Okay, in taking a look at our paystubs we see several taxes: state, local, federal and FICA. The feds get the most, the state gets another amount, some cities collect a smaller amount, but FICA and Medicare gets very little from us. I hate to bring this up, but FICA and Medicare should get more. When I look at each 100 of gross pay; only $3.00 is taken out for FICA and medicare. It should be higher I feel I would be willing to put $10.00 of $100 into my FICA/Medicare pot; and let's take some out of the general fund. The general fund gets wasted and then we spend most of our time trying to track it down. At least we know where our loot is going when it goes right into the FICA/Medicare fund.
Any thoughts on this?
So, why aren't you paying 10% of your gross pay to FICA/Medicare? There is nothing preventing you from doing so. If you want to pay extra in taxes, then go ahead. Maybe you will set an example for everyone else to follow.
__________________
Obamacare: If at first you don't succeed, lie, lie, lie again!
Good article by the WSJ for those of you who need to suck off the government teat.
Hello?? There is ALWAYS rationing in play, not only with healthcare but also with all other goods. In the absence of coverage, the rationing mechanism is one's own financial resources -- when you look at a dollar bill, you are in essence looking at a ration coupon. It is disingenuous (to use the more mild term which springs to mind) to employ the word "rationing" here in an effort to imply that the effect will somehow be more insidious than if one were on one's own.
Anyone paying the least attention to how healthcare already works - including examples in this very thread - knows that rationing is already in effect in private-sector healthcare. And not just rationing ("there's not enough to go around so we ration what we give out") but simple denial of service when the services are in fact available ("if we actually cover you, which we could, it would make our profits lower, so get lost").
__________________
"In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different."
I thought the whole point of a free market was that competition made things better. So why would a Gov. run insurance system set up as a non-profit not force private companies to give better sevice at more competitive prices?
__________________
"There is a fine line between clever and stupid" David St. Hubbins
I thought the whole point of a free market was that competition made things better. So why would a Gov. run insurance system set up as a non-profit not force private companies to give better sevice at more competitive prices?
It wouldn't. It's just that the HMO's have gotten quite wealthy off of more or less price gouging and denying claims for the recent past, and they quite predictably are defending their cash cow. So to that end, they're raising a stink about how this is "a horrible idea," because they love their big profit margins, and competition usually drives prices down (assuming no collusion). While I'm not really a fan of Obama's current plan, I don't oppose a government option for insurance (assuming that it actually provides coverage and isn't just pretty words on paper). The USPS cross-competes with companies like FedEx in parcel shipping, and that seems to have worked out pretty well (although I admit the analogy isn't perfect).
I think the issue here is more about payment. The trick is, say Person A has private insurance, like BlueCross or CIGNA, does he still pay taxes to cover a government healthplan, even though he nor his household is using it? Argument one says yes, as taxes exist to fund the government and its services to the populace. Argument two says no, because while taxes exist to fund the government and its services, Person A is not using said service, and thus shouldn't pay, because you don't pay for something you don't receive. I personally fall into the second argument's camp for the most part.
Again, this all assumes that a Government Health Insurance actually provides adequate coverage to those it insures, which I find less than likely, given the government's previous track record in that department. But, here's hoping.
With all that being said, I think anything to get the HMO's to drop their premiums would be nice.
__________________
"All epeeists wear very expensive running shoes which they have invariably stolen. It is a mark of shame in the epee subculture to wear legally-purchased footwear. Naturally this is difficult to ascertain merely by looking, and of course asking about it can lead to other complications."---fencing humor site
Last edited by Sins of the Fleche; 06-25-2009 at 05:45 PM..
There are tons of examples like that. We home-schooled our daughter her entire scholastic career, yet I continued to directly pay property taxes to support public education, even though I did not participate one bit. The theory is that all society benefits from an educated population. (Except, apparently that portion of society encompassed in the fevered minds of the Limbaughs and Savages of the world.)
I would make the argument that if a public health plan forces private insurance companies to clean up their act (and maybe even insist on some wage concessions from their bloated CEO compensation packages), then privately insured people could see some cost benefits, and society as a whole would benefit from a healthier, fully insured population.
__________________
"Fraud is the creation of trust. And then: its betrayal."
William Black, Ph.D.
Is there anyone on this board that pays for there own health insurance? I mean no group discount, no employer co-pay?
I do. I've been paying for my own health and dental insurance ever since I got booted off my parents' insurance when I turned 23. Health insurance isn't as expensive or hard to get as some people make it out to be... unless you have some sort of serious pre-existing condition, then maybe I could see there being an issue. Otherwise, if you're above the poverty line, you should be able to find affordable health insurance IMO.
I do. I've been paying for my own health and dental insurance ever since I got booted off my parents' insurance when I turned 23. Health insurance isn't as expensive or hard to get as some people make it out to be... unless you have some sort of serious pre-existing condition, then maybe I could see there being an issue. Otherwise, if you're above the poverty line, you should be able to find affordable health insurance IMO.
I presume you're still relatively young and healthy. I talked to one woman at a local meeting (at the library, concerning health care coverage) who had NO pre-existing conditions and whose employer said they would pay her health care premiums if she would obtain an individual policy. She could not obtain coverage. Not at any price. She was 50. Non-smoker. Non-drinker. No pre-existing conditions. Fortunately, this state offers a program for those who cannot obtain coverage and thus she was able to obtain insurance.
At that same meeting, there were other people over the age of 30 who told similiar stories about being unable to obtain private health insurance.
I note my daughter is a small business owner who cannot obtain affordable health insurance and while she's under 30, she has a medical history from a long ago auto accident that knocked out two teeth and broke her nose. Oddly enough, this is sufficient for some insurance companies to deny coverage. They're profit-driven.
IMHO, the federal government shoul offer a public option rather than leave it to the states to offer or not offer such coverage.
insurance for me and my wife is the biggest expence i have exxept for mortgage. more than car payment or food, and i have never gone over my deductible. (so the $540 a month is 100% profit) the problem is that if you have kids, you need to make about 50k a year to afford health insurance. the poverty level is around 18k, and that is a huge gap
__________________
"There is a fine line between clever and stupid" David St. Hubbins
insurance for me and my wife is the biggest expence i have exxept for mortgage. more than car payment or food, and i have never gone over my deductible. (so the $540 a month is 100% profit) the problem is that if you have kids, you need to make about 50k a year to afford health insurance. the poverty level is around 18k, and that is a huge gap
My health insurance is about roughly a quarter of what you pay, so I have no problem paying it despite only working part-time while being a full-time student. I've never gone over my deductible, either. It's one of my cheaper expenses.
Creating a public option because insurance companies are not playing the game fairly is treating the symptom of the problem, trying to drive prices down after the fact insurance companies are screwing people.
Why not fix the problem at it's root first, and institute regs on them? Hell, we're raising such a stink that credit card companies are being under-handed when, arguably, insurance companies are being far more underhanded. We need more consumer rights regulations, just like we're now pursuing with credit card companies, and more regulation on insurance companies regading rigging their pools.
It would be far easier to at least try this first, and if that doesn't work, then maybe consider instituting a public plan if necessary. It seems like gross overcompensation to jump into a public plan with both feet when there are far less costly and easier to implement solutions available that could be just as effective.
__________________
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
Why not fix the problem at it's root first, and institute regs on them?
Because the insurance companies own most of Congress (other major industries also have options on most Congresscritter). If they don't toe the line, they'll be out in the next election.
Companies retain marketing firms to set up astroturf organizations that fight to preserve their interests AND to convince the gullible American public that it's in our best interst to give them what they want.
My health insurance is about roughly a quarter of what you pay, so I have no problem paying it despite only working part-time while being a full-time student. I've never gone over my deductible, either. It's one of my cheaper expenses.
full time students get a HUGE discount.
__________________
"There is a fine line between clever and stupid" David St. Hubbins
Absolutely. As a population college students are expected to generate few claims, so a sharply discounted teaser rate can still be profitable.
I just did a quotes at ehealthinsurance.com for a married couple age 40, and got values from $340 per month for an indemnity plan that doesn't cover a great number of things (no drugs, no coverage for office visits to primary care doctor or physician, etc) up to $2200 per month, with most of the offerings in the $800/month area. Add two kids and most quotes were in the area of $1200/month. For a full time student as low as $151 and up to $1100 - but remember that they make few claims. The web site didn't ask about preexisting conditions, which would dramatically affect availability of access to the plans as well as the prices.
those cheaper policies cover next to nothing in a pregnancy, only complications. No prenatal care, obgyn visits, delivery. if you want that covered, it shoots up to around $700 per month
__________________
"There is a fine line between clever and stupid" David St. Hubbins
One major problem is supply and demand. The pharmaceutical companies realized a few years ago that they were charging "too little" for many drugs when they should be charging whatever the market can bear. Well, what a surprise when you have people in need of these drugs that they will pay ANYTHING to get them. Nice profit there, huh?
The rest of the health care industry realized the same thing. The insurance companies realized that there were no real alternatives to the handful of insurance companies out there and started raising prices. "What are our customers going to do? Live without health insurance?"
So we've seen the cost of health insurance and prescription drugs skyrocket in the last 10 years. Why? Because the companies involved can get away with it.
My proposal for the drug industry is to use eminent domain; the gov't should buy the patents at fair value and then open them up for generic production. Even if we pay $20 billion dollars for a widely needed drug it could still be a huge savings for the society at large. And I'd say that billions of dollars are still a sufficient incentive for drug developers. Hell, most of the original patents come out of our universities anyway.
That's my rant for the day... thank you all.
__________________
- Wisdom is the knowledge of how much you don't know.
Has anybody seen any guesstimates on what a "public plan option" would cost per month for the people who select it? I hear the pundits say it will be less than private insurance, but I've never heard a rough ballpark estimate yet.
Similarly, if it's similar to what members of Congress pay, what are they charged for their "public option" health care plan?
__________________
"Fraud is the creation of trust. And then: its betrayal."
William Black, Ph.D.
Linear Mode
