Universal Health Care.
For so many years, Universal Health Care has been the third rail. Spoken about only on the fringe of the Democratic Party's left wing, the mishandling of the Clinton health care plan made UHC equivalent to SHIT.
But, that had begun to change. It was two years ago that I remember a friend in the policy field saying that UHC wouldn't happen because enough normal people weren't unhappy about their health care. Heck, at Health Care for All NC, we came up with a whole way of working around the subject without saying Universal Health Care. It was taboo.
But, not any more. While not the point of this discussion, I am happy to note that it was John Edwards that brought UHC back into the mainstream when he started talking about it as a Democratic Principle. Now, every candidate has a universal health care theme, if not a plan {cough, Clinton, cough cough}. Ah, well. What are the multi-billion dollar industries that rely on lousy private health care to do? Give up? Nope. They've been reading the Republican play books and making their weaknesses into strengths.
Latest example, the AMA. The AMA has attacked every universal health care plan in the past, but now?
WASHINGTON - If Social Security is the third rail of politics, health care is the gum stuck to the station platform: Everyone sees it, it's just easier to ignore it than to try to do something about it. But even this early in the campaign season, a lot of ad money has gone into making sure that candidates will finally have to roll up their sleeves and take on the problem.
The American Medical Association will step into the ring on Labor Day when it unveils the first ads of a three-year, multimillion-dollar effort to raise awareness about the uninsured and spur lawmakers and candidates into action. The eventual goal of the campaign is to see universal health care legislation passed in 2009, according to Nancy Nielsen, AMA president-elect, who introduced the ads at a press conference last week.
Yep, the AMA is the good guy. Not just them, even the big insurers are saying we have to do something about the uninsured (of course, they could quit dropping sick people from the rolls...).
The devil is in the details. You see, conservatives are going about using the language of universal health care to describe mandated PRIVATE insurance. Insurance does not equal Health Care. A tax rebate of even $5000 doesn't do much good for someone making $25,000 who already pays no taxes. But, now they have to buy insurance with their meager salary as well.
So, I urge you all to be careful over the next four years as we witness a beautific song and dance over "Universal Health Care". I urge you all to get it in your head now that the "Universal Health Care" of Republicans is the next "No Child Left Behind", or "Clear Skies Act", or "Patriot Act". It's a soaking pile of manure, wrapped in powdered sugar.
Comments
A Health care YouTubie for your viewing pleasure
"They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum Then they charged the people a dollar 'n a half just to see 'em. Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."
Lack of access to afforable health insurance
now is touching the majority of my close friends and relatives "normal people" in a very personal way. Of course that doesn't include the older ones who are well covered with their universal health coverage called Medicare. Jobs that offer insurance to families or even the primary employee are becoming fewer and harder to find with no end in sight.
People are much more wary of buying that silk purse from politicians who have done nothing but make laws that drives the middle class down into the bouncing rubble.
Have you called to support H. Res 333 Impeach Cheney Today? call 202-224-3121 & ask for your Congress member by name
A whole generation of people who fought against UHC
are now living off of Medicare. I know that my Dad, a hard-core Republican, can't wait to get Medicare.
One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
You've hit on it exactly.
The Orwellian twist of language by "the other side" scares the crap out of me.
War is peace.
Ignorance is bliss.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
good post
Thanks for the post Robert.
I'm not convinced that "Universal Health Care" is the hands down best term, and the urgent need for health care is such that the terminology deserves consideration.
You're right that the tide is turning on health care, and it's no accident. Let's bring it home.
- - - - -
Les Merritt, Toady Extraordinaire
Where is Liddy?
Sanford-Hunt: Aug 25th
- - - - -
http://twitter.com/Jerimee
Intriguing news at dkos
It seems the American Cancer Society will begin pushing towards a fix to our broken healthcare system -- hte first step being educating the public on just how broken our current system is. As the diarist, nyceve says, "This is huge."
"They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum Then they charged the people a dollar 'n a half just to see 'em. Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."
It is great that the ACS is acknowledging this.
Somehow, I think most of the public is aware of just how broken our current system is, don't you? We need the power of the ACS and other large groups to push back against the insurance and big pharma lobbies to get anything done - which is a shame, because our voices alone (we the people, that is) should be enough.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Oh, man sorry WOW.
I've been so out of touch that I didn't even notice what day it was!!!
One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
Always a good day to talk about Healthcare
....it is a "women's" issue donchaknow. :)
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.
The term "insurance" needs
The term "insurance" needs to be banned from the discussion of HCA. John Boy still wants to give a major role to insurance companies who have consistently screwed us under the guise of employer benefits, HMOs, high deductibles, HSA, ad nausem.
Effective "insurance" requires the largest risk pool available - like the one in Social Security and Medicare. However, left to their devices, the insurers have balkanized the large risk pool into smaller ones so they can cherry pick the lesser risk persons, whether based on class, income, race, sex, age, prior disease, and any other thing they can make up. They then offer insurance at moderate deductibles to the ones least likely to need health care. Others get high deductibles, high premiums, constricted benefits, and other practices designed to drive them away.
So, for what reason do we need these slimeball leaches? We dont. Proved that with Medicare and SS. Bush Admin is using Medicare money to get insurers to offer HMO type plans, and subsidizing them with money taken from regular Medicare services. Scum, all.
So, if you have influence with John Boy, tell him that insurers are not needed at all to gain the least expensive HCA with greatly improved quality for us all. We must not subsidize these cretinous vultures any further - and we also need to outlaw any contributions from anyone connected in any way with an insurer or re-insurer.
wafranklin
Hmmm. I think you might want to read his plan
before you go around writing about what "John Boy" wants to do.
Edwards' plan will make health insurance as we know it obsolete. Everyone will have the option of buying into government run health care ... like Medicare. When that happens, how long do you think private insurers will be able to continue to exclude procedures, or people, and charge an arm and a leg for high-deductible crappy insurance before they'll be out of business?
It sounds like you'd like to see a complete shut down and outlawing of private insurance over night. No, Edwards is not going to do that. He's going to leave them alone, but make them compete with a Medicare-like plan. Which is just a slower, more organic way to reach the very goal I think we all want -- good, efficient, reasonably priced patient friendly health care for all.
"They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum Then they charged the people a dollar 'n a half just to see 'em. Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."
I agree in substance with most of your post.
We don't need more of a bad system.
I do take issue with this statement, however.
Come on, that's just silly. If I work for an insurance company, I can't make a contribution? Get a grip. If you do that, why don't you make contributions from anyone connected with the pharmaceutical industry illegal? Don't forget about anyone connected with the automobile industry, or the oil companies.
You can't make contributions from "anyone" illegal. You can put limits on it, which has already been done. It just hasn't been enough. Stricter regulations regarding corporations organized as 527 under the federal tax code would be a great start. Campaign finance reform would change not only the face of American Politics, but it would change the face of the United States itself. If these PACs weren't pouring so many millions into the campaigns of candidates, maybe some of the money they are spending would be freed up to actually do some research and development in new areas, or actually underwrite health care coverage for families who can't afford to go to the doctor.
Maybe find a cure for something or other, too.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Billy Boy
HR 676 would be the most cost-efficient method of providing universal health care, and we might get it passed by 2050. In the meantime, Edwards plan allows public insurance (Medicare) to compete with private insurance. I can give you an example of how this will work. My mom is on Medicare, my dad is not. My dad is excited for the day when he becomes eligible because his plan is $$$$$$$$ and provides little or no benefits. Were Medicare available, he would join up now at a lower rate with great benefits. My family and i would join on day one. I first heard this plan described by some right-wing announcer as "back-door single payer". I like that idea. Let the market decide....on public health care.
As for cherry picking pools, the loss of preexisting conditions will make this better, not all at once maybe, but it will. You have a preexisting condition, no one will insure you, you get a job at Joe Blow Construction and pow, you've got insurance. A larger risk pool.
Now, about outlawing contributions. Where do you stop? Whose civil liberties do you want to take away?
No, the better way to go is public financing. But, parmea will fight you tooth and nail because right now he pays $0 for elections and public elections will cost him something.
One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
Bobby-O
I mention extremes of ridding ourselves of insurers as they exist now to focus on the issue of risk pools, which I think sufficiently clear. Big ones good, small ones bad. If everyone is paying payroll and other taxes, we have Medicare for all, our taxes are our premiums! Market, smarket. The mythical and efficient market does not and never has existed despite the puking and whining of the right - someone's hand is always on the scales and the major impact is always to subsidize corporations and the wealthy -- from tax dollars. So, where in this scenario is there a need for insurers, except to provide additional services for the well to do who dont want to be seen in the company of us plebs.
As for eliminating contributions - it is either all or nothing -- that has been clear for millenia. If in fact the corporations and wealthy have been seriously working to their advantage and the disadvantage of we 95%,+, why do we owe them anything? We don't. I am reading Ferdinand Lundberg ("The Rich and the Superich", 1968 and 1988). His writing describes today, and it instructs us that there are two political parties: The Property Party (guess who) and the Non-Property Party. As long as you persist in being "fair", the Nons get the shaft.
So as far as private insurance competing with Medicare in some glorious market driven free for all -- it is all campaign talk. As you may be aware, the Bushites are subsidizing latter day HMO/PPO health plans, Advantage or something like that, with money from regular Medicare -- to drive competition -- paying a premium I think I read of 10-15% over regular Medicare. That is competition if you wish, although it is much more of a Potemkin Village.
As for Edwards, he wakes up one day and finds out that the insurers and the financial conglomerates (multinationals) are joined at the hips and can buy more legislative largesse than he can imagine. One can see the appeasement coming and even smell it from afar. Look at the privatization of Mental Health in NC. For once, we should insist on a simple model which people can keep straight in their minds and drive home with completely socialized Medicare for all, with coverage for dental health, mental health and everything else. Let the creeps in and it fails for us to the profit of the vultures. Would not want that would you?
wafranklin
John Edwards plan still does does not answer
how is this plan going to be paid for?
How much is it going to cost me a month or a year? How much is it going to cost you for this plan?
Are taxes going to be raised to cover the cost?
I am single. Dont smoke, slightly overweight. High blood pressure. Make $24,000 military retirement and $24,000 working for a gross of $48,000/year. Not bad for a single guy who planned ahead.
You have all the particulars.
I am a retired disabled American Vet. I pay $240 a YEAR for my health plan. I spent 22 years defending our freedom to be able to make this payment.
I knew back when I was 19 that health care issues where going to be a challenge and retiring from the military was my best option for health coverage. At that time (late 1970s) it was a given that if you retired from the military, your health coverage was free till you die. Now I have to pay the $240 and $12 a doc visit now. Still effectively "free" compared to $330 to $800 a month plus doc visits that my coworkers pay for their health coverage.
That is the health coverage I have today. Why do I want to move to something that will cost me much more at this stage of my life? Everyone has the opportunity to receive this same health coverage. The military is begging for people. Join up, ship out, give your country 20 years of your life for this plan. It is easy. While your serving, your coverage is free, and you pay less then $400 a year for your family.
I see a lot of requirements on me by this plan. Who the hell is Mr. Edwards to require me to do any dam thing?
We get tax credits but someone or something has to pay for these tax credits. Who or what?
These health care markets are going to become regional areas that cover multiple states but will devolve to just two plans: Medicare/medicaid for the poor and another plan for the rich. You know dam well the Mr. Edwards is not going to buy the medicare/medicaid plan but will be in a plan that will provide different services to the elite or higher income people.
Reforming insurance laws, and taking innovative steps to contain health care costs will be nice and should be done under any program.
How is this plan going to "cut costs for businesses offering insurance"?
I see a tiering plan already being established. Why should anyone get more secruity and choices over anyone else? The government is subsidizing this plan for the benefit of all, noone should get more choices then anyone else, correct? Or are the elites exempt from this plan? Remember, we are all required to buy into this plan according to Mr. Edwards.
How much is this going to cost a family without insurance now? If these families cannot afford even this price, how are they going to pay for this requirement? Many poor and middle income families are living paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford any additional burdens on the family income. Many of these families are not going to be able to even afford this plan. Are you proposing they pay nothing, but still require others to join this program?
How much is this going to cost a family with insurance and what added security and choices will be offered these folks that are not offered families without insurance?
I see a lot of government regulations imposed on a lot of people and businesses to protect 45 million people or 15% of the Nation (300 million Americans now). This plan seems to be using a sledge hammer to kill a fly. Major over kill. Seems like some of the points of this plan should be further investigated but to require 85% of the people to do anything for the sake of 15% is just not right.
Mr. Edwards, please come up with a different plan that addresses the needs of the 45 million uninsured but does not require me to join this program. Your plan is greatly flawed as you are presenting it today.
You're part of the problem.
This is the same bull you get from the right-wing. Why should we be able to force you to get insurance? Because I pay $922 a year in extra premiums to cover your ass when something bad inevitably happens, that's why. It's not someone's "free will" and choice that is involved, it is their being disrespectful of the rest of society and not giving a crap that others will have to support them when something bad does happen.
Yes, some people could join the military to get health insurance, of course you could move to France also - so why are you complaining? If you don't like the insurance and are too old to join the military I think you should move to France.
The biggest problem I have with what you wrote is that it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the plan. JOHN EDWARDS PLAN WON'T REQUIRE YOU DO TO ANYTHING. People with veteran's care won't be required to do ANYTHING, nor Medicare. You already have insurance through the military, which, by the way, I PAY FOR. You're $240 a year is squat compared to what everyone else pays for your health care. Socialized health care? You've got it!!!
And, you aren't the only one with socialized health care. Every person in the military or civilian working for the military, every state employee, every federal employee, most local employees, children, the ELDERLY (a little thing called Medicare), the poor - the list goes on and on. None of these programs will be effected for one reason - they work and they are cheap.
BTW, there isn't a tiering system. That block is pointing out the benefits of the plan. "If you now have no insurance, you're going to have a great insurance plan. If you already have insurance, with the changes we're making like no preexisting conditions, you're plan is going to be better for you." It's the same "plan", he is saying that everyone benefits with his universal health care plan - not just those who are uninsured.
Last thing - under this system people have the option of public insurance. No other plan allows that option other than HR 676, which "Billy Boy" refers to up top in his rant about insurance companies. It is going to be a tooth and nail battle to get this provision into the bill, because it means everyone can get the kind of great insurance you have at a rate much better than private insurance can offer. If I am able, the day this becomes law I JUMP and RUN to public insurance. So will many others.
The United States pays TWICE per capita what other industrialized nations pay, and we have much worse health outcomes. The United States pays TWICE per capita what other industrialized nations pay, and we have the same wait times as most of those nations. The United States pays TWICE per capita what other industrialized nations pay, yet people like you are happy with what you've got so screw the rest of the country. This isn't about 15% of the country, this is about ALL of the country getting better care for the money they pay for health insurance. ALL of the country.
I hope that the fact that I pay for your insurance and you happen to like it won't blind you to that fact. I'm part of that group above in the socialized health care program, and I can tell you that the $200+ a month YOU are paying for my health care isn't worth it, because my health care sucks. YOU aren't getting what you pay for.
One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
Naaa, I'm not the problem just a fly
Thought you said I dont have to buy any insurance? That I am under a plan already thus dont have to buy anything above my plan. (TRICARE prime). So why are you saying or advocating that I must buy additional insurance? Im confused.
Are you complaining about the freedoms that generations have sacrificed for you. Yes, I spent 22 years in the Navy. I did it freely and without reservation. I was not pressed into service. However, congress from as far back as I care to remember has been promising medical coverage for those that do stick it out and retire by serving this country. Down my family my 3 brothers, my father, my uncles, my grand father all served. Many have retired meaning they served 20+ years protecting this country. We did it proudly and we did it for more then just medical coverage. We did it because we believe in what this country stands for. And we did it to enable you the opportunity to sit in your dwelling and live the way you live.
My service proves that I am not disrespectful of the people I was protecting. I do give a crap for people. That is why I "stood the watch" for 22 years. Not sure why your disappointed with me to the point where you feel I should not be supported? What did I ever do to you that you feel I am not worthy of protecting or helping? You could have joined and stood the watch with me for 20 years and received this same benefit. You chose not to. No problem. Just dont force me to get insurance or do anything I do not wish to do. I never forced you to do something you did not wish to do. Mr. Edwards plan should not force me to do something I do not wish to do either.
Is it do it Mr. Edwards way or leave? I like the United States. I am proud to call my self a United Statesian. I do not wish to move to France. I think I will stay here if you dont mind.
Then why does your first para say I should be forced to buy insurance? Im confused. But thats ok, I like this part and will not buy insurance.
So do I with my taxes just like you do.
Mine was a choice and I paid for it. It is not Socialized, but is a benefit given to me by congress on behalf of the people of the United States for proudly supporting and defending the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
When I worked for the county (local government) I was offered a health plan similar to everyone else. It was not a benefit, but this thing costed a lot / month. More then I cared to pay. It was a civilian HMO. My friend who is a federal employee (GS-13) would beg to differ with you on a socilized health plan. He is paying silly money also/ month.
If there is not a tiering system then why does Mr. Edwards show a medicare/medicaid plan as well as other HMO style plans to choose from? If the insurance plans will be the same across the board for everyone regardless of what plan they are under then why the two examples? If they are all the same, then that is a good thing. That means the poor guy with a gall stone and the super rich guy with a gall stone arriving at the same hospital on the same day and the poor guy is ahead of the super rich guy, the poor guy will get his operation first and noone gets any special treatment like private rooms etc? All other conditions being the same for this example. Time arrival at the hospital the only factor different between the two people.
How would my plan work in this system? Mr. Edwards plan does not go into depth on this so it is a rhetorical question as no one has the answer. Unless I get the same style of coverage as everyone else but I only have to pay $240/year and the coverage quality does not go down. According to the plan, the quality should go up. That seems like a good thing.
I am happy with my insurance plan but I am not advocating screwing others to keep me happy. I worked my butt off, went into harms way, was prepared to die for my country for the health plan I have today. What is wrong with that?
I am advocating that this plan be thought out and explained. Something Mr. Edwards has not done. Mr. Edwards needs to show the dollar figures for this program. He needs to explain where he is going to get the money required to make this plan work. He has already shown where there is a short fall of 40 to 70 billion dollars for this plan. I do not want to have a system that is so messed up from the start that the only direction it will go is further down toward ruination. I do not want people to hope that they have a plan under Mr. Edwards that will work to find out that his plan is flawed because it does not have the money to back it.
The health care program that to many people today have to use is horribly flawed. To many people MUST utilize the emergency room for their health care and then never pay the bills because they cannot afford it. It forces people not to get the preventive care needed for a higher quality of life. That forces them further into poverty and ruination because now they have a medical bill that they cannot pay hurting their credit making it harder for them to get credit or a good paying job.
Yes, I see a lot of problems with the current system, but Mr. Edwards plan does not prove to me that it is the plan to help all the people because he has not proven where the money is going to come from that is needed to make this plan work.
Parm, I think you're missing it.
Maybe you're missing it on purpose? Have you read Edwards plan? It does require everyone to be covered, but it provides public insurance for people who don't already have a good plan like you do, or who have essentially crappy plans like the one Leslie H. mentioned. You have TRICARE and are happy with it? Great! Keep it! But Edwards' plan gives me the right to buy into a similar plan that you have - and will still cover the rest of the people out there who don't have health care coverage.
As for being forced to buy insurance - if you drive a car legally in NC, you are already forced to buy insurance. Damn commies at the DMV.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
No, im not missing on purpose
I am confused on some of the issues Mr. Edwards brought up. I have read Mr. Edwards plans and every time I see a plan where he is going to give money to people, I just ask where is that money coming from. Mr. Edwards wishes to give poor people credits and additional monies to help them along. A good thing, but when your giving money to someone, you have to be getting it from someone else. The rich are rich, but are they this rich? Will they be able to hide their money to the point where they are no longer rich? The rich have been doing it for to long for them to allow over night all those loop holes to be removed. How is Mr. Edwards going to do that? I hope he can do it. Much of what he is advocating in this link would be nice to implement, but will congress with all the lobbyists allow it. Dont think so. I know, doom and gloom. But that is a reality check. I was not into politics when Mr. Edwards was a senator so I really dont know, did Mr. Edwards propose most of the items in that link when he was a sitting senator? What happened to them? Most of what Mr. Edwards is advocating should be being proposed by congress today. They should not be held back as a political pawn for election purposes.
Everyone to be covered is a good thing. But nowhere does it show how much it is going to cost. I really dont want to vote for someone who is throwing around money and not showing me where he is getting it. Nor has he shown any of us how much this plan of his is going to cost us.
Mr. Edwards likes to show increasing to 28% from 14% but that is only $50 billion. Not really enough to do anything. That same 28% is the bush tax credits he is advocating allowing to die, if I read that link correct.
How much are you going to pay a month under Mr. Edwards plan? You have to be covered. Dont you want to know how much it is going to cost you before you vote him in? I do. I also want to know will I still be paying $240 a year and getting the same service or better as I was getting before his plan went into effect? If you have a plan already and it requires you to pay more then the public insurance plan, can you abandon yours in favor of the cheaper plan? A fair question.
If Mr. Edwards plan requires you to pay $500 a month for the coverage, can you afford it? Can someone who is below the poverty line afford it? He has not said how much is your share of his plan.
Is it fair that a family of 3 who makes $20,000 a year pay the exact same amount as a family of 3 that makes $180,000 a year? Someone is either not paying a fair amount for the coverage provided, or someone will be working solely to pay for medical coverage. Will the month payment be graduated so it is fair for all? say 25% of your monthly gross income? What about the people who do not work or work under the table, do we have to pay their insurance premiums?
Mr. Edwards needs to show us in very simple terms what his plan is going to cost. I really dont care how much money he is taking from the rich. I will never be that rich to worry about losing that money. What I am concerned about is how much his plan is going to cost me. I am close to being on a fixed income. Can Mr. Edwards guarantee the price he shows for this service will be the same for the entire time he is in office? What will be appropriate indicators that will allow the increase of premiums for this plan?
Is he going to force all the docs to standardize the price of services? heart bypass $20,000, Double heart bypass $40,000. Mamograms $200. Flu shots - Free. No matter where you go in the country, you need something, just pull into the nearest hospital or clinic and get covered at the same price as if I was home?
As president, does he have the authority to force docs to standardize prices and services?
Where in the constitution is he empowered to make this plan work in the first place? He might have a problem with that minor detail. What is empowering him to require every person to be covered even if they do not wish it? Your car insurance analogy is close, but if I decide not to drive a car, or cannot drive (blind) I dont need car insurance and dont have to buy it (still a choice). Everyone must have this health coverage.
With spreadsheets etc, it should be easy for him to put out a formula that I can plug in my yearly income and he can tell me how much the plan is going to cost.
Like that "legally" caveat! I was thinking till i read that. cut me off real quick.....
UGGGG, the bigger commies are FEMA with flood insurance, house insurance, and any other insurance forced upon us. Dont like any of them. I was not alive when congress approved these insurances, but I am now, and I like to ask questions. Just ask the Navy!
BTW, here is the answer to your first question.
One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
$90 - $100 billion a year by
removing the tax cuts on those who make more then $200,000 a year. OK. According to this statement, I will not pay a dime extra anywhere on this plan. neither will anyone else. I will pay my $240/year and $20 a visit. My plan is a federal plan, not a state or regional plan. Based on this, I would assume that I would get the most premium plan out there. It already is the best out there as far as I am concerned. OOO wait, the one congress has is just a bit better, I dont think they pay any money for it or a deductible and this is for life.
Not sure how many folks make and declare over $200,000 a year, but it sucks to be them!
doing some numbers, yea I know, no one likes numbers. From 2005 census data
147.3 million people are in the work force. The mean family income is $55,000. so a lot of the folks in America do not make over $200,000 a year. I cannot find the total number of people who do make and declare over $200,000 a year. If everyone who is in the work force paid their fair share, it would be $612/year extra for the health care program in addition to what ever your paying now?.
But Mr. Edwards does not advocate that. He states that the 90 - 100 billion dollars to fund this is going to come from repealing the tax only from those who received the tax cut who make over $200,000. Dang those people received one hellofa tax break if they can make up a 90 billion dollar shortfall/year just on a tax break removal.
Mr. Edwards I think is also going after this same pot of money for other plans besides health care reforms. tax cuts proposed by Mr. Edwards
Friend of mine gets a check for upwards of $3500 a year in earned-income tax credits. If Mr. Edwards increases this, how is it going to be paid for?
I am glad that the government gives her this money as she takes that money and does things with it that help her daughter. That is a very good thing. Giving her more money is even a better thing especially for the little girl. Thank you Mr. Edwards for helping that little girl.
Dont know how your going to pay for it, but thank you.
I hate it when politicians use the word could, should, might with regard to money. It usually means they wont.
In the video, he said the tax roll backs would pay for this health coverage, but this article says it will pay for some of it, Where is the rest of it going to come from?
Where is the $500 savings bond monies and other monies going to come from identified?
Now the health care plan is going to cost between $90 and $120 billion a year. Sure wish Mr. Edwards would get his facts straight. $10 billion is not chump change that I have just lying around the house.
Again, how is this plan going to be covered using real dollar figures? I just cannot believe that there is a $90 billion dollar tax break/year out there for those folks who make over $200,000 a year.
According to the article, the tax break removal will bring in $50 billion giving a delta of $40 to $70 billion just to pay for this health care program. That means someone besides those that make over $200,000 are going to be paying for this. I thought I was not going to have an increase in my health plan under Mr. Edwards proposal? Who is going to pick up the tab?
Still do not know how much the plans are going to cost?
Mr. Edwards has proposed raising taxes and he is not in office.
He says that he only wishes to remove tax cuts on those that make over $250,000/year. I do not feel safe that once he is in office that he wont raise taxes for everyone.
Again, the health plans people are under today are horrible for the most part. Mr. Edwards or the next president needs to work on a plan that fixes that and shows where (s)he is going to get the money for this plan.
The $50 billion from repealing tax breaks
is only part of the equation:
Raising the top tax rate on long-term capital gains to 28 percent, the same rate signed into law by President Reagan. The 28 percent rate will ensure that high-income investors will pay taxes on their investment income at a similar rate to what regular families pay on their earned income.
Repealing the Bush tax cuts for the most fortunate families, who make more than $200,000 a year.
Ending the abuse of foreign tax havens.
Closing the hedge fund and private equity loopholes.
Capping executive pensions.
http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070726-economic-plan/
Edwards has done his research, and all of his platform issues (that I've looked at) are backed up with solid numbers. Heck, just his plan to bring down the costs of pharmaceuticals will save people like you and me hundreds of dollars a year.
Not to mention the money raised by simply COLLECTING taxes.
One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
Numbers.
Table 1: Average Tax Cuts by Income Group
Income Group
Income Range
Average Income
Average Tax Cut
Lowest 20%
Less than $15,000
$9,300
$47
Second 20%
$15,000 - $27,000
$20,600
$212
Middle 20%
$27,000 - $44,000
$34,400
$509
Fourth 20%
$44,000 - $72,000
$56,400
$951
Next 15%
$72,000 - $147,000
$97,400
$1,523
Next 4%
$147,000 - $373,000
$210,000
$2,356
Top 1%
$373,000 or more
$1,117,000
$54,480
All
$57,800
$1,203
BTW, I believe this:
Means more people would be eligible, not more/person. But, I could be wrong.
One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
extremely interesting numbers here
I love em.
by chance do you have the total number of people or earners in each of those catagories? Would love to see how many folks are in my same tax bracket and be able to compare the other brackets.
Would also like to see how many total people are actually working in this country paying taxes. We have 300+ million now. Some are kids not in the work force, and some are older then 65. The rest are able to work. Where are these folks falling in the grand scheme of things?
What is the last slide showing? Is that a representation of someones net income? not sure why the range is only $8 to $8.40 an hour.
Thanks for this data, I was looking for something like this the other day.
And I'll be elbowing Robert
to be first in line for that public insurance.
I have insurance with my company. I feel very fortunate. For two and a half years I had no insurance. It was nerve racking. Then I had the opportunity to allow my company to take $1,881.62 a year out my pay to cover me and my two kids. But the cost is only that cheap because I chose the donut hole plan where they pay 100% of the first $1500 a year of any medical costs, I pay the next $2500, and then they pick up from there. I chose it because as tight as my budget was when I started I had to know that I could take my kids to the doctor or urgent care whether I had a $20 or $50 co-pay in my bank account or not. Still, with the tests I'm suppose to have every year and an x-ray or sprained ankle or strep throat or sinus infection between us and I'm in "pay" territory pretty quick.
Ok, so it's sucky insurance, but it was the best option I had among the plans from my work. When a simple doctor visit costs $120 and an urgent care visit (soccer) costs $300, a plan that charges me a $20 co-pay and requires me to pay 20% of the final bill AND the exclusions you know the insurance company will pass off to me (the sonogram part of my annual mammogram is not covered by insurance), you know good and well I will be one of those people fighting Robert to be first in line for that public insurance.
From John Edwards plan:
"They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum Then they charged the people a dollar 'n a half just to see 'em. Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."
Robert, I agree with this:
to a certain degree, especially in cases where someone would rather spend money on a hobbie (boat, golf, etc.) than paying their own health insurance.
But there are also many people who simply can't afford insurance, or they could if they were able to get large group rates. But you're right—whether they're being irresponsible or they're economically shut out of the system, the rest of us are footing the bill. UHC is the only way to bring fairness to the system and head off bankruptcies before they happen.
Notes from the Underground
...well, at the beginning of reading all the posts, i was excited and intrigued by the conversation....but after a bit it just sort of made me feel as if i was watching the O'Reily Factor & John Stewart at the same time. Enjoyable, but confusing.
Having spent enough time in both the US and the UK and the Netherlands, I am a firm believer in the fact that private provision of public health is simply not going to work. No wI had planned a prolific post about the ins and outs of health insurance and whatnot in the UK, but it's late and I need my sleep, lest my insomnia causes me to drive off the road tomorrow and accidentally run over a senior citizen on Medicare. I have only advice that for those looking for a mix between UHC and keeping the market alive, look at the Netherlands and their ambitious change in insurance over the past year.
Basically, everyone must be covered, usually through work, but personal insurance is common. Insurers are not allowed to turn down anyone wishing to sign on and must provide a minimum package at a set price, most often catastrophic health insurance type of stuff. It's still in the morning phase of the system, so it'll be worth watching to see what happens in the afternoon, however I think that this sort of mix between private and public spheres could be, diffused across the states, a genuinely good path for US insurance.
Thanks for your input
I don't know all the facts on any of the plans. The only thing I know is that as it stands now, our system is broken and it needs to be fixed
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.
It raises a good point.
One way of doing this, there was a bill at one point, is to provide money to the states to experiment. If Idaho wants to make it all private insurance, so be it. If Vermont wants Medicare for all, so be it. Let the states do it for 10 years and see what works best. Then, do that nationwide.
Of course, we have experiments all over the world, and they all say the same thing. Single payer is the best system, but universal health care of any sort saves money and LIVES.
One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
I keep asking people if they have been to see SICKO
yet. Michael Moore really drives home the point that even people who have health insurance in the US are meeting with serious trouble.
Insurance by it's very nature is exclusive. It can only survive and thrive if no one uses it. That's the wrong paradigm when you are talking about human frailties up against a monolith like insurance industries.
Have you called to support H. Res 333 Impeach Cheney Today? call 202-224-3121 & ask for your Congress member by name