Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

It looks like Obama's healthcare is evolving into extortion

Page 2 of 4 [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

10 Sep 2009, 12:21 pm

ed wrote:
The idea of requiring everyone to have health insurance is not new. If any of you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know this. It is based on a plan currently in use here in Massachusetts. It requires everyone to have health insurance. It imposes a fine if you don't. It provides financial assistance to those who can't afford it. And it works.


Ed is right. This absolutely has to be part of the plan. It's the most important part of reducing health care costs. The reason our system is so broken, financially speaking, is because the uninsured's unpaid bills end up being everyone else's problem. There has to be some sort of mandate for insurance.



claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

10 Sep 2009, 6:05 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
Eligibility for someone making more than $50,000? I don't buy it.
I think you may have read it differently than I. I understood it as it read...to be one third of people without insurance are in households that make over $50,000. Meaning, one third of uninsured people in the US can afford health insurance and simply choose not to pay for it. Which makes some sense, when you consider healthy people without children might not see the need to pay monthly premiums when they only see a doctor once per year.



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

10 Sep 2009, 7:52 pm

claire333 wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
Eligibility for someone making more than $50,000? I don't buy it.
I think you may have read it differently than I. I understood it as it read...to be one third of people without insurance are in households that make over $50,000. Meaning, one third of uninsured people in the US can afford health insurance and simply choose not to pay for it. Which makes some sense, when you consider healthy people without children might not see the need to pay monthly premiums when they only see a doctor once per year.


Why do you assume that a household making 50K/year (or even 60K or 70K) can afford insurance? What if the family has 3 kids and premiums that add up to 7K/year. In many regions, 50K would barely cover the basics for a family. I live in a middle class family whose premiums are approximately 18% of our take home pay. The only bill we have that is higher is our mortgage, and that's only slighly higher. If our premiums go up anymore, which they will if we stay with the status quo, we won't be able to afford them anymore. That is not our choice, but a scary reality.



claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

10 Sep 2009, 8:40 pm

number5 wrote:
Why do you assume that a household making 50K/year (or even 60K or 70K) can afford insurance? What if the family has 3 kids and premiums that add up to 7K/year. In many regions, 50K would barely cover the basics for a family. I live in a middle class family whose premiums are approximately 18% of our take home pay. The only bill we have that is higher is our mortgage, and that's only slighly higher. If our premiums go up anymore, which they will if we stay with the status quo, we won't be able to afford them anymore. That is not our choice, but a scary reality.
People in countries with model universal healthcare have their income taxed at a rate of 20-40% based on income. Their sales tax rates are also about double ours on average. I image for the system to work well, you might end up paying more.



ed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

11 Sep 2009, 6:25 am

claire333 wrote:
number5 wrote:
Why do you assume that a household making 50K/year (or even 60K or 70K) can afford insurance? What if the family has 3 kids and premiums that add up to 7K/year. In many regions, 50K would barely cover the basics for a family. I live in a middle class family whose premiums are approximately 18% of our take home pay. The only bill we have that is higher is our mortgage, and that's only slighly higher. If our premiums go up anymore, which they will if we stay with the status quo, we won't be able to afford them anymore. That is not our choice, but a scary reality.
People in countries with model universal healthcare have their income taxed at a rate of 20-40% based on income. Their sales tax rates are also about double ours on average. I image for the system to work well, you might end up paying more.


Your post implies that 20-40% is what these people pay for their health insurance. It reminds me of what my father used to say: "figures don't lie, but liars sure figure!"

Yes, they do pay higher taxes than we do, and some of that is for their health care, but certainly not all of that.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

11 Sep 2009, 6:27 am

number5 wrote:
claire333 wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
Eligibility for someone making more than $50,000? I don't buy it.
I think you may have read it differently than I. I understood it as it read...to be one third of people without insurance are in households that make over $50,000. Meaning, one third of uninsured people in the US can afford health insurance and simply choose not to pay for it. Which makes some sense, when you consider healthy people without children might not see the need to pay monthly premiums when they only see a doctor once per year.


Why do you assume that a household making 50K/year (or even 60K or 70K) can afford insurance? What if the family has 3 kids and premiums that add up to 7K/year. In many regions, 50K would barely cover the basics for a family. I live in a middle class family whose premiums are approximately 18% of our take home pay. The only bill we have that is higher is our mortgage, and that's only slighly higher. If our premiums go up anymore, which they will if we stay with the status quo, we won't be able to afford them anymore. That is not our choice, but a scary reality.


+1

I rethought my post, and the Wikipedia article is misleading with the truth.

You could make more than $50K a year and get welfare support, but that would mean you have a very large family. Welfare eligibility is based on income vs. size of household (poverty level is not a fixed number). So, I suppose if a couple had 8 kids to support, they would qualify.

However, the absence of where that $50K number comes from is misleading people in the article. If you make $6K a year, there is a good chance that you are making too much to get welfare (single person).

The same "voodoo math" was done when a company wanted to discredit how much its unionized workers were making by saying how a baggage handler was pulling in over $75K a year. The numbers came from one man who worked all the overtime he could grab because he was a workaholic. The "average" baggage handler didn't come anywhere close to that income level.



ed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

11 Sep 2009, 6:31 am

zer0netgain wrote:
number5 wrote:
claire333 wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
Eligibility for someone making more than $50,000? I don't buy it.
I think you may have read it differently than I. I understood it as it read...to be one third of people without insurance are in households that make over $50,000. Meaning, one third of uninsured people in the US can afford health insurance and simply choose not to pay for it. Which makes some sense, when you consider healthy people without children might not see the need to pay monthly premiums when they only see a doctor once per year.


Why do you assume that a household making 50K/year (or even 60K or 70K) can afford insurance? What if the family has 3 kids and premiums that add up to 7K/year. In many regions, 50K would barely cover the basics for a family. I live in a middle class family whose premiums are approximately 18% of our take home pay. The only bill we have that is higher is our mortgage, and that's only slighly higher. If our premiums go up anymore, which they will if we stay with the status quo, we won't be able to afford them anymore. That is not our choice, but a scary reality.


+1

I rethought my post, and the Wikipedia article is misleading with the truth.

You could make more than $50K a year and get welfare support, but that would mean you have a very large family. Welfare eligibility is based on income vs. size of household (poverty level is not a fixed number). So, I suppose if a couple had 8 kids to support, they would qualify.

However, the absence of where that $50K number comes from is misleading people in the article. If you make $6K a year, there is a good chance that you are making too much to get welfare (single person).

The same "voodoo math" was done when a company wanted to discredit how much its unionized workers were making by saying how a baggage handler was pulling in over $75K a year. The numbers came from one man who worked all the overtime he could grab because he was a workaholic. The "average" baggage handler didn't come anywhere close to that income level.


I get $10K a year from my Social Security. I am a single person. My income qualifies me for $130/month in food stamps.


_________________
How can we outlaw a plant created by a perfect God?


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

11 Sep 2009, 8:28 am

claire333 wrote:
People in countries with model universal healthcare have their income taxed at a rate of 20-40% based on income. Their sales tax rates are also about double ours on average. I image for the system to work well, you might end up paying more.

People in America have their income taxed at a rate of 30-40% based on income. Sales tax varies by state. We already spend more on medical care than most socialized systems. The major issues in our health care are price and availability.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Sep 2009, 10:13 am

Orwell wrote:
claire333 wrote:
People in countries with model universal healthcare have their income taxed at a rate of 20-40% based on income. Their sales tax rates are also about double ours on average. I image for the system to work well, you might end up paying more.

People in America have their income taxed at a rate of 30-40% based on income. Sales tax varies by state. We already spend more on medical care than most socialized systems. The major issues in our health care are price and availability.


And we are not getting the biggest bang for the buck. Our health care system is rendered inefficient by several factors; government regulation, extreme litigious practices by vulture lawyers, intellectual laziness on the part of the public who are willing to settle for the second rate. The cure is surely not a Government Run system. The government cannot make the trains run on time and government rocket ships keep blowing up.

ruveyn



ed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

11 Sep 2009, 10:16 am

ruveyn wrote:
Orwell wrote:
claire333 wrote:
People in countries with model universal healthcare have their income taxed at a rate of 20-40% based on income. Their sales tax rates are also about double ours on average. I image for the system to work well, you might end up paying more.

People in America have their income taxed at a rate of 30-40% based on income. Sales tax varies by state. We already spend more on medical care than most socialized systems. The major issues in our health care are price and availability.


And we are not getting the biggest bang for the buck. Our health care system is rendered inefficient by several factors; government regulation, extreme litigious practices by vulture lawyers, intellectual laziness on the part of the public who are willing to settle for the second rate. The cure is surely not a Government Run system. The government cannot make the trains run on time and government rocket ships keep blowing up.

ruveyn


We sure are lucky! Instead of getting screwed by the government, we get screwed by the private sector :)


_________________
How can we outlaw a plant created by a perfect God?


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Sep 2009, 10:49 am

ed wrote:
We sure are lucky! Instead of getting screwed by the government, we get screwed by the private sector.


By and large where there is genuine competition between producers we get quality products. How is your computer running lately? I bet it works just fine.

Does you car run o.k.? If not you can get it fixed. There are many car repair services available. Just use the Yellow Pages.

How about package delivery. Have you had your stuff brought to you by FedEx or UPS? The government people prefer using FedEx and UPS over the Postal Service.

How about food. Have you gone hungry lately? Have you stood in line for hours waiting for you miserable portion? I doubt it. Americans are well fed by a system that is run privately. The only problem is that many Americans choose to have a crappy diet. That is their problem and responsibility, not the producers.

The problem with government is that it is, by law, a monopoly. With a monopoly there is little incentive to do well.

Do you want to see what happens when the government runs everything. Visit N. Korea.

ruveyn



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

11 Sep 2009, 11:36 am

ruveyn wrote:
How about food. Have you gone hungry lately? Have you stood in line for hours waiting for you miserable portion?

Actually, yes. But that is because I am in a situation where one supplier has gained a monopoly and a captive market. The private sector will gladly screw you over at every opportunity. That is why measures must be taken to ensure that such opportunities are limited.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


ed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

11 Sep 2009, 12:45 pm

Orwell wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
How about food. Have you gone hungry lately? Have you stood in line for hours waiting for you miserable portion?

Actually, yes. But that is because I am in a situation where one supplier has gained a monopoly and a captive market. The private sector will gladly screw you over at every opportunity. That is why measures must be taken to ensure that such opportunities are limited.


What about the airline industry? By law they can't get together and fix prices... so what do they do? One carrier will increase its fares. If the other carriers think it's a good idea, they will raise theirs the same amount; if they disapprove and don't raise their fares, the first carrier will drop the raise. It accomplishes the same result as an illegal price-fixing meeting without breaking the law. Legal price fixing.


_________________
How can we outlaw a plant created by a perfect God?


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Sep 2009, 1:20 pm

ed wrote:

What about the airline industry? By law they can't get together and fix prices... so what do they do? One carrier will increase its fares. If the other carriers think it's a good idea, they will raise theirs the same amount; if they disapprove and don't raise their fares, the first carrier will drop the raise. It accomplishes the same resultas an illegal price-fixing meeting without breaking the law. Legal price fixing.


If you don't like the price, then don't fly. There is always another way to get from Here to There.

ruveyn



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

11 Sep 2009, 1:47 pm

claire333 wrote:
number5 wrote:
Why do you assume that a household making 50K/year (or even 60K or 70K) can afford insurance? What if the family has 3 kids and premiums that add up to 7K/year. In many regions, 50K would barely cover the basics for a family. I live in a middle class family whose premiums are approximately 18% of our take home pay. The only bill we have that is higher is our mortgage, and that's only slighly higher. If our premiums go up anymore, which they will if we stay with the status quo, we won't be able to afford them anymore. That is not our choice, but a scary reality.
People in countries with model universal healthcare have their income taxed at a rate of 20-40% based on income. Their sales tax rates are also about double ours on average. I image for the system to work well, you might end up paying more.


Yeah but their taxes are going to more than just healthcare. It also contributes to maintaining housing and other such resources.

It's not like as if 40% of your income goes ONLY toward healthcare and it isn't the be-all, end-all of why the taxes are where they are at. Not to mention the quality of life is worth the higher taxes from what I've heard from people who have lived in such places.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

11 Sep 2009, 4:27 pm

ed wrote:
Your post implies that 20-40% is what these people pay for their health insurance. It reminds me of what my father used to say: "figures don't lie, but liars sure figure!"

Yes, they do pay higher taxes than we do, and some of that is for their health care, but certainly not all of that.
I do not care for the implication I am a liar. If the figures are wrong then correct me, I have no problem with being wrong. I know their taxes are used for more than healthcare, just like our taxes are used for more than to support our current healthcare programs. It does not change the fact, for a system like this to work, the money is going to have to come from somewhere. But hey, I am fairly poor so it most likely will not be from me.