On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:01:49 -0400, wrote:



Medicare is a good demonstration of how expensive government medical
care is tho. They spend 3% of every wage earned in this country,
covering about 15-16 % of the population and they are going broke
doing it. The people covered still need supplemental private
insurance.
As long as we understand universal medical care will end up being a
30-50% increase in our income taxes (depending of if we still need
supplemental private insurance) it is fine with me. The problem is
they are selling this as "free".

Depends who you're talking about.
That 15-16% insured by Medicare is old people 65 and up.
Non-old people who have private health insurance where my wife works
are paying less than 10% income tax, but 50% health insurance tax -
not even counting the Medicare deduction.
That's why most don't carry it and go the go to the e-room for medical
care.
Median family wages is this country is about $46k.
Probably less than 15% income tax for a couple, even less with kids.
Average health insurance family cost is about $12k.
So the median family who carries health insurance is "taxed"
26% for that. I'm counting employer costs too, as you did for
Medicare, because you just can't ignore that cost.
For the median family who carries health insurance, a 30-50% increase
in income tax while dropping 26% health care cost is a winner.
For higher income families, it's a loser.
You're right about them selling it as free, especially since Obama and
the Dems won't come out and say "higher income taxes."
The Reps have them cowed about taxes.
Besides that, the "cost savings" they are always crowing about are
hard to see if they don't do tort reform and eliminate malpractice and
defensive medicine costs. Then there's fraud, which they hardly ever
talk about.
It's a big mess, but I guarantee it will be changed one way or
another.
I'm predicting they'll end up with gov subsidies for private health
care insurance, as they're already doing with the unemployed.
IOW, you'll pay more taxes that go to private companies.
Perfect solution really. Commie private enterprise. Pretty much how
Wall Street already operates.
Taxing the folks to give to other folks is just plain commie if it's
gov run.
But if you tax the folks to give to private enterprise to dole out as
they see fit, it becomes commie private enterprise.
With "private enterprise" in there it has a better ring to it.

--Vic

On Aug 10, 5:02*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:01:49 -0400, wrote:

Medicare is a good demonstration of how expensive government medical
care is tho. They spend 3% of every wage earned in this country,
covering about 15-16 % of the population and they are going broke
doing it. The people covered still need supplemental private
insurance.
As long as we understand universal medical care will end up being a
30-50% increase in our income taxes (depending of if we still need
supplemental private insurance) it is fine with me. The problem is
they are selling this as "free".

Depends who you're talking about.
That 15-16% insured by Medicare is old people 65 and up.
Non-old people who have private health insurance where my wife works
are paying less than 10% income tax, but 50% health insurance tax -
not even counting the Medicare deduction.
That's why most don't carry it and go the go to the e-room for medical
care.
Median family wages is this country is about $46k.
Probably less than 15% income tax for a couple, even less with kids.
Average health insurance family cost is about $12k.
So the median family who carries health insurance is "taxed"
26% for that. *I'm counting employer costs too, as you did for
Medicare, because you just can't ignore that cost.
For the median family who carries health insurance, a 30-50% increase
in income tax while dropping 26% health care cost is a winner.
For higher income families, it's a loser.
You're right about them selling it as free, especially since Obama and
the Dems won't come out and say "higher income taxes."
The Reps have them cowed about taxes.
Besides that, the "cost savings" they are always crowing about are
hard to see if they don't do tort reform and eliminate malpractice and
defensive medicine costs. *Then there's fraud, which they hardly ever
talk about.
It's a big mess, but I guarantee it will be changed one way or
another.
I'm predicting they'll end up with gov subsidies for private health
care insurance, as they're already doing with the unemployed.
IOW, you'll pay more taxes that go to private companies.
Perfect solution really. *Commie private enterprise. *Pretty much how
Wall Street already operates.
Taxing the folks to give to other folks is just plain commie if it's
gov run.
But if you tax the folks to give to private enterprise to dole out as
they see fit, it becomes commie private enterprise.
With "private enterprise" in there it has a better ring to it.

--Vic

HK has made his point that he thinks our Dear Leaders in DC are worth
more than the rest of us. You are right, "All animals are equal but
some are more equal than others". Now, the question is what we do
about it.

Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:01:49 -0400, wrote:


Median family wages is this country is about $46k.
Probably less than 15% income tax for a couple, even less with kids.
Average health insurance family cost is about $12k.
So the median family who carries health insurance is "taxed"
talk about.
It's a big mess, but I guarantee it will be changed one way or
another.

As with many things that come out of the democrats, the cost of Medicare
is overrated. Many people who are eligible for Medicare participate in
what is called the advantage plan. In this plan the Medicare
contribution is given directly to the insurance company. The insurance
company then administers the Medicare plan and provides additional
benefits for those people who want to use that company for their
insurance.

Of course the "expense" of this Medicare plan is going as more and more
people opt out of the government managed insurance and go to the private
companies who participate in this plan. They get the same insurance
that the government provides plus they are treated as human not numbers
when they need assistance.

If this plan is eliminated, the cost of the government manage health
care will have to go up just to provide the additional staff to manage
the accounts now managed by the private company.


I'm predicting they'll end up with gov subsidies for private health
care insurance, as they're already doing with the unemployed

Companies pay into the the unemployment fund per the number of people
they employee. Governments subsidizes it when the government uses the
money for other purposes, or when Government policies or actions cause
high unemployment. Example: the job loss caused by congress's action at
the end of September 2008.

The unemployment agencies are a perfect example of why we don't want the
government in our health care. I was on unemployment for several
months. During that time I never was able to get a phone call through
to a real person. I tried their email address and got an automated
response telling me to call the phone number that I had been trying for
days. If you have a problem with a government agency that needs
special handling you are SOL. Why do you think that most congressmen
have a special constituent assistance tab on their web pages.

IOW, you'll pay more taxes that go to private companies.

Who will manage the plans EFFICIENTLY and supplement it with additional
benefits.

Perfect solution really. Commie private enterprise. Pretty much how
Wall Street already operates.

One of the more humorous things that obama keeps saying is that the
democrat plan will not restrict the amount of insurance a company may
provide or a person may buy. HOWEVER out of the other side of his mouth
he says the will raise some of the money for his nationalized health
care by taxing those company health plans with what the government
considers excessive benefits. That sounds like a restriction to me.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:53:02 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:


Of course the "expense" of this Medicare plan is going as more and more
people opt out of the government managed insurance and go to the private
companies who participate in this plan. They get the same insurance
that the government provides plus they are treated as human not numbers
when they need assistance.

If this plan is eliminated, the cost of the government manage health
care will have to go up just to provide the additional staff to manage
the accounts now managed by the private company.

Didn't know that.
Many of the twists and turns aren't even being discussed.
I was surprised to learn that my dad, who's on Medicare, is still
paying close to $300 a month on supplementals.


I'm predicting they'll end up with gov subsidies for private health
care insurance, as they're already doing with the unemployed

Companies pay into the the unemployment fund per the number of people
they employee. Governments subsidizes it when the government uses the
money for other purposes, or when Government policies or actions cause
high unemployment. Example: the job loss caused by congress's action at
the end of September 2008.

What I was talking about is the gov started giving subsidies to those
who lost their job so they can maintain COBRA coverage. The employer
is out of the picture there. Don't know what the costs are, or how
many are using the subsidy. When you're unemployed, it's not easy to
pay health insurance premiums.
In '74 I took a leave of absence from IH to attend college, and paid
the full IH premium to keep my family insured. Even back then it was
eating most of my GI bill, which was close to $400 a month, so I had
to go back to work part-time to stay in school.
But then it was fairly easy to find a PT job with health benefits.
Not now.

The unemployment agencies are a perfect example of why we don't want the
government in our health care. I was on unemployment for several
months. During that time I never was able to get a phone call through
to a real person. I tried their email address and got an automated
response telling me to call the phone number that I had been trying for
days. If you have a problem with a government agency that needs
special handling you are SOL. Why do you think that most congressmen
have a special constituent assistance tab on their web pages.

Depends where you live, as that's state gov. I was on unemployment in
Illinois in '82 during the Great Reagan Mini-Depression and had no
issues after the initial wait-in-line- to sign up.
After that it was check in the mail every week I was on it, and fill
out a form to mail in once in a while. I hear they do direct deposit
now, but don't quote me.

--Vic

Frogwatch wrote:
On Aug 10, 10:09 am, Frogwatch wrote:
After the recent shortages in Cuba and Venezuela, Obama has announced
an initiative to stockpile a vital commodity so as to be able to send
stocks to areas experiencing shortages so as to prevent civil unrest.
"The STPR will provide a cushion against any market bottom and in the
end we will all appreciate this reserve" a whitehouse spokesman said.
Our new Strategic Toilet Paper Reserve will be located in New Orleans.

The point of this post is that whenever the govt tries to run the
economy, it fails. Cuba, a country that produces vast amounts of
sugar actually has sugar shortages. They could process all their
sugar cane waste into pulp to make toilet paper but of course there is
no incentive so they now have shortages. Iran, nearly drowning in oil
actually has gasoline shortages because the govt runs the industry
there. The same is true of Venezuela, shortages of fuel. The Soviets
were great at building BFR (Big Fokkin Rockets) but were unable to
make any necesary consumer products. Government running of large
portions of an economy has been tried many many times and has always
been a miserable failure so we really do not need to do the experiment
again.


I for one am not really interested in debating what you think are your
policy points. You and the other righties are simply seeking platforms
in which you can distort the truth about the need for health care reform
by raising false, b.s. issues about abortion, government control,
rationing, euthanasia, and so forth.

You righties had control of the White House and government for the last
eight years. Your side never seriously addressed the horrific issues we
have regarding health care, coverage, and paying for same. Your side
also ignored or made worse other serious problems this nation faces.

Now, suddenly, you're interested? Bull****.