Spike Bull 's Link
Spike Bull 's Link
Cotton is one smart cookie and it was known he was going to pull off something like this at some point.
A worker that moves her family to Ohio to find a better job cannot.
A firefighter or teacher that purchases items for their workplaces (supplies, etc) can no longer deduct those expenses. A corporation loses no deductions. The middle class gets crushed on this tax plan. The chart is clear as day.
You really need to start writing in a "paint-by-numbers" fashion; that way even some of the lesser lights in liberal-land may be able to follow along......maybe.......
But since liberals want everything they like to be mandatory, that's galling to them.
Whenever you increase a cost on business it just makes the cost of their product increase to the consumer.
I's always made me laugh when they say that the worker pays 7.65% of his gross pay for SS/Medicare, and the employer matches it with another 7.61%. That's bullsh*t. That 7.65% just get's added to overhead and the buyer pays for it!
So true. So very true.
It's 7.65% and as noted, this added cost for the employer simply means that the employee gets paid 7.65% less.
It is NOT the job of your fellow citizens to pay for your healthcare, nor for anyone else's healthcare!
Could you explain this a bit more, please?
For you guys that hate the individual mandate, how would you address this problem (insured paying for uninsured who get treatment at emergency rooms and ultimately don't pay their bill)? One theory behind the individual mandate lowering cost is that these people go in anyway, but they go to the emergency rooms. Insurance allows them to go to the clinic where the treatment is much less expensive. What's your theory on this?
The issue of hospital costs and illegals using emergency rooms as for any ailment and not paying, was driving regional clinics out of business. That has largely been addressed now and not an issue, otherwise,it would be front and center of daily headlines.
No easy or pat answers; where I'd begin is moving away from anything-and-everything type policies to catastrophic and maintenance policies. Get employers out of the healthcare paradigm and add what they save to wages paid.
Catastrophic coverage should need no explanation; maintenance might to some but with over 30 years in the healthcare industry I can speak to the downstream costs of not maintaining one's health; the ROI on this would be substantial.
I agree that the strain on the emergent care setting needs to be addressed; it's at best a band-aid and at worst a recipe for improper care due the realities of understaffed ER's causing long, if not double-shifts; tired people make mistakes.
What I will say though is the current situation of "uncompensated care" charges is not the cost burden that the individual mandate has spawned; not even close. Of course, the PPACA was never designed to succeed, it was designed to fail to lead ultimately to the desired end-game of a single-payer system.
To those who would point to socialist nations with such as system and compare their healtchare "quality" to the US I would caution you to look beneath the hood, as it were at the metrics; if you want to see the best definition of "inherent bias" most of those comparisons fit that description to a "t".
On a personal note, thanks for being a dissenting voice with the integrity to own what you post; for that alone you'd have my respect. The fact that you offer substantive food for thought only adds to that respect.
Home owners insurance is to protect the lien owners investment (property) and maybe your own if you have any equity in it.
YOU DO NOT COST SHARE WITH THOSE WHO DON'T HAVE IT!!!!
First you pass a law that has the government providing something to the citizens. That sets up the automatic argument that now that everyone is benefiting from that service, or bridge, or mass transit system, everyone needs to be forced to contribute to it.
Health care is complicated. The cost of major medical treatment is far beyond the ability to pay for the majority of people. We do it through insurance and taxes. The issue is which path is the best. Government supplied care has the benefit of everyone having access and the drawback of poor service, higher overall costs even if the individual may not see that directly, and less individual freedom. Like most government ran systems, the lack of competition means customer service isn't driven by and outside force. You get the long line and the grumpy lady at the DMV.
Private insurance usually means more direct costs to users, more exceptions and more individual responsibility. The benefit is better care, more freedom, more choice and competition between insurers which has a constant impact on prices and customer service.
If we go down the road of single payer its a big step toward giving up more freedom. Food and housing are essential to living more so than healthcare. Why shouldn't we have single payer for that as well?
An employer's group plan has high premiums because they take you as you are and some may have to use it more often. Cost share? Sure, but only with those in the same boat as you.
I'll bet a dollar that the excess isn't passed along to those who don't have it or can't afford it.
Yes I remember the gal at the bar in New Brunswick that had three kids by three fathers telling me how good it was. She draws a check, they fixed her for free at three and now she can just party all she wants. All we need here is to have more irresponsible kids on the street. We would have to implement "child control laws" on irresponsible breeders. We would really have a lot of Democrats then......
Me-thinks there are some establishment cronies in the Republican camp that seek to deny Trump any victory no matter what the price to American citizens and the country at large. Traitors.
"Insurance companies count on the fact that most people don't need the big costs."
That's why they have actuaries - to determine the real dollar risk they have across their customer base so they can price for it accordingly.
No one is forced to buy insurance (except for the Obamacare requirement), so it's totally free choice. It is indeed a form of cost sharing........VOLUNTARY cost sharing.
We buy insurance to cover unexpected losses which would be more than we would want to pay for on our own. Likewise, we know that why we won't likely need to use the insurance, we recognize that others in our risk pool will need to use it, although we don't know the who, the when, the why, or the total amount of their losses. But we're OK with that because we also know there's a chance it might be US that suffers the fire, the accident or the illness.
It added layers of bureaucracy [more $$], more paperwork [my wifes a nurse, it doubled] and feathered the insurance companies bottom line- great plan eh Athiest? The HC for my employees has more than doubled since Obamacare.
Typical Dem/Rep politician plan....say you are doing it "For the People' really you are just catering to your big money donors and padding gov coffers. GAO said it before Ocare went into effect- its an addl $300 a person in added tax to the gov with Ocare.
They need a plan that CONTROLS THE SPIRALING COSTS...that would make it affordable for all of us.
What we NEED is to get government out of the healthcare business entirely and free the markets to do what they do best - compete for our business.
They DON"T give better healthcare.
The people in those countries who want top quality medical care come to the USA to get treated.
Otherwise, they'll either need to wait months or years to get the care they need, OR, their government's bureaucrats will deny them the care they need in order to save money.
Then, even if they do get treated in their own countries, the quality of care they receive is ridiculously bad.
Can't pay - no services. That is the way it is with food, housing, etc.
Also, every one of those nations have private insurance that you can buy if you want to for better, quicker care. You're not FORCED to use the public health care option if you don't want to in any of those countries. I'd personally love to get "crappier" care and a few thousand dollars tax increase and keep my insurance premiums.
Friend from NZ has been fighting their government healthcare system for over six years to fix a problem with his shoulder made worse by original treatment. Even with government appointed advocates, he is still waiting.
Where will we go.... Cuba?
What we really need is actual, real, free markets, they always eventually produce the best service/product at the lowest price.
Anything else is a shell game which will consistently get more and more expensive while progressively becoming less and less efficient.
So you're willing to pay higher taxes AND higher premiums for the current level of "crappy" care? By all means ex-pat to a country that offers such a wonderful healthcare system.
EVERYTHING associated with government and health care has been based on PURE lies. What rational person would believe anything that they say now???
Insurance companies are private, for profit entities, just alike any other. Keep piling on regulations, demands, services etc., and they will simply let those costs flow down hill.
The insurance business model, which is based on comparative risk, was never intended to cover everyone, at every age, with every condition, for everything, all at the same price. Add to that a hospital/legal/welfare system that heaps an ever increasing level of costs onto the insurance system, and you have the recipe for exponentially higher premiums. At the end of the day, the "insurance company" does not pay these costs, they pass it down to every single one of their policy holders...as they should.
It's not any different than who actually pays for a higher minimum wage, or the next government program. Dollars cannot be created out of thin air. They can only be collected and dispersed.
When us regular slobs realize that our expenses are exceeding our incomes what to we do? We either increase our income (if we can) by getting another job/learning a skill/selling something to cover expenses or we simply DO WITHOUT SOMETHING ELSE to be able to meet expenses. Government will NEVER do this, they just take more, and more, and more...........
Health care is a prime example of this.
It's the same politicians and attorneys that created a system where it takes a decade or more, and hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars to bring a new drug to market, that scream bloody murder when a drug company has to make all that money back, plus a profit, all within a short time period before it falls off patent and goes generic.
Is there gouging going on? Sure there is. But there is gouging going on everywhere. Just this morning I took my daughter to the body shop to get an estimate on her car. Some jackass was nice enough to hit her car in a parking lot and drive off. Just the plastic Toyota emblem that goes on the front of the grill costs $490.75. No, that's not a typo. Just shy of 500.00 for a plastic emblem that probably costs less than 5 bucks to make.
Now, is there any wonder why car insurance is so expensive? It's real frickin' easy to blame it on the dirty rotten money grubbing insurance companies, but where does the fault really lie? Why isn't anyone trying to pass laws that limit what the car company can charge for parts? Where is the outrage? Where are the congressional hearings?
Think about this. The 6 month premium for full coverage on my daughters car is 601.33. Take out the insurance companies costs, the agent's commission, etc. and they lost there a$$es just paying for one plastic emblem. That doesn't include the grill, the bumper and the hood that also needed repaired/replaced...because of a simple parking lot mishap.
So yes, people are welcome to blame the insurance company "boogey man" if they want, but they are clueless to the real problem.
If was truly a matter of your 2 or 10 example, that would be one thing. However, your numbers would not come anywhere close to adding up actuarially.
Insurance companies can't run trillion dollar deficits like governments can...and do.
Mike in CT's Link
"That being said I still think we should adopt single payer like basically every other industrialized nation that pays 4-10x less than we do for health care. I always hear the argument that "ours is so much better". I'd love to see the metrics that support that ours is 4-10x better than other industrialized nations."
There's a reason people from all over the world come to the US to get treatment:
1. It's better care, in part because your choices are unlimited. Other countries, Canada, for one, limit your choices, and/or makes you wait forever to get an appointment, etc.
I have an outfitter friend from Whitehorse who has a flying business when he's not outfitting.
A number of years ago his doctor thought he had a torn rotator cuff.
He had to go to Vancouver to get an MRI, it took him NINE MONTHS to get the appointment and he had to fly himself to VANCOUVER because the appointment was in January and to drive that far in snow and ice would have been crazy. Have you any idea how far it is from Whitehorse to VANCOUVER?????????
1,490 MILES, that's how far! Each way!
When he got the MRI, they told him, "Yep, you have a torn rotator cuff and will need surgery." The soonest he could get an appointment to get that done was another nine months out. So he made an appointment in Seattle and had the surgery within two weeks!
I needed an MRI on a knee a few years ago. It was all of two DAYS before I got the MRI done and the surgery followed less than a month later. I could have had the surgery sooner than that, but I delayed it due to Christmas, New Years, The Sheep Show, and the rest of my schedule.
BTW, his treatment in Canada was 'free', but Canadians pay over $5 /gallon for gasoline to cover their 'free' healthcare!
2. "I'd personally love to get "crappier" care and a few thousand dollars tax increase and keep my insurance premiums."
That has got to be the most economically illiterate post I've ever seen on the CF, and that's saying something, given stuff the lefties here often say.
Not long ago, some idiot liberal (sorry for the redundancy) in the CA legislature proposed CA implement a single payer system.
That idea blew up when the state ran the numbers and determined a single payer healthcare system in CA would cost more than the ENTIRE STATE BUDGET!
There should be ZERO corporate taxes.
If corporations see their tax rates reduced from 35% to 20%, everyone benefits.
Employers will employ more people. The YUGE percentage of those new jobs will go to the middle class.
People who have IRAs and 401(k)s invested in the markets will see their retirement accounts grow, as well as will those investors with non-qualified investments.
But for a legislator to say it's a benefit to get an additional $100 per month (after taxes of course), prove it by making it bigger by taking way less to start.
Here's some context:
These two figures come from one major East Coast teaching hospital and are tied to a DRG (Diagnosis related groups) specific to renal failure. For those not in the know, DRG's are how many US hospitals are "compensated" for inpatient treatments.
Now, what are the two numbers exactly? The first number are the charges (cost) incurred by the hospital to provide treatment under those DRG's, the second represents the Medicare payments received for those treatments. I'm sure everyone here has sufficient math skills to see the charges far exceed the payments.
This, ladies and gents is what excessive regulation does; arbitrary caps are set on DRG reimbursements, excessive tests/procedures are run for reasons ranging from excessive to absurd (the tests that are run to "cover your ass" that have no medical need come to mind).
And, yeah, by the way, one of the pearls of wisdom of the PPACA was the lowering of Medicare reimbursements, further widening the gap and further burdening hospitals in the US.
So yes, I can get a little impatient at times with those so enamored of raw statistics there probing extends only as deep as the length of the average rice grain......
Here's another shining example of how the government would run a single payer system.
I don't know if it is still this way, but Medicare/Medicaid DRG's weren't originally limited to a dollar limit, but to a specific number of inpatient days a hospital would be reimbursed for a given condition.
In other words, lets say the DRG for a specific condition was 7 days. If the patient was in the hospital for 9 days, the hospital was only paid for 7. If however the patient was released after 5, the hospital was still paid for 7.
Do you know if this is still the case?
If so, how many operational brain cells would it require to see the "unintended consequences" of that regulatory gem?
" I wonder if home owners insurance would be any higher if it was required to cover electricity, natural gas, and water bills. Would auto insurance rates rise if it were a law that it paid for gas, tires and oil changes? Yet we expect health care insurance to pay when we take little Johnny to the doctor for the sniffles. Would the cost of home owners or auto insurance premiums increase if they had to pay for pre-existing conditions? "
Some people, including many politicians, simply do not understand the concept of "insurance."
What do you think your auto insurance rate would be if you were forced to pay the same rate as the person with 3 DUI's, two at-fault accidents, and multiple moving violations?
What do you think the ultimate cost would be if your mortgage rate was the same as a person with no job, no assets, and no reasonable expectation of ever paying it back? ( I think we already know the answer to that one...)
Or what do you think the ultimate cost would be if the government handed out billions of dollars to students, in order to get degrees that will enable them to get minimum wage jobs. Assuming they actually end up getting a degree...or a job? (Sadly, we are about to find that out...)
Sure it does. Someone has to vote (or not vote) for the people that are promising to fix everything with the next great regulation.
Let's assume a guy catches a wolf in a leg-hold trap and decides to take it home and keep it as a pet. The wolf proceeds to kill and eat his toddler. Is that the wolf's fault or the fault of the moron that thought a wolf would make a cool pet.
Just like wolves, politicians do what politicians do. Vote carefully.
The picture for US Hospitals wouldn't be as bleak if the original model were still followed; having DRG's predicated upon hospital stay allowed hospitals to be proactive in shortening LOS (length of stay) and those ahead of the curve benefited under the old system.
Today we have a pre-set $ amount based on the specific DRG; anything that drives costs higher (and excess regulation certainly does this) hurts the hospitals; add to that the reduction in Medicare reimbursements and you have the perfect storm for insolvency (take a look at NYC Hospitals 10-15 years ago and see how many have shut their doors).
Create a level playing field worldwide and we'd never hear about how US Healthcare compares to the rest of the civilized world; the skill level of doctors, especially specialists, the medical technology and innovations in the US are second to none; stop asking US Medicine/Healthcare to fight with 1 1/2 hands tied behind their backs and then do a true apples-to-apples comparison.
Thanks for the feedback!
You can't add thousands of clerks, and expect costs to decrease.
The problem we were seeing around these parts with the previous DRG system was a rather perverse incentive to get patients out of the hospital as quickly as possible...whether or not they were really ready.
Now, while that might well be better for the hospital's bottom line, (as well as the bottom line of other heath care providers) it wasn't always in the best interest of the patient.
Health care is a very complicated and convoluted system. Rarely do additional regulations help, and they often make things worse.
For those that think there is wholesale gouging going on by the big bad insurance companies, where is the massive outcry of gouging when it comes to a 500.00 Toyota grill emblem, 11,000.00 spine injections (which my wife had last spring), 5000.00 (sometimes unnecessary) MRI's, or multi million dollar lawsuit settlements.
When are people going to realize that insurance companies pass ALL costs on to policy holders.
Consider this: If government ran the internet, we'd all be still using modems and dial-up to connect.
Then the fool brings up "A Christmas Carol". Did you notice fool how Scrooge never closed his business down? He continued to do business, because his business was completely legitimate. It has to do with personal responsibility fool, it has to do with paying your own way. But, blind dumb sheep liberals will always be blind dumb sheep liberals.
My monthly premium went up which means less cash in my pocket.
Petedrummond, why did my premuim go up and decrease my overall wellbeing?
Because the GOVERNMENT is running it. Everything they touch turns to sh*t. If you think it's fornicated up now, just wait until the run ALL of it!!!
Keep the government as far away from it as possible.
In fact, I expect a check from all of these benevolent givers of my funds as my subsidy...
Mike in CT's Link
Repeat after me (as many times as necessary): "There is no such thing as a free lunch."
It's also disappointing to see the same strawman of callousness trotted out whenever people rightly point out that being asked to voluntarily contribute and being forced to contribute are world's removed from each other.
Christian (or any virtues for that matter) do not arise from willing subjugation to tyranny, nor are they suddenly in absentia when the refusal to be extorted is presented.
Extortion is not confined to the barrel of a gun or the point of a knife; the legislative pen has a history of actions that certainly meet the universally accepted definition.
Posters like bownarrow, and of course, Gray Ghost will always have my ear as they treat this topic with respect and offer their own thoughts and perspectives on the subject, as opposed to the endless regurgitation of leftist talking points with no foundation in anything other than an attitude of unequivocal, universal entitlement; I'm always willing to be proven wrong and am happy to engage these two gentlemen on this, or any other weighty topic; their message is not blunted and certainly not lost behind the wailing of histrionics and hyperbole.
When you fall into that latter camp, with regard to your opinion; to borrow from an all-time movie classic, "frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."