Posted on 01/23/2007 4:45:40 PM PST by STARWISE
Edited on 01/23/2007 6:37:01 PM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]
employer provided health plans are already moving to making the recipients more "price sensitive" to low level care through higher deductibles and co-pays - but there is a limit to which that works with health care - a sick person wants care, they don't want to shop their MRI or open heart surgery like buying a car. that's just the reality of life.
if the employer provided system collapses - there will be a consensus amongst americans for universal medicare. the Dems will promise to fund it by "taxing the rich", and americans who fear the loss or dilution of their employer provided plan, will be more then willing to hand them their votes.
Subsidized health care has been around since rocks cooled. But with medical care getting ever more efficacious, and those efficacious treatments getting ever more expensive, something has to crack.
At present rates of increase, the cost of medical services in an hundred years, will cost more than the GNP. Just a thought.
I would agree - no new taxes for whatever reason unless it is to tax billionaires who pay zero taxes or unless it is to tax government employees - preferably Congressmen/women - whose benefit packages and pension packages are outrageous.
"DO you really think that President Bush should 'channel his energy towards entitlement programs and ambulance chasing lawyers' in the middle of a war for our country's very survival?
UNFREAKINBELIEVABLE!!"
Are you incapable of patting your head and chewing gum at the same time? There are lots of other issues that Presidents deal with besides the war they are dealing with, which is not a conventional one and is somewhat localized to the Middle East. So, I guess you are saying Bush can't concentrate on anything other than the war. Isn't that a bit insulting to him? That he can't think about domestic issues too? Then why did he bring up so many of them tonite if he is incapable of focusing on any of them, according to you. UNFRICKINGyour not believable.
Chrissy's crew thought he was "articulate" .....BWAAAHAHAHA
exacly right.
one of the reasons the SS private account ideas failed - the administration never once likened them to 401Ks. Bush made what, 50 speeches on it - did you ever once hear how specifically it was going to work?
You have a point that for many medical services, consumers aren't really able to do price maintenance, and it really is insuranc companies that do so. The whole issue is hideously complicated. The upside is that I will be dead, before it all really falls apart.
I'll try a different way.
An employer-supplied plan can be treated as if the employer pays you a larger salary, and then you get to pay the full cost of insurance with your after-tax income. Right now though, the government lets you deduct the entire amount you pay for the health care plan, so long as you buy the EMPLOYERS plan, but not if you opt out of that plan and buy the one YOU want.
Under Bush's plan, little will change, except the government will stop "incentivising" you with tax cuts for any amount over $15,000 that YOU CHOOSE to spend for a health care insurance plan.
They will use the money they save NOT giving full tax breaks, to give tax breaks to those who either CHOOSE to opt out of their employer plans, OR who have no employer plan, and instead purchase their own health care plan.
Purchasing your own health plan is better for the system, because you get to choose what YOU want, and haggle over the price, while your employer has a different motivation.
But in any case, this is no more an "income redistribution" then limiting the income tax deduction for home mortgages to a million dollars.
Income taxes are progressive, and therefore DO redistribute income. special tax breaks for favored acts are a way for government to unduly control our lives, and cutting the amount that happens is a good thing. Of course, what we WANT to happen is for that money to be put back into other forms of tax relief, preferably across-the-board tax cuts. But offering to the people without employer-sponsored health care the SAME TAX DEDUCTIONS which are now available only to a privileged few is a rational government policy. Giving everybody the same tax deductions is not unfair redistribution of wealth, it is simple fairness.
Amazing isn't it!!!!!!!
Another thought. it seemed uncle Teddy slept through the part of the speech they showed him on.......
And all this talk about EARMARKS has Obama ringing in my ears. Please make it stop. NOW!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for your response.
Another unique term to add to the FReeper lexicon.
When I heard the geusts on H&C I turned the tv off...although I thot the Thune (who I sent $25 to in 2004) and the dem senator from Oregon had a nice and civil discussion.
We now have 2 fox sports channels here and they keep showing their BCS bowls over and over again. Last week they showed the OSU-UF game and I just could not watch.
SOTU Speech
Aren't "earmarks" what we used to call "pork barrel spending"? Or is it a new kind of thievery?
Did we have to drop the word "pork" for fear of offending the one Muslim congressman?
Are you sure that you might have gotten the wrong channel.....MTV is a different channel...
I like Thune. Made lots of sense. Reply of the SOTU now. When W said "madame speaker", I about lost it!!!
I missed the whole thing.
All I caught was a bit on the evening news. Both channels I switched to were showing the Democrat's response.
Both stations were showing the same clip.
The part that I saw was probably the most immature response that I have ever seen from the Democrats.
...Congress thinks the President's plan is wrong... the troops think the plan is wrong...
What was that drivel about?
I kept waiting to hear Webb say "... and your Mom thinks your wrong, and you Dad thinks your wrong... In fact, everybody thinks your wrong...."
I was waiting to see Webb stick his tongue out at the President.
Seriously, the smidge that I caught was very immature.
"Government has an obligation to care for the children, elderly, and disabled."
Well, actually, W, it does not. I read the constitution and that is not in it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.