65
   

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

 
 
Yankee
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 02:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Again, if it passes probate, it saves on having to pay taxes on the assets.


That is your prior incorrect statement. Apparently you are too stupid to understand tax law and tax planning.

Now I can fully understand why you support a Govt Health Care and Financial Planning bill. You are too dumb to do it for yourself and the people you paid took you for a ride.

Quote:
Yes, our trust owns the assets, but that's the reason they are protected.


The only protection your assets get from living trust if avoiding the cost of probate. PERIOD.

They are NOT protected from creditors nor from Estate Taxation.

Again, where can I send my bill for services??

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 02:14 pm
@Yankee,
A Trust Can Mean No Probate

When assets pass via a trust, probate is unnecessary. Your heirs save both the time and the money associated with those potential legal proceedings. Furthermore, probate is a public event. Nearly anyone can come into the courtroom and observe the discussion. A trust, on the other hand, is a private affair.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 02:37 pm
The Blue Dogs done good (from Reuters):

Quote:

House Democrats reach healthcare deal


Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus arrives for a meeting of the committee with Secretary-designate for Health and Human Services Tom Reuters " Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus on Capitol Hill, February 2, 2009. REUTERS/Joshua …
2 hrs 26 mins ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) " Democratic leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives reached a deal on Wednesday with a group of fiscal conservatives in their own party on healthcare legislation in a significant step forward for the bill.

Representative Mike Ross, who leads the so-called "Blue Dog" conservative coalition, said members of the group who are on the House Energy and Commerce Committee reached a deal with leadership after days of long negotiations.

Ross told reporters that under the agreement, a healthcare bill would be moved to the committee on Wednesday but the full House would not take the issue up until September after it returns from its month-long break.

The Blue Dog coalition had put the brakes on consideration of the legislation while it negotiated about a dozen issues aimed at reining in healthcare costs.
0 Replies
 
Yankee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 06:17 am
@cicerone imposter,
You learned very well from me.

Good job.

I am proud of my new student.
0 Replies
 
Yankee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 07:12 am
Because of President Obama's frantic approach, health care has run off the rails. For the sake of 47 million uninsured Americans, we need to get it back on track.

(Now insured: Francisco Diaz of Boston consults with nurse practitioner Anna Hackett Peterson./Josh T. Reynolds for USA TODAY; Mitt Romney./AP)

Health care cannot be handled the same way as the stimulus and cap-and-trade bills. With those, the president stuck to the old style of lawmaking: He threw in every special favor imaginable, ground it up and crammed it through a partisan Democratic Congress. Health care is simply too important to the economy, to employment and to America's families to be larded up and rushed through on an artificial deadline. There's a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it.

No other state has made as much progress in covering their uninsured as Massachusetts. The bill that made it happen wasn't a rush job. Shortly after becoming governor, I worked in a bipartisan fashion with Democrats to insure all our citizens. It took almost two years to find a solution. When we did, it passed the 200-member legislature with only two dissenting votes. It had the support of the business community, the hospital sector and insurers. For health care reform to succeed in Washington, the president must finally do what he promised during the campaign: Work with Republicans as well as Democrats.

Massachusetts also proved that you don't need government insurance. Our citizens purchase private, free-market medical insurance. There is no "public option." With more than 1,300 health insurance companies, a federal government insurance company isn't necessary. It would inevitably lead to massive taxpayer subsidies, to lobbyist-inspired coverage mandates and to the liberals' dream: a European-style single-payer system. To find common ground with skeptical Republicans and conservative Democrats, the president will have to jettison left-wing ideology for practicality and dump the public option.

The cost issue

Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one " something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.

When our bill passed three years ago, the legislature projected that our program would cost $725 million in 2009. At $723 million, next year's forecast is pretty much on target. When you calculate all the savings, including that from the free hospital care we eliminated, the net cost to the state is approximately $350 million. The watchdog Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation concluded that our program's cost is "relatively modest" and "well within initial projections."

And if subsidies and coverages are reined in, as I've suggested, the Massachusetts program could actually break even. One thing is certain: The president must insist on a program that doesn't add to our spending burden. We simply cannot afford another trillion-dollar mistake.

The Massachusetts reform aimed at getting virtually all our citizens insured. In that, it worked: 98% of our citizens are insured, 440,000 previously uninsured are covered and almost half of those purchased insurance on their own, with no subsidy. But overall, health care inflation has continued its relentless rise. Here is where the federal government can do something we could not: Take steps to stop or slow medical inflation.

At the core of our health cost problem is an incentive problem. Patients don't care what treatments cost once they pass the deductible. And providers are paid more when they do more; they are paid for quantity, not quality. We will tame runaway costs only when we change incentives. We might do what some countries have done: Require patients to pay a portion of their bill, except for certain conditions. And providers could be paid an annual fixed fee for the primary care of an individual and a separate fixed fee for the treatment of a specific condition. These approaches have far more promise than the usual bromides of electronic medical records, transparency and pay-for-performance, helpful though they will be.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/07/mr-president-whats-the-rush.html

Why is this model not being discussed as a possible option?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 08:08 am
@Yankee,
I would have thought that one of the reasons is that there are 49 other states which are likely to be operating in different conditions, possibly dramatically different, from those in Massachusetts. A state of a mere 6.4 million people, mostly urbanised, ranking third among U.S. states in GDP per capita is obviously a special case I should think. The median income is of the order of $10,000 more than the US generally, the white population is nearly 90% and of mainly European extraction and the economy is heavily loaded towards science and technology.

And the President needs to find a consensus between all states to get to a federal system.


Also, there may be advantages, possibly not always apparent on a superficial view, to a European-style single-payer system. The one we have in England is as popular as is sliced bread and cheap beer. Life can be judged in the round by a sophisticated electorate. Single issues are a bit dangerous when thought about in isolation.

There is a long term drift in the direction of the "liberal dream" whether we conservatives like it or not. The conservative of today is well to the left of where the left was 100 years ago. The conservative of those times was content to see workhouses in operation, divorce to be banned, homosexuality in men subject to severe punishment, abortionists also and much more besides in the general "cannon fodder" line.

Massive taxpayer subsidies, lobbyist-inspired coverage mandates and the liberals' dream are vote winners actually. The NHS has already been "ring-fenced" from the coming cuts by all the main parties.

Beware too of making your state too attractive. You might get an influx of "free riders".
Yankee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 08:32 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one " something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.


The highlighted points could be something the Feds might want to consider.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 08:46 am
@Yankee,
Yes, but we have seen a great deal of argument on here about the small print of these insurance policies. I presume they are written by profit oriented private companies.

We find it relaxing to know that if we fall over off we go into the hands our lives are in for first rate treatment with no questions asked and no invoices coming because their is no fine print. No life-long anxieties I mean. No "what ifs". A hobo will be treated like anyone else except they might provide him with fresh clothes when he's cured. Are hobos covered in your state?

Quote:
The Parable of the Good Samaritan is a New Testament parable appearing only in the Gospel of Luke. The majority view indicates this parable is told by Jesus in order to illustrate that human kindness and fellow feeling must be available to all, and that fulfilling the spirit of the Law is just as important as fulfilling the letter of the Law. Jesus puts the definition of neighbor into an enlarged context, beyond what people usually thought of as a neighbor.


I think removing anxiety is an important matter as anxiety is a cause of many other problems.
Yankee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 08:56 am
@spendius,
Well, I am not against a Private Company making a profit. Yet, to satisfy some on the left, the idea of a CO-OP has been discussed. By shifting some Fed dollars to a CO-OP (which would be a not for profit) type arrangement, that concept might just help solve the problem with the uninsured in way the State of Mass has done it.

I do not think anyone of the 90% of taxpayers who have good coverage and want to keep it wants a "MEDICARE" type public option as is being discussed.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 08:59 am
@Yankee,
Yankee, Please show us where you get "90% of taxpayers who have good coverage?" You also ignore the simple fact that private insurance premiums are increasing much faster than wages and inflattion rate. How long do you think these people - including company coverage - will last?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 09:10 am
@Yankee,
Quote:
Well, I am not against a Private Company making a profit.


Aw, come on Gov. That's a bit disingenuous.

Health is not the same as any other product.

You seem to be avoiding my main points.
Yankee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 09:17 am
@cicerone imposter,
According to this, 84.6%

http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/09/how-many-uninsured-people-need-additional-help-from-taxpayers/
Yankee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 09:18 am
@spendius,
Why is it "disingenuous"?

An insurance company should not make a profit?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 10:25 am
@Yankee,
Yankee, The only ones who believe the Hennessey report are those like you who wants to believe the uninsureds are actually smaller.

There are those of us who believes the numbers presented by the government, the 47-million, is an under count. .

Hennessey makes a whole lot of assumptions to argue his points such as "there are 250 million who has insurance and that should be a good thing." He doesn't tell us that out of those 250 million, millions are losing their insurance and increasing every day, and many who has insurance has "inadequate" insurance. Everything else that follows assumes from the wrong premise, and cannot be credible.

He never approaches the simple fact that premiums are increasing faster than wages or the inflation rate. How do you think that will affect those that do have insurance? Nothing? Get real!

Yankee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 10:34 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
The only ones who believe the Hennessey report are those like you who wants to believe the uninsureds are actually smaller.


If you have facts that dispute his accounting, feel free to post.

Otherwise, you sound as foolish as you did regarding trusts.

You get real.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 10:38 am
@Yankee,
Yankee, As our economy continues to tank, factories and businesses close, and more become uninsured. What other facts do you need? Premiums are increasing faster than wages or the inflation rate, and many more will not be able to afford what insurance they have - not only private individuals by many businesses. What more facts do you need?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 10:42 am
@cicerone imposter,
Foreclosure rates are increasing as unemployment increases. If people can't afford to pay their mortgages, where will they get the money to purchase health insurance?

Quote:
Realtytrac: Job losses now drive foreclosure rates

July 30, 2009

The nation's growing foreclosure rates may now be caused more by unemployment rather than subprime mortgages, according to a news release from realtytrac.com.


Realtytrac believes the shift is occurring for two reasons:

# Some states previously experiencing high foreclosure rates have seen those rates decrease.

# Some states with previously low levels of foreclosures are seeing an increase.

"As unemployment rates increase in different parts of the country," wrote James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer of Realtytrac in a news release, "it's very likely that we'll see similar patterns develop elsewhere."
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 10:45 am
@cicerone imposter,
On health insurance premium increases:
Quote:
Health Insurance Costs

This document is also available as a printable .pdf file.
Health Insurance Costs

Facts on the Cost of Health Insurance and Health Care

Introduction

By several measures, health care spending continues to rise at a rapid rate and forcing businesses and families to cut back on operations and household expenses respectively.

In 2008, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent -- two times the rate of inflation.1 Total spending was $2.4 TRILLION in 2007, or $7900 per person1. Total health care spending represented 17 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.3 TRILLION in 2017, or 20 percent of GDP.1

In 2008, employer health insurance premiums increased by 5.0 percent " two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,700. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,700.2

Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems significantly increase the cost of medical care and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families.

National Health Care Spending

* In 2008, health care spending in the United States reached $2.4 trillion, and was projected to reach $3.1 trillion in 2012.1 Health care spending is projected to reach $4.3 trillion by 2016.1
* Health care spending is 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense.3
* In 2008, the United States will spend 17 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent by 2017.1
* Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.3
* Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.4


Employer and Employee Health Insurance Costs

* Premiums for employer-based health insurance rose by 5.0 percent in 2008. In 2007, small employers saw their premiums, on average, increase 5.5 percent. Firms with less than 24 workers, experienced an increase of 6.8 percent.2
* The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a health plan covering a family of four averaged $12,700 in 2008. Workers contributed nearly $3,400, or 12 percent more than they did in 2007.2 The annual premiums for family coverage significantly eclipsed the gross earnings for a full-time, minimum-wage worker ($10,712).
* Workers are now paying $1,600 more in premiums annually for family coverage than they did in 1999.2
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 11:03 am
@Yankee,
Well Gov. I explained. Health is more than a usual product or service. It's a special case. In fact a very special case.

Of course an insurance company must make a profit. That's not the point. There is, for example, no genetic prediction involved in house fires. There is in health issues.

A known cause of retinal detachment, to take an easy illustration, is having had one previously. So a profit seeking insurance company has to increase the premium for anyone who it has already paid for to have one. It might load premiums for smokers or drinkers or pot holers etc etc etc.

With all this genome stuff going off is an insurance company allowed to see the info of an applicant? It is a fiendishly complex matter. With a universal system there is a saving to be made in cutting all that out.

There are no easy solutions. The NHS came in here when these arguments became so confused and complex that the Minister of Health ended up shouting "Just ******* do it". Aneurin Bevin was his name and he believed in it. And they did it and we are all very grateful despite all the difficulties.

I don't supposes physicians are prepared to work for the same wages soldiers and miners do.
Yankee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 11:20 am
@cicerone imposter,
Hyperbole! Talk about using the scare tactic!!!

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 01/20/2021 at 11:58:05