ObamaCare - The New Perspective

[Bubblehead1980]

The system is fine as it is for most part and Dems have made an issue where there really is not one, I have insurance and am happy.I feel for those who do not BUT we should not uproot our system, violate the constitution, drive costs up for policy holders in order to meet the Left's "social justice" agenda.

I believe a good plan would be for a reasonable fee every 3 or even 6 months, citizens who meet certain requirements(case by case basis, based on fianances, situation etc) could qualify for medicaid.Talking mid income people who can not afford health insurance currently nor do they qualify for medicaid currently, they could pay the fee and have some coverage until they can afford private insurance.Now this would be sort of a liability only type insurance, such as car insurance where if you get sick, you can see a doctor or when things such as cancer happens.Wouldn't include a lot of the perks regular insurance is but it would help many things and provide some coverage.

Tort reform(ironic coming from a law student I know but lawsuits are a big cause of high costs)

Incentives to companies to lower costs that will be revoked if costs do not come down.

lower taxes on medical equipment not raise them as obamacare does.

Leave in the FEW good parts of obamacare...


Can not deny for pre existing conditions

Can not be dropped if you get ill

Can stay on parents insurance until 26

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by tater

You are really quite clueless on taxes. Not unexpected since you clearly don't actually pay any meaningful amount.

One, the % of federal taxes collected that come from the "rich" are at a high.'

sure, % collected from the rich are at an all time high, but its not because "were soaking the rich" its because the rich are making crazy amounts of money. Tax rates are at 35%. They used to be much much higher...like 70-80%..but now it's 35% and they have the lion share of taxes. Why is that? Because wages for the average american have stagnated, but the top earners have seen much growth.

[AVGWarhawk]

but the top earners have seen much growth.

Can we see the numbers?

There is an old saying..."The more you make the more they take."

[tater]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

sure, % collected from the rich are at an all time high, but its not because "were soaking the rich" its because the rich are making crazy amounts of money. Tax rates are at 35%. They used to be much much higher...like 70-80%..but now it's 35% and they have the lion share of taxes. Why is that? Because wages for the average american have stagnated, but the top earners have seen much growth.

Sigh.

The top marginal rate was that high—BUT NOBODY PAID IT.

Get that through your head. No one paid that tax rate. The tax system is so full of loopholes (fewer NOW), that the rate was 70%, but the "rich" still paid the same EFFECTIVE rate they do now.

The PERCENTAGE the rich pay is at a high. Not the amount. It has squat to do with "stagnation" since the lower 60% already pay basically nothing (the middle 20% matter slightly, but pull way less than their share, and the bottom 40% pay nothing). The rich pay more for a number of reasons. Fewer loopholes (and AMT), and yes, more taxpayers in the "rich" bracket as well. The lower classes are paying an all time low in income taxes. Literally less than zero for many.

Seriously, post about taxes when you grow up and pay some. Your posts on these subjects come off as if they were written by a teenager incensed about not having mommy and daddy giving them a cool enough car.

[tater]

BTW, I mentioned something anyone who has dealt with the office side of a medical practice knows, but I glossed over it. The 2 government programs, medicaid and medicare are without question the WORST about rejecting claims.

The docs in my wife's office have 5-6 employees each. 1 is a medical assistant, and the rest do paperwork except some techs and a PA. Call it 4 paper pushers per doc. The private insurance is pretty seamless. Presbyterian pays electronically, right away. Very little work. I bet 3/4 of the billing people hours are spent on medicaid and medicare—and the docs only take medicaid on a limited basis!

So going to "single payer" where the payer is the government sounds like it should save loads of cost, but it won't, since the only really inefficient "insurance" to deal with is... THE GOVERNMENT.

They don't just reject for medical reasons (though both already ration care in that way). They are far more likely to reject for nonsense reasons than real insurance (those do that as well, just not nearly as much). A given form must have a certain box ticked, even though the tick in no way changes the diagnosis, or anything. ANY person reading it would know the box should have been ticked but wasn't by mistake. Do they process? Hell no, they reject it. Do they tell you WHY? HELL NO! Your employees have to do the whole thing over, never having a clue what was wrong. If that was done on the private forms, the office might get a call from the insurance people and they fix it over the phone.

This is what you are in favor of, like it or not.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

The PERCENTAGE the rich pay is at a high. Not the amount. It has squat to do with "stagnation" since the lower 60% already pay basically nothing (the middle 20% matter slightly, but pull way less than their share, and the bottom 40% pay nothing). The rich pay more for a number of reasons. Fewer loopholes (and AMT), and yes, more taxpayers in the "rich" bracket as well. The lower classes are paying an all time low in income taxes. Literally less than zero for many.

No. The proportion maybe at a high (and yes, that has everything to do with rising incomes), but the effective tax rate is not:





Taxes are a tricky thing. The top marginal rate only matters to the people whos earn enough to have to pay it. Raise it too much, and they shelter more money as they have more opportunity to do so. Lower it, and it doesn't really matter as they don't pay it anyways because they've sheltered the money. The ones that really matter are the lower tax brackets. Everyone (even the rich) pays those. Lower those and you're bringing in less money from everyone. Raise those and you're putting the thumbscrews to everyone, and especially the people without the tax shelter opportunities the rich enjoy.

I say eliminate the loopholes. And sorry for derailing the thread.

[tater]

Amount paid. Not effective rate. The % of taxes collected.

As I said, the rates are entirely meaningless. % amount collected, ideally as a function of GDP.

Nice lie on the charts, BTW, the CBO and IRS don't track the top 400 families. They show quintile stats. Some stats are also available for top 10%, 1%, etc. That is "reduced" data by some partisans. Or by all means, link to the images in a CBO doc from their page.

I mentioned effective rates to the reflexive goon because he seems to tie marginal rates to what anyone actually pays without any thought. Proportion is clearly all that matters.

<EDIT> I will correct myself, looks like the IRS recently added the top 400, probably because they were told to do so by the admin to know who we are supposed to demonize. They never had in the past. Maybe they could add a grpah for deadbeats at the bottom.

[tater]

The average effective income tax rate for a median income US family is ~4.6%.

Ours wobbles between 28 and 30.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

Nice lie on the charts, BTW, the CBO and IRS don't track the top 400 families.

Wrong again: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00in400h.pdf

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/...203102,00.html

If you're going to state something with such certainty, a 10 second Google search may save you some face.

[tater]

Found this, showing partisanship based on marginal rates is pretty silly.

First Im not claiming to be an expert on the economic system but I am going to touch on a few things.

First thing that I dont like is what was said a few pages back. I do not like the idea of paying for other peoples health insurance when they dont take care of themselves (Ie people who smoke all the time and have a higher risk of cancer etc.) and or to quote the almost exact words, the crack-whore mother of 7 children who does nothing but collects a welfare check. To me that just pisses me off, (Mainly because my father who works his ass off at GM knows quite a few people who 'claim' disability because of back problems or etc and definately are not disabled (Ive seen quite a few of them acting in a very non disabled manner)

Its also kind of the same thing, Id rather pay for myself, thats it. Yes I understand that seems selfish, but I hate the idea of paying for someone who has gotten themselves in that situation and its not of just ill fate or bad luck. And the fact that it forces anybody to be accepted no matter what pre-existing condition is senseless. It allows too many people to beat the system, again that was shown a few pages back, I believe by tater, Im not sure though.

Secondly, (not connected to the healthcare bill, somewhat) I think welfare and disability need completely reworked and or scrapped. Same thing as above, I know many people that my dad knows (as friends or fellow co workers) who claim disabillity and welfare when they CAN work. Its not that they cant, its that they just dont want to, and whats the incentive when the government is going to give you a check anyways? My old physics teacher got on a discussion of this with us (he ran for elected office in my hometown and won, just citing he knows a thing or two about politics) and pulled up facts and told us about when he went to either Maine or Connecticut that there is no incentive to become a teacher there, since unemployment pays higher than the salary of a teacher.

I understand why welfare and disability and unemployment checks are there. The only problem is, in my view, WAAAY too many people milk the system and that creates a burden on everyone else.Endrant

[tater]

I edited, the IRS only added this recently, they had never tracked the meaningless top 400 before.

But what does this have to do with healthcare other than I get to pay for it for gimpy, regardless?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

<EDIT> I will correct myself, looks like the IRS recently added the top 400, probably because they were told to do so by the admin to know who we are supposed to demonize. They never had in the past. Maybe they could add a grpah for deadbeats at the bottom.

That'd be the Bush administration then. Here's an article from 2008 on the IRS's top 400 study. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120468366051012473.html

Looks like it mentions that the first study was done in 2003.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

But what does this have to do with healthcare other than I get to pay for it for gimpy, regardless?

Like I said, sorry for derailing the thread.

[tater]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

That'd be the Bush administration then. Here's an article from 2008 on the IRS's top 400 study. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120468366051012473.html

Looks like it mentions that the first study was done in 2003.

I've been watching the CBO page since well before that. Had not seen the top 400 on IRS, but then again I never looked for such a meaningless set of stats, I always look for the total taxpayer info, broken by quintiles (as they are taxed).