Jim in Anchorage Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Kinda like the Corporations who pay no Corporate taxes... I forget the number... But all Americans pay sales taxes and percentage paid by low income Americans based on their income has been steadily rising. If they could write off Sales tax on their income statement that would be a great stimulus to the economy! Fine, but are you prepared to estimate[and prove with receipts] how much sales tax you pay a year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 For once I agree with you two. Interest should be a tax write off. Yeah, let's encourage people to get deeper into debt. That way they can be just like the government. Nothing better than incentives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Yeah, let's encourage people to get deeper into debt. That way they can be just like the government. Nothing better than incentives. Then lets do away with the interest deduction on home loans...What's the difference? Me personally..I'm all for a flat tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I have my own solutions:LAWSUITS -Major tort reform and cap damages to doctors in lawsuits -Mandate the client or the attorney must post a bond for the defendants entire legal cost and time, or they can pay their own retainer (the claim that it only affects pricing by 1% is a lie, look at doctors insurance costs over the last 20 years and why private practices are leaving in many fields) The problem with both of these is that they hurt the person who got !@#$ed over by the doctor. Should the paralyzed person be limited to 150K in damages because of an arbitrary law? Should they have to pay their own way with a lawyer? That's not fair either. The systems that mandate damages/penalties are awful (see mandatory sentencing) because they remove the human element. What needs to happen is for juries to stop handing out awards like candy and for judges to tighten up on bad lawsuits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 The problem with both of these is that they hurt the person who got !@#$ed over by the doctor. Should the paralyzed person be limited to 150K in damages because of an arbitrary law? Should they have to pay their own way with a lawyer? That's not fair either. The systems that mandate damages/penalties are awful (see mandatory sentencing) because they remove the human element. What needs to happen is for juries to stop handing out awards like candy and for judges to tighten up on bad lawsuits. So click your heels and make it so. With no new laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 So click your heels and make it so. With no new laws. Or write more laws to help people from hurting themselves. Like cigarette laws. And fat taxes. And gun control laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Really? So when the last time I got laid off and my Cobra was $1200 per month, that's pretty affordable? Most people don't seem to understand that their companies eat the lion's share of the cost of health care. You seem to be one of them. Who said you HAD to keep COBRA? Did you even examine other possible options? See, this is where people get all fouled up in the head. Health insurance is not for everyday doctor visits. Health insurance is for protecting your assets against a MAJOR MEDICAL ISSUE. Oh, and Darin, I *do* understand that those with employer healthcare pay only a small portion while the rest of the tab is picked up by the employer. Remember, THIS IS MY BUSINESS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 right, because the insurance industry has done us so well these past years. c'mon, Joe, when i have to organize a three-way conference call to prove to my HMO that the student doctor working for my covered doctor had, in fact, approved a certain medical procedure and that it should, in fact, be covered ... there's got to be a better way.but of course, this would be "socialism," and the greedheads forced out of business. but you're right, the status quo is really working. me putting a finger up my butt at this point has more potential to curing what's wrong because at the very least, it doesn't require me having to deal with my HMO, which is the last thing i ever want to be dealing with. never mind that's next to impossible to get these people on the phone, but when you do, there's normally some argument that follows. wow, i never realized it's a privilege to pay for frustration in this land, but some masochists must consider this to be part of their inclusion in "the pursuit of happiness." jw Did you CHOOSE to get into an HMO? If so, bad choice. Am I a "greedhead" for pursuing a living in the health insurance business? I guess in your socialistic worldview, anyone who does ANYTHING to try and generate a profit in order to better their lives and the lives of their families is a "greedhead." Please stop me when I'm incorrect on that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Who said you HAD to keep COBRA? Did you even examine other possible options? See, this is where people get all fouled up in the head. Health insurance is not for everyday doctor visits. Health insurance is for protecting your assets against a MAJOR MEDICAL ISSUE. Oh, and Darin, I *do* understand that those with employer healthcare pay only a small portion while the rest of the tab is picked up by the employer. Remember, THIS IS MY BUSINESS. I didn't keep COBRA because I had a choice. That doesn't mean everyone has the same options and there aren't many options out there to cover families during bridge time, especially if anyone in the family has a pre-existing condition. I never said anything about health care being for everyday doctor visits. You'll forgive me for questioning your "all knowingness". When people post things like "I only pay... and I have a blanket policy that is...for a lifetime", as if those things are meaningful... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Or write more laws to help people from hurting themselves. Like cigarette laws. And fat taxes. And gun control laws. What in the world would that have to do with malpractice judgments? And your suggestion that"jury's and judges need to quit handing out awards like candy" Do they have any motivation to do so? The jury thinks that could be me[hopefully] so they hand out $millions The "advocate" for the complainants is of course the judges buddy. This is not about creating a new law. It is about fixing a law that already exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 On another note, I think it would be valuable to show you people just how the current "government option," Medicare, works (or rather, how it doesn't). One quick look and you'll see why getting the government involved is NOT a good idea. Medicare comes in 4 parts: Part A: Hospital insurance - Costs nothing per month (other than the lifetime's worth of Medicare taxes you paid for it) - Has a $1068 deductible per benefit period. A benefit period is defined as the first day you check into a hospital, through the amount of time you stay there and 60 days after you leave the hospital. Noe, that $1068 pays for your first 60 days of ROOM AND BOARD in a hospital. If, God forbid, you stay in ahospital beyond 60 days, they start asking for $267 a day co-pay for days 61-90 and $534 a day for days 91-150. If you get into that second period, you're in your lifetime reserve. If those days get used up, they're gone. After that, 100% of hospital room and board is on you. Part B: Health Insurance - Costs $96.40 a month in premium. - Medicare has a big fat book of "approved charges" for just about any known medical procedure. Let's say, for example, a procedure costs $1000 to be taken care of. Part B has a $135 deductible that has to be met first, and then 80% of the "approved charge" is paid for. So in this example, the "insured" would be on the hook for $335 of the $1000 approved charge. In some states, the doctor can ask for up to 15% more than the approved charge as well. Oh, and another important note: no dental coverage or eye coverage here, unless it's a "medical emergency." Part D: Prescription Drugs - Costs anywhere from $15 a month into the hundreds of dollars a month range in premium - Many plans have a $295 deductible - You pay co-payments on the first $2,700 total prescription drug costs (your cost plus the plan cost). - After you have reached $ 2,700 in total prescription drug costs, you are responsible for the entire cost of prescription drugs until you’ve spent $4,350 out of your own pocket for drugs covered by this plan in a year. - After you have reached this maximum, also known as the catastrophic coverage limit, you pay the greater of: - 5% coinsurance on drugs, or - $2.40 co-payment for generic drugs (or brand name drugs treated as generics) and a $ 6.00 co-payment for all other drugs. Part C: - don't even get me started on this. It's the Medicare Advantage program, in which your $96.40 that would normally pay for your Part B benefit goes to a private insurer. The Advantage plan becomes your primary, and effectively you're now in an HMO or PPO, depending on what plan you purchase. So, now that THAT is cleared up, you can see why I might be hesitant to allow the government to gain FURTHER involvement in healthcare. This is already a bloated, inefficient, tax-wasting and budget-busting program. So please excuse me if I don't buy the "deficit neutral" nonsense the Occupier of the Oval Office is pimping. Anyone who does a little bit of BASIC research can find even more information that makes the government getting involved in healthcare look like a false choice at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I didn't keep COBRA because I had a choice. That doesn't mean everyone has the same options and there aren't many options out there to cover families during bridge time, especially if anyone in the family has a pre-existing condition. I never said anything about health care being for everyday doctor visits. You'll forgive me for questioning your "all knowingness". When people post things like "I only pay... and I have a blanket policy that is...for a lifetime", as if those things are meaningful... <shameless self promotion> Are your family members reasonably healthy? I know that, at least in PA, I can find people who can pass underwriting major medical bridge plans for less than half that cost per month. </shameless self promotion> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 What in the world would that have to do with malpractice judgments? And your suggestion that"jury's and judges need to quit handing out awards like candy" Do they have any motivation to do so?The jury thinks that could be me[hopefully] so they hand out $millions The "advocate" for the complainants is of course the judges buddy. This is not about creating a new law. It is about fixing a law that already exists. There's a law that forces juries to award zillions? You proposed creating two new laws to keep people from doing stupid things. The motherment you complain about regarding gun control is the motherment you want to intervene on healthcare. Hypocrisy, know thyself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 There's a law that forces juries to award zillions? You proposed creating two new laws to keep people from doing stupid things. The motherment you complain about regarding gun control is the motherment you want to intervene on healthcare. Hypocrisy, know thyself. Sleepy time for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Sleepy time for you. Guess your ability to debate peaked 4 posts ago. Thanks for bowing out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Explain what a motherment is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Explain what a motherment is. The government that wipes your ass, gets you to blow your nose, and generally takes care of all the children who can't take care of themselves. See gun laws, tort reform as proposed by you, cigarette laws in private businesses, and on and on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 People rarely do the math because the costs of healthcare are hidden to most. For those with insurance, healthcare costs only the monthly copayment to the employer provided plan and whatever out of pocket deductible. That's usually far lower than the $1,200/mo actual cost to cover a family. But that's not the only problem. The bigger issue is the ongoing demographic shift and the increasing life expectancy. As Tom points out, most of the health costs are incurred later in life, and there's no way those costs could be covered profitably down the road as baby boomers go onto the sunset of their lives if the current system stays in place. There should definitely be a balancing out of taxation between individually bought plans and employer provided health plans. Health plans should be portable, and catastrophic coverage should be mandatory for everyone. The basic math is that people are living longer and it costs a lot to keep them living longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 The basic math is that people are living longer and it costs a lot to keep them living longer. Well, nobody can say I'm not doing my part. I should kick before I'm 50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 But that's not the only problem. The bigger issue is the ongoing demographic shift and the increasing life expectancy. As Tom points out, most of the health costs are incurred later in life, and there's no way those costs could be covered profitably down the road as baby boomers go onto the sunset of their lives if the current system stays in place. This is also the reason why a government run plan won't work. There are going to be fewer people paying taxes to support the government option 20 years from now than there are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts