No new taxes on those under $250k

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,531
2
81
Winrar is like the gun nuts with his tin-foil hat lately

I heard Obama is going to tax the air we breathe..OMG I KNEW IT, HE SUCKS

The lack of any objectivity is downright scary, on this board and in our country in general - "if it's not my party's decision, it must be wrong" is pretty much what we've turned into, a bunch of crying, spoiled babies, without the will or the common sense to work together while we all circle the toilet bowl
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,459
987
126
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Didn't he bash McCain for this idea while they were campaigning? :laugh:

Obamabots will point out that now he is being pragmatic.

No, Mr Obama will get smacked around for trying to raise taxes on health insurance. This will be like raising taxes on food and child care.

Do not confuse the exuberance of not having Mr Bush in the White House with blind acceptance of Mr Obama's policies.

The Obama whoreshippers still have blind accpetance and loyalty to Obama.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,459
987
126
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: quest55720
More change we can believe in. I can see Obama making private insurance so un desirable he can ram through his shitty UHC.
What change? I've just seen more of the same but with better sounding speeches.
I believe in it, and welcome the change =)

Cruddy UHC that'll allow our "pre-existing conditions" to actually be covered and maybe my healthcare won't cost 17% of my salary for catastrophic only insurance!?

Either you fail at finding insurance or you make $600 a month.

Salary of 50,000. 2700 for catastrophic for me. 5000 for my wife and child with slightly better than catastrophic. No pre-existing conditions covered either.

Every insurance denied us full insurance in our state.

17% of 50k is 8500, which is pretty close after we pay out of pocket for prescriptions, etc.

So, medical costs of 17% a year, 14-15% for the insurance itself.

We spend about 16% of our GDP on healthcare. What's the problem, exactly?

The amount we spend on healthcare is projected to go up almost expontentially over the next 20-30 years.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,459
987
126
Originally posted by: Deliximus
its' been said before by the Republicans like Bill Kristol. If the Democrats succeeds in passing UHC, the Republicans will lose the middle class forever. Republicans always try to represent themselves as 'conservatives', 'pro-life', etc etc. They have been in power from 2001-2006 of ALL THREE law-making bodies of gov't, and yet did they pass any of the pro-life, ant-abortion stuff? no. They will continue to use it as a wedge issue forever and ever, while they make fun of the same people that voted for them behind their backs.

If UHC is passed it wont matter in 20 years when the US is bankrupt.

We cannot afford Medicare long term without MASSIVE across the board tax hikes and MASSIVE cuts elsewhere. How the fuck can we afford UHC?

And besides do we want a bastard hybrid medicare/va. Thats what would happen. Shitty all around, and so costly that 1. the US economy will collapse because of massive tax rates or 2. the US will go bankrupt.

And honestly, about the whole pre-existing condition shit. Most pre-existing problems are do to poor diet over an extended period of time. The US govt will HAVE to control those with pre-existing problems and everyone else to keep the sky high costs from going even higher.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: quest55720
More change we can believe in. I can see Obama making private insurance so un desirable he can ram through his shitty UHC.
What change? I've just seen more of the same but with better sounding speeches.
I believe in it, and welcome the change =)

Cruddy UHC that'll allow our "pre-existing conditions" to actually be covered and maybe my healthcare won't cost 17% of my salary for catastrophic only insurance!?

Either you fail at finding insurance or you make $600 a month.

Salary of 50,000. 2700 for catastrophic for me. 5000 for my wife and child with slightly better than catastrophic. No pre-existing conditions covered either.

Every insurance denied us full insurance in our state.

17% of 50k is 8500, which is pretty close after we pay out of pocket for prescriptions, etc.

So, medical costs of 17% a year, 14-15% for the insurance itself.

Why don't you go make some more fucking money then your % will come down jackass.

One Big Ass Mistake America
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: quest55720
More change we can believe in. I can see Obama making private insurance so un desirable he can ram through his shitty UHC.
What change? I've just seen more of the same but with better sounding speeches.
I believe in it, and welcome the change =)

Cruddy UHC that'll allow our "pre-existing conditions" to actually be covered and maybe my healthcare won't cost 17% of my salary for catastrophic only insurance!?

Either you fail at finding insurance or you make $600 a month.

Salary of 50,000. 2700 for catastrophic for me. 5000 for my wife and child with slightly better than catastrophic. No pre-existing conditions covered either.

Every insurance denied us full insurance in our state.

17% of 50k is 8500, which is pretty close after we pay out of pocket for prescriptions, etc.

So, medical costs of 17% a year, 14-15% for the insurance itself.

We spend about 16% of our GDP on healthcare. What's the problem, exactly?

Because, you know, healthcare is a "right" not a luxury good. We all want ferraris but this douchebag needs to make do with a Toyota Yaris. Too bad his insurance will be high because of his pre-existing accidents.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: quest55720
More change we can believe in. I can see Obama making private insurance so un desirable he can ram through his shitty UHC.

It'll just become so taxed and expensive that NO employer is ever going to provide it. Thus making UHC the only solution left standing.

This won't affect the cost to employERS at all. A company that pays for a health benefits will still be able to deduct the cost from their gross revenue. It's the employEES that will pay more, as the portion of premiums paid by the employer will be taxable income to the employee.

So I don't see this tax change reducing the number of employers that offer health care benefits.

Frankly, I'm not sure that this tax change - as described in the article - would affect the demand for health care at all.

Now, if there were some incentive to shift people to high-deductible plans (at least $2500 or so), THAT would certainly reduce demand for health care.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: quest55720
More change we can believe in. I can see Obama making private insurance so un desirable he can ram through his shitty UHC.
What change? I've just seen more of the same but with better sounding speeches.
I believe in it, and welcome the change =)

Cruddy UHC that'll allow our "pre-existing conditions" to actually be covered and maybe my healthcare won't cost 17% of my salary for catastrophic only insurance!?

Either you fail at finding insurance or you make $600 a month.

shadow9d9 pops up in all of these threads with the same sob story. Now, I do feel for him and the situation that he's in, but I'm getting a little tired of him using his rare circumstance to justify massive spending in the form of UHC.

You don't know what you're talking about. shadow9d9's circumstance is not at all rare.

It's estimated that between a third and a quarter of people not covered by group policies who seek individual coverage cannot get it at any price. Insurance companies "cherry pick" applicants, and reject people for all sorts of common pre-existing conditions.

The only option for these people is so-called "high-risk" pools offered by some states. Unfortunately, such pools don't exist in all states, and even those states that have them have long waiting lists.

The only short-cut is if you're HIPAA-eligible (meaning that you used to be covered by a group plan, got continuation coverage under COBRA, and have exhausted your COBRA coverage). Under federal law, states must provide HIPAA continuation coverage without waiting periods to anyone who is HIPAA-eligible.

And here's a kicker: If you're covered under HIPAA continuation coverage, and want to move to another state, that new state may not offer reciprocity. Meaning that as soon as you move, you lose your health insurance.

In other words, health coverage in the U.S. is royally fucked up. At the very least, the following changes should be implemented:

If a person is covered under a group plan and loses or leaves the company, insurance companies should be REQUIRED to offer continuation coverage under COBRA for as long as the person wants it (not the current 18-month COBRA limit), at the same price (plus nominal administrative costs). And this coverage should "travel" with the person wherever they go.

Insurance companies should be required to offer individual policies equivalent to the group plans they offer, at a similar price (plus the added cost of administering to individuals rather than groups), to anyone who wants it, without the person having to pass a medical exam. That is, no cherry-picking, and pre-existing conditions would be covered.

The two changes I've indicated above would also solve the problem of pre-existing conditions. If ALL insurers were required to offer coverage at the same price to all comers, they would have to build pre-existing conditions into the cost of the policies. But because it would be a competitive market, premiums would be held down.

Note also that those who don't have health insurance still get medical care. So we pay for them whether they do or don't have insurance. Thus, forcing insurers to cover them would not raise premiums much, since current health care costs already factor in the uninsureds among us.

The advantage would be that fewer of us would face random bankruptcies because we couldn't get coverage at any price, and were unlucky enough to get a serious and expensive medical problem while in that state.

Of course, the problem of people who can't afford health insurance is a whole other issue . . . .
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,982
3,318
126
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: quest55720
More change we can believe in. I can see Obama making private insurance so un desirable he can ram through his shitty UHC.
What change? I've just seen more of the same but with better sounding speeches.
I believe in it, and welcome the change =)

Cruddy UHC that'll allow our "pre-existing conditions" to actually be covered and maybe my healthcare won't cost 17% of my salary for catastrophic only insurance!?

Either you fail at finding insurance or you make $600 a month.

Salary of 50,000. 2700 for catastrophic for me. 5000 for my wife and child with slightly better than catastrophic. No pre-existing conditions covered either.

Every insurance denied us full insurance in our state.

17% of 50k is 8500, which is pretty close after we pay out of pocket for prescriptions, etc.

So, medical costs of 17% a year, 14-15% for the insurance itself.

awwwwwww.................same ole same ole...you never run out of stories,,,
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: quest55720
More change we can believe in. I can see Obama making private insurance so un desirable he can ram through his shitty UHC.
What change? I've just seen more of the same but with better sounding speeches.
I believe in it, and welcome the change =)

Cruddy UHC that'll allow our "pre-existing conditions" to actually be covered and maybe my healthcare won't cost 17% of my salary for catastrophic only insurance!?

Either you fail at finding insurance or you make $600 a month.

shadow9d9 pops up in all of these threads with the same sob story. Now, I do feel for him and the situation that he's in, but I'm getting a little tired of him using his rare circumstance to justify massive spending in the form of UHC.

Rare circumstances? It's pretty common, and it's going to get more common as employers continue to drop health coverage and people have to get individual coverage. If our health care system is failing to provide health coverage to those who actually need it, that seems like a good justification for UHC to me.

Catastrophic insurance is usually less than 100/month for an individual. If he is paying 5k a year for catastrophic insurance for wife and child, he is being ripped off.

Those who are likely to need more health care will have to pay a lot more and likely not be able to afford it. So under current system, those who have chronic conditions and need insurance most are least likely to afford it. That's how private insurance works, which is why it should not be primary source of coverage, and we need a system like UHC. It's long overdue.



You do know that catastrophic insurance does not cover anything chronic and that is the reason it is cheap.

Then it's not really a replacement for UHC. It's cheap because it doesn't cover care that we KNOW people need. Yeah, that makes sense for a health care system.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: quest55720
More change we can believe in. I can see Obama making private insurance so un desirable he can ram through his shitty UHC.
What change? I've just seen more of the same but with better sounding speeches.
I believe in it, and welcome the change =)

Cruddy UHC that'll allow our "pre-existing conditions" to actually be covered and maybe my healthcare won't cost 17% of my salary for catastrophic only insurance!?

Either you fail at finding insurance or you make $600 a month.

shadow9d9 pops up in all of these threads with the same sob story. Now, I do feel for him and the situation that he's in, but I'm getting a little tired of him using his rare circumstance to justify massive spending in the form of UHC.

Rare circumstances? It's pretty common, and it's going to get more common as employers continue to drop health coverage and people have to get individual coverage. If our health care system is failing to provide health coverage to those who actually need it, that seems like a good justification for UHC to me.

Yes, it is an incredibly rare circumstance that someone is unable to get any kind of coverage besides catastrophic insurance because of pre-existing conditions, and then pays an astronomical rate for a bare minimum catastrophic insurance plan. I don't know one person that this has ever happened to. Do you have any statistics to show that this is indeed a common occurence?

Catastrophic insurance won't cover preexisting conditions, or preventative care. So basically it covers stuff that most people won't need, but doesn't cover stuff that we know people need. It may be OK for supplemental plan, but it cannot form a basis for a health care system.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: quest55720
More change we can believe in. I can see Obama making private insurance so un desirable he can ram through his shitty UHC.
What change? I've just seen more of the same but with better sounding speeches.
I believe in it, and welcome the change =)

Cruddy UHC that'll allow our "pre-existing conditions" to actually be covered and maybe my healthcare won't cost 17% of my salary for catastrophic only insurance!?

Either you fail at finding insurance or you make $600 a month.

shadow9d9 pops up in all of these threads with the same sob story. Now, I do feel for him and the situation that he's in, but I'm getting a little tired of him using his rare circumstance to justify massive spending in the form of UHC.

Rare circumstances? It's pretty common, and it's going to get more common as employers continue to drop health coverage and people have to get individual coverage. If our health care system is failing to provide health coverage to those who actually need it, that seems like a good justification for UHC to me.

Catastrophic insurance is usually less than 100/month for an individual. If he is paying 5k a year for catastrophic insurance for wife and child, he is being ripped off.

Those who are likely to need more health care will have to pay a lot more and likely not be able to afford it. So under current system, those who have chronic conditions and need insurance most are least likely to afford it. That's how private insurance works, which is why it should not be primary source of coverage, and we need a system like UHC. It's long overdue.



You do know that catastrophic insurance does not cover anything chronic and that is the reason it is cheap.

Then it's not really a replacement for UHC. It's cheap because it doesn't cover care that we KNOW people need. Yeah, that makes sense for a health care system.

You fail at understanding the purpose of insurance. Insurance is for the unexpected and expensive not the inexpensive and common problems. Many young people do not purchase health insurance because it is too expensive as all they need is a high deductible plan and their employer only has a high dollar health care plan. These types of plans have their place and they could serve a large part of the population.


Now if you want to argue that those with chronic and expensive health care problems need some form of govt help for health care, that would be a different argument.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: ayabe
Yeah, call me when it's on the table instead of some whisper campaign.
Curse you NY Times and your right wing whisper campaigns!!!

Like I said, why can't you bitches ever complain about anything tangible? Call me back when it's on the table, right now it's not, he's soliciting opinions from everyone.


 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: NeoV
Winrar is like the gun nuts with his tin-foil hat lately

I heard Obama is going to tax the air we breathe..OMG I KNEW IT, HE SUCKS

The lack of any objectivity is downright scary, on this board and in our country in general - "if it's not my party's decision, it must be wrong" is pretty much what we've turned into, a bunch of crying, spoiled babies, without the will or the common sense to work together while we all circle the toilet bowl

This. My bro is right leaning and one of his friends is really right leaning. Since about mid-2008 they started sending me every piece of right-wing propaganda (including garbage chain letter crap) they could find about Obama. Now that he's in office it's even worse. The only way to get them to stop was 'agree to disagree' and stay off the topic. The sad thing is many of these hard-core anti-Obamamites want him to fail just so they can be right.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Am I allowed to wait to see what tax proposals happen before I comment, or is that against P&N rules? We haven't even seen the proposed legislation and we are already fuming at every single idea. How about we all take a deep breath, wait for the legislation to arrive, and then go insane debating about it's provisions?

It's quite clear what Obama is trying to do here. He is attempting to signal that he is willing to compromise on his plan, in one area that has appeared to cause a bottleneck to both sides of the aisle (the issue of cost). He is trying to stop the ideologues from getting so stuck in their pontificating that nothing gets accomplished. Do I want taxes on health care plans? I don't know. I need to see what is proposed first.

McCain's healthcare proposal was a disaster, and far from "sound." The problem with McCain's plan was that his tax credit did not scale with inflation and that he did nothing to address skyrocketing health care costs. The net result would have been a tax credit that became worth less and less each year, causing even more people to lose their insurance coverage. He also wanted to push young people away from choosing their employers coverage and encourage them to purchase private plans, which would have resulted in employer plans being stuck paying for the old and ill. He wanted to remove regulations that prevent you from buying insurance out of state, and essentially strip away states abilities to dictate what services must be covered. This would have allowed companies to base them selves in "Dowutuwant, TX" and offer plans will less services, including essential services such as breast cancer screening. His plan would have cost more than Obama's proposal, covered fewer people, and done nothing to address fundamental flaws in the system. Frankly, McCain's health care plan was idiotic.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: quest55720
More change we can believe in. I can see Obama making private insurance so un desirable he can ram through his shitty UHC.
What change? I've just seen more of the same but with better sounding speeches.
I believe in it, and welcome the change =)

Cruddy UHC that'll allow our "pre-existing conditions" to actually be covered and maybe my healthcare won't cost 17% of my salary for catastrophic only insurance!?

Either you fail at finding insurance or you make $600 a month.

shadow9d9 pops up in all of these threads with the same sob story. Now, I do feel for him and the situation that he's in, but I'm getting a little tired of him using his rare circumstance to justify massive spending in the form of UHC.

If you were smitten with a "rare" condition you'd feel the same way. And those "rare" conditions aren't as "rare" as you'd think.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Carmen813
McCain's healthcare proposal was a disaster, and far from "sound." The problem with McCain's plan was that his tax credit did not scale with inflation and that he did nothing to address skyrocketing health care costs. The net result would have been a tax credit that became worth less and less each year, causing even more people to lose their insurance coverage. He also wanted to push young people away from choosing their employers coverage and encourage them to purchase private plans, which would have resulted in employer plans being stuck paying for the old and ill. He wanted to remove regulations that prevent you from buying insurance out of state, and essentially strip away states abilities to dictate what services must be covered. This would have allowed companies to base them selves in "Dowutuwant, TX" and offer plans will less services, including essential services such as breast cancer screening. His plan would have cost more than Obama's proposal, covered fewer people, and done nothing to address fundamental flaws in the system. Frankly, McCain's health care plan was idiotic.

Actually, it did scale with inflation. Liberals, of course, want everyone to buy their cadillac rather than a toyota. No wonder insurance is so expensive.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: palehorse
Until this is actually proposed, those of us who would loudly protest are just pissing in the wind.

I hate when common sense trumps kneejerk reactions to what if's and could-be's. :thumbsup:
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Carmen813
McCain's healthcare proposal was a disaster, and far from "sound." The problem with McCain's plan was that his tax credit did not scale with inflation and that he did nothing to address skyrocketing health care costs. The net result would have been a tax credit that became worth less and less each year, causing even more people to lose their insurance coverage. He also wanted to push young people away from choosing their employers coverage and encourage them to purchase private plans, which would have resulted in employer plans being stuck paying for the old and ill. He wanted to remove regulations that prevent you from buying insurance out of state, and essentially strip away states abilities to dictate what services must be covered. This would have allowed companies to base them selves in "Dowutuwant, TX" and offer plans will less services, including essential services such as breast cancer screening. His plan would have cost more than Obama's proposal, covered fewer people, and done nothing to address fundamental flaws in the system. Frankly, McCain's health care plan was idiotic.

Actually, it did scale with inflation. Liberals, of course, want everyone to buy their cadillac rather than a toyota. No wonder insurance is so expensive.

You are either lying, or seriously misinformed.

I searched high and low and did tons of research on McCain's proposal. I looked at his website. I've read at least three different analysis from non-affiliated political organizations and have never seen anything suggesting it was adjusted for inflation.

This includes an analysis by the Urban institute, which you can find here:
http:/www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411755_mccain_health_proposal.pdf

It was a flat $5,000 flat tax credit. $5000 is about half of what health insurance costs for one individual, it would hardly purchase a "Cadillac" of coverage. Health Insurance costs increased over 70% during the past 8 years. It's obvious why this credit couldn't scale, it would have rapidly grown to cost a tremendous amount of money while not fixing the real problems in the system. McCain's proposal over 10 years would have cost MORE money than Obama's UHC proposal.

If I'm wrong, then I want some actual analysis demonstrating it, otherwise what you said is just wrong.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Originally posted by: charrison
You fail at understanding the purpose of insurance. Insurance is for the unexpected and expensive not the inexpensive and common problems. Many young people do not purchase health insurance because it is too expensive as all they need is a high deductible plan and their employer only has a high dollar health care plan. These types of plans have their place and they could serve a large part of the population.


Now if you want to argue that those with chronic and expensive health care problems need some form of govt help for health care, that would be a different argument.

I understand insurance, I just don't believe private insurance should be a basis for a healthcare system. If you want to take out insurance for services not covered by UHC, that is fine, but there should be a baseline of care available to all Americans, regardless of ability to pay. And I don't mean just expensive emergency room care.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Carmen813
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Carmen813
McCain's healthcare proposal was a disaster, and far from "sound." The problem with McCain's plan was that his tax credit did not scale with inflation and that he did nothing to address skyrocketing health care costs. The net result would have been a tax credit that became worth less and less each year, causing even more people to lose their insurance coverage. He also wanted to push young people away from choosing their employers coverage and encourage them to purchase private plans, which would have resulted in employer plans being stuck paying for the old and ill. He wanted to remove regulations that prevent you from buying insurance out of state, and essentially strip away states abilities to dictate what services must be covered. This would have allowed companies to base them selves in "Dowutuwant, TX" and offer plans will less services, including essential services such as breast cancer screening. His plan would have cost more than Obama's proposal, covered fewer people, and done nothing to address fundamental flaws in the system. Frankly, McCain's health care plan was idiotic.

Actually, it did scale with inflation. Liberals, of course, want everyone to buy their cadillac rather than a toyota. No wonder insurance is so expensive.

/sarcasm
You saw it here first folks, Winnar wants you to invest in foreign cars.
/sarcasm

I searched high and low and did tons of research on McCain's proposal. I looked at his website. I've read at least three different analysis from non-affiliated political organizations and have never seen anything suggesting it was adjusted for inflation. It was a flat $5,000 flat tax credit. $5000 is about half of what health insurance costs for one individual, it would hardly purchase a "Cadillac" of coverage.

If I'm wrong, then I want some proof, because it sure as hell wasn't proposed as inflation adjusted for anyone who did any digging.

http://www.factcheck.org/mccains_5000_promise.html

The McCain campaign says the credit will be indexed to the Consumer Price Index.


Here's another, in fact, it's Zero's website

http://factcheck.barackobama.c...ty_check_health_ca.php

That is because, according to Mr. Holtz-Eakin, the McCain health care tax credits would be indexed to ?regular inflation,? presumably the Consumer Price Index.


The point of the plan wasn't to make insurance free. It was to encourage young, healthy people to buy it, since its free to them, and make it cheaper for everyone else.


Might want to check your own link too.

"the value of the tax credits offered would be indexed to the growth in the consumer price index (CPI)"
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
You are very selective in your quotations. Those links you provided are hardly praising McCain's proposal (even ignoring the campaign website). However you are right, I didn't think it adjusted at all. I didn't see it in his website, so it must have been done via press releases. Didn't hear it in the debates either. Even so, his inflation adjustment factor is far to small. Health insurance inflation costs rates have historically outpaced growth in the CPI. The end result is the same, the credit would not be significant enough to offset the spiraling cost of healthcare.

McCain's plan would not have significantly increased the amount of people who are insured, but it would have increased the disparity between the ill and the sick. Basically, if you ever were, or may become, seriously ill, then his plan was a dead end. Almost all independent analysts agree that his plan would cost significantly more than Obama's.

On the subject of "free" healthcare, Obama's plan is not free, and it was never advertised as such. He is attempting to offer a government run plan that you have the OPTION to buy into. Those who are extremely ill or disabled would be able to receive credits to make the plan "free," otherwise the cost of coverage would scale with income. The term universal health care does not mean socialized medicine. It means equal access to coverage. For example, pre-existing conditions (something McCain did NOTHING about) This is not the same thing as what is in Canada, so crys of lolsocialism are just spouting nonsense. The closest model would probably be Japans.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
What do you call the Carbon TAX????

When electric companies are forced to pay extra, who do you think will pay for that? They will have to pass the cost onto the American People.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: palehorse
Until this is actually proposed, those of us who would loudly protest are just pissing in the wind.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'll wait until they propose it before I get annoyed.

I believe 'floating' these type things is the Obama adminstrations M.O. (An example was the GPS/road tax thing)

So, IMO, this is a "proposal".

Presidents don't like when their proposals don't pass, it's labeled a failure. So, you 'unoffically' float stuff and see how the crowd reacts before proceeding 'officially'.

Look, they're gonna need a lot new government revenue under their plans and there just aren't enough people at $250K and above to pay for it. They may be able to avoid calling it an 'income tax', but I belive we're pretty much all gonna see increased taxes - it's just the form and the name that's not clear.

Fern
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Carmen813
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Carmen813
McCain's healthcare proposal was a disaster, and far from "sound." The problem with McCain's plan was that his tax credit did not scale with inflation and that he did nothing to address skyrocketing health care costs. The net result would have been a tax credit that became worth less and less each year, causing even more people to lose their insurance coverage. He also wanted to push young people away from choosing their employers coverage and encourage them to purchase private plans, which would have resulted in employer plans being stuck paying for the old and ill. He wanted to remove regulations that prevent you from buying insurance out of state, and essentially strip away states abilities to dictate what services must be covered. This would have allowed companies to base them selves in "Dowutuwant, TX" and offer plans will less services, including essential services such as breast cancer screening. His plan would have cost more than Obama's proposal, covered fewer people, and done nothing to address fundamental flaws in the system. Frankly, McCain's health care plan was idiotic.

Actually, it did scale with inflation. Liberals, of course, want everyone to buy their cadillac rather than a toyota. No wonder insurance is so expensive.

You are either lying, or seriously misinformed.

I searched high and low and did tons of research on McCain's proposal. I looked at his website. I've read at least three different analysis from non-affiliated political organizations and have never seen anything suggesting it was adjusted for inflation.

This includes an analysis by the Urban institute, which you can find here:
http:/www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411755_mccain_health_proposal.pdf

It was a flat $5,000 flat tax credit. $5000 is about half of what health insurance costs for one individual, it would hardly purchase a "Cadillac" of coverage. Health Insurance costs increased over 70% during the past 8 years. It's obvious why this credit couldn't scale, it would have rapidly grown to cost a tremendous amount of money while not fixing the real problems in the system. McCain's proposal over 10 years would have cost MORE money than Obama's UHC proposal.

If I'm wrong, then I want some actual analysis demonstrating it, otherwise what you said is just wrong.

I just logged onto Cigna's site (they tend to be a little above the middle in cost) and looked at privatly purchased health plans. For me, as a 43 year old male, it would cost $203/mo for me on their HMO. Thats what...just over $2400/year? Tell me what Im missing.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |