|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 9, 2009 10:22:48 GMT -5
Well by afford, are they talking income afford, or what the people actually have afford. I mean i bring home 300 to 400 a week and sometimes it just barely covers the week I believe it is a certain % of you gross income, with subsidies for many.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 9, 2009 10:29:15 GMT -5
What about families of less than four? How much is subsidized? I want to know the actual numbers. From looking at the bill, even the public option has premiums. That is not universal health care. In the UK, they don't have premiums, it's paid for with taxes. Yes in the UK there is Universal Health care. We knew we were not getting that at this time. Hopefully we do in the future. As far as the numbers, well I have not looked at the bill. I'm going on the reports I have read. Could it end up being terrible, Yes. Is it a start, yes. Look at it this way, Universal Health Care is based on Taxes. This system people have to pay premiums. Both ways you have to pay.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Nov 9, 2009 10:45:18 GMT -5
And in a complete sell-out, Lieberman goes on Fox News and announces he'll kill the bill if it keeps the public option. link[navy] Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, reiterated that he would join a Republican filibuster against a health care bill if it contains a government-run public health insurance option after the chamber's amendment process. Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Lieberman called the controversial public option, which is in the House bill and the Senate version being prepared by Reid, an unnecessary provision intended to bring government-run health insurance in the future. "If the public option is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow the bill to come to a final vote," Lieberman said. He previously has said he won't oppose opening Senate debate on the bill despite the public option provision, and he maintained that stance Sunday. Lieberman's stance is crucial because the Democratic caucus has the minimum 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster. Senate Republicans unanimously oppose the public option, though Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine has floated the possible compromise idea of a trigger mechanism that would mandate a public option in the future if thresholds for expanded coverage and lower costs go unmet.[/navy]
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Nov 9, 2009 11:41:45 GMT -5
What about families of less than four? How much is subsidized? I want to know the actual numbers. From looking at the bill, even the public option has premiums. That is not universal health care. In the UK, they don't have premiums, it's paid for with taxes. Yes in the UK there is Universal Health care. We knew we were not getting that at this time. Hopefully we do in the future. As far as the numbers, well I have not looked at the bill. I'm going on the reports I have read. Could it end up being terrible, Yes. Is it a start, yes. Look at it this way, Universal Health Care is based on Taxes. This system people have to pay premiums. Both ways you have to pay. Yes, but, paying through taxes ensures it'll be a small amount, not an insurance company gouging your pockets because they can. And under that program there would be no refusal because of pre existing issues, or just because your credit sucks...yes, insurance companies sometimes do deny you because of your credit
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Nov 9, 2009 11:42:41 GMT -5
And in a complete sell-out, Lieberman goes on Fox News and announces he'll kill the bill if it keeps the public option. link[navy] Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, reiterated that he would join a Republican filibuster against a health care bill if it contains a government-run public health insurance option after the chamber's amendment process. Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Lieberman called the controversial public option, which is in the House bill and the Senate version being prepared by Reid, an unnecessary provision intended to bring government-run health insurance in the future. "If the public option is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow the bill to come to a final vote," Lieberman said. He previously has said he won't oppose opening Senate debate on the bill despite the public option provision, and he maintained that stance Sunday. Lieberman's stance is crucial because the Democratic caucus has the minimum 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster. Senate Republicans unanimously oppose the public option, though Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine has floated the possible compromise idea of a trigger mechanism that would mandate a public option in the future if thresholds for expanded coverage and lower costs go unmet.[/navy] Betcha he's getting his pockets lined with some insurance money right now
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Nov 9, 2009 12:41:34 GMT -5
^^ I think that's probably true -- but it's just as true of plenty of Democrats, too. If I'm not mistaken, Hilary Clinton got a shit ton of donations from insurance companies for a long time. I'm sure the other Dems are basically the same.
I wonder if Joe is trying to hop on the conservative Independent break in the Republican party; stating his mission on Fox News' Sunday morning show seems to indicate he's going after that demographic. I basically expected him to be against the Health Care bill. So I guess I'm wondering what else is behind this move on his part.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 9, 2009 14:26:07 GMT -5
What about families of less than four? How much is subsidized? I want to know the actual numbers. From looking at the bill, even the public option has premiums. That is not universal health care. In the UK, they don't have premiums, it's paid for with taxes. Yes in the UK there is Universal Health care. We knew we were not getting that at this time. Hopefully we do in the future. As far as the numbers, well I have not looked at the bill. I'm going on the reports I have read. Could it end up being terrible, Yes. Is it a start, yes. Look at it this way, Universal Health Care is based on Taxes. This system people have to pay premiums. Both ways you have to pay. Yes, this is true, but taxation is progressive (or should be) and the burden to the poor should be insignificant and the wealthy can actually handle it. This graph shows the top bracket income tax. The fundies want 1950s America, we should give it to them.
|
|
|
Post by mrsyoungie on Nov 9, 2009 14:53:04 GMT -5
This Canadian is trying to puzzle out why there is so much objection to universal medicare in the States. The charming folks at Rapture Ready are just about tearing their hair out, but I can't really figure out what their problem is. One woman seems to be convinced that her disabled daughter will not get health care any more. Others seem to think it is going to cost them $15,000/year. Since the premium I read is 2.9%, your family income would have to be over 500,000 to pay that. What is the big deal? Can one of you explain it?
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Nov 9, 2009 15:01:12 GMT -5
This Canadian is trying to puzzle out why there is so much objection to universal medicare in the States. The charming folks at Rapture Ready are just about tearing their hair out, but I can't really figure out what their problem is. One woman seems to be convinced that her disabled daughter will not get health care any more. Others seem to think it is going to cost them $15,000/year. Since the premium I read is 2.9%, your family income would have to be over 500,000 to pay that. What is the big deal? Can one of you explain it? They've been conditioned to fear anything that even slightly resembles socialism. Socialism is inherently bad and leads to killing Xians. And yeah, I may have said this before, but my mother already spends ~$15,000 a year on health care. That's almost half her salary. 2.9%, that sounds insanely inexpensive, do you have any citations?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 9, 2009 15:01:30 GMT -5
This Canadian is trying to puzzle out why there is so much objection to universal medicare in the States. The charming folks at Rapture Ready are just about tearing their hair out, but I can't really figure out what their problem is. One woman seems to be convinced that her disabled daughter will not get health care any more. Others seem to think it is going to cost them $15,000/year. Since the premium I read is 2.9%, your family income would have to be over 500,000 to pay that. What is the big deal? Can one of you explain it? Fearmongering and negative associations with socialism.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Nov 9, 2009 15:08:33 GMT -5
It's pretty complex, but basically it boils down to people being dumb. There's an ENORMOUS amount of misinformation floating around, and a lot of that is thanks to a powerful propaganda machine known as Fox News. When you have people who get all their information, up to and including their entire worldview from a single source, they're easy to play for chumps. So you have Democrats backing this reform, which means that it is instantly and massively villainized, and you have an attempt at some degree of nationalization, which is terrifying because that basically makes us baby-eating Communists, and... well, basically you just have a lot of people who are dumb or ignorant and easily led, and interests who will be harmed by this reform take full advantage of that.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 9, 2009 15:57:24 GMT -5
This Canadian is trying to puzzle out why there is so much objection to universal medicare in the States. The charming folks at Rapture Ready are just about tearing their hair out, but I can't really figure out what their problem is. One woman seems to be convinced that her disabled daughter will not get health care any more. Others seem to think it is going to cost them $15,000/year. Since the premium I read is 2.9%, your family income would have to be over 500,000 to pay that. What is the big deal? Can one of you explain it? They've been conditioned to fear anything that even slightly resembles socialism. Socialism is inherently bad and leads to killing Xians. And yeah, I may have said this before, but my mother already spends ~$15,000 a year on health care. That's almost half her salary. 2.9%, that sounds insanely inexpensive, do you have any citations? You can read a copy of the bill here (warning, requires javascript and is massive). The section dealing with premiums is 243 d. It's based on a comparison to income compared to the federal poverty level. You can find the federal poverty level here.
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Nov 9, 2009 16:35:08 GMT -5
This graph shows the top bracket income tax. The fundies want 1950s America, we should give it to them. Is it just me, or does the line on that graph remind anyone else of an urban skyline?
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Nov 9, 2009 16:54:39 GMT -5
It does resemble that a bit, Rat.
|
|
|
Post by mrsyoungie on Nov 9, 2009 19:21:02 GMT -5
"PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail Friday, November 06, 2009
Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
more here : http://republicans.waysandmeans.hous...umentID=153583 "
This is where I saw the % , which actually here is 2.5%. Now bear in mind that his came from the Rapture Ready site, so who the hell knows. But they've all jumped on this $15,000 figure which can't be right, can it?
modified to add: Anecdotally, any of my friends who have visited the States lately have been questioned by the locals about our health system. They seem quite surprised that a) our taxes include all the health care costs b) we aren't murdering old people c) we can pick our doctors (within reason).
|
|