Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Next month, President Bush will be plugging his proposal for a "standard health insurance deduction" that he first suggested in his State of the Union. Under this plan, New Yorkers who buy their own coverage could receive the biggest tax breaks in the nation. The standard deduction concept would make health insurance more affordable not only for most New Yorkers but also for millions of Americans.
Consider the current situation. Right now, employers can provide workers with unlimited health benefits and those benefits are never taxed, resulting in overly generous insurance and higher costs. In contrast, people without employment-based coverage must pay for health insurance with after-tax dollars. That means they effectively pay between 18% and 117% more than if they had the tax break. That affects 3.2 million New Yorkers who buy their own insurance or are uninsured.
President Bush suggests that we limit this tax break, and treat all citizens the same regardless of how they pay for medical insurance. His proposed standard health insurance deduction would allow every individual who purchases at least basic coverage to deduct $7,500 from his income taxes. As important, the taxpayer would also apply the deduction to his payroll taxes. Families could deduct $15,000.
In his health care forum, President Bush promoted the notion that arming Americans with specific information about the quality and price of health care is criticial, if the nation is to get under control the ever-increasing cost of health care.
Proponets of "transparency" -- the president among them -- argue that if consumers had more information they would begin shopping around for health care, weighing price and quality in the same way someone might buy a house or a car.
That pressure from newly cost-conscious consumers, and ensuring competition for business, the argument goes, would transform the health care industry into one that's more efficient and more affordable.
"If we have more consumer involvement in health care, then it makes sense ... to make sure consumers have got rational data from which to make choices. And that's not the case today in medicine," said Bush. "I don't know how many of you all have ever said, 'Gosh, I wonder how much this procedure is going to cost me, or before I go to see this person I want to know how much it costs, or maybe I need to know how much this hospital charges.' I doubt many of you have done that. I think the new trend in medicine is going to be to encourage transparency."
My point with the posts is to say that Bush did not ignore health care - Congress was not interested in his ideas - mostly the same Congress who now says it's a life and death issue, that will be enacted in 3 years.
He sure did. He expanded Medicare remember? By doing so he added billions to the deficit. Of course all the Republicans then were fine with that. Too bad they didn't fund some studies addressing short term memory problems, I'm sure it could have helped plenty here.
My point with the posts is to say that Bush did not ignore health care - Congress was not interested in his ideas - mostly the same Congress who now says it's a life and death issue, that will be enacted in 3 years.
Bush governed with a Republican controlled Congress who gave him everything he wanted. How is that "mostly the same" as the Democratic controlled **snort** Congress we have now?
He sure did. He expanded Medicare remember? By doing so he added billions to the deficit. Of course all the Republicans then were fine with that. Too bad they didn't fund some studies addressing short term memory problems, I'm sure it could have helped plenty here.
...and the democrats are cutting Medicare by $500 billion. I guess all those campaign ads about republicans cutting grandma's Medicare were lies, all lies.
Bush governed with a Republican controlled Congress who gave him everything he wanted. How is that "mostly the same" as the Democratic controlled **snort** Congress we have now?
Until the last two years.
I am not denying he spent too much. But what he did in eight years is being dwarfed by Obama in one year.
The Republicans controlled the House the entire 8 years Bush was in office.
The Republicans controlled the Senate until 2006 when both the Republicans and Democrats held 49 seats in the Senate. There were two Independents, both of whom caucused with the Democrats. That gave the Dems control of leadership positions, but they had no chance of getting anything past Bush. There was no possibility of overturning any veto.
The Dems had no chance of getting any legislation passed, at best they could block or tweak Republican legislation.
and pray tell what do you do with those Americans who don't have incomes and no health insurance? This coming from a President who doubled his salary and got free medical treatment on the backs of working Americans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
