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.
Just venting;
I get so tired of the government feeling the need to TAX the hell out of people who are responsible, it makes me feel like I should just give up and let them carry the whole effing load! If the whole country had this attitude then the tax base would drop off! Then what? MORE TAXES?? TAX WHAT, LIFE?? Freaking dumb asses!
It’s these yahoos that got us in this state! “SPEND, SPEND, AND SPEND! DON’T WORRY ABOUT WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM WE’LL DEAL WITH THAT LATER BY INCREASING TAXES ON SOME DUMBASS!”
TM, I do feel bad for people like you who have pre exisiting conditions. Either you can't get private insurance on your own or the costs are so high, you can't afford it.
So what do we do about it?
1. I for one am in favor of a very limited public option for individuals like you. However what we are most afraid about it giving Congress what amounts to a "blank check" being footed by taxpayers. If Congress wanted to compromise they would pass a very limited public option. However any increases in funding would require a super majority vote. That's the only way to control costs for public funding. And that's one of the biggest downfalls of Medicare spending. You can't just create a program and hope to fix it in the future (like you stay, just get a bill to put your foot into the door and try to fix it in the future). If they truly wanted to put their foot into the door they would cap the amount of money that would be spent and require a re-vote to expand the program (I have yet to see that version in the bill). Why? It's simple. The Democrats know the true costs of the bill. It much higher than 900 billion-1 trillion. The costs are going to be 2-3 trillion.
When Medicare was passed in the 1960s, the average life span of US citizens/residents was around 68-70 years old. Now the average male can expect to live till their late 70s and the average female can expect to live to their early to mid 80s. The original founders of the medicare bill only expected the seniors to use medicare for only 3-5 years, not 15-20 years. That's one of the big reasons medicare spending is so high.
2. Tort reform. I love it how the lawyers/Democrats spin malpractice costs. They are only estimating the actual malpractice premiums doctors/insurance verdicts/settlements paid out. That's where they get the 1% of healthcare costs are attributed to malpractice litigation.. They don't count the defensive medicine costs. Why? Because they know defensive medicine drive up healthcare costs. Case in point. 40 year old male goes to ER with Chest Pain. EKG is abnormal. He ends up on a treadmill test, that's inconclusive. That sends him to the cardiac cath lab. The cardiologist determines it's not his heart but thinks it's his heartburn/gi system. Sends him to the GI doc who does another procedure to get his stomach for ulcers. GI docs finds ulcer and prescribes a drug like protonix/prilosec/nexium for heartburn. So a simple visit to the ER that presents to the ER for what really amounts to GI symptoms that could have been treated with a pill ends up costing the healthcare system 10-15K.
Why? Simple if the ER doc misses a heart attack, he's got a lot of explaining to do. Than once the cardiologist determines if not his heart but could be his GI system he passes this risk to the GI doc because he's afraid an ulcer can get really bad to to perforates the stomach and may require emergency surgery. You get the point? That's defensive medicine costs and that's why lawyers/Democrats don't want the public to know the true cost. Because if a doc misses any problem along the way this setups a lawsuit. Same thing can be said for missed cancer diagnosis. Prenatal care, etc. That's the true cost of defensive medicine. It's higher than 1%.
Lets spin it the other way. Lets say the costs of malpractice makes up only 1% of the healthcare costs. If it's only 1% of the total costs, shouldn't this be any easy fix? Than why is it so hard to fix something that costs the system 1%?
This is how tort reform should work (and still keep the lawyers happy) and still give patients their day in court: Make it a loser pays system. The loser pays the opponents court costs. That way, if the patient were truly harmed (like wrong leg amputation), they can get compensated. FYI: I know the case down in Florida very well about the wrong leg surgery. The patient had very bad peripheral vascular disease (poor blood circulation). Both his legs were blacked/tarred. They both would have to be amputated anyways. But that still doesn't excuse that doc from amputation the wrong leg. He should be reconfirmed which leg. The malpractice lawyers can still "protect patients rights" and sitll earn a good living. And they won't have a cap on monetary rewards. You keep everyone happy this way. That's the fairest way and most inexpensive way to fix malpractice costs.
3. How the heck do we pay to subsidy healthcare costs (especially for people who can't afford it).
a. Encourage cross-state insurance competition. There's nothing like competition and insurance companies competing with each other will make their prices more competitive. Imagine your auto insurance premiums if you only had 1-3 companies to choose from instead of 10?
b. Raise revenues to subsidiy healthcare premium costs for some families/individuals: This means everyone should contribute. You can't just tax the top 5%. That means raising taxes on everyone so they know they are contributing to the system. So the bottom 10% should pay a 0.25% tax. The next 15% should pay an extra 0.5% tax. The next 25% should pay an extra 0.75% tax. The next 25% pays 1% extra. The the top 25% pays an extra 1.5% tax. It's very simple. You can fund the system fairer this way and still remain within your budget if everyone is contributing. Poorer people are still taxed less, while the wealthier people contribute more. How much fairer can this get?
I will give you credit for understanding the subject of tort reform better than any other poster. Your arguments make a certain amount of sense. The problem is that the data I've seen just doesn't support most of your statements. While your arguments are good, I have yet to see you cite any data to support them. Let's break your arguments down, ok?
You wrote:
2. Tort reform. I love it how the lawyers/Democrats spin malpractice costs. They are only estimating the actual malpractice premiums doctors/insurance verdicts/settlements paid out. That's where they get the 1% of healthcare costs are attributed to malpractice litigation.. They don't count the defensive medicine costs. Why? Because they know defensive medicine drive up healthcare costs. Case in point. 40 year old male goes to ER with Chest Pain. EKG is abnormal. He ends up on a treadmill test, that's inconclusive. That sends him to the cardiac cath lab. The cardiologist determines it's not his heart but thinks it's his heartburn/gi system. Sends him to the GI doc who does another procedure to get his stomach for ulcers. GI docs finds ulcer and prescribes a drug like protonix/prilosec/nexium for heartburn. So a simple visit to the ER that presents to the ER for what really amounts to GI symptoms that could have been treated with a pill ends up costing the healthcare system 10-15K.
Why? Simple if the ER doc misses a heart attack, he's got a lot of explaining to do. Than once the cardiologist determines if not his heart but could be his GI system he passes this risk to the GI doc because he's afraid an ulcer can get really bad to to perforates the stomach and may require emergency surgery. You get the point? That's defensive medicine costs and that's why lawyers/Democrats don't want the public to know the true cost. Because if a doc misses any problem along the way this setups a lawsuit. Same thing can be said for missed cancer diagnosis. Prenatal care, etc. That's the true cost of defensive medicine. It's higher than 1%.
My reply is:
I'm going to quote a subsection of the same study from the Congressional Budget Office which stated that the total cost of medical malpractice on the health care system was a little over 1% of the total dollars. This section though deals with what you have just claimed. You claimed that 1% is far too low an estimate because it does not take into account the effect that "practicing defensive medicine" has on the health care system. I'm guessing you are trying to say unnecessary tests and procedures are another 3% or something. You didn't give an exact number. Anyway, the Congressional Budget Office has reviewed this issue too and concludes that data just doesn't bear out your conclusions. Many tests are run not to practice defensive medicine, but simply to make money for a health care provider. Other tests may simply be good medical practice in that physicians know that technology exists to rule out certain problems and believe their patients ought to get the benefit of that technology. (I'm also going to add that in 2004 when this study was released, the Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress)
CBO Report, 2004
Effect of Defensive Medicine
Proponents of limiting malpractice liability have argued that much greater savings in health care costs would be possible through reductions in the practice of defensive medicine. However, some so-called defensive medicine may be motivated less by liability concerns than by the income it generates for physicians or by the positive (albeit small) benefits to patients.On the basis of existing studies and its own research, CBO believes that savings from reducing defensive medicine would be very small.
A comprehensive study using 1984 data from the state of New York did not find a strong relationship between the threat of litigation and medical costs, even though physicians reported that their practices had been affected by the threat of lawsuits.(14) More recently, some researchers observed reductions in health care spending correlated with changes in tort law, but their studies were based on a narrow part of the population and considered spending for only a few ailments. One study analyzed the impact of tort limits on Medicare hospital spending for patients who had been hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction or ischemic heart disease; it observed a significant decline in spending in states that had enacted certain tort restrictions.(15) Other research examined the effect of tort limits on the proportion of births by cesarean section. It also found savings in states with tort limits, though of a much smaller magnitude.(16) However, when CBO applied applied the methods used in the study of Medicare patients hospitalized for two types of heart disease to a broader set of ailments, it found no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending. Moreover, using a different set of data, CBO found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts. Still, the question of whether such limits reduce spending remains open, and CBO continues to explore it using other research methods.
You wrote:
Lets spin it the other way. Lets say the costs of malpractice makes up only 1% of the healthcare costs. If it's only 1% of the total costs, shouldn't this be any easy fix? Than why is it so hard to fix something that costs the system 1%?
My reply is:
I don't understand the point. Are you saying let's abolish the malpractice system and save the 1% in that fashion? Are you saying let's try and ignore it? I'd appreciate some clarification. From the standpoint of the ordinary consumer, I'm saying a "fix" would save virtually nothing in healthcare costs for the ordinary consumer. On the other hand, a "fix" might very well damage the one system that exists outside the medical community that imposes a sort of "quality control" on medical practice.
You wrote:
This is how tort reform should work (and still keep the lawyers happy) and still give patients their day in court: Make it a loser pays system. The loser pays the opponents court costs. That way, if the patient were truly harmed (like wrong leg amputation), they can get compensated. FYI: I know the case down in Florida very well about the wrong leg surgery. The patient had very bad peripheral vascular disease (poor blood circulation). Both his legs were blacked/tarred. They both would have to be amputated anyways. But that still doesn't excuse that doc from amputation the wrong leg. He should be reconfirmed which leg. The malpractice lawyers can still "protect patients rights" and sitll earn a good living. And they won't have a cap on monetary rewards. You keep everyone happy this way. That's the fairest way and most inexpensive way to fix malpractice costs.
My reply is:
"Loser pays" is one of those ideas that often has some appeal at first glance. However, it is truly a bad idea for some very specific reasons. No one really knows what a jury will do in a medical malpractice case. Meritorious cases are lost during jury trials because the people deciding the case are a cross section of a community. That cross section may be very educated or very ignorant. On the other hand, non-meritorious cases sometimes prevail at trial based on emotion. Does a jury really want to deny compensation to the parents of a crippled child? It should if the injury didn't result from carelessness. Yet, some juries may award money anyway.
The court system exists to render justice. We are a law abiding people and we seek a forum where people can redress disputes and grievances without fear of being punished for seeking to do so. Penalizing a party who brings a good faith dispute to the court by requiring him to pay the other party's attorneys fees is a poor idea.
Worst of all such a system couldnt' work equitably. It means very little to an insurance company when they lose a lawsuit. The thousands of dollars spent on attorney's fees simply become a cost of doing business. On the other hand, if the parents of a crippled child lose a case for malpractice, the cost of the attorney's fees will probably bankrupt them. What would you advise people in a case like this as an attorney? I think most attorneys would end up advising people even with meritorious cases not to bring them. This is simply because if a jury acts irrationally and they do end up losing, it will ruin them.
Finally, the New England Journal of Medicine has released a study claiming that 98,000 people die every year as a result of medical malpractice. This is almost 250% of the people who die in car accidents (40,000 per year). Even if this tally is off by some degree, its clear malpractice is a significant problem.
Ultimately, its really up to the ordinary people in America (not lawyers or doctors) to decide what kind of a system they want to redress these problems. If people really do feel the system needs to be reformed, I don't intend to stand in the way. What I do intend to do is to try to get the facts out there so that we can make informed decisions. I have heard so many half-baked notions and just pure silliness when it comes to malpractice that I have to speak up. I hope some find this information useful and informative.
TM, I do feel bad for people like you who have pre exisiting conditions. Either you can't get private insurance on your own or the costs are so high, you can't afford it.
So what do we do about it?
1. I for one am in favor of a very limited public option for individuals like you. However what we are most afraid about it giving Congress what amounts to a "blank check" being footed by taxpayers. If Congress wanted to compromise they would pass a very limited public option. However any increases in funding would require a super majority vote. That's the only way to control costs for public funding. And that's one of the biggest downfalls of Medicare spending. You can't just create a program and hope to fix it in the future (like you stay, just get a bill to put your foot into the door and try to fix it in the future). If they truly wanted to put their foot into the door they would cap the amount of money that would be spent and require a re-vote to expand the program (I have yet to see that version in the bill). Why? It's simple. The Democrats know the true costs of the bill. It much higher than 900 billion-1 trillion. The costs are going to be 2-3 trillion.
You are not alone in support of a public option, as more than 60% of Americans supported a public option. As the option was written in the House Bill, it did NOT run of medicare prices but rather prices would need to be negotiated as is the case with any insurance company and providers. Secondly, it was written so that, beyond the initial costs, the public option must be self sufficient - or funded by the premiums paid into it by those that purchased it.
The advantage with the government public option would be a) a larger national pool of purchasers -as it would be available on a FEDERAL , not state by state level. Larger pool, more leverage in negotiating prices etc. and b) It would be absent the very high overhead private insurance companies need (liek for advertising, lobbying, CEO salaries etc). Right there alone is a savings of 25% off premiums (Medicare/Medicaid operate at a 5% administrative overhead vs. 30%)
What I find so ironic is that those that use the "government is inefficient" argument then turn around and worry about private competing with them. Well, if they are so inefficient, then the private industry has nothign to worry about, no?
So while 60% of Americans like yourself favored a public option.. well we all know what happened with that.
Quote:
When Medicare was passed in the 1960s, the average life span of US citizens/residents was around 68-70 years old. Now the average male can expect to live till their late 70s and the average female can expect to live to their early to mid 80s. The original founders of the medicare bill only expected the seniors to use medicare for only 3-5 years, not 15-20 years. That's one of the big reasons medicare spending is so high.
Another reason is the baby boomer generation are starting to become medicare recipients. I'm not sure what your point is, but the medicare program is so vitally important . If WORKING American families can not afford health care, how would we expect our aged, retired and fixed income citizens to be able too.
Quote:
2. Tort reform. I love it how the lawyers/Democrats spin malpractice costs. They are only estimating the actual malpractice premiums doctors/insurance verdicts/settlements paid out. That's where they get the 1% of healthcare costs are attributed to malpractice litigation.. They don't count the defensive medicine costs. Why? Because they know defensive medicine drive up healthcare costs. Case in point. 40 year old male goes to ER with Chest Pain. EKG is abnormal. He ends up on a treadmill test, that's inconclusive. That sends him to the cardiac cath lab. The cardiologist determines it's not his heart but thinks it's his heartburn/gi system. Sends him to the GI doc who does another procedure to get his stomach for ulcers. GI docs finds ulcer and prescribes a drug like protonix/prilosec/nexium for heartburn. So a simple visit to the ER that presents to the ER for what really amounts to GI symptoms that could have been treated with a pill ends up costing the healthcare system 10-15K.
Why? Simple if the ER doc misses a heart attack, he's got a lot of explaining to do. Than once the cardiologist determines if not his heart but could be his GI system he passes this risk to the GI doc because he's afraid an ulcer can get really bad to to perforates the stomach and may require emergency surgery. You get the point? That's defensive medicine costs and that's why lawyers/Democrats don't want the public to know the true cost. Because if a doc misses any problem along the way this setups a lawsuit. Same thing can be said for missed cancer diagnosis. Prenatal care, etc. That's the true cost of defensive medicine. It's higher than 1%.
Lets spin it the other way. Lets say the costs of malpractice makes up only 1% of the healthcare costs. If it's only 1% of the total costs, shouldn't this be any easy fix? Than why is it so hard to fix something that costs the system 1%?
This is how tort reform should work (and still keep the lawyers happy) and still give patients their day in court: Make it a loser pays system. The loser pays the opponents court costs. That way, if the patient were truly harmed (like wrong leg amputation), they can get compensated. FYI: I know the case down in Florida very well about the wrong leg surgery. The patient had very bad peripheral vascular disease (poor blood circulation). Both his legs were blacked/tarred. They both would have to be amputated anyways. But that still doesn't excuse that doc from amputation the wrong leg. He should be reconfirmed which leg. The malpractice lawyers can still "protect patients rights" and sitll earn a good living. And they won't have a cap on monetary rewards. You keep everyone happy this way. That's the fairest way and most inexpensive way to fix malpractice costs.
I'll leave that response to the expert that answered you above. YOu do have great points.
I also want to point out with regards to many tests being ordered, etc. That is ALSO a product of "cadillac pland" ie: plans that require little copays by families/individuals and no limites on many things. I'm not saying we need to have super high copays either.
But let's think for a second here. Joe Smith walks into a Dr. office and it cost him say $20 to walk into that office. He gets his check ups, he gets his tests that are standard.. but then the Dr. wants ot order x,y, z and maybe ABC tests? Joe Smith doesnt' question why because, hell, after all it's costing him only $20 whether the Dr. just takes his blood pressure or the Dr. runs every test under the sun. Doctor bills insurance andm akes his dough.. Joe Smith only paid $20 so what does he care?
If the same scenario happened where Joe was going to be charged , say $20 for every test run, well Joe would be asking what merits this test and is it neccesary. WhenI went to my endocronologist I asked him to skip tests because I didn't have the funds to pay them. THe kidney function test, he said, because I had it 6 months prior that he could go with skipping it this time. BUT if I had insurance he would have run the test even though it could have waited till the next visit.
The plans that carry such little copays tend to have high deductibles. All the more reason why I'm supportive of a "cadillac" plan tax. WE as consumers need to be more aware of what we are spending within the system, which is why we need to bear some of the costs for all these tests.
Quote:
3. How the heck do we pay to subsidy healthcare costs (especially for people who can't afford it).
WHy is it when we get to something as important as health care we start askign "how". Where were those questions when BUsh gave his rich cronie friends there tax break.. he cut their taxes (income) without cutting gov't expenditures.. AND he went to war with not ONE but TWO countries! THEN at the end of the term , we gave all that money out to rich Wall Street cats to "bail them out"... Yet when it comes to initiating something like health care reform.. that could save lives, we are saying "How?".. How about cutting spending in things not as vital as health care? That's how!..
Quote:
a. Encourage cross-state insurance competition. There's nothing like competition and insurance companies competing with each other will make their prices more competitive. Imagine your auto insurance premiums if you only had 1-3 companies to choose from instead of 10?
This si currently on the table - breaking anti trust - as a compromise for having done away with the public option. HEll it would have been better to have both a public option OR this, but I'll take this.
Quote:
b. Raise revenues to subsidiy healthcare premium costs for some families/individuals: This means everyone should contribute. You can't just tax the top 5%. That means raising taxes on everyone so they know they are contributing to the system. So the bottom 10% should pay a 0.25% tax. The next 15% should pay an extra 0.5% tax. The next 25% should pay an extra 0.75% tax. The next 25% pays 1% extra. The the top 25% pays an extra 1.5% tax. It's very simple. You can fund the system fairer this way and still remain within your budget if everyone is contributing. Poorer people are still taxed less, while the wealthier people contribute more. How much fairer can this get?
[/quote]
The whole reason we have the tax structure we have is because the middle income people have no more blood to squeeze from the stone to pay more in taxes.
Look at it this way... in the last decade or so, the top 5% of the earners in this country have been awarding themselves big pay raises and bonuses.. while the middle income earners.. their employees , have had STAGNATING and even DECREASING salaries.. hence the 300% difference between the average employee and the CEO.
I'm sorry.. I'm not going to cry when a person inthe top brackets ends up paying much more in taxes. What did they have to sacrafice to meet their tax burden? What does a middle income family sacrafice to meet their obligations.. I'll tell you. . the rich person may have to cut back slightly on some luxury items .. a little less expendable income perhaps.... the middle income family has no expendable income to give up? Perhaps they have to cut back on groceries or walk aroudn with the thermostat on 60 and coldto cut back on oil/gas to meet that extra tax burden..
THAT does not mean that I am "jealous" of the rich.. no I"m not.. but don't sit there and expect me to feel sorry for the extra tax burden they may have to bear. Hell I'll gladly bear that extra burden to be in that top %... isn't that where we all strive to be. Even with the tax, they will still be well off,far better off than me or any other middle income earner.
BTW.. I don't doubt that taxes WILL end up having to go up for ALL of us at some point.. to pay for Wall Street Bailouts, two wars and Bush's tax cuts (without cutting spending) for however long.. AND health care. BUT the places we need to look to CUT government spending are NOT on programs that means the difference between life and death.
You are not alone in support of a public option, as more than 60% of Americans supported a public option. As the option was written in the House Bill, it did NOT run of medicare prices but rather prices would need to be negotiated as is the case with any insurance company and providers. Secondly, it was written so that, beyond the initial costs, the public option must be self sufficient - or funded by the premiums paid into it by those that purchased it.
The advantage with the government public option would be a) a larger national pool of purchasers -as it would be available on a FEDERAL , not state by state level. Larger pool, more leverage in negotiating prices etc. and b) It would be absent the very high overhead private insurance companies need (liek for advertising, lobbying, CEO salaries etc). Right there alone is a savings of 25% off premiums (Medicare/Medicaid operate at a 5% administrative overhead vs. 30%)
What I find so ironic is that those that use the "government is inefficient" argument then turn around and worry about private competing with them. Well, if they are so inefficient, then the private industry has nothign to worry about, no?
So while 60% of Americans like yourself favored a public option.. well we all know what happened with that.
Another reason is the baby boomer generation are starting to become medicare recipients. I'm not sure what your point is, but the medicare program is so vitally important . If WORKING American families can not afford health care, how would we expect our aged, retired and fixed income citizens to be able too.
I'll leave that response to the expert that answered you above. YOu do have great points.
I also want to point out with regards to many tests being ordered, etc. That is ALSO a product of "cadillac pland" ie: plans that require little copays by families/individuals and no limites on many things. I'm not saying we need to have super high copays either.
But let's think for a second here. Joe Smith walks into a Dr. office and it cost him say $20 to walk into that office. He gets his check ups, he gets his tests that are standard.. but then the Dr. wants ot order x,y, z and maybe ABC tests? Joe Smith doesnt' question why because, hell, after all it's costing him only $20 whether the Dr. just takes his blood pressure or the Dr. runs every test under the sun. Doctor bills insurance andm akes his dough.. Joe Smith only paid $20 so what does he care?
If the same scenario happened where Joe was going to be charged , say $20 for every test run, well Joe would be asking what merits this test and is it neccesary. WhenI went to my endocronologist I asked him to skip tests because I didn't have the funds to pay them. THe kidney function test, he said, because I had it 6 months prior that he could go with skipping it this time. BUT if I had insurance he would have run the test even though it could have waited till the next visit.
The plans that carry such little copays tend to have high deductibles. All the more reason why I'm supportive of a "cadillac" plan tax. WE as consumers need to be more aware of what we are spending within the system, which is why we need to bear some of the costs for all these tests.
WHy is it when we get to something as important as health care we start askign "how". Where were those questions when BUsh gave his rich cronie friends there tax break.. he cut their taxes (income) without cutting gov't expenditures.. AND he went to war with not ONE but TWO countries! THEN at the end of the term , we gave all that money out to rich Wall Street cats to "bail them out"... Yet when it comes to initiating something like health care reform.. that could save lives, we are saying "How?".. How about cutting spending in things not as vital as health care? That's how!..
This si currently on the table - breaking anti trust - as a compromise for having done away with the public option. HEll it would have been better to have both a public option OR this, but I'll take this.
The whole reason we have the tax structure we have is because the middle income people have no more blood to squeeze from the stone to pay more in taxes.
Look at it this way... in the last decade or so, the top 5% of the earners in this country have been awarding themselves big pay raises and bonuses.. while the middle income earners.. their employees , have had STAGNATING and even DECREASING salaries.. hence the 300% difference between the average employee and the CEO.
I'm sorry.. I'm not going to cry when a person inthe top brackets ends up paying much more in taxes. What did they have to sacrafice to meet their tax burden? What does a middle income family sacrafice to meet their obligations.. I'll tell you. . the rich person may have to cut back slightly on some luxury items .. a little less expendable income perhaps.... the middle income family has no expendable income to give up? Perhaps they have to cut back on groceries or walk aroudn with the thermostat on 60 and coldto cut back on oil/gas to meet that extra tax burden..
THAT does not mean that I am "jealous" of the rich.. no I"m not.. but don't sit there and expect me to feel sorry for the extra tax burden they may have to bear. Hell I'll gladly bear that extra burden to be in that top %... isn't that where we all strive to be. Even with the tax, they will still be well off,far better off than me or any other middle income earner.
BTW.. I don't doubt that taxes WILL end up having to go up for ALL of us at some point.. to pay for Wall Street Bailouts, two wars and Bush's tax cuts (without cutting spending) for however long.. AND health care. BUT the places we need to look to CUT government spending are NOT on programs that means the difference between life and death.[/quote]
Funny thing is that the Union leadership is screaming about the tax imposed on the cadilac plans since most of the burden will fall on the people working full time for, say Home Depot..using neighbor as example here. Neighbor works full time earns barely $30,000 a year and pays $400 a month for his part of the health coverage costs, the employer pays a matching amount. So this $8,000 a year plan is a target for the current bill. I just have a hard time with people like you who expect others to raise their children or as in some of your other posts in the mortgage forum, save their homes. I raised 3 without help from taxpayers and we even had to go without insurance for a few years and yes, fortunate to have survived those years. I do agree with a need to reform this system but not with the current house or senate bill. There are many inequities in life and it will never be a perfect world.
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.
), there was no requirement for doing so (as there is now - religious).
