Obama's health plans

[Rapscallion]

The constitution does not authorize the federal government to establish a national health care system like the one in England and Canada.

Plenty of amendments already on the books, so I think you've got precedent to add another.

I'm all for getting the uninsured, insured. As long as they pay for it.

The uninsured are generally uninsured because they cannot pay for it. Is someone's need for basic healthcare really dependant on their income levels? Is it better to look at it as an investment in the people who make up the citizenry?

I think there's a new thread brewing based on some of the above. May be starting it myself.

Rapscallion

[Fashion Lad!]

I would love to know where you're getting these numbers from, and how you can say "the same thing" if you don't even know what kind of treatment it's referring to.

I read it somewhere while waiting to get see my Physical Therapist for my ankle. So, I decided to try and find the same information again, but I couldn't.

Atlanta residents seeking appointments with certain specialists wait an average of 11.2 days, which is the shortest wait time among 15 cities polled in a survey released on Wednesday, the Detroit Free Press reports. The survey, conducted by the physicians' consulting firm Merritt Hawkins & Associates, also found that Boston, at 49 days on average, had the longest wait times. According to the Free Press, Boston wait times increased after Massachusetts enacted a requirement that all residents have health insurance, which increased demand for physician visits.

Health-care = money
The right to health care = the right to money

Which is the a violation to the right of property.

Rapscallion is right, a lot of people don't have health insurance because they can't afford it. But at that same time, maybe they should sacrifice their EIC in order to off-set the cost of a public option for health care. They don't pay taxes already, and they get money from the government because they don't make enough money. I'm all for getting the uninsured masses covered, but it's not going to be for nothing and I'm not going to pay it. I work too damn hard for what I earn. People who don't have health-insurance, I bet a lot of them are rolling in a new or semi-new car. I drive a 1999. I budget, I save and I have health insurance.

For my ankle which I sprained in May, I have had 2 MRIs, several x-rays (I practically glow), 1 surgery, several days with Physical Therapy and I'm still being treated. I have out of pocket expenses on this, I can pay them because I did save my money. I'm not going to rely on anyone to bail me out, I won't rely on anyone to bail me out. I have a hard time asking anyone for anything because I know they work hard for what they earn just like I do.

[Rapscallion]

I'm all for getting the uninsured masses covered, but it's not going to be for nothing and I'm not going to pay it.

Who's going to pay for it, then?

The UK system is that everyone pays relative to their income to a certain amount, and that goes into a central fund (called National Insurance). The actual cost per person is pretty low compared to some of the premiums I've heard mentioned on here for private care in the US.

Rapscallion

[Fashion Lad!]

Rapscallion is right, a lot of people don't have health insurance because they can't afford it. But at that same time, maybe they should sacrifice their EIC in order to off-set the cost of a public option for health care.

I already answered your question. Instead of getting a tax break because they "don't make enough money", they should learn to budget what they have earned through out the year and forfeit the earned income credit which reduces or eliminates their need to pay taxes.

The U.K has a system that would be unconstitutional in our country. So, it better not happen otherwise we've got a government out of control here.

[AdminAssistant]

I already answered your question. Instead of getting a tax break because they "don't make enough money", they should learn to budget what they have earned through out the year and forfeit the earned income credit which reduces or eliminates their need to pay taxes.

But it's just not that easy for some people. I budget myself and still need to take out student loans. My salary simply is not enough to cover my living expenses. I would like to "make more money", but a) the job market is tight, especially in academia and b) my job is an integral part of my education. People are stuck in low-paying jobs for a variety of reasons.

[Rapscallion]

There are others without even that level of income. I don't watch the TV usually, but I saw a program in the US when I was on holiday back in February, and it reported on the plight of some very backwoods people halfway up a mountain in the Appalachians. Now these were pretty destitute people. It was a major victory for some of them to get enough education to do simple maths to allow them a chance to get a job as a cashier at a checkout.

Affording health insurance? Not a chance. It was cheaper for them to put Mountain Dew in the sippy cup for their daughter than to give her something that wouldn't rot her teeth. Of course, cameras being as they are they concentrate on the worst examples, but according to a dentist over there the Mountain Dew mouth was a common feature in the region...

The simple fact is that there are people out there without a future, whether it be in health or education or basic welfare standards.

I dug out one of my payslips - took me a while to find one that didn't have overtime on it, actually.

A standard forty-hour week for me grosses £459. Income tax (taken weekly on Pay As You Earn, and calculated for you by the Inland Revenue) is £67. The NIC (National Insurance Contribution) is £38.43. I end up with about £351 at the end of the week (after union contributions).

That NIC part is the interesting part. The NIC is a pot all employees in the UK pay into and it pays for the NHS and unemployment benefits if the person is out of work. Those are things guaranteed to me. In my old age, if I can't afford a private nursing home, I go into a government funded one. If I break a leg, the NHS will put me right as soon as possible. I've received a number of treatments from the NHS in the last three or four years - investigatory and diagnostary. I got a result and am on a prescription, part-funded by the NHS (all prescriptions cost the same, no matter the cost of the drug). I lose my job, I get a subsistence allowance.

Forty quid a week. I'm on a reasonable income - not miraculous - and I pay forty quid a week. I get a fuck of a lot for that. Probably more than I can list off the top of my head for the moment, but health insurance is certainly one of them.

It's proportional - and it does cap out at a certain amount, though I don't have the exact figures - so in a week where I did eight hours overtime I paid just over £49 on a gross wage of £422.

See, it's not just me looked after. My parents are in their sixties. I'm a net contributor to the NIC fund at the moment and hope to be for many years. My parents are now retired and need certain prescriptions. They're being looked after, as are others.

Yes, it's galling that dole dossers are getting money out of the fund, but it's inevitable that some scum will be willing to survive at subsistence levels.

So, your money being taken out of your hands by the government. Just how much are you paying as a proportion of your income or as a proportion of the cost of your living? That's going into the hands of shareholders.

I know I'm paying far less than Mr Slugger quotes. I can opt for extra treatment on hospital funds and the like if I want, and even if I did go for a local hospital fund I'd be paying less than he does (helps to cover extraneous costs, such as cost of new spectacles and dentures etc - several are non-profit).

I think I'm better off. Is the quality of the care up to the standards you would receive on your insurance? I don't have any direct comparators at the moment, but my experience is that if they think the problem is serious, they'll deal with it as quickly as possible. If minor (such as my own issue), then it scales back on the list of priorities. I could go for private treatment, and that's where it does get pricey.

Unconstitutional. You'll have heard of that thing called an 'amendment'. You've got a few already. Could look into that.

Rapscallion

[Fashion Lad!]

You keep your NHS. It works for you and your country, excellent. I'm happy for you.

I hope everyone realizes that in order to keep medicare going, we are borrowing money. Eventually, we need to pay that money back. Just like with any other loan, it comes with interest. So we continue to borrow money that is a drain on our system and we have to pay interest on what we borrow. It's not good. It's not responsible. And it's going to do a whole lot more harm than good. Basically a national health care system for America would be expanding medicare. We already have to borrow money for a small program, what's going to happen with a large program.

Oh, and Obama is a liar. He wants a single payer system and his Obamacare is the step to get us there.


Obama the liar!

But we're fucking broke. We're borrowing money already. This stuff needs to be paid back. Apparently in 2005, my personal obligation to the country was something like $156,000. I guess in 2070 it's going to be something like $416,000. That's per person. Wow! Unlike the government, I can't just print that.



The only way to support a single payer option in America would be to either cut spending. The government is always more than willing to do this, especially with this President. HAHA!!

Debt Road-trip
This honestly does not include any sort of health care reform.

People don't want to pay more in taxes. The government can just print more money. But, we'll soon have to pay those debts back.


Fucking medicare.

By opposing a national health care system, I'm making sure my kids and their kids don't need to learn Chinese.

The easy choice would be to take this imaginary money, raise taxes only slightly and cover everyone. The hard choice is to raise taxes, pay make sure we're able to pay our current obligations and not promise the world in entitlement programs.


This isn't because we have a huge military budget either, this is entitlement programs.

[Rapscallion]

You keep your NHS. It works for you and your country, excellent. I'm happy for you.

Oh, we're not giving it away. We're very much happy to keep it People do complain, but generally speaking it's a damned fine system.

Pension - I forgot to mention that part of that £40 a week means I get a state pension upon retirement.

I hope everyone realizes that in order to keep medicare going, we are borrowing money.

Always comes down to money. Yes, it's essential to consider, but look at it this way.

Under the UK system, the people getting the treatment pay less! (according to the stuff I showed earlier) No shareholders getting their dividends as a cut. The real shareholders are the citizens of the country.

Sure, private healthcare is good for the economy, but the NHS is the UK's largest employer. In and of itself, that's good for the economy. A healthy economy is one where the money cycles, not where it pools in the pockets of the already wealthy.

Eventually, we need to pay that money back.

The UK system has the money continually taken from the pay packets of the beneficiaries. The payback is the general welfare of the citizens. It's not a direct loan, save for the contractual obligation of the government to maintain a standard of care when necessary. I've paid into the system, and when I get to my old age I expect to get what I'm due out in terms of pension, and I expect to get treatment as and when I require it medically etc.

Basically a national health care system for America would be expanding medicare. We already have to borrow money for a small program, what's going to happen with a large program.

If done right, everyone pays a smaller amount to a greater national benefit.

Oh, and Obama is a liar. He wants a single payer system and his Obamacare is the step to get us there.


Obama the liar!

I'm not certain I understand the single-payer concept. The UK one is where everyone pays and everyone benefits.

But we're fucking broke. We're borrowing money already. This stuff needs to be paid back. Apparently in 2005, my personal obligation to the country was something like $156,000. I guess in 2070 it's going to be something like $416,000. That's per person. Wow! Unlike the government, I can't just print that.

The United States is the most generous nation in the world, hands down.

Broke? Try not giving it all away? I have an issue with overseas aid, in that the western world has homeless still on the streets, yet gives billions away to other countries, but that's for a separate rant.

The only way to support a single payer option in America would be to either cut spending. The government is always more than willing to do this, especially with this President. HAHA!!

Debt Road-trip
This honestly does not include any sort of health care reform.

People don't want to pay more in taxes. The government can just print more money. But, we'll soon have to pay those debts back.

Depends on how the money's used. If it's an investment in the country, that should pay dividends back. The above illustration also depends on all the budget money being spent in the projected way. No guarantee that the plans will remain the same. I haven't seen the actual detail of the planned spending, so I'm loathe to comment further, but any links to the actuality would be appreciated.

I don't see using money to help the majority being worse than using it to fill the pockets of the already rich (oil barons for example).

Fucking medicare.

By opposing a national health care system, I'm making sure my kids and their kids don't need to learn Chinese.

Currently watching the above link. The president at the time, and featured in the video, wasn't Obama. Interesting, though, is that Walker is a treasury official. Over here we have a strict rule about neutrality - a civil servant wouldn't be allowed to come out with stuff like this. It's the duty of the elected officials to come out with this sort of thing. Not saying this is a good or bad thing, just how it is.

The easy choice would be to take this imaginary money, raise taxes only slightly and cover everyone. The hard choice is to raise taxes, pay make sure we're able to pay our current obligations and not promise the world in entitlement programs.


This isn't because we have a huge military budget either, this is entitlement programs.

The better choice would be to invest in your fellow citizens and allow them to thrive to produce more, and to stop giving it away to other countries until you can afford to do that.

The revenue in that last video is interesting - flat line. Oooh - scary, right? Invest in your people and that will grow. No growth over the next thirty years? I cannot accept that as a premise.

Rapscallion

[Fashion Lad!]

You're right, we will have to have people pay for it The government uses our tax dollars for medicare and it still needs to borrow money to keep it going. I don't care about politics between dems and republicans... but, when our current president is planning on spending nearly $9 trillion over the next 8 years (number adjusted for inflation) I have a huge fucking problemm with that. On CNN, they announced 2 days ago that that number would actually be $2 trillion higher.


I can blame nearly every president in the past 30 years. And I'm pissed as hell at GWB because of his spending. It's outlined that the biggest issue is entitlement programs, a national health care system is another entitlement program.

A single payer system is the government essentially is the one that pays the doctors, we pay the government. Rouglhly 24% of your weekly income is taken away due to taxes and other programs. We don't have NHS and about 24% is taken out of my check is well. Our country runs at a defeciet even with some people paying in nearly 40% just to the feds. After state taxes, they only get 40% of their check.

If we don't help other countries, we're hated for it. If we do, we're hated for it.

Our military spending isn't the problem. Our foreign aid is not the problem. Medicare is the problem. And I'm not about to let us compound the problem.

[Rapscallion]

I can blame nearly every president in the past 30 years. And I'm pissed as hell at GWB because of his spending. It's outlined that the biggest issue is entitlement programs, a national health care system is another entitlement program.

I'd suggest that it's one the US cannot afford to be without. Patch people up and get them back working - that's an economic stimulus there and then.

I don't know the full system in the US, but I'm pretty sure there are many useless entitlement programs out there.

If we don't help other countries, we're hated for it. If we do, we're hated for it.

I'd say in that case save your money. Seems to be the logical answer.

Our military spending isn't the problem. Our foreign aid is not the problem. Medicare is the problem. And I'm not about to let us compound the problem.

Which programs are the problem?

Rapscallion

[Tanasi]

Between my wife and I we pay out over $100K in federal taxes a year, yet I'm told I'm greedy, I'm not-being patriotic, I don't pay enough. My state taxes are mostly paid through sales taxes and such but a ballpark figure of $20+ a year is conservative yet I'm told I don't pay enough. My county taxes are also a portion of sales tax but mostly property taxes to a tune of over $20K a year yet I'm told I don't pay enough.
We work damned hard for what we get. I employ 4 people, right now my wife employs 11 people but has had as many as 90. Our business taxes are well over $500K a year and have been over a million. Everyone gets paid before we get the first penny yet I'm told I don't pay enough.
Last year I gave $50K in food to the local food bank, yet I'm told I don't pay enough. I contribute my time and money to teach firearms safety to anyone that wants to learn yet I'm told I don't pay enough.
The biggest percentage of my county taxes go to education, yet my kids have always attended private school I get no bang for my buck there but I'm told I don't pay enough.
I make sure my wife and kids have all they need and what's reasonable of their wants. I make sure my Momma is taken care of. I make sure my FIL and MIL are taken care of, I make sure my Aunts and Uncles are taken care of.
What I want to know is "enough" is achieved??? I've already raised 3 kids and I'm in the process of raising two more and possibly a third. I'm damned tired of having my property taken from me at gun-point and then be given to those that don't and won't turn their hand to keep themselves up. If you don't think it's not at gun point, don't pay your taxes and then resist when the tax man comes to take everything you've got. This well is getting dry and it's not filling back up.
What I and millions of others have become is beasts of burden. We're only useful as long as we're making money for others and instead of being put to pasture for a short and somewhat happy retirement (that we got to pay for ourselves) we'll get Obamacare "voluntary" end-of-life counseling.

When is enough, FUCKING ENOUGH???

[lordlundar]

What I and millions of others have become is beasts of burden. We're only useful as long as we're making money for others and instead of being put to pasture for a short and somewhat happy retirement (that we got to pay for ourselves) we'll get Obamacare "voluntary" end-of-life counseling.

When is enough, FUCKING ENOUGH???

When you make enough to pay someone to find the loopholes so you only have to pay .00001% of your gross assets.

You see, it's not a matter of what you are paying for, it's a matter of who is actually paying, and part of the answer is no one in Forbes. Of anything, the amount you're paying is going to the multi-millionaires who are miking the system.

[Fashion Lad!]

When you make enough to pay someone to find the loopholes so you only have to pay .00001% of your gross assets.

You see, it's not a matter of what you are paying for, it's a matter of who is actually paying, and part of the answer is no one in Forbes. Of anything, the amount you're paying is going to the multi-millionaires who are miking the system.

What are you talking about? The richest 1% pay nearly 50% of all the taxes paid in.

We can raise taxes on people making $250,000 a year. But, those are the small business owners. More people in this country work for a small business than they do a large corporation. YAY! Let's tax the people who pay us! Sound like a magnificent idea. Really. I can't wait for them to have less money. Hopefully all those pennies trickle down to me.

I'd also like to add that in Obama's eyes, my dad is rich. But after everything is all said and done, he's net income per yer is more than $70k a year and less than $100k. That's not rich. Last year, he paid in nearly $60k in taxes.

[Tanasi]

When you make enough to pay someone to find the loopholes so you only have to pay .00001% of your gross assets.

You see, it's not a matter of what you are paying for, it's a matter of who is actually paying, and part of the answer is no one in Forbes. Of anything, the amount you're paying is going to the multi-millionaires who are miking the system.

I don't think you understand the concept of income tax. Income tax is a sliding scale based upon adjusted income. Income tax isn't based upon gross or total assets.
If you think that those on the Forbes list don't pay taxes then I think they'll very much disagree with you. Now some think they don't pay enough in taxes and in some cases I'd agree with you in particular George Sorros the Nazi colaborator. Also keep in mind while some folks are millionaires they really don't have a high taxable income. Lots live off of interest from tax-free municiple bonds.
All that being said you didn't answer my question. How much is enough?

[BroomJockey]

I don't think you understand the concept of income tax. Income tax is a sliding scale based upon adjusted income.

I don't think you understand the concept of "tax shelter," but whatever.