Friday, January 15, 2010

Government Tax On Health Insurance Plans





With a wink and a smile President Obama continues his push to shove a health care reform bill down the throats of the American people that is largely not supportive of it.


An excerpt from a New York Time article on the subject sums it up;


“Let me tell you something,” Mr. Obama said, pointing to elements of the legislation he said would increase access to health care. “If Republicans want to campaign against what we’ve done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have.”


And a response from Representative John Cline (R);


“This latest back-room maneuver is another example of how administration officials and their enablers in Congress will cut deals with their special-interest allies to impose a government takeover of health care,” Mr. Kline said.


It does appear the arguments will continue, although in the end the President will likely get his ill conceived and costly bill. Of course the taxpaying American public will get hit once again. Not only by the insurance and drug companies but by the government as well. 


For the entire article go here

Via: Memeorandum
Via: New York Times

10 comments:

  1. as long as republicans will not put forth an alternative solution, the dems will keep the upper hand and i mean a real alternative too. but, to do that would mean getting out of this mindset that insurance is the only solution.

    we need a real individualistic solution. but,first, we must realize that there is no real universal solution to the health care issue. we don't live in a perfect world and because of it someone will always fall through that crack of imperfect answers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. try this, Rn. try putting your blog addy on your honor roll and see what happens. if nothing else, when you play around with it, you can see if it works right away.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Griper - How right you are. Republicans have put nothing of substance on the table.

    We have had our differences on this issue, and l suspect we both know that a solution can be found to improve the situation.

    I believe any solution must retain a market based approach, allow for honest competition between insurers, continue to offer choice, insure meaningful TORT reform is enacted, and provide for coverage for those who through no fault of their own lack the ability to provide for their own.

    Of course the issue of 12 million illegals, many with out health insurance and who get their care free at our expense we can't even talk about or address in a rational way. And this adds significant expanse to our system.

    ReplyDelete
  4. gentlemen,
    although I believe the question is moot (no chance of a govt option)I personally disagree with a market based approach.
    My reasoning is,the traditional belief in the markets is that competition brings prices down.From what I observe that's only when there's an oversupply because in the case of the health insurance industry they collude to keep prices up.
    That's why I prefer single payer although like I said, it's a moot point.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oso - Yes the government option is dead. Thankfully so. Although the current bill is a warm bucket of pork dung at least the government doesn't have total control. At least not yet.

    A single payer, government controlled plan is not a wonderful thing. Cuba, Britain, and Canada a few examples of government controlled plans. And based on the knowledge we have of their systems I will take a market based system any day no matter the flaws or not.

    Frankly the government has way to much influence, and intrudes into my life enough. My health is to important to me to want the government screwing it up like it does most everything else.

    Having said this their are ways to run a market based private sector operated health care system that is affordable and effective. However neither the socialist minded congress (and universal government health care is socialism), nor the businesses really wish to discuss anything that makes sense. For different reasons obviously.

    ReplyDelete
  6. oso,
    there is a flaw in your thinking about what brings prices down. it is not necessarily competition but greater supply than demand that brings prices down as you admit. it is when demand is greater than supply that prices go up. competition implies greater supply but even when competition exists supply is still independent of competition.

    supply and demand is the law of economics, not competition. and that law applies whether it be a free enterprise system or a socialistic system.

    but within those two concepts are two other influences, time and quality. quality is also a determinant of price.

    so, if our system is costlier then it also means it is of a higher quality. are we willing to give up quality when it comes to health care in order to bring health care costs down?

    even those who say that they are satisfied with their universal care will admit that when it comes to quality of service our system is better.

    the less time spent on something means cheaper supply also. are we willing to give up the time that a doctor spends on each patient in order to bring health care costs down?
    that is another factor that reveals the faults of a socialized system. time cannot be sacrificed thus the long waiting times for needed therapy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Who could possibly want the government standing between them and their health care.

    Who could possibly want to give the government carte blanc to deduct whatever they deem necessary to maintain the health care system.

    Who could possibly think the government can cut on half of the cost of medicare right when 'the baby boomers' are about the swamp the system?

    We're fighting a mental disease regards the populous and fighting evil, greed, and the pinnacle of incompetence regards the government.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why isn't anyone demanding that health insurance be sold direct to individuals?

    Why is it okay for employers to subsidize healthcare for their employees but we are so against the government doing so?

    Oh, we go on and on about free markets, and market driven solutions without ever asking ourself who the 'market' is or where it is...

    Your employer comes between you and your doctor every day, because your employer makes the decision of which insurance carrier you can have...

    Whether you want to admit it or not, you have socialized healthcare today...it is socialized by ones employer.

    But Republicans do not want to acknowledge that fact.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Is employer provided health care required by law? I believe it is driven by proper business related decisions. Or is negotiated by unions with the company.

    The employer decides the selection of health insurance plans available. You select the plan best for you. Your companies interaction with your doctor is 0. The decisions still rest with you and you doctor.

    I have subsidized healthcare, not socialized healthcare. Most large employers realize the benefits of healthy employees.

    I am sure Republicans acknowledge that employees received subsidized health care benefits. As long as the government has nothing to do with it it remains non socialist care.

    You know why no one is demanding ,or advocating direct sale of insurance to the individual. Although it is a proper idea within the philosophical context of individualism.

    ReplyDelete
  10. the difference is the use of force, tao.
    in the private sector, health benefits are a part of a salary package, negotiated between management and employee.
    a government health service will use force in some manner or another, whether it be on the citizen, the employer, or the medical profession.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.