Numbers numbers numbers. I've no doubt substantive health care reform will pass in Obama's first term.
What I doubt is whether or not it will pass before the new year, and Obama needs the taxing authority in 2010 to make it work the way he has it lined out.
And, economically those taxes he wants to impose on insurance companies, pharm companies, medical equipment companies, and the reductions in Medicare reimbursements will all trickle down to whom?
It may be a "deficit neutral" plan, but it isn't a tax neutral plan. Somebody is going to pay, and as always, it will be middle income taxpayers who will get the bill.
When the government takes so much of a family's income that they have to go on welfare to survive, where is the benefit?
The Democrats have no more spine for taxing the wealthy than do the Republicans. So the middle class expendable income will be significantly reduced, reducing consumption, which reduces GNP.
I just read a comment on (gulp) another blog by Nick Nemec who said his DakotaCare just raised his premium to $900+ per month. He's 51.
The median household income in SD is $44,000 a year. That means the average household will be paying some insurance company 1/4th of their income just for the health insurance premium. Not including the $5000 deductible or the co-pay.
So the question is, would you rather pay that in taxes, or to the insurance company?
Which one do you think will give you the better value for your dollar?
Want a clue? Ask any senior on Medicare if they want to trade that coverage for private health insurance.
So does Nick have extenuating health problems ? 17 kids ? If not- he needs to shop around. There are lots of people out there paying 1/3 that amount for decent coverage.
Every senior I know pays an additional premium every month from a private insuror to cover the ever growing list of things that Medicare doesn't cover.
But yet it covers a private room. So I can't get at all excited about another government run bunch of overspent crap.
It's never simple Bill- no matter who's problem it is. But I have to ask you - how many people do you know that pay $900 for health coverage ? Don't you think there may be a pretty good reason his is so high ? I know lots of people who pay 4 times what I pay for car insurance every month, but I have a clean record, no accidents, no claims.
Before we get our feathers all ruffled about one person paying a seemingly large amount for coverage, we need to know why he pays that much. There's got to be a reason as he is pretty obviously the exception- not the rule.
Now as for your math on insurance being 1/4 of house hold income- you want to trying sending 50% of your income to the feds ? That's about what you can expect to pay for "socialized " type health care.
Are you trying to say that there will be no increased taxes to cover the health care for the entire country ? That what is currently paid in FICA will pay for it all ?
No, Donna, I'm saying exactly what I said. Worst case scenario, it looks like your minimum required contribution to national health beyond your contribution to FICA would be around $3,600 and asking if you have evidence to the contrary.
I also think it's important to distinguish between an "insurance premium" and a "tax." There are current "premium rates" for Medicare for those who haven't paid into the system.
You can find those rates here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)
It would seem to me that since these rates are for people age 65+ who represent the highest possible risk pool, the premiums should go down if the risk pool gets far larger and younger.
10 comments:
Numbers numbers numbers. I've no doubt substantive health care reform will pass in Obama's first term.
What I doubt is whether or not it will pass before the new year, and Obama needs the taxing authority in 2010 to make it work the way he has it lined out.
And, economically those taxes he wants to impose on insurance companies, pharm companies, medical equipment companies, and the reductions in Medicare reimbursements will all trickle down to whom?
It may be a "deficit neutral" plan, but it isn't a tax neutral plan. Somebody is going to pay, and as always, it will be middle income taxpayers who will get the bill.
When the government takes so much of a family's income that they have to go on welfare to survive, where is the benefit?
The Democrats have no more spine for taxing the wealthy than do the Republicans. So the middle class expendable income will be significantly reduced, reducing consumption, which reduces GNP.
I don't think this can be done right in 3 months.
Michael,
Mike,
Mikey,
Mike-o-mopolis,
Mike-raham Lincoln,
Miiiiiiiike!
I just read a comment on (gulp) another blog by Nick Nemec who said his DakotaCare just raised his premium to $900+ per month. He's 51.
The median household income in SD is $44,000 a year. That means the average household will be paying some insurance company 1/4th of their income just for the health insurance premium. Not including the $5000 deductible or the co-pay.
So the question is, would you rather pay that in taxes, or to the insurance company?
Which one do you think will give you the better value for your dollar?
Want a clue? Ask any senior on Medicare if they want to trade that coverage for private health insurance.
The Mike-o-nator.
So does Nick have extenuating health problems ? 17 kids ? If not- he needs to shop around. There are lots of people out there paying 1/3 that amount for decent coverage.
Every senior I know pays an additional premium every month from a private insuror to cover the ever growing list of things that Medicare doesn't cover.
But yet it covers a private room. So I can't get at all excited about another government run bunch of overspent crap.
Yeah, a backup policy would be good for those who can afford it, for sure, Donna.
I don't know what Nick's circumstances are. Perhaps he can't switch because of preexisting? You'd have to ask him.
Meanwhile, ever notice how everything is so simple when it's somebody else's problem?
It's never simple Bill- no matter who's problem it is. But I have to ask you - how many people do you know that pay $900 for health coverage ? Don't you think there may be a pretty good reason his is so high ? I know lots of people who pay 4 times what I pay for car insurance every month, but I have a clean record, no accidents, no claims.
Before we get our feathers all ruffled about one person paying a seemingly large amount for coverage, we need to know why he pays that much. There's got to be a reason as he is pretty obviously the exception- not the rule.
Now as for your math on insurance being 1/4 of house hold income- you want to trying sending 50% of your income to the feds ? That's about what you can expect to pay for "socialized " type health care.
How so, Donna?
Show me the numbers.
For example, how much do you pay in to FICA right now as a % of your HHI?
I'm hearing that the proposed fine for NOT having insurance would be around $3600.
That's hardly 50% of $44,000.
It's not even 10%.
So, worst case scenario, don't have ANY insurance.
You'll save a bundle.
And you can still go the Emergency room route.
It'll just be cheaper when you do.
Are you trying to say that there will be no increased taxes to cover the health care for the entire country ? That what is currently paid in FICA will pay for it all ?
No, Donna, I'm saying exactly what I said. Worst case scenario, it looks like your minimum required contribution to national health beyond your contribution to FICA would be around $3,600 and asking if you have evidence to the contrary.
I also think it's important to distinguish between an "insurance premium" and a "tax." There are current "premium rates" for Medicare for those who haven't paid into the system.
You can find those rates here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)
It would seem to me that since these rates are for people age 65+ who represent the highest possible risk pool, the premiums should go down if the risk pool gets far larger and younger.
Post a Comment