they're having a go at employer-provided health insurance now

[zimv20]

link (http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/nation/10784754.htm)


Health costs facing change

Bush, GOP are pushing a plan to switch more of the burden for insurance premiums to workers.

WASHINGTON - Emboldened by their success at the polls, the Bush administration and Republican leaders in Congress think they have a new opportunity to move the nation away from the system of employer-provided health insurance that has covered most working Americans for the last half-century.

In its place, they want to erect a system in which workers -- instead of looking to employers for health insurance -- would take personal responsibility for protecting themselves and their families: They would buy high-deductible "catastrophic" insurance policies to cover major medical needs, then pay routine costs with money set aside in tax-sheltered health savings accounts.

Elements of that approach have been on the conservative agenda for years, but what has suddenly put it on the fast track is Republicans' confidence that the political balance of power has changed. With Democratic strength reduced, President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., are pushing for action.

Supporters of the new approach, who see it as part of Bush's "ownership society," say workers and their families would become more careful users of health care if they had to pay the bills. Also, they say, the lower premiums on high-deductible plans would make coverage affordable for the uninsured and for small businesses.

"My view is that this is absolutely the next big thing," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose consulting firm focuses on health care.

Critics say the Republican approach is really an attempt to shift the risks, massive costs and knotty problems of health care from employers to individuals. And they say the Republican Party is moving forward with far less public attention or debate than have surrounded Bush's plans to overhaul Social Security.

Indeed, Bush's health insurance agenda is far more developed than his Social Security plans and is advancing at a rapid clip through a combination of actions by government, insurers, employers and individuals.

Health savings accounts, known as HSAs, have already been approved. They were created as a little-noticed appendage to the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill.


The combination of HSAs and catastrophic insurance is too new for any definitive data on how consumers are faring.

A study released Thursday by the Commonwealth Fund found that people with high-deductible policies were more likely to have trouble paying medical bills than those in traditional insurance plans. They were also more likely to skip care because of cost.

[jadam]

Great... Just Great...

How about we just forget about healthcare all together and make the people pay for their own doctors?

This is supposed to be a government of the people and for the people

not a government of the people and for the political/economic elitists.

[IJ Reilly]

You forgot the corporations. Advancing their interests is what this government is all about.

[jadam]

You forgot the corporations. Advancing their interests is what this government is all about.


I dunno, but I don't believe for one bit that, that is the government's goal. I believe its more like the government is subtley nudged in that direction, and some times even forced to do what would be directly against the benefits of the american people.

[IJ Reilly]

I dunno, but I don't believe for one bit that, that is the government's goal. I believe its more like the government is subtley nudged in that direction, and some times even forced to do what would be directly against the benefits of the american people.

Far be it for me to drop the scales from your eyes, but if you look closely (or even distantly) at most of the bills that have passed Congress over the last few years, you'll find benefits larded onto one or more industries. These interests do come first; if anything is left over, we might see it. Just follow the money, my son -- follow the money.

[Thomas Veil]

"...more careful users of health care..."???

Yeah, I know every time I get a hangnail I expect an ambulance ride and a room in the ICU.

This is yet another government handout to business, another way to regress us back to the 19th-century.

How long are we going to put up with this ****** before we take this country back?? :mad: :mad: :mad:

[mactastic]

Didn't you know that most users of health care ask for ambulence rides for splinters? Just like most welfare recipients are professional 'wait-by-the-mailbox' types. :rolleyes:

[mischief]

I had a headache so I called an ambulance, then requested a full body MRI just to be safe.

(Ack!... Ack!!.. Ack!!! -Ad Infinitum-)

[jadam]

I say, start writing your representives in the house! Especially the republican ones. Barrage them with letters telling them they or the republican party will not get your vote next year if they pass these bills through.

[atszyman]

I wouldn't mind this for myself if my company would give the money saved on insurance to the me in my paychecks. Of course I almost never get sick and see a doctor once every 3-4 years, and once implemented i know I would all of a sudden become very sickly.

As a plan applied across everyone this is horrible. Increase everyone's personal expenses by adding medical fees on top of all of their other financial obligations and make them less likely to see a doctor before illnesses/injuries become serious. I would think that productivity losses due to employees long term illnesses (everyone who puts off a cold until it becomes pneumonia because it's too expensive) would almost offset any gain that corporations would see. Does anyone think people would keep up with preventative healthcare if they had to pay full price every time they see a doctor?

[blackfox]

<sarcasm>interesting plan...it is not enough to remove major sources of Democratic funding through tort-reform and Union regulation changes, but now the GOP can just kill or seriously marginalize (with ilness/destitution) many key demographics of the Democratic base.<sarcasm>

Ultimately, this will never work, at least not for an extended period of time. The underlying contributers to the skyrocketing costs of Health care have not been adequately addressed, and indeed exarcerbated as the last Medicare Reform bill has shown. As our the baby-boomers continue to age, they will be an important voting block, as will the generation below them who will find themselves unable to afford health care for themselves of their families. Once the problem affects enough people to gain critical mass, like during another recession (which is inevitable), any policies such as this will be scrapped and the leadership associated with them removed. You may very well see the Revenge of the Democrats and the ascension of FDR 2 and the New, New Deal.

Like much greed-based policy decisions, in Government and in Business, this will be unsustainable over even the medium-term, and while the benefactors of such a scheme may never be held accountable, the policies will, and will be changed.

[Thomas Veil]

I wouldn't mind this for myself if my company would give the money saved on insurance to...me in my paychecks.I'd say you've got the same chance of this as you have of an accident at work suddenly endowing you with super-powers.

In all seriousness, it wouldn't be the same. As much as your employer pays for you, they are usually getting a large group rate. You probably couldn't touch a personal health plan for the same amount of money...and that's if they decided not to exclude you for any prior medical history.

[mactastic]

<sarcasm>interesting plan...it is not enough to remove major sources of Democratic funding through tort-reform and Union regulation changes, but now the GOP can just kill or seriously marginalize (with ilness/destitution) many key demographics of the Democratic base.<sarcasm>

And you thought you were only kidding?
Link (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-agenda2feb02,0,3477198.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
As the nation's trial lawyers again funneled tens of millions of dollars to Democrats and their causes in the last election, Republicans were crafting a strategy to choke off that money for future campaigns.

President Bush's agenda for the next four years, much of which he will highlight in his State of the Union address tonight, includes many proposals that would not only change public policy but, the GOP hopes, achieve an ambitious political goal: Stripping money and voters from the Democratic Party and cementing Republican dominance for years after he leaves office.

One of the clearest examples is an effort to limit jury awards in lawsuits against doctors and businesses. The caps might not only discourage "frivolous" lawsuits, as Bush argues, but also deprive trial lawyers of income from damage awards that they could then give to Democrats.

"If we could succeed in getting some form of tort reform passed — medical malpractice reform or any of part of that — it would go a long ways toward … taking away the muscle, the financial muscle that they have," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who ousted Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle last fall despite a heavy flood of trial lawyer money backing the Democrat.
"Are we doing it because it creates more Republicans? Or are we doing it because it's the right thing to do, and by the way, it also happens to create more Republicans?" asked Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform and a frequent advisor to Karl Rove, Bush's chief political advisor. "It's both."

"Every one of the ideas for the most part has merits on its own, so … they're defensible," said Stephen Moore, a conservative activist who plans to raise $10 million this year to advertise on behalf of Bush's Social Security plans. "But I think, altogether, this was devised as a Karl Rove grand plan to cement in place a Republican governing coalition that could last for a generation or more."

[pseudobrit]

Another reason I'm moving to Canada.

This type of plan works well for healthy people. I have a chronic disease that requires constant medication.

I cannot afford to live in the New America.

[mactastic]

Timely article... (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bankrupt2feb02,1,5724982.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true)
About half of all bankruptcy filings in the United States occur because of health-related expenses — and that share is growing, a study released today has found.

While the number of overall bankruptcies more than tripled from 1980 to 2001, when almost 1.5 million individuals and couples sought protection from their creditors, health-related bankruptcies increased 23-fold over the same period, the study found — suggesting that rising medical bills were a significant factor in the increasing number of court filings.

Most of those who sought bankruptcy for medical reasons were middle-class homeowners who had health insurance when their health problems began, researchers found.

The study, which its authors said was the first to examine specific medical reasons for bankruptcy, was published in the health policy journal Health Affairs. Conducted by investigators from Harvard University's law and medical schools and Ohio University, the study examined filings from 2001 in five federal bankruptcy courts, including the Central District of California, and interviewed those who cited medical reasons as the main cause of their bankruptcy filing.

Those cases involved injury or illness, uncovered medical bills of more than $1,000 in the two years before filing, loss of at least two weeks of work because of illness or injury, or mortgaging a home to pay medical bills.

"These are hard-working, 'play by the rules' people who have health insurance and have discovered that they were just one bad diagnosis away from financial catastrophe," Elizabeth Warren, a professor at Harvard Law School and one of the study's authors, said in an interview Tuesday. "I think that's the real heart of the story. This is about people who thought they were all safe."

Even with health insurance, people often pay large out-of-pocket sums for healthcare. In addition, the study found, employment-based coverage does not fully protect families because illness can lead to job loss and loss of coverage.

"Families are hit with a one-two punch when someone gets sick," Warren said. "They both lose income and get hit with new expenses, and the combination turns them upside down financially."

When his medical expenses for cancer treatment became overwhelming, even with insurance, Steven Choi of Rowland Heights filed for bankruptcy, his son said Tuesday. That allowed Medi-Cal to cover the costs of his treatment before his death last year.

"The medical condition caused us to do things we never thought we'd have to do," said Tom Choi, 35, of Buena Park. "My dad was a pretty proud guy. And we told him [declaring bankruptcy] is the only option you have.

"We could support our parents if we had to, but we couldn't support a million-dollar hospital bill," he said.

Unlike others who filed for bankruptcy, medical debtors were more likely to have had a lapse in health coverage, either because they could no longer afford to pay for insurance or they changed plans and, because of their preexisting ailments, lost coverage.

Three-quarters of the study's interviewees had medical coverage when they first got sick, but later lost it.

The study, which will follow up with interviewees to see how the bankruptcy affects their lives, found that one-third of medical debtors continued to have problems paying bills, particularly mortgages, rent and utilities.

"A person may recover physically from a medical problem, but they never recover financially," Warren said.

[pseudobrit]

How many people have lost their homes due to a severe illness?

You know, this is the kind of crap that makes me eager to leave.

What kind of "greatest nation in the world" or "superpower" doesn't have the right to seek good health built into it?

[mactastic]

It's all a part of the 'ownership society'. The rich get to own your **** when you get sick or injured, or need to sue and can't.

[IJ Reilly]

Now, here's the real kicker: As anyone who's worked for themselves can attest, an individual in the health insurance market is basically roadkill from word go. They have zero bargaining power. Rules regulating the industry vary from state to state, but given an outstanding health issue, you could easily find yourself being either (1) uninsurable, or (2) not insurable at an affordable price. Pushing millions more Americans into this miasma is an insurance industry executive's wet dream come true. No longer would they be compelled to provide coverage for millions of non-affluent or unhealthy Americans. Those people will be left to beg at the public trough -- IOW, a perfect solution from an industry standpoint.

[mactastic]

Exactly. Any beancounter worth his or her salt realizes that if you insure the right people, ie those who will file as few claims for as little money as possible, aka healthy people, that their profits will increase dramtically over a scenario wherein they cannot cherrypick their customers. But healthy people are the ones who need coverage the least. A sick person needs the coverage, but will they get it? Hell no, not if the number crunchers have their say.

[blackfox]

Now, here's the real kicker: As anyone who's worked for themselves can attest, an individual in the health insurance market is basically roadkill from word go. They have zero bargaining power. Rules regulating the industry vary from state to state, but given an outstanding health issue, you could easily find yourself being either (1) uninsurable, or (2) not insurable at an affordable price. Pushing millions more Americans into this miasma is an insurance industry executive's wet dream come true. No longer would they be compelled to provide coverage for millions of non-affluent or unhealthy Americans. Those people will be left to beg at the public trough -- IOW, a perfect solution from an industry standpoint.Right you are, and that is kinda the (hopeful) point of my above post. That the logic behind this, in political terms, is not sustainable. If the ranks of the uninsured hit critical mass, it is likely that the Government will step in with anything from Federal subsidies to complete overhaul, even Nationalization of Health Care. This would spell relative doom to the Insurance Industry, although a wealthy % of the population would probably still opt for private care/insurance.

Of course, in the intervening years between now and that moment, the Insurance Industry would make a killing (a not funny pun) and most likely not be held accountable as Individual companies, let alone individuals.

Nevertheless, this strategy moves so far towards one poll ( ahem...pole)and the effects will be so profound, as to necessitate an eventual swing to the other side, even extreme.

oh...I'm still wearing my foil hat...sorry.

[IJ Reilly]

I've given up trying to figure out what's politically sustainable. I should have thought that 45 million uninsured would have been a critical mass, but I'd have thought wrong. Imagine if all these people had voted their economic interests last November? All I can say for certain is that Congress and the President will over the next four years do their utmost to comfort the comfortable, and sell it to everybody else as being in their interest. It's a house of cards for sure, but when it will come crashing down is anybody's guess.

[atszyman]

I wouldn't mind this for myself if my company would give the money saved on insurance to...me in my paychecks.I'd say you've got the same chance of this as you have of an accident at work suddenly endowing you with super-powers.

And therein lies the problem with just about every healthcare solution, and why this one will be more popular with people at first.

Government provided healthcare is not popular enough due to the fact that people will have to pay higher taxes without an increase in income. This one will win over more people due to the "Tax exempt" healthcare account. People will see that as being able to get free money despite the fact that they will now be paying through the nose for their healthcare.

How long will it be before someone comes up with an insurance plan to fill the new gap for individuals paying their own healthcare expenses? So at that point we have your catastrophic illness insurance, the "new" health insurance which is almost exactly like what we have now, and all of it at the expense of the individual.

My God its brilliant! Corporations save lots of money. People get screwed and another insurance industry is born. Who is our government working for again?

[IJ Reilly]

I'd buy into Medicare, if I could. My out-of-pocket costs would be lower and my benefits better (not to mention, more secure), and I suspect even my doctor would approve. But this isn't going to happen, because it would force the insurance industry to compete directly with a government program, and that would put the lie to the argument that industry is inherently more efficient than the government.

[pseudobrit]

I'm wondering how to categorise this.

Of course it's easy to say Bush wants to privatise Social Security.

Is this re-privatised health care?

[chanoc]

I basically told my employer they could take their HMO health plan and non-matching 401k and stick it up their arse. It is cheaper for me to go to the Anchorage Neighborhood Health Center and make sliding-scale payments, as I made scant for money last year - 80% off services.

For anything serious though, either medicare or go bankrupt. Hell I do not need car loans, Apple Store loans (a rip-off 20% interest), credit cards, or any of that snizzle. :)

[pseudobrit]

And now, one year later, after devoting everything he had to butchering Social Security and failing, we find Bush about to revisit this tidy little idea.

NPR did a piece this morning (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5179309) about this "consumer driven" healthcare model and interviewed a participant who says it is coming up woefully short for the average user.

It also included the words of one analyst that chilled me to the bone. He said what we'll be left with is a system where one will "make your own deal". I'll explain more about why this frightens me in another post.

And for kickers, in the end, it costs more – both in whole and to the individual – than the current system. I swear these ****ups are allergic to efficiency.

[pseudobrit]

I have asthma and am uninsurable outside of an employer based system. I simply cannot afford to spend 70% of my income on premiums, so I would have to go without insurance.

Of course I'd still be able to get emergency care for my asthma or any other serious problem and just go bankrupt as best I could when I couldn't pay. And I'd be able to afford some of my prescriptions but I'd suffer physical torture without my steroid inhaler which alone costs over $100 a month. I'd probably have to cut my dose in half and just suffer through it.

But the emergency care and prescriptions aren't the biggest issue, and here's why:

This past autumn, I had surgery to repair a torn abdominal muscle (a "sports hernia" from hockey). Now, this was technically an elective surgery. It caused me frequent discomfort and occasional severe pain, but it didn't become an emergency (though it could have at anytime; I'll explain more in the next paragraph) and I lived with it for quite some time before seeking surgical repair.

If I didn't have employer-based healthcare, I would not have been able to afford this procedure electively. No surgeon would have taken a $15,000 IOU from a guy with no insurance. I would have to wait until a piece of small intestine got trapped in the tear and necrosis set in – an immediately life-threatening condition that requires amputation of a length of intestine and extensive surgery – before I could force a hospital to operate on me.

I would have had to risk my life to get this operation done because I would be uninsurable because of a totally unrelated condition.

I am not ready to leave this country yet. I still need two and a half years to fully get my **** together and prepare for a move to Canada. But if this goes through and I become uninsured in the meantime, I will have to do everything in my power to get the hell out immediately.

This is life and death, and I am not alone.

[Thomas Veil]

Well, obviously you know what you have to do under this system.

Spend that 70% of your income on premiums until you go bankrupt. Then apply for Medicaid. Then you'll get the care you need. :rolleyes:

In all seriousness...the more I think about it, the more I think this has the same chance of passing as their Social Security "reform" plan. At its core it's the same basic idea: shift more of the risk and/or burden onto individuals.

In short, watch for the Dems to make as big a stink about this as they did for Social Security "privatization".

[miloblithe]

Does anyone think that in the long-run, this might be a good thing? If employers get out of the healthcare providing business, and people realize that paying for it as individuals doesn't work, that this is the first step towards national health care?

[blackfox]

Does anyone think that in the long-run, this might be a good thing? If employers get out of the healthcare providing business, and people realize that paying for it as individuals doesn't work, that this is the first step towards national health care?
Perhaps.

Still, with the changes in bankrupcy law and all, how many people's lives will be irreparably ruined (or ended) in the meantime?

[mactastic]

Well then it's your personal responsibility to make some more money so that you can afford your own 'lifestyle', buddy. Otherwise, off to the abattoir with you.


;)

[TrenchMouth]

You forgot the corporations. Advancing their interests is what this government is all about.

If this were true the government wouldn't be trying to pin more responsebility on them for providing health care. Japan went through a very similar ordeal in the 1970's and 1980's. They provided better and better benifits to get people on board, and then they offered things like health insurance for life if you retired with that company. What they learned was that people do eventually retire...and they get sick...and they cost money.

I think IBM is heading in the right direction. Pay people with money. The well being of an individual is, to an extent, a responsibility of coorporations and of the government, but in the long run the vast majority of the responsibility rests in the individual, who needs to respond to the growing health insurance problem by taking it to the government and not expecting the government to take care of it without being told what to do. More active liberty baby.

thats my 2 cents, but i am just a kid, what the hell do i know?

[IJ Reilly]

If this were true the government wouldn't be trying to pin more responsebility on them for providing health care.?

But they are not. There's no movement afoot AFAIK to make corporations more responsible for providing health care to their employees. In fact, the percentage of people covered by employee health care plans is dropping steadily. They are dumping people onto government programs. The only plan I expect Bush to propose tonight is an expansion of health care savings accounts, yet another way of shifting the burden to individuals, one which will do nothing to extend coverage to the 43 million working Americans who have none.

Health care and its costs can be kind of abstraction when you are young, healthy and covered. For a dose of reality, try being middle-aged and self-employeed in the midst of a major health crisis that neither you nor your doctors saw coming. Then you will appreciate the slenderness of the thread that suspends you above the abyss of complete financial ruin. It's nice to have this kind of thing to occupy your mind while you're home recovering from surgery. It distracts you from the other pain.

Trust me, you'll love it. Just wait.

[leekohler]

thats my 2 cents, but i am just a kid, what the hell do i know?

Key words. I agree with IJ. The amount of people on government programs is going to increase with this BS, trust me. Savings accounts? With what money? All it will cause is more bankrupty and people on MediCare.

[Stella]

Absolutely pathetic.

How many people at the moment can't afford medical insurance in the States - a very high proportion? This will push the % up even higher. It will be a very sad day if this did get through.

Bush doesn't give a f?ck amount you poor american citzens.. Oh, you americans are getting so screwed.. and its very sad.

I'd rather pay taxes and live in Canada, thank you.

[IJ Reilly]

How many people at the moment can't afford medical insurance in the States - a very high proportion?

Approximately 43 million (as mentioned previously). These would be nearly all working people without employer health care plans, a growing number. The poor, the elderly, and the disabled get government health care.

Many of the rest of us know we're getting screwed.

[3rdpath]

don't forget those who have some healthcare but no dental or vision policy...so prepare yourself for an older generation of toothless and blind people taking your order at mcdonalds.

[zimv20]

i'm ready for some national healthcare. i've been self-employed for over 5 years now and the premiums are killing me. like p'brit, my options are very limited (indeed, i'm down to the only plan which would take me, which is administered by the state of illinois). they just jacked my monthly premium from $400 to $500. yikes.

the state program is always on the verge of being cancelled, so if bush does any kind of reform, i expect i'll be wind up insuranceless. ****ing GOP.

[LethalWolfe]

But they are not. There's no movement afoot AFAIK to make corporations more responsible for providing health care to their employees. In fact, the percentage of people covered by employee health care plans is dropping steadily. They are dumping people onto government programs. The only plan I expect Bush to propose tonight is an expansion of health care savings accounts, yet another way of shifting the burden to individuals, one which will do nothing to extend coverage to the 43 million working Americans who have none.

Health care and its costs can be kind of abstraction when you are young, healthy and covered. For a dose of reality, try being middle-aged and self-employeed in the midst of a major health crisis that neither you nor your doctors saw coming. Then you will appreciate the slenderness of the thread that suspends you above the abyss of complete financial ruin. It's nice to have this kind of thing to occupy your mind while you're home recovering from surgery. It distracts you from the other pain.

Trust me, you'll love it. Just wait.


I've got to completely agree w/IJ. Post college and once you really start hitting the "real world" things like benefits, health coverage, retirement plants, etc. all suddenly change from abstractions to reality. The world is a lot different when you are no longer covered by the protective bubble of being someone else's dependent or a full time student.

I'm only 28 and I've seen benefits (especially health coverage) going from "good" to "what's the point of even paying for this?" I have friends my age who are in good health and self employed and they can't afford/can't get health care. I also have friends my age that have chronic conditions (like 'brit's asthma) or family's and they are starting to get killed financially 'cause they are paying more money for fewer medical benefits through their employer.


Lethal

[pseudobrit]

i'm ready for some national healthcare. i've been self-employed for over 5 years now and the premiums are killing me. like p'brit, my options are very limited (indeed, i'm down to the only plan which would take me, which is administered by the state of illinois). they just jacked my monthly premium from $400 to $500. yikes.

the state program is always on the verge of being cancelled, so if bush does any kind of reform, i expect i'll be wind up insuranceless. ****ing GOP.

I would imagine any sweetheart "reform" for the insurance industry whereby the employer based model is dismantled would include a provision requiring universal coverage for us dregs. That is, someone would be forced to take you on.

Now, the cost may be double what you pay now, but won't you sleep well at night knowing you're saving the system money by being incentivized to make frugal decisions about medical costs?

[3rdpath]

i'm ready for some national healthcare. i've been self-employed for over 5 years now and the premiums are killing me.

I'm in the same boat. My wife and I have been self-employed forever and our health premiums have increased over the last 6 years at an alarming rate. And we can forget about dental and vision policies. We've finally moved to an HSA plan that allows us some decent premiums( though they go up every 3 months:mad:) but the policy has a $2400 deductible. There are some tax advantages to it but the bottom line is, you still gotta make a boatload of money to get decent healthcare in this country.

Lets face it, soon everyone will be a contract worker...Kiss your pensions, 401k's and healthcare goodbye (Unless, of course, you're a CEO or other C level employee).

Mark my words, the healthcare crisis will be the final nail in the coffin of the middle-class.

[IJ Reilly]

Dental coverage? Ha, ha, ha! I haven't had that since the last time I was government employed. Vision? Funnier yet. I've had about eight crowns put in my mouth over the last five or so years, and paid the full freight on every one, at about $500-600 a pop, and one root canal at over a grand.

The premium for my crummy HMO is around $400/month now. I was thinking of shopping around for a new policy this year, but I can forget that now since I just got back from a week's stay in the hospital so probably nobody else would insure me for less if at all. My insurer can raise my rates thorough the roof and there's n-o-t-h-i-n-g I can do about it.

[iSaint]

You forgot the corporations. Advancing their interests is what this government is all about.

Just like the investigation into big oil profits died off rather quickly. I'm sure the political contributions from such industries far outway any elected official's desire to work for their constituents.

[atszyman]

Hmmm, maybe the government should stop subsidizing the healthcare of elected politicians?

Between moving all elections to public funding only, tying elected officials wages to the minimum wage, and making elected officials buy their own insurance we might actually get a government that has an idea of what normal people go through...

[IJ Reilly]

Just like the investigation into big oil profits died off rather quickly. I'm sure the political contributions from such industries far outway any elected official's desire to work for their constituents.

I wouldn't say any. Over the years, quite a few members of Congress have championed the cause of health care. It's the current makeup of Congress and the White House that makes a real solution impossible.

[blackfox]

I wouldn't say any. Over the years, quite a few members of Congress have championed the cause of health care. It's the current makeup of Congress and the White House that makes a real solution impossible.
Well, I fully expect this issue to be elevated to a rhetorical frenzy in the coming months leading up to mid-term elections.

Should be interesting to see if any facts get invited to the party - and whether there is any collective appreciation of the failure of Bush's last attempt at healthcare reform.

I suppose tonight will set the tone for future debate.

[IJ Reilly]

I suppose tonight will set the tone for future debate.

That's my fear as well. ;)

[Sedulous]

Well, you can always vote with your feet. I really hate to say it, but that is increasingly looking to be my option.

[iGary]

I'm self employed. Does this mean I have to charge myself more?

[solvs]

I'm self employed. Does this mean I have to charge myself more?
Yes. I'm sure they'll tax the heck out of you, then give you a couple of hundred dollars as a "tax credit", allow the health industry to keep raising prices so you can't afford it even if you have insurance, but you can't declare bankruptcy, and you can't buy meds from other countries, and if you bitch about it, you're a socialist whiner who doesn't believe in capitalism because people know how to manage their money better than the government. Which I guess is true as they build bridges to nowhere while cutting health care for children, the elderly, the poor, and especially those troops they all support so much. I guess a healthy economy doesn't need healthy people.

And I guess IJ was right about them changing the health care laws when employers started demanding it. He was just wrong about the how.

[zimv20]

I'm self employed. Does this mean I have to charge myself more?
why do you hate america so much?

[pseudobrit]

I'm self employed. Does this mean I have to charge myself more?

Employers are finding that they must pass the rapidly inflating costs along to their employees.

You're just going to have to get used to ****ing yourself.

[iGary]

Employers are finding that they must pass the rapidly inflating costs along to their employees.

You're just going to have to get used to ****ing yourself.

Awesome!!!

I mean I already enjoy paying an extra 7% for social security.

This ROCKS!!

Go George. :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

And I guess IJ was right about them changing the health care laws when employers started demanding it. He was just wrong about the how.

Oh, no I wasn't wrong about the how. They'll be changed to suit the corporations, including not least of all, the health care industry. Just look at the spin on the implementation of the Medicare Drug Benefit. It's already being called a smashing success by the administration and the industry because it's succeeded in its main goal: transferring large amounts of public wealth to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. The fact that only a few million people actually have drug coverage who didn't before the program came into being hardly matters in the overall success calculus.

[pseudobrit]

Awesome!!!

I mean I already enjoy paying an extra 7% for social security.

This ROCKS!!

Go George. :rolleyes:

Wait until the layoffs start. Company's gotta trim the fat to survive.

[bbyrdhouse]

Another reason I'm moving to Canada.

This type of plan works well for healthy people. I have a chronic disease that requires constant medication.

I cannot afford to live in the New America.

How many people have lost their homes due to a severe illness?

You know, this is the kind of crap that makes me eager to leave.

What kind of "greatest nation in the world" or "superpower" doesn't have the right to seek good health built into it?

".... I guess I had to remove what I posted earlier because it was in "violation of the rules of this forum" however it does not change my sentiment.

There are plenty of legal ways in America to earn extra income without a major investment. Plenty of legal ways to set up an offshore corporation to avoid IRS theft...I mean taxes.

Anyone can be a crybaby, nobody I know is gonna "fix" all the corruption in Washington, (both "sides of the aisl") so what can we do? Well, some folks choose to move to another country and cry while others choose to make lemonade from lemons.

[pseudobrit]

Good, that will be one less whiny baby, complain about the "rich", complain about "Im so poor and I can't afford to go to the doctor" and "America should pay for my healthcare" leech.

There are plenty of legal ways in America to earn extra income without a major investment. Plenty of legal ways to set up an offshore corporation to avoid IRS theft...I mean taxes.

I don't get your angle.

You're calling me a "leech" because I don't "set up an offshore" account to defraud the government? WTF? No, seriously, WTF? You are proposing this as a valid solution to the healthcare crisis?

I pay for my own healthcare now. (I also pay my taxes) I'm fine with that as long as it's affordable and a decent value. But I'm worried it may not be either in the near future unless things are fixed

I'm going to have to do what I have to do to survive. I think setting up an offshore shell corporation to dodge taxes is a little more anti-American than just leaving. I can only pray that people of your mindset are stricken with some nasty chronic disease and forced to become a "whiny baby".

You need to find a tall glass of **** and chug it.

[IJ Reilly]

Good, that will be one less whiny baby, [etc]

Warning: This post is in violation of the board rules. If you wish to participate in these discussions, please read and follow the rules.

[aquajet]

Good, that will be one less whiny baby, complain about the "rich", complain about "Im so poor and I can't afford to go to the doctor" and "America should pay for my healthcare" leech.

There are plenty of legal ways in America to earn extra income without a major investment. Plenty of legal ways to set up an offshore corporation to avoid IRS theft...I mean taxes.

Anyone can be a crybaby, nobody I know is gonna "fix" all the corruption in Washington, (both "sides of the aisl") so what can we do? Well, some folks choose to move to another country and cry while others choose to make lemonade from lemons.

I'm not sure what to think of your comments, bbyrdhouse. The only things I can gather (and please correct me):

1. You are rich
2. You have no medical ailments
3. You are corrupted

I'm a 25-year old student. I have health care with my father's company until March 1, when I turn 26. I can barely afford to pay the student health plan offered through my University, which by the way has a 50-page list of exclusions. I'm worried, because like pseudobrit, I've got a potentially debilitating condition that will not be covered because it's a "pre-existing condition."

Since you are obviously savvy enough to work the system by setting up offshore bank accounts in order to "legally" circumvent the tax system in this country, all the while ****ing over the rest of us with a conscience, perhaps you could help me make lemonade?

[bbyrdhouse]

I don't get your angle.

You're calling me a "leech" because I don't "set up an offshore" account to defraud the government? WTF? No, seriously, WTF? You are proposing this as a valid solution to the healthcare crisis?

I pay for my own healthcare now. (I also pay my taxes) I'm fine with that as long as it's affordable and a decent value. But I'm worried it may not be either in the near future unless things are fixed

I'm going to have to do what I have to do to survive. I think setting up an offshore shell corporation to dodge taxes is a little more anti-American than just leaving. I can only pray that people of your mindset are stricken with some nasty chronic disease and forced to become a "whiny baby".

You need to find a tall glass of **** and chug it.

If you read my post, which I am guessing you did you would have notice I said LEGAL ways, i am in no way for illegal ways to avoid taxes. I pay my taxes like every other decent American, but I do look for legal ways I can save $ that would otherwise go to the government so I can afford to buy my own health insurance.

[bbyrdhouse]

I'm not sure what to think of your comments, bbyrdhouse. The only things I can gather (and please correct me):

1. You are rich
2. You have no medical ailments
3. You are corrupted

I'm a 25-year old student. I have health care with my father's company until March 1, when I turn 26. I can barely afford to pay the student health plan offered through my University, which by the way has a 50-page list of exclusions. I'm worried, because like pseudobrit, I've got a potentially debilitating condition that will not be covered because it's a "pre-existing condition."

Since you are obviously savvy enough to work the system by setting up offshore bank accounts in order to "legally" circumvent the tax system in this country, all the while ****ing over the rest of us with a conscience, perhaps you could help me make lemonade?

I am in my mid 30's and make around $35,000 a year. I have a family of 5 including me. We live within our means and I have decided that happiness is determined from things that happen but joy is determined from things that never change.
Therefore I do not search for happiness but rather joy.

Someone taught me a valuable lesson several years ago, they said there are two ways to be or feel "rich":
1. By getting the things you want. or
2. By wanting the things you have.

I have chosen the latter.

Please do not mis-understand my emotion.
I have the greatest concern for folks with disease and medical conditions that prevent them from doing what others take for granted. And this is the reason why I will give more than 50% of my yearly salary to foriegn missions around the world as well as my local church.
It is one thing for me to have compassion on someone and give sacraficially to help them, but it is another thing entirely for the government or anyone to demand that I help them or threaten me if I don't.
I do not have the luxery of having a company pay a portion of my health insurance. If I want it I have to pay for it...all of it not just a matching half.
But I am not going to leave the country over it.

But if I did have such a dreadful didease that I did have to leave the country over to receive medical care I dead sure would not poor mouth America.

But hey! That's me.

And BTW your assumption of me was totally wrong wasn't it.

[pseudobrit]

Someone taught me a valuable lesson several years ago, they said there are two ways to be or feel "rich":
1. By getting the things you want. or
2. By wanting the things you have.

I'm confused again. Should I be in state of "wanting" no healthcare?


It is one thing for me to have compassion on someone and give sacraficially to help them, but it is another thing entirely for the government or anyone to demand that I help them or threaten me if I don't.

Oh, I see. We can rely on charity in our hour of need. AKA begging. You know we live in a civilised society for a reason?

Did you set up an offshore shell corporation to avoid paying personal income taxes?

[pseudobrit]

If you read my post, which I am guessing you did you would have notice I said LEGAL ways, i am in no way for illegal ways to avoid taxes. I pay my taxes like every other decent American, but I do look for legal ways I can save $ that would otherwise go to the government so I can afford to buy my own health insurance.

I look for ways to save on taxes also. I set up an HSA and contribute each month about what I pay for prescription copays. This will save me maybe $40 in taxes during the year.

I am dumbstruck though by your suggestion that I set up an offshore corporation to avoid paying taxes to afford healthcare. That's the strangest suggestion I've yet heard for dealing with the problem. Do you think that for an average person to pay the money, lawyers and fees required to set up an offshore shell company and funnel all their money through it would be more affordable than, say, moving to Canada and paying a higher tax rate for universal coverage? Me neither.

[bbyrdhouse]

I look for ways to save on taxes also. I set up an HSA and contribute each month about what I pay for prescription copays. This will save me maybe $40 in taxes during the year.

I am dumbstruck though by your suggestion that I set up an offshore corporation to avoid paying taxes to afford healthcare. That's the strangest suggestion I've yet heard for dealing with the problem. Do you think that for an average person to pay the money, lawyers and fees required to set up an offshore shell company and funnel all their money through it would be more affordable than, say, moving to Canada and paying a higher tax rate for universal coverage? Me neither.


Listen, I was simply suggesting that there are numerous way to save money to make health care more affordable to folks like you and me who otherwise would not be able to afford it.

And as far as charity goes, no one is aking you to beg. But these HMO's and Insurance companies that want to charge you $100 for an aspirin etc... if they practiced charity, and if everyone practiced charity then folks would not have to beg.

If a person makes $100,000 a year and gives $1,000 then that is not charity in my opinion.

Look into investing in the World Banking system. Very good returns! Higher than any bank and safer than stock market.

And NO I did not set up a offshore corporation to avoid personal taxes, but rather for a ministry I started.

As I mentioned I, like every other decent American, pay my taxes whatever they are from year to year. I pay my state taxes. And I give sacrificially to folks that need it.

But I will not give money to those who demand that I give them something.
I am not saying that you are, but your comment about leaving the country and your avatar with former USSR logo made my blood boil.

[pseudobrit]

USSR logo

"Logo"? Priceless.

[pseudobrit]

Listen, I was simply suggesting that there are numerous way to save money to make health care more affordable to folks like you and me who otherwise would not be able to afford it.

You understand what we're talking about here, right? I'm not talking about the current state of healthcare. We're discussing what happens to the system if it ends up being that each person must negotiate their own deal individually with an insurance company.

The discussion is not about how to make things more affordable. It's about preserving the availablity of healthcare to those of us outside the margins of wealth, health and youth.

I think you need to RTFT and stop getting upset over the "logo" of a defunct nation.

[aquajet]

I am in my mid 30's and make around $35,000 a year...I have the greatest concern for folks with disease and medical conditions that prevent them from doing what others take for granted. And this is the reason why I will give more than 50% of my yearly salary to foriegn missions around the world as well as my local church.

Is that 35 g before or after your philanthropy?

[blackfox]

I am in my mid 30's and make around $35,000 a year. I have a family of 5 including me. We live within our means and I have decided that happiness is determined from things that happen but joy is determined from things that never change. ...SNIP...



...SNIP...I have the greatest concern for folks with disease and medical conditions that prevent them from doing what others take for granted. And this is the reason why I will give more than 50% of my yearly salary to foriegn missions around the world as well as my local church.


Just to clarify here:

Do you make 35K a year after giving 50% of your yearly salary to charity?

If not, then are you supporting a family of five on 17.5K a year, with money left over to deposit in Off-shore accounts? Are you a dual-income household?

Just curious.

*edit* Guess aquajet is curious too...and with the quickness.

[aquajet]

...your comment about leaving the country and your avatar with former USSR logo made my blood boil.

Why does someone's desire to leave the US make your blood boil? If it's in their best economic interest, then what's the problem? How does that affect you? Let's be honest here...you were suggesting that one should set up shady offshore businesses in order to circumvent the tax system in the US. That kind of makes my blood boil because that directly affects everybody else who pays taxes in this country.

USSR 'logo' ? I don't think so. :rolleyes:

[bbyrdhouse]

35K after taxes, before charity. No, we are not a dual income houshold.

OK, I deserve the logo dig, emblem would have been a better word. Was it not the embel of the old USSR flag?

And, if the discussion is about the availability of healthcare in the future and not about the afforability of healthcare, then I can see more of some of the points you are trying to make.

I come from a military family, I am not necessarily a "Bush" fan, or a "republican" fan. Truthfully I lean toward the Constitutional Party.

But the tone of your early posts seemed as if you were berading America. I have taught American and World History for several years, and even with all of it's imperfections and problems, and even crokked politicians I still do not believe that there is any nation that can compare to America. I do get offended when people get down on America.

That is not to say that we can't try to figure out how to make it better or discuss it's problems, but in my opinion when folks leave for other countries it wekens our nation even more.

I understand your situation and I can not honestly say that if I were in your shoes that I would not do the same, but I would hope that I would not get to where I felt that I had to poor mouth America.

[IJ Reilly]

"Affordable healthcare," now that's a laugh. I just got a notice from my HMO that my rates will increase by 30% on March 1, and my deductibles along with it. I am now paying over $5,000 a year for my premiums alone, and that's just for me. Tell me again how everything is going just great. I like fairy-tales.

[bbyrdhouse]

Let's be honest here...you were suggesting that one should set up shady offshore businesses in order to circumvent the tax system in the US. ...
USSR 'logo' ? I don't think so. :rolleyes:
Yes, let's!
Be honest! That is not what I was suggesting. Any good CPA will suggest the same or something similar. And it was not to avert paying taxes alone. As I have mentioned I believe that a decent and honest American will pay his taxes...even Jesus stated that we should "render unto Ceaser that wich is Ceaser's" I was merely pointing out that there are numerous ways that every American can pursue in order to save more of the money they earn... LEGAL ways, HONEST ways, ABOVE BOARD ways, NO SHADY BUSINESS ways.
That was only one way that I mentioned.
I am curios as to why you get so offended at the suggestion. If I were avoiding paying taxes altogether that would be fine, but I pay my taxes like you.

[pseudobrit]

35K after taxes, before charity. No, we are not a dual income houshold.

OK, I deserve the logo dig, emblem would have been a better word. Was it not the embel of the old USSR flag?

And, if the discussion is about the availability of healthcare in the future and not about the afforability of healthcare, then I can see more of some of the points you are trying to make.

I come from a military family, I am not necessarily a "Bush" fan, or a "republican" fan. Truthfully I lean toward the Constitutional Party.

But the tone of your early posts seemed as if you were berading America. I have taught American and World History for several years, and even with all of it's imperfections and problems, and even crokked politicians I still do not believe that there is any nation that can compare to America. I do get offended when people get down on America.

That is not to say that we can't try to figure out how to make it better or discuss it's problems, but in my opinion when folks leave for other countries it wekens our nation even more.

I understand your situation and I can not honestly say that if I were in your shoes that I would not do the same, but I would hope that I would not get to where I felt that I had to poor mouth America.

I love this country for everything that's worth loving about it, which is a lot. But it's being compromised by people who are unAmerican, unChristian and uncivilised and I hate that and want it to change so bad it hurts me. I feel betrayed. And underneath it all, I have to do what's best for me. If the majority in this country side with the neoconservative anarchists and that's what they want then I cannot in good conscience be party to it.

Ever notice that the coach's son gets the most criticism?

[pseudobrit]

"Affordable healthcare," now that's a laugh. I just got a notice from my HMO that my rates will increase by 30% on March 1, and my deductibles along with it. I am now paying over $5,000 a year for my premiums alone, and that's just for me. Tell me again how everything is going just great. I like fairy-tales.

Not to disparage your situation (or mine; I pay about $1500/yr in premiums for coverage that exposes me to a total out-of-pocket expense of $2500[which I paid all of last year], and I make less than $30k a year) but imagine how much worse it will be when there's nothing available at all.

[aquajet]

35K after taxes, before charity. No, we are not a dual income houshold.

Wow, my hat's off to you for supporting a family of five on $17.5k/year.

That is not to say that we can't try to figure out how to make it better or discuss it's problems, but in my opinion when folks leave for other countries it wekens our nation even more.

I don't blame anybody who wants to leave. The situation is pretty dire, one that requires some massive reforms, from the policy makers, to the pharmaceutical companies, to the doctors, to the insurance companies. They all need a swift kick in the ass.

"Affordable healthcare," now that's a laugh. I just got a notice from my HMO that my rates will increase by 30% on March 1, and my deductibles along with it. I am now paying over $5,000 a year for my premiums alone, and that's just for me. Tell me again how everything is going just great. I like fairy-tales.

Good luck with that IJ. I'm loosing my coverage on the same date, and I'm not entirely certain I'll be able to get my own. It'll make for a great birthday party.

[aquajet]

Yes, let's!
Be honest! That is not what I was suggesting. Any good CPA will suggest the same or something similar. And it was not to avert paying taxes alone. As I have mentioned I believe that a decent and honest American will pay his taxes...even Jesus stated that we should "render unto Ceaser that wich is Ceaser's" I was merely pointing out that there are numerous ways that every American can pursue in order to save more of the money they earn... LEGAL ways, HONEST ways, ABOVE BOARD ways, NO SHADY BUSINESS ways.
That was only one way that I mentioned.
I am curios as to why you get so offended at the suggestion. If I were avoiding paying taxes altogether that would be fine, but I pay my taxes like you.

Firstly, let's not confuse 'legal' and 'honest'. Just because something is legal doesn't make it honest. You claim to pay your taxes, but you offered up this comment:

There are plenty of legal ways in America to earn extra income without a major investment. Plenty of legal ways to set up an offshore corporation to avoid IRS theft...I mean taxes.

Now, let's be honest, what do you say?

[bbyrdhouse]

Alright folks, I have enjoyed the debate. Please forgive my earlier post about being a whiney baby. I was charged when I wrote that.
I do not doubt anyones love for our country, I do find many folks that I disagree with as to what are the problems and what are the solutions.

However, I must move on to other things at this time. This os my official "bow out".

I have work I need to finish at this time and once I move on I probably won't remember to come back to this topic.

Good luck to the two who did have health problems that normal circumstances could not account for.

I sincerely hope that next time we meet we will be on the same side of the issue.

[bbyrdhouse]

Firstly, let's not confuse 'legal' and 'honest'. Just because something is legal doesn't make it honest. You claim to pay your taxes, but you offered up this comment:



Now, let's be honest, what do you say?

OK this was posted as I was typing my previous post.

The IRS will gladly take all of your money if you let them. Many times yo have to show them that the money they are wanting is not money that you are required or expected to give them.

The fact that something is legal does not make it honest is a true statement. I believe playing the lottery is dishonest, but it is legal in most states. So if you were to play the lottery, while it may make you dishonest according to what I believe it does not make you dishonest according to the "rule of law". And I can not justly look at you and say that you are dishonest.

Now if playing the lottery was against the law, and you chose to break the law, then I could justly accuse you of being dishonest.

So with that line of reason, one could legally and honestly set up a corporation for the sole purpose of trying to save himself taxes. Why? Because it is legal. If however he is breaking the law, or doing something shady then that would most definatly make him dishonest.

It may sound like were are playing "word games" or have semantical differences and perhaps that is the greatest point of disagreement. Because the more we talk about this the more I understand your point of contention with the healthcare system.

[IJ Reilly]

Not to disparage your situation (or mine; I pay about $1500/yr in premiums for coverage that exposes me to a total out-of-pocket expense of $2500[which I paid all of last year], and I make less than $30k a year) but imagine how much worse it will be when there's nothing available at all.

When I was laying in my hospital bed a couple of weeks ago, I found myself worrying about whether my insurance company had cancelled me and I didn't know it. I have my premium extracted from my checking account automatically every month so of course it was fine, but this was just another cheery thing to have crossing your mind while recovering from surgery. Then when I got home I saw the notice of the 30% rate increase, which made me feel a whole lot better. SNAFU

[mactastic]

How much of that money goes toward healthcare for a family of 5? Are you insured?

[pseudobrit]

OK this was posted as I was typing my previous post.

The IRS will gladly take all of your money if you let them. Many times yo have to show them that the money they are wanting is not money that you are required or expected to give them.

It's called filing a return. We all do it.

Are you trying to claim the amount of tax you are obligated to pay is not codified?

[zimv20]

"Affordable healthcare," now that's a laugh. I just got a notice from my HMO that my rates will increase by 30% on March 1, and my deductibles along with it. I am now paying over $5,000 a year for my premiums alone, and that's just for me.
yep, i just got a note from mine saying it's going from $400 to $500/mo.

i reckon the legal way for me to save $6000 / year is to forego health insurance. problem solved!

[IJ Reilly]

yep, i just got a note from mine saying it's going from $400 to $500/mo.

i reckon the legal way for me to save $6000 / year is to forego health insurance. problem solved!

The healthcare system practically begs you to go this route if you have no assets. Use the ER for your primary healthcare needs. It's inefficient as hell, but that's what a lot of uninsured people do.

I don't know if I'll ever see a complete bill for my stay in the hospital, but I'll bet the tab for the week including the ER, surgery, and one night in the ICU comes to over $50,000. A person could be financially ruined overnight by a major healthcare incident, if they're not covered and have some assets. Of course, once they're impoverished, then they qualify for government assistance. What a great system!

[mactastic]

Oh but you're stealing from me at the point of a gun! Stop it you badnasty gummint!

We can debate whether taxes are too high, or not high enough, or not targeted correctly all day. But to argue that taxes amount to stealing?

Hey, the credit card companies will gladly take all your money too. They'll even commit the sin of wanting to take money that isn't even theirs from you! Are they evil? Should we make them go away?

'Cause those mofos donate lots of money to very pious people...