GOP Tax Policy Shifts Burden to Working and Middle Class Americans

[jreeves]

By your analysis, they are already the employees of profit driven insurance companies, who let people die for profit. The insurance companies are spreading confusion about the payer/provider distinction, because they know people hate
insurance companies and love their own doctors. The bean counters who keep your doctor from treating you as he or she sees fit are the only ones affected by my suggestion.

As to the efficacy of private insurance, remember this: 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. Between co-pays, deductibles, pre-existing conditions, and other denials of payment, too many people are paying huge sums for a service that fails to keep them from financial ruin.

With Universal Health Care in place, up to 50% of all bankruptcies could be avoided. Universal Health Care could reevent a huge drain on the economy.

You keep bringing up that 50% of bankruptcies could be avoided through universal healthcare. How about reforming bankruptcy, to make it more affordable to repay that average of $12,000 in medical debt? Why not mandate individuals to repay their bankruptcy debt through public service? Wouldn't this also eliminate the drain on the economy?

 

[Dogger]

Perhaps. But even if true, would the care be acceptable to you?

If, for example, a hospital has a reputation for top doctors and care, would it have to accept everybody with Universal Health care who wanted to go there? Seems to me the good places would become swamped with people and have lines around the block....and ambulances waiting in the parking lot...

If you look at the table in the World Health Organization survey in the other thread I referred you to, you will see that the WHO ranked America 17th among industrialized countries for health care system performance. Generally, industrialized countries with public health care systems ranked higher in both performance and public satisfaction.

There is currently higher demand for the better doctors, among those who have insurance. I don't think substituting government insurance for private insurance would force providers to exceed their capacities. Other countries have not experienced the problems you raised.

If the system is properly funded, market forces among providers would lead the best providers to expand, and the worst to go away. Currently, even bad doctors can find desperate patients with no alternative for care. [But this part is just theory; I'll see if I can find empriical support]

Incidentially, many American women cite financial concerns as a major factor in deciding to have an abortion. Such factors play a lessor role when health care is guaranteed, and may explain why our abortion rates are roughly double the rates in many European nations.

 

[Dogger]

You keep bringing up that 50% of bankruptcies could be avoided through universal healthcare. How about reforming bankruptcy, to make it more affordable to repay that average of $12,000 in medical debt? Why not mandate individuals to repay their bankruptcy debt through public service? Wouldn't this also eliminate the drain on the economy?

Your lack of real world experience never ceases to amaze me. Marie Antoinette would be impressed.

 

[jreeves]

Your lack of real world experience never ceases to amaze me. Marie Antoinette would be impressed.

LOL...way not to answer the question.

 

[jreeves]

If you look at the table in the World Health Organization survey in the other thread I referred you to, you will see that the WHO ranked America 17th among industrialized countries for health care system performance. Generally, industrialized countries with public health care systems ranked higher in both performance and public satisfaction.

There is currently higher demand for the better doctors, among those who have insurance. I don't think substituting government insurance for private insurance would force providers to exceed their capacities. Other countries have not experienced the problems you raised.

If the system is properly funded, market forces among providers would lead the best providers to expand, and the worst to go away. Currently, even bad doctors can find desperate patients with no alternative for care. [But this part is just theory; I'll see if I can find empriical support]

Incidentially, many American women cite financial concerns as a major factor in deciding to have an abortion. Such factors play a lessor role when health care is guaranteed, and may explain why our abortion rates are roughly double the rates in many European nations.

Those damn private insurance companies letting the elderly die to make a profit.

Increased life expectancy has more than made up for an eightfold increase in annual U.S. health care spending since 1960, according to an Aug. 31 New England Journal of Medicine study.

People born in 2000 are projected to live an average seven years longer than those born in 1960. Improved medical care is to thank for about half of those years, study authors estimated. When adjusting for inflation, it cost about $69,000, or $19,900 per year of life gained in 2002 dollars, for the additional 3.5 years. That's a good bargain, the study said, compared with the $100,000 value many insurers place on each extra year of life.

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2006/09/25/prsc0925.htm

 

[ScreamingEagle]

If you look at the table in the World Health Organization survey in the other thread I referred you to, you will see that the WHO ranked America 17th among industrialized countries for health care system performance. Generally, industrialized countries with public health care systems ranked higher in both performance and public satisfaction.

There is currently higher demand for the better doctors, among those who have insurance. I don't think substituting government insurance for private insurance would force providers to exceed their capacities. Other countries have not experienced the problems you raised.

If the system is properly funded, market forces among providers would lead the best providers to expand, and the worst to go away. Currently, even bad doctors can find desperate patients with no alternative for care. [But this part is just theory; I'll see if I can find empriical support]

Incidentially, many American women cite financial concerns as a major factor in deciding to have an abortion. Such factors play a lessor role when health care is guaranteed, and may explain why our abortion rates are roughly double the rates in many European nations.

Frankly, I don't care about the opinion of WHO or whoever else. If I, and I alone, cannot buy the medical care of my own choosing on a free market, then I don't like the system. There is nobody, and I mean NOBODY, who is going to care about MY health and well-being more than ME.

That is why I want to have control of those choices. I don't want to hand over control of my health care to the government. Nor to the health insurance industry. Nor to an employer. The best system is where I am the one who is doing the choosing.....remember I pay either way.

btw that's what you call freedom.

And you are wrong in saying that other countries do not experience the problems I've raised. They have ambulances waiting in the parking lots in Britain. Canada has universal health care coverage but people still buy private insurance for some strange reason….

You can't have a "free market system" if the government is funding the system.

 

[Dogger]

Those damn private insurance companies letting the elderly die to make a profit.

Increased life expectancy has more than made up for an eightfold increase in annual U.S. health care spending since 1960, according to an Aug. 31 New England Journal of Medicine study.

People born in 2000 are projected to live an average seven years longer than those born in 1960. Improved medical care is to thank for about half of those years, study authors estimated. When adjusting for inflation, it cost about $69,000, or $19,900 per year of life gained in 2002 dollars, for the additional 3.5 years. That's a good bargain, the study said, compared with the $100,000 value many insurers place on each extra year of life.

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2006/09/25/prsc0925.htm

Wrong, again, as always.

The private insurance companies aren't killing the elderly; the elderly have Medicare. Public health insurance doesn't kill for profit. The private insurance companies are letting their customers and their customer's children die for extra profit, like this 17 year old girl:

At Christmas, 17-year old Nataline Sarkisyan died after her insurance company jerked her around and denied payment for a liver transplant. They only reversed the decision after it was too late. She had insurance, and the procedure was covered, but Cigna had a practice of deny and delay. They killed her to save money.

The US pays more for health care, but fails to cover everyone. France pays less per capita, but covers everyone with a system that the WHO ranked first in performance. We can cover everyone, pay less and stop killing children. The people who make huge profits from our system are lying to you about health care to keep the money rolling in.

As to your comments about life expectancy: 41 nations have higher life expectancy than we do. According to The Associated Press, the French have an extra 2.5 years expectancy over us for a child born in 2004.

"Researchers said several factors contributed to the United States' falling behind other industrialized nations. A major one [not the only one, but a major one] is that 45 million Americans lack health insurance, while Canada and many European countries have universal health care, they say."

Considering the additional money we pay, we are not getting anthing extra. But the insurance corporations are getting plenty.

 

[jreeves]

Wrong, again, as always.

The private insurance companies aren't killing the elderly; the elderly have Medicare. Public health insurance doesn't kill for profit. The private insurance companies are letting their customers and their customer's children die for extra profit, like this 17 year old girl:


The US pays more for health care, but fails to cover everyone. France pays less per capita, but covers everyone with a system that the WHO ranked first in performance. We can cover everyone, pay less and stop killing children. The people who make huge profits from our system are lying to you about health care to keep the money rolling in.

As to your comments about life expectancy: 41 nations have higher life expectancy than we do. According to The Associated Press, the French have an extra 2.5 years expectancy over us for a child born in 2004.

"Researchers said several factors contributed to the United States' falling behind other industrialized nations. A major one [not the only one, but a major one] is that 45 million Americans lack health insurance, while Canada and many European countries have universal health care, they say."

Considering the additional money we pay, we are not getting anthing extra. But the insurance corporations are getting plenty.

Murray, of the University of Washington, said improved access to health insurance could increase life expectancy. But, policymakers also should focus on ways to reduce cancer, heart disease and lung disease, Murray said. He advocates stepped-up efforts to reduce tobacco use, control blood pressure, reduce cholesterol and regulate blood sugar.

"Even if we focused only on those four things, we would go a long way toward improving health care in the United States," Murray said.

That's from your article genius, it's hardly a case of lack of healthcare. It's more to do with lifestyle choices among Americans.

 

[jreeves]

Wrong, again, as always.

The private insurance companies aren't killing the elderly; the elderly have Medicare. Public health insurance doesn't kill for profit. The private insurance companies are letting their customers and their customer's children die for extra profit, like this 17 year old girl:


The US pays more for health care, but fails to cover everyone. France pays less per capita, but covers everyone with a system that the WHO ranked first in performance. We can cover everyone, pay less and stop killing children. The people who make huge profits from our system are lying to you about health care to keep the money rolling in.

As to your comments about life expectancy: 41 nations have higher life expectancy than we do. According to The Associated Press, the French have an extra 2.5 years expectancy over us for a child born in 2004.

"Researchers said several factors contributed to the United States' falling behind other industrialized nations. A major one [not the only one, but a major one] is that 45 million Americans lack health insurance, while Canada and many European countries have universal health care, they say."

Considering the additional money we pay, we are not getting anthing extra. But the insurance corporations are getting plenty.

As far as letting the 17 year old die, which is the exception, the insurance company should be prosecuted vigorously.

 

[Dogger]

Murray, of the University of Washington, said improved access to health insurance could increase life expectancy. But, policymakers also should focus on ways to reduce cancer, heart disease and lung disease, Murray said. He advocates stepped-up efforts to reduce tobacco use, control blood pressure, reduce cholesterol and regulate blood sugar.

"Even if we focused only on those four things, we would go a long way toward improving health care in the United States," Murray said.

That's from your article genius, it's hardly a case of lack of healthcare. It's more to do with lifestyle choices among Americans.

Re-read the original quote; that's why I included this bracketed comment - "[not the only one, but a major one]". I think a major factor is worth considering.

As far as letting the 17 year old die, which is the exception, the insurance company should be prosecuted vigorously.

For what? Current law allows them that kind of latitude, and they exploit it.

And it's not the exception. Watch Michael Moore's "Sicko". If has a few errors or exaggerations, but the stories are real.

 

[jreeves]

Re-read the original quote; that's why I included this bracketed comment - "[not the only one, but a major one]". I think a major factor is worth considering.


For what? Current law allows them that kind of latitude, and they exploit it.

And it's not the exception. Watch Michael Moore's "Sicko". If has a few errors or exaggerations, but the stories are real.

Your wrong once again, its called a false correlation. You can't even say it's a major factor. America's obesity rate has exploded which is directly correlated to poor health. That's not lack of healthcare, that's lifestyle choices.
No wonder you have a problem with reality, you get your facts from Michael Moore.

 

[Dogger]

Your [sic] wrong once again, its called a false correlation. You can't even say it's a major factor. America's obesity rate has exploded which is directly correlated to poor health. That's not lack of healthcare, that's lifestyle choices.
No wonder you have a problem with reality, you get your facts from Michael Moore.

The researchers who did the study said it was a major factor. Simple contradiction does not refute that conclusion. Why do you believe they are correct when they cite 3 other factors, but wrong when they list as a "major factor" something which does not fit your preconceived notions?

You get your facts from your ass. Michael Moore is better.

Once again, I am done with you.

 

[jreeves]

The researchers who did the study said it was a major factor. Simple contradiction does not refute that conclusion. Why do you believe they are correct when they cite 3 other factors, but wrong when they list as a "major factor" something which does not fit your preconceived notions?

You get your facts from your ass. Michael Moore is better.

Once again, I am done with you.

Because this is what was actually said in the article.

Murray, of the University of Washington, said improved access to health insurance could increase life expectancy.

 

[jreeves]

The researchers who did the study said it was a major factor. Simple contradiction does not refute that conclusion. Why do you believe they are correct when they cite 3 other factors, but wrong when they list as a "major factor" something which does not fit your preconceived notions?

You get your facts from your ass. Michael Moore is better.

Once again, I am done with you.

You would think Moore to be factually right.

In "Sicko," Michael Moore uses a clip of my appearance earlier this year on "The O'Reilly Factor" to introduce a segment on the glories of Canadian health care.

Moore adores the Canadian system. I do not.

I am a new American, but I grew up and worked for many years in Canada. And I know the health care system of my native country much more intimately than does Moore. There's a good reason why my former countrymen with the money to do so either use the services of a booming industry of illegal private clinics, or come to America to take advantage of the health care that Moore denounces.

Government-run health care in Canada inevitably resolves into a dehumanizing system of triage, where the weak and the elderly are hastened to their fates by actuarial calculation. Having fought the Canadian health care bureaucracy on behalf of my ailing mother just two years ago - she was too old, and too sick, to merit the highest quality care in the government's eyes - I can honestly say that Moore's preferred health care system is something I wouldn't wish on him.

In 1999, my uncle was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. If he'd lived in America, the miracle drug Rituxan might have saved him. But Rituxan wasn't approved for use in Canada, and he lost his battle with cancer.

But don't take my word for it: Even the Toronto Star agrees that Moore's endorsement of Canadian health care is overwrought and factually challenged. And the Star is considered a left-wing newspaper, even by Canadian standards.

Just last month, the Star's Peter Howell reported from the Cannes Film Festival that Mr. Moore became irate when Canadian reporters challenged his portrayal of their national health care system. "You Canadians! You used to be so funny!" exclaimed an exasperated Moore, "You gave us all our best comedians. When did you turn so dark?"

Moore further claimed that the infamously long waiting lists in Canada are merely a reflection of the fact that Canadians have a longer life expectancy than Americans, and that the sterling system is swamped by too many Canadians who live too long.

Canada's media know better. In 2006, the average wait time from seeing a primary care doctor to getting treatment by a specialist was more than four months. Out of a population of 32 million, there are about 3.2 million Canadians trying to get a primary care doctor. Today, according to the OECD, Canada ranks 24th out of 28 major industrialized countries in doctors per thousand people.

Unfortunately, Moore is more concerned with promoting an anti-free-market agenda than getting his facts straight. "The problem," said Moore recently, "isn't just [the insurance companies], or the Hospital Corporation and the Frist family - it's the system! They can't make a profit unless they deny care! Unless they deny claims! Our laws state very clearly that they have a legal fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits for the shareholders ... the only way they can turn the big profit is to not pay out the money, to not provide the care!"

Profit, according to the filmmaker-activist, has no place in health care - period.

Moore ignores the fact that 85% of hospital beds in the U.S. are in nonprofit hospitals, and almost half of us with private plans get our insurance from nonprofit providers. Moreover, Kaiser Permanente, which Moore demonizes, is also a nonprofit.

 

[Dogger]

If you check the WHO chart, you'll see that Canada's system is underfunded, and ranked only slightly higher than ours.

That's why I advocated the French system. Though funded more than Canada's, it's cheaper than ours, and ranked best in the world. Imagine how good our system could be if we applied all of our current level of funding to treatment, instead of a large chunk to insurance company profit.

 

[midcan5]

"You can look at the federal tax code as a kind of layer cake. At the bottom is the federal payroll tax, used to finance Social Security and Medicare. This tax is a flat rate and covers wage income only to around $100,000 a year, with all income above that level exempt. This is the most regressive tax imposed by Washington. Above the payroll tax sits the income tax. The income tax is more progressive, exempting low wage workers and making high earners pay a higher rate. On top of that are taxes on capital gains and dividends. These taxes are even more concentrated at the top, since they affect only those who receive lots of income from accumulated wealth. The most progressive tax of all is the estate tax, which is paid by a tiny handful of fabulously wealthy heirs.

Compare that layer cake to President Bush's policies. The tax at the bottom, the payroll tax, he has not touched at all. The tax just above that, the income tax, he sliced by about a tenth. The taxes just above that, the capital gains and dividends, he cut in half. And the tax at the very top, the estate tax, he abolished altogether (though he has not mustered enough votes to abolish it permanently). Bush's opposition to any given tax is exactly proportional to the degree that it affects the rich."

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=08&year=2007&base_name=the_big_con

 

[Alpha1]

And the result is.........................................



Top 5% of the citizens pay 50% of the taxes.......
Top 20% of the citizens pay 80% of the taxes.....

 

[Care4all]

And the result is.........................................



Top 5% of the citizens pay 50% of the taxes.......
Top 20% of the citizens pay 80% of the taxes.....

Your statement might be true for income taxes alpha BUT IS FALSE when speaking of total taxes, which is how it should be viewed and analyzed imho!

care

 

[AllieBaba]

Do you honestly think individual poor people pay more in gas and sales taxes than individual rich people?

Get real.

 

[Care4all]

Do you honestly think individual poor people pay more in gas and sales taxes than individual rich people?

Get real.

DON'T be obtuse, we are talking about what PERCENTAGE of ones income is spent on taxes.....

the gas tax is the same, the amount you pay in gas taxes compared to your total income is a MUCH, MUCH, MUCH HIGHER percentage of the working guy of middle income than it is of the wealthiest....