Healthcare reform effects start today

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] The wealthy should pay a higher percentage in but that does not mean everyone else get a free ride at their expense either. That won't benefit the country.

coolbeans90

Automakers shipping jobs over to Canada? We pay at least twice as much as the average of ALL other OECD countries, including us. This effects businesses heavily.

There are other, more significant factors in play. 3.3% profiteering from insurance companies doesn't double the cost.

I wasn't talking about profit, but that contributes to it. (page 7)

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]

It didn't go far enough and it is going to be the government's fault when health care companies ramp up premiums to turn customers against further reform.

coolbeans90

Or when they get pissed off to the point of throwing out those companies.

Funny how that works. The insurance companies now have everyone legally required to buy their stuff.

Yes and I don't like it what-so-ever. Shepard Smith is completely correct here.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

Automakers shipping jobs over to Canada? We pay at least twice as much as the average of ALL other OECD countries, including us. This effects businesses heavily.

Former_Slacker

There are other, more significant factors in play. 3.3% profiteering from insurance companies doesn't double the cost.

I wasn't talking about profit, but that contributes to it. (page 7)

Agreed.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

Or when they get pissed off to the point of throwing out those companies.

Former_Slacker

Funny how that works. The insurance companies now have everyone legally required to buy their stuff.

Yes and I don't like it what-so-ever.

It's an interesting world we live in.

[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So the rich should support others and others have no responsibility for their own life?:?LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Funny how that works. The insurance companies now have everyone legally required to buy their stuff.

coolbeans90

Yes and I don't like it what-so-ever.

It's an interesting world we live in.

That it is.

this isn't so different than the situation of contractors.the more gov requires the higher the bid will be.for instance,at most places showing my license and liability insurance is all i need.however at a local housing authority i have to be bonded and have workmans comp for my employees.there are also alot of other stipulations in dealing with oil paint,spraying,having to wait around for security,etc.there are far less rules even at nursing homes and assisted living.the more the gov requires from insurance companies the higher the cost will be.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="wstfld"] Probably not, but unless we want tent cities and slums like a third world country its what has to happen. wstfld

I have no issue with healthcare reform. Regulation of the insurance business was overdue. I'm just curious to see how certain things will work out. It would have made more sense for the government to simply provide medical services or insurance for all people under the age of 18. That wouldn't be all that expensive as the majority health care dollars are spent by the elderly and generally in the last few years of one's life. Young people are relatively healthy and thus cheaper to insure.

I have no issue with healthcare reform. Regulation of the insurance business was overdue. I'm just curious to see how certain things will work out. It would have made more sense for the government to simply provide medical services or insurance for all people under the age of 18. That wouldn't be all that expensive as the majority health care dollars are spent by the elderly and generally in the last few years of one's life. Young people are relatively healthy and thus cheaper to insure.

sonicare

Or we could create a two tiered system.

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]There's a lot of snark in this thread... as though people are trying bait people. Instead, I'll just say that my belief was that reform needed to happen, such as things like this. What got pushed through Congress goes too far. That is all. An opinion hated by opinionated people and fellow moderators alike! :shock:guynamedbilly

Or we could tweak the current system more to make it resemble Germany or France's.

time to move to canada.

time to move to canada.

TheShadowLord07

Right behind you. Need to escape the socialism! :P

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"][QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]There's a lot of snark in this thread... as though people are trying bait people. Instead, I'll just say that my belief was that reform needed to happen, such as things like this. What got pushed through Congress goes too far. That is all. An opinion hated by opinionated people and fellow moderators alike! :shock:Former_Slacker

Or we could tweak the current system more to make it resemble Germany or France's.

And we have the response. This was so predictable.

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"] I agree that it either goes too far, or not far enough. They pushed the healthcare insurance industry to the edge of a cliff, where it's just starting to topple a little bit, but not enough for it to collapse altogether. This is going to end up hurting everybody until the inevitable collapse of the health insurance and the socialization of healthcare, which won't look so bad comparatively.guynamedbilly

Or we could tweak the current system more to make it resemble Germany or France's.

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"] I agree that it either goes too far, or not far enough. They pushed the healthcare insurance industry to the edge of a cliff, where it's just starting to topple a little bit, but not enough for it to collapse altogether. This is going to end up hurting everybody until the inevitable collapse of the health insurance and the socialization of healthcare, which won't look so bad comparatively.guynamedbilly

Or we could tweak the current system more to make it resemble Germany or France's.

Yes they do that but no, the French consider "waiting in lines" something the British do. What they do is they pay around 80% of everyone's medical bills and the rest of it you pay by yourself. This could be out of pocket, from privately bought insurance or insurance provided through work. But costs in France are cheap so people can afford to pay out of pocket due to regulations and collective bargaining. And yes their system is comprehensive, it provides coverage for everything. There are also slightly more public hospitals than private ones in France. Medical records are also all digitial so any doctor can pull them up as long as you have the state health care (vitale or something like that) card with you. Don't trust Moore so easily, he has an agenda just as much as Fox does (although he wouldn't outright lie to support it imo). Be critical of everything you hear. I also agree with you on the last part. If it were a choice between either a completely private system or a completely public one, I'd side with the public one.

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"][QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

Or we could tweak the current system more to make it resemble Germany or France's.

LJS9502_basic

So the military is horrible eh?

Edit: I do agree with you though. Our government is horribly inefficient compared to the governments of Western Europe. However that doesn't mean government is inherently inefficient. We need campaign finance reform, limited influence of special interests and a multiparty system.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"] I don't know about Germany, but isn't France's completely socialized. Like to the point of providing childcare or a maid if a parent gets sick. I don't think there's anything that could be called a tweak that could change what we have. Feel free to call me an idiot because all I know about France's healthcare is what I saw in Sicko. I would much rather have it completely government controlled than putting me in the hands of insurance companies where I have to comply or break the law.Former_Slacker

So the military is horrible eh?

Edit: I do agree with you though. Our government is horribly inefficient compared to the governments of Western Europe. However that doesn't mean government is inherently inefficient. We need campaign finance reform, limited influence of special interests and a multiparty system.

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"][QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

Or we could tweak the current system more to make it resemble Germany or France's.

LJS9502_basic

The last big change France made to their system was to make it 100% universal for every citizen, they did this by providing government health insurance to the very small amount of the population (less than 1% I'd think) who still couldn't afford it.

Edit: If anything it's us who should be looking to France for a great two tiered system to adopt. It's rated number 1 in the world. It's our system that's unsustainable, our costs are twice as high as France while having much lower accessibility. The system would have bankrupted us if it were not reformed.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"] I don't know about Germany, but isn't France's completely socialized. Like to the point of providing childcare or a maid if a parent gets sick. I don't think there's anything that could be called a tweak that could change what we have. Feel free to call me an idiot because all I know about France's healthcare is what I saw in Sicko. I would much rather have it completely government controlled than putting me in the hands of insurance companies where I have to comply or break the law.Former_Slacker

The last big change France made to their system was to make it 100% universal for every citizen, they did this by providing government health insurance to the very small amount of the population (less than 1% I'd think) who still couldn't afford it.

im surprised with all the disapproval in the first pages of this thread, unless if it was sarcasm

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The government bankrupts every program they run....and FYI I read not long ago France was studying our system to see about making some changes.LJS9502_basic

The last big change France made to their system was to make it 100% universal for every citizen, they did this by providing government health insurance to the very small amount of the population (less than 1% I'd think) who still couldn't afford it.

They still spend far less than we do, I think their system is a bit too generous though.

Edit:"France must make big changes to its health system in order to cut waste and increase efficiency, a government-commissioned report is warning." Interesting although it's from 2004.

Why hasn't the earth collapsed on itself yet?

[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So the rich should support others and others have no responsibility for their own life?:?LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="wstfld"] Probably not, but unless we want tent cities and slums like a third world country its what has to happen. QuetzaIcoatl

I never understood why people think it's unfair to expect the rich and more able of society to help out more than the down trodden.

Lets say you have a 10 pound bag of wheat that must be carried. One of your employees has a broken leg and is about 100 pounds when wet. The other is Hulk Hogan. Would one really consider it best that they both carry equal parts of the load or should Hulk Hogan carry abit more than the handicapped man since Hulk Hogan is far more able bodied and has strength to spare?

I never understood why people think it's unfair to expect the rich and more able of society to help out more than the down trodden.

Lets say you have a 10 pound bag of wheat that must be carried. One of your employees has a broken leg and is about 100 pounds when wet. The other is Hulk Hogan. Would one really consider it best that they both carry equal parts of the load or should Hulk Hogan carry abit more than the handicapped man since Hulk Hogan is far more able bodied and has strength to spare?

Pixel-Pirate

He should be asked. And if he refuses he shouldn't be forced.

I don't understand where people think it's right to force someone to do something against their will.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I never understood why people think it's unfair to expect the rich and more able of society to help out more than the down trodden.

Lets say you have a 10 pound bag of wheat that must be carried. One of your employees has a broken leg and is about 100 pounds when wet. The other is Hulk Hogan. Would one really consider it best that they both carry equal parts of the load or should Hulk Hogan carry abit more than the handicapped man since Hulk Hogan is far more able bodied and has strength to spare?

airshocker

He should be asked. And if he refuses he shouldn't be forced.

I don't understand where people think it's right to force someone to do something against their will.

Lets say you have a 10 pound bag of wheat that must be carried. One of your employees has a broken leg and is about 100 pounds when wet. The other is Hulk Hogan. Would one really consider it best that they both carry equal parts of the load or should Hulk Hogan carry abit more than the handicapped man since Hulk Hogan is far more able bodied and has strength to spare?Pixel-Pirate

He wasn't implying that anyone should be forced to do anything. Just that when they are doing something that the work be given out proportionately to what someone is capable of. QuetzaIcoatl

Yet if he refuses people like Pixel would support forcing him.

▲ Feels good, mad. I am happy. ▲

[QUOTE="QuetzaIcoatl"]He wasn't implying that anyone should be forced to do anything. Just that when they are doing something that the work be given out proportionately to what someone is capable of. airshocker

Yet if he refuses people like Pixel would support forcing him.

Again

"The 400 of us pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent."

"I happen to have a talent for allocating capital. But my ability to use that talent is completely dependent on the society I was born into. If I'd been born into a tribe of hunters, this talent of mine would be pretty worthless. I can't run very fast. I'm not particularly strong. I'd probably end up as some wild animal's dinner."

-Warren Buffett

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="QuetzaIcoatl"]He wasn't implying that anyone should be forced to do anything. Just that when they are doing something that the work be given out proportionately to what someone is capable of. Former_Slacker

Yet if he refuses people like Pixel would support forcing him.

Again

"The 400 of us pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent."

"I happen to have a talent for allocating capital. But my ability to use that talent is completely dependent on the society I was born into. If I'd been born into a tribe of hunters, this talent of mine would be pretty worthless. I can't run very fast. I'm not particularly strong. I'd probably end up as some wild animal's dinner."

-Warren Buffett

Again

"The 400 of us pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent."

"I happen to have a talent for allocating capital. But my ability to use that talent is completely dependent on the society I was born into. If I'd been born into a tribe of hunters, this talent of mine would be pretty worthless. I can't run very fast. I'm not particularly strong. I'd probably end up as some wild animal's dinner."

-Warren Buffett

Former_Slacker

At the first quote: That doesn't mean they have an obligation to us.

At the second: Why do I care what talent Warren Buffet has? If you have a talent that's worthless, you should probably find something that can help you survive. The rest of us do it.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I never understood why people think it's unfair to expect the rich and more able of society to help out more than the down trodden.

Lets say you have a 10 pound bag of wheat that must be carried. One of your employees has a broken leg and is about 100 pounds when wet. The other is Hulk Hogan. Would one really consider it best that they both carry equal parts of the load or should Hulk Hogan carry abit more than the handicapped man since Hulk Hogan is far more able bodied and has strength to spare?

airshocker

He should be asked. And if he refuses he shouldn't be forced.

I don't understand where people think it's right to force someone to do something against their will.

So if someone does not wish to pay taxes they should not have to?

Do I need to explain why this doesn't work in modern society?

So if someone does not wish to pay taxes they should not have to?

Do I need to explain why this doesn't work in modern society?

Pixel-Pirate

I think we've had this discussion enough times that you know what I mean.

In case you don't, everyone should pay taxes for the basic things we all benefit from. But to force people who are better off to give more is unjust. That's why we have charity, and why the government doesn't need to be involved in every facet of our lives.

I'm afraid I don't see how it is remotely unjust. Much as I do not find it unjust to have ones stronger employee take up the task of heavy lifting instead of the pregnant employee.

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

Again

"The 400 of us pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent."

"I happen to have a talent for allocating capital. But my ability to use that talent is completely dependent on the society I was born into. If I'd been born into a tribe of hunters, this talent of mine would be pretty worthless. I can't run very fast. I'm not particularly strong. I'd probably end up as some wild animal's dinner."

-Warren Buffett

airshocker

At the first quote: That doesn't mean they have an obligation to us.

At the second: Why do I care what talent Warren Buffet has? If you have a talent that's worthless, you should probably find something that can help you survive. The rest of us do it.

Yes, they are. They wouldn't be where they are without society's help and they owe it to "the other 99 per cent."

I think we've had this discussion enough times that you know what I mean.

In case you don't, everyone should pay taxes for the basic things we all benefit from. But to force people who are better off to give more is unjust. That's why we have charity, and why the government doesn't need to be involved in every facet of our lives.

airshocker

It seems to me that there are multiple levels of equality one could achieve in terms of taxation. The most basic level is having everyone pay the same amount. $500 of taxes from everyone. Boom. Done. The level above that is having everyone pay the same proportion of their income. 20% of taxes from everyone. Boom. Done.

And then there's progressive taxation - taxing higher levels of income at a higher rate - which at face value would seem not to establish any equality, but I would actually argue that it does. The first type of taxation makes everyone taxed the same amount - but obviously some people have more than others, so the amount of money they have left over might be different. The second type of taxation makes everyone taxed the same percentage - but then you run into the problem that for those who make more money, the percentage of their income that goes to basic necessities, and thus not to luxuries, is a higher percentage of their income - so flat taxes still results in those who make more having more money left over for luxuries.

Thus, I feel that progressive taxation does establish equality in taxation in that, with properly calibrated tax brackets, it can actually make equal the tax burden that everyone tangibly feels.

(Also, I should note that what Pixel-Pirate said was a rock-solid point against what you said. You said that people shouldn't be forced to do something against their will, yet you then agreed that people can be forced to pay taxes against their will.)

Yes, they are. They wouldn't be where they are without society's help and they owe it to "the other 99 per cent."

Former_Slacker

I don't agree with this. Sorry. :|

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

So if someone does not wish to pay taxes they should not have to?

Do I need to explain why this doesn't work in modern society?

airshocker

I think we've had this discussion enough times that you know what I mean.

In case you don't, everyone should pay taxes for the basic things we all benefit from. But to force people who are better off to give more is unjust. That's why we have charity, and why the government doesn't need to be involved in every facet of our lives.

I wonder which will occur first: Democrats improving the changes further or Republicans repealing the system...mattbbpl

Something like half of the people who disapprove of the health care reform that was passed disapprove because they felt the law didn't go far enough. No way it's getting repealed.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]I wonder which will occur first: Democrats improving the changes further or Republicans repealing the system...GabuEx

Something like half of the people who disapprove of the health care reform that was passed disapprove because they felt the law didn't go far enough. No way it's getting repealed.

It's not Universal Healthcare, but it's a start.