What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Health insurance - why bother?

  • #21
yah know Scot, i tried to tell them that......but the general consensus was "Oh my costs wont go up, i dont make enough"......there isnt a single nation that has this kinda health care plan that doesnt cost EVERYONE........they seemed to forget that "those rich guys" are things like their bosses and insurance companies, if their costs go up your costs as an employee go up.....and as soon as DC figures out they cant tax "those rich guys" enough to pay for the healthc care bill they will start taxing the guy that makes $20K a year more.....

yeah I know..I always (sadly) have to laugh every time I hear "lets make the rich pay their fair share"..I heard it all the time recently during election season..
what liberals dont realize is that "the rich" already pay way more than the average person..
and to the democrats in office, we are ALL the rich..if you have a job, ANY job, you ARE "the rich"..and you will pay..

If you didnt believe that before now, then you bought the propaganda..
you were lied to to get your vote..and it worked..
if democrats told the truth about what they really want to do, and what it will cost you personally, they could never get elected..so they HAVE to lie...its the only way they can stay in office.

and we now see, in this thread, a perfect example of the truth finally dawning..
to many of us this is not a surprise..we knew all along this was going to happen.
welcome to the new world order..its what you voted for.

Scot
 
  • #22
Just want to point out that although republicans voted against it, this plan is similar to Bush Sr's vision.

This is why it is important to know which kind of republican you are talking about. A neo-con or a conservative. The Bushes were neo-cons.

Aside from the legality issue being played out by some states, I have a few beefs with government run healthcare. Which are...

1. Like Social Security and Medicare, it is a ponzi scheme. It only works if more people are paying into it than are on the take. We all know SS will not be there for most of us when we retire unless they take our 401K's (which they are talking about doing). Why do we think this will be any different.

2. It does nothing to address the spiraling costs of healthcare. It simply increases the funds to pay for them. Costs will go up not down.

I have a few other but they are complex macro-economic observations that would only muddy the waters of this conversation.

OH and I in now way endorse the current system. My health insurance sucks too. My employer has dropped HMO and PPO and now only offers high deductible which they self insure. So if they don't pay out, they make money. I'll let you decide if they pay out or not.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Just want to point out that although republicans voted against it, this plan is similar to Bush Sr's vision.

This is why it is important to know which kind of republican you are talking about. A neo-con or a conservative. The Bushes were neo-cons.

Aside from the legality issue being played out by some states, I have a few beefs with government run healthcare. Which are...

1. Like Social Security and Medicare, it is a ponzi scheme. It only works if more people are paying into it than are on the take. We all know SS will not be there for most of us when we retire unless they take our 401K's (which they are talking about doing). Why do we think this will be any different.

2. It does nothing to address the spiraling costs of healthcare. It simply increases the funds to pay for them. Costs will go up not down.

I have a few other but they are complex macro-economic observations that would only muddy the waters of this conversation.

OH and I in now way endorse the current system. My health insurance sucks too. My employer has dropped HMO and PPO and now only offers high deductible which they self insure. So if they don't pay out, they make money. I'll let you decide if they pay out or not.
doesnt matter what kind of republican, i know the difference between a neocon and a conservative....EVERY person with an R behind their name voted against it, if your blameing the republicans for this mess your a moron cause everyone of them no matter what kind they are voted against it......
 
  • #24
Ideally it would be great if everyone had good healthcare..
thats certainty a worthy goal..
the problem is, we dont live in an ideal world.

but politicians (both sides) can never admit we dont live in an ideal world..
they promise us everything, and we buy it..because thats how they get reelected..

but then reality kicks in, and we all complain that we were lied to..well of COURSE we were lied to!
where have you been the last 200 years? ;)

The simple fact is we simply cant AFFORD to give health care to everyone..
it cant be done..we dont have enough money.
the politicians will never say that..they want us to buy the utopioan version of their reality,
where "someone else will pay for it..the evil greedy rich..but dont worry, it wont effect you at all."

I had no health insurance of any kind between the ages of 15 and 35..
thank God I never needed it..
but what could I do about it?
nothing..its just life..life isnt always fair.
If I get laid off (always a high probability) I will have no health insurance again..
what can I do about it?
nothing..people have lived for millions of years without it, I can too..
all I can do is try to get a new job..its that 'personal responsibility" thing we dont hear much about anymore.

I dont see how it became the governments responsibility to provide every living person with health care and retirement money..why is that the governments job??

Its their job, because they said they would do it for us..(in exchange for keeping them personally in power, and rich) and we, being gullible and lazy, said YES! I will vote for you!

its really societys fault we are in this mess..not the government..
the government only gives us what we want..
if we said NO we dont want this, government would stop doing it..
but unfortunately our society is about evenly divided on what it is we want..
So we just keep swapping one set of bad politicans for another set, and nothing ever changes..
right now we are stuck with a particularly bad bunch of politicians, who are only making things worse, not better..but they are doing that because half the county said "YES! please do this! we believe what you told us! we will vote for you so you will stay powerful and rich"!

and we got what we asked for..
I think the democrats in office are really blameless..they are simply doing what they were elected to do..
and they have to keep doing it because if they dont they wont get reelected in a few years..
they have to keep their (deluded) base happy..for the votes..
they have to keep their power and money..this is how the game is played..
its not their fault you all told them to do this..they are simply doing their job.
change can only come when enough people realize this *isnt* what we want afterall..
but the odds of that ever happening seem slim..so we are stuck with it..

Scot
 
  • #25
doesnt matter what kind of republican, i know the difference between a neocon and a conservative....EVERY person with an R behind their name voted against it, if your blameing the republicans for this mess your a moron cause everyone of them no matter what kind they are voted against it......

Did I lay blame on the neo-cons for the current system. No, because they voted against it. You are putting words in my mouth there rattler.

I am saying Bush Sr. proposed something similar a few years ago. So people should pay attention to the differences between neo-cons and conservatives because there is a huge difference. I can lay them out for you if you like.

Good perspective ScottyChaos.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
you said the repubs pushed a similar nearly 2 decades ago, which they did, never went anywhere, seems in the last 2 decades they wizened up about it and when it came up again they voted against it.....whatever comparison you were trying to make is invalid, they are fully able to criticize it cause they voted against it....had they voted for it than criticized it then there would be an issue....what happened 20 years ago doesnt matter.....
 
  • #27
I agree. They are able to criticize it, I never said that either. Those who voted for it can criticize it too. People can always have a change of heart when new facts arise.

What I am saying however, is that they (neo-cons) are just another shade of grey. They criticize to gain power, but when they get into power they are more of the same. One wants to go right, the other left, but both are heading for a cliff. Perhaps it is because we ask for it, perhaps not. But one thing is clear, the cliff is coming. It is a mathematical certainty.

Actions taken 10, 20, 100, 200 years ago do matter for if they didn't we would not be where we are today. We are today where those who have came before us have taken us.
 
  • #28
neocons are the reason i dont consider my self a republican.....my views tend to lean republican but there is some things i dont have a problem on like gay marriage and pot and the like cause i view those to be individual freedoms.....also unlike most republicans i view the federal government should be as small as possible and most the power being tossed back to the states like it was before 1861.....i likely fall under he constitutionalists banner more than any.....

as for the change of heart stuff......sorry but i dont have sympathy.....i hated McCain but Obama is doing all the BS i knew and said he would.....seeing pictures of Bush with the title "Miss Me Yet?" hell at this point i miss Clinton.......
 
  • #29
I've never met or heard of anyone republican or democrat becoming the age to collect Social Security and Medicare and then rejecting it. Most people say "if I didn't have this I'd have nothing". I'd like to know the percentage of independently wealthy people who can afford to refuse Social Security when they get to the age of benefits collection cos I certainly haven't met a single one yet...

Don't forget the reason these "entitlements" were created in the first place, the business community was stealing workers pensions - just like they still do today with pension stoppages and useless 401Ks. There were so many people in soup lines and eating canned dog food that something had to be done because you cannot count on business men for anything. Whatever workers ever got from them they did by a lot of effort and in the old days a lot of dying on the job. At 35 I've had both my pension stopped and seen my 401K go down in flames, so if I allow the republicans to burn down social security or place it on wall street for the business criminals & banks to raid it, what do I get after working for 40-50 years? A boot in the arse and a box behind the liquor store if the cops don't arrest me for vagrancy. "Do they owe us a living? Of course they do - of course they do!"

Part of the reason the healthcare bill sucks is because the democrats wavered on all their points in a simple minded hope of wooing the less stoic republicans to vote for it. That's why I wish it would have been a simple written directive like Bush used to do which was like the prez saying "screw you all we're doing this: ________". But Obama like all Dem presidents has weak knees and wanted everyone to love and adore him and gave it over to congress to play with it. And Congress being congress could do nothing less than try and get everyone involved and screw the whole thing up in the "process". :(
 
  • #30
I've never met or heard of anyone republican or democrat becoming the age to collect Social Security and Medicare and then rejecting it. Most people say "if I didn't have this I'd have nothing". I'd like to know the percentage of independently wealthy people who can afford to refuse Social Security when they get to the age of benefits collection cos I certainly haven't met a single one yet...

Don't forget the reason these "entitlements" were created in the first place, the business community was stealing workers pensions - just like they still do today with pension stoppages and useless 401Ks. There were so many people in soup lines and eating canned dog food that something had to be done because you cannot count on business men for anything. Whatever workers ever got from them they did by a lot of effort and in the old days a lot of dying on the job. At 35 I've had both my pension stopped and seen my 401K go down in flames, so if I allow the republicans to burn down social security or place it on wall street for the business criminals & banks to raid it, what do I get after working for 40-50 years? A boot in the arse and a box behind the liquor store if the cops don't arrest me for vagrancy. "Do they owe us a living? Of course they do of course they do!"

Part of the reason the healthcare bill sucks is because the democrats wavered on all their points in a simple minded hope of wooing the less stoic republicans to vote for it. That's why I wish it would have been a simple written directive like Bush used to do which was like the prez saying "screw you all we're doing this: ________". But Obama like all dems has weak knees and wanted everyone to love and adore him and gave it over to congress to play with it. And Congress being congress could do nothing less than try and get everyone involved and screw the whole thing up in the "process". :(

Social Security IS NOT an entitlement given you have paid into it all your life......and the democrats DID NOT need the republicans they had a big enough majority that even though all the republicans and a handful of Democrats voted against it it passed anyway.....they didnt have to cater to the republicans at all so dont try pulling that BS card out....
 
  • #31
I'm not saying they had to, I'm saying they did. Why was John Bayner in all those health care policy meetings if they didn't want any part of it? They were there to protect the corporate interests as were a number of the Dems, don't get me wrong that Montana guy and his personal mandate...

If you watch fox news SS is very much considered an entitlement by everyone of their talking heads. You and I both agree that we paid in we deserve it.
 
  • #32
the Montana guy is a drunk and an idiot........and he is a demo not a repub.....

after Obama got into office he told the repubs they could tail along or get out of teh way but they were not gonna get a say in anything and thats pretty well what happened.....Obama also said everyone was gonna get to see legislation for 5 days before it was passed.....that kinda went out the window soon as he one aswell, hell they voted on it before they could read it.....the health insurance bill is 100% on the dems shoulders....
 
  • #33
They didn't cater to the repubs. They catered to the corporations. If anyone who reads the bill thinks otherwise, I would be interested in why they think so.

SS is not an entitlement. It is a madoff style, ponzi investment scheme. You give me your money now and when you retire I will give you this much.... provided that I can get more people to sign up when it is your turn to get paid. That is the problem. Now all of the baby boomers are retiring and starting to collect.

There will soon be more people getting paid than there are who are paying in. There are three ways the government can deal with this. First is taxes, second is reduction of benefits, third is by printing money and creating inflation. Right now, they are doing the third option. In other parts of the world, they are doing option #2 (Austerity), mainly because they no longer control thier money supply (the euro) and cannot do option #3.
 
  • #34
it floors me that anyone thinks demos are for "the lil guy" anymore......as a small business owner and someone thats not had much his entire life when all is said and done the repubs have done me far more good than the demos.....those tax breaks they give "the rich" do help ppl like me that clear well under $200,000 a year for combined household income......the demos in many ways are bigger crooks than the repubs anymore and the repubs are far from angels.....
 
  • #35
the health insurance bill is 100% on the dems shoulders....
Yes we all know this is how the voting went down but what people are forgetting is the way it was written, they were trying to lure Republicans to vote on it so changed all sorts of things back and forth. Remember Susan Snow (R) NY or whoever they were all gabbing about "We think she might vote with us so if we write it this way" then "now so and so democrat won't vote yes so they're gonna rewrite this part this way" then "John Bayner minority leader is holding a special session on this aspect of the health care bill" and I don't remember who or what else only a nut could remember it all but it was months of that back and forth and at the end the completely predicable outcome was a clear vote down party lines. So whatever the original health care bill was it might have been something good before all that congressional wheeling and dealing went down. I'm giving blame to both since they both hand a hand in messing it up to the point where all of them republicans and democrats both said "no I haven't read it look how big it is" before a vote ever took place.

That's why it should have been a written directive phrased something like:
"You get sick show up at the doctor and show your ID card as proof of citizenship and see the doctor."

One sentence, no need for 1000 pages or months of deliberations. This is how they do it in the UK and Sweden where my two writers are located they think our medical system is totally ridiculous and stupid.
 
  • #36
Good points swords. I stand corrected to an extent. However, I do believe the girth of the bill benifits corporations more than any other person or group of persons.

My personal belief would be that going in and telling people what they can charge would be more beneficial than footing the bill. There is no transparency in healthcare whatsoever. No free market. You go to the list of doctors you have to choose from and then get a bill later.

Perhaps even better would be to require prices to be clearly communicated to people prior to treatment. If free market were allowed to operate, then many costs might just go down.

Then perhaps there wouldn't be so many ruffled feathers over helping those who clearly need help. I want to help those who cannot afford healthcare, I really do. But I also know I am personally strapped. I don't make 250K, not even close. But I do pay taxes and I can't afford another cent more. And I don't think we should ask those who make over 250K to foot the bill either. 250K a year is not wealthy in my book, not by a long shot. Just means you live in a slightly larger house and slightly more expensive car in most cases all with slightly larger mortgages and car payments. People have a knack for adjusting thier lifestyle to thier income levels in this society.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
you do realize the personal and corporate tax rates in Sweden and the UK are significantly higher than ours to pay for the health care.....yes they may not pay out in premiums but they payout for it all the same....

---------- Post added at 12:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 AM ----------

here are some numbers.....

corporate tax rates
US: 15-35% federal 0-12% state
UK: 21-28%
Sweden: 26.3-30%

personal tax rates:
US: 0-35% federal 0-10.55% state
UK: 0-50%
Sweden: 28.89-59.09%

payroll taxes(someof this offsets whats not paid in personal tax so it cant really be added as a straight line to the other two):
US: 15.3%
UK: 23.8%
Sweden: 31.42%

and this is all before sales taxes and the like.....
 
  • #38
This is why a tax hike for the wealthy is imparative for the dems. If they don't pass that, then they will have to further inflate the money supply come 2014. Oh, and a tax hike for the wealthy is just the first step. It will not be enough to cover everything.
 
  • #39
Swords, you are absolutely correct, that's why single-payer insurance wasn't even considered in the Senate Bill. The original House Bill did not include a mandate. The Senate Bill did as a concession to the Republicans. Who sponsored the Senate Bill? Senators Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah). The committees that actually write Senate and House Bills are composed of members of both parties. If you don't know that then go back your high school class in US government. At least it was required when I was in high school. And anyone applying for US citizenship has to learn this. So 100% on the Dems?

Swords, if your employers don't get better coverage plans maybe if the Republicans don't get rid of the exchanges you can shift to a better policy in 2014.
 
  • #40
Swords, you are absolutely correct, that's why single-payer insurance wasn't even considered in the Senate Bill. The original House Bill did not include a mandate. The Senate Bill did as a concession to the Republicans. Who sponsored the Senate Bill? Senators Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah). The committees that actually write Senate and House Bills are composed of members of both parties. If you don't know that then go back your high school class in US government. At least it was required when I was in high school. And anyone applying for US citizenship has to learn this. So 100% on the Dems?

Swords, if your employers don't get better coverage plans maybe if the Republicans don't get rid of the exchanges you can shift to a better policy in 2014.

and pay for it out of his taxes instead of out of his check.....notice Sweden doesnt even have a 0% tax bracket for federal taxes....last year over 50% of US residents either paid in nothing or got more than they paid in federal taxes back....that is going to change.....
 
Back
Top