Under GOP control, Senate finally passes bill to repeal Affordable Care Act

a reply to: jacobe001

Agree with you totally and thanks for the nice response.

originally posted by: Kukri
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus



ETA: We do pay 14-15% Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) on most purchases.

What a nice sounding Tax. Right up there with the shared responsibility fee.

Thats what politicians should do, get adman to come up with great sounding names for taxes so people won't mind paying them. The I Care about My Baby Tax, who wouldn't be for that?

a reply to: Xtrozero

It is not about socialism, it is about collectively sharing the costs.
there an amount of money which is spent on healthcare, through insurance people pay their share.
It has nothing to do with the labor force nor with the size of the population.
Each citizen is insured and pays a monthly insurance fee.
As a dutch citizen i pay €100 a month for my basic health insurance, besides that there is also a percentage of 6 percent from our gross salary that goes to health care.
So let's say that the average working citizen pays about €250 a month to health care insurance, those with higher salaries pay more, those at or below the poverty line are compensated.
The labor force as a share of the population is not much different here than in the US.
So why is it not possible in the US?
My prediction is that this is due to the health care market in the US, advertising, special and expensive treatments.

If one looks at the spike of health car costs in the US compared to the rest of the world, it is double the average.

The economic ignorance in this thread would be comical if it weren't so sad...

The reason healthcare is so expensive is because GOVERNMENT has distorted the market. It is outright comical people think more government is going to solve the problem that government created.

Prices you often see are inflated because they are trying to recoup the cost for those that don't pay. In addition, when you have a third payer involved, the market does not control prices. The consumer (you) is disconnected from the payer (insurance company) so price discover is never achieved as the consumer has no incentive to shop around.

Obamacare doesn't need to be replaced. This is the problem with liberals. They always assume government intervention is needed. All that needs to happens is removal of barriers that have messed up the market like interstate barriers preventing insurance from being sold across state lines, decoupling insurance from employers, etc. Simple things that can be done that don't require blowing up our entire healthcare system.

originally posted by: earthling42

If one looks at the spike of health car costs in the US compared to the rest of the world, it is double the average.

Well first we did it wrong with the don't read it and just pass it bullcrap and second the insurance umbrella is killing us with cost. You are being nice by saying 2 times.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: earthling42

If one looks at the spike of health car costs in the US compared to the rest of the world, it is double the average.

Well first we did it wrong with the don't read it and just pass it bullcrap and second the insurance umbrella is killing us with cost. You are being nice by saying 2 times.

Don't make it sound as if the ACA was the problem. Healthcare cost having been rising well above inflation for a very long time. In regards to recent increases, what did you think was going to happen when you have millions of new people added to the healthcare system who hadn't been getting much in the way of treatment previously? They was bound to be a spike especially with younger people still not signing up. To get everyone coverage is going to cost, it's not going to reduce healthcare costs unless you price control things.

originally posted by: pavil

Don't make it sound as if the ACA was the problem. Healthcare cost having been rising well above inflation for a very long time. In regards to recent increases, what did you think was going to happen when you have millions of new people added to the healthcare system who hadn't been getting much in the way of treatment previously? They was bound to be a spike especially with younger people still not signing up. To get everyone coverage is going to cost, it's not going to reduce healthcare costs unless you price control things.

Then why have the ACA if you do not change the system first...big failure to put it into law knowing the system can not handle it and will fail. I'm paying 5x what I did...great system there.

a reply to: earthling42

It is not about socialism, it is about collectively sharing the costs.

edited to not reflect my amusement

Its redistribution of income in case you didn't understand

those with higher salaries pay more, those at or below the poverty line are compensated.

Progressive tax called for in the communist manifesto

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Kukri
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus



ETA: We do pay 14-15% Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) on most purchases.

What a nice sounding Tax. Right up there with the shared responsibility fee.

Thats what politicians should do, get adman to come up with great sounding names for taxes so people won't mind paying them. The I Care about My Baby Tax, who wouldn't be for that?

Actually it was because they blended the PST and GST together thus the "harmonizing" but yeah it has a warm fuzzy connotation to it.

a reply to: pavil

To get everyone coverage is going to cost, it's not going to reduce healthcare costs

It does reduce costs, not every citizen is in direct need of medical attention, they pay their share, without consuming.
Especially the young and fit people who are healthy shall not need to consume.
For many years i've paid my insurance without needing medical assistance, but since this is an collective insurance, i pay my share for those who do need it.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

You can see it as redistribution of income, i see it as a collective insurance to pay for health care cost on a yearly base which benefits us all.
There is no increase above €51.900 gross salary, if someone earns for example €70.000 per year, over the €18.100 above the maximum of €51.900 they don't have to pay the percentage of 6 percent on health care.

a reply to: AboveBoard

If we are going to have someting like that, then it needs to be something that either enriches The People or enriches everyone.

What we have right now is a boon for Uncle Sam and UHC. The People are getting screwed.

Sounds like you are a fan of insurance industry regulations. I have no quarrel with that at all. But ACA has hurt access to care for everyone I know.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Hm. I wouldn't characterize it as being a "fan" of "regulation" so much as being a fan of people getting medical care when they need it, regardless of their history, and without having to be wealthy.

I think we can agree that we are both for The People, and really, everyone.

The thing is, before the ACA, I was entirely cut out of access to care unless I could fully pay out of pocket, which I could not. The only time I did was when I thought I broke my ankle, and that was an ER visit. I was charged $700 for them putting in a room and ignoring me for two hours - yes, I "rented" the room. Then there was the $300 X-ray.

To say I couldn't afford follow-up care for my cancer was an understatement. There would be a ton of people in my same situation.

Anyway. Focusing on where people agree and what they agree on is a good way to create something new that might serve - getting anyone in government or the private sector to listen to it, well, that's another issue.

Peace
AB

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: AboveBoard

No plan at all is better than ACA. It is not the job of government to provide either insurance or health product at all. This whole thing is insanity and its not really regulating insurance biz or premiums wouldn't have jumped the first year of passage. Its just more bureaucratic regulation and intrusiveness into our private affairs. Its also the abuse public/private partnerships are involved in, which is part of the Agenda 21 mechanism.

Okay. Try having nothing and then get back to me.

Oh - and have a real medical need, too.

I'll be waiting...

I'm going to duck out of this topic.

I get extremely emotional when I think of "how it was" prior to the ACA. I could have died due to lack of care, and it is a real thing in my life. So is my child's heart defect. It feels like people are saying "you should just die then because you can't afford private insurance and oh, well, your kid shouldn't have been born with a heart defect and good luck with that it ain't my problem lady."

At that point, well, I turn all grizzly momma and have trouble not being snarky. Now, I realize no one has actually said that, but I feel threatened by this idea that "the way it was" was somehow just perfect. Maybe for you, but not for me. In fact, it scares the pee out of me. It ain't some abstract economic theory, its my life and my children. It brings up very vulnerable times when my life was on the line, or his life was on a knife's edge during open heart surgery and in the PICU.

I know a lot of people here have seen bad things happen due to the ACA, and I'm sorry that's the case. I know a lot of people who have seen good things happen because of it, but just not here, which is strange.

I apologize for any snarkiness. I hope you will forgive me, and I hope you will think of me with compassion, not with anger.

peace,
AB

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

This is what I mean by non-profit:

A nonprofit organization or organisation (see spelling differences) (NPO, also known as a non-business entity[1]) is an organization that uses its surplus revenues to further achieve its purpose or mission, rather than distributing its surplus income to the organization's shareholders (or equivalents) as profit or dividends. This is known as the distribution constraint.[2] The decision to adopt a nonprofit legal structure is one that will often have taxation implications, particularly where the nonprofit seeks income tax exemption, charitable status and so on.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Good thread and a promising beginning to a much needed
end Howlie. Of course, bumped just for good news..
Regrettably and even if it passed full Congressional muster
and passage, there aren't enough estimated votes to over-
ride His Whateverness.

just like every socialist and Marxist Progressive

Yeaaaaah, about that, I'm afraid there's an issue with that statement and it's that you're (just a little bit of) an idiot. You're throwing around labels that you don't even understand to begin with. Please leave, then come back when you know what you're talking about. I'll spell out the first step, though.

Communism =/= Socialism

Progressive tax called for in the communist manifesto

Oh, god, my brain is bleeding. Your words are causing cerebral haemorrhaging.

This may come as a surprise to you, but Socialism is not the bogeyman that hid under your bed as a child, or the Devil you are gifted to hog-tied on a silver platter by a petulant and contradictory God.
Socialism is, and repeat after me, a. Good. Thing.
That's right folks, Socialism, good. Am I crazy!? No, not really. You see, it comes with a caveat: It needs to be mixed with capitalism for that goodness to actually be expressed.

You Americans have been blaming Socialism for your problems since FDR.

a reply to: jacobe001

TPP? Those who are responsible for TPP are also the ones who decided this direction after WW-11. Everything is connected. You are right in much of what you said. However, present world conditions is the result of decades of pre-conditioning. NAFTA and GATT materialized after forty+ years. Nixon's famous trip to China was a covert mission of establishing future industrial might for global manufacturing output. In other words, global trends and polities, often withheld from the public, are not the result of competing nations in a offense vs defense situations, but the result of a hidden master plan dreamed up a century prior to current conditions. The CIA, working for the ruling class, was/is the mechanism for global cooperation. The public is blind to much of the intentions, But the USAID program(s) around the globe, is nothing more than a CIA front working not for expanding democracy but as a means to facilitate all aspects of the master plan.

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

You can see it as redistribution of income, i see it as a collective insurance to pay for health care cost on a yearly base which benefits us all.
There is no increase above €51.900 gross salary, if someone earns for example €70.000 per year, over the €18.100 above the maximum of €51.900 they don't have to pay the percentage of 6 percent on health care.

It's not a matter of what I see it as, its a matter of what is, and its income redistribution.