Sure and I have a bridge to sell you real cheap. The money will just go in to the pockets of the fat cats. The average person won't see a dime and most likely be screwed over by higher taxes because of this and cap and tax.
I just hope the republicans are able to kill any sort of public option. Any public option will slowly kill all private insurers. I don't want to be stuck with some crappy public option along a huge tax hike to pay for it.
Meh, the people who say we should cut taxes on the rich so businesses will hire more people are the same people who think corporations will simply pocket all the savings when it comes to health care. You can't have it both ways, geniuses. It's a simple matter of shoehorning whatever situation comes about into right wing ideology. Decreased costs from a tax cut? They make jobs! Decreased costs from health care? They pocket the money and screw the middle class! Cognitive dissonance anyone?
A public option is the smartest health care idea that we've had in a long time. It's not as smart as full socialized medicine, but I'll take what I can get. This whole myth of a 'huge tax hike is just ignorance. You already pay this 'tax' in every product you buy, you just don't realize it.
There will be no savings only a shift who pays for it. The middle class are going to be stuck with huge ass bill to pay for this. This inept corrupt governement can't do anything right. How is porkulus working out again?
Who knows how the stimulus is working out? The only people who claim they can say one way or the other are lying to you, as most of the money hasn't been spent yet. (everyone knows this too, as the timetable was clearly stated when it was passed. Not that it's stopped retards from trying to pretend otherwise.)
If you think the middle class isn't paying for it now, you're incredibly naive. Those who say that socialized medicine doesn't see savings are simply ignoring massive piles of evidence from every single other industrialized country on the planet. You're doing so because you're unwilling to accept facts that conflict with your ideology.
As I've said many times before, if other countries had implemented a free market solution that showed the sorts of results in other countries that socialized medicine has shown, the right wing would be slobbering all over it. The real objection is that it comes from government, and admitting that government could do something good is so unpalatable to the ultra-right that they would rather stick with a failed system than admit their ideology could be flawed.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,916
- 2,878
- 136
Yes, obviously it's just the stupid righties that are hypocrites, the lefties that are all of the sudden favoring trickledown economics aren't being hypocritical at all. So maybe you can answer my question then because apparently you disagree with Senseamp, where and when will we see this extra money that we'll be saving. Although I am glad to hear that they won't be raising taxes to pay for it, that's a relief.
I don't believe the projected costs being released by the Admin for even a second. My guess is that they're off by a factor of ten, or worse. My bet is that we're looking at hundreds of billions per year.
Second, private companies will NOT pass any resulting savings on to their existing employees. That's a fantasy. Instead, what they will do is either a) reinvest that money in the company, b) they will use it to line the pockets of upper management, or c) do both.
IOW, their profit margins will increase, and the company may become more successful, but I highly doubt that I'll see my current $8,000/yr total healthcare costs reflected in my own salary if/when the company is relieved of the burden of paying for it.
Meanwhile, my own personal tax rates will more than likely increase in order to pay for our wonderful new "public option," so I end up with a net loss in total income.
swell.
Do you honestly believe that people will be able to walk into their bosses' offices and say "OK, since I know that you're saving over $7000/yr from not having to pay for my health insurance, I'd like that $7000 added to my annual salary instead."
YEAH RIGHT.
Second, private companies will NOT pass any resulting savings on to their existing employees. That's a fantasy. Instead, what they will do is either a) reinvest that money in the company, b) they will use it to line the pockets of upper management, or c) do both.
IOW, their profit margins will increase, and the company may become more successful, but I highly doubt that I'll see my current $8,000/yr total healthcare costs reflected in my own salary if/when the company is relieved of the burden of paying for it.
Meanwhile, my own personal tax rates will more than likely increase in order to pay for our wonderful new "public option," so I end up with a net loss in total income.
swell.
Do you honestly believe that people will be able to walk into their bosses' offices and say "OK, since I know that you're saving over $7000/yr from not having to pay for my health insurance, I'd like that $7000 added to my annual salary instead."
YEAH RIGHT.
Population is exponential growth. Of course medicare is going to go over its previously stated budget eventually.
Social Security would be fine if the politicians could keep their hands out of the till.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
It's funny you think they can coexist--cute, even, if terribly naive. In time most people in America will have health coverage that looks very much the same and it will be via government.
Really, well why are they talking about paying for this with a huge new tax? Not on me, but the very wealthy, but of course it's a tax-hike nonetheless.
Like a 9 month wait for arthritis treatment?, thanks I think I'll pass. The free market solution in the US would see me treated within 1-2 weeks from the moment I call my primary care physician.
I really have to wonder if any of you people have actually ever had a fvcking health event at all or only read about them on the paper, because in my world, the one in which I have private insurance (as do the vast majority of us reading this), it works well and it works fast. I hope that when you smash your knee in the future and you're told it will be six months before you can see a specialist that you realize you deserve it, because it's what you asked for.
Here is how it will play out and you can count this as fact: the so-called public "option" will, unless its implication is completely pathetic and inept, see more and more people under a public plan with private shrinking precipitously. In time those with private insurance will be wealthier and wealthier, using it to get away from the poor service and high waits of the public plan. That is, unless it becomes illegal to have such private insurance as it is in Canada.
Another article on the newest House version:
America's Affordable Health Choices Act
In terms of costs, I was right:
Then, the one particular aspect of the bill that concerns me the most:
[Edit: PDF of newest version of the AAHCA - 14 Jul 09
America's Affordable Health Choices Act
In terms of costs, I was right:
DOH! I think the title of this thread needs some updating...
Then, the one particular aspect of the bill that concerns me the most:
I'm off to dig through the bill to figure out what that is referring to...
[Edit: PDF of newest version of the AAHCA - 14 Jul 09
So a lot of people wanted the public plan eh?
Sounds good to me.
Lets get rid of private insurance for the average person all together like a sane nation.
That's the house bill, not the Senate bill. We have two branches in the legislative branch.
The cost of this *Senate* bill will likely climb to $1 trillion *after* it is combined with the bill in the Senate Finance Committee. This rise in costs will be from offering subsidies to the poor and lower middle class.
The *Senate* bill that I originally posted just passed through it's committee today by a vote of 13-10.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul
Maybe I got a little confused about which version we were talking about here (someone else introduced the House version into the thread).Originally posted by: Carmen813
That's the house bill, not the Senate bill. We have two branches in the legislative branch.
The cost of this *Senate* bill will likely climb to $1 trillion *after* it is combined with the bill in the Senate Finance Committee. This rise in costs will be from offering subsidies to the poor and lower middle class.
The *Senate* bill that I originally posted just passed through it's committee today by a vote of 13-10.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul
But, either way, we're looking at much more than $1 trillion in costs over the next ten years.
Swell.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Facebook
Twitter