[cannotseethe]

Gee, I'm still waiting for the Thank You card for contributing tens of thousands of tax dollars to fund two wars against which I'm deeply opposed. Perhaps I'll get it in the mail this holiday season.

[deinotes]

Originally Posted by Krazy P To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My best guess for the increased tax that I will pay next year as a result of the new health care bill is $8,225. Guess how I am going to economize? I will reduce my charitable giving by that amount next year. Since it takes me roughly $12,000 now of earnings to make $8,225 of of money I give to charity, that is the amount I will have to reduce my charitable giving to make up the increased tax. Since I already give more than Biden, Gore or any of the other "sensitive, caring" progressive minds in politics, I think this is the best way to handle it. This practical real life situation is my example to show that nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it. In this case, people like me. And people like me adjust their behavior accordingly - in ways that can not always be predicted - except that there will be changes. So, just to sum up, my taxes are going up, my health care is going to be worse, and my charitable giving will decrease (resulting in the charities that I give to having less money to help people).

LOL @ Not predicted
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.
When are you going john galt ?

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by cannotseethe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Gee, I'm still waiting for the Thank You card for contributing tens of thousands of tax dollars to fund two wars against which I'm deeply opposed. Perhaps I'll get it in the mail this holiday season.

I know. I mean the horror of our taxes being used to provide health care for our citizens instead of bombing brown folks or lining the pockets of war profiteers is just too much for me to bear. Oh wait, we'll still be doing those things too.

[HappyToBeMe]

@Cannotseethe:
Maybe you'll get it, or maybe not. But if you don't get it, I hope it's for a good reason and that they're saving the money in order to pay the country's debt that is alarmingly increasing.
As for the charitable contributions, I must say that one should not contribute solely for tax purposes. It's not ethical in my honest opinion. Therefore, give when you can because you want to.

[plotthickens]

I like how SF handles this. I don't like the new bill (well at least I understand where the dems are coming from on it). Businesses have to either pay into the city healthcare or give to a spending account or offer healthcare and healthcare quality for everyone who walks into a SF hospital has greatly increased.

Any other cities out there handling it well? Wish it would spread that way instead of being forced from the top down.

ETA: SF=San Francisco. Sorry, was being terribly native there. :embarassed:

[Blse]

Originally Posted by Krazy P To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My best guess for the increased tax that I will pay next year as a result of the new health care bill is $8,225. Guess how I am going to economize? I will reduce my charitable giving by that amount next year. Since it takes me roughly $12,000 now of earnings to make $8,225 of of money I give to charity, that is the amount I will have to reduce my charitable giving to make up the increased tax. Since I already give more than Biden, Gore or any of the other "sensitive, caring" progressive minds in politics, I think this is the best way to handle it. This practical real life situation is my example to show that nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it. In this case, people like me. And people like me adjust their behavior accordingly - in ways that can not always be predicted - except that there will be changes. So, just to sum up, my taxes are going up, my health care is going to be worse, and my charitable giving will decrease (resulting in the charities that I give to having less money to help people).

Well, I don't know why your health care is going to be worse (you'll be able to keep your current plan), but if your point that there's no free lunch then there's no argument. I think I said the same thing recently in another thread here (Rights as commodities) - everything needs to be paid for, the question is only who pays and how.

The question I get from reading your example is whether the opportunity cost of a higher tax (in your case less money for charities) are out-weighed by its benefits (wider health care coverage for others). I don't have a certain answer to that question, but think there's a good chance that they might.

I have to say, it's a nice example of economics at work though.

---------- Post added 12-21-2009 at 11:36 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I am understandably prohibited from making personal attacks, but I want to suggest that you do some research on the terms "neoliberal" and "socialist". I sincerely think this would advance your understanding of contemporary political and economic idiom.

Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The way you phrased the question, I wasn't sure you understood the term. I had assumed that you thought that the social policies of the 1960s and 1970s somehow were responsible for economic growth. My bad. But given that we know that Reagan-style economic policy (minus the congressional failures to constrain the deficit) produces wealth, why would we continue to attack the economic basis for our previous successes by increasing taxes on the very folks who drive our economy.

Ok, let's clarify American history a bit:

First neoliberal means conservative economics. The term liberal in much of the world actually means fiscally and monetarily conservative.

Second, the policies of the 40s, 50s and 60s were roughly the same brand of Neo-classical micro and Keynesian macro-economics. They did generate growth - economically speaking the 1960s are one of the best decades on record (only rivaled by 90s). Stagflation was brought on in the 1970s by high oil prices and a war that over-strained the economy (the economy was already booming and working at maximum capacity in the late 60s, the demands for goods placed on it by the escalating Vietnam war caused massive inflation - as always happens when aggregate demand pushes the boundaries of possible production).

The economy recovered in the 80s because of Volker's restrictive monetary policy. Reagan's fiscal policy was expansionary and therefore could not have ended stagflation (you can't fight inflation with expansionary fiscal policy anymore than you can fight a fire with gasoline). The tight monetary policy ushered in a massive recession which killed off inflation. With inflation defeated the economy was bound to grow again and Reagan's tax cuts simply added to that.

I would also be hesitant to give so much credit or blame to politicians. The market produces most wealth by itself and influence of politicians is much smaller than one might think.

[Warrior]

Originally Posted by Krazy P To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My best guess for the increased tax that I will pay next year as a result of the new health care bill is $8,225. Guess how I am going to economize? I will reduce my charitable giving by that amount next year. Since it takes me roughly $12,000 now of earnings to make $8,225 of of money I give to charity, that is the amount I will have to reduce my charitable giving to make up the increased tax. Since I already give more than Biden, Gore or any of the other "sensitive, caring" progressive minds in politics, I think this is the best way to handle it. This practical real life situation is my example to show that nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it. In this case, people like me. And people like me adjust their behavior accordingly - in ways that can not always be predicted - except that there will be changes. So, just to sum up, my taxes are going up, my health care is going to be worse, and my charitable giving will decrease (resulting in the charities that I give to having less money to help people).

I've done some similar calculations and I'll be responding in a similar way if some form of health care bill passes. I was looking to drop insurance (at least for me and my wife, had not decided on the kids yet) and pay cash for my health care to save money anyway. If I am forced to have insurance, that will represent a considerable cost delta.

	Originally Posted by gestalt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	KP: How is your health care going to be worse?

Well, my PCP has sent a letter indicating that his entire practice will be closing if government health care becomes a reality. The doctors in the practice do not believe they will be able to offer adequate quality of service under any version of the proposed rules, so the doctors have decided to pursue careers outside of the medical field. My kid's pediatrician has sent a similar letter, but their reasoning is that the costs of new rules will just be too much. They can't stay in business. So much for being able to keep my current plan.

	Originally Posted by Lycurgus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I give my charitable donations in bulk, at the end of each year. Makes it easier for accounting purposes. I don't know how much more I'll pay in taxes, but after I find out, I presume quite a few things will be cut out of my budget. Luckily, I'm moving to a state with no income tax in the near future so at least I'll have that going for me.

I do this for the items I give to Goodwill and similar charities. (In fact, it has been a busy two weeks getting a lot of things together.) Most of my giving, though, is done on major projects over the course of the year. They usually involve a legal team and are larger projects. Hard to push stuff like that through at the end of the year.

Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Krazy P, Would you agree that you are far better off than the majority of people living in your country? Are you implying that these people deserve to be in the situation they are in? Are you aware that without the widespread neoliberalism of the past few decades, you wouldn't make as much money as you do today? (Are you horrified by the idea of not having an economic elite?) Finally, does it make (ethical) sense to give less money to charity only to spite politicians you don't agree with? Did the charities have anything to do with the proposed new law? Why did you give them money in the first place?

I would agree I am better off than 99% of the people in the country. That doesn't imply anything about anyone else. What "these people" deserve is to have the freedom to support themselves with dignity, not with government "help"

No, I don't recognise liberalism in any form has helped me. I have never seen a liberal policy aimed at doing anything other than pulling someone down. What horrifies me is breaking people to the point that they no longer believe they can live with dignity and better themselves.

You talk about politicians like they are somehow seperate from the people of the United States. They aren't. Also, your use of spite implies you don't really understand giving. If I we're reducing my spending to spite anyone, which I'm not, it would be to spite people in the nation that think they are helping by providing health care paid for by the federal government.

Let's look at this in another perspective. What if I get a disease that costs 3 or 4 million dollars to treat? I am perfectly capble of paying for that in cash without insurance and still be well off. What is hard for me to do is look at those who have considerably less than me and tell them that they have to go broke paying for my health care.

	Originally Posted by HappyToBeMe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	@Cannotseethe: As for the charitable contributions, I must say that one should not contribute solely for tax purposes. It's not ethical in my honest opinion. Therefore, give when you can because you want to.

I would agree in general. I think all the OP is saying is that his ability to "give when he can" just got smaller by $12,000.

[SelfMadeBum]

Well, how spiteful of you, OP.

[Lucid]

This version of the bill does very little except provide the health insurance companies with more customers and allows them to operate from states with the lowest regulation standards. It does nothing to control costs, yet includes a mandate that we must all pay the health insurance companies whatever they charge and will provide subsidies to those companies in order to cover some of those who cannot afford the coverage which will be required by law. Paid for, of course, by the tax payer. It benefits private interests and screws the public. Business as usual in Washington I guess.

I am appalled.

[Mullanaphy]

I don't think it's necessarily being spiteful SelfMadeBum.

Personally increased taxes for me would also lower my abilities to donate time and money to charities. Not because I wouldn't want to but because I wouldn't be able to.

Pretty sure that's his intent with starting this thread and showing his disgust that these taxes are taking money out of other peoples hands and putting them into bureaucracies.

[Lycurgus]

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, how spiteful of you, OP.

I is my income level, I is divided by a certain percent for Taxes, which leaves me with X.

I have X amount of money.

It takes Y amount of money for me to live my current lifestyle, the one to which I have become accustom and I will not change it unless I must, I will not be living in a mud hut for 2,000 dollars a year simply because I can, and no one is able to convince me otherwise.

X-Y=L, the leftover money.

Out of L, I need to take S, my savings for emergency, and R, for retirement.

So, (X-Y=)L-S-R=D


D is my Discretionary income, with it I make Charitable donations, purchase luxury items and gifts for family and friends. Typically in that order.


If you reduce my X by increasing the percent taken out of I, the money must come from the end of the line. It wont and cannot come from my necessities.

It is not spite, it is simple math.

[cannotseethe]

	Originally Posted by Mullanaphy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Pretty sure that's his intent with starting this thread and showing his disgust that these taxes are taking money out of other peoples hands and putting them into bureaucracies.

This is a bogus characterization. When it's something a person likes, it's money spent for a good cause: freedom, liberty, gramma and apple pie. When it's something a person doesn't like, it's taking yer precious tax money and giving it to the damn BUREAUCRATS (hmph hmph). Never mind that some people who need health insurance might actually get it. Those damn BUREAUCRATS! (grumble mumph). They're stealing our jobs! They're taking our guns! They're giving our money to lazy people!

Hence my question: when am I getting my Thank You card for helping to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that I vehemently opposed starting?

Which was daft. Because we live in a country and pay taxes to it, and inevitably some of that tax money will be spent on things we don't like. That's what it typically means to live in a community instead of in a cave all by yourself. To opt in when it's convenient and opt out when it's inconvenient is usually called selfish, or parasitic.

[Mader]

In the US we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There are no guarantees. So called leveling of the playing field is like teaching a class to the lowest achieving student - it dumbs down everyone.

$8000 is a huge amount of money!!!!

And with some benefits going up, just where do you think those dollars are coming from? Santa? Obama-dollars? Do you work for free?

What do I suggest, try harder, get a second job, go back to school, but quit screwing with someone else's life just because you are pissed that you don't make that kind of money. we are responsible for ourselves and our families, everything else is charity. Charity is good, but I must first care for myself and my family - this is my first moral responsibility.

[Mader]

And, of course, Congress is not at all concerned that requiring folks to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. Why would they worry about a little thing like that?

What are they going to do when the Amish refuse to buy health insurance? Put them in jail, put a lean on the farm?

[Mullanaphy]

Originally Posted by cannotseethe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is a bogus characterization. When it's something a person likes, it's money spent for a good cause: freedom, liberty, gramma and apple pie. When it's something a person doesn't like, it's taking yer precious tax money and giving it to the damn BUREAUCRATS (hmph hmph). Never mind that some people who need health insurance might actually get it. Those damn BUREAUCRATS! (grumble mumph). They're stealing our jobs! They're taking our guns! They're giving our money to lazy people! Hence my question: when am I getting my Thank You card for helping to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that I vehemently opposed starting? Which was daft. Because we live in a country and pay taxes to it, and inevitably some of that tax money will be spent on things we don't like. That's what it typically means to live in a community instead of in a cave all by yourself. To opt in when it's convenient and opt out when it's inconvenient is usually called selfish, or parasitic.

It appears that you assume that I supported Afganistan and Iraq.

To believe that a government is more efficient than a free market then I think you are mistaken. I can allocate my personal money, as well as my time, to charities a lot more efficiently than a government can. If I can't then my money goes to organizations that can do it more efficiently than the government.

Also, I think there's a gap in your argument. My problem isn't about where the money is going, my problem is in it's efficiency. Your equation to two wars (that I'm also paying to support...) isn't the same context. I have no qualms with helping the less fortunate, it's what I do, the qualms I have is an outside source saying they're better than me at doing that by force.

[Warrior]

Originally Posted by cannotseethe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is a bogus characterization. When it's something a person likes, it's money spent for a good cause: freedom, liberty, gramma and apple pie. When it's something a person doesn't like, it's taking yer precious tax money and giving it to the damn BUREAUCRATS (hmph hmph). Never mind that some people who need health insurance might actually get it. Those damn BUREAUCRATS! (grumble mumph). They're stealing our jobs! They're taking our guns! They're giving our money to lazy people! Hence my question: when am I getting my Thank You card for helping to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that I vehemently opposed starting? Which was daft. Because we live in a country and pay taxes to it, and inevitably some of that tax money will be spent on things we don't like. That's what it typically means to live in a community instead of in a cave all by yourself. To opt in when it's convenient and opt out when it's inconvenient is usually called selfish, or parasitic.

Thank you for helping fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which you vehemently opposed starting. I would also be happy to send a post card.

It is always taking money from citizens, whether it is for a proper function or not. It it not the proper role of the federal government to provide health insurance. However, I think this misses the point. Increased taxes for any reason are going to cut into the good that individuals can do in their communities. I'm not sure about the other posters, but I know that what I'll end up paying in additional taxes will at least in part go to fund bureaucracy and a have little doubt the rest will be eaten up in increased costs. All of what I give goes to whatever cause I choose to invest in. I see no way there can be any benefit in this situation. Everyone is going to be worse off.

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by Krazy P To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Guess how I am going to economize? I will reduce my charitable giving by that amount next year. Since it takes me roughly $12,000 now of earnings to make $8,225 of of money I give to charity, that is the amount I will have to reduce my charitable giving to make up the increased tax.

I guess this shows just how much you actually care about the charities you donate to. Maybe try to scale back all of the luxurious things in your life instead of trying to dish out petty emotional blackmail. After all, this is generally what all of us "little people" do.

[Night Runner]

There is a very important aspect of this "problem" that hasn't been brought up yet:

	Originally Posted by Krazy P To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I will reduce my charitable giving by that amount next year. Since it takes me roughly $12,000 now of earnings to make $8,225 of of money I give to charity, that is the amount I will have to reduce my charitable giving to make up the increased tax.

Unless I am horribly, horribly mistaken, when you donate money to charity, that money can be deducted from your taxes - i.e., you get a tax deduction. Therefore, if you really don't want to pay that $8,225 to the big evil government, you should add it to the $12,000 you already give to charity. The Powers That Be won't get their damn dirty hands on your hard-earned cash and you will do even more good. Problem solved.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The final version of the healthcare bill is very far from what progressives wanted it to be, but it's a step in the right direction - and a very important step at that. The precedent has been set, and Obama has achieved something no other president could before him. There will be reforms and amendments in the future to reign in the insurance companies' dirty tactics. What matters most is that now there is a foundation for all of that.

[Lycurgus]

Originally Posted by Night Runner To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There is a very important aspect of this "problem" that hasn't been brought up yet: Unless I am horribly, horribly mistaken, when you donate money to charity, that money can be deducted from your taxes - i.e., you get a tax deduction. Therefore, if you really don't want to pay that $8,225 to the big evil government, you should add it to the $12,000 you already give to charity. The Powers That Be won't get their damn dirty hands on your hard-earned cash and you will do even more good. Problem solved. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A tax deduction is not the same as a tax credit.


A tax deduction takes your total taxable income from 100,000 to 92,000. This means you pay 8% less taxes. (We'll say, for the sake of simplicity that you only pay 10% in income tax, which is far from accurate -- this tax bracket is more likely to be triple or more than that, including State, Local and Federal.)

This means that you'd pay 9,200 instead of 10,000 in taxes.

A tax credit takes your total taxes payed from 10,000 in the above scenario to 2,000.



You get a tax credit for buying a new home (up to $8,000), installing energy efficient windows (up to $2,000? I'm not sure about this one), and doing a variety of other things. On the other hand, you get a tax deduction for donating to charity.

Important difference.


Anyway, it's moot because the government would still collect this particular tax, just instead of 8,225 it'd be 6,200 (I believe I calculated that correctly, based on broad assumptions and generalizations about the OP's income).

[Shauru]

Nothing like bitching about a guesstimate on the potential costs of a bill that hasn't passed yet and whose final version is in the air. That seems reasonable.

I'm with the liberal hippies. Go tell your congressman to end the war, maybe you'll get a return then.

[cannotseethe]

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It it not the proper role of the federal government to provide health insurance.

Why not?

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Increased taxes for any reason are going to cut into the good that individuals can do in their communities.

What some people can sometimes do in their communities. That's the crux of it. Firstly, lots of people could do good in their community and choose not to. Secondly, in times of need most people hoard. Yet health care needs don't rise and fall with the state of the economy. One way to smooth out the bumps in what people give or do not give is taxation.

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not sure about the other posters, but I know that what I'll end up paying in additional taxes will at least in part go to fund bureaucracy and a have little doubt the rest will be eaten up in increased costs.

It'd be preferable for that money to go to paying the overhead costs of running an insurance company? And to paying the perversely out of control costs of health care driven by the bizarrely out-of-whack incentive structure when health care is treated as an industry, versus a public good?

[Juggernaut1224]

	Originally Posted by Mader To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In the US we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There are no guarantees. So called leveling of the playing field is like teaching a class to the lowest achieving student - it dumbs down everyone.

Continue reading this famous document:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Health care should not fall under "the pursuit of happiness," but rather under "life." Government is created because people are stronger when united. If we look at our national budget, there is plenty of money to provide health care to every citizen. This bill is not perfect, but it is a starting point on which we can improve. Let's take a look at where the rest of our tax dollars are going and re-evaluate our national priorities.

[INTJRyan]

Originally Posted by Juggernaut1224 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Continue reading this famous document: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Health care should not fall under "the pursuit of happiness," but rather under "life." Government is created because people are stronger when united. If we look at our national budget, there is plenty of money to provide health care to every citizen. This bill is not perfect, but it is a starting point on which we can improve. Let's take a look at where the rest of our tax dollars are going and re-evaluate our national priorities.

The Declaration of Independence has fuck-all to do with anything. It was a brilliant rant against the King and the basis for our separation from England. Has absolutely no significance in law today, so health care does not, in any way, "fall under" certain clauses of the Declaration of Independence.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by cannotseethe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why not?

Because government run programs, as we can see from programs around the world, ration care, especially to those for whom treatment is expensive, and life may be short.

	It'd be preferable for that money to go to paying the overhead costs of running an insurance company? And to paying the perversely out of control costs of health care driven by the bizarrely out-of-whack incentive structure when health care is treated as an industry, versus a public good?

What would be preferable is for insurance to return to what the product is intended to be: Paying a company to assume a catastrophic financial risk.

And here's the core of the problem: When you average a population, insurance is always more expensive than paying for it yourself. Think about it.

Circumstance 1) You pay the doctor $50.

Circumstance 2) You pay the doctor $20. The doctor (incurs costs to) submit your claim to your insurance company. They pay the cost to process the claim, pay the overhead costs, take a profit.... and then pay the doctor $30.

It is always more expensive. We are literally wasting money by insuring non-catastrophic financial events.

And think about this for a moment:

Doctor 1 charges $25/visit. He has a cramped waiting room, with only 1 nurse on staff who doubles as the receptionist, so she's not always at the window. The exam rooms are small and often the doctor is behind schedule for a given day.

Doctor 2 charges $100/visit. He has a plush waiting room with a receptionist and two nurses to cater to your every need. There are 2 HDTVs, every recent subscription, and a large play area for the kids. Coffee and water are offered while you wait. The exam rooms are large and plush.

Now, without insurance, there is a place for both of these doctors. Some will take the economic route. Some the plush route.

However, introduce a $20 copay for all doctors. Now, the $25/visit doctor is out of business, because everyone goes to the $100 doctor. The $25/visit doctor now has to one-up the $100 doctor with 3HDTVs, and continental breakfast for those who come before 10:30am (or whatever).

So, you can see how having insurance for non-catastrophic medical events causes expenses to skyrocket. You can also see why medicare fails to reimburse the whole expense that medicare providers incur. (But they can't afford to abandon medicare patience, as that is 60% of their business.)

So, the question is this: Why do employers given more and more insurance for non-catastrophic events, if it isn't financially wise for their employees to have it?.

The answer is simple: They don't pay the employer portion of the employee tax on insurance benefits. A company literally saves about 8% of payroll if they offer an increase in benefits rather than an increase in pay.

And the employee is duped into thinking that more benefits is good.


Thus, having the government take over health insurance doesn't solve the fundamental problem. In fact, it both makes it worse, and introduces a potentially catastrophic circumstance in the process: If government health insurance is run like Medicare and Medicaid, medical providers will lose money on 100% of every medical event that happens, and they will be unable to do anything about it, as the government dictates to them what they will pay for any event, in spite of what it may cost the medical provider.

And given the huge expense of becoming a doctor, removing the profits and salaries that doctors make will only serve to exacerbate the shortage of medical workers that presently exists, and force most medical facilities, especially those in smaller communities, into bankruptcy and closure.


So, I think you can see why there is objection to the present plan. It is going to make things worse, not better.

If you want to make medicare care affordable, and medical insurance reachable by more people, do two things:

1) Make medicare at least a break even proposition for medical providers, so that cost isn't passed on to other patients.

2) Remove the tax exemption for insurance benefits, thus removing the incentive for businesses to offer improper and ultimately harmful insurance for non-catastrophic events.

We should probably have reforms like requiring renew of insurance plans for those who get sick, and putting an end to excluding pre-existing conditions for those who need long term and chronic care, and we absolutely need tort reform, but these are really ancillary to the core issue.:

Our health "insurance" as presently constructed (and baited by government tax policy) is the problem that needs to be fixed.


In fact, the republicans have already created a program to help everyone with medical expenses. It is call the health care savings account. It works a bit like a 401(k), in that your employer and you can put money into this account tax free, but it is different in that the money is used to pay medical expenses. Combine this with a high deductible medical insurance policy that does what insurance is supposed to do (protect against catastrophic financial events), and people will begin to care what their health care costs, and medical providers will diversify once again to cater to those who just want to see their doctor for low cost, and those who want all the posh amenities and are willing to pay a premium for it.

[Shauru]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Because government run programs, as we can see from programs around the world, ration care, especially to those for whom treatment is expensive, and life may be short.

You did not answer the question. You side stepped it. Telling us why they are bad at it is not the same as telling us why they have no right to intervene.

This whole argument tires me. So let's sum it up and agree to disagree:

If you think you have something to lose by the larger availability of health insurance to the poor, then you're going to piss and moan.

If you can forsee that you may one day lose all your money and it might be nice to know that in world requiring health insurance for reasonable access to healthcare you might have a shot at living, then you you're going to be a little more happy.

We good?