If Health-Care Reform Passes, Will Protests Increase?
At The Daily Beast, Reihan Salam argues that "the so-called "town brawls" are a sign of things to come":
To get a glimpse of America's future, consider France. The French have the health-care system that Americans desperately want: it combines private providers and patient choice with a large and generous public insurance system, one that keeps out-of-pocket costs extremely low for working families. The French system is also dramatically cheaper than our own. But whenever there's a move to tweak the system in some way—say, to gently nudge patients to get the approval of a general practitioner before seeing a specialist—the French go absolutely mad with rage. Doctors go on strike, massive street protests ensue, the riot police come out: it's a crazy scene.
And it makes perfect sense: as more life and death decisions are placed in the hands of democratically elected legislators, politics become more than an occasional nuisance.
The logic here, which I agree with, is fairly similar to what I've argued about health-care reform and corporate lobbying: Making government a bigger player in the health-care process means that health-care decisions are increasingly political decisions, which, in turn, means that people and companies turn ever more toward political acts—like protests and lobbying—in order to participate. Obama has repeatedly talked about moving the country beyond politics. But the health-care reforms he supports would, in fact, further politicize the health-care system.
Previously, I wrote about industry support for health-care reform. Ron Bailey wrote about handouts in cap-and-trade legislation here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I guess that makes us tadpoles?
I'll always believe that France's budgetary flexibility for things like this has been provided by the sweat of American taxpayers (and soldiers). When you don't have to worry about keeping Gunther and Ivan out of your hair, you can have all sorts of fun with your pocketbook.
Yeah, Europe isn't only benefiting from our military protection... Because the EU underpays for drugs deliberately as a condition for pharma companies being allowed to sell there at all, the US "private" system eats the remainder in the form of higher costs.
So we're not only subsidizing their citizens' protection from international threats, we're also directly paying for a shitload of their medicine. And France's system is still going bankrupt.
Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.
The French have the health-care system that Americans desperately want
Says who? I have no interest in their system whatsoever. Apparently a large percentage of the population agrees with me. And regardless it does not come in a vacuum. France has persistently high unemployment and unfunded obligations that make Social Security and Medicare look positively solvent. I would not be using France as a model for good government policy. Of course I would not use the United States either.
It's not just health care. The trend will spill over into everything since government has its hand in everything.
And it makes perfect sense: as more life and death decisions are placed in the hands of democratically elected legislators, politics become more than an occasional nuisance.
Yup. I love it when people wring their hands over government corruption, too. "What can we do to stop politicians from abusing their power?" The answer is, don't give them the power.
America : baseball :: France : riots
So, the French see riots as increasingly irrelevant, but insist that they should be steroid free?
As I've commented before, the notion of "positive rights" such as the right to health care, which entail obligatory wealth redistribution from some to others, sets up irresolvable conflicts. The interests which "win" in this "democratic" process which progressives advocate determine the distribution of all resources, get to impose the costs of their "rights" upon the losers.
The irresolvable conflict of rights at the philosophical level translates into conflicts at the political level, which will be played out not by reasoned debate (because reason cannot resolve the inherent logical conflict between positive and negative rights). Hence people will increasingly turn to the use of force to get their way - such as violence in the streets.
That's why the task of moral philosophers has always been to define normative rights in such a way as there are not conflcits between them. The purpose of creating rights is to resolve conflicts - to decide who has the right to something, so as to avoid violent conflict between members of society. By setting up irresolvable conflicts at the philosophical level, positive rights set the stage for violence at the political level.
Hi5 Hazel!
Hi5 Hazel!
Seconded. Nicely put.
If Health-Care Reform Passes, Will Protests Increase?
Of course it Will!
Spending $1Trillion towards healthcare will significant reduce the amount of money we can give to Israel, or Africa, or Halliburton.
Making government a bigger player in the health-care process means that health-care decisions are increasingly political decisions, which, in turn, means that people and companies turn ever more toward political acts-like protests and lobbying-in order to participate.
Just as an example of what I'm talking about ... if I'm obligated to pay for your health care, then your decision to have children imposes costs on me, and on the country as a whole. So now there becomes a political impetus to have a national policy attempting to regulate the size of families - see China's one-child policy - or impose mandatory birth control, etc. People who want kids are pitted against people that don't. And whoever "wins" the election, gets to force the other group to obey them. Non-Breeders get to impose mandatory birth control, or breeders get the non-breeders to pick up the tab for their kids. Instead of such conflicts being resolved by a system of "rights" the only "right" is who wins the election.
No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave."
Ayn Rand
What, exactly, about modern American politics leads you to this stunningly retarded conclusion?
I usually don't respond to you because you talk like a paranoid, stuttering crackhead, but seriously, has increased spending in one place led to budget cuts elsewhere?
I was be Facetious ... not necessarily paranoid. Though you may have hit it on the nose with the Crackhead comment.
What I meant to say is that I didn't hear a PEEP from the conservative movement when King Cheney and his Bitch Bush spent $11billion per month on IRAQ.
What I meant to say is that I didn't hear a PEEP from the conservative movement when King Cheney and his Bitch Bush spent $11billion per month on IRAQ.
Great! Another ignoramus that doesn't know where he is.
----------------------------->
What I meant to say is that I didn't hear a PEEP from the conservative movement when King Cheney and his Bitch Bush spent $11billion per month on IRAQ.
God almighty, stop it with this already. Yes, of course you didn't hear a peep about that from conservatives, because conservatives SUPPORTED THE IRAQ WAR. They don't support government health care.
For fuck's sake. Their positions stem from one set of principles about government's role. Yours stem from another. You don't "prove" anything when you make statements like this. You're merely relaying an observation about differing political positions; it's not an actual argument.
Hi5 Hazel!
Hazel consistently writes the most lucid, insightful commentary around this place.
because conservatives SUPPORTED THE IRAQ WAR. They don't support government health care.
I just hope the voting public remembers this.
Gillespi keeps saying that "the best way to stimulate the economy is to have two people dig holes and have three people fill them in."
Well, with the bombing and the eventual rebuilding IRAQ...I don't see this to be much different.
I'd rather have my tax money Government Health Care than to Israel or Iraq.
I just wish there was a TOWN HALL for those things.
Healthcare is Completely out of Control.
An indemnity policy today runs about $2,700 per month. My mortgage in a NYC suburb isn't even $2,700 per month.
If we do NOTHING, nobody will buy insurance...because the policies today SUCK!!!
You can't even buy catastrophic insurance.
I'd rather have my tax money Government Health Care than to Israel or Iraq.
There you go: Now you've got the seed of an actual argument.
Merely pointing that people didn't complain about thing X, which they supported, but do complain about thing Y, which they don't support, is a waste of everybody's time.
If we do NOTHING, nobody will buy insurance.
That would be awesome. Insurance prices would plummet!
Today's insurance policies not only carry deductables...but co-insurance and co-payments.
I don't think that there is a difference between the words deductable, co-insurance, and co-payments. That's just the insurance company making up words to that you don't think that your deductable is going up.
I have an insurance policy I get from my employer. I pay over $500 per month (my contribution) towards the premium. AND the Policy is COCK!!! Nothing is covered...and EVERYTHING IS A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION.
If something bad happens to me, my wife, or either of my girls...That's it for me.
That depends on where in the States you live...see for instance http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-care-insurance-for-less-than-100.html
Assuming that your figure, Alice, of 11 billion per month in Iraq is correct, that would be 847 billion dollars for the entire length (March 2003 - present) of the occupation.
Now, frankly, it doesn't matter what you would and would not rather spend 1 trillion dollars on. The Iraqi occupation money is already spent. It's a sunk cost, and arguing about it is akin to arguing over spilt milk. The question is whether it's smart to spill more milk.
So, in other words, talking about the occupation is a big red herring on your part.
For the love of Christ, man, why are you paying it then?
It is incredibly rare that protests of any sort increase in fervor long after the initial spark of outrage. The life cycle of most mass protest movements is about 2 months, and even that is in the most extreme cases. You may still have anger after a month or two, but getting nontrivial numbers of people to show up on a workday with signs, that is tough.
If I was in charge of the fight to stop a national health care plan, I would have a very different strategy. An incensed minority is far, far less politically powerful than a grumpy majority. But, as a guy on the other side of this debate, I whole-heartedly encourage all opponents of the democratic plan to keep supplying CNN with loops of red-faced lunatics disrupting town hall meetings and writing ridiculous editorials calling Obama the new Stalin, or saying that Stephen Hawking would have been euthanized if he lived in the UK. Currently, the confused independent voter sees both sides, and he may not understand the debate, but he can clearly tell who is less insane. It's kind of like the 2008 election all over again.
We subsidize French health care (drugs, devices, procedures, etc.) and we also subsidize French defense (NATO, etc.).
I am getting damn tired of subsidizing the French. Let's make them take all our wannabe little socialists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeaRJfvJokU
An indemnity policy today runs about $2,700 per month.
Cite please. I have a stand-alone BC/BS plan for me and my daughters that is $450 a month.
The fact that you don't understand the difference between co-payments, coinsurance and deductables (or don't believe there is one) might be a sign for you to be quiet on this issue until you know what you are talking about.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy
You are absolutely right. Even a family plan costs $577.82 per month...with NO co-insurance and only a $5,440 deductable.
Maybe I just need to move out of NYC.
max hats,
Sounds like you've considered a certain health care plan and you like it. However, I'm not interested in taking part in it.
Cool? I'm gonna move on now, OK?
Alice Bowie,
You claimed no one could buy catastrophic insurance. So I showed you decent catastrophic ($5000 max OOP per year) insurance plan with some elements of health/vision/dental/drug care program included for $100/month per person.
That's less than I pay for data service
In short, you're wrong.
Suck it up.
To be fair, the French are a rather bitter people. They go up in arms about damn near everything. Have you read Les Miserables?
::wonders if he might have misunderstood Alice::
Or do I owe you an apology.
Sorry to bring it up again, but I am confused as to why, if it is true that Alice's plan pays for nothing, why he is paying that 500 dollars a month?
You know you don't have to pay for the insurance, right? It must be paying for something.
oh, and max hats is a partisan shill and should never, ever be taken seriously.
France has persistently high unemployment and unfunded obligations that make Social Security and Medicare look positively solvent.
But, but, but...Social Security is solvent.
Anyway, carry on.
This word, "shill," I do not think it means what you think it means. I don't come here to advocate anything, and I certainly don't pretend to be nonpartisan. Not really a troll either, because I type out what I believe and call it like I see it. No grand conspiracy, no sociopathic shut ins. I'm just dude, sorry to say.
"Their positions stem from one set of principles about government's role."
The Republicans have principles? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
That was funny. Have you got one about the Democrats being for the little guy? That would be funny too.
Yeah the insurance industry's bottom line is a much better standard to apply to medical decisions.
Serious question. A liberal friend of mine posted some thing on his blog about all the conservative nuts showing up at town halls. I know what the exaggerated claims are, but what is actually going on at the town halls? I'm too busy to check one out. Anybody been to one?
Apostate Jew, that's right, but it's still good form to assume good faith and principles in a debate until proven otherwise, and then righteously tear the opponent limb from limb. There's no better honest way to change minds.
Mike Laursen, there are videos on youtube available. At the worst, they're heckling Congress Critters when they talk about "stimulus" and welfare and socialized medicine. Dissent is thuggery, after all, and ignorance is strength, Stalin would say.
The insurance industries bottom line would also be influenced by customer service and coverage if healthcare wasn't tax subsidized by going through an employer.
I fart in Tony's general direction!
Mike Laursen, there are videos on youtube available.
Thanks for the tip. I watched a few of them. I have a better feel for what's going on now.
Except I'm wondering what's with Iowans. They are eerily polite. Must be all the Jello and sun tea.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy
I did admit that u were right...and that I was wrong.
It's just that in the NYC Metro area health insurance is pretty high...and doesn't cover much if you or a family member get a stroke, cancer, etc.
In all fairness, the salaries are pretty high as well.
Isn't rioting at the threat of any spending cuts exactly what the Dems want?
Alice Bowie,
Insurance costs in NYC are so high primarily because of ridiculous regulations imposed by the state:
"In New York, medical underwriting is not allowed. This means that insurance companies are not permitted to review the medical history of prospective members. As a result, they are required to charge the same rate (or premium) to members regardless of their health status. This leads to extremely high premiums. "
Also, "In New York, all health insurance companies must offer insurance coverage to all individuals, even those with serious medical conditions. "
This is why you are getting raped by premiums, and why people in other states pay 80% less than you. GTFO of New York.
I found that on a health insurance website, BTW. http://www.healthplanone.com/healthinsurance/newyork/
GTFO of New York.
Or, lobby congress to allow sales of insurance policies across state lines.
That way, Alice could buy a policy from a cheap state.
This is an example of states mucking around with interstate commerce and would be an actual legit use of the ICC on the part of congress.
This is why you are getting raped by premiums, and why people in other states pay 80% less than you. GTFO of New York.
And yet I constantly hear from every chickenpot socialist that it's the company and the profit motive doing this, not government regulation. I mean everyfuckingwhere. You can't read tech news without a constant undercurrent of anti-profit.
Allow me to offer you my apologies. I simply didn't parse you post correctly the first time.
Oh the embarrassment! I die. The very electrons of my missive lose the will to live and destroy all machines through which they pass. The internet crashes, infrastructure fails, everyone dies. Oh the embarrassment!
"If we do NOTHING, nobody will buy insurance...because the policies today SUCK!!!"
I agree, maybe you should lobby for states to stop over regulating them, so we can have more choices. And let's stop employers from being forced to buy insurance, so we see the costs and people who aren't employed aren't forced to subsidize the employed.
Those would go a long way to improving the insurance products offered, because people making fully informed choices directly knowing the ocsts will improve it, while every time the cost is removed we see problems.
That would have another plus: you needn't worry about pre-existing conditions because you wouldn't be switching companies every few years.
In fact, ket's not force insurance companies to pay for pre-existing conditions, but instead make the insurance company you had at the time it was discovered pay, just like insurance in other industries. After all if you had insurance A and your house floods, and you switch to insurance B before all payouts are finished, Insurance B doesn't have to finish paying for your house damage, insurance A is still liable because they took the risk. Yet in healthcare we force insurance B to cover it, which is insane.
That is also why few insurance companies offer reductions for preventative healthcare or living risk free lives, after all they aren't going to see the benefit of your lowered risk, instead whoever you are insured by 30 years from now will. So why should they offer you a deduction. If we freed insurance to offer any plan imaginable, and freed it from whoever you are employed by at the time, there is a good chance you'd stay and an insurance company would do more to keep you.
I'd like health insurance to work the way insurance does in every other industry: as a risk mitigator. Health insurance today is not insurance at all, it's welfare. We want to force companies to pay for our healthcare, while we pay them only a small fraction of the cost. Of course that model breaks down for the elderly when a majority need care.
I'm not against welfare to help others, though some are. But let's call it what it is, not insurance. And let's leave insurance alone but free it and let the market inform prices.
Another huge difference between France and the US is the legal system. In France the tort system is nearly inaccessible, terribly slow, and produces low judgements. In the US, the system encourages costly litigation, the payouts are huge, and the risk run by the plaintiff in filing suit are low. Comparing the two countries without taking into account who is in charge there...In France it is bureacrats and technicians...In the U.S. it is lawyers from top to bottom...is literally just a meaningless eruption of verbiage.
That said, I do agree that the French and the Europeans in general have not paid their own way in terms of national security, nevermind the defense of free commerce on the high seas etc. That has permitted them to spend tax money buying votes and promising goodies that permit buying more votes...which has bankrupted them. Oh, and there is no future generation to pay for the promised pensions, because they haven't had enough children. However, thre reason many of their industries are able to be competitive with international standards despite the high costs, high taxes, and heavy regulation, is that there are almost no lawyers. At best, in France, the status of a lawyer is a sort of glorified clerk. the nice parts of town in France are not half populated by wealthy lawyers, as it is in any american city.
I agree, maybe you should lobby for states to stop over regulating them, so we can have more choices
Now if there were some way to convince every single idiot who spouts off about it that this is the problem, then you'd be on to something. But everything I hear in the local news, personal blogs, tech news, forums, and from several friends is that the government just can't do enough to stem the profit motive that drives corporations to rape their customers. There is no voluntary transaction, utility, supply and demand, elasticities, or freedom of association with these people. It's like a socialist European cult of Nader or something.
Just as an example of what I'm talking about ... if I'm obligated to pay for your health care, then your decision to have children imposes costs on me, and on the country as a whole.
I seem to recall this exact scenario going on at the Twentieth Century Motor Works. It didn't turn out so well.
$11 Billion for "the war" sound positively tiny (6%) compared to the $181 Billion one month deficit for last July. In any case, "the war" will end someday. Government Medical Care has never ended (at least not yet).
Our government (Rep. and Dem) has bankrupted us.
Instead of Cash for Clunkers, how about Health Care for Cell Phone Plans or Health Care for Cable TV? People could learn how to have priorities by giving up their Cell Phone Plans or Cable TV Packages and buy fucking health care instead so this country doesn't go bankrupt.
One serious question... Why does a "positive right" (per Pres. Obama) stop at "free health care."
From a survival point of view--the rough rule of "3":
3 minutes without air--you die
3 hours with out shelter--you can die (cold,heat, etc.)
3 days without water--you die
3 weeks without food--you die
For 90% of the population---would it be 3 years without health care--you may die?
Where is the free shelter, food, clothing, & water lobby for the whole country (excluding current welfare programs which are supposed to be limited in scope and support)?
I'd rather have my tax money Government Health Care than to Israel or Iraq.
It's not necessarily a binary choice. The government could not spend on either and cut your taxes, enabling you to get a health plan more to your liking.
"In New York, medical underwriting is not allowed. This means that insurance companies are not permitted to review the medical history of prospective members. As a result, they are required to charge the same rate (or premium) to members regardless of their health status. This leads to extremely high premiums. "
So basically, those low premiums i see in other states are for people that will never use their insurance...Because, the minute that they do, the premiumns will go up as high as they are in NYC.
Remember, If insurance costs $100 per month when you are healthly...and you simply don't get coverage again once you get sick...why even pay the $100 in the 1st place?
Why pay that $100 in the first place? Because the first time you need it, you get the coverage they're obligated to pay. The expense may be the equivalent of $100 per month since you were born, but they're going to pay it.
The second, third, etc. may cost you more, but that first lottery ticket has paid off big time.
Alice Bowie asked, "So basically, those low premiums i see in other states are for people that will never use their insurance" why even pay the $100 in the 1st place?"
No, it's because other states people who are generally healthy (without pre-existing conditions, habits, etc) pay lower premiums than those who are generally unhealthy. Such underwriting practices seems fair to me. I have no desire to pay for costs stemming from other people's decisions to smoke, over-eat, drink, ride without a helmet, have unprotected sex...
"why even pay the $100 in the 1st place?"
Congrats, you just explained why many of us choose to contribute to an HSA instead. I'd rather toss my tax free earnings into a medical savings account than fork over monthly insurance premiums that gets spent someone else's problems. (which is the same reason I'm opposed to national health care, btw)
(sorry if duplicate)
Bryan Travis, excellent points at 11:02am.
Even Canada gets a huge advantage from having a much less accessible court system and a much higher bar to clear to prove "malpractice."
Of course, technically if the government healthcare system picks up the tab for your continuing care and possibly even makes you whole again, it would seem to be a net gain. But it's worth noting that the cost of this care does not fall back on the doctor (or his insurance company).
Does Obama know what a "brand name" and "generic" drug are? It doesn't seem like he does. A generic is the same chemical sold under a different name. Our genius President does not know what he is talking about. GW Bush would have probably known this stuff. And if he had gone on for 10 minutes with this generic/brand name gibberish the media would have held it up as a sign of stupidity.
President Genius just babbles for an hour and then CNN and MSNBC lie through their teeth for him. Obama has no understanding of economics or business and will destroy the quality and availability of healthcare in this country. I am sure the Linda Douglasses out there will call me a liar because Obama promised to eliminate lines.
But, but, but...Social Security is solvent.
This quote comes from the front page of the official SSA Statement of benefits I received last week.
"In 2017, we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2041 the SS Trust Fund will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 78 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits."
-Michael J Astrue
Alice, your first problem is that you have an indemnity policy. Everyone who has them thinks they are supposed to be the best (probably because of the cost) but they are the worst you can get because they have the highest premiums and least benefits. The govt requires they use attrition to abandon the program, they can't just end it and transfer people to other plans.
Since the advent of HMOs, indemnity policies are the ones insurance companies are trying to rid themselves of because they suck and are costly to administer. So they raise rates and lower benefits to encourage you to cancel them in favor of better plans, be they PPO, EPO, or HMO.
I don't care what anyone says, HMOs are not the devil. Indemnity policies should be abandoned and its up to you to do it. Tell your employer to get a PPO or HMO or just get out of the employer plan and buy your own HMO in NY for about $1200 per month for your whole family. You may have less choices of physician because of the network, but the $1500 savings per month would be worth it to any rational person. Plus you will just have a copay, no coinsurance and no deductible. HMO doctor does not mean bad doctor. No doctor is worth $1500 more a month (just for access to them - you could pay less in cash to them for care) than any other.
Steve,
???Safe Sex????
I don't know how old u r...or if you have been able to procure any 'ASS' in the last couple of years...but, SAFE SEX????
Everyone has the "occassional" SLIP UP !!!
Well, of course, it's not as if in 2017 they'll start drawing cash from a real account with genuine assets. To pay out the money from "The Social Security Trust Fund" the Treasury will have to dip into general revenues which means either increased taxes, increased borrowing or some combination thereof.
This is just a another chance to visit the fraudulent nature of this scheme.
As I have pointed out on several occasios, we can have Swedish levels of benefits if we are willing to accept Swedish levels of taxation. But, from what I hear, even the Swedes are tired of Swedish levels of taxation.
And the pension part of SS isn't even the problem. There are only so many geezers and each gets a relatively fixed monthly payout. Not really a huge chore to plan for meeting that obligation in any given year. Migh piss off the people who have to pay the taxes but it's a fairly predictable burden.
On the other hand, a promise to fund all healthcare on demand, even if it's to a fixed pool of beneficiaries is a open ended promise without an upper limit.
It's medicare that has us fucked. And the Obamabots are trying to pretend that expanding that promise to everyone isn't fraught with hazard.
I personally feel that we should abandon employer-sponsored healthcare.
To those who prefer HSA...I hate 2 tell U.
You will NEVER be able to SAVE enough to pay for the delivery of your Two Kids, the occasional sniffles, a stroke, cancer, etc. etc. etc.
Unless one is so mean-spirited ... and can give a shit of another person's child developing Leukemia...I guess HSA is OK.
We need the Pyramid Scheme. A Pyramid Scheme involving all Americans. It's really the only way healthcare coverage can work.
Let's Take a simple example:
You make $100,000 per year.
You get a 5% raise per year for ten years
You put away 10% of you salary: $10,000
Assume that you've NOT PLAYED the STock MarKeT...It looks like the follwing table:
Year Base H.S.A
1 100,000 10,500
2 105,000 11,025
3 110,250 11,576
4 115,763 12,155
5 121,551 12,763
6 127,628 13,401
7 134,010 14,071
8 140,710 14,775
9 147,746 15,513
10 155,133 16,289
TOTAL in UR H.S.A Acct 132,068
Let me TELL U... You will NEVEr, Ever Save enough money to truly pay for your Health Care.
Oh Yea...and by the Way
??? How many of You Make $100,000/year???
??? How many of you get 5% raises per year ???
??? How many of you get a 5% return on Money???
may bad ... that last table was horrible
a better table
Year Base H.S.A
1 100,000 10,500
2 105,000 22,050
3 110,250 34,729
4 115,763 48,620
5 121,551 63,814
6 127,628 80,406
7 134,010 98,497
8 140,710 118,196
9 147,746 139,620
10 155,133 162,889
TOTAL in UR H.S.A Acct 162,889
Still looks like a good amount.
Wait until you kid breaks an arm
Now, if you pooled everyone's 5% in a Pyramid Scheme...you would definitely have the benefits of a greater health population help those that are sick.
I know that this is not popular with libertarians...but it's probably the only thing that would work. Unless you have a boat-load of money...or are completely poor and can get medicaid...or you are middle class and once they take your house, savings, retirement, and children's college funds...you will be eligible for medicaid.
A pyramid scheme is not so bad. A Ponzy or Madoff scheme or Govermentment Scheme, however, were the PERP squanders the FUND (see below) in good years, is a bad thing
FUND = [Revenue collected] - [cost of benefits] + [Interest on Fund].
F = (R - B) + I
In a Ponzy or Madoff scheme, the FUNDS is squandered...so there is NO [Interest of Fund].
Sometimes in a Pyramid Scheme, the principal of the fund must be used when R > B + I. This has happened ONCE in the last 12 years.
Remember guys, with the Medium Income going down-and-down with outsourcing, downsizing, etc...and cost of rent/gas/food/fuel/healthcare/pot/mistresses going up-and-up...It's hard to save that 5%.
Alice,
You are either misinformed or being disengenious. Your employer funded plan cannot have pre-existing conditions under federal law, unless you had more than a sixty three day lapse in coverage within the past year. Or simply did not participate, and waited until you got sick to go on the plan. If you have been covered under a group health plan for more than one year there is no longer any pre-ex exclusions, and it has been that way since 1997.
I know that brian.
But, if one moves out of NYC, that law simply does NOT apply.
I'm just saying that I am for eliminating the Employer Sponsored HealthCare. It isn't really Employer Sponsored...You, the employee, pays for it. Net you, the employee, does not get the benefit of a tax write-off.
Also Brian, What generally happens...and I am GENERALIZING, is that you get a stroke, you loose your job, you get cobra, you can't pay the cobra, you loose your benefit, you become unisurable.
Don't get me wrong. If I got a stoke....I would pay my health premiums. But, once unemployed, one may find COBRA to be pretty high.
And, if you're just gonna pay premiums until u run out of money (becuase co-pays, deductables, and co-insurance is pretty high) ... why even pay anything?
Just keep the money under the mattress, run up the Credit Cards, hide the money, and wait for bankrupsy...this is what savy people are doing ALL OVER NY and NJ...I'm not sure about the rest of the country.
If you ask ME, and i know no-one is asking, but it's the BANKRUPSY that is driving Health Care Up. Doctors and hospitals have to charge more because they will ultimately get stiffed from people that
A. sincerely Can't Pay
B. Hustlers that scheme the system
Also Brian, What generally happens...and I am GENERALIZING, is that you get a stroke, you loose your job, you get cobra, you can't pay the cobra, you loose your benefit, you become unisurable.
This is why you should always negotiate for higher pay instead of a health benefit, and then put your money into an HSA or buy your own insurance.
Buy catastrophic coverage and pay out of pocket for routine medical visits. Then it won't disappear if you lose your job as a result of an illness.
Also one reform that could be made would be to make sure the insurance company pays the costs *throughout* the period of illness, and can no longer charge premiums after you get sick. Which is like charging you premiums after your car is totaled.
The market would be taking care of these things, but because hardly anyone actually pays their own premiums, it can't. The consumer isn't choosing his own insurance plan so it's not going to respond to the consumer's needs.
FTFY.
Not much that can be done about it in reality, but I wouldn't associate myself with someone I knew to have done this.
Alice insisted, "SAFE SEX???? Everyone has the "occassional" SLIP UP !!!"
It's fruitless for you to make assumptions as to my age or lifestyle. Yes I drink, yes I ride a motorcycle without a helmet, and yes I have sex, be it protected or unprotected. The point I made in my post is that I've taken financial precautions to pay for mishaps due to my choices -- and, as such, I refuse to pay for mishaps due to the choices of others.
And yes, that includes practicing safe sex. I refuse to finance an abortion or STD treatment for you or your family member... just like I refuse to pay for lung cancer treatment should you choose to smoke, or head trauma because you chose not to wear a helmet. The list could go on and on and on.
If you don't like me (or the government, or the rest of society) preaching safe sex to you or telling you how to lead the rest of your personal life, don't ask us to pay for your "slip-ups". I believe Helen touched that in her comments near the top; if you expect a nanny-state or big brother society to take care of you, you better be prepared to have a nanny-state or big brother society telling you how to live your life.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy, nor would I, but only because I don't like bounty hunters.
Alice, according to your table, a man and a wife who each earn $50,000 when they get married will have over $63,000 to pay for delivery costs within after the first five years of marriage. Assuming normal vaginal delivery without complications, that amount saved should pay for two babies ( http://www.google.com/search?q=average+cost+of+baby+delivery ), and still leave $50,000 to pay for any complications.
Still can't afford kids? Then don't have kids. It's not society's responsibitity to pay for your individual choices, wishes, and wants.
Alice actually wrote, "We need the Pyramid Scheme. A Pyramid Scheme involving all Americans. It's really the only way healthcare coverage can work."
Um, you advocate an interesting solution. According to Wikipedia, 'a pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, often without any product or service being delivered'
Which part of that appeals to you as a model for health care? The unsustainable part? Or the fact services won't be delivered? Aren't those the two aspectes the main criticisms of the universal healthcare proposal?
Wikipedia is not a valid source for reference. You know that.
What I'm saying is that the Pyramid Scheme for Social Security worked fine until Reagan decided to use the FUND as part of the GENERAL TREASURY.
So, now, when we work and pay 15.2% of our salary toward social security it NO LONGER goes into the FUND...it goes to the GENERAL TREASURY.
The Pyramid will NOT work if there is NO FUND for years where the BENEFIT costs are greater than the REVENUE Stream PLUS the INTEREST earned on the FUND. Sometimes, one must use the PRINCIPLE in the FUNDS because the REVENUE and INTEREST is not enough.
This has worked FINE for years. We are facing something called the demographic diversification: BENEFICIARIES out number the REVENUE providers. This would NOT have been a problem if the FUNDS had not been Sqandered. It was Squandered by Reagan, Clinton, the two Bushes, and Obama.
The Pyramid FUND (whether medicare, social security, pensions, etc.) should NOT be part of the GENERAL TREASURY. This is what made GM Fail. As large as GM is, they did NOT have, and would never have enough people in their pyramid to compensate the retired. They had to pay out of future profits.
As far as you not wanting to pay for bad behavior, then you might as well not pay for anything. You may be perfectly ok eaating steak...but call pot smoking a big sin.
Irregardless of what people do, we should all pitch in to help each other out. It's been a social contract that has worked for years. It's pretty much how the rest of the FIRST WORLD does it...successfully.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy
U may wanna call that act dishonorable, but, the alternative may be the local bus terminal ones family in the event of tragic or castostraphic illness.
And, when the general consensis is "YOU BETTER HAVE MONEY TO PAY FOR YOUR OWN HEALTHCARE...or YOU CAN GO TO HELL..." Can u really blame people for being DISHONORABLE?
Steve's argument above simply comes down to "POOR PEOPLE should be BANNED from HAVING children"...since they can't afford the delivery.
These are the types of things that would lead to a BASTILLE DAY in America.
I'm not poor, I'm not part of the NYC filthy rich.
Alice wrote, "Wikipedia is not a valid source for reference." In this case of defining Pyramid Scheme, it is; you'll be hard pressed to find another published definition that refutes it.
The inherent shortcoming of the Social Security program can be summarized in two words: Baby Boomers.
Alice accused, "Steve's argument above simply comes down to POOR PEOPLE should be BANNED from HAVING children...since they can't afford the delivery."
I'm sorry. You're right, I am a dumbass. Where is the line to get OUT of prison?
Steve's argument above simply comes down to "POOR PEOPLE should be BANNED from HAVING children"...since they can't afford the delivery.
The flip side is that if no one is willing to pay, either out of savings or charity, then poor people have the duty to conscript unwilling parties into paying for the job they desire done.
Jesus fucking Christ, the Social Security "Trust Fund" was used as part of the GENERAL TREASURY from the very beginning. Generating revenue for the general fund was the whole idea. The pension benefit bullshit was secondary and merely a way to make it popular.
Reagan wasn't even the one responsible for hiding the size of the deficit by including FICA in revenues but not including Social Security payments in outlays. That, I believe was LBJ who wanted to hide how much the Vietnam war and the Great Society were costing.
The only thing that Reagan did was raise FICA taxes to try to cover the benefit increases of the 1970s plus all the other crap that Congress had tacked onto the original pension benefit.
In case you missed what every other person here seems to understand, the "Social Security Trust Fund" is a fraud and is absolutely meaningless in terms of meeting any future SS obligations. Always has been, always will be.
Isaaic,
What i'm saying is the TRUST FUND should not be used as part of the GENERAL TREASURY...and should soley be used for whatever the pyramid is setup for. Without it, the pyramid just doesn't work.
It would have met obligations if it were NOT Squandered.
Declaring bankruptcy is welching on ones debts. But we have, for good or for ill, decided that there are time when it is better to allow welching than not. No doubt the things you listed above played into that choice.
That is what the institution of bankruptcy is for: making certain welches legitimate before the law. But it comes with some rules, and one of them is: you tell the court about all your assets so that the court can judge whether and how much welching you're going to be allowed to do.
The biggest dishonor here is appealing to the law to legitimize ones non-payment, and at the same time contemptuously blowing off ones obligatory disclosure under the same law.
Feh!
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy
I know, and I would usually agree.
However, when Donald Trump can declare bankruptcy three, and still live large...do u think he followed the rules?
GM Declares bankruptcy and no longer has to pay pention benefits..yet, they are still in business...selling Cars...and Keeping profits.
Bankruptcy was designed by the rich...for the rich.
It allows rich people and institutions an avenue to keep their riches and welch on their debt.
I'm sorry that I don't find poor people that do the same dis-honorable.
Alice,
It is simply not possible for the government cannot save the "Social Security Surplus".
Every penny received by the Treasury is instantly spent, either on outlays or buying back existing debt.
There are no government "savings accounts", only bogus "trust funds".
Any spending from a "trust fund" must be done with money the Treasury has either taxed or borrowed that day.
My question: Why bother with the "trust fund" in the first place? Why not simply set the dedicated tax at the level required to meet the outlays of the program for any given year?
Answer: Because without the "trust fund" politicians would not have that huge bucket of free money that they have fooled the taxpayers into believing has bee save in a "personal account" just for them.
Don't worry kids, your not going to miss out on your SS pension because the Boomers spent all the Benjamins in the "Social Security Trust Fund". The politicians have already done that.
If you don't get your SS pension it will be because the pols have lost their will to tax.
And when did that ever happen?
Actually, Canada does save the surplus funds from Canada Pension Plan contributions.
They are invested in Provincial and Municipal bonds.
There have been various complaints over the years about malinvestment and even a few of cronyism but the Canada Pension Plan does manage to avoid many of the failings of Social Security.
It's OK because the-toupee-that-walks-like-a-man did it?!?
Do you really want to use that media-thing as a yardstick for moral behavior? You might as well choose Elliot Spitzer!
/obvious