I proposed a solution that includes giving everyone a voucher to cover yearly health insurance costs and that doesn't mean that I am proposing a solution giving everyone a voucher?
Voucher is paid... how?
Can they or can they not pay for medical insurance out of their employees checks?
The reduction in business meant reduction in hours. Do the math.
I understand that. But, I don't see taxes as being punitive. They are supposed to be collected for common use. If someone wants to pursue being fat, despite the consequences to their health, punishing them for it kind of goes against the whole life, liberty and pursuit of happiness concept.
I'm not punishing them. Their reckless behavior punishes me.
The opposite is likely to happen under a government plan. Treatments for things like drug addiction have more public sway than other lesser known conditions. We've learned that with Medicaid here in Oregon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afuek..._embedded#t=47
That's one place. Perhaps you people should use less drugs in Oregon.
N' then I might just Jump back on An' ride Like a cowboy Into the dawn ........To Montana.
Join Date
Jun 2000
Location
not in Montana ™
Posts
10,192
....that's the sort of stuff that would go directly to my spam folder if it came via email. I wouldn't even need to look at it....
Lets face it, Obama peeing in a pool could never pollute it the way Bush and his cronies did, they not only peed in the pool, they crapped in it for over 5 years (you could almost call it a fountain of youth by comparison).
david
No longer a Flashkit mod, not even by stealth
Insanity is just a point of view. After all, the world looks pretty normal through your own underpants.
That isn't how the NHS works. There is no priority list. Medicaid seems like a rather watered down version of what a proper health service should be.
There is a priority list. NICE determines what is covered and what is not. The same way bureaucrats decide what is and is not covered by Medicaid here.
The work that NICE is involved in attracts the attention of many groups, including doctors, the pharmaceutical industry, and patients. NICE is often associated with controversy, because the need to make decisions at a national level can conflict with what is (or is believed to be) in the best interests of an individual patient. From an individual's perspective it can sometimes seem that NICE is denying access to a potentially life-saving treatment but the denial is only effective as far as the use of public resources are concerned. Treatment will then only be available if the patient can find the resources to pay for treatment in the private sector and a doctor willing to administer it.
NICE has been criticised for being too slow to reach decisions, especially when compared to the equivalent body for Scotland, the Scottish Medicines Consortium. On one occasion, the Royal National Institute of Blind People accused NICE of incompetence over its delayed decision to approve a drug already approved for use in Scotland[14].
Some of the more controversial NICE decisions have concerned Donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine (review) and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and Bevacizumab, sorafenib, sunitinib and temsirolimus for renal cell carcinoma. All these are drugs with a high cost per treatment and NICE has either rejected or restricted their use in the NHS on the grounds that they are not cost-effective.
The idea that the Government will "take over" the healthcare system keeps confusing me. You do know you can still keep your private hospitals, your "choice" of doctors (having now discovered that sometimes you have to be treated at a hospital that your insurance company decides, in Britain, you choose whichever private hospital you want to go to and then the insurance company pay them). You can have all that, your TVs, your private rooms, your "first class" treatment, but you can also have care provided for everybody else.
Your choice is to either pay for health care once to go to a public institution or to pay for it twice to go to a private one. Not a good set of options, imo.
Originally Posted by gerbick
Voucher is paid... how?
As I wrote, with the funds that are already used to give companies tax breaks on healthcare expenses.
Originally Posted by gerbick
The reduction in business meant reduction in hours. Do the math.
Health insurance is part of an employees compensation. If their compensation needed to be reduced, there is no reason why it has to be their health plan instead of the rest of their salary.
Originally Posted by gerbick
I'm not punishing them. Their reckless behavior punishes me.
That could be said about a lot of things by that reasoning. What about dangerous sports? Football?
Originally Posted by gerbick
That's one place. Perhaps you people should use less drugs in Oregon.
They don't have priority lists for Medicaid in other states?
"We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf
It's because of bieetches like Sarah Palin that the discussion went into wrong directions. I would not be surprised if she gets big fat money from the Health Insurance industry to spread around rumors. Part of the health insurance industry tries with all (telling lies) means to prevent competition from the government, because the CEO's would have difficulties to get their 20+ Million $$$ salaries. This whole discussion is about $$ and nothing else but $$ loss for the insurances.
- The right of the People to create Flash movies shall not be infringed. -
It's because of bieetches like Sarah Palin that the discussion went into wrong directions. I would not be surprised if she gets big fat money from the Health Insurance industry to spread around rumors. Part of the health insurance industry tries with all (telling lies) means to prevent competition from the government, because the CEO's would have difficulties to get their 20+ Million $$$ salaries. This whole discussion is about $$ and nothing else but $$ loss for the insurances.
I can assure you that my position is not based on anything that Sarah Palin has said or due to any worry about how well insurance companies fare. Is this really what it comes down to? The best argument for Obama's plan is that the opposition to it stems from a vast conspiracy?
Originally Posted by gerbick
What if your tax break doesn't fully cover the healthcare expenses?
It has already been determined that that amount of money already being spent does account for what the average US family spends on healthcare. From there, it would be adjusted each year according to changes in inflation.
Last edited by FlashLackey; 08-22-2009 at 12:46 AM.
"We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf
What if your tax break doesn't fully cover the healthcare expenses?
Then health insurance companies wouldn't be able to charge several times the rate of inflation more each year. I think everyone agrees that they don't need to do that in order to cover patient needs and still remain profitable.
Originally Posted by gerbick
Where is that information?
It was in McCain's health care proposal. That site was taken down long ago. But, I'm sure that it's still out there somewhere.
Originally Posted by cancerinform
I am definitely not talking about you.
My mistake. It just seemed that way because you started your post with "I think it's the time to speak out here." right after my post.
"We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf
What use is a tax break to a company that's failing or faltering due to a slow economy?
I think you're overlooking that in a seriously horrific way.
My proposal doesn't involve a tax break for companies. Maybe I haven't explained it clearly enough.
It is removing the tax break that they currently get on health insurance expenses for employees. That should not hurt them because it is money already going out as compensation anyway. So, they will either give raises with it or take more profit (probably a combination of both in most cases, I would guess).
That said, how is it not obvious how tax breaks help faltering companies? It adds directly to their profit.
"We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf
As I wrote, with the funds that are already used to give companies tax breaks on healthcare expenses.
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
My proposal doesn't involve a tax break for companies. Maybe I haven't explained it clearly enough.
It is removing the tax break that they currently get on health insurance expenses for employees. That should not hurt them because it is money already going out as compensation anyway. So, they will either give raises with it or take more profit (probably a combination of both in most cases, I would guess).
That said, how is it not obvious how tax breaks help faltering companies? It adds directly to their profit.
Which is it? There is a tax break or there is not? If not, where do these funds come from?
And if you remove the tax break, a company that's currently faltering, where will that money come from? That was the original premise of my prior statements. There was a company, they can no longer afford it. You want to remove a tax break, then where will the money come from?
Which is it? There is a tax break or there is not? If not, where do these funds come from?
There is currently a tax break on health insurance costs to encourage companies to provide them. If we remove that tax break, the government will collect that much more in tax revenue. That amount of additional revenue can be given out to every citizen in the form of a voucher for health insurance.
Originally Posted by gerbick
And if you remove the tax break, a company that's currently faltering, where will that money come from? That was the original premise of my prior statements. There was a company, they can no longer afford it. You want to remove a tax break, then where will the money come from?
If you remove the tax break, "affording it" shouldn't be an issue since most if not all companies would stop being the providers of health insurance. It would no longer be a cost that they need to be involved with.
"We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf
There is currently a tax break on health insurance costs to encourage companies to provide them. If we remove that tax break, the government will collect that much more in tax revenue. That amount of additional revenue can be given out to every citizen in the form of a voucher for health insurance.
Wait...let me understand here...
*company provides health insurance for employees (good thing)
*companies employees are covered for their health expenses (good thing)
*company will LOSE tax break for providing said insurance (bad thing)
*company will have less incentive to provide health insurance (bad thing)
*company will now have to pay more tax after losing tax break (???)
So, in short, a company that is doing the right thing is going to be negatively incentivized to STOP doing the right thing, so that they can contribute to the general pool of money to insure those who are not employees of their organization. Providing them incentive to stop providing insurance coverage to their staff is the plan here?
A tax break would not be of sufficient value to offset the costs of health insurance.
Also It does not guarantee that the insurance rates would remain the same.
Tax dollars would need to be recouped elsewhere meaning the government would be subsidizing the insurance companies by increasing taxes on employees. If the government has to pay for insurance and your method clearly states that it would be then the government should have some control over the type and rate of insurance it's money and the general populations money is paying to support. Rather then an indirect route which would make insurers less responsible and may or may not result in the population getting the insurance they need.
Or the story about the insurance company that waited for the patient to die before granting a transplant. or the thread about the insurance company that let a baby die because it was born with a pre existing condition.
If you remove the tax break, "affording it" shouldn't be an issue since most if not all companies would stop being the providers of health insurance. It would no longer be a cost that they need to be involved with.
I cannot have read that right.
Removing a tax break makes it easier to afford something?
I believe what he's saying, albeit quite unbelievably, is that without the tax incentives, the companies would cease to provide health insurance coverage to their staff, and be able to disburse that extra cash to the staff, so they'd be able to contribute into the federal ("FL") plan. Honestly, I can't believe he said it...but yes...he did.
With due respect, I'm surprised that we went through a presidential race where this was a central issue and you guys don't seem to recognize the concept of one of the proposals.
Originally Posted by hanratty21
*company provides health insurance for employees (good thing)
No. Bad thing. Employees should not be tied to an employer based on their health care and we would all benefit by forcing insurance companies to earn each persons business, one at a time.
Originally Posted by hanratty21
*companies employees are covered for their health expenses (good thing)
The proposal I'm talking about covers everyone that employers currently do.
Originally Posted by hanratty21
*company will LOSE tax break for providing said insurance (bad thing)
A necessary thing so that funding vouchers for every American doesn't present a tax increase from current conditions.
Originally Posted by hanratty21
*company will have less incentive to provide health insurance (bad thing)
Good thing. There is no reason why employers should be involved in health insurance consumed by individuals. Should employers choose and provide your car insurance too?
Originally Posted by hanratty21
*company will now have to pay more tax after losing tax break (???)
More taxes will be paid because they will be making a higher profit instead of paying for health insurance. That or they will pass it on to employees as increased salary, which will push more tax revenue in the same way.
Originally Posted by hanratty21
So, in short, a company that is doing the right thing is going to be negatively incentivized to STOP doing the right thing, so that they can contribute to the general pool of money to insure those who are not employees of their organization. Providing them incentive to stop providing insurance coverage to their staff is the plan here?
No.
Employers already pay the bulk of health insurance costs in this country. By removing incentive for them to do so, their profits will rise by the amount that they used to spend on health insurance, resulting in greater tax revenue. That greater tax revenue would be used to fund a health expense voucher for every US citizen to purchase health insurance with.
Originally Posted by Frets
A tax break would not be of sufficient value to offset the costs of health insurance.
Also It does not guarantee that the insurance rates would remain the same.
It doesn't sound like you're following exactly. But, the amount the government already subsidizes through the health insurance tax break is enough to cover a voucher of greater value than per capita expenditures on health care of any other nation in the world.
It does guarantee that insurance rates would be low because any company that tried to make their basic plan more expensive than the yearly voucher would be vulnerable to losing market share to those that don't. It would force insurance companies to compete with each more fiercely over features and levels of benefits available for the "voucher rate".
Originally Posted by Frets
Tax dollars would need to be recouped elsewhere meaning the government would be subsidizing the insurance companies by increasing taxes on employees.
No. If employers chose to spend the extra income on greater salaries, the employees would only get taxed more because they would be earning more in salary. Making $65k a year is better than making $60k a year, even after taxes.
Originally Posted by Frets
If the government has to pay for insurance and your method clearly states that it would be then the government should have some control over the type and rate of insurance it's money and the general populations money is paying to support.
The rate would be controlled by increasing the amount of the voucher each year based on inflation. The type would be controlled by what the public demands. Individuals know what is best for themselves better than the government does. That is a fundamental premise behind our entire form of government.
Under the proposal I've discussed, they would have a voucher to cover medical insurance like everyone else.
Originally Posted by Frets
Or the story about the insurance company that waited for the patient to die before granting a transplant. or the thread about the insurance company that let a baby die because it was born with a pre existing condition.
Under the proposal I've discussed, such companies would be immediately punished by losing market share to other companies.
In the UK and other places with systems you would presumably support, if the government decides a treatment isn't worth it, you are SOL. If you don't want to wait in line to get treatment and can't afford a private option, you're SOL.
Originally Posted by Frets
Tax breaks cure nothing.
I'm talking about removing a tax break. Not adding one.
Originally Posted by gerbick
I cannot have read that right.
Removing a tax break makes it easier to afford something?
It does if you no longer pay for that something at all.
Breaking it down:
Paying $10 and getting $5 off in tax breaks.
OR
Paying $0 and getting $0 off in tax breaks.
Which costs more?
Originally Posted by hanratty21
I believe what he's saying, albeit quite unbelievably, is that without the tax incentives, the companies would cease to provide health insurance coverage to their staff, and be able to disburse that extra cash to the staff, so they'd be able to contribute into the federal ("FL") plan. Honestly, I can't believe he said it...but yes...he did.
Sort of. What is so outrageous about people paying taxes on a raise resulting from this proposal? Should people get tax free raises under any circumstances? Making $65k a year is better than making $60k a year, even after taxes.
Funding for the vouchers would come from all income taxes. So, it wouldn't be a tax specific to individuals contributing. It wouldn't be an additional or increased tax. Corporations, etc. would be contributing based on our progressive tax as they already do.
Last edited by FlashLackey; 08-25-2009 at 04:26 AM.
"We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Reply With Quote
"Why does it hurt when I pee?" -- F. Zappa | 
