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.
Medicare and Social Security are financial train wrecks what in Gods name makes you think for one freaking minute that the governments will not turn this into a worse train wreck than what it already is? You have the balls to put "think" at the end of your statement?
We are so fawked
Simple fix. Raise the payroll tax rate on everyone. Our tax rates aren't regressive enough. Another 2% the first $110,000 fixes the problem.
No conservative would ever consider a single payer health care system. If you want to lower health care costs, get government out of health care.
My suggestion has been for each state to set up a system similar to the Federal Health Care System which is offered to every federal employee.
Some claim it is the best plan around. I disagree but, think it is a very good plan.
The state puts out basic requirements each insurance provider must meet.
They can offer more, but, never less.
They submit their plans with costs.
There is no limit as to how many companies can sibmit or how many the state chooses.
No other companies can do business in the state.
Every citizen of that state can "get" insurance from any one of the approved companies only.
Competition to get as many enrollees as possible keeps costs down.
Employers can still pay a portion of the cost just as they do today.
There is an open season once a year which allows you to switch companies or alter your plan.
Costs today are based on the number of people enrolled. The bigger the pool the lower the costs. That is why large companies get better rates then individuals.
With the large number people who would get insurance from these companies the cost would be less then what any company can now get.
I didn't just think about it or fawn over web-sites supporting a given position on health care.
I researched it;studied it; crunched the numbers.
For what it's worth, the fruits of my diligent labor are scattered across City-Data, but a warning is in order: I only use government web-sites for data collection....so if you have an aversion to reality, you might want to shy away and continue to remain blissfully ignorant.
At no time ever was the question "Can America have a universal health care system?"
The question has always been "What kind of universal health care system can America afford?"
The answer to that question depends on what you are willing to forfeit; sacrifice; surrender; or give up, both as individuals/households and as a State.
Supporters of universal health care are filled with misconceptions. Chief among those misconceptions is the cause of the current health care financial nightmare in America.
One entity is solely responsible for the nightmare you all endure today...
The American Hospital Association.
As a prosecutor prosecuting the AHA in criminal court for "Crimes Against America" it would take a jury a mere 10 minutes to return a guilty verdict....and the only reason it would take that long is because some of the jurors would want to go to the lavatory to freshen up and then they'd want a sip of soda or coffee before voting.
The so-called "health insurance" companies are victims, just like you and I and everyone else. We are all forced to dance around the hideous legislation bought and paid for by the American Hospital Association that hampers and hamstrings everything and everyone and drives up the cost of health care.
Since 1954, no one in America has had "health insurance." Anyone who has to ask why ought not be flapping their lips....those people need to be sitting on the side-lines watching and asking questions instead of injecting asinine beliefs predicated on stupidity.
And I mention that, because one of the biggest misconceptions is that America can simply overlay universal health care on top of the existing system.
That is destined to fail.
Unless and until you eliminate the underlying causes of the problems in your current system, you cannot even think about universal care. That requires repealing or rescinding all of the harmful "enabling laws" and "enabling legislation" plus all of the rules and regulations that were bought and paid for by the American Hospital Association.
Once you do that, then you can think about moving the responsibility for health plan coverage from the employer to the household...where it always belonged.
When that has been accomplished, then you need to fix the health care delivery system, which is hugely inefficient and a cost driver.
Then you can think about a universal system.
Another misconception is that America can have the same level of care as it presently enjoys. That isn't possible.
One of the biggest misconceptions is rationing.
Canada and Euro-States ration health care....they deny health care to people....they delay health care to people.....they dilute the treatment to the point of ineffectiveness....people die waiting for treatment, precisely because health care is rationed.
I have presented links to government web-sites in Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Britain and others showing that health care is rationed; links to studies conducted by the governments of Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Britain and others proving health care is rationed; and links to studies funded by the governments of Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Britain and others demonstrating that health care is rationed...
....and still people refuse to believe. WTF am I supposed to do?
Finally, the biggest misconception of all is that health care is cheaper in other countries. It is not cheaper. The government spending less money does not make it cheaper. Spending less does not equate to being cheaper.
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
"Virtual budgets are also set up at the regional levels; these ensure that all participants in the system—including the health insurance funds and providers— know from the beginning of the year onward how much money can be spent". -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
That's not some idiot doctor or some slug at the New York Times, that's the damn German Minister of Health.
What freaking part of "you cannot spend more on health care than you collect in taxes" is so damn difficult to understand?
Up to 85% of the increases in health care cost since 1940 have been the 1-2 Punch: Technology and Consumer Demand. So long as that remains true, health care costs will continue to rise indefinitely.
While I have been critical of Obamacrapâ„¢, I admit that in one instance they have the right idea, but the wrong execution (and the whole thing is rather frightening actually). The "right idea" is based on the fact that Americans are over-insured for health care. Being over-insured results in abuses through excessive Consumer Demand, and Consumer Demand drives up the cost of health care.
Obamacrapâ„¢ attempts to restrict excessive Consumer Demand through over-insurance by using taxation.
For Calendar Year 2014, it doesn't matter whether your health plan costs $2,000 per year or $20,000 annually, since you the employee are limited to paying only 9.5% of your W-2 Wages for 2013.
However, beginning in 2015, your cost will be 9.5% of your Modified Adjusted Gross HouseholdIncome.
That is double-taxation.
How?
You earned $40,000 in 2013 and you paid 9.5% of the total cost of your health plan for 2014. In 2015 you will pay 9.5% on the $40,000 that you earned in 2014, and then assume your spouse earned $35,000 in 2014, you will an additional 9.5% on that, plus you'll pay an additional 9.5% on the alimony, child support, rents from rental properties, interest paid on savings accounts, Certificates of Deposits, trusts, annuities, Capital Gains on the sale of stocks, bonds or your home, and on royalties you receive for patents, service-marks, trade marks and copyrights and so on....
....because that is what Income is.
So you and your spouse in a two-income household will pay the exact same amounts for your health plan every year......and that is way too expensive, so one of you will have to drop you health plan coverage so your house isn't foreclosed.
Forcing people in two-income households to drop one health plan will cause over-insurance to drop, resulting in less Consumer Demand, removing pressure on health care costs.....
....in theory. In reality, health care costs will not decrease, because any cost-savings derived will be negated by the bans on annual per person limits and life-time per person limits.
You cannot save $1,000 by spending $100,000.
The frightening part?
What effectively happens when all the households with multiple policies through their employer end up with one policy?
You have effectively laid the foundation for single-payer.
Those bastards are good....no doubt about it.
I should have known....the foul stench of the American Hospital Association is all over the ACA.
The dream of the American Hospital Association since 1933 has been to gain monopoly control over America's health care system. Their dream is about to come true shortly.
I've repeatedly posted sourced evidence and not one person has refuted.
The American Hospital Association bribed Congress and the State legislatures to lock health care with your employer, and then in 1954, they bribed Congress and the IRS in an attempt to drive private health insurance out of business so they could have monopoly control.
In doing so, they left Millions of retired and elderly Americans without health care, but then here comes the American Hospital Association to fix the very problem they created....
"Introduced by various House and Senate sponsors and subject to extensive hearings, the basic framework of part A began to reflect accommodations between the sponsors, the Administration and the American Hospital Association (AHA)."
[emphasis mine]
Well, isn't that just convenient? There they are...the American Hospital Association....Johnny-on-the-Spot ready to ********* over at any cost. The American Hospital Association wrote the legislation and dumped it off on their paid shills.
"It ranged all the way from principles of institutional reimbursement, which has been pretty thoroughly already worked out in a general way for their own purposes between Blue Cross and the Hospital
Association over a period of several years."
[emphasis mine]
Gosh, you don't say. Imagine that. What do you know.The American Hospital Association owned the Blue Cross (that is no longer true, as they sold it and and then in merged with the Blue Shield a few years ago).
Once the American Hospital Association got their "enabling laws" and "enabling legislation" bought and paid for --- enabling them to ********* over --- the American Hospital Association incorporated the Blue Cross in 1946.
And they "already have it worked out" Well, is that just swell? The American Hospital Association has already nominated the Blue Cross organization for its membership, although some member hospitals will undoubtedly elect out of this arrangement. We have proceeded very far in the development of working arrangements with Blue Cross, although no formal approval as a fiscal intermediary has yet been given them.
[emphasis mine]
"...has already nominated...?"
Are you kidding me?
But, of course! That was always the plan.
Source: Report to Social Security Administration Staff on the Implementation of the Social Security Amendments of 1965, Robert M. Ball Commissioner, November 15, 1965
Someone suggested to me that Ball was a card-carrying member of the AHA (he was allegedly an hospital administrator before joining the Bureaucracy). I do not know that to be true, but I'm looking into it.
This is effectively history repeated itself....Satayana was right.
The American Hospital Association, along with the IRS and H&HS wrote nearly all of the ACA. I ought to check to see if relationships can be established between key people in H&HS and the American Hospital Association.
I'll call it now...you want the play-by-play?
1] ACA was designed to lay the ground-work for single pay-payer --- the redundant tax policy based on 9.5% of the Modified Adjusted Gross Household Income does that.
2] ACA was crafted to drive private health plan providers out of business. The evidence of that is the limit on annual premium increase at 10%; the ban against annual per person spending limitations; the ban against life-time per person spending limitations; and the redundant tax policy. The bans on the limitations will drive the cost of private plans through the roof all by themselves. Simultaneously, the redundant tax policy will shrink the number of health plan policies in effect. I do not know the number of extant health plan policies in effect now, but when the smoke clears, you can make a ball-park estimate at about 114 Million policies...the approximate number of households in the US.
To summarize: the bans on annual and life-time per person limits cause health plan providers to spend more money than there are stars in the Universe; the health plan providers can only recoup an added 10% annually, unless they're able to justify an increase over 10% (not likely); the redundant tax policy reduces the revenues of health plan providers, making it near impossible to pay benefits; the result of that is shrinking profits and investors fleeing to better investments, exacerbating the financial situation of many health plan providers.....and because of that you will see a flurry of hostile-takeovers, forced mergers, forced acquisitions and leveraged buy-outs that will reduce the number of health plan providers over the next 6-10 years.
3] The ACA is intended to drive health care out of the realm of the employer. As the cost of these plans increase due to the aforementioned reasons, employers will start bowing out of health plans. It won't take many. Perhaps all that is necessary is for 20%-30% of the so-called "large" employers to dump their plans to create "a problem."
So here comes the American Hospital Association.....Johnny-on-the-Spot....with legislation already written to "save" you from the botched coat-hangar abortion on steroids that they created.
And then you will have come full-circle.
You'll be right back to 1939 purchasing health plans through a member-hospital of the American Hospital Association.....and then as now, they will dictate the prices and services to you....and then as now if you purchase an health plan through a non-member hospital, you'll be "Out-of-Network."
My suggestion has been for each state to set up a system similar to the Federal Health Care System which is offered to every federal employee.
Some claim it is the best plan around. I disagree but, think it is a very good plan.
The state puts out basic requirements each insurance provider must meet.
They can offer more, but, never less.
They submit their plans with costs.
There is no limit as to how many companies can sibmit or how many the state chooses.
No other companies can do business in the state.
Every citizen of that state can "get" insurance from any one of the approved companies only.
Competition to get as many enrollees as possible keeps costs down.
Employers can still pay a portion of the cost just as they do today.
There is an open season once a year which allows you to switch companies or alter your plan.
Costs today are based on the number of people enrolled. The bigger the pool the lower the costs. That is why large companies get better rates then individuals.
With the large number people who would get insurance from these companies the cost would be less then what any company can now get.
You would have choice, competition and variety.
What bigger pool than every American?
The math works when we make people accountable and responsible.
I'm paying for the uninsured now. My marginal rate is 50% including state and federal taxes on my earned income. Millions pay zero and if they show up at the ER we treat them.
The state puts out basic requirements each insurance provider must meet.
You're a day late and $100 short. The American Hospital Association has already bought and paid for legislation dictating what each health plan provider must meet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
No other companies can do business in the state.
You already have that too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
Every citizen of that state can "get" insurance from any one of the approved companies only.
Stalin? Is that you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
Competition to get as many enrollees as possible keeps costs down.
It doesn't work that way
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
Costs today are based on the number of people enrolled. The bigger the pool the lower the costs. That is why large companies get better rates then individuals.
No, that is completely contrary to the Principles of Actuarial Science.
Pooling involves combining similar actuarial risks.
Wanna tell me how men and women are similar? I'm guessing you never had the "birds-and-the-bees" talk.
Are you suggesting that men are at risk for breast cancer? Uterine cancer? Ovarian cancer? Cervical cancer? Pregnancy? An ectopic pregnancy? An ovarian cyst? Uterine cysts? Endometriosis (lining the uterus)? A breech birth? Abortion? Miscarriage? Spontaneous Abortion? Still birth?
I sure hope not, because that would be silly.
Pooling does not inherently imply that it is beneficial....it often isn't, and in the case of health care, it is not.
You can claim that the risk of uncertainty might be reduced after pooling, but then that is true if and only if you are also utilizing risk-based analysis, and no one is allowed to apply risk-based analysis, due to the legislation bought and paid for by the American Hospital Association.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
With the large number people who would get insurance from these companies the cost would be less then what any company can now get.
No, you only benefit from pooling if you are engaging in bona fide risk-analysis and the only benefit is to the insurer, who then spends less money collecting data.
That's the whole point of pooling.....eliminate data collection costs.
If you doubt, then enroll in your local university and take a course in risk-management, risk-analysis, risk-identification or actuarial science.
For group life insurance, sure, I can pool similar risks together.....similar....not disparate.
In pooling similar risks, I reduce my expenditures on data collection. And for life insurance, I'm betting that you will live long enough to pay $X in premiums so that I can invest your premiums and make enough money off of the investment to pay out when you die, while still yielding enough money to cover my operating costs and leave a bit of a profit.
There are no similarities between group life insurance and group health plan coverage (no such thing as health insurance in the US.....it was banned by the American Hospital Association through legislation they bought and paid).
The free market will avoid serving the common good in this case, their solution was to dump high risk or obviously ill patients and stick it to the healthiest.
That never happened. You haven't had Free Market health care since 1933, so you are wrong to blame that on the Free Market.
But nice try at propagandizing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nzrugby
Are your politicians prepared to tell insurance companies etc to get lost when they arrive bearing riches ?
Yes.
Your ignorance is excusable....being a foreigner.....but your meddling is not excusable.
You know absolutely nothing about American health care. To demonstrate that your American Health Care IQ is greater than ZERO, I offer you the chance to explain this....
Premiums paid by an employer on policies of group life insurance without cash surrender value covering the lives of his employees, or on policies of group health or accident insurance...do not constitute salary if such premiums are deductible by the employer under Section 23(a) of the Code.
....my guess is that your head is spinning now, and even if there was a remote possibility that you could explain it, you couldn't because the explanation contradicts your comment...
Quote:
Originally Posted by nzrugby
Are your politicians prepared to tell insurance companies etc to get lost when they arrive bearing riches ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead
What I find silly about this is that conservatives, who I assume are thinking of the business bottomline, would benefit from a single payer system. No doubt about it.
Then prove it......you all keep saying that, but when challenged to prove it, you slink off and sulk in a corner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead
The time when businesses provided health care, etc. was in a time when we were competing for labor.
Talk about propaganda, you cannot show any facts to prove your ridiculous claim.
Yes, employers began offering to pay the cost of an employee's pre-paid hospitalization plan, but the reason they did so is due to the irrefutable fact that FDR levied a Wage & Price Freeze, then established the National War Labor Board approve employee pay raises, and then a Price Control Board to approve price increases.
Employers with a certain number of employees, or those employers involved in any facet of war materiel production were under the control of the National War Labor Board.....who did not like to approve employee pay increases.
Aren't you going to tell people that the unions agreed not to strike in 1942 due to the fact that the National War Labor Board refused to approve their requests for pay increases? Why not Mr. Propagandahead? Why would you withhold that info? Probably because you don't know what you're talking about.
In 1942.....at the behest of the American Hospital Association, the National War Labor Board and the IRS agreed that pre-paid hospitalization plans were "fringe benefits" not subject to taxation, provided they did not exceed 5% of the employee's annual pay.
Yes, there were some group plans at that time.....through member-hospitals of the American Hospital Association, but the overwhelming majority of plans were individual plans.
It wasn't until after the 1949 In Re: Inland Steel decision by the US Supreme Court which granted unions the, um, "right" (snicker) to negotiate pre-paid hospitalization plans, that group plans became the majority, and then the norm.
Employers did not want to deal with pre-paid hospitalization plans, but they got trapped by legislation bought and paid for by the American Hospital Association and court rulings.
Your lack of knowledge of health care history in America is astounding.
Somehow or other though many countries have managed to implement universal healthcare that very much matches what the US offers at a much cheaper cost.
And the citizens of those countries would never, ever think of switching to the chaos that passes for a healthcare system like the US has.
In contrast to the Dutch system pre-2006 where the top 30 percent of the population was not permitted to be covered by the statutory scheme, in Germany those earning above €48,000 per year may choose to opt out and either buy private insurance or self insure. The reader who is wondering why an individual in Germany may choose private health insurance needs to understand that for a healthy single individual it is often cheaper to be in the private health insurance plan than to contribute to the social health insurance system (Greβ, 2007). There may also be non-financial incentives for individuals to move to private insurance as the range of services covered by private insurance may be more comprehensive and may include drugs or treatments not covered by social health insurance plans.
Ooooooops......
You know, if I may be so bold, people would find you more credible if you used facts instead of just making things up that sound good to you.
I'm guessing you don't read German or Dutch, so here's an English version:
Source: HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM IN THE NETHERLANDS
The objective is providing the best health care at the lowest price. However they do it, it works. They beat us on both measures.
No, they don't....
It's called "metrics." The OECD is very good at applying mixed metrics to make it appear as though health care in the US is bad, when in fact it is the best the world.
Funding: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta, GA, USA), Department of Health (London, UK), Cancer Research UK (London, UK).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
Doctor's salaries for specialists tend to be double or even four to five times higher than in other countries, so that is a factor in high healthcare costs.
You had breast cancer.
You are a breast cancer survivor.
Tell us.....is your survival rate better in the US, or better in the UK?
Inquiring minds want to know...do you think there might be a link to salaries and breast cancer survival rates?
Can you explain to us how a 69.7% breast cancer survival rate is better than an 83.9% rate?
I'm guessing you'd just love Britain's NHS......provided you're not one of the 31.3% of women who die of breast cancer.
Lung cancer treatment waiting times and tumour growth.
Therefore, 21% of potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list.
This study demonstrates that, even for the select minority of patients who have specialist referral and are deemed suitable for potentially curative treatment, the outcome is prejudiced by waiting times that allow tumour progression.
Are you sure you want a system like Britain's NHS?
If you lived in Britain I'd bet you'd be glad it was only breast cancer, and not a tumor....or maybe that's tumour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weichert
kaiser produces interesting info regarding health insurance. The following is for 2011 and is percentages of those with (and without) health insurance for the US.
Employer 49%
Individual 5%
Medicaid 16%
Medicare 13%
Other Public 1%
Uninsured 16%
You're a wee bit behind the times. You might want to research the US Census Bureau's position on this, because they have backed off their claims. In fact, the US Census Bureau effectively issued a retraction without actually admitting they issued a retraction.
According to the US Census Bureau only 4.9% of Americans ~15.5 Million are truly uninsured.
The problem comes in when you require a person to buy car insurance, because it basically takes away a lot of a persons choice. Just like the Supreme Court ruled in the affordable care act. If you require someone to buy something or be fined, then the fine is a tax. The car insurance mandate is a tax. And its a rather unfair tax, regardless of the existence of risk pools.
You have no right to drive. You are under no obligation to drive, nor are you under any obligation to purchase a vehicle.
Driving is a privilege....granted by the State...based on conditions and standards set by the State.
If the State demands that driver's demonstrate proof of financial responsibility as part of the conditions or standards, then that is the way it shall be.....in accordance with the 9th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution.
In Ohio, I am required by law to demonstrate financial responsibility, but I am under no obligation to purchase auto insurance. At my discretion, I can purchase a surety bond in lieu of insurance in order to satisfy the State's requirement of financial obligation.
Also, note the distinction....a lender has the right to demand you purchase insurance as a condition of the loan agreement....that is perfectly legal (not to mention sheer common sense).
Legally...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity
That said, a large amount of this is having an unhealthier underlying population, other nations free-riding on our pharmaceutical spending, medical workers (not just talking doctors here -- talking absolutely everything from doctors to nurses to radiology techs to non-medical hospital workers and more) getting paid a lot more here, etc.
Uh, that would be the Laws of Economics in action.
The US spends more on medical research and development than any other country. The cost of medical research and development is not free....it comes with a price....and that price is reflected in the cost of health care.
The only other country that comes close to the US is France. That should come as no surprise, since all of the high-tech medical devices, the cutting-edge pharmaceuticals and the medical/surgical procedures come from the US and France.
So you are correct....it's just like Defense spending. Other countries can spend less, due to the fact that they are riding US-coat-tails......and the same holds true in Medicine.....the Euro-States don't have to spend a dime Medical R&D, yet they benefit from spending by Americans and French.
And then.....the fact that the US spends more in Medical R&D is held against the US by the Liberals.
We see the same thing in pharmaceuticals.
Americans are too dense to realize that many of the pharmaceutical companies are foreign. The fact that they have a facility here in the US doesn't make them an American company. Euro-States do negotiate drug prices, and the effect of that is Americans pay more for drugs, so you are again correct in your assertion that they are free-riding your coat-tails.
That particular problem is compounded by the fact that in Euro-States you get generic drugs. You get methacarbamol instead of Robaxin®, or you get prazosin instead of Mylan®.
The only time you ever get the real deal, is when there is no generic, or when there is a generic, but you are able to prove the generic does not work for you, in which case you can enjoy the lengthy administrative process and hope you don't die in the interim.
There was a woman, in fact a member of the British Parliament Alice McMann or McMahon or something like that, who lost the sight in one of her eyes because she couldn't get Lucentis®. I believe it's for macular degeneration, so there are/were no generics available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
Insurance is just a function of cost and risk though. I would argue the insurance companies need less regulation, not more. They need to be able to compete across state lines for starters. What I would do is the following:
1. Let insurance companies compete across state lines
2. Enforce anti trust laws
3. Punish price fixing
4. Encourage specialty clinics to compete. - This is actually starting to happen in PA, albeit limited.
5. Limit 1 hospital to no more than 30% of market share in a metro area. - This is problematic in rural areas.
6. Get rid of laws that basically require you to to go to a hospital for service.
Those are all excellent ideas whose time is long over-due. Hell, I'd be happy if just one of those 6 became reality.
Concurring...
You have no right to drive. You are under no obligation to drive, nor are you under any obligation to purchase a vehicle.
Driving is a privilege....granted by the State...based on conditions and standards set by the State.
If the State demands that driver's demonstrate proof of financial responsibility as part of the conditions or standards, then that is the way it shall be.....in accordance with the 9th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution.
In Ohio, I am required by law to demonstrate financial responsibility, but I am under no obligation to purchase auto insurance. At my discretion, I can purchase a surety bond in lieu of insurance in order to satisfy the State's requirement of financial obligation.
Also, note the distinction....a lender has the right to demand you purchase insurance as a condition of the loan agreement....that is perfectly legal (not to mention sheer common sense).
Legally...
Mircea
I have a right to drive and that right has been upheld. I don't have a right to use the government's roads without following their rules and regulations, but I have an inherent right to drive.
If I owned 50 sections in Texas or Kansas or Montana I would have no requirement to insure my vehicles or get a license as long as I operated them on my property and roads. The distinction is more than subtle.
Health coverage isn't much different. The majority of the trauma centers are publicly funded. The states could just as easily argue that you have no right to healthcare at their facility and that if you wanted to utilize the services of their public facilities you need to show evidence of responsibility.
If you refer back to one of my posts that preceded the scotus ruling on the ACA I called it correct - that the government had a right to tax and offer services. You are under no obligation to use those services, but have no say in what they offer other than a single vote at the ballot box.
Obamacare is a failure because it is not national health. The democrats had a chance and they failed. The simple solution was a series of new payroll taxes phased in over a period of several years to allow the economy to adapt. Maybe 1% in year one increasing over time. That would allow other sectors time to normalize. They failed because they want the "rich" to pay a disproportionate share of the tab. There isn't enough "rich" dollars to offset the costs over time. Fixed costs are variable only to the extent that units of production vary. The cost to treat a broken leg is the same for a minimum wage employee as it is for Bill Gates.
The liberals cry for socialist programs like Canada and the UK but they want traditional American tax rates. When it comes to health care, we need to recognize there is no benefit to having our health insurance tied to employment and that it will be cheaper when everyone is paying a portion of the cost. The liberals need to recognize that there are no free lunches and that life is a series of choices and compromises.
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.
