It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush's Plan for Healthcare: Tax Your Existing Benefits.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I'm in Canada, and I'm currently waiting for a little ``operation``. I called for a meeting end of november, I went there last week. So it took about 1 month and 1 week. So it's not that bad. But it wasn't urgent. Another time, it was urgent, I went there and 10 minutes after I was on the operation table. I spent 4 days at the hospital, 0$.

But last week, I heard that a woman in a hospital waited 18 hours in urgency... She nearly died there. But that happens 1 time a year... so no big deal.




posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Why all the bashing already? Things can't continue on the same way if we are to solve these problems. Both sides, Democrat and Republican need to sit down and smash their heads together and fix this problem. It will need many fixes to the system to get it right again.

Being self employed I will share my perspective on this. For my family of myself, my wife and 3 little boys my cost of insurance is staggering.

For a quality plan including dental, vision and healthcare with prescriptions I end up shelling out almost $1,300 a month. Even if I just get catastrophic coverage; aka somebody has to be hospitalized for it to work, I still end up paying about $600 for coverage that includes dental and vision with no prescription coverage. I still would have to fork over a $5,000 deductible with that plan till I see real benefits. You tell me if that is fair just because I am a self employed person. Why can't I get the same rates as someone with the same family and health employed with a large company?

I don't want a break, I just want a level playing field. Most people if they had to pay for all of their own insurance out of pocket would freak. When I hear people whining about paying $200 dollars every 2 weeks for their coverage it just makes me want to laugh. I would love to pay that but since I am self employed, I get hosed for all they can get me for. I almost wish someone would get sick so I can actually see some benefit from my almost $16,000 a year I spend on my family's healthcare.

Healthcare reform will need ideas from all sides for it to be successful. Tort reform, tax incentives, small business pooling for rates, all these things and more will be needed.

Long term care premiums for the elderly will need tax incentives even more. Many nowadays can not use the current deduction for LTC simply because they do not itemize and therefore go without and long term care insurance. That is one tax break that would save the government Millions of dollars even with the tax break as we would see a sharp decline in Medicaid spending for Nursing homes.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Toad.............if the wait time was days......it could maybe considered.



There may be a wait time in Canada, but if you live in the U.S. and have no health insurance, like about 45 million right now, you're not going to have much chance of getting treated no matter how long you wait.

If I'm not mistaken, I think that an emergency in Canada, such as a heart attack does not require a wait at all because it is so serious. Perhaps some of our Canadian members could clarify this?



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
I'm in Canada, and I'm currently waiting for a little ``operation``. I called for a meeting end of november, I went there last week. So it took about 1 month and 1 week. So it's not that bad. But it wasn't urgent. Another time, it was urgent, I went there and 10 minutes after I was on the operation table. I spent 4 days at the hospital, 0$.

But last week, I heard that a woman in a hospital waited 18 hours in urgency... She nearly died there. But that happens 1 time a year... so no big deal.

It wasn't $0 though. You still paid for it through tax dollars.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Bush is proposing to make health insurance premiums taxable income, with people who get employer-provided plans that cost more than $15,000 a year facing a tax hike if they do not get cheaper insurance, the White House said. Average family coverage offered by employers costs about $11,500 annually.

The president is proposing tax deductions -- $15,000 for a family and $7,500 for an individual whether or not they purchase their own health coverage or get it from their job -- to help buy insurance.

news.yahoo.com...



well, let's see, so, I take it if my employer (and me??) are paying more than $7.500/yr, I'm gonna see a tax hike..
here's the demographics of our company....we have two or three 80+ olds, many close to sixty, and all but maybe three of the rest of us are over 40... and because of the nature of the business-screenprinting=toxins which leads to more sickness.....ummm....they do seem to be a sickly crew...
I'm not sure how much the company is spending on us, will find out today if it tops that $7,500 per employee. I know the coverage was downgraded this year because they couldn't afford the new premiums.



Baicker said about 30 million Americans could face higher taxes under the president's plan "if they didn't change their behavior" -- meaning giving up an employer's more generous health plan in favor of a less-costly one. The White House added that "more than 100 million Americans" would save money under Bush's plan.

news.yahoo.com...



save money....as long as they stayed healthy and didn't end up needing major medical care.....then, well.....they'll learn that their new insurance plan doesn't cover near as much as they would have liked???




Under Bush's plan, states could subsidize health insurance premiums directly, they could establish high-risk pools for the sickest people, and could help individuals and small businesses create their own insurance pools.

To get the federal money states would need to make health insurance affordable by such means as "reducing benefit or premium mandates," it said. Currently, each state has its own set of mandated conditions that health insurers must cover.


news.yahoo.com...




ahh, yes, there it is again, the nice loss of coverage....ooops, you got pregnant, sorry we don't have to cover you.....maybe you husband will deliver the baby?? well, okay, maybe I am exagerating a little here. but what about diabetes, heart conditions, autism, parkinson's desease, alzhiemer's, and the hundreds of thousands of people with those conditions, how will they be affected by this?

and just who will this help (besides the insurance industry)? the minimum wage earner who is making so little now that they just might be covered by medicaid?? or those self employed...like someone on this board, who could be possibly making over $100,000?

One thing is for sure.....I learned my lesson in the last round. I'm not gonna tear up my body 40+ hours a week just to be told when the health issue hit that if I don't have a few thousand to throw in for a down payment, sorry. If they rig it so that I lose my insurance...they'll lose a taxpayer! I am sick and tired of paying so others can have stuff that I have to do without!



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by closettrekkie
Wow, I do think this is rediculous! What the heck is this guy thinking? I'm getting tired of the government thinking the only way we can fund things is by raising taxes rather than being fiscally responsible. Why don't we cut some of the benefits the do-nothing government workers receive?


What about cutting some of the waste departments in government that realy do nothing to help the American people?

I just keep saying to myself "just two more years, just two more years"

And this idiot thinks hes going down as a great president



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 07:47 AM
link   
I don't get it.

So many of you here talk about employer health benefits as if it were some sort of government entitlement.

Wrong.

It is a form of remuneration that is EARNED by the employee as tax-free compensation for one's labor.

It's a twisted joke that so many see the government NOT taxing something as a "gift" granted by the government. Talk about turning something on its head.


For the self-employed ranks, I see the dilemma. But a massive redistribution of wealth should not be the plan.

How about starting with a requirement that insurers offer plans to a larger array of small business consortiums, where the self-employed can co-op their bargaining power for reasonably priced healthcare? …Minimizing insurance fraud? …Attacking healthcare waste?

I see the President’s plan as nothing more than another example of his oversimplified view of the world. I would say at this point, he has a solid track record of breaking things he does not fully understand…wouldn't you?

Don't believe for a second that this plan will improve things.

In my view, it will make it MUCH, MUCH worse.

Good luck, everyone... :shk:

[edit on 23-1-2007 by loam]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
What is so stupid about this plan?

He is trying to health more affordable for people who do not receive it through their job.

Companies which do provide company healthcare plans will be taxed accordingly.

Having worked in 'coporate America' and now being self-employeed, coporate insurance was great.....I had excellent coverage at a very low cost...it was very nice.

Now that I'm self employed my insurance costs ~$6,000/yr..........and that only covers major medical issues......mainly my heart has to leap out of my chest, smack me in the face a few times and then burst into flames
and then..........I'd be covered....maybe.

I'd like a break. Insurance companies should have to be more competetive.

If this is so stupid........what is your idea

[edit on 22-1-2007 by ferretman2]


As a business owner and employer this is the crazest thing I have ever seen proposed? Do you not understand that the way the this tax is going to be constructed that your contributions will be considered taxable. And that this will cause employers to look for "cheaper" insurance for employee's



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
i understand why someone would say this is bad but.....

there are people in this country that dont get insurance through their work. and people that dont have insurance becuase its priced to high.

what bush is doing is(i think what he trying to do) is hes going to force insurance companies to lower their rates. becuase nobody will settle for a tax hike, "supply and demand".

what this will do is make it more affordable across the board for the lower class citizens.


the people that need insurance are the ones who cant afford it.

if this hurts your current system- im sorry but your the sacrifice, the poor are the target audience here.

[edit on 23/1/07 by Glyph_D]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I think everyone gets the point of the proposed changes. What we don't get (at least I don't) is exactly how this law will "force" insurance companies to lower their rates? the only effect I see is that more people will end up with less insurance coverage.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   
bare with me because im not an insurance wiz. but how i see it>

if people start dropping their policies, insurance companies start losing money. lets say you find a better policy and better priced with a different agency, your current agency will lose a source of income. at some point the two agencies will start to compete with each other, within the capped rates range. to get there money that they so desperately need.

its kinda like how car insurance is nowadays



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
bare with me because im not an insurance wiz. but how i see it>

if people start dropping their policies, insurance companies start losing money. lets say you find a better policy and better priced with a different agency, your current agency will lose a source of income. at some point the two agencies will start to compete with each other, within the capped rates range. to get there money that they so desperately need.

its kinda like how car insurance is nowadays


OK. I see what you are saying. What I still don't get is how or why the administration would expect me to willingly risk my family's health or even lives by dropping policies and accepting lesser coverage to hopefully try and force insurance companies to to the right thing. To me that is the same philosophy as the Minutemen guarding the border - which the government is against. They're trying to get individuals to fight a battle that in this case (health insurance reform) the government should take on.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
well from what i know about insurance companies, when the ball starts to roll theyll jump on it. it is distressing to consider risking your family for this to play out, but hopfully this wont take long for results to start showing up.


tho it is up to us to get this going, but really its our money thats the control factor here.




[edit on 23/1/07 by Glyph_D]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
i understand why someone would say this is bad but.....

there are people in this country that dont get insurance through their work. and people that dont have insurance becuase its priced to high.

what bush is doing is(i think what he trying to do) is hes going to force insurance companies to lower their rates. becuase nobody will settle for a tax hike, "supply and demand".

what this will do is make it more affordable across the board for the lower class citizens.


the people that need insurance are the ones who cant afford it.

if this hurts your current system- im sorry but your the sacrifice, the poor are the target audience here.

[edit on 23/1/07 by Glyph_D]


ya know what....I was a stay at home mom for most of the time my kids were growing up......so, ya, I understand not being insured....employee based family plans grew out of our price range a long time ago...
the sacrifice...lol.....taxes were still being taken out of my husbands paycheck, property taxes still raised on a regular basis.....money was taken from us, so the poor could have what I didn't....HEALTHCARE!
and yes, my employer is paying more than that limit for my healthcare..I asked today. so, I guess unless he wishes to force a few 80 yr old ladies into retirement, make up an excuse to let go a few more middle aged people, and well, hire those nifty youngsters that if you want my opinion seem to have the work ethic of an amoeba, well, guess it will be affecting me if it gets passed. hopefully it wont!

This also forces the states to reduce their expectations of the insurance companies...what they should be covering, what they don't have to cover.....so much for state rights!! we'll be paying more, for less. that is what it amounts to. and the poor, as you put it, will still be on medicaid, child health plus and all those other nifty programs.

and I bet you 10 to 1, if it does get passed, shortly afterwards, you will see the upper managers of the insurance companies getting nice salary increased and bonuses.

oh, another bet... federal employees will be exempt from this. lol!!



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowEyes
If I'm not mistaken, I think that an emergency in Canada, such as a heart attack does not require a wait at all because it is so serious. Perhaps some of our Canadian members could clarify this?

If you have a heart attack in Canada, you would not be waiting around for treatment. You'd be ushered in very quickly.

The stories about wait times for life-threatening surgeries are scary, but they are a very small minority of the people who get treatment through our system. They make great stories for the media, however - if it bleeds, it leads. Most Canadians love their universal health care and we love to whine about our government. Combine the two subjects and you sell a lot of newspapers. The stories tend to pop up when the healthcare unions (nurses, janitors, hospital staff doctors etc) are negotiating contracts. They want the public support for when they go on strike.

Our system is very similar to a HMO, except the province is the insurer and they do not have to approve treatments beforehand. The doctor decides what treatment is necessary and then bills the province for it. Doctors with their own practice are private businessmen, not government employees.

Any health benefits (extended coverage, MSP premiums) you receive through work are considered a 'taxable benefit' and you pay income tax on them. In our case, these additional taxes are very minimal, because we are only charged very small premiums - $58 dollars a month in my province.

[edit on 23-1-2007 by Duzey]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   
So I still don't get where this is going to help anybody that can not get insurance from their company because is pricy and can not afford the ones outside the company.

like I say you either can or you can not and doesn't make a bit of difference.

Sadly most American workers can not afford insurance on their income today anyway, so this more of a matter of availability of income to afford insurance than company benefits.

Now I see something that is worrying me a bit, does this mean my husband is going to be taxed more because he used the government Human tricare insurance?

I wonder, is not free you know and his company only offers supplemental to pay for what tricare doesn't cover. . . but that is not a lot.

Will they take over the extra taxation?

I am confused.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:57 AM
link   
There are problems on every level here including big business insurers, pharmaceutical companies, the fact that health insurance has anything to do with your employer is just illogical, the cost and payment for medical tests vs cost and payment for your doctor to actually talk to you - examine you - diagnose your problem, the idea a lot of people have that you can watch tv to figure out what is wrong with you AND what medicine you can take to fix it, insurance companies deciding how long you get to stay in the hospital or which test you can have or which med you can take, and of course let's not forget that the problem also exists on the insureds end as well. There is certainly NO easy solution here. This is a huge problem and will reach crisis levels within the next 5-7 years because there is no way the people, the insurance companies nor the government will be able to pay for treatment of all the diabetics that will be in this country. It would be helpful if there was no more smoking, everyone would stop eating so damn much and no one supported (bought, took or asked for) any medication that is advertised on tv or in mags/newspapers!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And do we really want the government to run our healthcare??? Have you tried to navigate the "new government medicare drug plan" for yourself or someone in your family? What a completely idiotic, poorly designed idea. Disgraceful!



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by moving away
There are problems on every level here including big business insurers, pharmaceutical companies, the fact that health insurance has anything to do with your employer is just illogical, the cost and payment for medical tests vs cost and payment for your doctor to actually talk to you - examine you - diagnose your problem, the idea a lot of people have that you can watch tv to figure out what is wrong with you AND what medicine you can take to fix it, insurance companies deciding how long you get to stay in the hospital or which test you can have or which med you can take, and of course let's not forget that the problem also exists on the insureds end as well. There is certainly NO easy solution here. This is a huge problem and will reach crisis levels within the next 5-7 years because there is no way the people, the insurance companies nor the government will be able to pay for treatment of all the diabetics that will be in this country. It would be helpful if there was no more smoking, everyone would stop eating so damn much and no one supported (bought, took or asked for) any medication that is advertised on tv or in mags/newspapers!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And do we really want the government to run our healthcare??? Have you tried to navigate the "new government medicare drug plan" for yourself or someone in your family? What a completely idiotic, poorly designed idea. Disgraceful!


it would also help if industry would quit putting cancerous crap into our food, air, water, and everything else!! far fewer people smoke now that when I was growing up, yet the rate of asthma is so much higher, why?
and the only sugar substitute there was was sacharin, which came with a warning of cancer....my dad was diabetic, so he used it, but most did not. my mom fried her food in lard, better war more common, and well, there wasn't all these "healthy alternatives" that there are now. most of the kids weren't fat, heck, no one I knew growing up was asthmatic, and I don't think there were that many autistic children. Heck the biggest killer of all the adults that I knew as a kid was alchohol related!! Most of them died from liver disease...my mom was a bartender. my dad died of diabetes...

all these diseases started to explode after I reached adulthood, with the advent of the two income family and the meal in the box....everything is refined, reprocessed, and well, I guess the food that God gave us wasn't good enough, we had to improve on his creation??

the bad habits were always around, in other words....the explosion of deseases weren't.


and as far as the new medicaid drug plan goes...all the more reason to keep it's creator away from the rest of our healthcare system!!



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Well what we need is control, control of how the medical industry the mega billion dollars pharmaceuticals, and the mega billion insurance complex regulate and manipulate prices.

That is the key, perhaps their CEOs do not need the exorbitant and outrageous incentives, salaries and retirement packages they are profiting from their business.


People like me that happen to have problems with medications because of extra sensitivity, can not used blood presure pills and anything that tamper with enzymes or statins.

Guess what is old fashion remedies for me.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Marge - Pharmaceutical companies spend alot of money developing new drugs....

For instance:

Pfizer spent ~$1 billion dollars developing it's new anti-colestrol drug.

This drug has recently been removed from use by the FDA due to some deaths. This has caused pfizer to lay-off 10,000 (1/5 of work force) employees and close 5 facilities. This, added to the money lost to generic drug mfg (~$4billion), has severly hurt pfizer.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join