Health Insurance Discussion

[justbroke]

The problem you describe is caused by government intervention today. The states dictate what each insurer must cover. The insurers do as they are told.

I concur. My State has an Office of Insurance Regulation. I wonder what they do all day. They don't seem to be helping me, and yet, it's in their charter to regulate insurance.

[OhioFiler]

Another question is:

If yoy HAVE health-insurance, are you ACTUALLY INSURED???
What's an insurance worth that collects premiums but still can decide on its own to what degree they pay for your treatment, how long or if they pay at all?

If I pay for an insurance, I want to be INSURED!!

That's where the government is supposed to step in and define basic coverage rules.

Why the government? Why can't we establish a TRUE market based system where you can shop for whatever coverage you desire?

The problem you describe is caused by government intervention today. The states dictate what each insurer must cover. The insurers do as they are told.

[JRScott]

Another question is:

If yoy HAVE health-insurance, are you ACTUALLY INSURED???
What's an insurance worth that collects premiums but still can decide on its own to what degree they pay for your treatment, how long or if they pay at all?

If I pay for an insurance, I want to be INSURED!!

That's where the government is supposed to step in and define basic coverage rules.

Well I agree that reform needs to be done in this area.

Insurance companies need to have regulation so that they cannot drop you if you get sick like many do today.

[IBroke]

Another question is:

If yoy HAVE health-insurance, are you ACTUALLY INSURED???
What's an insurance worth that collects premiums but still can decide on its own to what degree they pay for your treatment, how long or if they pay at all?

If I pay for an insurance, I want to be INSURED!!

That's where the government is supposed to step in and define basic coverage rules.

[JRScott]

While a "fair tax" seems to make sense on paper, I don't know that it works out in reality. Just because wealthier folks have more money, doesn't mean they spend it. They invest the excess. (which is good as that is how companies get started). Everybody up to a certain point of income is buying things just keep a roof over their head, food on the table etc. After you hit a certain point you have more than enough to meet your basic needs. I guessing the thinking is they'll use that extra money to buy jet skis, boats, jewelry etc.

Here is the scenario I that sort of makes me think it wouldn't work like it sounds. Now if I have a new product that people are interested in. If as was stated the current system, the bottom 50% of taxpayers that pay 2% tax now will pay the across the board 6% under the flat tax, they lost 4% of their income to taxes and now don't have the discresionary income to purchase said product. Weathlier folks only need 1 of this product so they just put their extra $ in the bank. That means you lost say 50% of your sales.

So it actually would cause fewer things to be bought and hurt the overall economy.

Actually my numbers included that, see the majority of the money under the flat 6% on everything I suggested would come from stock sales not from sales in stores. 1/10 of 1% is suppose to generate a minimum of 100billion in todays economy. So if you made it 6% then that's 6 trillion right there. Currently stocks as capital gains are not taxed in this manner. My 6-7 trillion was actually probably a low estimate, I don't think you'd see much loss in stock trade and I think you would see increased investment in infrastructure and industry in the nation.

You would need to redo the trade treaties along with it, slap a 15% tariff on all imports and you pretty much create since there is no corporate tax and no personal tax an incentive to build it in the United States rather than out of it. Within 5 years you'd probably have every employable person in the United States employed (Some folks won't get a job no matter what....probably less than 5% of the population).

Let's say you make 1000 USD on a Paycheck and you have after taxes 750 dollars at current rates. Now under this system you would get the 1000 USD not the 750. If you spent all of that on goods and services...you'd spend 943.39 USD on goods and services and 56.61 USD on taxes. So how exactly would you have less to spend?

Even on the low end you would get more than you get now unless you have so many children no taxes were being taken out of your check. You would however lose the EIC on income tax since there is no income tax....thus there are no longer those 8k income tax returns. I've seen folks on this, they eat better than I do, while sitting on their buts doing nothing. They might for heaven sakes actually have to get off their butts and get a job and an education. However keep in mind it is possibly twice the current proposed budget, if you spent 4 years using the excess to pay off the entire national debt you could then spend that money on other programs.

Personally I'd like to see a lot of it invested in space travel, I think the answer to global warming might be we need another planet as the planet prior to the last ice age was much hotter than it is today and it could be returning to its historical average....and there is little we could do to stop it. However you could cover everyone in a medicare like program as well but that would pretty much eat up all of it.

[JRScott]

The answer is different from a liberal or a conservative. The conservative says it's absolutely a bigger loss to lose 10 taxpayers.

The liberal expects you to share the wealth, that you have no right to evil profits, that it is your duty to care for these poor displaced people.

What's funny is that most of these liberal politicians have never given 10% to charity in their lifes, whereas many conservative ones have.

Take for example Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's tax returns for the last 10 years. They did not on any year manage to give even 10% to charity, not even 5%. I think Joe on a few years gave as little as 1%. So if it is their duty, why haven't they been doing it?

Don't get caught up in Rhetoric spin, that's really all you get from the Republicans and Democrats. They realize so long as 1/3rd of the country is basically paid not to vote because without having taxes and getting free money they have no incentive to vote they'll stay in power. It has been their philosophy for almost a century. They are not the party of Lincoln and Jackson and haven't been for well about a century.

Andrew Jackson would be appalled at the mess his party has made of this nation. In fact Old Hickory might be tempted to run em out of town. Abraham Lincoln wouldn't be all that happy with the Republicans either and would no doubt deride them for the mess they've made.

Keep in mind your Senators and Representatives after all perks are counted are making at least 5 times the national average. See when your company is facing hard times they slow down raises, cut coverage on your health care etc, but Congress doesn't do that. It plods along each year increasing its wage in cost of living adjustments (to get around the 27th amendment since the Supreme Court ruled that a COL adjustment was not a raise....odd that they did not include such a COL adjustment in the minimum wage...seems it would have been appropriate) and increases its perk budgets yearly as well.

Keep in mind almost no member of Congress nor the President have been willing to go onto this 'public option' they are peddling. If its so good for you, why isn't it good enough for them?

These men and women are suppose to be servants of the people not lords and ladies of the people.

[justbroke]

What I was trying to say and didn't say it very clearly is that if the less wealthy pay less, they have more money to buy "stuff". Wealthier people tuck the money away.

Ah, but the money they "tuck" away goes into Treasuries and other market accounts. This allows capital to be available for borrowing! The Federal Reserve uses those Treasuries as well to loan money to banks and business.

Trust me... I'm in the top 2% and I spend spend spend. I have some money invested, but guess what happens to that money? Yep, it's loaned out to other people who in turn spend it.

So if you did a flat income tax of 25%, that means poorer people will pay significantly more of their income. Wealthier people who were paying 39% now pay 25%.

I never advocated a flat tax system. I advocated a value added tax like they have in the European Union.

Now not all of those poorer folks are sitting on their porch while the wealthier are our working hard at their jobs.

Not true. The reason there are jobs -- and more than 50% of all new jobs are small business jobs -- is because the so-called "wealthier" folks are looking to "invest" their money in business. Yes, it's a cooperative system and requires everyone to participate.

Headline, in July, small business added 50,000 while medium to large businesses lost 41,000 jobs. That is astounding. This will continue to be the trend. Small business owners are people not too dislike me. They are investors who want to open up that new Chipotle franchise, or staff up a new Holiday Inn Express franchise they just built. Oh, and their building that Holiday Inn Express kept many construction workers employed for a year alone.

A financial writer, after researching this small business phenomenon, wrote that these increases in small business jobs comes from three things... "sales increase, innovation and low taxes".

[OhioFiler]

What I was trying to say and didn't say it very clearly is that if the less wealthy pay less, they have more money to buy "stuff". Wealthier people tuck the money away. So increasing the tax on the poorer folks causes them to be unable to buy more "stuff". And if there are fewer people buying "stuff", any businesses that are opened with that tucked away money wouldn't have as many customers to buy "stuff" so they might not be successful.

So if you did a flat income tax of 25%, that means poorer people will pay significantly more of their income. Wealthier people who were paying 39% now pay 25%. So you have a group of people who can no longer afford to buy "stuff" and you have another group that has alot more money now that they tuck away or if they do invest it into a business there aren't as many customers to buy their "stuff".

So it seems you kind of have to make the structure progressive or you shoot yourself in the foot :-)

Now not all of those poorer folks are sitting on their porch while the wealthier are our working hard at their jobs. There are many poorer folks who work hard at jobs that just don't pay that much. They are content and live within their means. Their lower taxes allow them to live comfortably and be able to buy "Stuff". I think all we see though are the ones that have their hands out. I think those folks are the minority.

Wealthier people "tuck" their money away in the capital markets. This capital in turn is used to finance new business ventures which in turn create jobs which in turn create tax revenue AND income for the lower wage earner. It's a win-win!

[TooMuchCredit]

What I was trying to say and didn't say it very clearly is that if the less wealthy pay less, they have more money to buy "stuff". Wealthier people tuck the money away. So increasing the tax on the poorer folks causes them to be unable to buy more "stuff". And if there are fewer people buying "stuff", any businesses that are opened with that tucked away money wouldn't have as many customers to buy "stuff" so they might not be successful.

So if you did a flat income tax of 25%, that means poorer people will pay significantly more of their income. Wealthier people who were paying 39% now pay 25%. So you have a group of people who can no longer afford to buy "stuff" and you have another group that has alot more money now that they tuck away or if they do invest it into a business there aren't as many customers to buy their "stuff".

So it seems you kind of have to make the structure progressive or you shoot yourself in the foot :-)

Now not all of those poorer folks are sitting on their porch while the wealthier are our working hard at their jobs. There are many poorer folks who work hard at jobs that just don't pay that much. They are content and live within their means. Their lower taxes allow them to live comfortably and be able to buy "Stuff". I think all we see though are the ones that have their hands out. I think those folks are the minority.

[OhioFiler]

The 2% represents the federal tax burden. Trust me, there are more taxes like State and Local income taxes, and then sales and use taxes, that are not in that number.

Wealthy folks bury their money in long term treasuries (TIPS) so they don't actually pay tax on that money every year. A serious long term investor will "shelter" money in these things for a minimum of 10 years. Do you know what tax rate the wealthy pay on long term investments? It's 15%.

So, there really isn't a big gap in this and it's certainly not a 50% tax gap. But I do understand your point fully. The issue is that the wealthy and certainly the upper middle class, are the group that actually create jobs. Most jobs in this country are from small business. This will continue to be the case. It is absolutely proven, that the more money these middle class and wealthy investment type citizens have access to, the more they invest in "businesses". There was an explosion of chain restaurants, coffee shops, and fast food joints... and guess who owns them? When taxation hits those owners to hard, guess what happens?

It is certainly a balancing act. I had a small chain of 5 retail stores myself in the late 1990's and early 2000s. Taxes killed me and there went 10 people with no jobs. So there also went 10 taxpayers on unemployment, and then not providing any revenue into the system. What's a bigger loss? The 10 people not paying about 10-15%, or me still paying my 39%?

The key to "revenue" to fund the federal government, is an increase in jobs. A government -- that runs on revenue from taxation -- cannot support itself by making it harder for the people who actually create jobs by raising or otherwise stifling them with other burdensome requirements.

This is why tax cuts almost always are directed towards those who can increase revenue by creating jobs. It's a no brainer if you want a market driven economy.

The answer is different from a liberal or a conservative. The conservative says it's absolutely a bigger loss to lose 10 taxpayers.

The liberal expects you to share the wealth, that you have no right to evil profits, that it is your duty to care for these poor displaced people.

[justbroke]

Here is the scenario I that sort of makes me think it wouldn't work like it sounds. Now if I have a new product that people are interested in. If as was stated the current system, the bottom 50% of taxpayers that pay 2% tax now will pay the across the board 6% under the flat tax, they lost 4% of their income to taxes and now don't have the discresionary income to purchase said product. Weathlier folks only need 1 of this product so they just put their extra $ in the bank. That means you lost say 50% of your sales.

The 2% represents the federal tax burden. Trust me, there are more taxes like State and Local income taxes, and then sales and use taxes, that are not in that number.

Wealthy folks bury their money in long term treasuries (TIPS) so they don't actually pay tax on that money every year. A serious long term investor will "shelter" money in these things for a minimum of 10 years. Do you know what tax rate the wealthy pay on long term investments? It's 15%.

So, there really isn't a big gap in this and it's certainly not a 50% tax gap. But I do understand your point fully. The issue is that the wealthy and certainly the upper middle class, are the group that actually create jobs. Most jobs in this country are from small business. This will continue to be the case. It is absolutely proven, that the more money these middle class and wealthy investment type citizens have access to, the more they invest in "businesses". There was an explosion of chain restaurants, coffee shops, and fast food joints... and guess who owns them? When taxation hits those owners to hard, guess what happens?

It is certainly a balancing act. I had a small chain of 5 retail stores myself in the late 1990's and early 2000s. Taxes killed me and there went 10 people with no jobs. So there also went 10 taxpayers on unemployment, and then not providing any revenue into the system. What's a bigger loss? The 10 people not paying about 10-15%, or me still paying my 39%?

The key to "revenue" to fund the federal government, is an increase in jobs. A government -- that runs on revenue from taxation -- cannot support itself by making it harder for the people who actually create jobs by raising or otherwise stifling them with other burdensome requirements.

This is why tax cuts almost always are directed towards those who can increase revenue by creating jobs. It's a no brainer if you want a market driven economy.

[TooMuchCredit]

While a "fair tax" seems to make sense on paper, I don't know that it works out in reality. Just because wealthier folks have more money, doesn't mean they spend it. They invest the excess. (which is good as that is how companies get started). Everybody up to a certain point of income is buying things just keep a roof over their head, food on the table etc. After you hit a certain point you have more than enough to meet your basic needs. I guessing the thinking is they'll use that extra money to buy jet skis, boats, jewelry etc.

Here is the scenario I that sort of makes me think it wouldn't work like it sounds. Now if I have a new product that people are interested in. If as was stated the current system, the bottom 50% of taxpayers that pay 2% tax now will pay the across the board 6% under the flat tax, they lost 4% of their income to taxes and now don't have the discresionary income to purchase said product. Weathlier folks only need 1 of this product so they just put their extra $ in the bank. That means you lost say 50% of your sales.

So it actually would cause fewer things to be bought and hurt the overall economy.

[OhioFiler]

Exactly! I know off the top of my head two families who have no health insurance because they don't want to pay for it and claim they can't afford it. One of those families has a new boat, for which the monthly payment is about the same as an insurance premium. Their daughter is on medicaid, so our taxes pay for her healthcare so they can pay for their boat.

The other family takes several lavish vacations each year and the wife doesn't work even though their daughter is in preschool full time. The husband only works periodically BY CHOICE. He quit his most recent job after a few months has turned down 2 other job offers because he didn't think he would enjoy working at those companies.

I think a LOT of those people could afford health care but their priorities are messed up.

O'bama chopped 15 million off the list last night by avowing not to cover illegal aliens (which led to Rep Wilson's outburst of "LIAR"). So now he has the list at 30,000,000.

I suspect folks like your acquaintances are in for a real shock if O'bama's pledge last night to FORCE them to buy insurance comes to fruition. They might have to either give up the boat, get a job or go on disability.

Liberals insist hard working Americans foot the bill for lazy fools under the guise of helping the less fortunate. I agree we should help those who are truly in need. For the others I say reap what you sow. If your boat is more important than health insurance no problem. Just don't come looking to me to pay for your gall bladder removal.

[hereforinfo]

We often hear there are 47 Million uninsured Americans. I would love someone to break this list down by who these people are. How many are voluntarily uninsured? How many are temporarily uninsured? How many are illegals? How many are eligible for existing programs? I believe the actual number of uninsured Americans is around 10-15 million. Why can't we look to assist these people without overhauling the entire system?

Exactly! I know off the top of my head two families who have no health insurance because they don't want to pay for it and claim they can't afford it. One of those families has a new boat, for which the monthly payment is about the same as an insurance premium. Their daughter is on medicaid, so our taxes pay for her healthcare so they can pay for their boat.

The other family takes several lavish vacations each year and the wife doesn't work even though their daughter is in preschool full time. The husband only works periodically BY CHOICE. He quit his most recent job after a few months has turned down 2 other job offers because he didn't think he would enjoy working at those companies.

I think a LOT of those people could afford health care but their priorities are messed up.

[JRScott]

Oh on my post above you need 27 more states not 17 that was a typo .

A Fair tax incidentally would be a tax whose burdened is felt equally by all participants. For example a tithe is a type of fair tax as it request the same portion of a persons income regardless of their economic status. Unless all people have pain and thus incentive to participate in our Democratic Republic, we will lose it.