Health Care Reform - Universal/Public Option

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

My views on MBBF & his politics are well known, but in my opinion these statements are simply not on here at FOFC.

I'm pretty sure that if SteveBollea was president we'd have a lot of "audits" of those with contrary political positions.

Stolen from a Roger Ebert movie review:

"The problem, as philosophers have noted, is that revolutionaries grow obsessed with enforcing their revolution, and the whole process begins again"

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

I'm stuck with the responsibility of 'helping' others though my taxes. Why is there no responsibility for people to avoid needing to be 'helped'?

My family is adversely affected by the decisions that others make because we have to help support them.

I agree 100%. Decisions made by AIG, Lehman, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, KBR, Boeing, General Motors, and George W. Bush, amongst others, means my family is adversely impacted because we have to help support them.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I agree 100%. Decisions made by AIG, Lehman, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, KBR, Boeing, General Motors, and George W. Bush, amongst others, means my family is adversely impacted because we have to help support them.

Not sure why you don't include Obama and Congress in that list. Do conservative-spent dollars count double?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I agree with gstelmack. It just feels like we are entering a point where whenever we want something new, we just say "hey, add a couple percent to the highest tax bracket". We should be working on getting that money from other areas and getting everyone to make a sacrifice.

Actually, I'd rather we start by making sure that the money being spent is not being wasted, but that's probably impossible given the turkeys we have in Congress these days.

Still, I'm not sure I see the problem. The overall tax burden on the wealthy just isn't all that much more than everyone else. It just seems that way when you look at the raw amount of tax paid because they just make that much more than everyone else: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8...alTaxRates.pdf

I can agree that it will be a problem if the solution to every funding problem is just to add 2% to the top rate, but I don't see a lot of indication that this is really going to happen. And even so, would it be terrible for the top rate to be, say, 10% more than the other rates?

On the flipside, did you all express the same alarm as 2% here and 2% there was removed from the top tax rate over the past 30 years?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Not sure why you don't include Obama and Congress in that list. Do conservative-spent dollars count double?

I didn't include Obama and the Democratic Congress because I was, specifically, making a counter-example to an example that already inferred Obama and the Democratic Congress.

[SportsDino]

I think I understand the mystery, the media is referring to a fine, however it seems under the radar is that there is an additional tax (as in created by this bill) that applies to businesses that do not offer plans.

So far I haven't seen anything to counter this, so essentially there is an additional cost on small businesses from this bill, its just not the 'fine' that has been floating around out there (I'm now looking up the details on the fine, I'm still of course indexing the massive amount of pages).

Anyhoo, starting at page 167 is information related to taxes on individuals without acceptable health coverage.

Apparently 2.5 percent of the excess of modified income over some number section 6012(a)(1).

Its limited based on the average premium of either an individual or a family plan (based on your dependents).

Starting on 179 is 'Employer Responsibility'.

It goes on a bit, but the gist on page 184 (as cited earlier) is that the tax for not electing to cover your employees is 8 percent of wages, or some table from 2 to 6 percent if your payroll is less than $400K.

There are a lot of mentions of subsections and what not which are sadly not super transparent to my non-lawyer brain (so forgive me if a lawyer pops in and says this is all countermanded by subquadrant theta of the beta galaxy) but it appears this tax will at some point apply to all businesses, large and small.

After adding the tax, the government then graciously decides to give businesses a credit (which IS mentioned in the media reports of course). This starts on page 188.

Here the language gets slightly convoluted (trying to put an equation into words) but it seems the small business credit gets adjusted downward as salaries grow over 20K and the number of employees gets over 10. 80K do not count towards a credit, and the max employees is 25.

I could probably translate it into a chart if I wanted to break out excel, but at least I scoped out the limits of what is meant by credit to a small business. It appears the credit size is to take that formula and then apply that to the full amount of the qualifying health care benefits (so I guess in theory if you have 1 employee paid 20K that costs 8K in health care, you get an 8K credit... if you had 15 employees at 35K that credit for one employee is something less than 8K).

Page 194 starts subsidies which always gets me in a hissy fit.

Anyhoo, hope this is useful to explaining my previous point.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

I'm saying that 95% of my state's tax revenue shouldn't come from 5 towns.

You live in Connecticut. A surprisingly large number of hedge fund managers, bankers & insurance executives, people who earn tens of millions (or more) a year, live in Connecticut, and congregate mainly in 5 specific towns. I fail to see how this is surprising.

I mean, we're talking about towns where the combined annual income of its population may very easily be measured in the tens of billions.

[molson]

But the tax/fine still seems way cheaper than actually paying for insurance, both from the perspective of an individual, and a company.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

And even so, would it be terrible for the top rate to be, say, 10% more than the other rates?

I am adamantly opposed to it being even .00000001% more than the rate for anyone else, so my answer to your question would be yes.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

But the tax/fine still seems way cheaper than actually paying for insurance, both from the perspective of an individual, and a company.

I'd agree with that. We'll obviously have to get down to the finer details eventually, but it would seem to be much more advantageous to pay the fine and then get on with a policy after you find out you have cancer (or other issues that require expensive treatments).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

So, to be honest, I don't donate much to charity and I don't have a lot of time to donate either. I don't feel particularly bad because if my 100k isn't doing some good spread amongst the masses then that is the fucking government's fault.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I was able to adopt a family for Christmas this year, but that didn't happen the previous two years due to tax issues.

You guys are doing it wrong.

While I don't make as much as Jim, my family is in the income bracket that will be paying more to fund HCR. For the past 10 years we've given 5% of our annual net to charity, typically to a rotating group of 3 or 4 charities we know and are happy to support. Our funding decision is usually done in 30 minutes each year, though we may spend some free time during the year reading about various initiatives or even talking to groups to whom we might give. And of course it reduces our tax profile.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I am adamantly opposed to it being even .00000001% more than the rate for anyone else, so my answer to your question would be yes.

So you're OK if everyone in the country paid 70%?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'd agree with that. We'll obviously have to get down to the finer details eventually, but it would seem to be much more advantageous to pay the fine and then get on with a policy after you find out you have cancer (or other issues that require expensive treatments).

So then instead of calling it a fine, make it a tax, apply it to everyone, have the government pay for everything and we have single-payer health care!

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So then instead of calling it a fine, make it a tax, apply it to everyone, have the government pay for everything and we have single-payer health care!

Maybe this plan is just a back-door way to get there. Once people realize they're paying insurance premiums like a good American, while millions of others are not (while still getting comparable health care), they will DEMAND that everybody pay their share of healthcare in taxes.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Maybe this plan is just a back-door way to get there. Once people realize they're paying insurance premiums like a good American, while millions of others are not (while still getting comparable health care), they will DEMAND that everybody pay their share of healthcare in taxes.

Works for me.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Works for me.

Too bad we have to screw with the economy in the process.

[Kodos]

Signed, sealed, delivered, baby!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So then instead of calling it a fine, make it a tax, apply it to everyone, have the government pay for everything and we have single-payer health care!

I don't doubt that this is exactly why it's structured as it is.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Too bad we have to screw with the economy in the process.

The negative effects this will have on the economy, if at all, pale in comparison to the damage done solely by Wall Street over the past decade, to say nothing of the deficit spending incurred by Afghanistan, Iraq and Medicare Part D.

[ISiddiqui]

I'd agree with that. We'll obviously have to get down to the finer details eventually, but it would seem to be much more advantageous to pay the fine and then get on with a policy after you find out you have cancer (or other issues that require expensive treatments).

Though, even then, at least the uninsured would be paying something - of course you'd really want them on an insurance policy to bring the premium costs down.

[Ksyrup]

I have nothing to add but a little comic relief (which was probably already posted, but...):

[SportsDino]

Well, my suggestion is the 'let em die principle' for anyone who tries to game health care like MBBF suggests (pay the fine for not having coverage and then try to get on a plan after you find out you have cancer).

If you are going to mandate single payer or gestapo tactics to enforce the purchase of crummy insurance products, you need to make deliberate refusal to get insurance result in 'if you get sick you will get no government aid to help you, sorry, you die now or find some money in a hurry'. That is a necessary condition to make any of these systems work, otherwise you have a freeloader issue which just exacerbates the existing system that is driving prices up (as in, putting gas on a raging forest fire and expecting it to put the fire out).

I think that all this bill does is direct more money towards insurance companies, and makes government even more liable for the fallout of those who fall through the cracks as well as freeloaders who try to game the system, get caught, and then live off expensive government medical welfare.

In my opinion a public option is far preferable, as it is I'm sensing boondoggle. At the moment all I've shown is that most businesses are going to see a 2 to 8 percent tax on wages, or provide health care packages (which are typically more expensive than 8 percent of payroll). The left will cheer 'yay the evil companies should provide health benefits', but the reality is that it will probably translate to a squeeze on workers in some way. Most likely in slower wage growth... I don't think it impacts the hire/fire decision as much except for larger businesses.

The credit offsets this... somewhat... except not really all that much for small mid size businesses (quotas kick in at 20K with ten employees, that is what, maybe one small store with a skeleton crew?).

I can see how most people won't feel its the end of the world for a 2-8 percent tax on companies that currently don't provide health benefits, and it isn't, but to me its pushing down that same old path of increasing startup costs for new business, which we have enough of as it is. If anything I think we should be going the opposite way if we want to get Keynesian about a recovery (not that I agree with him at all)... create codes that decrease startup costs for small businesses and give increasing tax credits for increasing employment at all levels, perhaps with some philosophy of marginal returns built in so adding the first employee gets you more tax credit than adding the hundreth (to spur small businesses over subsidizing too much large businesses, perhaps tie it to historic employment rates to avoid subsidizing the companies who did massive layoffs and then bring back the same workers, as that can be considered a moral hazard if it becomes known as a standard reaction to downturns).

Edit: I agree with flere about the damage Wall Street and the Fed have done (under Bush AND Obama) far outweighs the cost of this bill so far.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Well, my suggestion is the 'let em die principle' for anyone who tries to game health care like MBBF suggests (pay the fine for not having coverage and then try to get on a plan after you find out you have cancer).

If you are going to mandate single payer or gestapo tactics to enforce the purchase of crummy insurance products, you need to make deliberate refusal to get insurance result in 'if you get sick you will get no government aid to help you, sorry, you die now or find some money in a hurry'. That is a necessary condition to make any of these systems work, otherwise you have a freeloader issue which just exacerbates the existing system that is driving prices up (as in, putting gas on a raging forest fire and expecting it to put the fire out).

But they can't be refused coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It doesn't matter whether you've had an issue for one day or five years, whether you knew or didn't know. You can't be denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

You can be outraged about the scenario all you want, but it's things like this that will render this program bankrupt or useless. Ask Hawaii about their health care for all children program. Everyone figured out they could drop private health care on their kids and get the government to cover it. The idiot lawmakers didn't consider a scenario where that would happen and the program ended up going bankrupt. You have to forsee how people will exploit loopholes in a system. Sad but true.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

I certainly agree with that.

As long as we have "insurance", we're going to have millions of uninsured, regardless of mandates or penalties. Americans are just deadbeats like that. Those millions are going to get sick and want their expensive advanced cancer treatment that they don't get now.

At the end of the day, are we for or against Death Panels (capital "D" and "P")? That's the question, I guess, and I'm not just talking about you- I mean across the board. And, no, I don't mean it as sinister as that sounds but

Right now, who decides if you get the expensive treatment? Your insurance company. You don't really have much choice as to which company you have as if you're employed you have a couple of choices at most and if you're trying to get insurance on your own, well, there's some oligopoly controlling your market so it's not like this is a fair, capitalistic market to begin with.

Right now, this decision is being made by insurance companies. And, basically, if they can get out of paying for it, they will. Now the government gets to mandate which things *must* be included and the rest is left up to insurance companies but it's probably safe to assume that they will give the absolute minimum of what is mandated and go kicking and screaming all the way.

This is pretty binary- if there's an expensive cancer cure that increases grandma's chance of survival from 10 to 40, should it be available? And not just to grandma but across the board because it has to be fair to everyone. And if you say "yes", then you have to be willing to see your premiums and everyone else's premiums go way up.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The idiot lawmakers didn't consider a scenario where that would happen and the program ended up going bankrupt.

Actually they did, and that's why this program was specifically designated as a "pilot", to see what would happen. Now that the results are knows, they're implementing another way to address the "gap group" of children present in their otherwise excellent health care system.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

Stolen from a Roger Ebert movie review:

"The problem, as philosophers have noted, is that revolutionaries grow obsessed with enforcing their revolution, and the whole process begins again"

Ok, I'm curious. What movie?

SI

[Doug5984]

I'm going to have to do some research on the penalties for companies who do not provide health insurance. I deal with a few staffing companies who have between 50 and 200 employees a week, and it fluctuates quite a bit. Most work for a couple weeks and move on, but some have stayed for years. They are legally classified as employees of the company- so now do they face a huge fine for not offering health insurance to these workers. If that is the case, I imagine quite a few companies will just re-class the workers as contract labor and take their chances. Now the government ends up losing out on more FICA taxes because these people probably don't file their taxes.

There are going to be a lot of unintended consequences of this bill that will start to pop up as people read it, find the loopholes and find out how it is going to affect their bottom line.

[ISiddiqui]

There are going to be a lot of unintended consequences of this bill that will start to pop up as people read it, find the loopholes and find out how it is going to affect their bottom line.

And I'm sure it will be dealt with then. Just because a law has loopholes (ie, every single law known to man), doesn't mean you shrink away from moral responsibility.

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Ok, I'm curious. What movie?

SI

The White Ribbon, a german film

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And I'm sure it will be dealt with then. Just because a law has loopholes (ie, every single law known to man), doesn't mean you shrink away from moral responsibility.

Not only that, but I hate that argument of "there are bound to be loopholes". I understand if you can immediately identify them and we can fix them but any change is bound to cause, well, change.

I had a friend use that as an argument against it when we were debating: "it's all about unintended consequences". If we let that stop us any time we wanted to do something, we'd still be in the horse and buggy era. Lord knows there are more than enough problems with cars- pollution, driving fatalities, etc.

That big logical problem I have with this argument is that it implies everything is hunky dory now. If everything were great, would we even be having this discussion.

Or, even more annoyingly, what I'm finding more and more from people as I live on the east coast, this mentality of "if I didn't do something to change it, I can't be held responsible when it goes wrong". It's like people who don't drink the last sip of milk so they don't have to rinse out the jug or don't throw something away for fear of topping off the trash so they don't have to throw it out.

SI

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But they can't be refused coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It doesn't matter whether you've had an issue for one day or five years, whether you knew or didn't know. You can't be denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

You can be outraged about the scenario all you want, but it's things like this that will render this program bankrupt or useless. Ask Hawaii about their health care for all children program. Everyone figured out they could drop private health care on their kids and get the government to cover it. The idiot lawmakers didn't consider a scenario where that would happen and the program ended up going bankrupt. You have to forsee how people will exploit loopholes in a system. Sad but true.

Wasn't America pretty much the only modernized country in the world not to have some type of universal healthcare? I am sure their are loopholes and exploits in the system, just like there are in the current system, but the simple truth is that these systems can and do, in fact, work.

I lived in Belgium for three years. My wife was hospitalized twice during that span, once for appendicitis and once for an extreme asthma attack. The healthcare was fine, simple and completely free.

I got bit by a dog a few years back. I had to go to the ER. I got 8 stitches. It ended up costing $1,600, because dog bites aren't covered under health insurance, but rather home owner's insurance. The dog was my wife's cousin's, so they footed some of the bill and we took care of the rest.

In Brussels, I would have shown up at the ER, got stitched up and gone home. Free of charge.

I have no idea how this new US system compares to that in Beglium or similar countries and I am sure there are plenty of horror stories going the other way (every Tom, Dick and Harry in Michigan knows some "friend" in Canada who, but for the grace of the US health system, would have died if their only option was the Canadian system), but these systems do work.

I don't understand all the outrage. I really don't. The whole deficit thing is already so big and so abstract, that it seems like an odd thing to rent your clothes and get as mad as hell about. America's had huge deficits in the past and even surpluses and I can't ever remember it affecting my life or anyone else's life that I know of.

I am sure it's entirely possible that in the future our children (well, your children, I don't have any kids) will be stuck with the bill for all this, but I am not sure what that even means or what that would entail. It's hard to get so angry or worried about something so far off and abstract.

All I know is that the bill has the potential to expand healthcare to 32 million Americans (that's the number I heard on the radio last night). That's something concrete, present and unquestionably good.

I can't imagine people feeling so passionate about budgets and deficits and the like. There has to be something more to it and based on the reports of racial and homophobic slurs being thrown at politicians during the protests in Washington, it sounds like there is for at least some folks.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Actually they did, and that's why this program was specifically designated as a "pilot", to see what would happen. Now that the results are knows, they're implementing another way to address the "gap group" of children present in their otherwise excellent health care system.

But they didn't see it coming. If they had, they would have never had to create a 'pilot' program to figure out what people would do if free health care were offered as an alternative. I supposed they had an escape hatch, but they needlessly burned through a ton of taxpayer money to find out something that they should have known was going to happen.

[ISiddiqui]

If people were really passionate about deficits, they'd demand we get out of Iran and Afghanistan yesterday.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If people were really passionate about deficits, they'd demand we get out of Iran and Afghanistan yesterday.

Uh, that's one of the reasons our President is named Obama. He promised a quicker out than the other candidate. Many have been calling for that since the Bush Administration.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

All I know is that the bill has the potential to expand healthcare to 32 million Americans (that's the number I heard on the radio last night). That's something concrete, present and unquestionably good.

There's plenty of questions. About the cost to the taxpayer, about the quality of treatment, about the availability & access to treatment, and so forth. And ultimately about the return on the investment.

But if you want ignore those questions then I suppose you could go with "unquestionably". Repeat the same lie often enough & it probably isn't hard to find people dumb enough to believe it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Uh, that's one of the reasons our President is named Obama. He promised a quicker out than the other candidate. Many have been calling for that since the Bush Administration.

So, remind me. Did we only have one Presidential election since the Iraq War started?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So, remind me. Did we only have one Presidential election since the Iraq War started?

You said no one was concerned about the deficit because there weren't calls to pull out out of the war theaters. I merely pointed out that there were plenty of people calling for us to pull out for that reason. I don't agree with them, but there are plenty of people that do think that.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I lived in Belgium for three years. My wife was hospitalized twice during that span, once for appendicitis and once for an extreme asthma attack. The healthcare was fine, simple and completely free.

In Brussels, I would have shown up at the ER, got stitched up and gone home. Free of charge.

The new plan in America is definitely nothing like that.

And before this plan, the United States spent 16.0% of its GDP on healthcare. Belgium spent 10.2%. Which is pretty amazing, considering how much the U.S. spends on the military.

Also, before the current plan, the United States spent $7,290 per person on Health Care. Belgium spends $3,462 per person.

I don't know what that difference is all about. I know here, insurance companies are influential and need their cut. Drug companies are influential and need their cut. They are protected first, and the American people get a deal that works around the interests of the drug companies and insurance companies. Some of that difference does also reflect our superior, top-of-the-line care, which is world class, but is unaffordable to the masses anywhere (even Europe)

That differential, between what the U.S. spends v. what these other countries with great health care spends is about to explode even more. And many of us will have to pay, out of pocket, more for the same or worse health care.

So ya, I'd love the Belgium plan here, that ease of health care service, that efficient, cost-effective, universal care. But that doesn't seem possible here. Instead we have something that costs a shitload of money, far, far, in excess than anything spent by any other country, and it's unclear exactly what this plan improves, or how it will interact with our economy, job market, doctor shortages, ect.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If people were really passionate about deficits, they'd demand we get out of Iran and Afghanistan yesterday.

Kind of strawmannish there, isn't it?

I mean, you're equating priorities on spending with a lack of concern about deficits and that really doesn't seem to add up.

[SportsDino]

I'll go out on a limb and despite my massive bleeding heart liberal tendencies, I might just be the most hardcore fiscal conservative on the boards, so maybe I'm the only one that cares about the budget and deficit.

Anyways, responding to a few points:

1. I'm against massive deficit spending, against Iraq/Afghanistan War, and against this version of health care reform... and am for the public option (I'm convinced its the best bang for the buck, yes I know, I be a blasphemer).

2. I agree with Jon about the 'unquestionable goodness', there are a lot of implications of covering 32 million people. It is unquestionably good/moral to have everyone well fed, sheltered, and employed... it is unspeakably evil if the price of that would be a fascist dictatorship to create that state. I agree a good end is covering those 32 million, but the way we go about it is critical to it being morally preferable and economically efficient and feasible.

3. MBBF brings up a pretty clear example of the freeloader problem. Should we avoid trying programs because of the unintended... no, to try is to learn of course... but system design is critical to ideas passing or failing. I'd call it a mechanism design problem... a dam to secure the water supply and generate power is a brilliant idea, until the water backfloods all your farmland (see North Korea). People do what they are economically incentivized to do... and in the case of this 32 million people's worth of coverage we could see a number of things result, some of which result in higher prices and lower access for everyone (big protest of the right), some of which may reduce lower class wealth (something the left would protest if they could see how it may happen as a result of this effort). I think it is critical to avoid bad policy design, I've already seen it happen with the bank bailout which resulted in a recovery with no employment (something that shouldn't really happen... closest parallel is Japan which is not a great story!).

4. DataKing you might need to do that research. I see some qualifying statements like full time employees and some such, so if you have nonstandard workers I'm not sure exactly how many or what kind of hooks you might be in danger of at the moment. I am sure some sort of exemptions exist for some classes of workers, since this bill reeks of lobbyist influence.

5. The pre-existing condition concept doesn't really make sense for insurance as a business, and I'm planning on breaking down the conditions of that part of the bill in detail sooner or later (I marked the relevant sections somewhere in my notes). I'm specifically mentioning the 'let em die principle' after the transition period is complete... so basically you have x years to get on a plan, if you have something blocking that you should qualify for some government program (that is also in the bill), but what about the folks who try to play the 'I'm a young buck I'm gonna save my money and pay the fine, and if I get cancer I'll try and find something'. Well, it don't make business sense for companies to be forced to take people who do that, particularly after the transition is complete, it also doesn't make sense to have the government pay for those people as it creates a massive explosion of risk and government expense due to the freeloader problem. My suggestion is to 'let em die', allow the government to say no if the person chose to pay the fine and later seeks to get on government health care. Willful abuse is a serious situation in this case, because the fixed cost expense of health plans are huge, the speculative cost of critical health care is huge, and the relative fine for non-compliance is small. With such an incentive design it is guaranteed the amount of 'gaming' will be huge.

[molson]

The most immediate problem with this bill is going to be the impact on state governments. State governments are slashing budgets dramatically, and effective immediately, they are no longer allowed to make cuts to their Medicaid plans, or make those programs more difficult to enroll in. That will directly lead to higher cuts elsewhere - schools, fire departments, police, etc.

Down the road, states will have further mandated responsibilities under this plan, and as the liberals love to point out, the states don't have the same ability to spent into a deficit. Health care will become a dramatically higher % of state budgets, which will require cuts everywhere else. (or, the states will bullied into dramatically higher tax rates, and/or unconsitutional defecit spending.)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You said no one was concerned about the deficit because there weren't calls to pull out out of the war theaters. I merely pointed out that there were plenty of people calling for us to pull out for that reason.

Well, a vast majority of them were pulling for health care reform.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

The most immediate problem with this bill is going to be the impact on state governments. State governments are slashing budgets dramatically, and effective immediately, they are no longer allowed to make cuts to their Medicaid plans, or make those programs more difficult to enroll in. That will directly lead to higher cuts elsewhere - schools, fire departments, police, etc.

Down the road, states will have further mandated responsibilities under this plan, and as the liberals love to point out, the states don't have the same ability to spent into a deficit. Health care will become a dramatically higher % of state budgets, which will require cuts everywhere else. (or, the states will bullied into dramatically higher tax rates, and/or unconsitutional defecit spending.)

I know what will help! A completely unncessary and ultimate failure of a lawsuit against the federal government!

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I know what will help! A completely unncessary and ultimate failure of a lawsuit against the federal government!

I hear ya. (though on the bright side, state attorneys don't bill hours, so they'll just have to work 3 times as much for the same salary. As you might imagine, this leads to the flight of any attorney than is hireable elsewhere, and voila - you have more incompetent state governments, which leads to even greater federal control.) Tricky, huh?

I mean, can't you make an argument at this point that California might as well just be taken over by the federal government?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I know what will help! A completely unncessary and ultimate failure of a lawsuit against the federal government!

You would prefer we go straight to illegal measures rather than exhaust the legal avenues first?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Serious question - can I just pay the fine every year to not have insurance and then just apply for it when I get sick? (Assuming health costs continue to spiral out of control, and outpace the amount of the fine).

I'm all for regulations on when people can be dropped (or at least more transparency about what the insurance contracts state so people can make more educated decisions), but the concept of removing pre-existing conditions for any kind of "insurance" defeats the entire purpose of insurance. I think maybe we just need a different word for it. It's not really "insurance" anymore.

Good question. I still think there is that window that insurance companies have on new policies. And while they can't reject you, I'm pretty sure they can charge you a ridiculous amount of money.

In any event, the health insurance companies helped write the bill so I don't think they are too worried about it. They were also the ones who opposed any form of public option for those who couldn't get insurance. So they made their own bed.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You would prefer we go straight to illegal measures rather than exhaust the legal avenues first?

Well people could try not paying the fine, but as people who don't pay income taxes have seen, that doesn't work out all that well.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Actually, I'd rather we start by making sure that the money being spent is not being wasted, but that's probably impossible given the turkeys we have in Congress these days.

Still, I'm not sure I see the problem. The overall tax burden on the wealthy just isn't all that much more than everyone else. It just seems that way when you look at the raw amount of tax paid because they just make that much more than everyone else: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8...alTaxRates.pdf

I can agree that it will be a problem if the solution to every funding problem is just to add 2% to the top rate, but I don't see a lot of indication that this is really going to happen. And even so, would it be terrible for the top rate to be, say, 10% more than the other rates?

On the flipside, did you all express the same alarm as 2% here and 2% there was removed from the top tax rate over the past 30 years?

It's the attitude though that bothers me. Everytime we want to add something the first thing tossed out is adding taxes to the rich.

The other issue I have is that we have a large percent of the population that doesn't pay a dime in income tax. If 40% of the country doesn't pay in anything, why the fuck would they care where it's spent? I think everyone should be pitching in what they can so that they have some ownership over our government. Whether that's $50 a year or whatever.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The other issue I have is that we have a large percent of the population that doesn't pay a dime in income tax.

This is simply not true. There are two parts of your income tax. The part that is withheld from your paycheck, and an amount your employer pays based on your compensation. Even if someone gets a refund in the amount of their total withholdings, there is still the amount from the employer portion of income tax that is part of the tax revenue stream.

[Doug5984]

Originally Posted by cartman

This is simply not true. There are two parts of your income tax. The part that is withheld from your paycheck, and an amount your employer pays based on your compensation. Even if someone gets a refund in the amount of their total withholdings, there is still the amount from the employer portion of income tax that is part of the tax revenue stream.

The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million

Based on this link there are 32% of FILERS who have 0 tax liability, now they do pay FICA taxes, and the employer pays payroll taxes on them (no income, it is only Social Security, Medicare, FUTA, SUTA)- but they owe $0 on income taxes.

Now there is also a good portion of the population that is not required to file an income tax return. So that 40% who do not pay any income taxes might be true.