Health Insurance Discussion

[JRScott]

While a "fair tax" seems to make sense on paper, I don't know that it works out in reality. Just because wealthier folks have more money, doesn't mean they spend it. They invest the excess. (which is good as that is how companies get started). Everybody up to a certain point of income is buying things just keep a roof over their head, food on the table etc. After you hit a certain point you have more than enough to meet your basic needs. I guessing the thinking is they'll use that extra money to buy jet skis, boats, jewelry etc.

Here is the scenario I that sort of makes me think it wouldn't work like it sounds. Now if I have a new product that people are interested in. If as was stated the current system, the bottom 50% of taxpayers that pay 2% tax now will pay the across the board 6% under the flat tax, they lost 4% of their income to taxes and now don't have the discresionary income to purchase said product. Weathlier folks only need 1 of this product so they just put their extra $ in the bank. That means you lost say 50% of your sales.

So it actually would cause fewer things to be bought and hurt the overall economy.

Actually my numbers included that, see the majority of the money under the flat 6% on everything I suggested would come from stock sales not from sales in stores. 1/10 of 1% is suppose to generate a minimum of 100billion in todays economy. So if you made it 6% then that's 6 trillion right there. Currently stocks as capital gains are not taxed in this manner. My 6-7 trillion was actually probably a low estimate, I don't think you'd see much loss in stock trade and I think you would see increased investment in infrastructure and industry in the nation.

You would need to redo the trade treaties along with it, slap a 15% tariff on all imports and you pretty much create since there is no corporate tax and no personal tax an incentive to build it in the United States rather than out of it. Within 5 years you'd probably have every employable person in the United States employed (Some folks won't get a job no matter what....probably less than 5% of the population).

Let's say you make 1000 USD on a Paycheck and you have after taxes 750 dollars at current rates. Now under this system you would get the 1000 USD not the 750. If you spent all of that on goods and services...you'd spend 943.39 USD on goods and services and 56.61 USD on taxes. So how exactly would you have less to spend?

Even on the low end you would get more than you get now unless you have so many children no taxes were being taken out of your check. You would however lose the EIC on income tax since there is no income tax....thus there are no longer those 8k income tax returns. I've seen folks on this, they eat better than I do, while sitting on their buts doing nothing. They might for heaven sakes actually have to get off their butts and get a job and an education. However keep in mind it is possibly twice the current proposed budget, if you spent 4 years using the excess to pay off the entire national debt you could then spend that money on other programs.

Personally I'd like to see a lot of it invested in space travel, I think the answer to global warming might be we need another planet as the planet prior to the last ice age was much hotter than it is today and it could be returning to its historical average....and there is little we could do to stop it. However you could cover everyone in a medicare like program as well but that would pretty much eat up all of it.

[IBroke]

Another question is:

If yoy HAVE health-insurance, are you ACTUALLY INSURED???
What's an insurance worth that collects premiums but still can decide on its own to what degree they pay for your treatment, how long or if they pay at all?

If I pay for an insurance, I want to be INSURED!!

That's where the government is supposed to step in and define basic coverage rules.

[JRScott]

Another question is:

If yoy HAVE health-insurance, are you ACTUALLY INSURED???
What's an insurance worth that collects premiums but still can decide on its own to what degree they pay for your treatment, how long or if they pay at all?

If I pay for an insurance, I want to be INSURED!!

That's where the government is supposed to step in and define basic coverage rules.

Well I agree that reform needs to be done in this area.

Insurance companies need to have regulation so that they cannot drop you if you get sick like many do today.

[OhioFiler]

Another question is:

If yoy HAVE health-insurance, are you ACTUALLY INSURED???
What's an insurance worth that collects premiums but still can decide on its own to what degree they pay for your treatment, how long or if they pay at all?

If I pay for an insurance, I want to be INSURED!!

That's where the government is supposed to step in and define basic coverage rules.

Why the government? Why can't we establish a TRUE market based system where you can shop for whatever coverage you desire?

The problem you describe is caused by government intervention today. The states dictate what each insurer must cover. The insurers do as they are told.

[justbroke]

The problem you describe is caused by government intervention today. The states dictate what each insurer must cover. The insurers do as they are told.

I concur. My State has an Office of Insurance Regulation. I wonder what they do all day. They don't seem to be helping me, and yet, it's in their charter to regulate insurance.

[momisery]

I think one piece everyone is forgeting is that our economy is 2/3 consumer driven. Without people spending money on things other than healthcare you will see a good number of jobs dry up. Of course I guess we could all simply work in healthcare, but I don't see that as a reasonable option.

What is really wrong in America is honesty. We simply do not demand it and so many lack integrity and standing up for their convictions. Proof of that would be those who are against a public option, but are taking VA benefits or Medicare/medicaid. If we could return honestly to the top it would work its way down through our school systems.

Healthcare has increased 50% in the last decade, have your wages? It is set to increase 10% tis year, will your wages? My point is we can not afford it. The last time this issue came up with clintons insurance and healthcare providers promised they would control the costs, they did not need to be watched. Purely fictional as we can see. The costs are going up because they know we HAVE to pay for it. Are their clowns out there abusing the system? Of course there are, but pretending that would be the reason not to fix it the best we can makes no sense. Do we make all kids stay home on the weekends so they don't have sex, just because one did? Do we punish everyone for the crimes of one in America? Someone will always find a way around things, and I think the corrupt culture in Washington and Wall Street has reinforced that sort of behavior. Growing up I was thought hard work, honesty, ethics, charity, sympathy, today it is a robber baron attitude of they are too lazy! The truth is there are cheats, and there are most who simply can not become quarterbacks, or CEO's and make the big bucks. We are all born with gifts, and if you doubt that thing about becoming a quarterback it pays really well. Not everyone can do the upper income jobs, and that is okay. But all jobs must pay a living wage period. Growing up my uncle bought a home and had 5 kids, he pumped gas, changed oil and sold cigarettes at a local gas station. Could a person do that today that is working in a gas station store??? He was not the owner nor the manager... he just worked there and being willing to work is the whole issue. Make the day worth being there by paying enough, and that will make them want more. My brother raised his kids by dangleing a carrot in front of them. They got a car when they got out of high school. One went on to college, the other could not. She simply could not study well. Today she is very motivated in what she is good at and driven because she wants that new car, or new home. We need to learn to live within our budgets that is true, but the budgets need to be rich enough in rewards from working that we can do that and save too. Our incomes have been dropping while the rich have huge incomes that keeps growing. In the 60's CEO's make 47 times more than the average wage earner. Today, they make 450 times more... so who took all the wages.. pretty easy to see. Talk about redistribution of wealth they are experts at it.

[justbroke]

Healthcare has increased 50% in the last decade, have your wages?

I'm in 100% agreement with what you wrote, except that sentence is misleading.

Healthcare costs went from like 3% of an employee's earnings to 4.5%. While that's a 50% increase, it's not a "real" number when you're expressing the actual cost.

The problem is that to cover the 50% increase by your wages (from my theoretical 3% to 4.5%), your wages would only need to increase 2%, not 50%. Likewise, if say your costs went from 3% to 3.3% (a 10% increase), your salary only needs to increase 1/2 of 1%... not 10%.

Not everyone is a match expert, and using the "percent increase" is used to scare people, when the only thing necessary to cover the increase, is cost of living (COL) adjustments. If COL adjustments are normally 3% in Federal Government jobs, for example, then they easily cover any 10% "increase" in healthcare costs.

I think they can at least slow the cost curve down. I think it's going to take more than ONE bill to fix this system. While healthcare costs are a concern for me... I'm real concerned about other inflationary indicators. Gasoline, milk, bread and other commodities are what fluctuate and are a real headache, personally. Just have gasoline back at $5/gallon, and no one would be talking about healthcare.

[OhioFiler]

In 1875 the American consumer spent 80% of his income on food. clothing and shelter. By 1995 that percentage was less than 30%.

If we budget correctly we can afford health care.

I don't need O'bama to operate my household.

[hereforinfo]

That's where the government is supposed to step in and define basic coverage rules.

What a joke. Our government needs to step in? Because they are so competent? That's a good one.

Every time our government "steps in" and makes some new regulation, there is always some sort of unanticipated consequence. Then they have to make a new regulation to fix that, which later causes another unanticipated consequence. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[TooMuchCredit]

I concur. My State has an Office of Insurance Regulation. I wonder what they do all day. They don't seem to be helping me, and yet, it's in their charter to regulate insurance.

They can only regulate as far as what has been defined to be covered. They can only enforce the laws that are in place.

Insurance companies aren't going to voluntarily cover people with pre-existing conditions. They are going to remove caps. It has to be put into law that they can do that.

If they violate the restrictions or refuse to pay certain claims, that's where the regulator comes into play. They are also supposed to handle the opposite direction - insurance fraud where people file bogus claims.

A company exists for one purpose only and that is to make money. It has to be profitable to stay afloat. Theyll do many things to maximize profit. If it's cheaper to dump the toxic byproduct of their manufacturing in the nearby creek, you can't rely on the company to not dump it if there is not a law saying they cannot. You have to pass laws to keep them from being able to do that. And you have to have some body that enforces that those laws are being met.

[hereforinfo]

I suspect folks like your acquaintances are in for a real shock if O'bama's pledge last night to FORCE them to buy insurance comes to fruition. They might have to either give up the boat, get a job or go on disability.

I kind of like the idea of forcing people to get insurance, other than in cases of extreme hardship. But allow anyone to opt out, only if they sign a waiver saying that if they ever seek medical care the debt can never be discharged in bankruptcy. Or else allow them to purchase some cheap coverage that only steps in for major medical emergency. Because at some point, even if someone is against modern medicine, there's always the chance of falling off a ladder and breaking every bone in your body or getting some terminal disease that herbs are not going to cure.

[IBroke]

Why the government? Why can't we establish a TRUE market based system where you can shop for whatever coverage you desire?

The problem you describe is caused by government intervention today. The states dictate what each insurer must cover. The insurers do as they are told.

Appears to me that some States do a lousy job then.

The government isn't my first choice either, but I highly doubt that "we" - the insured - can tell the insurance companies what they have to do. I DON'T want to have insurance companies RUN by the government - however, I don't have a problem with the government defining some basic rules. That doesn't make a true maked based system impossible since EVERY company has to meet those rules. Consider this intervention as "consumer protection".

Why should an insurance simply give up the luxury to collect premiums AND having the option to drop you once it's time for a pay-back? Like a car-insurance that's not supposed to cover accidents...

[IBroke]

Insurance companies aren't going to voluntarily cover people with pre-existing conditions. They aren't going to remove caps. It has to be put into law that they can do that.

Bingo! It they would, there would be a few million less that are uninsured..

[TooMuchCredit]

Insurance companies aren't going to voluntarily cover people with pre-existing conditions. They aren't going to remove caps. It has to be put into law that they can do that.

Minor correction...(for some reason I don't have the ability to edit my posts sometimes - maybe there's a time limit or something)

Another step I think if we go a non-gov't route is either make the insurance companies go non-profit OR limit their profit like we do the utility companies...atleast in Georgia, Georgia Power is only allowed a certain amount of profit, otherwise the excess I think has to be refunded to the rate payers. Profits aren't bad and everyone deserves a fair wage for what they do, but excessive profits from someone who is ill is kind of immoral to me.

Another thing that would be nice too... You never have to pay upfront even if you have a copay. Let them give you a bill and you have 30 days or so to pay. Sometimes even those $15, $20 copays can be hard to scrounge up for someone who is just getting by paycheck to paycheck.

[IBroke]

Minor correction...(for some reason I don't have the ability to edit my posts sometimes - maybe there's a time limit or something)

I corrected my quote accordingly..