[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by bravesfan007

Call me skeptical, but I can't see an industry giving up that much of its revenue and potential profits just to be nice. Within those agreements there have to be private, underlying arrangements that they receive some benefit.

They gave up some now in hopes it would prevent being forced to give up more lately.

Also, the agreements that have been made have been between the president and the health care industry, not Congress and the industry. This has no binding hold on us (as far as I know).

It won't be binding until / unless congress passes it into law.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

No. It's either always regressive or never regressive. It's not "regressive unless we repeal income tax"

AS I understand it, we already have agreements of more than 200-billion in cost savings from hospitals and drug manufacturers, and that's what they have volunteered.

Of course the number itself is *incredibly* misleading and only repeated for effect.

Well for trhe poor it will be very regressive- th ebottom 25% of wage earners pay nor federal income taxes - and the bottom 20% get mmore back than what they paid through the EIC. So if we got rid of the income tax and went to a VAT-- th epoor will be paying federal taxes for the first time in a long time- unless the govt. cuts them some kind of check to rebate back what they paid in VAT's through all th eir purchases.

A VAT is regressive-- more so eif the income tax is not repealed.

As for the agreements-- pharmaceuticals and hospitals have agreed to $355B in savings ove r 10 years-- that leaves Obama and his compliant Pelosi and Reid to carve out $645B from the citizenry.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well for trhe poor it will be very regressive- th ebottom 25% of wage earners pay nor federal income taxes - and the bottom 20% get mmore back than what they paid through the EIC. So if we got rid of the income tax and went to a VAT-- th epoor will be paying federal taxes for the first time in a long time- unless the govt. cuts them some kind of check to rebate back what they paid in VAT's through all th eir purchases.

The bolded part is irrelevant. Sales taxes are, at least, not progressive. Period.

A VAT is regressive-- more so eif the income tax is not repealed.

No. It's exactly as regressive with income tax as without.

As for the agreements-- pharmaceuticals and hospitals have agreed to $355B in savings ove r 10 years-- that leaves Obama and his compliant Pelosi and Reid to carve out $645B from the citizenry.

So far. Two months ago it was a trillion. It seems a repeated refrain to cite the cost without the mitigation.

There was a recent report that, without reform, health costs for the insured would rise $1800 per year by 2020. So there's real glossing over the costs of not doing it.

There's also a tremendous amount of money being paid out by the government now which will will be shifted to universal health care. It keeps coming up in the cost, but the fact its already being paid and will just come out of an existing budget is overlooked as well.

In other words: there's no attempt in this rhetoric to honestly evaluate the impact on the taxpayer/citizen (though that fact is what makes it rhetorical).

[nolidad]

No. It's exactly as regressive with income tax as without.

Inthe ense that yes it hits every one equally yes you are right. In the sense that people who pay no federal income taxes now and will have to pay anywhere from 8-15% more for their goods because of a VAT- it is very regressive.

So far. Two months ago it was a trillion. It seems a repeated refrain to cite the cost without the mitigation.

There was a recent report that, without reform, health costs for the insured would rise $1800 per year by 2020. So there's real glossing over the costs of not doing it.

There's also a tremendous amount of money being paid out by the government now which will will be shifted to universal health care. It keeps coming up in the cost, but the fact its already being paid and will just come out of an existing budget is overlooked as well.

In other words: there's no attempt in this rhetoric to honestly evaluate the impact on the taxpayer/citizen (though that fact is what makes it rhetorical).

And all the crystal balling willnot actually tell us how much it will cost. The $355B in savings that could be just simply them holding the line on normal inflation, we just don't know and all our prognosticating won't help. I am dead set against single payer govt. health care. It is going to reduce the quality of care we have now- it will end up rationing care and having govt. determine what tests will and will not be allowed and possibly even massive waiting lists. As do Casnada and England have now.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Inthe ense that yes it hits every one equally yes you are right. In the sense that people who pay no federal income taxes now and will have to pay anywhere from 8-15% more for their goods because of a VAT- it is very regressive.

VAT is a sales tax. It is, at worst, just as regressive as other sales taxes. I already pay state sales tax. I suspect you do too. I've not been an advocate of a federal sales tax.

And all the crystal balling willnot actually tell us how much it will cost.

So then you will stop saying that it will cost a trillion dollars and correct those who do from now on? I assume you will also stop criticizing cap-and-trade... at least on cost grounds.

I am dead set against single payer govt. health care.

Good for you that no one is talking about having one then.

It is going to reduce the quality of care we have now- it will end up rationing care and having govt. determine what tests will and will not be allowed and possibly even massive waiting lists. As do Casnada and England have now.

Sounds like "crystal balling" to me.

It also ignores that your current healthcare determines what tests will and won't be allowed.
It also ignores that the best (most effective) healthcare in the world is actually government run.
It also ignores that in apple-to-apples (Medicare to Humana One for example), government is cheaper than private, and has more doctors and services.
It also falsely characterizes both US and Canadian wait times.
It also continues to assert a single-payor system: which is a straw man propped up by you.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

VAT is a sales tax. It is, at worst, just as regressive as other sales taxes. I already pay state sales tax. I suspect you do too. I've not been an advocate of a federal sales tax.

So then you will stop saying that it will cost a trillion dollars and correct those who do from now on? I assume you will also stop criticizing cap-and-trade... at least on cost grounds.

Good for you that no one is talking about having one then.

Sounds like "crystal balling" to me.

It also ignores that your current healthcare determines what tests will and won't be allowed.
It also ignores that the best (most effective) healthcare in the world is actually government run.
It also ignores that in apple-to-apples (Medicare to Humana One for example), government is cheaper than private, and has more doctors and services.
It also falsely characterizes both US and Canadian wait times.
It also continues to assert a single-payor system: which is a straw man propped up by you.

Well the trillion dollars is the CBO figure- not my prognostication.

I was injured on the job (torn meniscus) I was on limited duty waiting for an MRI on my knee to determine the extent and scope of the inijury-- I had to wait 112 days for fed comp to approve the test.

This year I had tumors and abnormalities in the abdominal region and kidneys. My doctor ordered MRI's (4 altogether on top of 3 cat scans) I was done all these tests in four weeks through my private insurance plan. I know of numerous cases like this in federal work places-- you tell me where people wait.

Medicare and Medicaid cases are handled by my daughter in a hospital-- wait times there are also interminable as well as with MAss. Health patients. The evidence proves govt. systems are slow cumbersome and takes control away generally speaking forom the physician and to the beuracracy.-- Obamas plan is just Hillary care revisited.

As for single payer system-- lots of pundits and talkking heads both lib and conserve are talking that it will be inevitable.

1. I have never hadf a teast refused.
2. I don't know which country you are talking about.
3. Govt. is vastly more expensive than private insurance. Ask doctors.
4. U. S. has far shorter wait times for most diagnostic testing. The news is strewn with Cnandians crossing th e border for MRI's mammagrams, CAT Scans and th like.
5. Most people realize that Obamas reform will ultinmately squeeze out private insurance-- alot of Dems want it and alot of Conserves nknow it will happen--

[penguinofwar]

Originally Posted by bravesfan007

There is none that did all they said they would do; however, there is more to being a decent president than not rushing into war. I think that in thirty years (if the country is still around) that people will look back and see that Obama was a worse president than Bush. Again, that's just my opinion, but he's only been in office since January and is on his way towards harming the country.

I don't understand this sentiment. So many people, liberals and conservatives alike, say Bush will be remembered as a good president when all is said and done, except the Patriot Act and the No Child Left Behind Act rank with the 18th amendment and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as complete mockeries of democracy and everything this country stands for.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well the trillion dollars is the CBO figure- not my prognostication.

And the $1800 per-person-per-eyar for non-reform was also the CBO. And the existing expenditure which will simply be moved from where it is to the bill isn't even prognostication: it's present fact.

You are a hypocrite if you are going to take one prediction and in the same breath dismiss another as "crystal balling".

I was injured on the job (torn meniscus) I was on limited duty waiting for an MRI on my knee to determine the extent and scope of the inijury-- I had to wait 112 days for fed comp to approve the test.

So what? We should reform workers comp? I don't disagree.

This year I had tumors and abnormalities in the abdominal region and kidneys. My doctor ordered MRI's (4 altogether on top of 3 cat scans) I was done all these tests in four weeks through my private insurance plan. I know of numerous cases like this in federal work places-- you tell me where people wait.

And I know of a woman with Humana who died because they delayed authorizing so long. What's your anecdotal point?

Medicare and Medicaid cases are handled by my daughter in a hospital-- wait times there are also interminable as well as with MAss. Health patients. The evidence proves govt. systems are slow cumbersome and takes control away generally speaking forom the physician and to the beuracracy.-- Obamas plan is just Hillary care revisited.

My girlfriend works in a doctor's office processing medical claims. She has far more refusals, and difficulty getting paid by private medicare companies than by federal medicare.

We can trade these all day long. You haven't offered even a case relevant to the health care being discussed (which despite your repeated dishonest inference isn't "single payor") much less begun to actually support one.

As for single payer system-- lots of pundits and talkking heads both lib and conserve are talking that it will be inevitable.

And here I thought you didn't want to be "crystal balling".

But hey. The pundits and talking heads are never, ever wrong right? It's not like they get paid for ratings over any semblance of truth? Oh, wait. That's exactly what they get paid for.

1. I sit next to people refusing things all day.
2. I'm sure you don't.
3. No it's not. Ask accountants.
4. And a shorter average life-span, and lower average health. "more" isn't "better"
5. You've offered not a single shred of evidence to validate the straw-man you are hacking.

[nolidad]

And the $1800 per-person-per-eyar for non-reform was also the CBO. And the existing expenditure which will simply be moved from where it is to the bill isn't even prognostication: it's present fact.

You are a hypocrite if you are going to take one prediction and in the same breath dismiss another as "crystal balling".

I was talking about crysstal balling and not the CBO-- despite your prediliction to revert to name calling at the first whiff of something you can name call for.

So what? We should reform workers comp? I don't disagree.

Yeah, cause it is federal OWCP== lets privatize it so federal workers don't have to wait months for needed surgeries and even prescriptions.

And I know of a woman with Humana who died because they delayed authorizing so long. What's your anecdotal point?

According to the news blogs and websites the more we turn health care over tot he fed- the longer the waits go. Even medicare and medicaid, when there is no private secondary plan, at least in my state has had interminable waits.

We can trade these all day long. You haven't offered even a case relevant to the health care being discussed (which despite your repeated dishonest inference isn't "single payor") much less begun to actually support one.

It will become single payor-- or maybe not just like Obama wasn't interested inthe fed owning GM.

What's wrong with Obama's health care plan | Steve Chapman

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7922187&page=1

Obama's health plan is no bargain: 4 reasons why - Jun. 11, 2009

These are from Obama supporting networks. His plan sucks even to them.

[nolidad]

Well seeing how this thread has turned a bit towards the Presidents Health care Bill and how I say it is a govt. grab to nationalize health care at exorbitant costs. Well Kommisar Obama has not let us down in that his health care reform is no9t about health care, nor reform but just a naked power grab by the liberals.

Prrof?

In the house bill-- page 16-17 If you have a health plaN THROUGH WORK, as soon as anything changes in your plan like deductibles or copays- you will be required to move into a governmetn qualified health plan. Whn you file your taxes- if you can't prove to the IRS you are in a government qualified plan- you will be fined . (House bi8ll pges 167-168)

You will be required to enroll into a required care plan even if you ahve private insurance or get insurance through your employer (Senate bill pges 57-58)

Under the house bill (page 137) You get government assistance for health care till your family makes 88,000. After that you have to pay no matter how the cost.
In the house bill (page 199) half of the cost will be paid for by folks making over 280,000 and the new taxes will double in 2012 unless estimated savings exceed predicted costs.

In the house bill (pges 425-430) seniors are required to submit to counseliong every 5 years about ALTERNATIVES FOR END OF LIFE CARE!!!!! Some of the listed sessions are about wehter they want to be administered antibiotics and artificial hydration and nutrition.

In the last 500 pages of the senate bill the Senate allocates "undisclosed" sums of money to community transformation grants, home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers, and creates numerous new government councils and advisory boards.

If our health care system is in such dire need of reform then why according to the Concord Five Continent Study and the WHO the US ranked 1 out of 191 for being resp[onsive to patients needs, timely treatment, and choicew of doctors.

Once again this is socialized health care at its USSR worst.

[AlphaSigma]

I guess one could say that we are in 'dire' need because 20 million plus Americans are not covered on any sort of Health Care plan whether they are employed or not. Of those many of them are children, which was a concern of Obama's campaign that children had a right to health care.

And of those who aren't covered (and many of them still do receive treatment regardless). They create rising costs of premiums that those who are covered are required to pay off.

Just a few ideas.

[nolidad]

I guess one could say that we are in 'dire' need because 20 million plus Americans are not covered on any sort of Health Care plan whether they are employed or not. Of those many of them are children, which was a concern of Obama's campaign that children had a right to health care.

And of those who aren't covered (and many of them still do receive treatment regardless). They create rising costs of premiums that those who are covered are required to pay off.

But you must remember that all hospitals already are required to treat all regardless of ability to pay. For those with no insurance, they will stabilize them and then transport them to a place regionally that treats th eindigenous poor.

Many doctors also do "pro-bono" treatments for the poor. Not only does it promote good relations, but it also allows for tax write offs as well.

The 20 million do have health care- just not the best. It would be nice to get them an insurance plan, but not if we have to bilk the wealthy again. IN some states the wealth are soon to be paying ovewr 60% in taxes- this will only result in more sheltering or their weatlh and ihgher dificits or mor etaxes in the lower income levels Obama said he would never touch.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by nolidad

But you must remember that all hospitals already are required to treat all regardless of ability to pay. For those with no insurance, they will stabilize them and then transport them to a place regionally that treats th eindigenous poor.

Many doctors also do "pro-bono" treatments for the poor. Not only does it promote good relations, but it also allows for tax write offs as well.

The 20 million do have health care- just not the best. It would be nice to get them an insurance plan, but not if we have to bilk the wealthy again. IN some states the wealth are soon to be paying ovewr 60% in taxes- this will only result in more sheltering or their weatlh and ihgher dificits or mor etaxes in the lower income levels Obama said he would never touch.

that's for emergency related issues. But if you have cancer or a heart disease that requires a transplant, and have no insurance or ability to pay, you get screwed. Or if you come down with the flu. That's not an emergency, the hospital doesn't have to treat you.

[AlphaSigma]

Originally Posted by nolidad

But you must remember that all hospitals already are required to treat all regardless of ability to pay. For those with no insurance, they will stabilize them and then transport them to a place regionally that treats th eindigenous poor.

Many doctors also do "pro-bono" treatments for the poor. Not only does it promote good relations, but it also allows for tax write offs as well.

The 20 million do have health care- just not the best. It would be nice to get them an insurance plan, but not if we have to bilk the wealthy again. IN some states the wealth are soon to be paying ovewr 60% in taxes- this will only result in more sheltering or their weatlh and ihgher dificits or mor etaxes in the lower income levels Obama said he would never touch.

Regardless,
Obama health plan or not: Health Costs are still rising for those who are covered and paying for their own coverage and eventually no one (even those who pay for their own coverage) will be able to afford health care, if something is not changed.

[tlj009]

I wonder if the failure of the Massachusetts health care system will change anything at all. I doubt it but at the same time I would hope that someone is taking lessons from it.

Mass. healthcare reform is failing us - The Boston Globe