It’s difficult to think about health insurance without thinking about our favorite hate-monger/comedian, Rush Limbaugh.
News out of Nevada last month detailed a Reno restaurant owner who faced $90,000 in medical bills for surgery to correct his daughter’s cleft palate. His insurance company had denied claims for her surgery, citing the cleft palate as a pre-existing condition. She developed it before she left the womb.
A cleft palate, in the overall scheme of health, is a relatively minor flaw. More-serious birth defects — holes in hearts or blocked esophogeal passages, for example — can, untreated, significantly reduce quality of life and self-sufficiency; without treatment, sometimes the prognosis is death.
The insurance company’s refusal to pay for treating a birth defect — a pre-existing condition — serves its shareholders well and its policyholders not at all.
Contrast the Nevada case with the treatment recently given a Lyon County toddler, also born with a cleft palate, who came to Kansas in an international adoption. His surgery has been completed successfully, covered by the adoptive parents’ health insurance.
The difference in handling the cases may rest on how well a state’s insurance commissioner has balanced the citizens’ need for treatment and the insurance companies’ need for profits.
Those caught in-between, however, by balky insurance companies or too much income to qualify for help, may have no reasonable alternatives for treatment.
A family can earn up to 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Level and still qualify for Medicaid. That’s $21,855 a year for a family of two. Factor out federal, state, Social Security and Medicare taxes; subtract rent payments, food, transportation to work, utilities and other household expenses. The remainder is what’s available to pay for doctors’ bills, hospitalization and all that goes with it.
What does that have to do with Rush Limbaugh? Well, Limbaugh detests the idea that just anyone might be able to afford health care. If some people’s loved ones have to die because they can’t afford treatment, that’s the way it has to be; that’s the way it’s always been.
And if Congress passes a national health-care plan, Limbaugh announced last week that he would move to Costa Rica, a small tourist-oriented country lodged between Nicaragua and Panama.
Costa Rica, incidentally, has a national health-care plan.
Life may not always be fair, but sometimes it’s ironic.
Bobbi Mlynar
Reporter
tbluma (anonymous) says...
IMO
Rush does not detest the fact that anyone could afford health care.
Like me he thinks there are better ways to get to where we're going without the health care system being run by the gov.
It appears to me that if insurance could be sold across state lines in could infact lower the cost of premiums or at least make the benefits better. I come to that conclusion just by reading your article.If it is possible in Ks. it should be possible in Nev.
Being able to purchase Ks. based insurance in Reno would make the Nev. insurance people come to their milk.
March 16, 2010 at 2:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
railroadhorn (anonymous) says...
The example of a family qualifying for Medicaid may need some reality mixed in. I don't believe poverty automatically qualifies a person for Medicaid. I know people who are poor who are trying to get Medicaid but it takes years going through the disability route. I know a 50-year-old Emporia man who has tried to get Kansas Medicaid health insurance and he hasn't received it even though he lives in a homeless shelter and has no income to speak for. The surgeries he needs to get well enough to hold a job are out of his reach here in Emporia. And I think even if he had Kansas Medicaid, which is called Kansas Medical Assistance Program (www.khpa.ks.gov) his surgeries still might not be covered. He needs a knee replacement and gall bladder surgery. His only hope probably is applying through the Newman indigent care program. Or falling into serious debt if the doctors would even do the surgery knowing they weren't going to get paid anytime soon.
We need some kind of health care reform. Maybe not what Rush envisions but he's not an elected official. Right now I only care about the opinions of those we elected to Congress.
March 16, 2010 at 4:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
railroadhorn (anonymous) says...
I should add that my friend says if you don't receive general assistance (welfare) you can't get Kansas Medicaid. Just fyi.
March 16, 2010 at 4:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
admireed (anonymous) says...
As insurance companies are required to add more sicknesses they have to cover, the premiums must rise. Most every medical test has increased in cost so the permiums must go up. BCBS of Kansas, of which I am a member, is owned and operated by the policy holders. Their premiums go up most every year because the out go expands. Are the stake holders getting rich? Pre existing condition coverage forced on companies has to be paid for by others. Welfare should pay for situations that are unavoidable, like this, not other policy holders
March 16, 2010 at 6:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
chiefsfan (anonymous) says...
All I know is, if health insurance companies used some common sense premiums possibly would be lowered. Example: I live in Colorado and the insurance I have thru my company, Kaiser Permanante, denied a doctor's visit I had while in Emporia last October. I was visiting my husband and parents and woke up with a urinary tract infection, my mother got me a appointment at the Medical Arts Clinic. My insurance denied the doctor's visit payment because I was "out of network". I asked them what I was supposed to do in this instance when I was out of state? They recommended I should have gone to a Urgent Care clinic, and when I informed them that Emporia does not have a Urgent Care clinic, their answer? I should have then gone to the emergency room. So, my insurance company would have rather paid for a $500 ER visit, instead of the $85 doctor's office visit. Makes alot of sense, huh?
March 16, 2010 at 6:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
akamai, Did you post both of the above?
It seems you are conflicted. In the 1st post you said the pres would sign the health care bill DESPITE the party of NO.
Then you suggested steriliaztion for those who get public assistance.
Who do you think is going to pay more taxes to support this giant mess called health care reform? If you are working , You will.
You think your tax bill is bad now , wait two years after this boondoggle is passed.
We are all facing the bankruptcy and demise of our once great country.
March 16, 2010 at 7:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Bobbi,
"Well, Limbaugh detests the idea that just anyone might be able to afford health care."
Can you provide some sort of proof that this is the reason Limbaugh is against hcr?
Thanks bunches,
Seriously R. Folks
March 16, 2010 at 8:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Well, at least this one is listed under the "Opinions" heading, since that's all it is. Assumed opinions. Is Bobbi an editorialist? I thought she was a reporter. I'm not even that much of a fan of Rush's, but this is just one more notch on the handle for pot-shot-firing liberal gun. Yes, I know each side has one, and I will be more than happy to point that out as soon as our fine local paper hires a reporter or cartoonist or whoever to do conservative op. eds. and they make cheap shots at the liberals.
On a side note, where IS open_eyes???
March 16, 2010 at 8:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
I think some clarification is needed here. In this situation, did the insurance policy have a clause that exempted them from "pre-existing conditions that were elective to repair" on a newborn? Our respective insurance companies with each of our children covered me before, during and after the pregnancy and covered the babies during and after as well. They agreed, based on my health, to cover any potential babies when I signed up (I was not pregnant at the time coverage began either time). Since the kids were basically covered by our insurance from the time of conception and did not require a screening first, there couldn't possibly have been such a thing as "pre-existing condition." Was the policy in this story the same, or did that company have an applicable exemption clause?
I would love to know what the actual story is here, rather than it being a potential story turned into a hotheaded, wild accusation-fest.
March 16, 2010 at 9:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I'm sure that when Limbaugh goes on his rants he feels just in doing so because he feels he is on the correct side of things. I'm sure when writing this Bobbi felt just in attacking Limbaugh because she is on the correct side. Very similar in tone is this piece and something Limbaugh would do. Ouch, that's gotta sting a bit.
March 16, 2010 at 9:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"We are all facing the bankruptcy and demise of our once great country."
Steve just why is it that our debt is what it is? Regardless of whether you are a liberal or a conservative, facts are facts and the fact is that Reagan and the Bush duos are the responsible parties, and while I think the party of NO is a poor moniker. I do find it funny that the same politicians in Congress supported Bush's spending this last decade and the debt was never an issue. The true irony is that the last 30 years the conservatives have done far more to bankrupt this country than the liberals in terms of the national deficit.
oh4theluvof,
I don't necessarily think that this piece really is a partisan piece so much as it is an anti extremist piece, which Mr Limbaugh is.
March 16, 2010 at 9:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Hahahaha! Nice, seriously R!
After re-reading it an hour later, I see that my sarcasm didn't show through well on not being much of a fan of Rush's. To say it straight, I don't like him at all.
goodoleboy,
Legitimate point. It is a taste of Rush's own medicine, but it's sad to see something of Rush's caliber printed publicly by one of our own. It looks as illegitimate as his stuff.
Maybe if I had been in a lighter mood when I first read it, I would have appreciated the irony of Bobbi attacking Rush with his own ammo. Thanks for re-directing me to that, seriously and goodoleboy
....I still want to know the whole actual story, though
March 16, 2010 at 10:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Akamai, you're better than that.
I just hope that before this passes that they iron out all the gaps. One is discussed in the following...
Excerpts from an August 2009 article in exMax Health:
"Federal law makers and the general public may also want to keep an eye on the gaps in the Hawaiian law while they overhaul the national health care system. One major loophole: employers do not have to provide health insurance coverage for part-time workers. In the legislation before Congress, the House bill does not define “full-time employee” and the Senate action fully covers employees who work a minimum of 35 hours per week.
The Hawaiian law requires employers to provide health insurance to people who work more than 20 hours per week. To avoid providing the coverage, some employers hire more part-time workers below 20 hours. According to a University of Hawaii study, the state has the highest percentage of private-sector part-time workers without employer-sponsored health insurance in the nation."
Here's the link: http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/72/326...
March 17, 2010 at 7:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy,
Liberal, conservative, it doesn't matter to me. I just see an entrenched group of Senators and Congressmen/women who promise us dumbies everthing to get elected and then put their costs on a credit card for our kids and grandchildren to pay for it. And it is killing our country. Until we demand term limits for our politicians ALL of my future votes will be against the incumbent. If by chance there is an incumbent who has served in the best interest of our country, they may get my vote, but don't see any out there now. Politicians seem to enjoy the power they hold, but don't want the responsibility that comes with that power.
In regards to the health care debate now in congress, if it is such a great deal and good idea, why is it so hard to get the necessary votes to pass it? Why are there so many congressmen unwilling to vote their conscience? Are they worried about re-election? They shouldn't be if the voters are really for it. Our leaders need to grow a pair and vote their conscience.
If the voters agree, no problem. If they don't then that politician will leave office knowing they did what they thought was right for the country. And isn't that what public service is supposed to be all about?
March 17, 2010 at 8 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I still hear a lot of " death panel ", phrases used, when discussing health care reform . When you talk about the proposed health care reform bill and mention the term " death panels " , in this context the term " death panels " becomes an " oxymoron ", as the already existing health insurance companys also have what may be called actual " death panels " made up of executives, doctors or stakeholders that determine which health care treatments will or will not be treated and paid for. So you see the so called " death panels " have been in existance as long as the private insurance companies have been making decisions on which illness, disease, etc., gets treated and paid for as long as the private insurances companies have been making these decisions.
It's not about health, paying for treatment, etc.. Its about making money and profits, just as it is for the health care providers, Clinics, Hospitals, Doctors, Pharmaceutical companies, as it is with most companies and businesses.
Are the ones who have a right to proper health care, only the ones who can afford to pay for it, without having health insurance ?
If you answer yes to the previous question does that make you a member of an elite " death panel " ?
Just something to think about .
March 17, 2010 at 8:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Right on, methusla. This needed to be said long ago.
It's all about profit, profit, profit. Every time an insurance company denies coverage of any health condition, even a simple UTI like the poster described above, is a "death panel."
That term has been bandied about since Sarah Palin started using it to scare people. It's nothing more than fear mongering being used to deny the Democrats.
March 17, 2010 at 9:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
genxer (anonymous) says...
I think liberals pay more attention to the preachings of Rush Limbaugh than most conservatives. I consider myself a conservative and have never listened to the man.
Rush Limbaugh aside, seems to me like the conservative principal of free markets could resolve the problems described in this opinion piece. Open up competition across state lines and the worst of the insurance company practices would be crowded out of the market place. And cheaper insurance with more options to boot.
This is a simple fix in the grand scheme of things and something that I think a vast majority of Americans, conservative and liberal, could get behind.
Health care has to be fixed so let's pass the pieces that we can on a bipartisan basis and leave the rest on the cutting room floor.
March 17, 2010 at 9:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Go to Slaughter House Rules-WSJ.com....The Wall Street Journal explains how Congress may deem ObamaCare into law without voting.
March 17, 2010 at 9:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
The Rush of Irony-The Slaughter House Rules and add this to Cap and Trade and what do you have left for the middle class and small business which provides the jobs and this all adds up to the biggest rush of irony in the history of America. You will be ok if you work for the government or become a lawyer.
March 17, 2010 at 9:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
If ObabaCare passes, this will be the biggest political fallout in the history of America and it will be overturned.
March 17, 2010 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
paulkersey (anonymous) says...
reddog,
Google blue waffle.
March 17, 2010 at 10:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mslater (Matt Slater) says...
reddog and others,
You all need to figure out how to post links. On second thought, no, no you don't.
In other news: Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Take from that what you will.
Reddog, this is for you: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.h...
Matt
March 17, 2010 at 11:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
BAD-BAD paulkersey :-)
March 17, 2010 at 11:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
solong (anonymous) says...
I think Rush would be for any Health Plan that provided all the prescription drugs he wanted.
March 17, 2010 at 12:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Odd thing about health care, what is in it when broken down individually the people of this nation support it overwhelmingly. But when it is packaged as one bill and slandered it's support falters. Go figure, again I like what Warren Buffett said, when faced with the current bill or doing nothing, he said he would take the current bill, at this point anything is an improvement over what we have.
March 17, 2010 at 12:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bonus (anonymous) says...
Here's the irony. When Rush was getting all of those prescription pain pills (READ NARCOTICS) from his Doctor (before he started getting his hired help to do it), don't you think his insurance was billed for that? Isn't that just the type of abuse of insurance that is a problem, causes premiums to rise, and needs to be reformed?
Unless we as a people rise up and tell our Representatives to stop worrying about the next election and START WORRYING ABOUT US this is all we can expect. rhetoric
March 17, 2010 at 1:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Matt,
Don't even waste your time on reddog, the guy is a waste of time, has 0 logic, and I personally think he might be a bit senile. A lost cause.......
March 17, 2010 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
"Federal law makers and the general public may also want to keep an eye on the gaps in the Hawaiian law while they overhaul the national health care system."
How do you suppose it would work to fix those gaps with a few regulations on the industry (like the recent ones placed on credit card companies) and open the state lines like genexer said? Wouldn't that be a much simpler and far less costly solution than inventing a whole new kind of wheel?
March 17, 2010 at 4:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mslater (Matt Slater) says...
Right now, yes the health care system is broke. I agree it does need reformed, but I don't think the package being offered is what we need.
I agree with oh4theluvof in opening insurance between state lines, much like auto insurance. I also agree with stricter regulation, but the government doesn't need to sell insurance.
March 17, 2010 at 4:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
akamai:
That's why there would need to be some regulations on the insurance companies themselves. There are some regulations on credit cards that took effect this month or last that basically prevent the companies from putting the cardholder into further debt through their bill-posting policy. The companies will still make plenty of money, but the cardholders will actually be able to handle their credit now instead of it handling them. I propose that we ID the holes in the insurance companies, like the one in create's article, and simply pass some legislation to fix them. Once regulated. the states could safely open the market up. The companies themselves would have to finance their own compliance with the new regs., and all we would pay is the cost to draft and pass a bill. That's what government is there for..to hold evils in check (like scamming enterprises) and bring the hammer of justice to those who don't comply. Government is not for the purpose of financing our lives.
March 17, 2010 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporian66801 (anonymous) says...
oh4theluvof
The credit card regulations aren't a real great example of controlling the market. When faced with the regulations, the credit card companies simply purged their ranks of thousands of "clients" by tripling the interest rates just prior to the regulations going into effect. The response from those companies has been to pile on exorbitant fees in other areas (to increase their profits from stable "customers") and to increase the qualifications necessary to get a card. They've shifted their profits from the poor to the middle class.
I suspect this is exactly what insurance companies would do as well. They'll cherry pick from the young and healthy and simply not do business with the aged. I know of no government regulation that currently forces a private business to do business with problematic (in this case old and ill) customers. How in the world are we going to force insurance companies to take on clients that they know are going to lose them money?
March 17, 2010 at 6:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...
True dat akamai,
Even Ks Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger believes "selling across state lines" would be disastrous; an' she's a republican.
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/7646
March 17, 2010 at 10:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Youtube The Brotherhood of Darkness Dr. Stanley Monteith. It is impossible to understand the unfolding of world events without information contained in this video. No researcher, or seeker of truth should be without a copy of this highly acclaimed presentation.
March 17, 2010 at 10:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Well, you are neither a researcher or seeker of truth so why would you care, I saw a highly acclaimed presentation by the cookie monster the other day, perhaps that is more on your level.
March 18, 2010 at 12:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"Right now, yes the health care system is broke. I agree it does need reformed, but I don't think the package being offered is what we need."
There is no Public Option, consider the way things are now, tell me that what is offered is worse and give examples why, I would love to hear the reasoning.
March 18, 2010 at 1:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Am I mistaken, but the following seems like a fairly decent " Public Option " to me. This public option still allows those who choose to do so and who can afford to pay for high priced private health insurance, to continue to purchase health insurance from independent, private, also greedy, profiteering, health insurance companies if they wish to .
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/...
The public option as proposed in the House health care bill, is a government-run health insurance plan, like Medicare, that would compete along side private insurers in a new Health Insurance Exchange that the bill would set up. The exchange is basically a place where people who aren’t on Medicare or Medicaid and don’t have insurance through their employers would go to comparison shop for a health plan. One of the plans available on the exchange would be the public option. Like all plans on the exchange, the public plan would have to meet certain minimum standards for care – minimum services that must be covered, mental health benefits parity, a fair grievance and appeals mechanism, etc.
The public option and the private insurers on the exchange could still offer different levels of care – from catastrophic-only to comprehensive – but plans would be relatively standardized by type so that comparison shopping is easier for consumers. The exchange would be available to the public as a website and a toll-free hotline, and would be focused on making information about the plans more transparent.
March 18, 2010 at 6:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
It would seem to me.. the only thing the independent, private health care insurers are afraid of, is the competition and the fact that they may just have to really start to do what is and has been right for the American people, instead of just the uncontrolled raping and pillaging of the American people for decades. Competition is the basis of " Free Enterprise ", and the Insurance Industry, the Healthcare Industry and Pharmaceutical Industry and others have had a free and uncontrolled monopoly for decades now.. by means of their lobbying and lobbyist efforts. Again I say, this is not about proper, affordable, available health care. This is about Profit and Greed, period.
March 18, 2010 at 6:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mslater (Matt Slater) says...
http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Politi...
I think this sums it up better than I can, goodoleboy.
I'm not convinced this is a better system than what we have now. I think there are some definite downsides to this plan, namely forcing small businesses to provide health-care. Most of them are operating on such a small margin as it is, take away from that, and I see some significant job losses happening.
March 18, 2010 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
REAL JOB?????
March 18, 2010 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
emporian66801:
NO one said that the new regs on credit cards would make our lives all rainbows and unicorns. Yes, they still have the right to make money, so if they make their services a bit more exclusive, that's okay. As far as the "exorbitant fees" go, well...free market, baby!! If you don't like the fees, walk! No one HAS to use their credit, but now that the regs are in place, they can't trap lower income cardholders so easily. Government regulations are to protect us form being preyed upon...not to guarantee us any little thing our hearts desire. Less stable cardholders being cut off from credit is actually the best thing that can happen to them. That means the new regs are also indirectly protecting them from themselves.
Now, I never meant this to be a precise model of insurance regulations, but just an example of how regulation works. Of course, the insurance industry would have to be examined on it's own merits to determine how to write regulations on it. I think everyone keeps forgetting that we have government sponsored programs to help the elderly, disabled and poverty-stricken. I think we also tend to forget that insurance is never, ever a guarantee....it is a gamble on both ends so both ends get to make some decisions going in, to protect their own interests. Sadly, Americans have come to look at it as an entitlement that should protect them against anything and everything......a very one-sided view. I think this whole insurance issue is so tainted by greed and self-centeredness on both ends, that we will kill the USA we know and love over it.
March 18, 2010 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
What's the point of arguing over any of this? They are going to ram it through just like I predicted a year ago. I understand complaining about getting something you don't want and having to pay for it indefinitely and increasingly but why are you people that are for it still pushing it so hard? Sore winners?
March 18, 2010 at 12:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporian66801 (anonymous) says...
" As far as the "exorbitant fees" go, well...free market, baby!! If you don't like the fees, walk!"
Apply that same logic to health care. If I don't like the fees...just let the cancer kill me?
March 18, 2010 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Seriously, the point about arguing is that it gets people to thinking and some do write to their congress people or even call them. The people are a barometer. Look how scared congress people are now about whether or not they'll get elected, and it's all over this health bill. Think they don't pay attention to those e-mails and phone calls? Yes they do.
The point is, some kind of reform is necessary. I keep hearing people say no, no, no reform. It's as if they are saying, I have my health insurance and screw everybody else who can't afford it.
Well guess who's getting screwed in the long run? What are those people supposed to do? Keep going to the emergency room? Keep taking out bankruptcy and sticking it to the medical profession? Keep their children from getting physicals?
Another thing that needs to be looked at is hospital costs. That's for another bill I guess, but one Tylenol that costs $3 and up is ridiculous, and twenty dollar bandaids are crazy but it's happening. Why? Because health insurance companies don't question stuff like that. They just pay it which is asinine.
March 18, 2010 at 12:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
emp..668...
In short, yes, then apply that free market principle AND find a different insurance carrier (you left that part off your panic button scenario).
We don't actually have to be enrolled in our employer sponsored ones, you know. Most of the time that is the most efficient coverage, but not always. I know of one local employer who has a very expensive plan and they don't sponsor any of the dependents...only the employee him/herself. As a result, many of the employees there whose spouses don't have an insurance option have had to shop around. They have successfully done so, even with the current state restrictions. This is a blue-collar corporation and the employees I know of make blue-collar wages. One family did it with that income being their only income and that being just over the threshold for them to insure their children through Healthwave (Oh, yeah, we have that in addition to Medicare/Medicaid and county healthcare funds). I'm not talking about high incomes here. I am talking about being smart enough to shop and use our consumer power. Think how much farther that would go with a few well written regulations and even farther with open state policies.
(Again, and for the last time, I am not saying the credit card regs and the insurance ones would be the same, but that they should both accomplish the same consumer protection.)
March 18, 2010 at 1:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
create,
I agree about the bad calls on hospital charges and insurance payments, but we do have some degree of control over that. When I had my first child, I noticed how expensive the Ibuprofen was. As a result, the next time I took my own supply and just firmly turned down their $40 800 mg. pill. I don't know if my insurance company appreciated it, but what kind of a difference would it make if everybody did that as often as they could?
Ultimately, I do think that either the insurance companies or the government needs to put reasonable market price caps on all hospital resale of bandages, medications, etc.
March 18, 2010 at 2 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
genxer (anonymous) says...
Selling insurance across state lines would open the market up to competition which would drive costs down and benefits up. True, all of the states have different mandates on what has to be offered in health insurance, which is why there would have to be something added to override states that have outlandish requirements of what must be offered as part of insurance. Plastic surgery, botox, etc.
Single men shouldn't have to pay for insurance that included ob/gyn coverage. But that is how most insurance works today, all or nothing. We need al a carte options which would help drive cost down on an individual basis.
And most of the regulations we're trying to impose on insurance companies would be forced on them by consumers in a free market.
Also, when we talk about pre-existing conditions let's make sure we are all on the same page. An insurance company should NOT have to insure someone who already has a known condition, like cancer. That is like me going to purchase collision insurance after I get in a car wreck. Not fair to business.
March 18, 2010 at 2:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Okay, if that cancer patient can't get insurance because it's a pre-existing condition, what does he do? Just give up and die? Or have the treatments and just take out bankruptcy?
Some insurance companies have actually turned down women who have had medical treatments for spousal battering because of risky behavior factors. Hello?
Yes, we need health care reform where insurance companies don't have this kind of power.
March 18, 2010 at 3:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"Yes, we need a smoking ban where bars don't have this kind of power."
March 18, 2010 at 8:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
or a smoking bar where bans don't have this kind of power.
March 18, 2010 at 8:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you.
March 18, 2010 at 8:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Uh ............ please don't question the government. Thank you.
March 18, 2010 at 9:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
With only a couple of exceptions this has been one of the best debates on this subject I have ever seen on these boards. I'm sorry I missed out on it!
March 21, 2010 at 6:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Well today will be nothing but basketball and heathcare on T.V. The Dems say there will be a vote today and the Repubs state there will be not one vote for it on their side. SAME OLD S__T coming out of d.c!
ON THE BRIGHT SIDE;
DIDN'T RUSH SAY IF IT PASSED HE WOULD MOVE OUT OF THE COUNTRY?
Could we get about 99% of the congress to go with him?
March 21, 2010 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
healthcare, sorry
March 21, 2010 at 8:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Well if it does pass I think Rush needs to be held to his threat.
March 21, 2010 at 10:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Shoot, I might even donate to buy him a ticket to " Devils Island ", Oh, and send Glen Beck with him .
March 21, 2010 at 11:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Looks like the Tea Party's "few" extremists once again showed up:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
But finally we get an admission and at long last a condemnation from Steele (which is rather comical considering the GOP and the Tea Party are supposed to be mutually exclusive)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/...
At least there is an admission , not like Palin and other key figures stating "they don't see anything like that". Unfortunately it's happening a lot more than they want to admit.
March 21, 2010 at 1:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
On a side note, Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon and others have also said in the past they would leave over political matters, funny how everyone cries and says the grass is greener elsewhere yet here they remain.
March 21, 2010 at 1:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
regardless of where you stand, this was pretty funny:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/...
March 21, 2010 at 1:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddong (anonymous) says...
I think McConnell kind of looks like a turtle. but boy does that Rush Limbaugh sure get me fired up in the morning. Who needs fiber!
March 21, 2010 at 5:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
That's okay, Rush is moving to Costa Rica now anyway.
Aloha, Rush. Or should I say adios.
Or maybe Alaska so Sarah can say "I can see Rush from my house."
March 22, 2010 at 6:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy,
Good post at March 21, 2010 at 1:13 p.m.
But how is that video in your next post funny? Because that dude believed that hrc could be stopped? That is kinda funny.
March 22, 2010 at 8:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
What was slipped in at the last minute?
If those of you that thought this health care bill was a great idea because big business,(insurance and pharma) cared about nothing but profits and were greedy, watch today's stock market. Insurance and pharma stocks will have a very good day. Once again the only losers from this sweeping legislation will be the taxpayer. The future taxpayer, our kids and their kids. What a sad day.
March 22, 2010 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"What was slipped in at the last minute?"
Nothing, an executive order banning federal funding for elective abortions.
"Insurance and pharma stocks will have a very good day."
Thus far not really, in fact many stock market experts are saying the opposite, and that it will continue all the way to 2014.
" Once again the only losers from this sweeping legislation will be the taxpayer. The future taxpayer, our kids and their kids. What a sad day."
It is sad, sad that because conservatives decided to run our national debt to astronomical levels with war spending that when something like this comes along that will actually benefit the American people we are cash strapped to do it.
March 22, 2010 at 9:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I believe that, Pharmaceutical stocks will definately rise, however I believe that the Insurance Industry stocks will take a hit. And I base this on the following info.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegag...
March 22, 2010 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy,
You are completely correct in stating
"It is sad, sad that because conservatives decided to run our national debt to astronomical levels with war spending that when something like this comes along that will actually benefit the American people we are cash strapped to do it. "
It is also sad that those same democrats voted to go along with the war funding and going along with President Cheney. And keeping everything off the books so we couldn't feel the pain of the war. (which I think was Illegal).
Where was their outrage then?
Good God it would be nice to have an elected official vote their conscince once in a while >
What you and others don't accept is the fact that both parties have screwed us and will continue to do so until we quite arguing dems VS repubs and start electing 3rd or 4th party candidates. The dems will suffer in the next election, but so will the repubs who screwed up the last decade and allowed our current situation. VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT. We couldn't do any worse.
March 22, 2010 at 12:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Oh no, I can accept that the Dems are wrong. I was reasonably sure they would fold on healthcare like the wimps they so often are. I will say one thing in their defense, after 9/11 patriotism was at an all time high and the American people wanted blood, and the GOP used that to "ram through" a war we did not need. Also remember that the GOP had the majorities when this was happening so the Dems really could not "do" anything.
Now if you want to go back to Reagan's tenure there is some real blame to toss at Dem's they controlled the Congress for a good portion of his tenure and gave the guy free reign with the VISA.
I've still yet to see a 3rd party candidate worth voting for on the national scene, it usually ends up being some business mogul that is once removed from being a GOP candidate. Last time I voted 3rd party was Nader, boy did those of us who did screw up, look what happend.....
March 22, 2010 at 1:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
There were quite a few Democrats that voted their conscience and were labeled a traitor or worse, and it stuck with the American people because we trusted that the leaders were doing the right thing.
Kind of like last night when Stupak who is and always has been a stanch anti-abortion advocate was called a "baby killer" by a member of Congress for voting his conscience which was that the amendment was a ploy to kill the bill and had nothing to do with abortion. Amazing stuff.
I realize it happens on both sides, there were 5 anti war protestors arrested yesterday, but with the stuff that comes out of the Tea Party and in the last year, the GOP crowd, it is rather tame.
March 22, 2010 at 1:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy
Now I am really confused. On one hand you say that the two party system is absolutely no good and then on the other hand you tout supporting a third party candidate and then you turn around a say you voted for a third party candidate, which was Nader and you also say that was a mistake.
Therefore .. if I am understanding you correctly, you have said that even a three party or more is no good either, but remember, you now have me totally confused on where your political stance lies
Therefore it is as I have stated in a post on another thread . It makes no difference who or which politician or political party you elect to office or elect out of office, the ones who truely run the Counrty and its Government, are those certain wealthy individuals, businesses, corporations, domestic and foreign, who have the means and money to influence government legislation and laws by way of " legally/illegally " buying legislative and lawmaking votes of those elected officials, by way of professional paid lobbyists and lobbying.
As long as greed and corruption " reigns " in the world of politics and politicians .. the common ordinary citizen taxpayer/you/me, has no authority or power in governing, government, legislative or lawmaking process.
March 22, 2010 at 2:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"you now have me totally confused on where your political stance lies "
I'll clear this up, I have none. I am a registered independent. I aspire to vote for those I feel will do the best job.
March 22, 2010 at 2:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, Thank you, you had me going there for a minute.
I am also a registered independent.
I also vote as you do . But it is getting more difficult to vote for the best candidate all the time.
March 22, 2010 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Akamai
By the time this deal goes in effect (4 yrs.) I hope they are graduated.
Also how do you figure they will be insured at no expense to the taxpayer?
March 22, 2010 at 3:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Vote for anyone but a Dem or a Repub. Everyone's doing it!!!!
(there, now that I said it, it must be true.....learned that from the media and the politicians ☺)
March 22, 2010 at 10:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
oh4,
your comment, "everyone's doing it" reminds me of a little song.
Everyone's doing it, doing it.
Picking their nose and chewing it chewing it.
You might think it's funny, but it's snot!
Any know the 2nd verse?
March 23, 2010 at 7:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
genxer (anonymous) says...
Hopefully, after this year when we get a new governor from the republican party we can join the states that are filing lawsuits against the federal government against this health care bill.
akami, as long as you don't mind paying higher premiums for health care then I don't see anything wrong with your statement. You do realize that by forcing insurance to cover additional older children in family insurance plans that the company you work for will be forced to increase the premium you pay for health insurance due to an increase in risk(premiums) for the insurance provider?
March 23, 2010 at 7:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddong (anonymous) says...
You are so silly, why would costs go up on kids you already cover. Plus most 18-26 year olds are very low risk anyways, they are young and healthy on the whole. Insurance companies can try all they like to put it to people, but with the regulation imposed on them it will be a hoot! Health care and profits should have never been mixed to start with!
March 23, 2010 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
genxer (anonymous) says...
Economics 101, go back to freshman year college and read up. akami said the kids weren't currently or were soon to be not covered. If you force additional people into coverage then you will see increased premiums due to increased risk.
I just wish our elected officials had fixed the problems with the current system instead of introducing thousands more.
March 23, 2010 at 8:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddong (anonymous) says...
Well if they were not covered and you CHOOSE to cover them, then of course you will pay more. Did I miss the part where it was set in stone that parents HAD to cover their children until they were 26? What about the ones that DON'T go to college? Economics 101, how about common sense 101! People have the option to cover and PAY for it, not an order. DUH!
March 23, 2010 at 9:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
genxer
Exactly how do you fix a problem, when the problem is the Health Insurance Companies themselves, who do not want to fix their own greedy, profit seeking ways of doing business ?
Do you not believe that the extremely high health insurance premiums are due , in part, to the fact that the " fat cat " CEO's, Stakeholders/Stockholders etc. wanted/demanded more and more pay, dividends, etc., due to their unabated " Greed " and lust for " Profit " ?
In business economics, is it not true that a business may make as much or possibly more profit, by selling more of a product or service at a decent and fair price, than selling less of a product at an unfair inflated price ?
Example, If a business is selling eggs for $1.89 per dozen. Another business is selling eggs for $.89 per dozen. Which business is going to sell more eggs, and therefore make more profit ?
For instance I read a news article on MSNBC yesterday, that stated that Walmart is going to lower prices on 10,000 grocery items, due to the fact that Target and Costco was doing more grocery business than Walmart.
Lower consumer prices = more consumers = more profit.
March 23, 2010 at 9:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justaflushaway (anonymous) says...
a 18 - 26 year old child???? should have a damn job and pay his own damn insurance, and move out of mommy and daddy's house
the government need to reinstate the DRAFT, I do understand that probably on 1% of the children??? would be qualified for military, but at least the military could possibility get them to stand in a straight line maybe. and the first time one of them talks back to the drill instructor, take his cell phone away so he cant text his mommy. the world needs to get real again.. yea yea, now you all can pile it on,
March 23, 2010 at 9:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Premiums are going up because of this legislation, even proponents will tell you that. For a cash strapped family like mine that is another financial burden I don't need.
"People have the option to cover and PAY for it, not an order."
Wrong. It basically is an order that everyone gets insurance. Those who can't afford it will be forced to get it which means that taxes will no doubt go up to pay for them. Sure the government promises that won't happen and they have all these "creative finance" ways to pay for it but I don't believe it. They have given me no reason to believe they can do it. Look at the fraud in medicare to see an example. NOW they want to stop the fraud to pay for this new "toy"? Now? Why not prove that they can stop the fraud before spending the money from stopping the fraud? My theory is they have no intention of even trying to stop the fraud. They haven't cared about stopping it till now and now that this legislation is passed they don't have to stop it because they can simply raise taxes because it's easier than stopping the fraud.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUY_01...
March 23, 2010 at 9:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
genxer (anonymous) says...
reddong, perhaps I misunderstood akami's post. It appeared to me they thought they would be getting additional kids covered under the family plan without having to pay for it in higher premiums. If that is not the case then I stand corrected.
methusla, the sole purpose of a for profit company is to make money for its owners. That is all. If insurance companies stood to make a larger profit by dropping their prices they would have already done so. The reason they are allowed to maintain high prices is because of current legislation that prevents a free market. We have placed barriers to new competition and placed limits on where current companies can compete.
Last I checked we are not living in Venezuela, turning a profit is not a sin here.....yet.
March 23, 2010 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Unfortunately it won't be companies but more human beings in the unemployment line when the government takes over the insurance business.
March 23, 2010 at 12:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
genxer (anonymous) says...
Pirate is such a harsh word. Let's call them unlawful takers of things that don't belong to them.
At any rate it sounds like we are agreed that the environment created by the government which protects insurance companies is the root of the problem.
But hey, just because the government has screwed up and bankrupted every other entitlement program doesn't mean they'll do the same thing this time. Let's give them another chance, let's willingly suspend our disbelief and take a blind leap of faith that the government will do it right this time.
Cheers!
March 23, 2010 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Stay with it seriouslyfolks you might convince a few people yet.
March 23, 2010 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Problem with the gazette web site?
Go to home page,
Scroll down to Most active discussions.
Click on "see all"
March 24, 2010 at 7:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolds
As I understand the Bill, the only taxes that will increase are the taxes on the wealthy, which is where the tax inequality has been all along. I believe that the GOP fears and dislikes this part of the bill the most .
Nearly everyone agrees that Health Care and Health Care Insurance has/had gotten out of reach of a large number of the people and an overhaul was sorely needed, whether it be by way of regulation, etc.. However the Health Care, Pharmaceutical, Health Care Insurance Industry is/was unwilling to regulate itself and make affordable Health Care/Health Care Insurance/Drugs/Medication, etc. available and affordable for everyone .
So it is/was going to be up to the peoples " Representitive " which has the power of " Regulating Commerce for the good of all " , our " Constitutional Government " to do so .
For example, " The benefits, meanwhile, flow mostly to households making less than four times the poverty level — $88,200 for a family of four people. Those without insurance in this group will become eligible to receive subsidies or to join Medicaid. (Many of the poor are already covered by Medicaid.) Insurance costs are also likely to drop for higher-income workers at small companies. " http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36013261/...
March 24, 2010 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
And now the " Law Suits by the States, mostly Red States that is " and the attempt to derail the HCR Bill by adding riduculous, costly and unnecessary amendents to the Bill .
Ah, yes, the power of Big Money and Big Money lobbying and lobbyists at work. Isn' t it just wonderful how the upper class does all in their power to keep the middle and lower classes down and out .
March 24, 2010 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Yes the current bill says in very murky legalese that the wealthy will have to pay more( get punished for being successful in their pursuit of happiness) but I don't believe it will stay that way. I'm at the bottom of the hill and you know what rolls down hill, eventually this legislation is going to end up costing me in the attempts to try to punish those seeking the American dream successfully. It makes me wonder why anyone even trys in this country, the more successful you are the more jealous people are of you and they hate you for it. It's just not worth it, but people will still plug away and try to get more more more all the while hating those who are better at it. My plan is to get out of debt(which will be more difficult now that my premiums are going to go up) and just break even. Please don't hate me, look I have no money. Thanks.
March 24, 2010 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
seriously, I don' t fully agree that the wealthy are pursuing happiness, per say, or living the "American Dream* " but are pursuing nothing more than being the ruling authority of the Land and the only way they are accomplishing this feat is through wealth and corruption of Government .
* What is the American Dream?
The term was first used by James Truslow Adams in his book The Epic of America which was written in 1931. He states: "The American Dream is "that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position."
http://memory.loc.gov/learn/lessons/9...
March 24, 2010 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Meth
If you think the rich are the only ones going to get soaked on this deal I have to disagree.
When the gov. sticks their nose in and gets their fingers on it it ends up costing all of us but the ones that don't pay taxes anyway.
March 24, 2010 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
tbluma
No, I do not think the rich are the only ones going to have to anti-up, so to speak.
What I mean is, it looks like the rich/weathy may have to begin to start paying their fair share of the load, instead of getting all the breaks . And this Bill, ( if it survives ) may just be a step toward parity ( par·i·ty, –noun .. 1. equality, as in amount, status, or character.) in the U.S..
Now this countrys Legislature, Legislators need to work on closing all the other existing tax loop holes for the wealthy/rich, such as allowing the wealthy/rich to hide taxable, wealth, income, assets, etc., in off sore accounts or secret Swiss bank accounts, the they do not pay taxes on.
Such as, (AP) Swiss bank UBS AG used coded language in internal e-mails and memos, created hundreds of sham offshore entities and lied to U.S. officials in an elaborate scheme to conceal the overseas accounts of wealthy Americans, the Internal Revenue Service claimed in federal court documents.
The IRS filed the documents this week seeking to force the bank to turn over records for an estimated 52,000 U.S. customers who allegedly violated American tax laws by concealing Swiss accounts worth at least $14.8 billion.
source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/0...
But of course this is just my opinion .
March 24, 2010 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
And yet there are some who emphatically say that the wealthy/rich actually pay more than their fair share of taxes. Of course they do, HAH !
March 24, 2010 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Heres a little something that may be of interest to some concerning secret offshore bank accounts, audio only, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLsgrz...
March 24, 2010 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Meth
I know they have tax breaks etc. that some don't but I don't subscribe to the theory that the rich should pay, say 50%, while you or I pay, say 30%.
I agree with seriously here when he/she said the rich get punished for being successful.
March 24, 2010 at 2:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I am not saying the wealthy/Rich should be punished for being successful. I am saying that they should be held to the same tax laws as everyone else, which by the way they have not been held accountable to the same tax laws and codes as everyone else .. again I site the following web sites as proof , http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/0..., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLsgrz...
I can provide more web sites that can also provide proof of the unfair advantage the Wealthy/Rich have had for decades.
Also, Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest men in the U.S., possibly the World has admitted that he pays less in taxes than his secretary does. Proof, Warren Buffet Pays 17.7% Tax Rate; His Employees Pay 32.9%, http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_bl...
Now, how would you like to have a 17.7% tax burden instead of 20% to 37% ?
I say, no the Wealthy/Rich are not being punished for their success, but it is time that they are held to the same tax laws and codes as the rest of the people.
And it will take a lot of convincing to make me think otherwise.
March 24, 2010 at 3:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Why would anyone even try to get ahead and make a better living for themselves and their families if they are going to be penalized for their success? Why not just lay around all day and live off of someone elses hard work? In the old days it was called personal and family responsibility. Todays lifesyles can be called entitlement driven . What can YOU do for ME today?.
March 24, 2010 at 3:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
And the same old line of crap that the Wealthy put their money back into their businesses or the economy is pure, in my opinion B.S.. If they did their businesses or business they own , by outright ownership or stock ownership in, would not have to be bailed out by you, me and the other taxpayers who some are paying upwards of 37% in taxes and the wealthy only pay 17.7% or possibly 25% or no taxes at all. And the economy would be in much better shape.
Convince me otherwise.
March 24, 2010 at 3:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I have a question.
Is anyone who posts on these threads tax burden 17.7% or lower ?
Why do those of you/us who complain about taxes, and know that the wealthy/rich do not pay near the tax rate the rest of us do, even bitch about taxes if there is never going to be any parity in the tax laws or codes ?
I have bitched and complained about the disparity in the tax laws and codes for decades now, every since I found out the wealthy/rich do not pay anywhere near the same tax percentage the rest of the people do. And I will continue to try and enlighten people to the disparity and try to convince the people and Government to do something about the injustice in the tax laws and codes.
I am just glad that the IRS, the government, etc., may be starting to take a look at the problem . I probably won' t live long enough to see anything done about it, but perhaps my/our grandchildren and their grandchildren, etc. may see the benefit .
March 24, 2010 at 3:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
How may of you actually think you are going to get ahead, when your tax burden is 2 to 3 times that of the wealthy/rich and if things stay the same your tax burden may even get worse, exactly howmany of you forsee, as you say, getting ahead and even being successful ?
March 24, 2010 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
If I make so much a year I get taxed 25%' make more I get taxed 30% plus.
So from my experience the morre I make the higher the %, and therefore don't believe the rich only pay 17.7%.
Maybe after the tax breaks and dodges, yes.
Here's what I believe. FLAT TAX
Everybody should pay the same % after legitimate cost of business expenses are deducted.
You make 50K/yr pay the same % as the guy that nets 50M.
Akamai is right
If I own a business I'm going to pass on what ever it cost me in extra taxes, so we will pay one way or the other.
If I'm gonna get hosed I might as well sit on my backside and let everybody else bail me out. That is why we're in such sad shape today anyway. To damn many entitlements, and I think that is exactly what this health bill is.
March 24, 2010 at 3:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Akamai
I just quit agreeing with you
March 24, 2010 at 4:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
tbluma
Face it the wealthy/rich do not pay the same percentage in taxes that you or the rest of the taxpayers do. Don' t believe me, visit the sites I have posted, this info is facts, gathered by competent people. Don' t believe the facts presented. Perhaps you would believe one of the wealthiest people going, Warren Buffet, he confirms the wealthy/rich, including himself do not pay what they should be paying in taxes.
And has gone so far as to slam the government for the decades long tax law/code disparity, this came from his own mouth, in print, on national T.V., etc..
By the way I agree that a Flat Tax, where everyone, regardless who, should pay the same % in taxes. It it is going to be 17% or 37%, then you would have parity in taxation.
March 24, 2010 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Akami
I also agree with much of your las 2 posts. And " Feudalism " is still alive and thriving in the U.S. and the world .
March 24, 2010 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
I'm a little curious as to who actually foots the tax bill in this country. The reason that I ask is that, as everyone knows, it's tax season and everyone is talking about their tax refunds. While I haven't spoken to tons of people about it, I know of many stories of the tax "refunds" being double to quadruple the tax amount withheld from the incomes of several people around here. I also have heard of people, whose only income was welfare, getting "refunds" on their "taxes." I think I must have misunderstood what the definition of "refund" was, back in my vocabulary lessons....and of "taxes."
Now I read this thread and, apparently, the rich people are all hiding their money to protect themselves from having to carrying everyone else (can't really blame them).
Who is paying the bills, people??? No one? Well, that just helps explain why we are borrowing money from China, then, doesn't it?
And some people think that our economically challenged government can manage more fiscal responsibility.
March 24, 2010 at 5:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
But, oh4theloveof, do you really believe that the middle class and poor should carry the Wealthy/Rich and the Country too ?
March 24, 2010 at 6:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Since 2005, even more of the tax bill has been " footed " by the middle class and poor, more so than any other time in history. While the wealthiest/richest have had their income doubled or even tripled in the same amount of time and still had less tax burden than before 2005 .
I don' t know whether this answers your question, satisfactorily or not .
March 24, 2010 at 6:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
As far as who is paying the Bills ? I can only answer, China .
March 24, 2010 at 6:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
methusla,
I don't think it's right that anyone carries anyone else who is able...even if their abilities don't match. I don't believe the rich should carry anyone but themselves, but my point was, the poor aren't carrying anything. Even those who are making honest wages and supporting their own and even think they are contributing have not actually contributed a darn thing once tax "refunds" are handed out. It isn't the laborers fault either.....the government has its economics so far out of whack, that it's giving money out as a return to those who never paid in in the first place along with everything they did pay.
So, does that leave the middle class to carry everyone? No, the rich still pay.....just not as much as some vultures would like them too....which is why they are hiding their money from the vultures. So the rich and middle class pay taxes and don't get refunds, but a lot of what they pay is payed out to the poor in "refunds" and to the lazy in welfare + "refunds." What's left pays our elected persons and their massive staffs unreasonable salaries and expense accounts and all the other spending is getting put on our "credit card" aka China. Man, if we think American capitalist credit card companies are out for blood, we haven't seen anything yet.
March 24, 2010 at 8:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
akamai
Your web site is probably very accurate, thanks to all the entitlements we Americans/illeagals think we deserve.
My point is much like what oh4theluvof just said, vultures want the rich to pay for it all. ( Yes I include you Methusla, I have really got tired of your rants about the rich).
The so called poor don't pay sh## and get all the freebies, and the rest of us foot the bill.
Bitch about the rich all you want but they produce the jobs. The feds raise their taxes, they'll raise thier prices.
But most people will never understand that. It takes money to make money.
If the rich weren't making money there wouldn't be a stock market to invest in(IRA'S or retirement) or jobs for us to work at.
Somebody has to make money so other people can make money.
March 24, 2010 at 10:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
My apologies. Above:
"...giving money out as a return to those who never paid in in the first place..."
should have read:
...giving money out as a return to those who never paid it in the first place...
March 24, 2010 at 10:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
oh4theluvof
ABSOLUTELY
Can we have a AMEN?
March 24, 2010 at 10:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
By the way METH, I don't think the poor are carring anybody.
Wake up and smell the roses
March 24, 2010 at 10:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
oh4theloveof
If I am understanding you correctly, you believe that the wealthy/rich absolutely should be paying 17% taxes and have the right to be able to defraud the Country and the rest of the taxpayers, buy being allowed to hide income and assets, lie about income, in order not to pay what, by law, they should pay in taxes and that the middle class and poor should pay upwards of 37% in taxes, in some cases and receive no tax refunds, what so ever, even though these people earn much, much, much less than those who could well afford to pay more than 17% in taxes .
Am I correct in my understanding of your last post.
The following might be of some interest to you, but then again it may not.
400 richest Americans’ incomes doubled under Bush.
Bloomberg reports that, according to recently released IRS data, “the average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a third to 17.2 percent through the first six years of the Bush administration and their average income doubled to $263.3 million.” Much of their income came from capital gains resulting from the Bush tax cuts:
The drop from 2001’s tax rate of 22.9 percent was due largely to ex-President George W. Bush’s push to cut tax rates on most capital gains to 15 percent in 2003. As you can see the rich/wealthy really got a huge break capitol gains tax breaks.
Capital gains made up 63 percent of the richest 400 Americans’ adjusted gross income in 2006, or a combined $66.1 billion, according to the data. In all, the 400 wealthiest Americans reported a combined $105.3 billion of adjusted gross income in 2006, the most recent year for which the IRS has data.
The Wonk Room has noted how “the conservative approach of putting big corporations and the very wealthy ahead of the middle class has failed to create prosperity that can be shared by all Americans.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/30/a...
March 24, 2010 at 10:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
And, oh4theloveof, do you doubt that capital gains should be taxed or considered as income and taxed thusly.
The present USA of today, reminds me of the Monarchys of old, with Kings, Queens, Nobility, Surfs, Vassels, servants and slaves . With the Surfs, Vassels and slaves, being expected to pay tribute, ( taxes ) to the Kings, Queens, Nobility ( present day Wealthy, Rich )and their servants ( present day Government ), just for the privilage of being allowed to exist.
March 24, 2010 at 10:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
I didn't give numbers and you have me about half right, methusla. I think no one should get a refund of their total taxes paid in, much less a "refund" of double, triple or quadruple what they paid in. That doesn't mean absolutely no refunds, but it means a more consistent taxing method. A more consistent taxing method would then result in a fairer taxing of the wealthy. I am not a mathematician or an economist, but I have a working knowledge of both and I know the system is incredibly screwed up across the income spectrum.
If Walmart were to work this way, they would charge S. Sauder $75 for a bottle of Tylenol, C. Walker $50 for same and you $5. Then, they would give you back the $5 you paid, plus $20. The guy behind you would pay for it with his Vision card (I know it wouldn't qualify, but this is an analogy) and then get $35. The lady behind him would get her $5 back and then get $10 because she makes a little more than you. Now, they have sold five bottles of Tylenol, which is worth $25. They put $125 in the till then pulled out $65 plus gave away $15 in merchandise. They have $45 left to pay the employees and will have to borrow money to pay the utilities. Also, the first two customers got screwed.
If it isn't fair in a market sense, then it isn't fair in any economical sense.
March 24, 2010 at 11:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
methusla
As for the increase in wealth of some, I don't care. Good for them! I have no envy or hard feelings against them for it.
I never said I condoned tax evasion, but I did say that I understand their reasons for maneuvers. I live by the Scripture, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's...." meaning I should follow the country's tax laws, no matter what. I hope my fellow citizens of all income levels are doing the same and if they aren't, we have a justice system for that...no matter what income level. If I were to impose on your posts what you are imposing on mine, I would assume that you think that it's okay for poor and middle class citizens to evade taxes. I don't believe you are saying that, but I do believe that you think they should be exempted and only the wealthy be taxed......all legal-like.
Capital gains? I don't know. If we had a fair taxing model in this country, capital gains might not even be an issue. If it was, that would be for the people to communicate to their representatives and tax laws enacted. As it is right now, they are seen as taxable, right?....so, yes, they should be taxed.
tbluma,
Thank you and right back atcha! I have enjoyed your points.
Check this out, ya'll! A conservative calling for taxation! Where IS biscuitboy??
...No, really, does anyone know if he's okay?
March 24, 2010 at 11:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
oh4theluvof
I do not believe that anyone should be exempt from paying taxes, nor do I believe that anyone should get back a refund of double, triple or quadruple what they pay in. However I do believe that the existing tax laws and codes are unfair to some and extremely more than fair to others. That is why I believe in a Flat tax rate for everyone to have to pay, and making sure everyone does not lie about taxable income or is allowed to hide taxable income or assets beyond the borders of the U.S.. In other words, I am all for tax parity for everyone, no exceptions, what so ever . I don' t know whether you believe me to be a conservative, but I can assure you I don' t believe I am a conservative or a liberal, a Democrat or Republican. I am just a fed up, crotchity, geezer who is and has been fed up with the way things are and have been done and allowed for a long time.
March 25, 2010 at 12:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
What is a tax refund?
March 25, 2010 at 6:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Good one, akamai :-)
March 25, 2010 at 7:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
oh4theluvof,
I think biscuit is busy doing his taxes.
Saw him going down the street the other day, think he's o.k.
Probably just tired of arguing with us.
March 25, 2010 at 7:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Steve,
I was going to say, that I, myelf , have no idea what a tax refund, rebate or tax break is or how to get one. Guess we don' t have enough " clout ', " influence ', " money " or are devious ( crooked ) enough to get one.
March 25, 2010 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Poor and working class people(like myself) are the ones getting refunds, especially if they have kids(like myself). Are you suggesting that the poor and the working class have" clout ', " influence ', " money " or are devious ( crooked )?
March 25, 2010 at 9:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks
That is not what I was implying at all. I too received a tax refund, once in a while, way back when I was married and could still claim my children as a dependent . And I applaud and admire you or anyone who is able to receive a refund in this day and age, when every thing that has to do with taxes and taxation seems to favor the super wealthy/rich . I also am not wealthy/rich, as I am sure Steve is not wealthy/rich. I am just a retired/disabled old geezer who is trying and struggling to survive the insanity ! The use of the words, devious and crooked was not a good choice of words and I appologize for offending you or anyone else, Sorry .
March 25, 2010 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks
And I certainly hope you and everyone who is entitled to a refund, is and will be able to receive a tax refund.
March 25, 2010 at 10:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
noel_stanton (anonymous) says...
Corbin wants to throw out everybody and many other posters swear that they are independents, that is, no "Dem/Reps" for them. Here is a democratic solution from Australia to break the strangle hold of the two-party system. See Friedman's, NY Times column, "A Tea Party Without Nuts dated March 23:
"...get states to adopt “alternative voting.” One reason independent, third-party, centrist candidates can’t get elected is because if, in a three-person race, a Democrat votes for an independent, and the independent loses, the Democrat fears his vote will have actually helped the Republican win, or vice versa. Alternative voting allows you to rank the independent candidate your No. 1 choice, and the Democrat or Republican No. 2. Therefore, if the independent does not win, your vote is immediately transferred to your second choice, say, the Democrat.
Therefore, you have no fear that in voting for an independent you might help elect your real nightmare — the Republican. Nothing has held back the growth of independent, centrist candidates more, said Diamond, “than the fear that if you vote for one of them you will be wasting your vote. Alternative voting, which Australia has, can overcome that.”
Noel Stanton, Moerlenbach, Germany
March 25, 2010 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"The Baath party was outlawed in Iraq"
Is that what that smell is?
March 25, 2010 at 11:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Redistribution of wealth is stealing. Stealing is illegal. The Democratic party in this country wants to redistribute wealth(steal) so they should also be outlawed. Libertarian party and the Constitution party are ready and willing to step in and lead once we get rid of the two criminal parties we elect now out of habit and blind loyalty now.
March 25, 2010 at 11:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
genxer (anonymous) says...
akamai = nut job? Seems like it.
March 25, 2010 at 11:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
akamai
If you outlaw the republican party you'd have to do the same for the dems. using your criteria.
March 25, 2010 at 12:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
or something
March 25, 2010 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
genxer (anonymous) says...
Correction: akamai = nutjob!
Please, tell us more. What are your thoughts on 9/11 being an inside job.
This is some great stuff!
March 25, 2010 at 2:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
genexer,
Just curious, do you always resort to name calling when people do not share your views? Or is just a Liberal vs. Conservative thing?
March 25, 2010 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Aww come on Akamai! I am part of gen X and that analysis is not applicable to me. Sounds very republican of you=)
March 25, 2010 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
genxer (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, I just call them like I see them. When someone says something outlandish like the things that akamai says I see they either have no grip on reality or are saying something outlandish to get a reaction. akamai fits one of those categories, both are nutty.
For an independent you're awefully quick to jump all over republicans. By the way, I'm independent too and down on the Democrat party, so I know the feeling.
March 25, 2010 at 3:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Given what the Republican party has done since 1980 I am hard pressed to be optimistic about them. The only thing i can say good about the Dems is that with a liberal I know I am getting a liberal, not a liberal in conservative attire.
I take great issue with the Democratic stance on many topics, but then again I have the same view on Republican topics too, how can one quantify what one is when they cannot align with either?
March 25, 2010 at 4:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
oh4theluvof
I am okay...but I thank you for your interest.
I am however deeply troubled by what I see as the continued slide we are taking into an us against them mentality in this country. Historically such thinking has brought us some of the most extreme examples of man's inhumanity to man. The Roman persecution of the Christians....the Christian persecution of the heretics and witches.....the slave owner's persecution of the slave...and the Nazi persecution of the Jew is to name but a few.
But at the core of each was the belief that is was us against them. That we were somehow superior...that they were somehow inferior. That they were out to destroy us and our way of life...that they were insideous.....evil...less than human....that they deserved to die.
I see the same thing happening now as happened in the days of pre-Nazi Germany. The attitude that you are with us or against us. The playing upon fear and mistrust to turn an opponent into an enemy. The increased belief that enemies must then be destroyed.
I see this being played out everyday on the news and even on forums like this one, This belief that it is no longer good enough to be just an American....now you must also be a conservative...or a liberal.....and if you are not, you forfeit your right to be an American....or even your right to live
For this reason I am very angry and frustrated as I see our once great country being led to the brink for political expedience......and yes.....I am also very afraid. And yet, the one idea in this entire discussion that payed more than lip service to any concept of coexistence....the alternative voting concept put forward by noel stanton.....was widely ignored.
So Steve was at least partly correct when he said I had grown weary of argueing.....but more importantly I guess the bottom line is I no longer know what to say.
March 28, 2010 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mslater (Matt Slater) says...
how can one quantify what one is when they cannot align with either?
Vote 3rd party. That's what I do!
April 3, 2010 at 11:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rabblerouser (anonymous) says...
Proposed 28th Amendment to the US Constitution
For too long we have been too complacent about the
workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that
Congress members could retire with the same pay after only
one term, that they didn't pay into Social Security, that
they specifically exempted themselves from many of the
laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear
of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary
citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to
exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being
considered...in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't
seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the
law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican,
Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This
is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has
come.
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States
Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens
of the United States that does not apply equally to the
Senators and Representatives; and, Congress shall make no
law that applies to the Senators and Representatives that
does not apply equally to the citizens of the United
States."*
If each person sends this to a minimum of twenty people on
their address list, in three days, all people in The
United States of America would have the message. I believe
this is one proposal that really should be passed around.
April 4, 2010 at 7:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alfalfa (anonymous) says...
It is no real loss if Limbaugh moves. I am a Republican and I detest the man.
April 4, 2010 at 11:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy:
"...the alternative voting concept put forward by noel stanton.....was widely ignored."
I agree. I held off commenting on this idea to see what others might think of it and to mull it over a little myself. Then life happened and I got distracted from replying, but I haven't forgotten about it. I was disappointed to see that no one else had much to say either. I am fairly positive that I like this idea and would like to see a little legislative activity in this direction. Of course, neither the Dems or the GOP are going to be vested in making this happen...in this, they will protect each other instead of us. So I am going to continue to show a lack of votes in either of their directions and will be considering some e-mails to some non-Republican tea party groups that I've recently learned of as well as to the current representatives and senators. A move like this would take a very strong voice from a lot of people. I am one of the voices.
April 17, 2010 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
oh4theluvof
I stand willing to to help in anyway with any group or individual working to make this happen. Let me know what you learn and how how I can help.
The time for inane bickering on internet forums is past. It is time now to act.
And once again....I thank you for your response. I've been watching all along.
April 17, 2010 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )