Thought Health Care Reform was to pay for itself?

[Immanuel]

Haven't we been told all along by those on the left that the Public Option was going to pay for itself by the insured? I'm pretty sure Care4all has taken this stand time and time again, but, I have never been able to figure out how that was possible. It is impossible. We cannot provide health insurance to the poor free of charge and not have someone else pay for it.

AP Sources: Reid Eyes Payroll Tax Hike On Wealthy - cbs4denver.com

WASHINGTON (AP) ― Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering a plan for higher payroll taxes on the upper-income earners to help finance health care legislation he intends to introduce in the Senate in the next several days, numerous Democratic officials said Wednesday.

These officials said one of the options Reid has had under review would raise the payroll tax that goes to Medicare, but only on income above $250,000 a year. Current law sets the tax at 1.45 percent of income, an amount matched by employers.

It was not known how large an increase Reid, D-Nev., was considering, or whether it would also apply to a company's portion of the tax. President Barack Obama has said he will not raise taxes on wage earners making less than $250,000.

Now granted no one who thought about this actually believed health reform would pay for itself, but here we have it straight from the horse's as, er I mean, mouth! Senator Reid now says that it is not possible for health care reform to pay for itself so he's going to tax the rich (bet it wont only be the rich when this is said and done) to pay for it.

Would someone from the left please explain how the public option is supposed to be self sufficient AND still provide insurance to the poor without taxing others?

Immie

 

[Claudette]

Thats easy. They will simply take from those that earn it and give it to those that don't. Can't get any simpler than that. Oh, they will have cuts to Medicare and taxes to small business as well. Wouldn't want to leave that part out doncha know.

 

[Zoom-boing]

And don't forget the $500 billion they are going to save on hunting down waste, fraud and inefficiency in Medicare. Weird . . . they needed a bill for that?

 

[Meister]

How are they going to bring the cost of premiums down? I really don't hear that being talked about anymore.

 

[jreeves]

How are they going to bring the cost of premiums down? I really don't hear that being talked about anymore.

It's funny isn't it? Btw....they are supposedly saving billions in waste and yet the waste has been there for how long? Also, if these idiots do save billions how about paying down the 12 trillion dollar debt that you are having to pay over $600 billion interest on every year?

 

[sealybobo]

The perfect healthcare reform would just put us younger people on the same plan as all the old people who have social security. We wouldn't use it as much as old people do, so we'd actually end up lowering costs. Spread the risk among young and old, not just old. Social security is costly because its all old people who use it every month.

But I guess what they just gave us is going to give the insurance companies millions of new customers. This healthcare bill wasn't a solution at all. We were conned.

 

[jreeves]

The perfect healthcare reform would just put us younger people on the same plan as all the old people who have social security. We wouldn't use it as much as old people do, so we'd actually end up lowering costs. Spread the risk among young and old, not just old. Social security is costly because its all old people who use it every month.

But I guess what they just gave us is going to give the insurance companies millions of new customers. This healthcare bill wasn't a solution at all. We were conned.

LOL...so insuring an additional 10 to 20 million people would be cheaper in the long run...Lmao

 

[sealybobo]

The perfect healthcare reform would just put us younger people on the same plan as all the old people who have social security. We wouldn't use it as much as old people do, so we'd actually end up lowering costs. Spread the risk among young and old, not just old. Social security is costly because its all old people who use it every month.

But I guess what they just gave us is going to give the insurance companies millions of new customers. This healthcare bill wasn't a solution at all. We were conned.

LOL...so insuring an additional 10 to 20 million people would be cheaper in the long run...Lmao

Think about all the old people who use their social security every month. They are using it more and not paying for what they are using.

If you put me on the plan, say at $150 a month, I won't use it all year, but I'll pay $1800 a year for it. Adding young people to social security will make it more efficient. You can't deny that.

 

[Care4all]

Haven't we been told all along by those on the left that the Public Option was going to pay for itself by the insured? I'm pretty sure Care4all has taken this stand time and time again, but, I have never been able to figure out how that was possible. It is impossible. We cannot provide health insurance to the poor free of charge and not have someone else pay for it.

AP Sources: Reid Eyes Payroll Tax Hike On Wealthy - cbs4denver.com

WASHINGTON (AP) ― Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering a plan for higher payroll taxes on the upper-income earners to help finance health care legislation he intends to introduce in the Senate in the next several days, numerous Democratic officials said Wednesday.

These officials said one of the options Reid has had under review would raise the payroll tax that goes to Medicare, but only on income above $250,000 a year. Current law sets the tax at 1.45 percent of income, an amount matched by employers.

It was not known how large an increase Reid, D-Nev., was considering, or whether it would also apply to a company's portion of the tax. President Barack Obama has said he will not raise taxes on wage earners making less than $250,000.

Now granted no one who thought about this actually believed health reform would pay for itself, but here we have it straight from the horse's as, er I mean, mouth! Senator Reid now says that it is not possible for health care reform to pay for itself so he's going to tax the rich (bet it wont only be the rich when this is said and done) to pay for it.

Would someone from the left please explain how the public option is supposed to be self sufficient AND still provide insurance to the poor without taxing others?

Immie

NO MY DEAR IMMIE,

Try some reading comprehension and take your partisan glasses off!

You are the one that does not understand a thing on this....even though I have explained it more than 5-10 times on all of these posts on a Public Insurance option...it is just THAT, and OPTION of insurance to CHOOSE FROM.

I have ALWAYS SAID that the public option HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AFFORDABILITY CREDITS which will be given to those who make less than 400% of poverty to help pay for their insurance....their insurance of their choice is my understanding....they are not forced to buy the Public Option with these affordability credits, but can buy a Private policy with them as well....their choice.

Whether there is a public option or there IS NOT A PUBLIC OPTION, these affordability credits will be given to those who can not afford insurance.

You still don;t understand what you have read....WHY IS IT SO HARD to understand for you and others?

Is it just easier to make up stuff about the public option?

Please let me know if you need me to help explain this to you in a more clear manner.

Care

 

[Care4all]

I have never said Health care reform will cost nothing from tax payers, NEVER. In fact, i have mentioned that the house planned to increase taxes on those making over a million on another thread that you were on at one time, about this.

The senate, from what you have posted is talking about medicare tax hike on those over 250k....

THIS is to pay for the AFFORDABILITY CREDITS that will be given to those that make less than 300-400% of poverty.

With these affordability credits, these people go to the State Insurance Exchange, where every private policy is available to them to PURCHASE with these credits plus whatever money they have to share in the process.

the public option is a public INSURANCE OPTION....if there is one in the Bill, then these people can use their affordability credits to buy the Public Option if they think that policy is better for them then any of the private insurance options on their State insurance exchange.

 

[Care4all]

If the bill DOES NOT have the Public insurance option, then ALL of those people getting Affordability Credits will be forced to buy a PRIVATE INSURANCE POLICY WITH THEM, which is a GIFT HORSE to the private insurance industry with our tax dollars imo, which is ALSO what i have been saying on all other threads on this immie?

 

[Care4all]

How are they going to bring the cost of premiums down? I really don't hear that being talked about anymore.

They took out the anti trust protection for the insurance industry that has allowed them to operate as monopolies in states is what i heard on the 24.7

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The perfect healthcare reform would just put us younger people on the same plan as all the old people who have social security. We wouldn't use it as much as old people do, so we'd actually end up lowering costs. Spread the risk among young and old, not just old. Social security is costly because its all old people who use it every month.

But I guess what they just gave us is going to give the insurance companies millions of new customers. This healthcare bill wasn't a solution at all. We were conned.

You are amazingly stupid, Social security and medicare, which you are talking about ARE ALREADY being paid into by ANYONE that works, regardless of age.

 

[California Girl]

And don't forget the $500 billion they are going to save on hunting down waste, fraud and inefficiency in Medicare. Weird . . . they needed a bill for that?

Every time I hear shit about the billions in waste, fraud and inefficiency in Medicare, I wonder just one thing "If we know this is happening, why the fuck haven't they done something about it already?"

It seems a fair question to me.

 

[Care4all]

The perfect healthcare reform would just put us younger people on the same plan as all the old people who have social security. We wouldn't use it as much as old people do, so we'd actually end up lowering costs. Spread the risk among young and old, not just old. Social security is costly because its all old people who use it every month.

But I guess what they just gave us is going to give the insurance companies millions of new customers. This healthcare bill wasn't a solution at all. We were conned.

You are amazingly stupid, Social security and medicare, which you are talking about ARE ALREADY being paid into by ANYONE that works, regardless of age.

no, not people who work but don;t make a salary...Buffet as example or Gates as example or anyone that does not pay themselves a salary but earns their money through dividends or capital gains and the such,, which are exempt from those taxes/

also, anyone drawing a salary over 100k now is exempt from SS taxes over that amount.

 

[jreeves]

The perfect healthcare reform would just put us younger people on the same plan as all the old people who have social security. We wouldn't use it as much as old people do, so we'd actually end up lowering costs. Spread the risk among young and old, not just old. Social security is costly because its all old people who use it every month.

But I guess what they just gave us is going to give the insurance companies millions of new customers. This healthcare bill wasn't a solution at all. We were conned.

LOL...so insuring an additional 10 to 20 million people would be cheaper in the long run...Lmao

Think about all the old people who use their social security every month. They are using it more and not paying for what they are using.

If you put me on the plan, say at $150 a month, I won't use it all year, but I'll pay $1800 a year for it. Adding young people to social security will make it more efficient. You can't deny that.

Lmao...

You do realize we're talking about Social Security right?

 

[Immanuel]

Haven't we been told all along by those on the left that the Public Option was going to pay for itself by the insured? I'm pretty sure Care4all has taken this stand time and time again, but, I have never been able to figure out how that was possible. It is impossible. We cannot provide health insurance to the poor free of charge and not have someone else pay for it.

AP Sources: Reid Eyes Payroll Tax Hike On Wealthy - cbs4denver.com

WASHINGTON (AP) ― Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering a plan for higher payroll taxes on the upper-income earners to help finance health care legislation he intends to introduce in the Senate in the next several days, numerous Democratic officials said Wednesday.

These officials said one of the options Reid has had under review would raise the payroll tax that goes to Medicare, but only on income above $250,000 a year. Current law sets the tax at 1.45 percent of income, an amount matched by employers.

It was not known how large an increase Reid, D-Nev., was considering, or whether it would also apply to a company's portion of the tax. President Barack Obama has said he will not raise taxes on wage earners making less than $250,000.

Now granted no one who thought about this actually believed health reform would pay for itself, but here we have it straight from the horse's as, er I mean, mouth! Senator Reid now says that it is not possible for health care reform to pay for itself so he's going to tax the rich (bet it wont only be the rich when this is said and done) to pay for it.

Would someone from the left please explain how the public option is supposed to be self sufficient AND still provide insurance to the poor without taxing others?

Immie

NO MY DEAR IMMIE,

Try some reading comprehension and take your partisan glasses off!

You are the one that does not understand a thing on this....even though I have explained it more than 5-10 times on all of these posts on a Public Insurance option...it is just THAT, and OPTION of insurance to CHOOSE FROM.

I have ALWAYS SAID that the public option HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AFFORDABILITY CREDITS which will be given to those who make less than 400% of poverty to help pay for their insurance....their insurance of their choice is my understanding....they are not forced to buy the Public Option with these affordability credits, but can buy a Private policy with them as well....their choice.

Whether there is a public option or there IS NOT A PUBLIC OPTION, these affordability credits will be given to those who can not afford insurance.

You still don;t understand what you have read....WHY IS IT SO HARD to understand for you and others?

Is it just easier to make up stuff about the public option?

Please let me know if you need me to help explain this to you in a more clear manner.

Care

That is not the point my dear Care, I think you are the one with the reading comprehension problem, I never said they were forced to buy the Public Option with the availability credits.

The point is that you have been saying all along that this plan was going to pay for itself without increasing taxes. You have been saying that the users themselves were going to pay for it. That ain't gonna happen Care.

The point is, Care, that you have been saying that the users themselves would pay for the policies which is flat out a mistake on your part. The Horse's As, er mouth just said so. His plans are to tax you and me to pay for it.

Now, if the plan were simply to provide insurance to the poor... i.e. put them on Medicare, I would not have a problem with that. Instead, the plan is in the long run to force us all into the government's plan. That is where my problem lies.

The government has proven time and time again that it runs these kinds of programs in extremely inefficient manners. Now they want to prove it again with health care reform.

Immie

edit: I just saw that in your next post you deny having claimed that the users will pay for the policy themselves which seems to be a complete reversal of what you have said in the past, but I will take your word for it. I am sure as hell not going through thousands of posts of yours to prove otherwise.

 

[Care4all]

ok, i will TRY AGAIN immie,

The bottom line is that the affordability credits and the public insurance option, are NOT the same things, they do NOT have the Same Meaning....

I think this is the confusion?


Affordability Credits=Insurance Credits given to assist those making under 300-400% of poverty. These credits can be used to buy PRIVATE health insurance that are on ones own State Insurance Exchange....a market place where consumers can compare insurance policies from the various private companies offering it...on coverage and price, in a more apples to apples fashion...(so they say). This is the 'welfare portion' of the bill...where the 20 million more get insured....along with some that do not get assistance but are forced to buy insurance.

The Affordability credits will be "means tested"....obviously those making 300% of poverty will NOT get in Affordability Credits, what the person right at poverty level would get, so the person making 300% of poverty will have to share in the total expense of the insurance policy price, while the poorest will get it paid in full....by us, the tax payers.

NOTE! That these people at the poverty level, were more than likely getting MEDICAID, and their health care coverage paid by the tax payer already....so the Affordability credits for those at poverty are REPLACING MEDICAID....(the Dems claim this 'part' actually saves money)


There are 2 Proposals on how this could work out.

1. Those getting Affordability Credits, will go to their State Insurance Exchange, and review the private insurance policies available, and will buy one of these Private Insurance Company Plans, using their Affordability Credits to Purchase it, along with whatever money is due, out of their own pockets....if any at all. This is mandatory...they will be FORCED to use these credits in their name to buy a PRIVATE INSURANCE plan, but they will have a choice of what plan they want to buy.

2. Those getting Affordability Credits, will go to their State Insurance Exchange, and review the private insurance policies available and review the Public Insurance policies available, and will buy one of these Private Insurance company Plans, using their Affordability Credits to purchase it, OR buy one of the Public Insurance plans being offered, using their Affordability Credits to purchase it, along with whatever money is due, out of their own pockets....if any at all. This is mandatory....they will be FORCED to use these credits in their name to buy a Private Insurance Plan or a Public Insurance Plan, of their choice.

NOTE!

In option 2, those with affordability credits worth X in dollars, can use those credits to buy one of the private insurance company plans OR one of the public insurance policy plans. They are still forced to buy insurance, but they are NOT forced in to buying one from the private sector, NOR are they forced to buy the public option insurance plan.


THEY GET TO CHOOSE which way to spend their affordability credits, is my understanding of it....they are NOT forced in to buying the Public option Insurance policy....but they can CHOOSE to do such.


The Public Insurance Option- The Public Insurance Option, at least the House version one... is run similar to a nonprofit insurance company within a State.

the rules in the bill, said that:
1- the insurance provided and all the administration cost of such, must be paid for through their insurance premiums price. Each state would have a different price, and the heads of such plans are to determine these costs in each state through the practiced measures insurance companies use.

2- the insurance provided, must include a "BUFFER" in their premium costs to cover any unexpected expenses.

3- the insurance provided MUST MEET ALL RULES AND GVT. REGS that all Private Insurance companies on the Health Care Exchange have to meet.

4- The insurance must use all profits made, to increase coverage for the Insurance Policy holders, or reduce their price in premiums.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, with this understanding of it, I think that we all would be best served, as tax payers, and as possible policy purchasers, IF they/we have the choice to either buy in to one of the Public Option Insurance plans offered, or one of the Private Insurance Plans offered then this just means more choice, more competition, and competition is good.

And I view it in the same manner when our government costs out what they spend themselves doing a specific duty, and they then get private bids on what these businesses say they can do the same duty for, and if the private sector is cheaper, then they will go with that, but if they can do it cheaper than any of the private bidders, then they will stay with that....this is not much different.

Also, it is my understanding, that individuals who want to buy their own insurance on the State Insurance Exchanges, can do so. So, if I wanted to buy my own Insurance plan, I would not just have a choice of the 2 insurers in my state that cover nearly 90% of the people here, (whose prices are through the roof), but I would be able to buy my private Insurance from a Public Insurance offering as well, which possibly could be less expensive than the 2 other insurers in my state with similar type coverage.

though some calculations and economists/actuaries say, that they don;t believe the nonprofit type insurance with the public insurance option can really come out cheaper than the private insurers...and I admit, this is possible...

But if this is the case, then this means that more individuals will buy their insurance from the private sector policies available and the Public Option ends up falling, because of it. At least this is how I view it Immie.

Care

 

[Big Black Dog]

The perfect healthcare reform would just put us younger people on the same plan as all the old people who have social security. We wouldn't use it as much as old people do, so we'd actually end up lowering costs. Spread the risk among young and old, not just old. Social security is costly because its all old people who use it every month.

But I guess what they just gave us is going to give the insurance companies millions of new customers. This healthcare bill wasn't a solution at all. We were conned.

The government can't manage Medicare now with just the old folks on it. What makes you think they will be able to manage it if all of a sudden millions of more people are added to the program? Doctors are becoming difficult to find that will accept new Medicare patients because the government is so far behind in making payments to their medical practices for the Medicare patients they see now. This will be an even bigger problem if the Medicare program is expanded. Bad idea. Very bad idea.

 

[Immanuel]

ok, i will TRY AGAIN immie,

The bottom line is that the affordability credits and the public insurance option, are NOT the same things, they do NOT have the Same Meaning....

I think this is the confusion?


Affordability Credits=Insurance Credits given to assist those making under 300-400% of poverty. These credits can be used to buy PRIVATE health insurance that are on ones own State Insurance Exchange....a market place where consumers can compare insurance policies from the various private companies offering it...on coverage and price, in a more apples to apples fashion...(so they say). This is the 'welfare portion' of the bill...where the 20 million more get insured....along with some that do not get assistance but are forced to buy insurance.

The Affordability credits will be "means tested"....obviously those making 300% of poverty will NOT get in Affordability Credits, what the person right at poverty level would get, so the person making 300% of poverty will have to share in the total expense of the insurance policy price, while the poorest will get it paid in full....by us, the tax payers.

NOTE! That these people at the poverty level, were more than likely getting MEDICAID, and their health care coverage paid by the tax payer already....so the Affordability credits for those at poverty are REPLACING MEDICAID....(the Dems claim this 'part' actually saves money)


There are 2 Proposals on how this could work out.

1. Those getting Affordability Credits, will go to their State Insurance Exchange, and review the private insurance policies available, and will buy one of these Private Insurance Company Plans, using their Affordability Credits to Purchase it, along with whatever money is due, out of their own pockets....if any at all. This is mandatory...they will be FORCED to use these credits in their name to buy a PRIVATE INSURANCE plan, but they will have a choice of what plan they want to buy.

2. Those getting Affordability Credits, will go to their State Insurance Exchange, and review the private insurance policies available and review the Public Insurance policies available, and will buy one of these Private Insurance company Plans, using their Affordability Credits to purchase it, OR buy one of the Public Insurance plans being offered, using their Affordability Credits to purchase it, along with whatever money is due, out of their own pockets....if any at all. This is mandatory....they will be FORCED to use these credits in their name to buy a Private Insurance Plan or a Public Insurance Plan, of their choice.

NOTE!

In option 2, those with affordability credits worth X in dollars, can use those credits to buy one of the private insurance company plans OR one of the public insurance policy plans. They are still forced to buy insurance, but they are NOT forced in to buying one from the private sector, NOR are they forced to buy the public option insurance plan.


THEY GET TO CHOOSE which way to spend their affordability credits, is my understanding of it....they are NOT forced in to buying the Public option Insurance policy....but they can CHOOSE to do such.


The Public Insurance Option- The Public Insurance Option, at least the House version one... is run similar to a nonprofit insurance company within a State.

the rules in the bill, said that:
1- the insurance provided and all the administration cost of such, must be paid for through their insurance premiums price. Each state would have a different price, and the heads of such plans are to determine these costs in each state through the practiced measures insurance companies use.

2- the insurance provided, must include a "BUFFER" in their premium costs to cover any unexpected expenses.

3- the insurance provided MUST MEET ALL RULES AND GVT. REGS that all Private Insurance companies on the Health Care Exchange have to meet.

4- The insurance must use all profits made, to increase coverage for the Insurance Policy holders, or reduce their price in premiums.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, with this understanding of it, I think that we all would be best served, as tax payers, and as possible policy purchasers, IF they/we have the choice to either buy in to one of the Public Option Insurance plans offered, or one of the Private Insurance Plans offered then this just means more choice, more competition, and competition is good.

And I view it in the same manner when our government costs out what they spend themselves doing a specific duty, and they then get private bids on what these businesses say they can do the same duty for, and if the private sector is cheaper, then they will go with that, but if they can do it cheaper than any of the private bidders, then they will stay with that....this is not much different.

Also, it is my understanding, that individuals who want to buy their own insurance on the State Insurance Exchanges, can do so. So, if I wanted to buy my own Insurance plan, I would not just have a choice of the 2 insurers in my state that cover nearly 90% of the people here, (whose prices are through the roof), but I would be able to buy my private Insurance from a Public Insurance offering as well, which possible could be less expensive than the 2 other insurers in my state with similar type coverage.

though some calculations and economists/actuaries say, that they don;t believe the nonprofit type insurance with the public insurance option can really come out cheaper than the private insurers...and I admit, this is possible...

But if this is the case, then this means that more individuals will buy their insurance from the private sector policies available and the Public Option ends up falling, because of it. At least this is how I view it Immie.

Care

I think you must be very tired, because you don't seem to be able to read today.

No where have I said availability credits = public option or that availability credits have to be spent on the public option.

Availability credits are nothing more than the redistribution of wealth. The government takes from the haves and pays the health insurance of the have nots.

1- the insurance provided and all the administration cost of such, must be paid for through their insurance premiums price. Each state would have a different price, and the heads of such plans are to determine these costs in each state through the practiced measures insurance companies use.

Here again is the comment that the insured will be paying for their own coverage which is simply not true. Again, we can see that by the use of availability credits the insured is not paying his/her insurance... others are and when it ends up that the taxes taken from the haves does not equal that given out to the have nots (like in Social Security) the government will borrow from the future and leave our grand children to pay for us.

Immie