've just solved our national health care crisis. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you're just blowing smoke.

The health and welfare of my family comes before everything and everyone else. If anyone, from any political party, screws with their health and welfare, I'll make them pay.

Period.

ROFL! Lighten up Francis.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
For everybody quoting their $250 per month (or whatever) health insurance, I hope you recognize that your employer is paying at least that much more, and often two or three times that much. At my Fortune 100 company, our average per-employee health insurance cost is over $7,400 per year, and our coverage is below-average for large companies. In addition to the $7.400 per year, the employee contribution varies from an additional $1,300 per year (single, high deductible, major medical only) to over $11,000 per year (Cadillac family plan, $430 per biweekly check). Assuming most people select a plan in the middle, that puts our total health insurance cost at about $12K to $14K per employee.

When you tally up how much it will cost for universal government care, be sure to balance it against the current costs. It is at worst a wash, and may actually save money even though more people will be covered.

Do you honestly believe that the companies will pass any of the savings on to their employees once they're taken off the hook for coverage? If so, you're delusional! ...

Or perhaps you're ignorant of the fundamentals of economics. Certainly there are greedy execs who will try to keep this money as windfall profit. Unfortunately for them, there will always be competitors down the street who will pass the savings to employees. The inevitable result is employers will have to increase salaries to compensate employees for this new health care tax.

I'm not so naive as to believe companies will return 100% of their current health care costs to employees. After all, that's one of the problems we're trying to address, the burden skyrocketing health costs have placed on American companies compared to global competitors with government health care. Companies will return much of that cost, however, and some of the remaining gap will be offset by overall reduced health costs. The net result is more people covered for less money.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The same as I pay now: $36 per month for BCBS PPO coverage w/ vision, dental, prescription discounts, and reasonable co-payments.

works for me!

You do recognize that your lavish health benefits are not typical in today's American corporations, don't you? You are already enjoying the fruits of taxpayer-subsidized health care, albeit indirectly subsidized through the DoD.

go re-read my lats post. At the moment, as a contractor, I have private healthcare that I pay $36/month for.

Let me get this straight. You're claiming you pay only $36 per month for comprehensive family health coverage, and that this isn't subsidized by your employer/contracting agency but is available to the general public? Is that your claim? If so, please provide a link because I think you've just solved our national health care crisis. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you're just blowing smoke.

I never said anything about its availability to anyone outside of my company. But it's available to me, so my family is healthy - which, if you paid attention, is my number one priority. In other words, to be brutally honest, your family, and everyone else', are less important to me than my own. :evil:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The same as I pay now: $36 per month for BCBS PPO coverage w/ vision, dental, prescription discounts, and reasonable co-payments.

works for me!

You do recognize that your lavish health benefits are not typical in today's American corporations, don't you? You are already enjoying the fruits of taxpayer-subsidized health care, albeit indirectly subsidized through the DoD.

go re-read my lats post. At the moment, as a contractor, I have private healthcare that I pay $36/month for.

Let me get this straight. You're claiming you pay only $36 per month for comprehensive family health coverage, and that this isn't subsidized by your employer/contracting agency but is available to the general public? Is that your claim? If so, please provide a link because I think you've just solved our national health care crisis. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you're just blowing smoke.

I never said anything about its availability to anyone outside of my company. But it's available to me, so my family is healthy - which, if you paid attention, is my number one priority. In other words, to be brutally honest, your family, and everyone else', are less important to me than my own. :evil:

Then perhaps it is you who needs to read my post. That is exactly what I suggested. You are already enjoying the benefits of taxpayer-subsidized health care. It is therefore hypocritcal of you to rail against others sharing your good fortune.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The same as I pay now: $36 per month for BCBS PPO coverage w/ vision, dental, prescription discounts, and reasonable co-payments.

works for me!

You do recognize that your lavish health benefits are not typical in today's American corporations, don't you? You are already enjoying the fruits of taxpayer-subsidized health care, albeit indirectly subsidized through the DoD.

go re-read my lats post. At the moment, as a contractor, I have private healthcare that I pay $36/month for.

Let me get this straight. You're claiming you pay only $36 per month for comprehensive family health coverage, and that this isn't subsidized by your employer/contracting agency but is available to the general public? Is that your claim? If so, please provide a link because I think you've just solved our national health care crisis. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you're just blowing smoke.

I never said anything about its availability to anyone outside of my company. But it's available to me, so my family is healthy - which, if you paid attention, is my number one priority. In other words, to be brutally honest, your family, and everyone else', are less important to me than my own. :evil:

Then perhaps it is you who needs to read my post. That is exactly what I suggested. You are already enjoying the benefits of taxpayer-subsidized health care. It is therefore hypocritcal of you to rail against others sharing your good fortune.

There is a big difference between government-provided and company-provided healthcare. The former would be subsidized by tax-payers while the latter is paid for out of revenues that a company's employees help to bring in.

 

[DrPizza]

lmao! Wishful thinking for the people who want to pay $0?? That's a lot less than you're already paying, assuming you actually have a job...

Medicare, medicaide, other money funneled into hospitals to cover the uninsured patients? Not-for-profit hospitals aren't breaking even on the care of insured patients... they're making money from them, they're also covering for uninsured patients who can't or don't pay.

AFAIK, most people aren't simply told, "too bad, crawl off and die" - they basically end up with huge medical bills that they'll never be able to fully pay off. Where does the hospital make up that shortfall? Hmmmm...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Then perhaps it is you who needs to read my post. That is exactly what I suggested. You are already enjoying the benefits of taxpayer-subsidized health care. It is therefore hypocritcal of you to rail against others sharing your good fortune.

There is a big difference between government-provided and company-provided healthcare. The former would be subsidized by tax-payers while the latter is paid for out of revenues that a company's employees help to bring in.

You know, you're going to look like a fool if I have to step you through this word by word. Here, let's go back to my original comment and try again:

• "You do recognize that your lavish health benefits are not typical in today's American corporations, don't you? You are already enjoying the fruits of taxpayer-subsidized health care, albeit indirectly subsidized through the DoD."

Your company would not be able to offer such lavish benefits were it not for the taxpayers subsidizing them by paying your inflated prices. In general, American companies who have to compete in our quasi-free market can no longer afford to offer such benefits.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Then perhaps it is you who needs to read my post. That is exactly what I suggested. You are already enjoying the benefits of taxpayer-subsidized health care. It is therefore hypocritcal of you to rail against others sharing your good fortune.

There is a big difference between government-provided and company-provided healthcare. The former would be subsidized by tax-payers while the latter is paid for out of revenues that a company's employees help to bring in.

You know, you're going to look like a fool if I have to step you through this word by word. Here, let's go back to my original comment and try again:

• "You do recognize that your lavish health benefits are not typical in today's American corporations, don't you? You are already enjoying the fruits of taxpayer-subsidized health care, albeit indirectly subsidized through the DoD."

Your company would not be able to offer such lavish benefits were it not for the taxpayers subsidizing them by paying your inflated prices. In general, American companies who have to compete in our quasi-free market can no longer afford to offer such benefits.

oh, ok. :roll: so now you're saying that my health insurance is subsidized because my company has the DoD as a customer, and therefore our incomes are tied directly to taxpayer dollars via government contracts...

I guess that's one way to spin...errr, put it... orrrrr, I could respond that our health coverage is paid for entirely with the money we make in the private sector. How do you like dem apples?

Bottom line for the socialists out there: Please do NOT put my family's health in jeopardy, and do NOT take any more of my money than you already do to take care of the needy.

I'm sure there are 100 other useless government subsidies that you can shut down and redirect the funds to those who need healthcare - just keep your grubby hands out of my wallet.

 

[theeedude]

I guess we'll just have to let it play out politically. Here's the problem for companies though. They only pay taxes out of profits, but hey pay employee health care premiums out of their revenues, even if they don't make any money. That is why foreign companies are at advantage. If they are losing money, they get relief from taxes that pay for their workers' healthcare, while if an American company is losing money it still has the full burden of healthcare costs on it, making it much harder to become profitable again. That's why companies like Ford, GM, and others are becoming little more than HMOs with a side business in making cars.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

OK, so asking you to pay taxes is same as calling you evil now?
You shut down a business because taxes keep going up? Riight, go find some sucker to believe it. If a business is losing money, you don't pay taxes to begin with. If it's making enough money, you pay taxes on your profits, just like the rest of us do. If you aren't making enough profits to pay your taxes, maybe it is best you shut it down and make room for someone more competent to take over.

Since last August I have taken in over 300,000 in cash and 15,000 a month.

That is from 7% ownership of our company.

I just turned 28 and I'm retired. I think I'm doing OK.

Yeah, I see you are under terrible hardship from taxation. You shut down a business that brought you 300K in cash and 15,000 per month because you would rather not have the money than pay taxes on it? Like I said, go find some sucker to believe it.

 

[Deudalus]

Yeah, I see you are under terrible hardship from taxation. You shut down a business that brought you 300K in cash and 15,000 per month because you would rather not have the money than pay taxes on it? Like I said, go find some sucker to believe it.

Our business is a bit different than most though. We were in the commercial real estate business

We don't have secretaries, a warehouse, a store, or any of the other things that typical businesses have to keep.

Everytime we complete a project we have to decide whether we want to do another one or not. Each one we do provides anywhere from 1,000 to several thousand jobs.