Obama's Healthcare?? Plan

[Moksha]

Sadly, politicians care more about being elected than actually coming up with an effective solution that helps America.

They are forced to agree to support those who can make huge cash donations through their lobbyists, even if it against the best interest of the public such as in the case of providing health care for all the citizens, unlike every industrialized other industrialized country in the world that is allowed to be faithful to the needs of its citizens. These countries were allowed to put the needs of their citizens first.

After all, even Teddy Roosevelt tried to get it passed in 1912 and Truman wanted to push it forward.

Even men of vision can be thwarted by the misdeeds of those who are lackeys for those raking in the bucks. Must this always be so? Perhaps.

Sham arguments and claims are so easy to muster against good ideas. Consider the freedom to choose whether to be dead from an untreated illness or being bankrupt from its uninsured treatment, as an example where naturally wanting the freedom of choice has deadly consequences that are inescapable but unstated.

:)

[rameumptom]

The difference between politicians and statesmen goes like this:

Statesmen can write a document to rule an entire nation, which can fit on just a dozen pages, including all the amendments to it. They keep it simple, so that all can understand it, and it provides for the highest amount of freedom and opportunity.

Politicians write a document that ends up being hundreds or thousands of pages long, because they can't help but include anything and everything to ensure their reelection.

Compare the Constitution to the Health Care bill the House is working on. Which is more complex, and which is more useful?

[Guest]

Yeah. That's a terrible idea. Universal healthcare is a good idea, but because politicians are using it to beef up their support back home, they're adding riders and clauses that really shouldn't be in it. Sadly, if it were a simple, elegant solution, you'd be much more likely to get it passed. After all, even Teddy Roosevelt tried to get it passed in 1912 and Truman wanted to push it forward.

Sadly, politicians care more about being elected than actually coming up with an effective solution that helps America.

Wow, Funky... I never thought we'll ever see eye-to-eye on healthcare. But, I think with this post, we are now almost in agreement...

God bless and keep you in his grace, brother.

[prisonchaplain]

The biggest reason to support Obamacare: American companies get to compete with Canadian and European ones, without the added burden of having to pay for their employees' health insurance.

The biggest reason to oppose it: My culinary indulgences would become a concern of the government, as they may burden the healthcare system. I'd hate to think whether or not I eat a donut would be a concern of the nanny state.

[Guest]

The biggest reason to support Obamacare: American companies get to compete with Canadian and European ones, without the added burden of having to pay for their employees' health insurance.

Hi, PC. Can you explain this one to me? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

[prisonchaplain]

Certainly, anatess. It's ironically a Republican argument in favor of Obamacare: Currently, most companies pay for the lion's share of their employee's health insurance costs. For example, I'm a government employee, and my employer pays roughly 75% of the premium (I pay the other 25%). Some companies pay in excess of 90%.

In country's with nationalized healthcare, the government provides the healthcare through general taxes. Thus, the companies don't have to cover the premiums. So, for example, German or Canadian companies pay roughly (very roughly) $500 per month per employee less in benefits, giving them an edge over American companies.

[Just_A_Guy]

The down side being (potentially) that with a higher tax burden to cover state-run health care, Americans don't have as much to spend in the private sector and so the domestic market for those companies' products shrinks.

[Just_A_Guy]

By the way, it's starting to look like the Obama administration extracted a commitment from Big Pharmaceuticals to spend $150 million in advertising supporting ObamaCare.

And they accuse us of "astroturfing"?

[boyando]

Certainly, anatess. It's ironically a Republican argument in favor of Obamacare: Currently, most companies pay for the lion's share of their employee's health insurance costs. For example, I'm a government employee, and my employer pays roughly 75% of the premium (I pay the other 25%). Some companies pay in excess of 90%.

In country's with nationalized healthcare, the government provides the healthcare through general taxes. Thus, the companies don't have to cover the premiums. So, for example, German or Canadian companies pay roughly (very roughly) $500 per month per employee less in benefits, giving them an edge over American companies.

PC. I believe that you are mistaken to believe that government run health care would make us more competitive in foreign markets. Here in America, we are not willing to give up so much of our standard of living.

Lets see if I can make this a little clearer. I have a friend who use to live in Canada and made about $75,000 a year and he payed about 50% of his income to taxes, mostly going to pay for health care. That left him with $37.500 to live on.

He left that job and moved to the states, were he took a job with a lesser title and the smaller income of $62,000 a year. His state and fed income tax equaled about 27% leaving him about $42,650 to live on, leaving a difference of $5150. He worked for the same company in both the US and Canada, which is were I met him. We payed 25% of the priemuim which my calculater tells me that the company payed out $8100 for health care. That means that the company payed $4900 more for the same person, all be it, with a higher title and the employee who started out living in the US, came back, for a better standard of living. We Americans are not willing to give up the perks that we work so hard for.

The same thing happened to my younger Sister, who went from being the Midwest sales manager in the US, to being sales manager for all of Canada, but I can't give you details, because I never asked and she never told.

The real problem with trying to compete with Canada and Germany is the strength of the dollar, which is fading fast. But this is a global recession, so there is not as much to compete for.

[Just_A_Guy]

Firsthand Evidence: This Is What Astroturfing Looks Like

[Maureen]

...Lets see if I can make this a little clearer. I have a friend who use to live in Canada and made about $75,000 a year and he payed about 50% of his income to taxes, mostly going to pay for health care. That left him with $37.500 to live on.

I have a problem with you assuming the tax this person pays mostly goes for health care.

In doing some research I found that federal tax collected comes from personal income tax, GST, corporate tax, etc. Less than half of the federal tax collected is from personal income tax. About 10% of the total federal tax collected goes to all provinces and territories for health care.

With those numbers I find it difficult to believe that the majority of my income tax is being used for health care.

M.

[Guest Believer_1829]

You are fine with a 50% tax rate??????

[Maureen]

You are fine with a 50% tax rate??????

Are you asking me this question? If so, 50% is slightly high; 46-47% is a closer number for a $75,000 a year income (going by 2009 info). And 36-37% is federal tax while the rest is provincial (for Alberta).

M.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Maureen

[Guest Believer_1829]

King Noah was considered wicked and he only asked a fifth part from his people.

[Just_A_Guy]

If you read the text very carefully, the problem wasn't the rate Noah charged but the way he used the funds thus received.

[Guest Believer_1829]

So Noah took a fifth to support his (and his priests) wickedness, and socialist take half to support theirs (and their friends). I still stand by my point.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Believer_1829

[boyando]

I have a problem with you assuming the tax this person pays mostly goes for health care.

In doing some research I found that federal tax collected comes from personal income tax, GST, corporate tax, etc. Less than half of the federal tax collected is from personal income tax. About 10% of the total federal tax collected goes to all provinces and territories for health care.

With those numbers I find it difficult to believe that the majority of my income tax is being used for health care.

M.

I could be wrong because I was using the comments that my friend was giving me too to make that statement.

Maybe you can help me by telling me were you got your researched numbers? My research showed that, at best the GST spends about $.16 on the dollar, down from the $.50 on the dollar when the plan was first started. But most websites that I looked at put it closer to $.40 on the dollar with your government moving figures around to make it look like things are great at 16%. Don't get me wrong, my country's government wrote the book on making it look like it is more efficient than it is.

Anyway, I concede that 40% is not a majority, so mea culpa.

[Maxel]

Firsthand Evidence: This Is What Astroturfing Looks Like

Gotta love blatant irony...

From the article:

President Obama's public option would allow millions of Americans to afford the coverage they seek. The option would create a more competitive market and drive down the cost of health insurance for everyone.

Big insurance companies know this, and they are working adamantly to stop us. So we are going out and building a grassroots campaign that will bring the power back to the people and not corporate CEOs.

Yes! Power to the socialists who have no idea how to run a country or a business efficiently! Brilliant! Overzealous populist power ftw, and screw the next generation- live for today!

This message broughto you by JobsThatMatter.org

[bytor2112]

You are fine with a 50% tax rate??????

Taxation is so out of control in this country. There really isn't any accountability for the wild spending that goes on in D.C. Honestly, if the government could be reigned in there wouldn't be any need for crazy high taxes......and of course they would receive more tax revenue if they were to cut taxes or better yet reform taxes to a FAIR tax or flat tax and destroy the IRS.

I have a friend who couldn't pay his taxes and he contacted the IRS thinking they would cut him some slack because they were printing money like wild and doling it out to "stimulate" the economy..... and becuase of the recession and near 10% unemployment ,nope, they put a lean on his home and are spanking him with penalties and interest, while others are drawing welfare or unemployment checks he is suffering because his business tanked with the economy and he chose to pay his mortgage and power bill instead of Uncle Sam.

[Kawazu]

Hi,

I was reading an article in The Atlantic, today, which was pretty informative, I thought. It is about healthcare. Clearly, the author is well-researched and passionate about the topic at hand. Excerpt:

I’m a Democrat, and have long been concerned about America’s lack of a health safety net. But based on my own work experience, I also believe that unless we fix the problems at the foundation of our health system—largely problems of incentives—our reforms won’t do much good, and may do harm. To achieve maximum coverage at acceptable cost with acceptable quality, health care will need to become subject to the same forces that have boosted efficiency and value throughout the economy. We will need to reduce, rather than expand, the role of insurance; focus the government’s role exclusively on things that only government can do...overcome our addiction to Ponzi-scheme financing, hidden subsidies, manipulated prices, and undisclosed results; and rely more on ourselves, the consumers, as the ultimate guarantors of good service, reasonable prices, and sensible trade-offs between health-care spending and spending on all the other good things money can buy.

These ideas stand well outside the emerging political consensus about reform. So before exploring alternative policies, let’s reexamine our basic assumptions about health care—what it actually is, how it’s financed, its accountability to patients, and finally its relationship to the eternal laws of supply and demand. Everyone I know has at least one personal story about how screwed up our health-care system is; before spending (another) $1trillion or so on reform, we need a much clearer understanding of the causes of the problems we all experience.

Full Story: How American Health Care Killed My Father - The Atlantic (September 2009)

The article goes beyond the usual two-party thought process. At any rate, enjoy, and have a great day.

Sincerely,

Kawazu

PS -- In case anybody has trouble connecting to the website, here is the article as a PDF.

[Maureen]

...Maybe you can help me by telling me were you got your researched numbers?

I couldn't find my original information but I did find this:

...Last year's taxation revenue, which includes revenue from things like personal income tax, corporate income tax, the GST and energy taxes, made up roughly 84% of federal revenues. The remaining 16% came in from other program revenues, EI premiums and Crown corporation revenues.

All in all, the actual federal revenue for 2007-2008 alone was over $242 billion. So, where does all that money go? According to the Canada Revenue Agency, about 25% of that revenue was transferred directly to individuals through programs such as Old Age Security (OAS), Employment Insurance (EI), and the Canada Child Tax Benefit [CCTB]. A further 14% was transferred to other levels of government to help cover the cost of things like health care, post-secondary education, public transit, affordable housing and other social services. An additional 12% was transferred to individuals, governments and organizations for identified public policy purposes, such as grants and subsidies for First Nations and Aboriginal peoples, farmers and food producers, infrastructure and regional development, amateur sports, multiculturalism and bilingualism.

A significant amount, approximately 19%, was spent on the operating costs of the government itself. These costs include things like salaries, benefits, facilities, equipment, supplies and travel. An additional 7% went to National Defence spending for Canada’s military forces.

About 12% was spent on public debt charges through interest payments to institutions and individuals who held things like federal bonds or treasury bills. And the final 3% was provided to Crown Corporations such as Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), Atomic Energy Canada and VIA Rail.

CanadaTax System

My research showed that, at best the GST spends about $.16 on the dollar, down from the $.50 on the dollar when the plan was first started. But most websites that I looked at put it closer to $.40 on the dollar with your government moving figures around to make it look like things are great at 16%.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Are you talking about how much of the GST makes up the Federal tax revenues?

M.

[rameumptom]

Kawazu,

I agree with the article you shared. I'm not opposed to health care reform, but it has to be more than just a feel-good gimmick. Reform means taking it down to bedrock, seeing what has worked, what hasn't worked, and reforming the entire thing.

If the house has a bad foundation, it doesn't make any sense to add a new floor onto it, without first fixing the foundation to support the whole thing. Medicare is on the verge of bankruptcy, and they are looking at taking money away from Medicare to pay for this. IOW, Medicare will bankrupt sooner, because they aren't looking to fix it. You can only use delay tactics for so long before the foundation finally crumbles, and the entire house falls (ever watch a video of those California coast homes that collapse into the ocean whenever it rains hard?).

[Churchmouse]

i think its quite obvious yu really should start to learn more of the facts and not take right wing talk shows for the complete gospel.:)

Perhaps if you had watched more right wing talk shows you would have learned how to spell Y O U.

[bytebear]

Kawazu,

I agree with the article you shared. I'm not opposed to health care reform, but it has to be more than just a feel-good gimmick. Reform means taking it down to bedrock, seeing what has worked, what hasn't worked, and reforming the entire thing.

If the house has a bad foundation, it doesn't make any sense to add a new floor onto it, without first fixing the foundation to support the whole thing. Medicare is on the verge of bankruptcy, and they are looking at taking money away from Medicare to pay for this. IOW, Medicare will bankrupt sooner, because they aren't looking to fix it. You can only use delay tactics for so long before the foundation finally crumbles, and the entire house falls (ever watch a video of those California coast homes that collapse into the ocean whenever it rains hard?).

For the vast majority of Americans, health care is working perfectly fine. Do you raze the neighborhood just because one house is in disrepair?

[rameumptom]

Medicare and Medicaid are currently unfunded to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars. Our health care program might seem okay to you, but a large percentage of those happy with their health care are on Medicare and Medicaid right now. When Congress can no longer kick the can down the road, and the bill comes due, just how happy do you think everyone will be knowing they owe $100,000 each for unfunded Medicare payments? Personally, in my household of 4, I REALLY do not think I can afford $400K.

Do you?

So that is why I'm saying reform must come to pass. The current system is going to bankrupt the United States of America, IF we do not do some serious fixing to it.