It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 10:31 AM
God... Are we going to make it through another 1 1/2 years of this guy???

"Today, the tax code unfairly penalizes people who do not get health insurance through their job," Bush said. "It unwisely encourages workers to choose overly expensive, gold-plated plans. The result is that insurance premiums rise and many Americans cannot afford the coverage they need."

I have an employee funded plan. I'll tell you right now it's nowhere near a "gold-plated plan"! My company can barely afford it and end up passing the cost increase each year to us, the employees. Our premiums and deductables are outragous. Insurance rarely covers anything anymore. Every time I walk into a hostpital it seems like it costs me $300 even though I supposedly have "full coverage". What a crock!

The only people I know of that have "gold-plated coverage" are government employees and illegal immigrants! I'd like to see how this "plan" will affect them!

Now what other choice do I have that Mr. Bush would like me too choose from? There is none except buying my own.

Once again, whether its the Democrats or Republicans, its the Middle Class Americans that get screwed in the end!

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:28 AM

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

When you put ideas down on paper they seem to work great...But just like the de-regulation of energy in California that was suppose to create fair market price through competetion..That didn't happen. This bill is D.O.A. anyway but if it were to pass this would open the door for and I'm not saying it would happen but I can see in the future that government require

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:08 PM
right and if this were to reach that stage they would dissolve medicaid. which i think is the ultimate plan for this. and because of this i think it just might be enforced on some level. prior to it being an actual law.

when they have health insurance on acceptable rates(much like car insurance), they will make it mandatory for people to have it or be fined should they need medical care.

and without medicaid people will be forced to get involved in this insurance system:/ or face the consequences.

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:21 PM

Originally posted by ferretman2
Pfizer spent ~$1 billion dollars developing it's new anti-cholesterol drug.

This drug has recently been removed from use by the FDA due to some deaths.

And they care less of what happen to people on their first wonder drug lipitor.

So you know that they are closing facilites ?

They are getting ready when the big law sue ball falls on their arses.

Because lipitor is causing neuromuscular degeneration and people can not recuperate from that.

Also damage to the liver and after people been one year on the drug.

I found out this when my doctor decided to give me lipitor because she though that my cholesterol was to high.

That is how I found out that I have sensitivity to this drugs.

In three weeks of taking the samples, I started to hurt in my hips and could not got on steps,

I could not lift weights or even my arms, then I started waking up with completely memory confusion.

And I developed a rash in my scalp that I am still working on it.

In only three weeks.!!!!!!!

People needs to pay attention to problems while taking this pills.

They are more dangerous than what they are trying to control.

The law sues are coming.

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 07:07 PM

Originally posted by MauiStacey
I still HAVE to pay it (you can thank the illegals for that, for having millions of babies that we get to pay for because they cannot/have not).

The government should be making sure we all have health insurance or that it is a least affordable for the average blue color family.

I agree, i live in a neihborhood where each family has about fifty children so they can claim more benefits, most of them dont even speak english. I am NOT racist, i just think its a little unfair.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by capsitan]

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:14 PM
lets hear some really constructive steps we can take. At least he is proposing something. We need proposals for all sides. Small Biz pooling, torte reform, Medical information standardization, billing system reforms all would help. There is much fat in our medical system, it just need to get fit again.

Kinda funny that our medical system is sort of sick itself and is in need of diagnoses and treatment.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 08:12 PM
Canada doesn't have that many issues when it comes to those of temporal with our health care. We have had major issues though granted, but nowhere near the problem faced by millions of Americans. In my mind the fastest way to solve this issue would be to prioritize finances in America....


posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 09:13 AM
I don't understand why he can't just give the self employed a "self insurance" tax credit or whatnot, and also give a smaller tax credit to employers?

I mean, every time I turn on the tele I hear nothing but people complaining that health care costs are crushing their companies.

I think one of the real solution would be congress taking a look at one of the most profitable (if not the MOST profitable) sector in the country, health care, and see why the heck they continue to increases costs well beyond inflation while offering less and less care to those who are insured under them.

The problem isn't with taxing the people who are getting insurance. The problem is with the insurers themselves. You make insurers get in line you make health care more affordable.

Honestly, though, I think a tax credit for small business health insurance or the self insured is long over do.

-The Big O

posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 09:15 PM
Being Canadian and having been used to a health care system I still cant believe the Americans don't have at least the same system we have here which is:

Anything life threatening is free surgery wise, meds will cost you extra.
Anything cosmetic will cost you.

Having 400 million plus people they should easily be able to afford it. The biggest reason is because the U.S government doesn't put a cap on how much doctors make. If they did the U.S could easily control like we do a free based system. Its not that hard and the citizens should push for at least what we have just to be able to live a normal life. I've heard heart surgery costs upwards of 100K, thats insane. One of those and anything else could easily drain your hard earned retirement savings.

[edit on 30-1-2007 by leafer]

posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:40 PM
Maybe a touch off topic but I have a Canadian question (or any other country offering socialized care):

How are medical malpractice lawsuits handled in Canada?

I feel like if the U.S. went to universal healthcare, what with our substantial desire to sue hospitals, the personal injury lawyers would feed like vultures on the low-income population that's had to avoid healthcare facilities for years. Lawyers would be provided the ULTIMATE deep-pocket defendent on a platter: the U.S. government.

I don't know...universal healthcare combined with current U.S. tort just sounds like a spectacular train wreck to me.

Am I missing something?

posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Essedarius
Am I missing something?

I'll walk the slightly off-topic trail with you, if nobody minds.

There are a few differences between the way malpractice suits are handled in the US and Canada.

1 - Canada tort cases are normally only heard by a judge; there is no jury deciding damages.
2 - Pain and suffering amounts have caps on them except in 'extreme cases' (I don't know what is defined as extreme, I just know that there have been awards over the capped amounts on occasion). I believe Bush has brought up award caps in talking about reforms.
3 - There is generally no award for the cost of treatment because the patient didn't pay for it.

posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Duzey
1 - Canada tort cases are normally only heard by a judge; there is no jury deciding damages.

Not allowing twelve people with no medical knowledge whatsoever to preside over a case based entirely on medical facts?!!??

That's craaaaaazy.

2 - Pain and suffering amounts have caps on them except in 'extreme cases'...

Who is the defendent (as a rule)? The doc? The hospital? The province? All of the above?

posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:23 PM
The defendant would normally be the doctors and/or hospitals. I don't know of any cases where a Province has been named as a defendant. That's not to say it's never happened; I'm just not aware of any such case.

As a side note, Canadian physicians are usually urged by those that provide malpractice insurance/defense (normally a non-profit funded by the doctors, The Canadian Medical Protective Association) not to solicit American patients because of the differences between the two countries regarding malpractice suits.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by Duzey]

posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Duzey
Canadian physicians are usually urged...not to solicit American patients because of the differences between the two countries regarding malpractice suits.

Makes sense.

I think it's an aspect of U.S. culture that is absolutely cancerous...lawsuits wag so many dogs in this country, it's pathetic.

<< 1  2   >>

log in