Another Health Care debate...

20% of 2.7 trillion dollars is a ton of money for somebody that just sucks the teet and denies coverage wherever they can, and a lot of tubes of $225 cream. Health care is inflated here for many reasons. We already pick up the tab for people who cannot afford it. Practice overhead is very high in this country due to liability. We cant outsource healthcare but we can make the system a hell of a lot more efficient. Its cheaper to go to Urgent care and pay out of pocket than it is to have a plumber come fix your sink. The plumber is putting a higher % of that money in his pocket at the end of the day too. He also did not go to school for 12 years to learn his trade.

Routine dr visits are pretty affordable so why do we spend $600 a month in premiums? Cause one appendectomy can cost you $25,000. Kinda like Vegas but we are all betting that we will get sick because we can't afford not to.

If we paid a healthcare tax instead of an insurance premium everyone would be covered, doctors would get paid and care would always be there when you needed it no questions asked. Kind of like the library.

Reform? WTF!! But then be taxed for it..

Racist? How?

Whether he is doing a bad job or not is very subjective because there are so many variables to consider. One thing I can say is that I never got an email from George W. Bush informing me on any issues. I get a couple a week from the current administration, sometimes informing or updating, other times asking for calls to congressmen to get the word across on important issues. The bottom line is that he informs people, gets their input and goes for change. Its not always exactly what we want and things are still bad economy wise but that took a sht before Obama. Until we stop moving all of our jobs overseas, paying insane amounts for health care, and stop sicking our war dogs on every foreign scuffle at a billion dollars a day, things will not get any better no matter who is in office.

eric lavine wrote: Kee. monopoly?

I hate board games that are not on the water! LOL

there are 3 types of people Hard, ones that say "what the fck just happened" the other "hey whats happening" and last are the ones that make things happen....
needless to say, he (Obama) is heading in the right direction.
you guy's are slowly coming around LOL

Keegan,

I think that is a good point. My Dad and I have talked a lot about what things were like when he first started teaching and even back when he was a kid. Back then, insurance was for major medical issues, not comprehensive care. If you just needed to see your family doctor and take care of a simple issue, you paid the doctor cash and went about your merry way. Without all the middle men, it was more cost effective. Many that I know in the medical field can attest to costs to run a practice being extremely high due to paperwork, beauracracy and lawsuits. Take those things away and it drastically simplifies things and reduces costs.

I agree on your assessment of the article.

The point is why are we still paying for health insurance? Why do we have to make a choice whether to afford a prescription that will make you better, or food for the table? All insurance companies do are middle man our health care. They earn huge profits and do not provide any service that improves our health. They are the leach that make it inevitable that the current way of paying for health care will die. If 100% of the money we all pay every year went into health care and not into some insurance company's CEO's pocket we would not have copays to visit the doctor or to get the drugs we need to get well. They would just be there when you need them. I say let the insurance companies die. Nobody will be able to afford health insurance in 5 years anyway.

As for the article and Obama's strategy, I doubt he wants Americans to turn to frugal healthcare any more than we already are. That is what Nixon did when he decided Health Insurance was the way to handle medical costs. And I quote "Less care more profit".

I hate politics!

eric,

I'm not following your point.

Gotta love our politicians. Under the guise of spending cuts, this idea floats out there. Hopefully this will be fought hard enough to die.

Tax break for employer health plans a target again By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press – Sun Nov 28, 1:21 pm ET WASHINGTON – Job-based health care benefits could wind up on the chopping block if President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans get serious about cutting the deficit. Budget proposals from leaders in both parties have urged shrinking or eliminating tax breaks that help make employer health insurance the leading source of coverage in the nation and a middle-class mainstay. The idea isn't to just raise revenue, economists say, but finally to turn Americans into frugal health care consumers by having them face the full costs of their medical decisions. Such a re-engineering was rejected by Democrats only a few months ago, at the height of the health care overhaul debate. But Washington has changed, with Republicans back in power and widespread fears that the burden of government debt may drag down the economy. "There is no short-term prospect of enactment," former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a leading Democratic adviser on health care. "However, in a tax reform (and) deficit reducing context in the long term, the prospects are much better," said Daschle. He opposes repealing the tax break by itself, but says he would be "willing to look" at it with other changes that improve access to quality health care while reducing costs. Labor unions believed they had squelched any such talk. Now, they're preparing for another fight. Tampering with health care tax breaks is "a terrible step in the wrong direction," said Mary Kay Henry, the new president of the Service Employees International Union, which represents many hospital workers. "We want the middle class stabilized, not destabilized." Employer-provided health insurance is part of a worker's compensation. Unlike wages, it isn't subject to income and payroll taxes. Repealing the tax break would raise several hundred billion dollars a year, depending on how it's done. Many economists believe employers would boost pay if they didn't provide health care. Proponents of repeal usually call for a tax credit to offset part of the cost of individually purchasing coverage. The leaders of Obama's deficit commission — Democrat Erskine Bowles, a former Clinton White House chief of staff, and Alan Simpson, a former GOP senator from Wyoming — have proposed to limit the tax break or eliminate it along with other cherished deductions, such as the one for mortgage interest. That would allow for a big cut in tax rates. The commission is supposed to report its plan on Wednesday. It's unclear if leaders have the votes to back their sweeping changes. A separate group, the Bipartisan Policy Center, is proposing to cap the health care tax break in 2018 and eliminate it over the next 10 years. That's part of a deficit reduction strategy from Democrat Alice Rivlin, a former Federal Reserve vice chairman, and former Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N-M., who once led the Senate Budget Committee. "The problem of rising debt is so serious that Republicans and Democrats are going to have go back and look at almost everything to see how we solve this," said Rivlin. Simpson calls the health care tax break a "tax earmark." He said that "you cannot get anything done in this game unless you deal with every single aspect of the federal budget, and the biggest thing to wrap our arms around is health care." Democrats struggled with proposals to curb the tax break during the health care debate, but strong opposition from organized labor won out. The compromise was a tax on high-cost health insurance plans, which won't go into effect until 2018. In a twist, the health care law eventually may make it easier to pry people away from employer insurance, a system that dates to World War II and has sustained three generations. Starting in 2014, new insurance markets will make it easier for people to buy coverage on their own. These state-based "exchanges" would work like the federal employee health plan. Taxpayer subsidies will help individuals and families with low to moderate incomes pay premiums. "Before health reform, a declining role for employers would have raised concerns," Rivlin and Domenici said in their proposal. But well-run exchanges "will provide a viable — perhaps even superior — alternative." One Democratic member of Obama's deficit commission is wrestling with the idea. California Rep. Xavier Becerra says it's a very different situation from the health care debate. Back then, policymakers were looking for money to pay for covering the uninsured. Now, they're looking at rebalancing the role of government in the economy. He's not considering health care tax breaks in isolation. "What we are saying is that we are going to examine every tax earmark," Becerra said. "They are all on the table. If you want to keep one, then show us how you are going to come up with the money. That's where you really have to put your money where your mouth is."

Link