| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Tom B
Senior Member
4805 Posts |
 Posted - 10/31/2009 : 05:05:12 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
The House of Representatives finally released the 1,991 page health care bill. The details provided should frighten anyone. They include making many of today's business provided medical insurance plans taxible. For those with family health care plans, this could easily result in over $3,000 in new taxes. What happened to Obama's promise that the bottom 95% of Americans would pay less in taxes? The bill also cuts over $400B in Medicare program payments to doctors. Anyone who believes this will not result in reduced services to seniors has lost touch with reality. Perhaps most telling, The American Medical Association has withdrawn its previous statement of support of the proposal.
The bill REQUIRES all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay an annual government fine. And despite so many Democratic leaderships assertions that federal funding will not fund abortions, it appears that the the Capps Amendment will indeed require it, and further, that it will require at least one commercial insurance plan in each national region to fund them as well.
One of the worst provisions, the one most likely to destroy insurance companies, is the requirement that they end restrictions on pre-existing conditions. While it sounds fair on the surface, what it really means is that people can choose to be irresponsible and not purchase insurance for decades, and pay only the $750 annual government fine. But then if they get a major illness, insurance companies will be required to provide them medical coverage. Where will that money come from, since they didn't pay insurance premiums all those years?
Despite Democratic congressional leaders promise that the bill would not increase the deficit, new analysis by the Congressional Budget office now anticipates more than $200 billion in red ink for the federal government over the next 10 years.
The legislation imposes a 2.5 percent tax on medical device manufacturers. Who do you think that cost will flow down to? Again, what happend to Obama's pledge not to raise taxes? The bill also imposes $150 billion in cuts on the prescription-drug industry. Does anyone think this aligns with their promise to not cut benefits to seniors?
The new program providing prescription drug coverage for seniors was/is one of the most sucessful in history. It's approach, letting market competition drive drug costs down, resulted in incredible savings, ones far beyond even its most ardent supporters promises. Unwilling to let a model program alone however, House leaders have scrapped this market competion approach, and put direct government negotations with drug companies in place instead. Companies literally would not be allowed to undercut competitive prices of other companies. And anyone who has watched the stories of $700 hammers, and $5,000 toilet seats should know just how poor the federal government is at negotiating anything.
In the proposal, doctors will be punished with lower reimbursment rates if they order a significant number of expensive tests. This will leave the patient wondering if he was not tested because it was not needed, or if the doctor was unwilling to see his income slashed. This puts government restrictions on care between the doctor and patient.
New York Times Article
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124779717982855785.html
Full 1018 page House Bill
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf
LA Times article about House Bill
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/20/nation/na-healthcare20
Congressman Mike Rogers committee comments (great U-Tube link)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc&feature=channel_page
Businesses blast House bill
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/65555-business-and-drug-groups-blast-bill-doctors-are-uneasy
Pelosi Starts Clock on Health Care Bill
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28884.html
|
Tom Birdwell
tombirdwell@aol.com
(513) 539-7411
Feel free to call or email |
|
|
lrisner
Junior Member
USA
116 Posts |
|
Posted - 10/31/2009 : 6:29:16 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
I am NOT a fan of Obama or his Plan, however I am LESS of a fan of the dis-info that the Conservatives have put out there. Unfortunately, Mr Birdwell's Post seem to be full of the dis-info.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tom Birdwell[/i]
[br]The House of Representatives finally released the 1,991 page health care bill. The details provided should frighten anyone. They include making many of today's business provided medical insurance plans taxible. For those with family health care plans, this could easily result in over $3,000 in new taxes. What happened to Obama's promise that the bottom 95% of Americans would pay less in taxes?
Those who economically can not afford Insurance will be Subsidized. Most Middle Class people who would have been subject to the 3k will most often HAVE coverage already and THUS be unaffected.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tom Birdwell[/i]
The bill also cuts over $400B in Medicare program payments to doctors. Anyone who believes this will not result in reduced services to seniors has lost touch with reality. Perhaps most telling, The American Medical Association has withdrawn its previous statement of support of the proposal.
If everyone is covered then Doctors and Hospitals will not have the "Burden" of the uncovered and transfer Charges will no longer be needed THUS the "normal and Customary" Charges should be less.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tom Birdwell[/i]
The bill REQUIRES all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay an annual government fine. And despite so many Democratic leaderships assertions that federal funding will not fund abortions, it appears that the the Capps Amendment will indeed require it, and further, that it will require at least one commercial insurance plan in each national region to fund them as well.
Sad for a Right to Lifer like me, but how do you expect everyone else to accept our values?
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tom Birdwell[/i]One of the worst provisions, the one most likely to destroy insurance companies, is the requirement that they end restrictions on pre-existing conditions. While it sounds fair on the surface, what it really means is that people can choose to be irresponsible and not purchase insurance for decades, and pay only the $750 annual government fine. But then if they get a major illness, insurance companies will be required to provide them medical coverage. Where will that money come from, since they didn't pay insurance premiums all those years?
What do you propose? What is a better answer? Without pre-existing coverage, we would get back to unpaid Care and Transfer Charges again. Maybe you think the penalty should be bigger. Do you?
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tom Birdwell[/i]
Despite Democratic congressional leaders promise that the bill would not increase the deficit, new analysis by the Congressional Budget office now anticipates more than $200 billion in red ink for the federal government over the next 10 years.
The legislation imposes a 2.5 percent tax on medical device manufacturers. Who do you think that cost will flow down to? Again, what happend to Obama's pledge not to raise taxes? The bill also imposes $150 billion in cuts on the prescription-drug industry. Does anyone think this aligns with their promise to not cut benefits to seniors?
Sounds like a Political Jab to me.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tom Birdwell[/i]
The new program providing prescription drug coverage for seniors was/is one of the most sucessful in history. It's approach, letting market competition drive drug costs down, resulted in incredible savings, ones far beyond even its most ardent supporters promises. Unwilling to let a model program alone however, House leaders have scrapped this market competion approach, and put direct government negotations with drug companies in place instead. Companies literally would not be allowed to undercut competitive prices of other companies. And anyone who has watched the stories of $700 hammers, and $5,000 toilet seats should know just how poor the federal government is at negotiating anything.
_Political again, way political.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tom Birdwell[/i]In the proposal, doctors will be punished with lower reimbursment rates if they order a significant number of expensive tests. This will leave the patient wondering if he was not tested because it was not needed, or if the doctor was unwilling to see his income slashed. This puts government restrictions on care between the doctor and patient.
If everyone is covered then Doctors and Hospitals will not have the "Burden" of the uncovered and transfer Charges will no longer be needed THUS the "normal and Customary" Charges should be less.
In closing, let me say that MY approach would be VASTLY different than the Dems or the GOP's. However, that does not stop me from commenting when I see what I perceive to be a completely Partisan jab.
We need the Parties to work together and partisan politics in just a move in the wrong direction.
|
 |
|
|
cmsquare
Senior Member
USA
3106 Posts |
|
Posted - 10/31/2009 : 8:47:41 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
I would agree with what you say Irisner.
The mis-information/political spin scare tactics that come out around here are enough to make anyone's head spin.
|
"I brought it back, not cm"
|
|
|
|
Tom B
Senior Member
4805 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/01/2009 : 01:33:02 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by lrisner[/i]
[br]I am NOT a fan of Obama or his Plan, however I am LESS of a fan of the dis-info that the Conservatives have put out there. Unfortunately, Mr Birdwell's Post seem to be full of the dis-info.
Dis-info? Did you take the time to read the links I included in the post? Every single point I made came from one or more of them. By giving the sources, I provide everyone the opportunity to easily read them and form their own conclusions if they don't like mine. That is hardly dis-information. In fact, it is quite the opposite, providing sourced information. Only one of the links is to a politician. All the rest are third party ones, including both the New York Times and the LA Times, the antithesis of right wing conservative bastions.
You on the other hand, made several broad sweeping statements about the program proposal, but provided absolutely no sources for your information or conclusions. So which of us is more likely guilty of spreading dis-information here? [/quote] |
Tom Birdwell
tombirdwell@aol.com
(513) 539-7411
Feel free to call or email |
|
|
|
Tom B
Senior Member
4805 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/01/2009 : 03:21:51 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by lrisner[/i][br]
Those who economically can not afford Insurance will be Subsidized. Most Middle Class people who would have been subject to the 3k will most often HAVE coverage already and THUS be unaffected.
Something seems amiss in your comment there. Already having insurance has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the tax issue. To pay for the insurance subsidies of the poor, Congress must find a new income source. Taxing your health benefits is a big one. A typical family health care plan costs about $12,000 per year. If your marginal tax rate is 25%, fairly common for two income middle class families, your federal taxes would increase by $3,000. Again, this has NOTHING to do with one's already having coverage, or getting it later.
quote:
If everyone is covered then Doctors and Hospitals will not have the "Burden" of the uncovered and transfer Charges will no longer be needed THUS the "normal and Customary" Charges should be less.
It is easy to intermix two different issues here. One issue is the crazy way we pay for things as you describe. And I agree with you that it needs serious help. But set this aside for a moment, as this is not the major problem. So what is?
Medical resources. Our health system is stretched today and going to get a lot worse as baby boomers age. It is impossible to just add 30,000,000 new people to the health system without grossly overloading it. And as every single other nation that has adopted national health care has discovered, there are only two ways to avoid such a resource crisis. First is to pour a hell of lot more money into the system. The second way to avoid the resource crisis is by making significant reductions in typical services provided so as to reduce total demand. Cutting half a trillion dollars from Medicare must ultimately result in fewer services to our seniors. Blindly throwing 30,000,000 new people into the medical system, and telling the public that the existing infrastructure can handle it, while keeping everything the same for those of us with insurance or Medicare... well what would you call that?
quote:
Sad for a Right to Lifer like me (federally funded abortion being included in a separate bill amendment), but how do you expect everyone else to accept our values?
I don't. I am not terribly driven on the issue of the federal government funding abortion, either way. Depending on one's value judgements, abortion seems either right or wrong across the board, no matter how it is paid for. But what I am very angry about on this one is the big orchestrated lie. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi repeatedly told the nation that abortion absolutely would NOT be funded by the health care legislation. But just weeks later they quietly slipped exactly that into a separate bill amendment. What else is jammed in there that was promised would not be? I suspect quite a bit.
|
Tom Birdwell
tombirdwell@aol.com
(513) 539-7411
Feel free to call or email |
|
|
|
cmsquare
Senior Member
USA
3106 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/01/2009 : 04:04:07 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
far less civilized/advanced countries in this world have figured out how to provide all of their citizens with health care. It's about time we step up and do the same.
|
"I brought it back, not cm"
|
|
|
|
Tom B
Senior Member
4805 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/01/2009 : 04:35:12 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by lrisner[/i]
[br]The new program providing prescription drug coverage for seniors was/is one of the most successful in history. It's approach, letting market competition drive drug costs down, resulted in incredible savings, ones far beyond even its most ardent supporters promises. Unwilling to let a model program alone however, House leaders have scrapped this market competition approach, and put direct government negotiations with drug companies in place instead. Companies literally would not be allowed to undercut competitive prices of other companies. And anyone who has watched the stories of $700 hammers, and $5,000 toilet seats should know just how poor the federal government is at negotiating anything.
_Political again, way political.
It is political to object to the dismantling of the most critical part of a superbly cost effective program to provide prescription care for seniors? Exactly how could I have written without without you believing it was politically driven? In fact, my concern in almost this entire discussion is about money and maintaining a quality health care system. I would have the exact same view on this one if it were Republicans in Congress doing this.
quote:
doctors will be punished with lower reimbursement rates if they order a significant number of expensive tests. This will leave the patient wondering if he was not tested because it was not needed, or if the doctor was unwilling to see his income slashed. This puts government restrictions on care between the doctor and patient.
If everyone is covered then Doctors and Hospitals will not have the "Burden" of the uncovered and transfer Charges will no longer be needed THUS the "normal and Customary" Charges should be less.
I hear that argument a lot, and it simply does not meet financial scrutiny. Why? Because changing who pays medical bills, and that is all you are talking about here, does nothing whatsoever to change the actual cost of delivered health care. Think about it. Will what you propose change in the slightest the pay of a nurse, the cost of a CT machine, or any other direct cost that a hospital incurs? Of course it won't
The ONLY thing that changes in what you propose is who gets billed. Today, hospitals take the unpaid bills of the poor, and through overhead allocation, spread them out among the rest of us. In the future, they will take those exact same medical costs of treatment for the poor, and dump them on the federal government. Then the government will spread them out among the rest of us via taxes. Either way, those of us who are employed and above the poverty line will pay those bills for those who are not.
But the cost of that nurse, CT machine, etc., all the things that determine the actual costs of treatment are exactly the same in both cases. On a national level, what you propose won't save a nickel. quote:
In closing, let me say that MY approach would be VASTLY different than the Dems or the GOP's. However, that does not stop me from commenting when I see what I perceive to be a completely Partisan jab.
Check your partisan meter again. What you call partisan jabs are not intended to be. Every argument I make in this thread is about money, what I expect to be a reduction in patient care, or about individual congressional leaders misleading the public greatly. They happen to be Democrats right now, but I absolutely would object just as strongly if Bush and a Republican House and Senate had proposed this mess. |
Tom Birdwell
tombirdwell@aol.com
(513) 539-7411
Feel free to call or email |
|
|
|
Tom B
Senior Member
4805 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/01/2009 : 04:49:26 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by cmsquare[/i]
[br]far less civilized/advanced countries in this world have figured out how to provide all of their citizens with health care. It's about time we step up and do the same.
And that explains why those pushing this bill have gone to extremes to say it is NOT like those in other nations? They clearly see the drawbacks of the systems in other nations. Nations like Canada do provide basic health care better than we do. But the price they pay for it is very long delays in getting any advanced care.
Today we have the best medical care available in the world. I will fully agree with anyone who says it is unevenly distributed. This bill is going to force its redistribution. And those who today have insurance or can afford health care are going to see their slice of the pie get smaller. I am not sure that is a bad thing, but I wish those pushing this program would at least admit it. |
Tom Birdwell
tombirdwell@aol.com
(513) 539-7411
Feel free to call or email |
|
|
|
cmsquare
Senior Member
USA
3106 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/01/2009 : 06:58:22 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
except republicans never would do it, they would sit back and let the current system remain in place. Let insurance companies get fat and dictate care to Docs and let millions of people go without care that it is humane to provide to them.
The right thing to do isn't always the easy one. |
"I brought it back, not cm"
|
|
|
|
MonroeAccord
Junior Member
239 Posts |
|
|
cmsquare
Senior Member
USA
3106 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/01/2009 : 08:26:26 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
Nothing wrong with a profit. There is something wrong when insurance dictates patient care. There is something wrong with one of the richest/most advanced countries in the world not providing health care to all of it's citizens.
I don't have all the answers, but I know sitting on our hands and doing nothing like we have been doing isn't going to produce a solution and the longer we wait the worse it is going to be to fix.
It's amazing to me the number of people screaming about "socialized medicine" when they are either on or will soon be on MEDICARE.
|
"I brought it back, not cm"
|
|
|
|
loveyourneighbor
Junior Member
USA
431 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/01/2009 : 09:51:28 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
All of our citizens DO have health care. They just don't have health insurance. Hospitals are required to treat everyone who comes in their doors. No one is turned away for lack of insurance. And what far less civilized countries that provide hc for all of their citizens are you talking about anyway?
quote:
[i]Originally posted by cmsquare[/i]
[br]far less civilized/advanced countries in this world have figured out how to provide all of their citizens with health care. It's about time we step up and do the same.
|
|
|
|
cmsquare
Senior Member
USA
3106 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/01/2009 : 10:37:24 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
take a look around the world.
people get denied care all the time because they can't pay, I'm not sure what planet you live on.
|
"I brought it back, not cm"
|
|
|
|
Bartleby
Junior Member
USA
430 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/01/2009 : 12:59:28 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
Benefits should be taxable as income received. This is the only fair way to level the playing field. I ask you, why aren't benefits taxable?
Irsner, you are so busy hating the conservative that you forgot to read the information presented. |
 |
|
|
|
bobpreston
Junior Member
486 Posts |
|
|
paman
Junior Member
55 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/01/2009 : 2:44:04 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
From Bartleby - "Benefits should be taxable as income received. This is the only fair way to level the playing field. I ask you, why aren't benefits taxable?"
Whoa man, I take back what I said on a different thread about joining your party. Take a lesson from your namesake and when asked to reply just tell us "I'd prefer not to"
I think I know what you're doing. You seem like the kind of guy who's going to ride through the redwood forest after a 2 year drought and throw your cigarette out the window. I kind of doubt you'll get the fire your looking for though. The tax suggestion was one of McCain's favorites. These are mostly his people. |
|
|
|
Bartleby
Junior Member
USA
430 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/01/2009 : 4:40:04 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
| No, not stirring the pot. I honestly feel that if the money I make is taxable then the dollar value of benefits received should also be taxable. If given a car and a driver to drive me around, that should be taxable. The effect would be little on the average person. However, some with Cadillac health care plans and other benefits the effect would be large. |
|
|
|
|
lrisner
Junior Member
USA
116 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/01/2009 : 7:00:54 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
How do I reply to all this?
First..to Mr Bartleby, I AM a conservative. I have NEVER voted for a Dem in my life!
I'll be dogged...where do I put my partisanship now?
Being a conservative and voting Republican does not for one minute mean I am obligated to follow the Pundit line.
Your comments (Tom and Bartman) both show just how PARTISAN they are. You assumed I was an evil Liberal and that I never read your material.
Why is it that some people think THIER links and material is always the Gospel and everyone else's is Politically biased (Birdwell, your links were such, how could a link to a GOP Congressman NOT be?).
I could find some Mike Moore stuff that would completely refute your links, would you then change your mind or would you discount the links as being unreliable or just plan wrong? I certainly would not believe Mike, but why should I accept your Info as any different if I disagree with it? I rarely post links as I think it is rude for the very reason I have laid out.
I am not going to debate each line of your post, suffice to say I see most, if not all, your info as inaccurate. I will challenge one point as it has been run in the ground.
Birdy says
“this could easily result in over $3,000 in new taxes '
First, I do not know that the bens will be Taxed, do you? Do you KNOW? Did you go thru the 1900 pages and find it?
I am not sure it is there.
Even if it was, you comment is still dis-info. A Family of 4 with 12k in Bens and 60k Income would see a $1800 increase in the Tax bill (and that is just an estimate based on last years tables and rules) IF it is in the Bill! That is still about half of what you quoted.
I am not a Fan of this bill, but am sick to death of the partisanship. Boney Butt should have got in there and really tried to come up with something, but choose rather to feed dis-info to People so they woulf post it on forums.
Your use of “25% nominal Tax rate' is a classic Tax “dis-info” technique. EFFECT Tax rate is all that is important. Few Middle Classers are in the 25% Bracket. This example above illustrates that point. Their effect Tax rate is 8.7% WITH Benefits Taxed, 7.47% without a Bens Tax. A FAR cry from 25%!
Come on Third Party!
|
|
|
|
Bartleby
Junior Member
USA
430 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/01/2009 : 7:21:33 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
| Come on Third Party! |
|
|
|
|
Tom B
Senior Member
4805 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/01/2009 : 11:36:00 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by lrisner[/i]
[br]How do I reply to all this?
Your use of “25% nominal Tax rate' is a classic Tax “dis-info” technique. EFFECT Tax rate is all that is important. Few Middle Classers are in the 25% Bracket. This example above illustrates that point. Their effect Tax rate is 8.7% WITH Benefits Taxed, 7.47% without a Bens Tax. A FAR cry from 25%!
For my numbers to be dis-information, they would have to be wrong. And again, they are correct.
You can't use effective tax rates (percent of total income paid in taxes) to assess the tax obligation of adding additional increments of income. Why? Because our tax rates are progressive. Each incremental gain in income is taxed at a progressively higher rate. The more you earn, the higher the tax rate that is applied to the last dollars of income.
In simple terms, a married couple filing jointly will pay no tax on their first $15K in taxable income. Their next $48K in income is taxed at 15%. Their income above $63,700 is taxed at 25%. And so on down the tax schedule.
Assume that the married couple has a joint taxable income of $63,700. They would owe $8,722 in taxes, an effective rate of just 13.7%. But as shown in the tax schedule above, every dollar they earn above $63,700 is taxed at 25%. A typical family health insurance plan costs $12K. If this bill ends up defining company funded health insurance as taxable imputed income, that same couple will have a new additional tax obligation of $3,000, 25% of the value of the policy. And there are a lot of couples around Monroe with taxable incomes greater than $63,100.
Try harder to get your facts straight before accusing me of dis-information. The one spreading dis-information is you.
I am glad you are not preparing my tax return. |
Tom Birdwell
tombirdwell@aol.com
(513) 539-7411
Feel free to call or email |
|
|
|
Tom B
Senior Member
4805 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/02/2009 : 06:06:39 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by lrisner[/i] [br]
Being a conservative and voting Republican does not for one minute mean I am obligated to follow the Pundit line.
And that means what? A not so subtle way to say I do? If so, then you are wrong, yet again. I spend hours reading on this topic, from all over. And I ignore pundits.
quote:
Your comments (Tom and Bartman) both show just how PARTISAN they are.
Yet strangely, despite repeated requests, you don't share details of which of my comments you see that way. Please point them out for me in context. I just went back and read them all. I could easily and fairly have gone deeply partisan, explaining the autocratic way that Pelosi and Reid have made it all but impossible to have a real, democratic floor debate on any of this, but I didn't. The truth is, that over the last decade, I have been disgusted with both sides of the isle in Congress, and have posted this MANY times.
What I found when I looked for your claim of partisan politics was that my comments are about three primary issues, none of which has anything at all to do with political parties.
First, the nation's medical infrastructure is already stretched today. Adding 30,000,000 more people to the primary medical system, will create huge capacity problems, delays in getting appointments, etc. Any member of Congress who believes otherwise will get a huge surprise in 2013, when the system is implemented and they have to endure it. But wait... They won't have to. This proposed new system is so GREAT, that Congress exempted themselves from having to participate in it. That should be a clue to everyone how well they believe it will work.
Second, how will we pay for the promises being made on this bill? This legislation will create an entitlement program that can never be backed away from once launched. It will be by far the largest peacetime spending increase in US government history the health system will create. And the need to fund it will drive Congress and Obama to implement new taxes. And I think it certain that if they include a government option, small businesses across the land will quickly ditch their internal insurance programs. Why shouldn't they. Their employees will still have insurance and their businesses will be more competitive. But the impact will be huge growth in th number of people on the government option plan, and all the cost estimates will be way low.
Third, what is being promised is not sustainable. No other nation on earth has succeed in providing universal health care as we know it. Every single nation ultimately had to put in system delays and limits to control costs. It is common in Europe for certain procedures to be denied after a given age. A heart bypass operation after age 70 for example. In Canada, one can wait months to get an MRI or CT scan, even when cancer may be suspected. All of this serves to lessen the actual demand for services and control costs. And we will have to do it here, or face national bankruptcy too.
Pray tell, how can you describe any of the above as partisan?
|
Tom Birdwell
tombirdwell@aol.com
(513) 539-7411
Feel free to call or email |
|
|
|
bobpreston
Junior Member
486 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/02/2009 : 10:20:53 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tom Birdwell[/i]
First, the nation's medical infrastructure is already stretched today. Adding 30,000,000 more people to the primary medical system, will create huge capacity problems, delays in getting appointments, etc. Any member of Congress who believes otherwise will get a huge surprise in 2013, when the system is implemented and they have to endure it.
Funny thing is all this bleeding heart crap from the left and yet we are gonna soak the American people for billions in new taxes and by the democrats best guess this whole thing will only pick up 5 million people. That means the democrats (by their numbers) are gonna leave 42 million people without health insurance. Way to go MORONS billions of dollars for about 2% of the population. Only a stupid basement dwelling liberal could see this whole government health insurance scam as a good thing. |
|
|
|
HBG
Advanced Member
USA
6661 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/02/2009 : 10:26:08 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by bobpreston[/i]
[br]quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tom Birdwell[/i]
First, the nation's medical infrastructure is already stretched today. Adding 30,000,000 more people to the primary medical system, will create huge capacity problems, delays in getting appointments, etc. Any member of Congress who believes otherwise will get a huge surprise in 2013, when the system is implemented and they have to endure it.
Funny thing is all this bleeding heart crap from the left and yet we are gonna soak the American people for billions in new taxes and by the democrats best guess this whole thing will only pick up 5 million people. That means the democrats (by their numbers) are gonna leave 42 million people without health insurance. Way to go MORONS billions of dollars for about 2% of the population. Only a stupid basement dwelling liberal could see this whole government health insurance scam as a good thing.
Nope, hate to burst your bubble, but I don't live in the basement  |
My dad used to say, 'You wouldn't worry so much about what people thought about you if you knew how seldom they did.
Phil McGraw
|
|
|
|
lrisner
Junior Member
USA
116 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/02/2009 : 5:30:07 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
Boy,Birdman, you are sensitive! Do you always blow a gasket when someone tell you that you are wrong? No personal offense was meant. Chill out!
First order of business....Taxes. Sorry friend, you are the one who should no be doing Taxes!
My exmp: A Family of 4 with 12k in Bens and 60k Income would see a $1800 increase in the Tax bill (and that is just an estimate based on last years tables and rules) IF it is in the Bill! That is still about half of what you quoted.
This example would NOT pay the Taxes you listed. Do you think they would NOT take the Standard Deduction at LEAST? Do you NOT think they would deduct 4 exemptions?
Guess what? When they do take these legal Taxable income reducers on their 1040, their Taxable income goes WAY down. That makes them owe a LOT less than you say. The only thing RIGHT about your Tax comments was that the System is Progressive and as such,the more deductions and exemptions one has, the less Tax they owe comparatively speaking. THUS...any reasonable person would look at EFFECT Tax rates rather than Nominal Rates.
Second Order of Business
Your "can't afford it" comments means what? You and I should have Care, but the Poor People should just Die, right?
another thing...I am sick to Death of the Canadian examples. If a person DID NOT have Insurance,telling them they could have an MRI in however many weeks, would be MUCH better that telling they can not have one at all because they have no money!
Again....for the 100th time! I DO NOT like The Bamy Plan. I like the GOP's and Conservative Pundit's Partisan Politics even LESS!
Come on Third Party!
|
|
|
|
Bartleby
Junior Member
USA
430 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/02/2009 : 5:57:54 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
Present Method: Current Adjusted Gross Income is $60,000. The deductions for a family of four add up to $26,000. This is a taxable income of $34,000. The family would pay federal taxes totaling $4269. This is 7.1% of the adjusted gross income.
Benefits Taxed Method: Normal Income is $60,000, Benefits are valued at $12,000, therefore the adjusted gross income is $72,000. The deductions for a family of four add up to $26,000. This is a taxable income of $46,000. The family would pay federal taxes totaling $6069. This is 8.4% of the adjusted gross income, but is 9.9% of the normal earned income.
What that means no one knows.
|
|
|
|
|
lrisner
Junior Member
USA
116 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/02/2009 : 9:33:13 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Bartleby[/i]
[br]
Present Method: Current Adjusted Gross Income is $60,000. The deductions for a family of four add up to $26,000. This is a taxable income of $34,000. The family would pay federal taxes totaling $4269. This is 7.1% of the adjusted gross income.
Benefits Taxed Method: Normal Income is $60,000, Benefits are valued at $12,000, therefore the adjusted gross income is $72,000. The deductions for a family of four add up to $26,000. This is a taxable income of $46,000. The family would pay federal taxes totaling $6069. This is 8.4% of the adjusted gross income, but is 9.9% of the normal earned income.
What that means no one knows.
Sounds right to me! |
|
|
|
Tom B
Senior Member
4805 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/03/2009 : 7:48:27 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
A collection of all the articles from the WSJ on health care.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574441193211542788.html
And their editorial from yesterday, titled The Worst Bill Ever - a must read.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a "critical milestone," may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.
In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.
Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan "reform" and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be "universal coverage." The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country's fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.
The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate. Most of the money goes into government-run "exchanges" where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.
At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this "firewall"—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.
Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, "saving" about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.
Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to "pay for" universal coverage. While Medicare's price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.
As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.
Even though the House will assume 91% of the "matching rate" for this joint state-federal program—up from today's 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington's budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.
European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point "surcharge" on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won't have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.
This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn't indexed for inflation. Yet it still won't be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they'll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.
Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don't offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers' premiums, which eat into wages. Such "play or pay" taxes always become "pay or pay" and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.
Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won't buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.
The insurance takeover. A new "health choices commissioner" will decide what counts as "essential benefits," which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history.
The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.
The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as "private" health insurance.
All of this is intentional, even if it isn't explicitly acknowledged. The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today. One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back "public option" entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further.
As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.
Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.
|
Tom Birdwell
tombirdwell@aol.com
(513) 539-7411
Feel free to call or email |
|
|
|
Tom B
Senior Member
4805 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/03/2009 : 8:08:52 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by lrisner[/i]
[br] First order of business....Taxes. Sorry friend, you are the one who should no be doing Taxes!
My exmp: A Family of 4 with 12k in Bens and 60k Income would see a $1800 increase in the Tax bill (and that is just an estimate based on last years tables and rules) IF it is in the Bill! That is still about half of what you quoted.
This example would NOT pay the Taxes you listed. Do you think they would NOT take the Standard Deduction at LEAST? Do you NOT think they would deduct 4 exemptions?
Nice try, substituting Adjusted Gross Income in there.
Do you just miss my use of the term TAXABLE INCOME, or intentionally dismiss it? You will find it on the back of your 1040. That is what is left AFTER DEDUCTIONS. It is the number final number you take to the tax tables, and I have to assume that people remember that painful number, as it is almost the last step in preparing taxes before writing the check.
I very intentionally chose to use Taxable Income instead of AGI, because I have no idea what people have for exemptions and deductions, but on the back of the 1040, when we get to TAXABLE INCOME, we have no place left to hide. In that sense, it is the only important number on the form.
And despite your dismissing it, a lot dual income Monroe families have more than $63K in family taxable income. Why am I so sure? Because the school district's state aid, or lack there of, is determined by the relatively high family income in Monroe, like it or not. If we earned less, the district would get state and federal aid like Middletown, Edgewood, Madison, etc. We get half of some of these districts. You are misleading the public in denying this.
|
Tom Birdwell
tombirdwell@aol.com
(513) 539-7411
Feel free to call or email |
|
|
|
Mr.Baseball02
Junior Member
172 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/03/2009 : 8:24:25 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
| I am still very mixed on this issue. Tom and others I think we need to understand that a bill of some sort will past within the next year or two. There isn't much we can do about it. We can sit here and beat this issue to death but in the end a health care bill will pass. |
|
|
|
lrisner
Junior Member
USA
116 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/03/2009 : 10:33:37 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tom Birdwell[/i]
[br]quote:
[i]Originally posted by lrisner[/i]
[br] First order of business....Taxes. Sorry friend, you are the one who should no be doing Taxes!
My exmp: A Family of 4 with 12k in Bens and 60k Income would see a $1800 increase in the Tax bill (and that is just an estimate based on last years tables and rules) IF it is in the Bill! That is still about half of what you quoted.
This example would NOT pay the Taxes you listed. Do you think they would NOT take the Standard Deduction at LEAST? Do you NOT think they would deduct 4 exemptions?
Nice try, substituting Adjusted Gross Income in there.
Do you just miss my use of the term TAXABLE INCOME, or intentionally dismiss it? You will find it on the back of your 1040. That is what is left AFTER DEDUCTIONS. It is the number final number you take to the tax tables, and I have to assume that people remember that painful number, as it is almost the last step in preparing taxes before writing the check.
I very intentionally chose to use Taxable Income instead of AGI, because I have no idea what people have for exemptions and deductions, but on the back of the 1040, when we get to TAXABLE INCOME, we have no place left to hide. In that sense, it is the only important number on the form.
And despite your dismissing it, a lot dual income Monroe families have more than $63K in family taxable income. Why am I so sure? Because the school district's state aid, or lack there of, is determined by the relatively high family income in Monroe, like it or not. If we earned less, the district would get state and federal aid like Middletown, Edgewood, Madison, etc. We get half of some of these districts. You are misleading the public in denying this.
You know what? Believe what you what. I stand by my example and will AFFIRM my belief that your Post are just so much partisan in content. If I what more of it, I'll listen to Rush or Oberman, Hannity, Maddow, or even a local, like McConnell or whoever (depending on which extreme one wants).
"Nice Try' What the hell does that mean. You are just Crawl fishing!
By the way, Monroe's Median Income is $54,737. I believe that is right in the ball park for the example I used.
Good God, you seem to take this debate way to seriously, get a hobby!
|
|
|
|
Tom B
Senior Member
4805 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/04/2009 : 12:31:22 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by lrisner[/i]
[br]By the way, Monroe's Median Income is $54,737. I believe that is right in the ball park for the example I used.
You might want to move just a bit forward in time for your data source. The best current estimate of our median family income I can find is $78,120, found at the link below. I believe your number is from the 2000 census. Monroe has about doubled in population since then, with more two income families today.
And this number much better matches how both the state and federal governments view the district's resident's wealth in their allocation of educational funding. Given the still significant number of retirees here, with their consequent lower incomes, that means a whole lot of families earn significantly more than that figure.
Easily, more than a third of Monroe households are already at the 25% marginal tax rate, as I explained earlier. Again, that is the rate applied to any additional income dollars, and really the critical factor to consider when looking at the impact of tax law changes like I raised. Most who have worked unanticipated overtime one year, or got a modest money distribution or raise, are shocked at just how that extra income is taxed. That is why All tax decisions of real impact are made based on the marginal rate, not effective.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2009/snapshots/PL3951310.html
BTW, it is a good article about our community. |
Tom Birdwell
tombirdwell@aol.com
(513) 539-7411
Feel free to call or email |
|
|
|
lrisner
Junior Member
USA
116 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/05/2009 : 4:04:44 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tom Birdwell[/i]
[br]quote:
[i]Originally posted by lrisner[/i]
[br]By the way, Monroe's Median Income is $54,737. I believe that is right in the ball park for the example I used.
You might want to move just a bit forward in time for your data source. The best current estimate of our median family income I can find is $78,120, found at the link below. I believe your number is from the 2000 census. Monroe has about doubled in population since then, with more two income families today.
And this number much better matches how both the state and federal governments view the district's resident's wealth in their allocation of educational funding. Given the still significant number of retirees here, with their consequent lower incomes, that means a whole lot of families earn significantly more than that figure.
Easily, more than a third of Monroe households are already at the 25% marginal tax rate, as I explained earlier. Again, that is the rate applied to any additional income dollars, and really the critical factor to consider when looking at the impact of tax law changes like I raised. Most who have worked unanticipated overtime one year, or got a modest money distribution or raise, are shocked at just how that extra income is taxed. That is why All tax decisions of real impact are made based on the marginal rate, not effective.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2009/snapshots/PL3951310.html
BTW, it is a good article about our community.
You are right the 2000 census, I didn't realize the info was out of date that bad. You win the Median Income Debate!
However! I have went thru the 1900 pages of HR3200 and can NOT find any Tax on Current Health Care Bens of People of average Means. There is an excessive income surcharge section which MAY include a Tax on the "Gold Plated" policies, but I am sure you won't go as far as to try and include those.
Please feel free to show Me were it is. |
|
|
|
Tom B
Senior Member
4805 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/05/2009 : 5:48:01 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by lrisner[/i]
[br]You are right the 2000 census, I didn't realize the info was out of date that bad. You win the Median Income Debate!
However! I have went thru the 1900 pages of HR3200 and can NOT find any Tax on Current Health Care Bens of People of average Means. There is an excessive income surcharge section which MAY include a Tax on the "Gold Plated" policies, but I am sure you won't go as far as to try and include those.
Please feel free to show Me were it is.
I won't include them? Mine is one a third of the nation's insurance policies that meets the general criteria of a "gold plated" policy. The definition is quite intentionally vague, but generally felt to include those policies that allow open choice of doctors outside the contracted provider list of an HMO or insurance plan, and the option to see a specialist without first seeing an entry provider such as a family care doctor. Far from gold, the "gold plated policies" are what we all used to have.
You entered into this thread with the statement "commenting when I see what I perceive to be a completely Partisan jab" I support your right to believe and state that, but your assumption that my comments are politically motivated could not be more wrong. I strongly state my beliefs here yes, but note that they also included supporting Ted Strickland, now our Democratic governor, and attacking Kay Rogers, our former Republican county auditor, long before she recently became infamous. Were those partisan acts too?
Partisan? The taxation of "Gold Plated Benefits" was thrown into today's national tax debate not by Democrats, but by Republican John McCain in his campaign to be president. When McCain suggested taxing such benefits, then CANDIDATE Obama ran a national ad stating he would never approve taxing of any health benefits. He has since withdrawn from this position, and openly signaled Congress he would sign a bill that includes it. You can read about his flip-flop at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/politics/15health.html
or the more general google search on the topic at:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=taxing+health+care+benefits
Key figures to watch include Senator Ron Wyden, whose own health plan would make medical benefits taxable, and Peter Orszag, the President's chief budget advisor. Both are quite openly pushing hard for this. Also pay attention to Senator Max Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, whose committee has jurisdiction over tax policy and health programs. His push for taxing these benefits seems to have led Obama's reversal, along with support from many Republicans. There is less enthusiasm among Democrats in the House, but nothing in the bill will prevent this inclusion when it reaches the resolution process, and even the bill itself doesn't preclude doing so, including what I hope you now see as the not so "gold plated" policies.
I note that you have grasped at only one of the many quite real concerns I raised in the first post of this thread. I suggest you read it again. The one you raised is still in play. Refute just half of my stated concerns and I am open to revising my judgement.
|
Tom Birdwell
tombirdwell@aol.com
(513) 539-7411
Feel free to call or email |
|
|
|
lrisner
Junior Member
USA
116 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/05/2009 : 7:19:41 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tom Birdwell[/i]
I won't include them? Mine is one a third of the nation's insurance policies that meets the general criteria of a "gold plated" policy.
With all due respect I seriously doubt if yours is one.
"Key Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over federal tax legislation, are working to fine tune an idea by committee member John Kerry (D – MA) that would tax the portion of a health insurance plan over a certain value, likely to be in the region of USD20,000 to USD25,000"
My plan is a pretty good one and is worth about $400 per person, or in my case, $1200. That is $14,400 annual and doesn't cut it as a Gold Plan. I seriously doubt you are a CEO or something so I will assume yours is similar to mine.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tom Birdwell[/i]You entered into this thread with the statement "commenting when I see what I perceive to be a completely Partisan jab" I support your right to believe and state that, but your assumption that my comments are politically motivated could not be more wrong. I strongly state my beliefs here yes, but note that they also included supporting Ted Strickland, now our Democratic governor, and attacking Kay Rogers, our former Republican county auditor, long before she recently became infamous. Were those partisan acts too?
You clearly are part of what I call the "Pundit Army' and suck up every silly thing the pundits say. they HATE Obama and will do or say anything to uphold that hatred.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tom Birdwell[/i]Partisan? The taxation of "Gold Plated Benefits" was thrown into today's national tax debate not by Democrats, but by Republican John McCain in his campaign to be president. When McCain suggested taxing such benefits, then CANDIDATE Obama ran a national ad stating he would never approve taxing of any health benefits. He has since withdrawn from this position, and openly signaled Congress he would sign a bill that includes it. You can read about his flip-flop at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/politics/15health.html
or the more general google search on the topic at:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=taxing+health+care+benefits
Where on the voice is your post about that? Also, remember, it is NOT in this Bill. Your whole argument is based on YOUR beleif that will make it in there eventually. Whew...we could debate all day about many things that MIGHT make it in there.
I would like to say...you haven't be Man enough yet to even admit that Taxing Bens is NOT in there.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tom Birdwell[/i]I note that you have grasped at only one of the many quite real concerns I raised in the first post of this thread. I suggest you read it again. The one you raised is still in play. Refute just half of my stated concerns and I am open to revising my judgment.
You are the MAN on here, huh? You are going to dictate how we debate. I have to follow YOUR instructions. I say again, you take all this WAY to seriously.
I will state again, I don't accept YOUR selection of info and will decide for myself AND you are WRONG, for absolutely sure, on two Issues. The Bens Tax is NOT in HR3200, so your ORIGINAL post on this was INACCURATE!
Also YOUR definition of "Gold Plated" is intentionally "vague" so as to call your own Plan "Gold Plated",when I strongly believe it is NOT, only for the purpose of presenting yourself as a person "victimized" by the Greedy Obama. THUS....doing your pundit Soldier's duty!
P.S. You don't go by the handle PACMAN on another Site do you? Your attitude seems very familiar!
|
|
|
|
Tom B
Senior Member
4805 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/05/2009 : 9:26:43 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by lrisner[/i]
[br]You clearly are part of what I call the "Pundit Army' and suck up every silly thing the pundits say. they HATE Obama and will do or say anything to uphold that hatred.
And calling me a member of the pundit army, claiming I will do anything to follow pundits and their hatred is... what kind of behavior? You might do a check on which of us is behaving emotionally, a real sign of being "too close".
I have backed up every single point I have made with clear references to third party news agencies like the AP, the New York Times, the LA Times, etc., so that the reader could fact check them and form their own opinions. Never pundits, not even once. You state that including such references is rude. Sharing sources is rude? It is a basic principle that defines good research everywhere. I follow pundits? You have seen the Democratic ones on MSNBC, right? And Alan Colmbs now has a show on Fox.quote:
Your whole argument is based on YOUR beleif that (taxing health benefits) will make it in there eventually. Whew...we could debate all day about many things that MIGHT make it in there.
My whole argument, contains NINE different concerns, eight of which you refuse to address. But again, nice try. As for the ninth, there is no doubt whatsoever that the House bill for the first time breaks the federal policy of not taxing health care (medical surgery suppliers), establishing a precedent for doing so much more widely. And in my very last last post, the one you replied to, I clearly stated my concerns of the the upcoming Senate version including it, and Obama supporting it doing so, and gave the accredited news sources for that too. My stated MULTIPLE concerns include:
The bill REQUIRES uninsured Americans to pay a fine. I believe this to be an individual choice, as it is their life and their decision. The Capps Amendment will require federal funding of abortions, and forces that insurance plans include them. The vast majority of the nation opposes that, even a lot of abortion rights advocates. The bill requires that insurers fund pre-existing conditions, which will bankrupt them, as people don't have to purchase insurance until after they get ill. The bill is far from deficit neutral as promised, with an already known $200B in overspending. How much is not yet known? And if that is not a concern, why the huge hurry to pass a bill that does not go into effect for four years. The bill imposes $150 billion in cuts on the prescription-drug industry. Does anyone think this aligns with promises to not cut benefits to seniors? The bill ends commercial competition in the seniors drug program, widely acknowledged to be the most successful in history in cost reduction. It ends Medicare Part D, which a full fourth of our seniors are enrolled in, and the best Medicare program. It cuts Medicare payment rates. Seniors already have difficulty finding doctors that take new Medicare patients, what will this do? Doctors will be punished with lower reimbursement rates if they order expensive tests, leaving the patient wondering if he was not tested because it was not needed, or if the doctor was unwilling to see his income slashed. I note you don't comment on any of these, or include them in my "whole argument". Why? Probably because you have no good answer to them.
quote:
I would like to say...you haven't be Man enough yet to even admit that Taxing Bens is NOT in there.
Now that is mature, bring in manhood. I don't admit it because we don't have an congressional approved bill yet, and Senate leaders are still pushing to include these taxes in their still open version, and Obama has stated that if it is included, he will sign it. If it won't happen, why is he still supporting it? And I think that the House bill language is vague enough to admit it in reconciliation, but that is just my opinion.
quote:
You are the MAN on here, huh? You are going to dictate how we debate. I have to follow YOUR instructions. I say again, you take all this WAY to seriously.
Dictate? Which part of my last post "I support your right to believe and state..." is not clear to you? At least be truthful in quoting me. Or do you just object to men in general?
quote:
I will state again, I don't accept YOUR selection of info and will decide for myself AND you are WRONG, for absolutely sure, on two Issues. The Bens Tax is NOT in HR3200, so your ORIGINAL post on this was INACCURATE!
You seem to have trouble with math too. That is ONE issue. You are going to decide for yourself? Good. That is EXACTLY why I include the press references in my posts, so that you can. And all but one were third party mainstream press references, not pundits. The other is an elected Congressman
And you still refuse to discuss all the other points I made. Why? Unless you don't have good replies?
quote:
Also YOUR definition of "Gold Plated" is intentionally "vague" so as to call your own Plan "Gold Plated",when I strongly believe it is NOT, only for the purpose of presenting yourself as a person "victimized" by the Greedy Obama. THUS....doing your pundit Soldier's duty!
I can't even think of a reasonable reply to such an emotional claim.
quote:
P.S. You don't go by the handle PACMAN on another Site do you? Your attitude seems very familiar!
For the record, I have not posted by any other name, on this or any other site, at least for many years. You can search for D16842, my only previous email and screen name, but I don't think I ever used it outside skydiving. It is my master skydiving license number.
Which site? If PACMAN documents his claims with mainstream references, I might want to read him.
|
Tom Birdwell
tombirdwell@aol.com
(513) 539-7411
Feel free to call or email |
|
|
|
bobpreston
Junior Member
486 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/05/2009 : 10:00:26 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by lrisner[/i]
My plan is a pretty good one and is worth about $400 per person, or in my case, $1200. That is $14,400 annual and doesn't cut it as a Gold Plan. I seriously doubt you are a CEO or something so I will assume yours is similar to mine.
Also YOUR definition of "Gold Plated" is intentionally "vague" so as to call your own Plan "Gold Plated",when I strongly believe it is NOT, only for the purpose of presenting yourself as a person "victimized" by the Greedy Obama. THUS....doing your pundit Soldier's duty!
"The proposed tax on insurers providing the so-called Cadillac health care plans would hit employer-provided policies that cost more than $8,000 a year for an individual or $21,000 for a family.
But as a New York Times headline read a few weeks ago, the proposal could also snare a few Chevys.
Higher-end policies are enjoyed not just by corporate executives, but also by middle-class union workers who have long negotiated for better benefits over pay. They’re also provided by many smaller companies, which tend to pay more for health coverage because they have fewer workers among whom to spread the risk."
Do some looking around not just screaming yes we can over and over like a obama zombie. |
|
|
|
Tom B
Senior Member
4805 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/05/2009 : 10:34:42 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
I am sure that supporting him will cause me no end of troubles, but Bob Preston's post comes originally from the following article from the Las Vegas Sun I think, about workers in their area:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/oct/11/tax-cadillac-plans-could-snare-hotel-maids/
For the record, our single school employees insurance is above that $8,000 taxable line if memory serves, as are MANY others. Further, with medical costs increasing much faster than inflation, how long will it be before yours exceeds that dollar based limit? Do you really think Congress will change the tax law as your plan slowly or not so slowly moves above the limit? They sure as hell have not moved the limit on the Alternative Minimum Tax to meet inflation. It used to be a tax for rich people, but I know a lot of middle class people recently caught by it. |
Tom Birdwell
tombirdwell@aol.com
(513) 539-7411
Feel free to call or email |
|
|
|
Tom B
Senior Member
4805 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/05/2009 : 11:49:02 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
From another thread... If anybody out there doesn't believe that the government health care plan won't result in reduced health care provided to us, like in other nations with national health care, read the following, and try to explain any other tangible reason Congress would approve the following:
"Buried in the thousands of pages of the health care bills drafted in the House and Senate is a provision to protect insurance companies from legal accountability for benefit decisions that cause injury or death to patients, Republicans warned on Wednesday.
“You can sue your doctor for malpractice if he makes a mistake practicing medicine, but you cannot sue your insurance company when it makes a medical decision,” |
Tom Birdwell
tombirdwell@aol.com
(513) 539-7411
Feel free to call or email |
|
|
|
elgspfkcmon
Junior Member
USA
631 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 2:45:34 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by lrisner[/i]
I will state again, I don't accept YOUR selection of info and will decide for myself AND you are WRONG, for absolutely sure, on two Issues. The Bens Tax is NOT in HR3200, so your ORIGINAL post on this was INACCURATE!
So glad you read House Bill 3200. Now perhaps you should read the CURRENT House bill 3692. It is the 2000 page bill CURRENTLY under consideration for vote on Saturday. You may find Tom's references in the CURRENT house bill under consideration. It has a lot of other "good stuff" there for you to read as well. It is what the the Wall Street Journal calls " the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced. ." |
|
|
|
taurus
Junior Member
75 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/07/2009 : 12:12:30 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide health care to all it’s citizens.
~Institute of Medicine
Universal health care is the belief that all citizens should have access to affordable, high-quality medical care.
Single Payer Health Insurance Systems
Many people who support universal health care prefer a system known as “single payer health insurance.” Single payer health insurance is one in which the government finances health care but is not involved in delivering the care, much like Medicare and Medicaid. This idea fits the broader definition of socialized medicine, but it is a distinctly different system from the more literal meaning of socialized medicine in which the government also employs the health care professionals and is involved in health care delivery
Universal Health Care vs Socialized Medicine
Although some people refer to universal health care as socialized medicine, the concepts are not completely synonymous. The term “socialized medicine” is primarily used only in the United States by those who do not support the idea of universal health care. Outside the US, the terms most used are universal health care or public health care. The actual definition of socialized medicine is somewhat varied and inconsistent in usage, though it generally describes any system of health care that is publicly financed, government administered, or both.
For some, socialized medicine is specific to systems in which the government both operates the health care facilities AND employs the health care professionals. In the United States, examples of this type of care are the United States Veterans Health Administration, and the medical departments of the US Army, Navy, and Air Force.
Others consider socialized medicine in broader terms as any system that is partially or totally funded by government although health care is provided by private business. Examples of this type of health care system in the United States is Medicare, Medicaid, and the US Military’s TRICARE.
Socialized Systems in a Capitalist Society
Many Americans believe in a free market society, and thus their beliefs may extend to health care as well. While a capitalist structure, supply and demand, and a free market system help regulate business models, should health care be run as a profit-driven industry? This is a basic issue at the core of the universal health care debate. Currently, many socialized programs provide a wide variety of beneficial services to Americans, including police departments, fire departments, public libraries, public schools, Medicare, Medicaid, and the US Military and Veterans health programs. Socialized programs can play an important role in capitalist societies - the challenge is in finding the right balance and determining how the United States can best provide health care for all it’s citizens.
|
|
|
|
No money
Senior Member
1919 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/07/2009 : 12:13:51 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
| Leave it up to Obama, Pelosi and all their cousins to totally mess up the health care system. |
|
|
|
No money
Senior Member
1919 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/07/2009 : 12:21:52 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
They are going to force everyone to buy their health care, if they don't they will be fined. Just how the heck will they buy it or pay a fine if they have no job and can hardly put food on their tables. Will people that pay in part or even in whole for their health care from their work place still have to buy the Governments health care? Will Medicare cost more from paychecks?
What about all the illegals? |
|
|
|
lrisner
Junior Member
USA
116 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/07/2009 : 12:49:33 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
Tom, you have proved NOTHING, except in your Mind.
Zombie man. I am NOT an Obama supporter, just someone tired of "pundit speak". IF some Union worker DID have insurance wotrh 8k for Single and IF the pundit suggested Tax WERE in the Bill,you would be right.
elgspk....whatever, I looked and did NOT find it in HR3962. Would someone on here who believes it is in there please find it and prove me wrong. IF it is IN there, Tom is right.
|
|
|
|
Bartleby
Junior Member
USA
430 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 01:06:46 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide health care to all it’s citizens.
~Institute of Medicine
Define wealthy...you mean in debt up to our ears.
I would personally love to give every citizen in the country health insurance. However, how do you control it, how do you pay for it? This is not free, and we cannot just keep printing money. The system can collapse. |
|
|
|
|
cmsquare
Senior Member
USA
3106 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 06:25:38 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by taurus[/i]
[br]The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide health care to all it’s citizens.
~Institute of Medicine
This sentence strikes to the core of the issue for me. It embarrasses me that we haven't addressed this much much sooner.
|
"I brought it back, not cm"
|
|
|
|
cmsquare
Senior Member
USA
3106 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/08/2009 : 06:42:32 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
Passed in the house last night by the way....
House narrowly passes landmark health care bill
Email this Story
Nov 8, 12:18 AM (ET)
By DAVID ESPO
WASHINGTON (AP) - In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation Saturday night to expand coverage to tens of millions who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry. Republican opposition was nearly unanimous.
The 220-215 vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.
A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later.
"It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it," said Rep. John Dingell, the 83-year-old Michigan lawmaker who has introduced national health insurance in every Congress since succeeding his father in 1955.
In the run-up to a final vote, conservatives from the two political parties joined forces to impose tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies to be sold to many individuals and small groups. They prevailed on a roll call of 240-194.
Ironically, that only solidified support for the legislation, clearing the way for conservative Democrats to vote for it.
The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government's mandates.
Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price gouging, bid rigging and market allocation.
A cheer went up from the Democratic side of the House when the bill gained 218 votes, a majority. Moments later, Democrats counted down the final seconds of the voting period in unison, and and let loose an even louder roar when Pelosi grabbed the gavel and declared, "the bill is passed.'
From the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada issued a statement saying, "We realize the strong will for reform that exists, and we are energized that we stand closer than ever to reforming our broken health insurance system."
The bill drew the votes of 219 Democrats and Rep. Joseph Cao, a first-term Republican who holds an overwhelmingly Democratic seat in New Orleans. Opposed were 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats.
Nearly unanimous in their opposition, minority Republicans cataloged their objections across hours of debate on the 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation.
United in opposition, minority Republicans cataloged their objections across hours of debate on the 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation.
"We are going to have a complete government takeover of our health care system faster than you can say, 'this is making me sick,'" jabbed Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., adding that Democrats were intent on passing "a jobs-killing, tax-hiking, deficit-exploding" bill.
But with little doubt about the outcome, the rhetoric lacked the fire of last summer's town hall meetings, when some critics accused Democrats of plotting "death panels" to hasten the demise of senior citizens.
The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government's mandates.
Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price gouging, bid rigging and market allocation.
At its core, the measure would create a federally regulated marketplace where consumers could shop for coverage. In the bill's most controversial provision, the government would sell insurance, although the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that premiums for it would be more expensive than for policies sold by private firms.
The bill is projected to expand coverage to 36 million uninsured, resulting in 96 percent of the nation's eligible population having insurance.
To pay for the expansion of coverage, the bill cuts Medicare's projected spending by more than $400 billion over a decade. It also imposes a tax surcharge of 5.4 percent on income over $500,000 in the case of individuals and $1 million for families.
The bill was estimated to reduce federal deficits by about $104 billion over a decade, although it lacked two of the key cost-cutting provisions under consideration in the Senate, and its longer-term impact on government red ink was far from clear.
Democrats lined up a range of outside groups behind their legislation, none more important than the AARP, whose support promises political cover against the cuts to Medicare in next year's congressional elections.
The nation's drug companies generally support health care overhaul. And while the powerful insurance industry opposed the legislation, it did so quietly, and the result was that Republicans could not count on the type of advertising campaign that might have peeled away skittish Democrats in swing districts.
Over all, the bill envisioned the most sweeping set of changes to the health care system in more than a generation, and Democrats said it marked the culmination of a campaign that Harry Truman began when he sat in the White House 60 years ago.
Debate on the House floor had already begun when Obama strode into a closed-door meeting of the Democratic rank and file across the street from the Capitol to make a final personal appeal to them to pass his top domestic priority.
Later, in an appearance at the White House, he said he had told lawmakers, "to rise to this moment. Answer the call of history, and vote yes for health insurance reform for America."
Participants also said Obama had referred to this week's shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, in which 13 people were killed. His remarks put in perspective that the hardships soldiers endure for the country are "what sacrifice really is," as opposed to "casting a vote that might lose an election for you," said Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J.
It appeared that a compromise brokered Friday night on the volatile issue of abortion had finally secured the votes needed to pass the legislation.
As drafted, the measure denied the use of federal subsidies to purchase abortion coverage in policies sold by private insurers in the new insurance exchange, except in cases of incest, rape or when the life of the mother was in danger.
But abortion foes won far stronger restrictions that would rule out abortion coverage except in those three categories in any government-sold plan. It would also ban abortion coverage in any private plan purchased by consumers receiving federal subsidies.
Disappointed Democratic abortion rights supporters grumbled about the turn of events, but pulled back quickly from any thought of opposing the health care bill in protest.
One, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., detailed numerous other benefits for women in the bill, including free medical preventive services and better prescription drug coverage under Medicare. "Women need health care reform," she concluded in remarks on the House floor.
A Republican alternative was rejected on a near party line vote of 258-176.
It relied heavily on loosening regulations on private insurers to reduce costs for those who currently have insurance, in some cases by as much as 10 percent. But congressional budget analysts said the plan would make no dent in the ranks of the uninsured, an assessment that highlighted the difference in priorities between the two political parties.
It was a theme of Obama's remarks to Democrats at midmorning.
The president said Democrats have a 70-year history of creating and defending programs like Social Security and Medicare, Andrews said afterward, adding Obama had said the day's vote "is going to define the difference between the Republican and Democratic parties for decades."
---__
Associated Press writers Phil Elliott, Alan Fram and Erica Werner contributed to this report.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091108/D9BR59EO0.html |
"I brought it back, not cm"
|
|
|
|
Tom B
Senior Member
4805 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 05:44:09 AM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by lrisner[/i]
[br]Tom, you have proved NOTHING, except in your Mind.
I have proved Nothing? Perhaps not, but you most certainly have. While not my intention when I started the thread, it certainly has demonstrated that you are at the very least unwilling, if not unable to reasonably discuss the myriad of issues and concerns of the proposed health care legislation, without resorting to personal attacks, aka mis-information, and chants like pundit army.
In the first post in this thread, I raised nine concerns. Of those you have discussed only one, and you blew even it, using ten year old data to make grossly incorrect claims about the potential tax impact of making employer provided insurance taxable as is being pushed Senate, with Obama saying he will sign it if they do. In doing so you underestimated Monroe family income by 43%, or $23,383, misleading a public that may not be familiar with the actual numbers. So I can well understand your reluctance to share your information sources, if the rest are like that one. As for the remaining eight concerns, does the keeping your head buried in the sand thingy generally work for you? Because that is what you are doing with those eight concerns.
And if the best you have is claiming I am part of a pundit Army, yours is a very weak argument indeed. My concern is not partisan, but instead financial, as well as keeping the best parts of our health care intact. All money is green, Republicans and Democrat's alike. But I do admit that with the party lines drawn so deeply in DC, that it is hard to avoid discussing this in party terms. Especially since Pelosi and Reid were not permitting open floor debate or introduction of amendments.
Here is my concern bundled up in a small package. Americans want more health care then we are willing to pay for ourselves. This bill will greatly add to the nation's deficit, as they can't find a way to balance the books without taxing employer provided insurance. That debt will go to our kids and our grand kids. If we are unwilling to pay for our own medical care, why should they have to pay for it? And the claim that we can add 30 million people to the mainstream health care system without those currently in it taking losses is a lie. There simply are not enough resources to go around today. Add 30 million more people, and somebody gets less.
Clearly we have to do something about health care, but this is a lousy bill. Why are Pelosi and Reid in such a hurry to pass it, since it doesn't go into effect for three more years? Because they know it is lousy, and want it passed before America wakes up.
|
Tom Birdwell
tombirdwell@aol.com
(513) 539-7411
Feel free to call or email |
|
|
|
lrisner
Junior Member
USA
116 Posts |
|
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 6:15:12 PM
| Report Abuse |
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tom Birdwell[/i]
[br]quote:
[i]Originally posted by lrisner[/i]
[br]Tom, you have proved NOTHING, except in your Mind.
Clearly we have to do something about health care, but this is a lousy bill. Why are Pelosi and Reid in such a hurry to pass it, since it doesn't go into effect for three more years? Because they know it is lousy, and want it passed before America wakes up.
Tom, I am sorry to say this but you are way more Hard Headed than you will admit. I am not trying to provoke or insult you but it needs to be said. All I did was dispute some of the info you originally posted. Now, maybe you think you have cleared all up, but from where I stand you have done none of that.
I mean, just look at your cut and paste links. My God! One of them is to the comments of a GOP Rep. Now why would anyone debating with you CARE what that man said? If you think he is brilliant, fine! Just don't expect someone else to!
The whole essence of our "disagreement" was your comment on the Taxing of Bens. Well I ask you to show me where that was in the Bill, your answer? paraphrasing Tom "Well it will be after Committee and Reconciliation!" Well Tom that is an unacceptable answer! It is NOT in there. If you said you believe it will be, no prob, I could live with that answer. However, that is NOT what you said in your original Post.You said "could cost", now that is a misleading "pundit" type comment if I ever saw one!
Now, as to "Clearly we have to do something about health care, but this is a lousy bill", we agree on that. However, they are in a hurry because they want it done while the doing is good! The GOP sat on their Asses and ignored the issue because they all had the Gold Plated stuff and figured those without could just "get a job". I too, think it is a lousy Bill. The difference between us, is that I realize that the Dems are going to get all they can right and and when the GOP gets back in (they will!) they will cut it all back. Now, the good part for the people is that by then the "cutting back" will have political cost and the GOP's cut backs will have to reasonable.
In the end we will likely have what is needed and what we can afford. Neither Party can get there by themselves. So we actually agree on most of the Issue, I just think all the "punditism garbage" is bad for the Country and I will fight it every chance I get.
I hope this will put you at ease and we can stop the unless argument.Please don't waste time rebutting, I am done!
Have a good Day Tom. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Health Care Bill Details Frightening
