• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Congratulations to my fellow Democrats

Maybe not in Portland. It certainly is in New York City, Los Angeles, or Chicago.

You're basically mandating everyone take on the cost of a new car payment.

Should these people simply live off of tax dollars for their emergency health needs and go bankrupt in the process?

Now, they have to be conservative with their money because of a new bill to pay.
Before, they would simply be vulnerable to financial disaster if health issues occur.
Which one is the lesser of two evils?
 
Should these people simply live off of tax dollars for their emergency health needs and go bankrupt in the process?

Now, they have to be conservative with their money because of a new bill to pay.
Before, they would simply be vulnerable to financial disaster if health issues occur.
Which one is the lesser of two evils?

Do you think there will be a measurable difference in the rate of medical bankruptcies under htis particular bill? And if so, by what year will an effect be seen?
 
WildCat, if you think being poor automatically gets you Medicaid, you are sadly mistaken.

The WORKING poor who are not elderly are denied. If you are not elderly, you have to be, disabled, a child, or pregnant to get it even if you are below the income cap. Disabled enough to be on SSI. Medicare you have to be on SSI two full years to get.
 
And a John McCain sidekick. Jeb Bush is on the board of his AAF, dont let the truthers see that.
So? Are his facts wrong? "Attack the argument".

Is this how it works in the US?
Yes. Health insurance benefits are not taxed, but if you buy your own you have to pay for it in after-tax income. You cannot deduct it.

Company spending on health care for employees is not subject to matching Social Security taxes, medicare taxes, and any other taxes the employer must match on an employees income.

IOW, companies and those with employer-provided health insurance get a tax break while those who have to buy it themselves don't.
 
WildCat, if you think being poor automatically gets you Medicaid, you are sadly mistaken.

The WORKING poor who are not elderly are denied. If you are not elderly, you have to be, disabled, a child, or pregnant to get it even if you are below the income cap. Disabled enough to be on SSI. Medicare you have to be on SSI two full years to get.
This is true. However, the working poor may get some relief in this bill (much depends on their cost of living) but it's the lower middle class who will get screwed.

There's no doubt in my mind that you won't be able to buy even a basic health insurance policy for less than $500/month in Illinois by 2015. And I'm being very conservative with that estimate. Just the cost of health care inflation alone, which this bill does nothing about, will probably double it in that time.
 
why should my tax dollars go to pay for someone else's health-care?

i work hard, i don't want my money helping other people. do they help me?

let them die in the street. or go bankrupt. its not my problem.

-GOP
 
Man, no one wants to answer this question, and it's just fundamental to the issue of health care coverage.

There are people who cannot afford coverage. Conservatives want to abolish Medicaid, Medicare, and the new subsidies for private care.

So the question to them is "what should happen ON A PHILOSOPHICAL LEVEL to people who cannot afford to buy coverage? Should they get help from everyone else, or is that "redistributionist" and they should be on their own?"

What's your answer to this narrow question?
Why don't you ask someone who holds those views? Because I sure don't.
 
:boggled::boggled::boggled:

How does the tax-benefit of having a company insurance plan affect what I pay for hospital visits? Did you even read what I wrote?
If benefits were taxed as income that would be an extra $80 billion or so in revenue, which could be used to insure ~20 million low-income people. Then they wouldn't be a drain on the hospitals.
 
So? Are his facts wrong? "Attack the argument".


Yes. Health insurance benefits are not taxed, but if you buy your own you have to pay for it in after-tax income. You cannot deduct it.

Company spending on health care for employees is not subject to matching Social Security taxes, medicare taxes, and any other taxes the employer must match on an employees income.

IOW, companies and those with employer-provided health insurance get a tax break while those who have to buy it themselves don't.

Perhaps I've grown cynical in my old age, but somewhere along the line I decided that this was quite deliberate, as a way of favoring big business while pretending to be for the little guy.

In the last few years, big corporations have started to really object to health care coverage partly because of out of control costs, but I think even more so because the global economy has forced them to compete with foreign corporations whose government payment of health care gives them a competitive advantage.
 
why should my tax dollars go to pay for someone else's health-care?

i work hard, i don't want my money helping other people. do they help me?

let them die in the street. or go bankrupt. its not my problem.

-GOP
In the Republican view, Ebenezer Scrooge was the good guy.
 
Wow! This is the first time I have seen any hard numbers related to this bill. If this is true - $350/month on a $35,000 salary - then you Americans still have a lot to learn about funding a health care system. My salary is somewhat more than double the $35,000 and my total cost for medical and dental plans (public MSP and employer-provided extended benefits combined) is just over $170.00 per month for my family of 3. Still, I guess you have to start somewhere.......
That's actually middle-of-the-road here, in New York state for example good luck finding a policy for less than $700/month for a single person over 40.

Go to esurance.com and play around a bit with the online quotes. Just punch in zip codes in different states as your location, you'll find that insurance costs are wildly different in different states. Something I don't think this one-size-fits-all legislation has considered.
 
Should these people simply live off of tax dollars for their emergency health needs and go bankrupt in the process?

Now, they have to be conservative with their money because of a new bill to pay.
Before, they would simply be vulnerable to financial disaster if health issues occur.
Which one is the lesser of two evils?
Actually, under this bill he won't have a "new bill to pay". He can still not buy insurance, and not get penalized by the IRS.

Sort of like... right now only much, much more expensive.
 
If benefits were taxed as income that would be an extra $80 billion or so in revenue, which could be used to insure ~20 million low-income people. Then they wouldn't be a drain on the hospitals.

So you're saying that I'm subsidized because I could be paying higher taxes that could be used to provide free healthcare to people whom are currently not paying for emergency room visits.

Got it.
 
GHI. Queens, NY.

$561 a month.

age 43.

do you do ANY research...Wildcat?

https://ghi.inshealth.com/ehi/indiv...onid=8E2A0001400D60BA3066BB85AD81D07D.prsv02a
I don't think that plan qualifies under the bill. It will have to include office visits and various periodic exams, and the GHI plan you listed does not include those things. No mental health coverage either, which will be required under the bill.

Now parky, would you like to include a plan that actually qualifies? And is $561 affordable? That's the cost of a car payment plus insurance plus gasoline!
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom