aa757first
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:40 am

Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Wed May 30, 2007 10:26 am

First off, I did do some searches on this - sorry if its already been discussed.

After being caught unprepared at an SEIU debate on health care in March, Obama has given more details about his health care plan.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/....ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Quote:
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama on Tuesday offered a plan to provide health care to millions of Americans and more affordable medical insurance, financed in part by tax increases on the wealthy.

Obama didn't mention that his plan would cost the federal treasury an estimated $50 billion to $65 billion a year once fully implemented. That information was provided in a memo written by three outside experts and distributed by the campaign after his speech.

Obama aides said they believe that everyone would buy health insurance if it were affordable enough, achieving universal care.

What does everyone think?
 
Queso
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Wed May 30, 2007 10:29 am

Quoting Aa757first (Thread starter):
What does everyone think?

Uhhh.......can you say "gimmick"?
 
NWA742
Posts: 4505
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 11:35 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Wed May 30, 2007 10:30 am

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free"




-NWA742
Some people are like slinkies - not good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Wed May 30, 2007 10:32 am

Quoting Aa757first (Thread starter):
What does everyone think?



Quoting Obama TMN (Thread starter):
financed in part by tax increases on the wealthy.

Combined with Hillary's economic equality statements earlier I'm wondering why they don't just go ahead and dump the donkey and replace it with the hammer and sickle.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
charlienorth
Posts: 1051
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:24 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Wed May 30, 2007 10:42 am

How soon before we give them our pay checks and get an allowance in return??
Work hard fly right..don't understand it
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Wed May 30, 2007 10:43 am

The rest of the $65 billion funding could come by raising taxes on inheritances worth more than $7 million. Many Democrats want to repeal Bush's elimination of taxes on estates worth more than $1 million.

God, this is one thing that really burns me up: these "inheritance taxes." Unless the inheritance comes from the deceased's IRA, tax has already been paid on those dollars. There is no reason for such a tax and it is nothing more than government money grubbing.

Quoting Aa757first (Thread starter):
Obama aides said they believe that everyone would buy health insurance if it were affordable enough, achieving universal care.

I don't believe they're going to get as many people continuing private coverage as they think they will. If someone thinks it is their right to get something for free, they'll go for it. You're not going to have too many people saying, "Nah, I'll pay my own way." (I probably would continue private coverage, but that's because I don't want the government meddling in my personal business.) Therefore they probably should increase the expected federal appropriation.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Wed May 30, 2007 11:12 am

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 5):
Unless the inheritance comes from the deceased's IRA, tax has already been paid on those dollars.

Not in all cases. There's the one-time exemption for the sale of a primary residence ($500,000 per couple), where a lot of wealth has been coming amongst retirees lately. Even those who used the old "over 55" exemption can use it for further tax avoidance. There's a lot of wealth going generation-to-generation that has definitely not been taxed.
International Homo of Mystery
 
GuitrThree
Posts: 1940
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Wed May 30, 2007 11:17 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 6):
There's a lot of wealth going generation-to-generation that has definitely not been taxed.

Oh, I bet it has....

what you meant to say was, "there's a lot of wealth going generation-to-generation that has definitely not been taxed AGAIN.
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Wed May 30, 2007 11:19 am

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 7):
what you meant to say was, "there's a lot of wealth going generation-to-generation that has definitely not been taxed AGAIN.

I know exactly what I meant to say. Perhaps you should look up the definition of the word "capital gain" and the exemptions allowed the current generation of retirees on their primary residences.
International Homo of Mystery
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Wed May 30, 2007 12:02 pm

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 3):
Combined with Hillary's economic equality statements earlier I'm wondering why they don't just go ahead and dump the donkey and replace it with the hammer and sickle.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain just what HRC meant when she said "We're going to have to take things away from you for the common good."

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 3):
How soon before we give them our pay checks and get an allowance in return??

 rotfl  Oh come on, now where's your sense of shared responsibility with your fellow citizen? Why aren't you happily getting ready to hand over more and more of your pay check to the government?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
cba
Posts: 4228
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2000 2:02 pm

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Wed May 30, 2007 12:46 pm

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 3):

Combined with Hillary's economic equality statements earlier I'm wondering why they don't just go ahead and dump the donkey and replace it with the hammer and sickle.



Quoting Charlienorth (Reply 4):
How soon before we give them our pay checks and get an allowance in return??

Oh please, this is alarmism! A candidate poses any plan with a slight deviation from unfettered laissez-faire capitalism and the usuals drop the c word! Look at the UK, they have national health care and last time I checked when walking around London, it wasn't a communist country.

The billions of dollars required to fund will obviously have to come from somewhere, but if we are to fund important programs then difficult choices must be made.

Let's also not forget that every uninsured person in the US will get there health care, so we wind up paying for it anyway. Public hospitals are a prime example. A lot of uninsured come to the county ER for basic services that could be provided much more efficiently at the doctor's office or a clinic. However when these people come to the hospital, someone has to foot the bill and it's our tax money. The way I look at it, we're already paying for it.
 
aa757first
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:40 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Wed May 30, 2007 1:33 pm

Quoting Cba (Reply 10):
Let's also not forget that every uninsured person in the US will get there health care, so we wind up paying for it anyway.



Quoting Aa757first (Thread starter):
Obama aides said they believe that everyone would buy health insurance if it were affordable enough, achieving universal care.

I wonder if they're kidding when they say that. Walk into a major company with great health benefits. I guarantee you there is at least one employee that doesn't have insurance when they can easily afford to do so.

Quoting Cba (Reply 10):
A lot of uninsured come to the county ER for basic services that could be provided much more efficiently at the doctor's office or a clinic. However when these people come to the hospital, someone has to foot the bill and it's our tax money. The way I look at it, we're already paying for it.

I agree, but remember , as care becomes more convenient, people make more use of it. I agree, however, we should make things like routine physicals, Pap smears, mammograms, etc. more easily accessible. I would not want to see a system that has the public paying for visits to the doctor when someone has a cold.
 
mdsh00
Posts: 3968
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 11:28 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Wed May 30, 2007 2:00 pm

Quoting Cba (Reply 10):
Let's also not forget that every uninsured person in the US will get there health care, so we wind up paying for it anyway.

This is key and a lot of people don't understand that.

Quoting Aa757first (Reply 11):
I wonder if they're kidding when they say that. Walk into a major company with great health benefits. I guarantee you there is at least one employee that doesn't have insurance when they can easily afford to do so.

Not every company has great benefits, or even any semblance of proper benefits (Walmart anyone?)

I don't understand why the right is getting so worked up over HRC and Obama. This is the usual thing on both sides before the primaries; go a little bit to the extreme of each side until the primary, and then move towards the center. Politics, that's all it is. The US will never have universal health care unless all the companies are forced to provide it. In medical school we learned about some health care systems and every system has its ups and downs. I for one would hate to lose the speed and efficiency of medical care in the US if it all went universal (like Canada or the UK). I actually think Germany has a decent system.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Wed May 30, 2007 4:15 pm

Quoting Cba (Reply 10):
Oh please, this is alarmism! A candidate poses any plan with a slight deviation from unfettered laissez-faire capitalism and the usuals drop the c word! Look at the UK, they have national health care and last time I checked when walking around London, it wasn't a communist country.

There's a difference between socialized health care provided by equally distributing the burden and socialized health care which is provided by punishing the producers.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
Scorpio
Posts: 4768
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Wed May 30, 2007 7:34 pm

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 2):
"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free"

Ah yes, that explains perfectly why health care in the US is far more expensive than it is in those countries where it IS what you would call 'free', i.e. universal.

Empty slogans. You have to love them.
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Wed May 30, 2007 8:58 pm

Quoting Aa757first (Reply 11):
I would not want to see a system that has the public paying for visits to the doctor when someone has a cold.

Therein lies the problem.

We need a system that allows for the coverage of illnesses and injuries where healing won't occur naturally and the person must be treated to get well -- or where there is an illness suspected (i.e, a mole or breast cyst) and testing is required.

For example -- and I'm talking about those of us who have jobs -- we should accept that there are certain "costs of life" that we have to bear. This includes paying for running water, electricity, and the $90 visit to the dermatologist to get the Rx to treat the contact dermatitis on our hands.

I incurred a sunburn in Mexico. Really bad one to the point where I couldn't walk. I wanted to get something stronger than aloe. So I went to the doctor. I paid $60US and he gave me a receipt for my insurance. I have no intention of turning it in to my insurance company because if I can afford a Mexican vacation, I can certainly afford a $60 doctor visit. If I turn the $60 claim into my insurance, that incurs an untold cost from someone having to process it, etc etc etc. and that will just add to the cost of the system and its little things like that that increase the cost of insurance.

How do we provide "universal coverage" without making the costs/claims spiral out of control?

[Edited 2007-05-30 14:02:47]
 
Scorpio
Posts: 4768
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Wed May 30, 2007 9:45 pm

Quoting Aa757first (Reply 11):
but remember , as care becomes more convenient, people make more use of it.

Allow me to rephrase that:

"as care becomes more convenient, people make use of it sooner"

Sooner, as in, at a time when whatever it is they have is in an early stage, and often easier, and cheaper to cure. In order to prevent people from going to a doctor for every little cough, however, you can still charge them a small part of the total cost directly, the way it's done over here in Belgium and, if I'm not mistaken, similar to what you already have in the U.S. now, for those who are insured. The term for that over here is 'remgeld', literally translated 'brake money', and its sole purpose is to stop people from going to the doctor every time they cough.

Quoting Cba (Reply 10):
Oh please, this is alarmism! A candidate poses any plan with a slight deviation from unfettered laissez-faire capitalism and the usuals drop the c word!

 checkmark  Well said! I must say that it is kind of funny, in a sad way, to see these people go completely into overdrive anytime anyone even mentions universal healthcare or anything of the like. It seems that the 'remedy' to this for some on the right is "Just call it communism, and it'll go away!" Most of this from people who wouldn't recognise a communist if one stood before them and smacked them up the head...
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Wed May 30, 2007 10:28 pm

Isn't it funny how easily you can adapt George Carlin's rant on NIMBYs to this issue?

"People don't want anything, any kind of social help, located anywhere near 'em. You try to open up a halfway house, try to open up a drug-rehab or an alcohol-rehab centre, try to do a homeless shelter somewhere, try to open up a little home for some retarded people who want to work their way into the community, people say 'NOT IN MY BACKYARD!' People don't want anything near 'em especially if it might help somebody else! Part of that great American spirit of generosity we hear about! (...) People don't want anything near 'em... except military bases... "

turns into

People don't want anything, any kind of social help, to cost 'em so much as a nickel. You try to set up a national re-integration scheme for drug offenders, try to finance extra language classes for Latino kids, try to introduce healthcare for those who really can't afford anything, try to increase welfare to the truly underprivileged, people say 'NOT ON MY PAYCHEQUE!' People don't want anything to cost 'em, especially if it might help somebody else! Part of that great American spirit of generosity we hear about! (...) People don't want anything to cost 'em... except the military budget...

So we have not only NIMBYs, but also NOMPies.  flamed  away...  sarcastic 
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15222
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Thu May 31, 2007 12:48 am

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 2):
"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free"

Amen....BUT I still don't understand how we can pay more for healthcare (per capita) than just about any socialized country on this planet. Somethin' ain't right.

Quoting Aa757first (Thread starter):
What does everyone think?

Reminds me a lot of Ségolène Royal's promises....sounds great but...uh...how you gon' pay for all that?
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
mdsh00
Posts: 3968
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 11:28 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Thu May 31, 2007 2:16 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 18):
Amen....BUT I still don't understand how we can pay more for healthcare (per capita) than just about any socialized country on this planet. Somethin' ain't right.

Simple; we pay more for drugs, we prescribe more drugs, many times do unnecessary procedures out of fear of being sued, Medicare and Medicaid fraud, and yes paying for the uninsured.

Back in the debates during 2004 elections when someone raised a question to the President about buying prescription drugs from Canada. W fed them some  redflag  about them "not being the same" or "we can't control the quality of the drugs."  redflag  redflag  Why should the exact same drug be cheaper for them and not for us? It's because of collective bargaining by their government, while our politicians here are pimped by the drug companies. Why is it that the US is one of the few, mabye the only country in the world where prescription drugs are advertised on TV?
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Thu May 31, 2007 2:29 am

Quoting Mdsh00 (Reply 19):
prescription drugs are advertised on TV?

WHAT?!?  Wow! Are there any limitations on that sort of advertisement?
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Thu May 31, 2007 2:44 am

Quoting Aloges (Reply 20):
Are there any limitations on that sort of advertisement?

No. A major complaint from doctors around the era when they began was that patients would come into the exam room with a self-diagnosis, then demand the latest drug they saw advertised. It's the "Retin-A Effect"--once that became known to prevent wrinkles, those who it was intended for, patients with rosacea, went under a far greater scrutiny as a result, since every other sundry baby boomer concerned about wrinkles wanted their health plan to cover the cost at $75/tube. (The smart ones simply bought a few OTC in Mexico for $5 and avoided the hassle.)

Prescription drugs have, for the past dozen years or so, been the cause of most of the increase in health care cost/premiums. Several years ago I read a report that said around 20-25% of Portlanders were on some type of anti-depressant at $300/month, covered by their insurance.

It's a huge cost, and a huge problem that we need to corral somehow.

Quoting Aa757first (Reply 11):
I would not want to see a system that has the public paying for visits to the doctor when someone has a cold.

That can easily be controlled with a schedule of covered services. Oregon does Medicaid differently than other states. Instead of covering everything for every covered individual, the state draws up a list of what it will cover, and if your ailment isn't on the list, you're out of luck.
International Homo of Mystery
 
mdsh00
Posts: 3968
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 11:28 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Thu May 31, 2007 3:28 am

Quoting Aloges (Reply 20):
WHAT?!? Are there any limitations on that sort of advertisement?

Few, other than having to rattle off the side effects. Like AeroWesty said, the companies promote it as a way to "educate" patients, but in reality all it does is make them think so, and then they go in an demand their doctor that they only get that drug. For example, everyone here knows of the Nexium ads (NEW and IMPROVED, when it is just esomeprazole vs. omeprazole). For mild cases of heartburn, the cheaper omeprazole is just fine, but these ads make patients feel like they MUST have the "new and improved," and obviously much more expensive drug. Since this process started in the early 90s, patients today feel like they know better than their doctor.

Along with that, the drug companies routinely send out young and attractive representatives to come and give free samples, pamphlets, and "gifts." Not explicitly influencing doctors but you get the point. This last part is on the decline as a lot of hospital ethics codes, etc. discourage and sometimes ban it.

Drug companies defend their high priced drugs as making up for high costs of development, but it still doesn't explain the sometimes ridiculous prices of some medications in the US.

Controlling the drug companies would go a long way in bringing down the cost of health care. But as long as lawmakers are in the pocket of the pharmaceutical lobby, it isn't going to happen.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
 
cba
Posts: 4228
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2000 2:02 pm

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Thu May 31, 2007 3:36 am

The current prescription drug system makes no sense. In just about every other modern country, the government handles purchasing the drugs and thus can buy them in bulk and negotiate better prices. This can even be done without introducing universal health care.

In a case like this, efficiency can be gained by allowing the government to intervene.
 
User avatar
yowza
Posts: 4275
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:01 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Thu May 31, 2007 3:41 am

Quoting Aa757first (Thread starter):
$50 billion to $65 billion

What a stupid way to spend 65 Billion dollars. Here's a much more effective use of taxpayer money.

YOWza
 
DrDeke
Posts: 805
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:13 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Thu May 31, 2007 3:56 am

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 5):
God, this is one thing that really burns me up: these "inheritance taxes."

You know what burns me up a great deal more than that? I'll tell you: The fact that income from capital gains are taxed at a much LOWER rate in this country than income from labor! I'd like to hear an explanation of how that is in any way fair or a good idea!



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 9):
I'm still waiting for someone to explain just what HRC meant when she said "We're going to have to take things away from you for the common good."

Umm, presumably she was talking about taxes. Are you not familiar with how money is taken from your paycheck to provide for common goods like roads, the armed forces, etc...?



Quoting Cba (Reply 10):

Oh please, this is alarmism! A candidate poses any plan with a slight deviation from unfettered laissez-faire capitalism and the usuals drop the c word! Look at the UK, they have national health care and last time I checked when walking around London, it wasn't a communist country.

 checkmark 

Quoting Cba (Reply 10):
A lot of uninsured come to the county ER for basic services that could be provided much more efficiently at the doctor's office or a clinic. However when these people come to the hospital, someone has to foot the bill and it's our tax money. The way I look at it, we're already paying for it.

 checkmark 



Quoting Aloges (Reply 20):
WHAT?!? Wow! Are there any limitations on that sort of advertisement?

There used to be strict limitations on it, under which prescription drugs could not be mentioned by name in advertisements, but that was scrapped a few years ago. Now, as was mentioned earlier, other than the side effect list, it's pretty much "anything goes".



DrDeke
If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Thu May 31, 2007 4:37 am

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 25):
The fact that income from capital gains are taxed at a much LOWER rate in this country than income from labor! I'd like to hear an explanation of how that is in any way fair or a good idea!

The reason capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than income is 1) it rewards people for taking the risk of investing in property and companies, and 2) income and capital gains are two different "value systems." Capital gains reflect the market value of capital.

Official explanation here:

The lower tax rate on capital gains is justified on many grounds. To begin, capital gains are generally not income in the economic sense of the word, so there is no reason to presume they would be subject to the same rate of tax. Income is the return to the use of factors of production such as capital and labor. In other words, it represents a flow of value to its owner. A capital gain is a change in the value of a stock of an asset. Also, a lower tax rate is intended to provide some relief to the lack of protection against purely inflationary gains.

Third, non-inflationary capital gains often reflect an increase in the future after-tax income accruing to the asset. When the increase in after-tax income is due not to a reduction in the income tax burden but rather to an increase in pre-tax income, the increase in income will result in an increase in income tax liability. For example, suppose an asset is expected to yield $100 annually and indefinitely on a pre-tax basis. If the taxpayer faces a 25 percent tax rate and the discount rate is 7 percent, the asset will give rise to a $25 annual tax liability and the price of the asset will be $1070. Suppose there was a change in the market resulting in an increase in the asset's yield to $120 annually. In this case, the income tax liability will increase to $30 annually, and the price of the asset will increase to $1284. Thus, in those instances where the asset owner really has enjoyed an economic gain, the capital gains tax clearly represents a second level of tax.

Finally, it is generally recognized that a critical source of economic vibrancy that distinguishes the U.S. economy is the ability and willingness of individuals to take economic risks. Part of the willingness to take on these risks is the prospect of enjoying the economic benefits that follow success. These benefits generally manifest themselves in the form of capital gains. The lower the capital gains tax rate, the more the entrepreneurs and inventors of America will apply their energies and talents. Thus, a low capital gains tax rate is vital to maintaining the strength of the economy into the future.


From
http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/taxes/taxes-economy.shtml#q3
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Thu May 31, 2007 5:33 am

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 26):
it rewards people for taking the risk of investing in property and companies

What risk? If a millionnaire puts his, say, $20 mill in various forms of financial investment as every "risk manager" will advise him, there is hardly any risk - or certainly a much lower risk than that of a simple worker losing his job or part of his income. This "reward for financial risks" tale applies only to those who put their entire livelihoods into their own family businesses or similar, not to those who give their money to banks or funds.

The real reason why capital gains are taxed much lower than personal income is that money can move so much faster than a worker can. A million dollars/euros/pounds can be in a tax paradise quicker than you can say "evasion" at almost no risk, an employee however will think more than three times whether he should move somewhere else. So since money is much more flexible to escape taxation, wealth is taxed lower than income so that more people pay any taxes at all on it in the country where it was amassed.

At least, that's my impression and explanation.  Wink
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Thu May 31, 2007 6:01 am

Quoting Aloges (Reply 27):
This "reward for financial risks" tale applies only to those who put their entire livelihoods into their own family businesses or similar, not to those who give their money to banks or funds.

Well, the definition applies to more than banks/funds. If I and a couple of other people buy houses in a struggling part of the city, we are taking a risk that the area may not "take off" as expected and we could be stuck paying property taxes and repairs on a money pit with no payoff that nobody wants to buy. Or, the area could become renewed and the values of the homes could appreciate considerably, thereby creating a taxable capital gain. (I am talking about investment property, not a primary residence which has exemptions.)

Quoting Aloges (Reply 27):
A million dollars/euros/pounds can be in a tax paradise quicker than you can say "evasion" at almost no risk, an employee however will think more than three times whether he should move somewhere else. So since money is much more flexible to escape taxation, wealth is taxed lower than income so that more people pay any taxes at all on it in the country where it was amassed.

That doesn't make much sense, since it is kind of hard to escape paying taxes on property sales and fund gains since those are well documented and easily traced transactions. But if you want to blame the wealthy for everything, it doesn't bother me, I'm not one of them!

Since you brought up tax evasion, how many waiters/waitresses, cabbies, hairdressers, strippers and others who work on tips actually report all their tip income? What about the drywaller I paid in all cash? Is he going to report that I gave him $450? It kind of works both ways.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Thu May 31, 2007 8:11 am

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 25):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 9):I'm still waiting for someone to explain just what HRC meant when she said "We're going to have to take things away from you for the common good."

Umm, presumably she was talking about taxes. Are you not familiar with how money is taken from your paycheck to provide for common goods like roads, the armed forces, etc...?

Presumably. But if she just meant government needed to raise taxes in order to provide for needed services, why didn't she just say that? Why the arrogant "I know better than you what's good for you" tone?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
DrDeke
Posts: 805
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:13 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Thu May 31, 2007 8:36 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 29):
Why the arrogant "I know better than you what's good for you" tone?

Probably because she's an idiot who actually does think she knows better what's good for us! Or at least she thinks that certain voters will like the idea of her knowing what's good for us.

Bet ya didn't see that one coming (from me), but I do tend to think it's true.  bouncy 

I don't like Hillary. Honestly, I don't like most "mainstream" presidential candidates running in this election on either side of the aisle. As of right now, Obama sounds pretty workable, but I bet that'll change as he has to define more of his opinions and positions as the election draws closer.


DrDeke
If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Thu May 31, 2007 8:41 am

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 28):
If I and a couple of other people buy houses in a struggling part of the city, we are taking a risk that the area may not "take off" as expected and we could be stuck paying property taxes and repairs on a money pit with no payoff that nobody wants to buy.

Then again, doing that you wouldn't be spreading your risk on various forms of investment but betting on one card. Some people like to gamble with their money, some don't. I object mostly to those who have their money in a dozen funds and banks and talk about "risks" they're allegedly taking. Sure, one of the funds might even go bankrupt - but there'd be eleven others to compensate. To the folks who made their money off of a single good deal or idea, I don't begrudge it in the least. It's those who make their money solely off of other people's backs who I think should pay a bigger part than they do.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 28):
But if you want to blame the wealthy for everything, it doesn't bother me, I'm not one of them!

Where in my post did I do that? If I wanted to blame anyone, it'd be the governments of fiscal paradises and the race to offer the lowest taxation.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Thu May 31, 2007 8:47 am

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 30):
Bet ya didn't see that one coming (from me), but I do tend to think it's true.

Since I am fairly liberal on some issues, and equally conservative on others, I'm not surprised that others might be just as immune to the typical stereotyping that is sadly prevalent on Anet.

Quoting DrDeke (Reply 30):
Honestly, I don't like most "mainstream" presidential candidates running in this election on either side of the aisle. As of right now, Obama sounds pretty workable, but I bet that'll change as he has to define more of his opinions and positions as the election draws closer.

There isn't a single declared candidate I really care for. Bill Richardson comes close, but I'm not writing a check anytime soon.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Thu May 31, 2007 8:57 am

Quoting Aloges (Reply 31):
Quoting 767Lover (Reply 28):
But if you want to blame the wealthy for everything, it doesn't bother me, I'm not one of them!

Where in my post did I do that?

Fair enough. I misunderstood you.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 31):
If I wanted to blame anyone, it'd be the governments of fiscal paradises and the race to offer the lowest taxation.

I read a stunning figure a while back about the sheer billions of $ the US lost in tax revenue in the 1990s due to offshore incorporations.
 
aa757first
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:40 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Thu May 31, 2007 9:10 am

Quoting Mdsh00 (Reply 12):

Not every company has great benefits, or even any semblance of proper benefits (Walmart anyone?)

I agree. That's why I said walk into a company with good benefits. My point is that no matter how cheap health care is, there will always be at least a few people that do not buy health insurance.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 15):

For example -- and I'm talking about those of us who have jobs -- we should accept that there are certain "costs of life" that we have to bear. This includes paying for running water, electricity, and the $90 visit to the dermatologist to get the Rx to treat the contact dermatitis on our hands.

That's a good point and I think that's why HSAs (and MSAs too) become more popular quickly.

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 16):
Sooner, as in, at a time when whatever it is they have is in an early stage, and often easier, and cheaper to cure. In order to prevent people from going to a doctor for every little cough, however, you can still charge them a small part of the total cost directly, the way it's done over here in Belgium and, if I'm not mistaken, similar to what you already have in the U.S. now, for those who are insured.

I see what you mean now. In the US its called a co-pay, a price that you have to pay anytime you make use of a service (maybe $20 to see your doctor).
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Thu May 31, 2007 9:24 am

Quoting Aa757first (Reply 11):
Quoting Aa757first (Thread starter):
Obama aides said they believe that everyone would buy health insurance if it were affordable enough, achieving universal care.

I wonder if they're kidding when they say that. Walk into a major company with great health benefits. I guarantee you there is at least one employee that doesn't have insurance when they can easily afford to do so.

Solution for that - do what they did in Massachusetts. Make it a legal requirement for everyone to have health insurance. Then let people choose between plans offered through their work or government plans priced according to income level.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Thu May 31, 2007 9:35 am

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 35):
Solution for that - do what they did in Massachusetts. Make it a legal requirement for everyone to have health insurance

Question. Where is it written in the Constitution that government ought to have the power to mandate health insurance be purchased by an individual citizen?

And don't trot out the car insurance argument. That's apples and oranges. No one forces me to buy a car. That is a discretionary purchase.

Mandating health insurance is the same as the government telling me I must buy a winter jacket, I must only buy food they deem "healthy," and that I can't choose to live in a makeshift tent in the woods. IOW, it's just another manifestation of the ever present "nanny" state that liberals want foisted on the rest of us.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
DrDeke
Posts: 805
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:13 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Thu May 31, 2007 10:13 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 32):
Bill Richardson comes close, but I'm not writing a check anytime soon.

Hmm. From reading his website, he does also sound more-or-less ok. I bet he would suffer from the same problem as Obama, though, if he ever actually became popular: He would start modifying his stances on issues to pander to the various interests that will bring him the big campaign-fund bucks.

One never knows, though.

DrDeke
If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
 
Scorpio
Posts: 4768
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Thu May 31, 2007 4:45 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 36):
Mandating health insurance is the same as the government telling me I must buy a winter jacket, I must only buy food they deem "healthy," and that I can't choose to live in a makeshift tent in the woods. IOW, it's just another manifestation of the ever present "nanny" state that liberals want foisted on the rest of us.

Strongly disagree. It's more a case of "chances are you're going to make use of the services at some point anyway (even if just in case of an emergency), so you should pay your share of the cost." Seems perfectly fair to me.
 
GuitrThree
Posts: 1940
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:30 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 8):
I know exactly what I meant to say. Perhaps you should look up the definition of the word "capital gain" and the exemptions allowed the current generation of retirees on their primary residences.

Oh, you're right. I don't know what a "capital gain" is.

Perhaps you can tell me how one buys a house in 1970 for $50,000 and in 2007 it's sold by the retiring couple for $200,000. Enlighten me exactly how that is a "capital gain."
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:34 am

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 39):
Perhaps you can tell me how one buys a house in 1970 for $50,000 and in 2007 it's sold by the retiring couple for $200,000. Enlighten me exactly how that is a "capital gain."

Uhhhh, because that's what the federal government calls it?

http://www.irs.gov/faqs/faq-kw140.html

Is this a trick question?
International Homo of Mystery
 
GuitrThree
Posts: 1940
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:05 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 40):
Is this a trick question?

Of course it is...

You said:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 8):
"capital gain" and the exemptions allowed the current generation of retirees on their primary residences.

based on:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 6):
Not in all cases. There's the one-time exemption for the sale of a primary residence ($500,000 per couple), where a lot of wealth has been coming amongst retirees lately. Even those who used the old "over 55" exemption can use it for further tax avoidance. There's a lot of wealth going generation-to-generation that has definitely not been taxed.

And you seem to have a problem with people selling their primary residence for a "profit" and not paying taxes.

If you look beyond your liberal "government gets the first crack at YOUR money before you do attitude," there have been a lot of studies lately that have shown that investing in a house, even if you sell it for a "sizable profit" down the road wasn't a great investment.

Sure, a capital gain on a sale of a stock that you made 50% profit on is easy. But selling a primary residence, isn't.

If those people took out a 30 year loan on that house, the easily paid $100K in interest. They paid taxes every year. They paid insurance every year. They paid for general maintenance, every year. They paid for upgrades. They paid to cut the grass or buy the equipment to cut the grass... on and on and on for 30 years+... When you look at the sale, they hardly made ANYTHING, if ANYTHING AT ALL after expenses.

And lets not forget, all that interest income made by the bank was taxed as income to the bank. All that profit from the insurance company, taxed. Maintence, upgrades, everything, taxed, taxed, and taxed.

But no. In your simplistic "liberal redistribution of wealth model," you look at it as straight profit, and these people who worked for years to simply pay off and maintain the "American Dream" MUST be taxed and that money should go to some poor sap that has less.

What exactly did you call it?

Oh yea...

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 6):
There's a lot of wealth going generation-to-generation that has definitely not been taxed.

You're so far wrong on this one it's not even funny.
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:13 am

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 41):
If those people took out a 30 year loan on that house, the easily paid $100K in interest. They paid taxes every year. They paid insurance every year. They paid for general maintenance, every year. They paid for upgrades. They paid to cut the grass or buy the equipment to cut the grass... on and on and on for 30 years+... When you look at the sale, they hardly made ANYTHING, if ANYTHING AT ALL after expenses.

It's a capital gain because, 1) the interest they paid was tax-deductible, and 2) there is no provision in the tax code for you to live for free, which is why rent isn't tax-deductible. There is a basic cost of owning and maintaining your primary residence, just like there is if you have to pay rent if you don't own a home.

That the sales price is higher than the purchase price for where you choose to spend your money to put a roof over your head means that the difference is a capital gain.

I can't believe we're even having this conversation.
International Homo of Mystery
 
GuitrThree
Posts: 1940
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:28 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 42):
1) the interest they paid was tax-deductible,

True. But it ONLY deducts from the income they made during that calendar year. Just because they paid $100K in interest over the life of the loan, doesn't mean they skipped out on paying $100K in taxes. I would think you would understand this. Sure, they might not have paid $100K after tax deductions, but using average tax rates, they STILL would have paid about $70K in interest over the life of the loan.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 42):
2) there is no provision in the tax code for you to live for free, which is why rent isn't tax-deductible.

Never said they would live for free. You own a house, right? Maybe not, because if you did, you would know that after paying for the house for 30 years, it was far from free...

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 42):
There is a basic cost of owning and maintaining your primary residence, just like there is if you have to pay rent if you don't own a home.

BINGO. Cost. People who rent NEVER have to cut grass, re-roof, install new windows, install new appliances, carpet, paint, water heaters, AC units, etc, etc, etc. When you sell your house for a "profit," it's an artificial profit because you don't see what you invested during the time you owned it. I can't believe you of all people don't see this??

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 42):
I can't believe we're even having this conversation.

Me either. You, like I said, couldn't be more wrong on this.

You buy a house for $XXX,XXX amount. You spend 30+ years PAYING INTEREST, TAXES, UPGRADING AND MAINTAINING THE HOUSE which you add to the initial price of $XXX,XXX, which gives you $ZZZ,ZZZ, your total investment.

When you sell the house for $YYY,YYY, you have to subtract it from the ZZZ price and not the XXX price.

YOU want to tax the difference from y and x, but the TRUE cost of the house is the difference of y and z, and how does one determine that??? In many cases, people who take out 30 year loans, the interest paid alone AFTER the tax deduction is almost close to the so-called "profit" you think people are making, before you do the first upgrade.
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:30 am

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 43):

Man, if I ever go on ranting like this, please, someone, shoot me.
International Homo of Mystery
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:32 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 38):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 36):Mandating health insurance is the same as the government telling me I must buy a winter jacket, I must only buy food they deem "healthy," and that I can't choose to live in a makeshift tent in the woods. IOW, it's just another manifestation of the ever present "nanny" state that liberals want foisted on the rest of us.
Strongly disagree. It's more a case of "chances are you're going to make use of the services at some point anyway (even if just in case of an emergency), so you should pay your share of the cost." Seems perfectly fair to me.

I'm not saying users should get a free ride. If you decide to seek health care, you should pay for it. If you choose not to buy insurance, you will have to pay the total bill.

So what other rationale can you offer to support your thesis I should be required to purchase health insurance?

Mandatory health insurance is the first step on the road to total elimination of choice in the purchase of health care.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:40 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 38):
Strongly disagree. It's more a case of "chances are you're going to make use of the services at some point anyway (even if just in case of an emergency), so you should pay your share of the cost." Seems perfectly fair to me.

You are already paying your share of the cost of public hospitals through taxes.
 
GuitrThree
Posts: 1940
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:47 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 44):
Man, if I ever go on ranting like this, please, someone, shoot me.

Yep.. typical. If you can't back up your reasoning, only thing left to do is to resort to insults. I'll stay above the gutter, thank you, and stand by what I said, because simply, I'm right.

If that's all you have to say on the matter I'll consider it done. Nice chat.
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:53 am

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 47):
Yep.. typical. If you can't back up your reasoning, only thing left to do is to resort to insults.

I didn't offer any insults, I was talking solely about myself. I know how to calculate a cost basis, I know what a capital gain is, and I know that one has to pay for the overhead cost of maintaining a place to live.

There's just nothing to say to someone who claims that if you rent a house you don't have any cost for lawn care. That made it nothing more than a rant/troll, whatever you want to call it, because the post wasn't rational.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 47):
Nice chat.

Yeah, uhhh, I guess.
International Homo of Mystery
 
GuitrThree
Posts: 1940
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan

Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:54 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 45):
So what other rationale can you offer to support your thesis I should be required to purchase health insurance?

Mandatory health insurance is the first step on the road to total elimination of choice in the purchase of health care.

Really? Seems to me that mandatory purchase of car insurance works pretty darn well in the states that have it. Far from perfect, but my cost of uninsured motorist coverage dropped a good bit a few years ago when TN mandated insurance.

Mandatory health insurance will OPEN UP choice in the purchase of health care. It's called competition. And look at the car insurance industry. It's a wealth of options, coverage details, rates, and customer care. I'm all for mandatory health care.

And just like the car insurance, you tend not to go running to you insurance every time you get a small scratch or ding on your car. You fix it yourself, thus keeping YOUR and everyone elses rates lower. Same thing would apply to health insurance. Most people won't go running to the ER everytime they have a runny nose. It would be wonderful for us as a nation that already has the best healthcare available (sorry Michael Moore).
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ManuCH, pvjin and 18 guests