what will he think of next?
A couple of posts back, I mentioned that the President was pushing a new plan for health insurance for the poor. At that time, I mentioned that I was not real impressed, but I had no idea just how unimpressed I would be.
In some reports, the new plan will make the cost of insurance tax deductible for some, while making employer-provided insurance taxable income, thus, upping the cost of the mess for those that use it, and providing a huge windfall for the insuring companies.
Is there no beginning to this man's intelligence?
Listen to the President this coming Thursday evening. Then, waste no time in telephoning, emailing, and writing to your Congressman and Senators to express your opinion on the ideas that this pathetic excuse for a human puts forth.
It seems clear to me that a revolution is coming, and that most everyone knows it. it might be at the ballot box. I hope so. But it might take another form as well.
What we are seeing from the White House is an attempt to get all that can be had before the bell rings and George is shown the door.
In some reports, the new plan will make the cost of insurance tax deductible for some, while making employer-provided insurance taxable income, thus, upping the cost of the mess for those that use it, and providing a huge windfall for the insuring companies.
Is there no beginning to this man's intelligence?
Listen to the President this coming Thursday evening. Then, waste no time in telephoning, emailing, and writing to your Congressman and Senators to express your opinion on the ideas that this pathetic excuse for a human puts forth.
It seems clear to me that a revolution is coming, and that most everyone knows it. it might be at the ballot box. I hope so. But it might take another form as well.
What we are seeing from the White House is an attempt to get all that can be had before the bell rings and George is shown the door.
posted by eccentric recluse at 6:46 PM
13 Comments:
The last mid-term election is looking more and more important isn't it? It seems to me to be an outrage a day with this turd.
JB
You'all crack me up..
I can't stand it.. I have to say more.
"SOME" is the key word here; vague and with no context. "SOME reports say" .. "Tax deductible for SOME"... and then you swing conveniently to the pointed rhetoric, "Clear that a revolution is coming and everyone knows it".
Hate to break it to ya.. but most of us are happy.. and ironically.. the nearest this country has come to a revolution, was when the Klintoon crew was waiving the magical, socialized medicine in our face.
The problem with health-care is not how to pay for it; but to address and fix why it's so expensive.
Making health care insurance deductible is a start (the only ones not able to deduct will be those not paying income tax at all). Making provided insurance a taxable income is just plain logical.
You were so determined to segue into the revolution, your post was just the method.
What's YOUR suggestion to address the cost of health insurance ?
Hey, thanks for coming by. I appreciate your input.
first, "some reports". go to google news today or tomorrow, and search +Bush +speech for copious links to these reports. I'm sorry I didn't embed them at the time.
Secondly, yes, I did shift to some pointed rhetoric, mainly, to make a point. if it sounded cryptic, well, I'm sorry. I guess I shouldn't post when getting ready for leave for a meeting. My point at the time was (and still is), that the interests of corporations (in this case, those members of the insurance industry), cannot continue to displace the interests of the individual citizen. I am currently covered by health insurance and feel lucky to have it. The interests of the individual, is the business of our government. To tax current benefits may be appropriate, (I don't think so), but putting the (largely unregulated) corporate interests in charge of this "solution" only introduces more waste and inefficiency, which reduces the level of care and the overall cost for everyone.
And, finally, how do you view this issue. You have implied that you are happy with things now, how would you approach this?
Apparently W spends his time anonymously trolling blogs, sticking up for himself. LOL. Your post must have hit a nerve.
Naw.. no nerve.. I was kinda distracted too, and was more pointed than I intended.
It's a complex issue, and until we sort out WHY health care is so expensive; how we pay for it is irrelevant. To me.. there really isn't any difference twixt an inefficient, dishonest insurance corporation and a inefficient, dishonest government. Either the company hurts us with outrageous premiums; or the government hurts us with outrageous taxes. The only reason I'd favor the company is that we can see what happens when there's a single-payer (socialized medicine when it's the feds)sans competition.. look at Canada. If we went that route, we'd have all that's bad WITHOUT a big USA just south of us to anchor and bail us out. Believe you me... if the people who can afford to come here for free-market medicine could not.. the Candian system would implode quickly. Not to mention that they're losing doctors to us at an incredible rate. On top of that problem, we'd just end up with a huge Florida (all the young, driven good docs are working in gated, private practice)..
How it's paid for is not the problem. That it's so expensive IS the problem (and it reached the crisis under a mostly democrat controlled congress)(not the best people to be solving it)...
I'll answer the question in my next post...
I view the problem as three-sided. Letting insurance companies in on the game to begin with.. Then the blundering Democrats over 40 years of rule, deciding that the government could get into the insurance biz too (addicting more people to "free" government services). Once you insure that something will be paid for.. the costs spiral out of control.
And finally the obvious; trial lawyers and mal-practice suits/insurance premiums. We need to halt and penalize frivolous suits.
Health care isn't any more a requirement to life/liberty/happiness than food, shelter, clothing and transportation. Do we want companies (and then eventually a government) seeing to it that all that stuff is provided, to everyone, at equal levels of quality ? In utopia maybe.. but life don't work that way.
Bare-level safety nets have always existed. If the under-achiever or those down on their luck make the effort, they've never ever been denied treatment. Of course not the same level of treatment that the over-acjiever and lucky get... but that goes for everything.. food, clothes, housing, transportation.
We need too get the insurance companies, government and lawyers OUT of the health business.. and get back to where a doc visit was something that Joe Average could pay out of pocket and the cost of major treatment was based on his income..
And.. I'd imagine you earn that coverage. Some entity feels that it's worth the expense of paying for it, in return for the work you do.. That's not luck.. it's effort/reward..
"the blundering Democrats" Ahhh no way not to place blame in our discourse I see.
Seems to me that Newt's contract some 12 years ago really pushed tort reform as an answer to high costs of health. How has that worked out?
JB
Sorry.. you're right.. plenty of blame to go around and it falls mostly on governement period, both parties.
My ex worked for the state of Michigan, processing Medicare/Medicaid claims. I got an iside look at what a non-competitve, single-payer (especially if that payer is a government)system looks like.
That's not the answer.
I worked for a "huge" company that provided a nice health care package, before I retired, and they had as much incentive as anyone to control costs and as far as I could see they never got a handle on it. I'm not sure of the answers but it seems to me that a cooperative effort between business (big and small) and gov. could be the answer.
But I don't see that happening right now.
JB
That's the horrid irony.. when healthcare is "insured", there's NO way to control costs. Competition and supply/demand go out the window.
Can you imagine, if between you employer and the government, you just got a new car every 2 years ? No shopping.. no negotiating.. no two ways about it; you were "buying" a new car every two years.
Prices would be artificially high, selection all but gone and most importantly, quality would evaporate..
And... eventually, the only entity manufacturing cars would be the government *sigh*..
Post a Comment
<< Home