A Rare Thread for me - political

[MaeveoSliabh]

Politics is NOT my thing. I'm one of those who could care, but really doesn't. Figure I'm going to get fucked over either way. That being said, the Bodyguard sent me this link today:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp;_ylt=Aoz2l4TF2l_CYDZFIClCc1as0NUE

There's a problem here. People are struggling to buy food and keep a roof over their heads. Trust me. Prime example sitting here typing - if it hadn't been for BG I'd have starved by now. Yet to garnish wages to provide a health care plan? To garnish everybody's wages for it?

Somebody's a bit out of touch with the reality of the situation.

 

[SweetWitch]

Politics is NOT my thing. I'm one of those who could care, but really doesn't. Figure I'm going to get fucked over either way. That being said, the Bodyguard sent me this link today:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp;_ylt=Aoz2l4TF2l_CYDZFIClCc1as0NUE

There's a problem here. People are struggling to buy food and keep a roof over their heads. Trust me. Prime example sitting here typing - if it hadn't been for BG I'd have starved by now. Yet to garnish wages to provide a health care plan? To garnish everybody's wages for it?

Somebody's a bit out of touch with the reality of the situation.

Insanity at its finest, I think.

 

[carsonshepherd]

Our wages are already garnished for taxes, unemployment insurance and Social Security.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Politics is NOT my thing. I'm one of those who could care, but really doesn't. Figure I'm going to get fucked over either way. That being said, the Bodyguard sent me this link today:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp;_ylt=Aoz2l4TF2l_CYDZFIClCc1as0NUE

There's a problem here. People are struggling to buy food and keep a roof over their heads. Trust me. Prime example sitting here typing - if it hadn't been for BG I'd have starved by now. Yet to garnish wages to provide a health care plan? To garnish everybody's wages for it?

Somebody's a bit out of touch with the reality of the situation.

It's not what most would prefer, I'd imagine, but the money has to come from somewhere and that's how Social Security is funded. And with the minimum wage finally getting a boost, the impact would be lessened a bit.

Rumple Foreskin

eta: Carson, you're right on two out of three. The Unemployment Tax (FUTA) is funded 100% by employers. What we see on pay stubs is a record of the amount the employer paid into an employee's Unemployment Insurance (UI) account. rf

 

[rgraham666]

Sigh.

What an unsubtle attack on public health care.

I'll say more later. Right now I've got to go rip some one a new one.

 

[MaeveoSliabh]

This would be for something entirely new. Read the article.

 

[DesertPirate]

Hillary just lost the election if she is the nominee.

 

[carsonshepherd]

It's not what most would prefer, I'd imagine, but the money has to come from somewhere and that's how Social Security is funded. And with the minimum wage finally getting a boost, the impact would be lessened a bit.

Rumple Foreskin

eta: Carson, you're right on two out of three. The Unemployment Tax (FUTA) is funded 100% by employers. What we see on pay stubs is a record of the amount the employer paid into an employee's Unemployment Insurance (UI) account. rf

I had a feeling that was wrong. The flu germs are making me giddy.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Saying No to CoerciveCare
By SHIKHA DALMIA

On Monday, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's "universal" health-care plan was shot down by a committee in the state's Senate, 7-1. The most vociferous opponents were not fiscal conservatives, but labor unions that launched a last-minute revolt against its most crucial feature: an individual mandate that would have forced everyone to buy coverage.

This defeat has national political implications. Hillary Clinton, for example, has denounced Barack Obama for refusing to include an individual mandate in his health-care plan. Yet many California unions argued that a mandate would force uninsured, middle-income working families to divert money from more pressing needs toward coverage whose price and quality they cannot control.

The unions are correct: This is exactly what is happening in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney enacted a similar plan two years ago as governor. (And Mr. Romney's plan is the inspiration for both the Schwarzenegger and Clinton plans.) The experience in the Bay State deserves a lot more scrutiny than it has been getting.

Massachusetts uses a sliding income scale to subsidize coverage for everyone up to 300% of the poverty level -- or a family of four making around $60,000. Everyone over that limit is required to pay for their own coverage if their employers don't provide it. All this has inflated demand, which, combined with onerous regulations on insurance suppliers, has triggered premium increases of 12% for this year -- double last year's national average.

No one is escaping the financial sting. The state health-care bill for fiscal 2008-2009 is expected to touch $400 million -- 85% more than originally projected. Still the state won't be able to fully shield those it subsidizes from the premium increases. But uninsured folks who don't qualify for government help really get pounded. Before the hike, the cheapest plan for uninsured couples in their 50s cost $8,200 annually. Now, unless government bureaucrats hand them an exemption, they might well find it cheaper to pay the penalty -- up to half the price of a standard policy -- than purchase insurance. That is, pay to remain uninsured. This is legalized extortion: TonySopranoCare.

The government response to rising premiums is, unsurprisingly, price controls. The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority -- the bureaucracy created to oversee RomneyCare -- is considering prohibiting underwriters from raising premiums more than 5% for unsubsidized plans, meanwhile requiring them to cover 40-odd benefits from hair prostheses to chiropractic services. If companies can't scale back coverage, they'll have to compromise care; and the Connector is perfectly willing to assist.

As reported in the Boston Globe, the Connector is encouraging insurance companies to include only a limited network of cheaper physicians and facilities in some plans to hold down premiums. Patients who wish to see more expensive providers will have to dig into their own pockets. Dr. Steffie Wollhandler, a professor of medicine at Harvard University, worries that the Connector will revive Gov. Romney's original idea of enrolling poor people in plans that only offer access to neighborhood health centers ill-equipped to treat anything beyond routine ailments. Forcing people to buy substandard care they cannot afford is not universal care, she says. "It is a hoax." And so Massachusetts is marching toward a system of two-tiered medicine -- the alleged market inequity that universal care is supposed to cure.

How about enforcing the mandate? In Massachusetts, non-compliers lose their personal tax exemption -- about $220 -- the first year, followed by fines in subsequent years. California was planning to garnish the wages or impose liens on the mortgages of the uninsured to pay for coverage. "This bill was like telling someone who is in need of help, 'I'm going to give you food, but I'm going to take away your clothes," Leland Yee, a Democratic senator from San Francisco, told the California Chronicle.

. . . Should Hillary Clinton ever be in a position to bully people into buying coverage, a coalition of labor and fiscal conservatives might well do to HillaryCare what it just did to GovernatorCare.

Ms. Dalmia is a senior analyst at the Reason Foundation.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Lighten up, people. This is just political rhetoric. Look at the Obama plan: Everyone gets health insurance. How does it get paid for? Duh? He hasn't figured that out yet.

Look at the McCain plan: It's not a government problem. We'll give it to the insurance companies and they can deal with it. How does it get paid for? Duh. Not his problem.

What you are missing here is that wages are sacred under the law. In order to take part of your wages for health insurance, both the Senate and Legislature have to pass a law. Is it going to happen in any of the present forms put forward? I don't think so. Remember, Hilary tried to get this plan through back when Bill was president. Didn't work then either.

So, the nomination of the Democratic candidate hinges on everyone's unworkable health plan? From what I am reading, the real issues are job security and stability, major changes in the direction of the economy (to straighten out the "robust and growing" Bush economy) and the price of food at the grocery store (which is tied to high oil prices - another Bush blowjob).

 

[AvoidingRealWork]

Politics is NOT my thing. I'm one of those who could care, but really doesn't. Figure I'm going to get fucked over either way. That being said, the Bodyguard sent me this link today:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp;_ylt=Aoz2l4TF2l_CYDZFIClCc1as0NUE

There's a problem here. People are struggling to buy food and keep a roof over their heads. Trust me. Prime example sitting here typing - if it hadn't been for BG I'd have starved by now. Yet to garnish wages to provide a health care plan? To garnish everybody's wages for it?

Somebody's a bit out of touch with the reality of the situation.

Since our wages are already garnished by our employer to pay for health "insurance," I don't see the difference if our government garnishes them instead. My employer is paying out the ASS for everyone's health coverage and it ultimately comes out of my paycheck. I'd rather have all of this centrally administered so HR can do something more productive with their time and the business be more streamlined and efficient.

Every business in the USA having to act as a mini-healthcare-administrator is a stupid way to run things.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Since our wages are already garnished by our employer to pay for health "insurance," I don't see the difference if our government garnishes them instead. My employer is paying out the ASS for everyone's health coverage and it ultimately comes out of my paycheck. I'd rather have all of this centrally administered so HR can do something more productive with their time and the business be more streamlined and efficient.

Every business in the USA having to act as a mini-healthcare-administrator is a stupid way to run things.

That's a little different than the Clinton plan. If health insurance is costing the company $2.00/labor hour, if the company didn't have to pay that, feisably you would be making $2.00/hour more than you do now. Garnishment (I'm not really sure that is the correct word to beging with) is a legal, court ordered reduction in your wages that you still pay taxes on. This is something more like a tax.

As a side note, this does cause some weirdness with the IRS Schedule "B". Is your health insurance deductable even though you are paying it as a tax and not as a premium to an insurance company? This whole thing isn't well thought through yet.

 

[MaeveoSliabh]

Not everybody's wages are garnished. There are plenty of independent contractors that don't contribute to any sort of insurance plan, either because they feel no need to do so, or because they can't afford it for various reasons.

Jenny - It may all be rhetoric, but this is one issue that caught my attention. The ONLY one. Only because, as one of those independent contractors, I'm having problems anyway, and can not afford to put in a chunk of every check coming in to support health care for everybody else. If anything, this is enough to cause me to go registe to vote for the second time in my life. The first was to vote against Bush. This time would be to vote against Hillary.

 

[oggbashan]

In the UK we pay National Insurance to provide health care, old age pensions and the other parts of the Welfare State. The amount we pay depends on our income. Part is paid by the employee, part by the employer.

We pay on a sliding scale up to a maximum which is set above the average wage. If we want private health insurance, we pay on that insurance on top of the National Insurance.

Private Health Care in the UK does not cost as much as it does in the US, nor does it cover everything. Emergency care will be the responsibility of the National Health Service whether you have private health insurance or not.

National Insurance is just another tax. How much you pay depends on how much you earn but the health cover is universal, whether you pay National Insurance or not. The amount of State Pension depends on your, or your partner's, payment record. If you were unemployed or bringing up children, that time is credited as if you were paying.

The major differences between the UK and the US are:

1. Health care is universal in the UK. There may be waiting times, some rationing of expensive procedures, but if you are giving birth or are severely injured in a road traffic accident you will get care immediately and pay nothing. In the case of a road accident the insurance of the driver at fault (which might have been you) will repay the cost of the health care.

2. Medical care, public or private, costs less in the UK because lawyers aren't involved so often. Individual doctors have to have medical negligence insurance. It is expensive by UK standards but not as expensive as in the US because there are fewer and less expensive claims. That is gradually changing with the growth of "no win, no fee" ambulance chasing lawyers but doctors do not have specify expensive tests to demonstrate that they have eliminated any possible causes.

3. Private medical care insurance covers a wide range of situations from providing better hotel-type accommodation, quicker access to consultants, or full cover for non-emergency procedures. Some insurance schemes are virtually useless such as paying a set sum for every day you are in hospital and that sum doesn't cover a tenth of the real cost; or providing payments for specific injuries such as a broken leg.

4. UK dental care is dreadful. The government has micro-managed dental care for dentists treating NHS patients to such an extent that most dentists refuse to have any NHS patients. The paperwork for getting a crown fitted by an NHS dentist is extensive and long-winded and the amount the patient has to pay as "a contribution" is nearly as great as the cost of private treatment. The dental health of the UK population is now nearly as bad as it was before the NHS was set up.

5. Anyone can buy private care if they want to, whether insured or not. I needed some X-Rays of my back before osteopathic treatment. The local hospital's waiting time for that particular X-Ray was ten days. One phone call and the local private hospital took those X-Rays as soon as I arrived. They provided me with a decent cup of coffee while I waited for the X-Rays to be developed and the radiologist's report was written. From the time of the phone call to walking out of the hospital clutching my X-Rays was 25 minutes and that included my drive to the hospital. "American Express? That'll do nicely." Cost? Ninety pounds.

The UK's National Health Service is paid for by taxes even if it is called National Insurance. The tax, for those who pay it, is less than the cost of Medical Insurance in the US. Those who are not employed, or earn too little to pay the tax, are still covered by Health Care.

The major difference is for those with long-term conditions that require continuing care. The NHS does not stop treatment even after many years. It covers the population, disabled or not, from cradle to grave.

The NHS has its flaws. For example its treatment of mental illness could be better but providing funds for mental illness is not a vote-winner. Politicians interfere too much in the NHS and the financial management of the NHS suffers from political interference.

However, I'm glad that the NHS exists. I have friends who could never have been eligible for private medical insurance because they were disabled from birth, and friends who have developed severe long-lasting conditions that would have been excluded from insurance. The NHS continues to look after them and they continue to live reasonable lives free from the worry of medical bills. They are still alive to worry about their other bills...

Og

 

[Stella_Omega]

AS I mentioned on the other thread dealing with this, I lost a job because my employer couldn't afford to keep my insurance going. I've been and independant most of my life-- not always willingly.

I am in the position myself right now where I need an employee, but cannot afford insurance for my family, much less another person. Someone out there needs the job that I have to offer. My only possible recourse is hiring under the table, and I know of a couple of other entrepreneurs who have been screwed by an employee suing them for insurance that they had, at first, agreed to forego. I cannot take that chance.

So here I and my little business sit in limbo. Unless I can find an independent contractor who will stick by me for a while.

Roxanne had a thread going on this same subject quite a while back, I got really pissed off with her about it, but-- eventually, the rest of the details started making sense.

Please don't vote against hilary. If we end up with another rep in the white house, our children will be dying and that's something that no amount of health care policy can fix.

 

[Angeline]

AS I mentioned on the other thread dealing with this, I lost a job because my employer couldn't afford to keep my insurance going. I've been and independant most of my life-- not always willingly.

I am in the position myself right now where I need an employee, but cannot afford insurance for my family, much less another person. Someone out there needs the job that I have to offer. My only possible recourse is hiring under the table, and I know of a couple of other entrepreneurs who have been screwed by an employee suing them for insurance that they had, at first, agreed to forego. I cannot take that chance.

So here I and my little business sit in limbo. Unless I can find an independent contractor who will stick by me for a while.

Roxanne had a thread going on this same subject quite a while back, I got really pissed off with her about it, but-- eventually, the rest of the details started making sense.

Please don't vote against hilary. If we end up with another rep in the white house, our children will be dying and that's something that no amount of health care policy can fix.

Werd. Maybe we need for Exxon to pay a higher tax on that $40 billion dollar profit they just announced. Or perhaps Haliburton could finance it. That's where our money is going anyway. Hillary is not the problem though every lobbyist whose corporation stands to lose if America has universal health care (can you say pharmaceutical companies, hmo's, insurance companies) will try to make it look like she is.

Oops. <Readjusts apolitical mask.>

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Please don't vote Democrat. We /cannot/ afford it.

 

[gauchecritic]

Please don't vote Democrat. We /cannot/ afford it.

Of course you can. You just don't want to pay it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Please don't vote Democrat. We /cannot/ afford it.

*giggle*
*snicker*
snickersnicker snork giggle

gigglegigglesnicker snorksnuckHYUCK hah har har har ooooHOOOHHHH ha ha ha ha Hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee... whOO!

Heh.

Heh heh.

Heh heh hee hee hee hEEEE har har har! Haw haw snickersnicklegigglesnork hur hur huh hyUUUCK haw haw haw! huh... Snicker... snicker haw haw haw hee hee heheheheheeee heee HEEE hee hee hee HAW HAW HAW HAW hur hur fuff uff whuh haw haw...

heh heh...

heh ....

Damn, I needed that laugh, thanks.

 

[feeeriek]

*giggle*
*snicker*
snickersnicker snork giggle

gigglegigglesnicker snorksnuckHYUCK hah har har har ooooHOOOHHHH ha ha ha ha Hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee... whOO!

Heh.

Heh heh.

Heh heh hee hee hee hEEEE har har har! Haw haw snickersnicklegigglesnork hur hur huh hyUUUCK haw haw haw! huh... Snicker... snicker haw haw haw hee hee heheheheheeee heee HEEE hee hee hee HAW HAW HAW HAW hur hur fuff uff whuh haw haw...

heh heh...

heh ....

Damn, I needed that laugh, thanks.

i usually stay out of the political threads...however i must say...stella i you

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Please don't vote Democrat. We /cannot/ afford it.

So the McCain plan is better? Paying a profit motivated, independant insurance company would be cheaper? That's an old Republican Pary line that gave us "Independant Contractors" (Blackwater) in Iraq.

Romney's plan is discussed in the article. And you wonder why he's not governor of Mass anymore?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

So the McCain plan is better?

No.

Paying a profit motivated, independant insurance company would be cheaper?

I don't have health insurance. I don't want health insurance. I have no kids, no spouse, and am my sole obligation--I have savings. My savings is there for emergencies, including health related ones. Paying my doctor when I'm sick is cheaper than me paying the federal government or anyone for "health insurance". Ridiculous. The market /can/ work, I believe with medicine, the market does work--interference has only made it more complex, profitable, and corporatist.

That's an old Republican Pary line that gave us "Independant Contractors" (Blackwater) in Iraq.

No, that was a "neo"-Republican Party line.

Romney's plan is discussed in the article. And you wonder why he's not governor of Mass anymore?

I haven't much of a love for Romney--why is he relevant?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

*giggle*
*snicker*
snickersnicker snork giggle

gigglegigglesnicker snorksnuckHYUCK hah har har har ooooHOOOHHHH ha ha ha ha Hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee... whOO!

Heh.

Heh heh.

Heh heh hee hee hee hEEEE har har har! Haw haw snickersnicklegigglesnork hur hur huh hyUUUCK haw haw haw! huh... Snicker... snicker haw haw haw hee hee heheheheheeee heee HEEE hee hee hee HAW HAW HAW HAW hur hur fuff uff whuh haw haw...

heh heh...

heh ....

Damn, I needed that laugh, thanks.

I don't know if you realize it or not, but I'll just kinda lay it out there. This thread (as mentioned by the starter of it) does touch on some sensitive things for people--politics can be very personal. You may not understand it, but your post was rude. It had no substance, and seems to have only been there for the point of mockery or belittling.

If it wasn't intended that way, that's fine, but you should understand that communication isn't entirely about what you intended to mean--and often rests a good deal on what people actually hear.

Past that, if its just something I should take as a "given" with you, Stella--which I don't know if it is or isn't--we can just put each other on ignore and avoid any other hassles.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Gosh, Joe, "we can't afford" a Dem? That notion just tickled me.
Looking at the way the Reps have trashed this country, all I can do is fall into hysterical laughter when i hear sentiments like that.

I am so very, very happy for you that you have;
No spouse
No dependants
and plenty of bucks in savings.

I suggest that the reason you have the savings is because you have no other obligations.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Gosh, Joe, "we can't afford" a Dem? That notion just tickled me.
Looking at the way the Reps have trashed this country, all I can do is fall into hysterical laughter when i hear sentiments like that.

Falling into hysterical laughter is very different than typing it out, and posting it as a response. Your knee-jerk reaction is your own business, trying to convey how laughable someone's point is isn't.

Saying that the Democrats, presently in the race, will expand spending isn't a matter of curiosity--their proposed programs will clear 200 billion in new spending alone (with Obama slightly moreso than Clinton). The Republicans presently in the race advocate increases ranging from 50 to 90 billion (again, in new spending). One Republican advocates a reduction in spending of over 150 billion.

On pure economics? No, no I don't think we can afford a Democrat at this point. How that has anything to do with Bush is beyond me. He expanded the spending and size of government greatly--but the candidates before you, for the most part, aren't looking to change that.

I am so very, very happy for you that you have;
No spouse
No dependants
and plenty of bucks in savings.

I suggest that the reason you have the savings is because you have no other obligations.

I work hard. I spend less than I make. When I was younger, that meant fewer nice things and living on the cheap and intentionally not getting married or having kids. Now, I make more, and I still spend less than I make. Thus, savings.

Basic, common sense, personal finances. Your suggestion is a little, then, off.