Another health care thread.

No...if you in fact knew your enemy , you would know that I am not your enemy. Everybody attacks the opposition, why would you assign that to Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals?

I do believe the the GOP has not given a flippen fuc about fixing health care problem. Why? Because they did not lift a finger while they were in power to fix the problem. Had McCain gotten elected , my guess is you would still be crying about eliminating or taxing Cadillac health care polices. Why? Because you seem to fall for this crap that YOU (or your party ) knows best how to spend MY tax dollars. Yet YOU cry bloody murder if I think I know how to spend your tax dollars. I could be wrong but that is why we have these elections. Originally Posted by WTF

You are assuming I voted for McLame? Chance in hell I'd vote for a RINO. I supported Ron Paul for the nomination and I wrote in my vote as a protest to both sides of the aisle. I didn't like the character of either candidate for the general election.

Rule Number 5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

Finally....I knew you could make that point make sense in less than ten posts! Originally Posted by WTF

I know, I know. It is a failing of mine. Most of the people I know take responsibility for their own actions...and spend very little time pointing fingers at everyone else's failings. As such, when I ask a question I sometimes tend to assume that I'm talking to someone who accepts responsibity for their own plight, instead of blaming everyone else.

But the more I converse with the liberal blamers, I assure you I'll get more concise and to the point.

You seem not to understand the 'fairness' in the proposed tax.

Tax all benifits as income or tax none. I have no problem with either. Yes that means that unions health care benifits must be taxed the same as others.

I hate it when I speak with someone and all they know is a slanted twist and are unwilling to look at the bigger picture. Originally Posted by WTF

thank you for the explanation WTF and since we've never spoken..... maybe i'm still in the love catagory should we ever speak

but there is a thinking in congress and other circles..ive heard it espoused..that not taxing things is some sort of loophole or "spending".

The "tax none" of which you speak, is sort of the system today, if you get your health plan from your employer, so you, I guess, are ok with that. If however you are self employed or a 2% or greater S Corp shareholder or merely just buying your own policy, you then get unequal tax treatment.

i am with you though in not liking unequal tax treatment for similar things. In health insurance, however, unless there is a federally mandated dollar amount that must be spent tax free per person with a fixed cost per type of benefit regardless of age or any other factor (how do you like that micro-management big brother 5 year plan), the amounts will always be unequal and thus the spending of "tax dollars" will be different per person. For similar plans, a person in a small group or an individual plan may pay more for the exact same coverage, or may pay more due to age, or if they have a family. So the dollars spent will not equate to the same coverage and your "must be taxed the same as others" isn't really feasible. Having dissimilar plans to equal the dollars spent, has its own inherent obvious inequities. Either dollars spent or type of coverage or some combination will always be different. And while we are at it, if someone buys a nice car to drive and tries to deduct the cost if driven for business purposes, well they better not since their deduction may be bigger than mine.

and btw. if all health insurance benefits get taxed....why should my tax be greater than another persons for the same dollars? Because i make more money? now how is that "fair"? oh yeah i forgot, the progressive tax system.

I remember when the dems placed a luxury tax on boats, i think the amount was a tax on anything over $75,000. Great thinking, what? They put all the boat workers out of work and had to rescind their law.

it seems its always the "fairness" stuff that screws things up.

You are assuming I voted for McLame? Chance in hell I'd vote for a RINO. I supported Ron Paul for the nomination and I wrote in my vote as a protest to both sides of the aisle. I didn't like the character of either candidate for the general election.

Rule Number 5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

I suggest as a compliment to Art of War ....The Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Five_Rings

I think that is a key point why there is opposition to the current plans. If they, the political leaders, don't want to have the discussion why is it being ramrodded through the process? Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

I think that is rather obvious. Regardless of which polls one decides to quote to support a personal opinion, politicians are getting the idea that there are enough voters who favor health care reform to affect their chances of being re-elected, despite the efforts of insurance companies, etc., to stop the legislation regardless of how the pr departments try to spin it. If much in the way of ideology was involved, there would be a meaningful debate about it.

Rule Number 5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Corollay: Acknowledging the riducule and then calmly continuing infuriates the person doing the riduculing, turning the advantage around.

thank you for the explanation WTF and since we've never spoken..... maybe i'm still in the love catagory should we ever speak Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Am I the only one who thinks "Get a room" is the appropriate comment here?

And the Parthenon Marbles? The Egyptian ObelisK? The Benin Bronzes? The looting of Abyssinia? Half the contents of the British Museum? There is little room in the pockets of the British Empire for a hand!

John Bull is the symbol of the British common man, for whom I have endless respect. They showed the world how to make a universal health care system work. I do not for a moment believe you speak for them. Originally Posted by jdean208

Wasn't talking about your hand in the Empires pocket. Just your hand in mine.

As to the Brits making it work, I don't know where you get your info but that system would be a laughing stock were it not so sad. The aristocracy go to Indian private hospitals while the rest of the folks wait a year for a bypass. They do have wonderful success rates for heart operations (as an example) but the reason is because the weaker folks have died off before they can be treated. See Cleveland Clinic report.
Same for cancer treatment. And that's what you fellas want over here!

Either you belong to the aristocracy here or somehow, you don't think what's coming will affect you. But, I promise you, it will affect you and your families. The really bad part is that while I'd love to see the anguish on the faces of those who think they're doing the right thing "For Society" when reality strikes them, that would be to much like cutting my nose off to spite my face so I'll continue my personal fight against the system and ObamaCare and hope I'm successful.

and btw. if all health insurance benefits get taxed....why should my tax be greater than another persons for the same dollars? Because i make more money? now how is that "fair"? oh yeah i forgot, the progressive tax system. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Well there is a progressive AND regressive tax.

Rich cats always gripe about the fairness (or more accurately the unfairness)of one and ignore the other as if it does not really count. Perfectly normal....after all a yearly tax on an auto is not very much of a % of their income. That same car tax eats into the poor mans salary.

Poor people ain't got enough sense but to actually believe this nonsense you spout. After all if is half true. Were they smart enough they would point out that there have been studies that show that people making between 30-500k pay on average 40% of their income towards progressive AND regressive taxes. That of course blows a huge hole in your poor pitiful rich man. What the progressive Federal tax system balances out what poor people pay in regressive taxes that goes toward mostly local and state government? Say it ain't so WTF!

Corollay: Acknowledging the riducule and then calmly continuing infuriates the person doing the riduculing, turning the advantage around. Originally Posted by npita

No, you are mistaken. There is no advantage debating politics on a hooker board! How many times must I drive this point home? This is all done in fun....a way to kill time between appointments.

I know, I know. It is a failing of mine. Most of the people I know take responsibility for their own actions...and spend very little time pointing fingers at everyone else's failings. As such, when I ask a question I sometimes tend to assume that I'm talking to someone who accepts responsibity for their own plight, instead of blaming everyone else.

But the more I converse with the liberal blamers, I assure you I'll get more concise and to the point. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Probably why I like ya. I hate it when people never accept responsibility! Of course my guess is you are just as happy pulling tails as changing minds.

Well there is a progressive AND regressive tax.

Rich cats always gripe about the fairness (or more accurately the unfairness)of one and ignore the other as if it does not really count. Perfectly normal....after all a yearly tax on an auto is not very much of a % of their income. That same car tax eats into the poor mans salary.

Poor people ain't got enough sense but to actually believe this nonsense you spout. After all if is half true. Were they smart enough they would point out that there have been studies that show that people making between 30-500k pay on average 40% of their income towards progressive AND regressive taxes. That of course blows a huge hole in your poor pitiful rich man. What the progressive Federal tax system balances out what poor people pay in regressive taxes that goes toward mostly local and state government? Say it ain't so WTF!



No, you are mistaken. There is no advantage debating politics on a hooker board! How many times must I drive this point home? This is all done in fun....a way to kill time between appointments. Originally Posted by WTF

waiting for edit

...Poor people ain't got enough sense but to actually believe this nonsense you spout... Originally Posted by WTF

So what I hear you saying here is that because a person is poor they aren't smart enough to understand what's going on?

waiting for edit Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Wait away brother.

So what I hear you saying here is that because a person is poor they aren't smart enough to understand what's going on? Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

No what I am saying is that the rich are full of chit in this tax matter and the poor are not smart enough to call them out!

...No what I am saying is that the rich are full of chit in this tax matter and the poor are not smart enough to call them out! Originally Posted by WTF

Now that I can believe Oppose or agree everyone should know exactly what is going to happen, good or bad.

I don't think the analogy is flawed at all.

The example of your friend who had the bypass surgery is equivalent (in this comparison) to one who has an expensive car accident. It's going to happen occasionally, and obviously it's very expensive. But for every major car accident, there are thousands of oil changes, tire replacements, etc.

Likewise, for every major emergency surgery there are thousands of instances of colds, flu, ear infections, and the like. Do we need insurance company involvement for practically every single $50 or $100 doctor visit?

I think not. It comprises a significant portion of insurance company overhead and greatly increases everyone's costs.

I believe insurance should actually be insurance. In other words, a way to lay off bets the average person cannot afford to take -- not an all-encompassing reimbursement plan in which patients have no idea what they should be paying for services and ZERO incentive to control costs in any way.

The John Mackey article to which I linked earlier outlines what I believe would be an effective way to get a handle on costs without depriving patients of needed medical care. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

You type of high deductible solution will work for people making good money and it's what I have, but not what I buy for my employees.

But what about my clients and people who live in my town. I live in a town of about 25,000 where the median household (not individual) income is $24,582, yet only 26% live below the poverty line. Only 3.4% of the households make $100k or more. People here can't afford that sort of care and these are the people who are being left behind in our current system. Your type system does nothing but condemn them to no insurance for life.

Geez, I know it is a hard concept for a wild eyed liberal to conceive, but since I was talking to you I was talking about the things which are in your control. In other words, you don't control what the insurance company charges for single employees or a whole family. You, OTOH, do control how much of that cost you (as the employer) are going to pay on behalf of your employee.

So, it is my guess that you are willing (or at least your actions would say that you do) to pay for more cost attributable a married employee than you pay for a single employee. For instance, if a single employee costs you $400.00 per month in insurance costs, and a married employee costs you $700.00 per month in insurance costs, you are demonstrating that you are willing to pay $300.00 per month more for that married employee than the single employee...all other things being equal.

IMHO, that is discriminatory against a single employee. I'm not saying that I don't do exactly the same thing...as a matter of fact I do. But it does pang my conscience to do so...and in some manner I think it is a screw job. I could agree to give that extra $300.00 to the single employee in pay. I do not. But then, I don't try to hold myself to the lofty goals you would hold me to. And I simply use it to demonstrate that we all...including you...discriminate against others. Once we are all knocked off that pedistal, then it is just a question of how you discriminate versus how I discriminate. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I don't pay for spouses, only kids. All spouses at my firm have coverage elsewhere. And it doesn't bother me at all. I'm paying for the insurance for those that need it and don't have it. I consider it my duty -- a contribution I make and don't really conceive of the money as belonging (or even being attributable) to a given employee. Just my duty as a contentious employer in a fucked up system where the employer is de facto responsible for paying for health care (for reasons of historical accident) rather than the government, like it is in the rest of the world.