Obama's health plans

[Jason]

According to the IRS, the top 10% of wage earners pay something like 70% of all taxes collected. The bottom doesn't pay anything at all. How is THAT fair??

Once Obamacare is implemented (which will be in 4 years), how much should the "rich" have to pay?!?

[Rapscallion]

Once Obamacare is implemented (which will be in 4 years), how much should the "rich" have to pay?!?

They don't have to pay anything. Seriously!

Of course, many of their fellow citizens would die of preventable diseases and injuries, simply because pretty much all the money in the economy is in the pockets of "We the people who can afford treatment," instead of "We the people."

Most of the genuinely rich get there by not paying other people much (I'm sure there are exceptions, but not many), or not actualy working in the case of inherited and invested money.

Rapscallion

[Darrien]

I absolutely abhor the idea of taxing someone more because they make more money. If people want equality, it doesn't mean give to yourself by taking from someone else. That's not equality.

Let's take an example

Tansai is a small business owner. They employee 2 other people other than themself. (We're going to use simple numbers.) Tansai's business grosses $500,000 a year. The government charges Tansai 30% a year to make $500,000. So after taxes, Tansai has $350,000 a year for business expenses. Tansai is failry generous and pays their employees $50,000 a year. So, there goes $100,000 right there. After all other business expenses, Tansai can pay themself $200,000 a year.

It's a recession, and the government is spending money to stimulate the economy. But due to the recession, Tansai's business is down 10%. So now the business grosses $450,000. Tansai is still in that 30% bracket. $315,000 left for expenses. Well, they still have to pay for their employees. So, we're down to $215,000 So Tansai can only pay themself $175,000 a year. Taking a $25,000 cut in pay.

What happens in the government goes, "let's take 35%" due to us having to spend money to stimulate the economy? $292,000 - 100,000 (employees) - $50,000 for other business expenses - Tansai now makes $142,000 a year. The two employees are going to stay at $50,000. No raise.

More than half of America works for a small business. More than half of America won't get a raise and cost of living is going up. We've effectively made the middle class poorer by taxing the "rich".

I am sorry but how can someone whine about making only 175k a year when a lot of people barely pay their bills?

[Tanasi]

Alrighty, I make $12.5 K a year and work for a state-sponsored University, so, technically, I am an employee of the state. I choose to make this little money because it's part of my education and training to, hopefully, one day graduate and get a full-time, tenure track faculty position. Although, frankly, those are getting extremely difficult to find, since our education system is under-funded and universities are turning tenure-track positions into adjunct/lecturer positions, paying 1/4 as much with no benefits, and lowering the quality of a college degree in America. *ahem*

So, what y'all are saying is that I should pay as much taxes as Sam Walton's kids? I got two words for you: Fuck That. They have more, they contribute more. To me, $250,000 is rich. I could live a damn good life on that amount of money. I could live a damn good life on $60,000. So you'll excuse me if I don't shed tears over you paying more in taxes, when I'm taking out student loans to pay my rent.

A Universal Health plan would be a godsend for those of us on the lower rungs. I'm lucky in that I can go to the Student Health Center...most of the time. (They've now asked that we limit visits for non-emergency things due to the whole swine flu thing). However, I have a screwed up ankle because I twisted it during a time when I wasn't in school. I had insurance, but I couldn't afford the ER fee to go have it looked at.

I want to do something better for myself. I work my ass off taking classes and teaching classes. (Actually, the exploitation of student labor by universities is a very hot topic in acadaemia right now.) Maybe there are some who don't want to improve themselves. But why punish me because of them?

I've been where you are and when I was there I did without. If I got sick or hurt I prayed I could cure myself via the OTC or the crappy clinic that was available to students. I would rather die before subjecting myself to the VA system. But all that being said, you're in the position that you've put yourself in. I'm for helping people that are helping themselves but I won't like being made to do so at the point of a gun. So forgive me if I complain a little besides what gives you the right to make demands of me??? I didn't take you to raise and assuming that you're an adult then it's your position to take care of yourself.

In the eyes of many conservatives (and by "conservative," I mean the Republican, Rush Limbaugh-listening-to, Ann Coulter-reading, crowd), people like you and me who are currently working our butts off trying to develop our careers and make better lives for ourselves while getting by on tight budgets are simply lazy, worthless leeches on society.

Of course, that isn't true, but it's pretty plain to me that that's how most of them see society.

I don't think you or AA or lazy or worthless leeches, I'm taking your word that you're working to better yourselfs and I have no problem with that. But as I asked AA what gives you the right to make demands upon me I'm not your daddy and I didn't take you to raise???
BTW, I do sometimes listen to Rush and I do read Ann's weekly column. I don't necessarily believe or agree with all they say but I do more often than not. I can and do think for myself. Some do think the way that you've stated but the majority don't because they've been where you are. Most wouldn't mind helping, but it's to the point to where some are thinking it's not worth working anymore, the more I work the more they take. They give to those that don't deserve with one hand and take more out of my pocket with the other. I know business people that have taken themselves out of the market because it's just too expensive to be in business.

They don't have to pay anything. Seriously!

Of course, many of their fellow citizens would die of preventable diseases and injuries, simply because pretty much all the money in the economy is in the pockets of "We the people who can afford treatment," instead of "We the people."

Most of the genuinely rich get there by not paying other people much (I'm sure there are exceptions, but not many), or not actualy working in the case of inherited and invested money.

Rapscallion

I don't about your AO but here if you don't like the working conditions you're free to try out the working conditions elsewhere. I seriously hope you were kidding in regards to your last paragraph.
Wages just like product prices in general are based up the current market. Right now jobs are scarace if I need farm hands or car washers I can obtain them fairly easily and inexpensivily, two years ago I had a hard time finding people to work and those I did find that were worth having I had to pay well to keep them. Why did I do this? Because that's business and you have pay for what you need at the prices that are available. A lot of folks either don't know, don't care or just plain stupid to the idea that when you work in the private sector your primary job is to make more money for the owners than you cost, if you can't do that then your services are no longer required.
You have direct knowledge of business and business management, you know you have to tightly control your variable costs because otherwise you'll be outside looking in at what was.

I am sorry but how can someone whine about making only 175k a year when a lot of people barely pay their bills?

Get back to me when you're putting in 90+ hours a week and only the pay from 40 is going into your pocket.

[DesignFox]

Get back to me when you're putting in 90+ hours a week and only the pay from 40 is going into your pocket.

If you worked 365 days a year, $175k works out to $479 dollars a day...

If I worked 365 days a year on my hourly, I wouldn't even break $30k.

Of course, this is entirely over simplified, as peons like me are eligible for overtime, etc. Not that our bosses would let us work that much OT...anyway.

Just sayin.' I could work just as hard at my job as you do at yours and still wouldn't get paid the same. Because my skill set is different and less valuable than someone else's, I guess I'm less of a person though.

I don't work hard at all. Ever. Nope. Never need vacation time because my job is just all roses and peaches 100% of the time.

I happen to know people who work their asses off and make a ton of money AND who work their asses off but live hand to mouth. In some cases, how hard you work has nothing to do with how much you are paid.

I don't think that everyone who is "wealthy" should have to pay for everyone else.

But I think we need a better system than "fuck you if your employer won't provide you with health care."

It saddens me to think that there are people dying or out of work simply because they can't afford to get themselves patched up or prevent a simple complication from turning deadly because going to the doctor costs too much.

As it is, the only people really suffering are the middle class. People who "can" pay eventually, and so get billed out the ass or go bankrupt trying.

People who have $0 get sent to the ER for free and we have to pay for them anyway. Since, legally, a hospital can't deny you emergency treatment based on your ability to pay. (when I was only working part time one of my less fortunate friends informed me of this and told me not to panic in the event I got hurt...which I panicked every day until I got insurance...)

ANYWAY. somehow, it makes more sense to me for health care to become affordable for EVERYBODY. If we treat all the little problems and prevent them from becoming big problems, we've got less expensive problems to fix. If everyone is covered, we don't have a situation where the few who can afford it, are paying for everyone else who can't.

I don't have any answers. I just know the system is broken. My SO explained to me that the reason our healthcare is motivated so heavily by money is because our country is doing all the leading medical research for the rest of the world. Since everyone else has socialized medicine, they can't afford to spare money for research. *sigh*

I don't know. I just don't. I just think if everyone were healthier we'd have a more productive workforce- less people out of work due to illness- and that would lead to better everything for everyone.

I babble.

[BroomJockey]

My SO explained to me that the reason our healthcare is motivated so heavily by money is because our country is doing all the leading medical research for the rest of the world. Since everyone else has socialized medicine, they can't afford to spare money for research. *sigh*

No offence, but your SO is talking out his ass.

The University of Alberta Hospital just opened the Mazancowski Alberta Heart Institute. Its purpose? To continue Alberta's leading-edge research in areas of cardiovascular health. Not start, not improve to the standard of. To continue the tradition of.

http://www.capitalhealth.ca/Hospital...te/default.htm

So, the US is hardly doing "all" the leading research.

[Rapscallion]

I don't think you or AA or lazy or worthless leeches, I'm taking your word that you're working to better yourselfs and I have no problem with that. But as I asked AA what gives you the right to make demands upon me I'm not your daddy and I didn't take you to raise???

Enlightened self interest perhaps?

People banding together help each other. At the moment, you'd only have to help out a little - my example in the other thread suggests your financial contribution would possibly be quite a bit less than it is now. When you're in trouble, everyone else's help would be a little to them, but a lot to you.

They give to those that don't deserve with one hand and take more out of my pocket with the other.

This isn't an ironic reference to the US private healthcare system, is it?

Oh, it wasn't. Just seemed very similar in some respects. You know, taking large amounts of money and giving it to executives...

I don't about your AO but here if you don't like the working conditions you're free to try out the working conditions elsewhere. I seriously hope you were kidding in regards to your last paragraph.

Not sure about the term AO, but if you mean where I work I'm sitting fairly pretty, all done and said. If you're talking about my country, all done and said it's doing fairly well.

Kidding? No, no I wasn't. The vast majority of people who make a large amount of money in my experience are the people who pay others quite a bit less to do the work for them.

Wages just like product prices in general are based up the current market. Right now jobs are scarace if I need farm hands or car washers I can obtain them fairly easily and inexpensivily,

My point above looks down with interest.

Rapscallion

[DesignFox]

I forget not to be so literal over here.

I should have said "a lot" not "all."

But research costs buttloads of money and new drugs and treatments require years of development. Where on earth would we get enough money to cover all the people, pay for all the tools, pay for all the drugs and pay for all the research?

Our government certainly can't sustain all of that combined. And judging by the attitudes of some of the "haves" they don't want to drop any more than they have to to help their fellow man. So I doubt they are the ones who want to fund all that expensive research out of their own pockets out of the goodness of their hearts. (unless someone rich comes down with cancer, I suppose)

It seems to me that the only people interested in some kind of universal system (whether or not the current administration's plan is the way to go or not) are people who can't afford or can barely afford healthcare or feel lucky to have just recently obtained healthcare. Or already have some kind of government assistance, but don't want to see anyone else benefit from it... Everyone else seems to be saying, screw it, I'm covered, it's fine the way it is.

There has got to be some kind of happy medium. Somewhere.

Also, I feel a need to mention that anyone else I've ever talked to who fears universal health care seems to think that quality of care, progress in terms of medical techniques and treatments would be lowered. Either due to less money floating around or because of a heavier burden on the system or both. OR because they think their taxes are going to skyrocket.

This is why I have no idea what to believe. I just don't see how so many other countries can manage to have healthy populations and we can't.

[BroomJockey]

I forget not to be so literal over here.

I should have said "a lot" not "all."

But research costs buttloads of money and new drugs and treatments require years of development. Where on earth would we get enough money to cover all the people, pay for all the tools, pay for all the drugs and pay for all the research?

Our government certainly can't sustain all of that combined.

Same way my province does. Research is handled by either private institutions, who are fronting the money on the idea that they'll come across a product they can licence out and make money on, or by public researchers at who get government grants, or private donations from companies with vested interests in improvements in a researcher's field of study. Why should health care provision be linked in any way, shape, or form to research and how it's handled? You're linking things that shouldn't be. My health care provider shouldn't directly be using my broken leg to subsidize their research in to cholesterol medication. In fact, my health care provider shouldn't be directly involved in research at all. That's a wee bit of a conflict there, I'd say. Pressuring a patient to accept a treatment based on what's best for the insurer is a situation I'm sure comes up relatively often. And by that, I mean "I'm not allowing you to be prescribed the generic because I have stock in the company that made the name brand," and "I won't cover that normal procedure, but I'll cover that nice experimental thing since you fit the case-criteria oh so well." A pharmaceutical shouldn't be providing insurance, and Insurance companies shouldn't be backing pharmaceuticals.

[Fashion Lad!]

You know what I absolutely love about National Health Care in other countries? This is in all seriousness.

When their leaders get sick, they come to the Mayo Clinic and dump a whole lot of money into our economy. Why do they do that? I think you know why...

We can fix the current system without introducing a whole different system. Why not try and fix what's broken before going into something completely new? It'd cost money to get the new system to par.

Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. This is an instance were less regulation may be a good thing. If they could compete against state lines like auto-insurance companies do, that would be more competition. And people could pick and choose better and or cheaper providers.

I don't like the idea of throwing money into a black hole. I kind of like to keep money in people's hands were it does the most good.

[Rapscallion]

You know what I absolutely love about National Health Care in other countries? This is in all seriousness.

When their leaders get sick, they come to the Mayo Clinic and dump a whole lot of money into our economy. Why do they do that? I think you know why...

Depends on the country. Third-world countries will have pretty poor healthcare in comparison to that in the US. We've got a fairly decent private sector over here - a two-tier system as it's often called, but private healthcare does have a place in our system.

We can fix the current system without introducing a whole different system. Why not try and fix what's broken before going into something completely new? It'd cost money to get the new system to par.

Our version saves me money. Overall, the healthier your population is, and the more money in their pockets, the healthier your economy is - bit of a general guideline.

Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. This is an instance were less regulation may be a good thing. If they could compete against state lines like auto-insurance companies do, that would be more competition. And people could pick and choose better and or cheaper providers.

Interesting. I had no idea that there were such restrictions. Could be an improvement, I suppose. I'd have to look closer at the restrictions before making any real judgement, though.

I don't like the idea of throwing money into a black hole.

Such as the pockets of the rich?

I kind of like to keep money in people's hands were it does the most good.

I - as a non-rich person - retain far more of my income under national healthcare than I would under the US system. It's odd how those opposed to Obama's proposed reforms are ignoring that point. I've shown you my pay packet, show me yours. Prove I'm wrong.

That's what I don't understand. I'm assuming that the average person opposing this change isn't what we would define as 'rich'. Everything I can see says that if the system was set up correctly, the average person would pay less. Why are you against a system that would financially benefit you?

Rapscallion

[DesignFox]

Broom, in the US, big pharma advertises its products on TV. Not just to doctors. Doctors often have samples of products in their offices, advertisements or merchandise of said products, and sometimes, TVs with ads running for treatments and products.

If there's a pill or procedure to push, it's pushed.

I see your point, though. And I think I'm more confused, now.

Maybe no one really wants us to be healthy, 'cause then there would be less pills and procedures to try to sell us on? That we can't afford anyway...so keeps us in debt...so that...I dunno.

I'm going to go back to lurking since I (obviously) have no clue.

[tropicsgoddess]

My big concern is what it's going to lead to. Already the GoP pundits, who are the source of a lot of the misinformation, have been promoting hostile resistance to the current administration. Lately they have been encouraging people to carry loaded weapons to the town hall meetings to preserve their second amendment rights (which the pundits have been declaring that Obama is going to destroy it completely).

People like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter DARE to call themselves pundits?! HAH! Real political pundits are guys like the late great Tim Russert and George Stephanoploulis.

[lordlundar]

People like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter DARE to call themselves pundits?!

Naw, that's what they're called by other people. They call themselves journalists to make themselves sound respectable.

[joe hx]

Such as the pockets of the rich?

Are these mythological pockets of the rich like Scrooge McDuck's tower full of gold coins? Or do they invest their in the companies they own, or put said money in bank accounts so that said banks can give out car loans, home mortgages, school loans, and so on? What about any money they donate that's not to the government? I'd really like to know what they do with their money.

I guess "off shore bank accounts" could equal "Scrooge McDuck's Tower" or "pockets of the rich."