universal healthcare

[PopeBenXVI]

Ben, here's the problem with trying to argue about these issues. There are two lines of thought, of which there are two (or maybe more) views on each:

Line of thought and view #1A - Universal healthcare is good
Line of thought and view #1B - Universal healthcare is bad

Line of thought and view #2A - President Obama's healthcare plan is good
Line of thought and view #2B - President Obama's healthcare plan is bad

Player and others are arguing Line of thought and view #1A. You and I are arguing Line of thought and view #2B. Erego, the argument is flawed unless we all get on one line of thought (either #1 or #2). I suspect #1 is better for people like Player because it makes you and I seem like jerks who hate old people and the sick.

Good clarification. I am against both because Obama's plan sucks and UHC has not worked anywhere without either going broke so taxes go up again or rationing needed services to keep costs down which leads to government telling you if you can be treated or not.

[Snorri1234]

Hey guys! Hey guys!


Hahaha
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062401636.html

At a committee hearing yesterday, three health-care specialists testified that insurers go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for sick people, use deliberately incomprehensible documents to mislead consumers about their benefits, and sell "junk" policies that do not cover needed care. Rockefeller said he was exploring "why consumers get such a raw deal from their insurance companies."

The star witness at the hearing was a former public relations executive for major health insurers whose testimony boiled down to this: Don't trust the insurers.

"The industry and its backers are using fear tactics, as they did in 1994, to tar a transparent and accountable -- publicly accountable -- health-care option," said Wendell Potter, who until early last year was vice president for corporate communications at the big insurer Cigna.

Potter said he worries "that the industry's charm offensive, which is the most visible part of duplicitous and well-financed PR and lobbying campaigns, may well shape reform in a way that benefits Wall Street far more than average Americans."

Insurers make paperwork confusing because "they realize that people will just simply give up and not pursue it" if they think they have been shortchanged, Potter said.

YEAH BITCH! HOW AWESOME IS THIS SYSTEM? VERY AWESOME OR REALLY AWESOME?

[thegreekdog]

How does "Insurers make paperwork confusing because "they realize that people will just simply give up and not pursue it" if they think they have been shortchanged, Potter said" equate to this "At a committee hearing yesterday, three health-care specialists testified that insurers go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for sick people, use deliberately incomprehensible documents to mislead consumers about their benefits, and sell "junk" policies that do not cover needed care."

In any event, if insurance documents are unclear, let's regulate the sh^t out of it. Like we should be doing for mortgages, auto insurance, wills, trusts, bank statements, manuals for Hearts of Iron III... etc.

[Snorri1234]

How does "Insurers make paperwork confusing because "they realize that people will just simply give up and not pursue it" if they think they have been shortchanged, Potter said" equate to this "At a committee hearing yesterday, three health-care specialists testified that insurers go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for sick people, use deliberately incomprehensible documents to mislead consumers about their benefits, and sell "junk" policies that do not cover needed care."

You can't see that?

You don't understand that the companies screwing over people is done by making plans and policies that confuse people and make them unlikely to go through the trouble of finding out whether they should be recompensed?

In any event, if insurance documents are unclear, let's regulate the sh^t out of it. Like we should be doing for mortgages, auto insurance, wills, trusts, bank statements, manuals for Hearts of Iron III... etc.

Well obviously. The only way to keep at least a little of the private system (if not a decent part) is regulating the companies.

I mean, seriously, the health-insurance companies are basically not caring about the fundamentals of insurance. They have no sense of responsibility. Can you imagine your fire-insurance not covering you because some pyro lit your house on fire? Or because they don't cover a fire started by a particular type of gasoline?

[thegreekdog]

You can't see that?

You don't understand that the companies screwing over people is done by making plans and policies that confuse people and make them unlikely to go through the trouble of finding out whether they should be recompensed?

I understand THAT. I don't understand how one jumps from "insurance companies make things confusing" to "insurance companies avoiding responsibility for sick people" and "use deliberately incomprehensible documents" and "sell junk policies." You know why I don't understand it? Because a guy was directly quoted as saying the first. The paper made the latter three conclusions.

In any event, if people are too confused to even bother making a claim, I posit that they don't care enough about getting that money back. Which, okay, maybe I'm being a little cold-hearted... so, let's regulate the living cr#p out of it.

Can you imagine your fire-insurance not covering you because some pyro lit your house on fire? Or because they don't cover a fire started by a particular type of gasoline?

You might want to read your fire insurance policy... and all those other documents I listed. You'll be unpleasantly surprised.

[Snorri1234]

You can't see that?

You don't understand that the companies screwing over people is done by making plans and policies that confuse people and make them unlikely to go through the trouble of finding out whether they should be recompensed?

I understand THAT. I don't understand how one jumps from "insurance companies make things confusing" to "insurance companies avoiding responsibility for sick people" and "use deliberately incomprehensible documents" and "sell junk policies." You know why I don't understand it? Because a guy was directly quoted as saying the first. The paper made the latter three conclusions.

The "junk" policies was a direct quote btw.

And the guys testified that it was deliberate. Besides, why would an insurance company not make it confusing to avoid paying? Do they make it confusing because they think it's funny or something?

In any event, if people are too confused to even bother making a claim, I posit that they don't care enough about getting that money back. Which, okay, maybe I'm being a little cold-hearted... so, let's regulate the living cr#p out of it.

I would agree with them not caring if it wasn't such a large problem. It's not some fraudulent company which pretends to be a real company.

Can you imagine your fire-insurance not covering you because some pyro lit your house on fire? Or because they don't cover a fire started by a particular type of gasoline?

You might want to read your fire insurance policy... and all those other documents I listed. You'll be unpleasantly surprised.

Your fire insurance does that? Holy shit.

[thegreekdog]

I've read a ton of contracts and similar documents. I'm a fairly intelligent guy and trained in reading contracts and similar documents. I've had trouble understanding my health insurance coverage, my employment contract, my stock certificates, my bank statement, my credit card statement, my telephone bill, my cable bill, my electric and gas bill, my home insurance, my mortgage contracts, and any number of rental agreements. The vast majority of industries that generate those documents are heavily regulated by the government, indicating to me at least that the government cares not a whit whether one can understand a document one signs. Have you ever tried to read a contract or waiver you check the box on when you sign up for online cr$pola?

And, if you want the hardest to read documents of them all - try (1) tax returns and (2) laws. These two things should be the EASIEST documents to understand, yet even I, tax attorney extraordinaire, have trouble reading them. In fact, people pay my firm tons of loot for us to write memoranda helping our clients understand what the hell tax returns and laws say.

In any event, the point of all this is that maybe there needs to be government regulation of the language of these things (including the things the government publishes itself). Or else people need to take some personal responsibility and take the time to figure out what the hell they are signing.

[PLAYER57832]

In any event, the point of all this is that maybe there needs to be government regulation of the language of these things (including the things the government publishes itself). Or else people need to take some personal responsibility and take the time to figure out what the hell they are signing.

NPR once showed a basic credit card agreement to Harvard MBA students. Only a couple of them could even come CLOSE to understanding it all. And supposedly "plain language" is to be a big part of the current reform. We'll see if it actually happens.

I am probably one of the few outside of specialized legalists who have read not only those documents, but just about everything else your average person comes across.

Why do I think we need a nationalized health care system? Because every country that has one has better care for less money. Not because it makes those who are against it "seem to hate old people".

BUT.. and this is a pretty big "but", the system I envision would be only a basic coverage system. It would cover everyone at a basic level -- heavy on preventative care, because its cheaper, investment in research as to what work (this is hard to even track right now because so many people take care of different things), etc. The private plans would cover the rest.. the stuff the government plan could not afford, or that is not necessary, etc.

As for Obama's plan. It is too unformed for me to voice an opinion.

[PopeBenXVI]

www.obamacaretruth.org

[PLAYER57832]

How does "Insurers make paperwork confusing because "they realize that people will just simply give up and not pursue it" if they think they have been shortchanged, Potter said" equate to this "At a committee hearing yesterday, three health-care specialists testified that insurers go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for sick people, use deliberately incomprehensible documents to mislead consumers about their benefits, and sell "junk" policies that do not cover needed care."

Missed this earlier, but Blue Cross and Blue Shield absolutely have a policy of doing everything they can .. flat out denying legitimate claims or denying approval to see specialists for trivial reasons, ETC. (I simply cannot list all the ways they do this, you name it, they do it).


This has been documented in congressional hearings, various articles, etc.

In any event, if insurance documents are unclear, let's regulate the sh^t out of it. Like we should be doing for mortgages, auto insurance, wills, trusts, bank statements, manuals for Hearts of Iron III... etc.

Except that means more government, something you have again and again come out against.

[PopeBenXVI]

Lets agree to another 23% tax for government run healthcare on top of tax for Soc Sec, Medicare/cade, property taxes, sales taxes, registration fee's, phone tax, gas tax,........the list goes on.
We should just have government regulate and dictate everything. Right now we get to decide what to do with roughy 60% of our income depending on the person. Why not just work and have everything sent right to the government so they can distribute everything how they see fit? There's a free country for you.

Soon with all the taxes upon taxes that keep being added everyone will start talking about how they can't afford homes and food on a mass scale in this country. The government will then blame grocery stores and food producers for making too much profit as well as builders, property owners who wont lower land prices and everyone they can except themselves for taking everyones money and the solution will be to do away with private property because no one can afford it anymore. Then they can decide where and how we live too.

I don't recall hearing anyone say what percent of our income is too much to pay in taxes but everyone seems to be in favor of more government programs funded by our tax money. Where does it stop and how much would be too much for you?

[joecoolfrog]

Lets agree to another 23% tax for government run healthcare on top of tax for Soc Sec, Medicare/cade, property taxes, sales taxes, registration fee's, phone tax, gas tax,........the list goes on.
We should just have government regulate and dictate everything. Right now we get to decide what to do with roughy 60% of our income depending on the person. Why not just work and have everything sent right to the government so they can distribute everything how they see fit? There's a free country for you.

Soon with all the taxes upon taxes that keep being added everyone will start talking about how they can't afford homes and food on a mass scale in this country. The government will then blame grocery stores and food producers for making too much profit as well as builders, property owners who wont lower land prices and everyone they can except themselves for taking everyones money and the solution will be to do away with private property because no one can afford it anymore. Then they can decide where and how we live too.

I don't recall hearing anyone say what percent of our income is too much to pay in taxes but everyone seems to be in favor of more government programs funded by our tax money. Where does it stop and how much would be too much for you?

In the UK the ' Healthcare Tax ' is 11% so why should it be twice that amount in the USA, looks like you quoted the highest figure you could find , a good argument would not require such scare tactics.

[PopeBenXVI]

Lets agree to another 23% tax for government run healthcare on top of tax for Soc Sec, Medicare/cade, property taxes, sales taxes, registration fee's, phone tax, gas tax,........the list goes on.
We should just have government regulate and dictate everything. Right now we get to decide what to do with roughy 60% of our income depending on the person. Why not just work and have everything sent right to the government so they can distribute everything how they see fit? There's a free country for you.

Soon with all the taxes upon taxes that keep being added everyone will start talking about how they can't afford homes and food on a mass scale in this country. The government will then blame grocery stores and food producers for making too much profit as well as builders, property owners who wont lower land prices and everyone they can except themselves for taking everyones money and the solution will be to do away with private property because no one can afford it anymore. Then they can decide where and how we live too.

I don't recall hearing anyone say what percent of our income is too much to pay in taxes but everyone seems to be in favor of more government programs funded by our tax money. Where does it stop and how much would be too much for you?

In the UK the ' Healthcare Tax ' is 11% so why should it be twice that amount in the USA, looks like you quoted the highest figure you could find , a good argument would not require such scare tactics.

Thats exactly part of the problem. How much will it cost? They are trying to rush this though before the budget office can even be sure how much it will cost. Obama has already looking like he is going back on his word about not raising taxes on those who make under $250,000 a year or was it 200 or 150...I forget because Obama himself and Biden both said different numbers different times. Dems are now looking at the following to help pay for the healthcare they don't even know the cost on yet.

A 10 cents per can tax on soda and other sugary drinks
A 2 percent increase on income taxes for single taxpayers earning more than $200,000 per year
A 2 percent increase on income taxes for households earning more than $250,000 per year
A new employer payroll tax targeting 3 percent of employers' health care expenditures
Taxing certain employer-provided health insurance benefits
Higher taxes on alcohol
An increase in the Medicare payroll tax
A European-style Value Added Tax or VAT of 1.5 percent or more

Obama has already raised the cigaret tax which broke his no tax raising campaign promise........almost all of these things effect people making under 200K a year or in other words HE IS GOING TO AND ALREADY HAS RAISED TAXES ON PEOPLE WHO MAKE LESS THAN 200K A YEAR

[PLAYER57832]

Lets agree to another 23% tax for government run healthcare on top of tax for Soc Sec, Medicare/cade, property taxes, sales taxes, registration fee's, phone tax, gas tax,........the list goes on.

23% does seem high, but let's say you are correct.

Right now, we pay just for our private insurance, about 10% of my husband's paycheck. His employer, though, pays again twice that. Add to that the various co-pays, things not covered like eye and dental exams. (which might or might not be covered under the new plan). ADD to that the portion of our taxes that we pay right now for Medicaid, and other indigent care. Suddenly that 23% doesn't seem so high.

That is not even counting the more tangential costs. Things like increased auto insurance costs because, right now, suing is the only way someone can hope to get their medical expenses paid. Costs of foreclosures on communities (roughly 60% of bankruptcies, according to a recent study, are related to medical expenses).

THAT is not even taking into account the fact that if people can afford to visit their primary care physicians, can afford basic maintenance medication and preventative care, the cost of treating them actually goes down, NOT UP!

Again, LOOK AT THE DATA. The real truth is that we pay far, FAR MORE for our insurance and really do not get better care. That idea is an illusion.

We should just have government regulate and dictate everything. Right now we get to decide what to do with roughy 60% of our income depending on the person. Why not just work and have everything sent right to the government so they can distribute everything how they see fit? There's a free country for you.

If you are wealthy, you actually get less than 60%, by the time you take out things like social security, etc. So actually, your figures are a bit low. Of course, the VERY wealthy are notorious for getting thousands of deductions so that they really pay very little in taxes.

As I have said before, that's what happens when taxes are used to provide things that jobs ought to provide. Right now, too many jobs pay too low to provide all that, so we have to rely upon taxes. So, yes, you get cheaper bath soap and VCRs at Walmart, but you make up for it because you have to subsidize most of their workers so they can eat, have someone watch their kids, etc.

That's your "free market" for you!

Soon with all the taxes upon taxes that keep being added everyone will start talking about how they can't afford homes and food on a mass scale in this country.

Wake up! Most of America is there already, because right now, we cannot afford our health care. America has been delaying payment by using credit cards, not saving, etc. Now the piper is asking for its due.

Nothing is free, including doing business. The trouble is that for too long, business has been given a free ride because they "created jobs". Except, no one really paid attention to how much those jobs were paying or the real effect it would have on communities and the economy. Its no different than companies that used to pollute because no one bothered to worry about our water or air. Now WE are having to pay for THEIR clean-up. Our kids are going to have to pay for Walmart, Kmart, etc not paying people basic wages that they needed to live, that they need to live right now.
The government will then blame grocery stores and food producers for making too much profit as well as builders, property owners who wont lower land prices and everyone they can except themselves for taking everyones money and the solution will be to do away with private property because no one can afford it anymore. Then they can decide where and how we live too.

I don't recall hearing anyone say what percent of our income is too much to pay in taxes but everyone seems to be in favor of more government programs funded by our tax money. Where does it stop and how much would be too much for you?

No, we are in favor of more EFFICIENT use of our money.

Right now, the wrong people are paying for the wrong things far too often. And those at the top don't care because they are getting richer and richer. Meanwhile, too many regular people are happy to listen to they hype being put forth by those in power, refusing to hold their feet to the fire.

If you had asked me 20 years ago about nationalized healthcare, I would have agreed with you. Then I went to live in Europe for a year, talk to many, MANY people who live in various countries. Even in Canada, they have a better system than ours. I also have YEARS of experience dealing with several insurance companies, mostly (but NOT only) various Blue Cross policies. I went from Highmark, which was wonderful, to a policy that "covered" us so well we almost lost our house... would have had my husband not changed his job.

You may be one of the lucky ones who has decent insurance or is healthy enough that you have never really had to use your policy much. But, the thing is you won't stay that way forever. Before you go prancing about how wonderful our system is, why don't you step outside your shell and talk to people who really have to USE the insurance they have, who have to deal with the nightmare of paymets. Better yet, why don't you talk to those who had insurance and then lost it.. not even because they lost their job or such, but because they got sick and the insurance company decided they were no longer profitable! Now, you tell me what good is insurance that covers you only when you are well?

THOSE are the things you are sidestepping or ignoring.

national health care will be CHEAPER, not more expensive.

our current system works mostly for people WHO DON'T NEED COVERAGE. When you really need that coverage, when your child has cancer or you contract a series of illnesses related to diabetes, you better hope your income is low enough to qualify you for medicaid, because Blue Cross will dump you like a hot potatoe. I have SEEN IT happen again and again. THAT is why I want nationalized health care.

[PLAYER57832]

A 10 cents per can tax on soda and other sugary drinks

As opposed to the YEARS OF SUBSIDIES for both sugar cand and corn, which are WHY those products have been so cheap, so widely avaiable .. to the great detriment of our nation's health.

A 2 percent increase on income taxes for single taxpayers earning more than $200,000 per year
A 2 percent increase on income taxes for households earning more than $250,000 per year

Some people do have to pay more when the deficite is so huge, yes.

But here is the funny thing. People making that much have this strange ability to put large chunks of it away in 401k's stocks and other non-taxable investments. So, the truth is they rarely do pay taxes on their full income. Lower income people pay for every cent because too often there just isn't money to put aside.

A new employer payroll tax targeting 3 percent of employers' health care expenditures
Taxing certain employer-provided health insurance benefits

Why should you get a $1000 a month coverage with no co-pays, full coverage for eye and dental, absolutely tax free, while I only get to deduct those expenses from MY income if I reach 7% of our total gross income?

Furthermore, if we have a nationalized system, employers will no longer need to supply many of those benefits. Tehy can still provide "extras" to the higher paid employees, but yes, they are benefits, they are compensation, why shouldn't they be taxed? The rest of us have to pay between 15 and 30% on what we pay for our medical care. Why shouldn't you pay 3% (and make no mistake, the employer might be writing the check, but it is part of employee compensation)!

Higher taxes on alcohol

Again, taxes have to come somewhere. Alchohol use costs taxpayers money. More people die fro DUI accidents every year than in all 3 World Wars. Granted, not everyone is stupid or abusive of alchohol. (I drink) However, taxing something for costs directly related to that item is reasonable. Again, taxes have to be paid somewhere. I would far rather tax something like alchohol than tax groceries or clothing.

An increase in the Medicare payroll tax

Costs are going up. That said, a national health care system should drive all health care costs down because as more and more people are able to get preventative and maintenance type care, the healthier they will be overall, even onto old age.

A European-style Value Added Tax or VAT of 1.5 percent or more

This one I don't know about. I do know taxes have to go up. It angers me when I know all the tax breaks that were given to large corporations, banks, wealty people under Bush, but now we have to pay for his largess. Whether a VAT is good or not, I leave to the economists.

Obama has already raised the cigaret tax which broke his no tax raising campaign promise

He did not say no taxes. He said no income taxes on people making under $200,000. A cigarette tax was in his campaign. Cigarettes cost ALL of us money. I would like to see them go up even more, not less.


I would further legalize Marihuana and tax it, too. (though perhaps exceptions for certain medical use).

[PopeBenXVI]

Lets agree to another 23% tax for government run healthcare on top of tax for Soc Sec, Medicare/cade, property taxes, sales taxes, registration fee's, phone tax, gas tax,........the list goes on.

23% does seem high, but let's say you are correct.

Right now, we pay just for our private insurance, about 10% of my husband's paycheck. His employer, though, pays again twice that. Add to that the various co-pays, things not covered like eye and dental exams. (which might or might not be covered under the new plan). ADD to that the portion of our taxes that we pay right now for Medicaid, and other indigent care. Suddenly that 23% doesn't seem so high.

That is not even counting the more tangential costs. Things like increased auto insurance costs because, right now, suing is the only way someone can hope to get their medical expenses paid. Costs of foreclosures on communities (roughly 60% of bankruptcies, according to a recent study, are related to medical expenses).

THAT is not even taking into account the fact that if people can afford to visit their primary care physicians, can afford basic maintenance medication and preventative care, the cost of treating them actually goes down, NOT UP!

Again, LOOK AT THE DATA. The real truth is that we pay far, FAR MORE for our insurance and really do not get better care. That idea is an illusion.

We should just have government regulate and dictate everything. Right now we get to decide what to do with roughy 60% of our income depending on the person. Why not just work and have everything sent right to the government so they can distribute everything how they see fit? There's a free country for you.

If you are wealthy, you actually get less than 60%, by the time you take out things like social security, etc. So actually, your figures are a bit low. Of course, the VERY wealthy are notorious for getting thousands of deductions so that they really pay very little in taxes.

If you read what I wrote thats why I said "depending on the person"

As I have said before, that's what happens when taxes are used to provide things that jobs ought to provide. Right now, too many jobs pay too low to provide all that, so we have to rely upon taxes. So, yes, you get cheaper bath soap and VCRs at Walmart, but you make up for it because you have to subsidize most of their workers so they can eat, have someone watch their kids, etc.

That's your "free market" for you!

Soon with all the taxes upon taxes that keep being added everyone will start talking about how they can't afford homes and food on a mass scale in this country.

Wake up! Most of America is there already, because right now, we cannot afford our health care. America has been delaying payment by using credit cards, not saving, etc. Now the piper is asking for its due.

No, not most of America which is why I said on a mass scale. We are far from impoverished here as a country.

Nothing is free, including doing business. The trouble is that for too long, business has been given a free ride because they "created jobs". Except, no one really paid attention to how much those jobs were paying or the real effect it would have on communities and the economy. Its no different than companies that used to pollute because no one bothered to worry about our water or air. Now WE are having to pay for THEIR clean-up. Our kids are going to have to pay for Walmart, Kmart, etc not paying people basic wages that they needed to live, that they need to live right now.
The government will then blame grocery stores and food producers for making too much profit as well as builders, property owners who wont lower land prices and everyone they can except themselves for taking everyones money and the solution will be to do away with private property because no one can afford it anymore. Then they can decide where and how we live too.

Not completely true. Many companies are paying countless millions to clean up their previous pollution. One major industry is paper mills especially in my area. Rivers are being cleaned right now this summer and over the next few years with millions from the mills who by the way in some cases were not even forced to give the money to do it.

I don't recall hearing anyone say what percent of our income is too much to pay in taxes but everyone seems to be in favor of more government programs funded by our tax money. Where does it stop and how much would be too much for you?

No, we are in favor of more EFFICIENT use of our money.

Right now, the wrong people are paying for the wrong things far too often. And those at the top don't care because they are getting richer and richer. Meanwhile, too many regular people are happy to listen to they hype being put forth by those in power, refusing to hold their feet to the fire.

I still don't see you saying what amount is too much. Just tax people more is your answer.

If you had asked me 20 years ago about nationalized healthcare, I would have agreed with you. Then I went to live in Europe for a year, talk to many, MANY people who live in various countries. Even in Canada, they have a better system than ours. I also have YEARS of experience dealing with several insurance companies, mostly (but NOT only) various Blue Cross policies. I went from Highmark, which was wonderful, to a policy that "covered" us so well we almost lost our house... would have had my husband not changed his job.

You may be one of the lucky ones who has decent insurance or is healthy enough that you have never really had to use your policy much. But, the thing is you won't stay that way forever. Before you go prancing about how wonderful our system is, why don't you step outside your shell and talk to people who really have to USE the insurance they have, who have to deal with the nightmare of paymets. Better yet, why don't you talk to those who had insurance and then lost it.. not even because they lost their job or such, but because they got sick and the insurance company decided they were no longer profitable! Now, you tell me what good is insurance that covers you only when you are well?

THOSE are the things you are sidestepping or ignoring.

national health care will be CHEAPER, not more expensive.

You say that as if your payment to medicare will go down or be included in this new health plan tax...HAHA! Remember, taxes never go away once they are started and like you said "taxes have to go up" ....and they will.

our current system works mostly for people WHO DON'T NEED COVERAGE. When you really need that coverage, when your child has cancer or you contract a series of illnesses related to diabetes, you better hope your income is low enough to qualify you for medicaid, because Blue Cross will dump you like a hot potatoe. I have SEEN IT happen again and again. THAT is why I want nationalized health care.

I never said our system is so wonderful. What I have been saying is that it's too much control for our government to have over us and they can raise the tax whenever they want like everything else and their will be no competition. You also keep "side stepping" that EVERYTHING government wants to do ends up costing more than they originally say....not less. What is the cost going to be besides more of our freedom?

[PopeBenXVI]

A 10 cents per can tax on soda and other sugary drinks

As opposed to the YEARS OF SUBSIDIES for both sugar cand and corn, which are WHY those products have been so cheap, so widely avaiable .. to the great detriment of our nation's health.

A tax is a tax. Subsidies are another topic. If the subsidies went away would the tax then go away?

A 2 percent increase on income taxes for single taxpayers earning more than $200,000 per year
A 2 percent increase on income taxes for households earning more than $250,000 per year

Some people do have to pay more when the deficite is so huge, yes.

But here is the funny thing. People making that much have this strange ability to put large chunks of it away in 401k's stocks and other non-taxable investments. So, the truth is they rarely do pay taxes on their full income. Lower income people pay for every cent because too often there just isn't money to put aside.

Your answer again is yes, just tax people more because the deficit is so huge, WHAT? Yeah, don't talk about decreasing spending or being fiscally responsible. More taxing is the answer cuz that's what grows the economy and helps people pay their bills. In case you don't know, the better the economy the more revenue the government gets to decrease the deficit. Higher taxes have not been shown to be what heats up spending, jobs and the overall economy

A new employer payroll tax targeting 3 percent of employers' health care expenditures
Taxing certain employer-provided health insurance benefits

Why should you get a $1000 a month coverage with no co-pays, full coverage for eye and dental, absolutely tax free, while I only get to deduct those expenses from MY income if I reach 7% of our total gross income?

Furthermore, if we have a nationalized system, employers will no longer need to supply many of those benefits. Tehy can still provide "extras" to the higher paid employees, but yes, they are benefits, they are compensation, why shouldn't they be taxed? The rest of us have to pay between 15 and 30% on what we pay for our medical care. Why shouldn't you pay 3% (and make no mistake, the employer might be writing the check, but it is part of employee compensation)!

Higher taxes on alcohol

Again, taxes have to come somewhere. Alchohol use costs taxpayers money. More people die fro DUI accidents every year than in all 3 World Wars. Granted, not everyone is stupid or abusive of alchohol. (I drink) However, taxing something for costs directly related to that item is reasonable. Again, taxes have to be paid somewhere. I would far rather tax something like alchohol than tax groceries or clothing.

They have to come from somewhere? Wow. They have enough. You also apparently have no concept of the number of people who died in WW1 or WW2 or that there has not been a WW3 yet. You might want to check your numbers again because 100 million people do not die every year from DUI's

An increase in the Medicare payroll tax

Costs are going up. That said, a national health care system should drive all health care costs down because as more and more people are able to get preventative and maintenance type care, the healthier they will be overall, even onto old age.

Huh, costs are going up....do we have any say on the governments rate they want to raise our taxes to....no? Still waiting to hear how much is too much from you

A European-style Value Added Tax or VAT of 1.5 percent or more

This one I don't know about. I do know taxes have to go up. It angers me when I know all the tax breaks that were given to large corporations, banks, wealty people under Bush, but now we have to pay for his largess. Whether a VAT is good or not, I leave to the economists.

Obama has already raised the cigaret tax which broke his no tax raising campaign promise

He did not say no taxes. He said no income taxes on people making under $200,000. A cigarette tax was in his campaign. Cigarettes cost ALL of us money. I would like to see them go up even more, not less.

The above taxes are TAXES. He said he would not raise taxes on people who make under 200K. THOSE TAXES ARE RAISED ON EVERYONE WHICH INCLUDES PEOPLE WHO MAKE UNDER 200K. Therefore, he has and is planning on raising taxes on people who make under 200k. It makes not difference what the tax is called if it effects them he lied because their tax burden has gone up.


I would further legalize Marihuana and tax it, too. (though perhaps exceptions for certain medical use).

Yes, lets legalize a mind altering mentally impairing drug. Amazing how you think that when your already so against alcohol and it's 100 million casualties a year plus WW3's dead which have not even happened yet. Hope you meant only in extreme cases and not country wide just for tax money

[PLAYER57832]

The above taxes are TAXES. He said he would not raise taxes on people who make under 200K. THOSE TAXES ARE RAISED ON EVERYONE WHICH INCLUDES PEOPLE WHO MAKE UNDER 200K. Therefore, he has and is planning on raising taxes on people who make under 200k. It makes not difference what the tax is called if it effects them he lied because their tax burden has gone up.

NO, he said he would not raise income taxes, and he hasn't. He has stuck by his word. It might not be what you wanted him to say, but that's not his fault. Also, many of those statements were made long before the real depth of the problem he inherited (did not create!) were known by anyone.



The bottom line is that we are in this mess for several reasons, but a big one was the tendency of the previous administration to give wealthy folks and big businesses (NOT small business.. only BIG corporations) very hefty tax cuts, while committing us to increased spending for wars and disasters.

Individually, many, many people are in trouble for the same reasons... spending more than they earned, thanks to credit cards. Many people got by for years by refinancing their homes, thinking the equity would always build and just not worrying.

So, yes, part of fiscal responsibility is to bring in more money. On the national level, that means increasing taxes as well as reducing spending. Our health care system is the most costly in the world and while some people can get good care, your dismissal of "government intervention" shows how little you know of the very real contributions the government has made to health advances.

The REAL truth is that some of the most effective drugs for cancer, etc were discovered and tested by the government, not private companies (Taxol is one). However, unlike private companies, tax payers don't get royalties because that would be "competing with private companies". Instead, the products are given away for free to private companies that then are under no restrictions on pricing or anything else.

THAT is what private enterprise does to medicine.

Nationalizing our health system will make it more efficent, CHEAPER and better overall.

[PopeBenXVI]

The above taxes are TAXES. He said he would not raise taxes on people who make under 200K. THOSE TAXES ARE RAISED ON EVERYONE WHICH INCLUDES PEOPLE WHO MAKE UNDER 200K. Therefore, he has and is planning on raising taxes on people who make under 200k. It makes not difference what the tax is called if it effects them he lied because their tax burden has gone up.

NO, he said he would not raise income taxes, and he hasn't. He has stuck by his word. It might not be what you wanted him to say, but that's not his fault. Also, many of those statements were made long before the real depth of the problem he inherited (did not create!) were known by anyone.



The bottom line is that we are in this mess for several reasons, but a big one was the tendency of the previous administration to give wealthy folks and big businesses (NOT small business.. only BIG corporations) very hefty tax cuts, while committing us to increased spending for wars and disasters.

Individually, many, many people are in trouble for the same reasons... spending more than they earned, thanks to credit cards. Many people got by for years by refinancing their homes, thinking the equity would always build and just not worrying.

So, yes, part of fiscal responsibility is to bring in more money. On the national level, that means increasing taxes as well as reducing spending. Our health care system is the most costly in the world and while some people can get good care, your dismissal of "government intervention" shows how little you know of the very real contributions the government has made to health advances.

The REAL truth is that some of the most effective drugs for cancer, etc were discovered and tested by the government, not private companies (Taxol is one). However, unlike private companies, tax payers don't get royalties because that would be "competing with private companies". Instead, the products are given away for free to private companies that then are under no restrictions on pricing or anything else.

THAT is what private enterprise does to medicine.

Nationalizing our health system will make it more efficent, CHEAPER and better overall.

No, He said he would not raise any tax that affects 250K and under. Most of his proposed taxes increase the tax burden on them so he lied. Sorry you heard different but thats not his fault. He just tricked you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HE-rGGKksQ

[PLAYER57832]

No, He said he would not raise any tax that affects 250K and under. Most of his proposed taxes increase the tax burden on them so he lied. Sorry you heard different but thats not his fault. He just tricked you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HE-rGGKksQ

I really don't care either way. Things changed phenomonally since he was running and taxes are the unfortunate result of the past administration's stupidity. I credit Obama for targeting those people who most benefitted from past tax breaks.

Most of those taxes you complain about above are penalty taxes. Those things costs us ALL money, so yes, increasing the tax on them makes sense in the long run. If they cost poorer folks more, the impact of the harm caused by those items is also more to poorer folks, so it is reasonable.

But to get back to healthcare. I have little hope that any final bill will really be a true and decent nationalized system. Not because the government cannot do it, but because the Insurance companies and drug companies woudl stand to lose too much money. They are not about to let their stranglehold on medicine go. However, I do hope there are significant inroads made.

A national health system is not a luxury. We cannot afford to let companies keep making a profit off depriving people of good health, which is exactly what insurance companies do when the take only the healthy and reject the rest. (as they do now) By insuring ALL people nationally, it will increase the cost of those who are young and healthy. It will ask them to pay more, right at the time when they are making the most. As they get older, though, they will find those early payments offer a huge return.

Our system is so broken, so indebted right now (I mean healthcare), it will take time for us to see overall health improvement. But cost reductions will begin immediately.

[PopeBenXVI]

No, He said he would not raise any tax that affects 250K and under. Most of his proposed taxes increase the tax burden on them so he lied. Sorry you heard different but thats not his fault. He just tricked you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HE-rGGKksQ

I really don't care either way. Things changed phenomonally since he was running and taxes are the unfortunate result of the past administration's stupidity. I credit Obama for targeting those people who most benefitted from past tax breaks.

Most of those taxes you complain about above are penalty taxes. Those things costs us ALL money, so yes, increasing the tax on them makes sense in the long run. If they cost poorer folks more, the impact of the harm caused by those items is also more to poorer folks, so it is reasonable.

But to get back to healthcare. I have little hope that any final bill will really be a true and decent nationalized system. Not because the government cannot do it, but because the Insurance companies and drug companies woudl stand to lose too much money. They are not about to let their stranglehold on medicine go. However, I do hope there are significant inroads made.

A national health system is not a luxury. We cannot afford to let companies keep making a profit off depriving people of good health, which is exactly what insurance companies do when the take only the healthy and reject the rest. (as they do now) By insuring ALL people nationally, it will increase the cost of those who are young and healthy. It will ask them to pay more, right at the time when they are making the most. As they get older, though, they will find those early payments offer a huge return.

Our system is so broken, so indebted right now (I mean healthcare), it will take time for us to see overall health improvement. But cost reductions will begin immediately.

Yeah your right, Obama lied and the economy died but who cares. Just tax people more when they already can't pay bills. I'm glad to hear you don't care that he has already went back on his campaign promise and that 100% of our current problems are Bushes fault and Obama has no fault from any of his stupid decisions thus far that he has made and is planning to make. If he does not raise that beer tax right away to pay for healthcare then 100 million more people could die tomorrow from DUI's.

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah your right, Obama lied and the economy died but who cares. Just tax people more when they already can't pay bills. I'm glad to hear you don't care that he has already went back on his campaign promise and that 100% of our current problems are Bushes fault and Obama has no fault from any of his stupid decisions thus far that he has made and is planning to make. If he does not raise that beer tax right away to pay for healthcare then 100 million more people could die tomorrow from DUI's.

Well, too bad you can't read.

[thegreekdog]

In any event, if insurance documents are unclear, let's regulate the sh^t out of it. Like we should be doing for mortgages, auto insurance, wills, trusts, bank statements, manuals for Hearts of Iron III... etc.

Except that means more government, something you have again and again come out against.

This is true. My point was not that the government should or would regulate the sh*t out of it. My point is that the government should look at its own laws and forms (and so should we) before deciding to regulate the sh*t out of it. Do you think the complexity of an insurance claim is going to change under any kind of national health insurance? Do you think that the denial of claims is going to change under any kind of national health insurance? I guess I'm taking the cynical attitude that of all entities to fix the problems of complexity and denial, the government is surely a bad choice.

[PLAYER57832]

In any event, if insurance documents are unclear, let's regulate the sh^t out of it. Like we should be doing for mortgages, auto insurance, wills, trusts, bank statements, manuals for Hearts of Iron III... etc.

Except that means more government, something you have again and again come out against.

This is true. My point was not that the government should or would regulate the sh*t out of it. My point is that the government should look at its own laws and forms (and so should we) before deciding to regulate the sh*t out of it. Do you think the complexity of an insurance claim is going to change under any kind of national health insurance? Do you think that the denial of claims is going to change under any kind of national health insurance? I guess I'm taking the cynical attitude that of all entities to fix the problems of complexity and denial, the government is surely a bad choice.

As for simplification, a one-payor system (not what is proposed) would make things MUCH simpler. Even having a base-line government program very well might because it would set a standard for insurance companies to follow.

Here is the bottom line. You come out against the government just because it is the government. But the alternatives, what we have, what the so-called "free market" have created simply don't work.

Furthermore, though you disdain the government, the real truth is that much of why so many businesses can be successful and make money is that the government helps them out. That's not free marketism, but it gets accepted because it "helps business" and "creates jobs" -- even if it really doesn't.


I look at other countries to see if it would work here. EVERY other industrialized and even some "emerging economies" have better health care far cheaper than we do.

Are there still going to be limits? Of course. Unlimited health care is just not possible. Triage is one of the nastiest words there is in health care, but without it, more people would die or remain seriously injured beyond repair. However, I would far rather have an independent board with ethecists, etc involved than have those decisions made by board members and CEOs who's primary responsibility (by law even) is to make money.

And yes, I definitely think you repeatedly dismiss government efficiency without real basis. Government is not perfect, no, but it does do an efficient job when judged for what it is supposed to do. That is, government is inherently not about making money. (but you already had a thread on that) Worse, you put forward that companies will automatically do better, YET, when you look at what they have done recently and historically, this is absolutely NOT what happened. We have rules that regulate food and drug safety because companies did not do it on their own. We have rules against pollution because companies refused to just change on their own. We have rules about minimum wages, limits on hours and worker safety all because corporations failed to do it on their own.

Business likes to call government oppressive and inefficient simply because government places limits on their business, but that is really what government should do ... set limits so that no one person or entity gets to take advantage of others more than is within reason.

Healthcare is inherently not a free market system. Business had its chance... they BLEW IT. Now we have no choice but to look to the government to step in.

[thegreekdog]

We have government control because the government wants control. Do you think the government cares any more than Corporation X whether Corporation X pollutes the water? Your idealism regarding the government is good, I like it, but it's a little unrealistic.

Further, I read all of your NPR stories that you posted, I answered them, and you did not respond. You did not respond because the NPR stories had little do to with private companies and a lot to do with criticizing the Bush administration for spending loads of money on contractors, which fits my definition of government waste.

You ask why I think the government wouldn't do a good job. I ask you, why would the government do a good job? Your answer is that it can't get any worse. I think it can. I've cited examples in other threads of how bad the government is at running stuff (for the most part). I think we'll be able to shortly add "healthcare" to the list.