A few small details, "About 23 percent of seniors nationwide, and 25 percent in Ohio, are in Advantage plans. For the government, Advantage plans have not lived up to expectations. Advantage insurers charge the government more money, not less, requiring a taxpayer subsidy that averages 14 percent more per-patient on top of what traditional Medicare pays providers. That's an extra $1,138 per Advantage enrollee nationwide, or $1,166 for those in Ohio, according to a George Washington University analysis. Medicare Advantage plans also tend to limit the doctors that seniors can see, just as traditional insurers do. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has noted that many Advantage seniors wind up paying high co-payments when hospitalized, although the reader who asked today's question -- a retired certified public accountant -- said he does not face those kinds of fees under his Advantage plan. Furthermore, Advantage plans have not spread broadly to rural areas, despite Congress' agreement in 2003 to boost payments to expand rural coverage, according to an analysis published by the Commonwealth Fund, a private, nonprofit organization that studies health care issues. In the six years since then, extra payments to Advantage plans "are estimated to total nearly $44 billion," the study concluded. Put another way, taxpayers are giving the gentleman who posed today's question an extra $1,166 a year for his health care" http://www.cleveland.com/medical/index.ssf/2009/09/health_care_fact_check_medicar.html How is it fair that government is giving some people a $1.166 per year bonus?
Fair? You have the nerve to talk about "fair" when you're avidly supporting a national healthcare system that plans to tax rich people far more than others in order to pay for the plan???? And you have the nerve to even complain about this one little "unfairness"?? Fair? How do you think people in socialist nations think about "fairness", Joe? You think they all love paying extra for someone above and beyond that person's "value to society"? Socialism is basically a system of total and complete UNfairness ....and yet you're advocating that our gov become socialist!!?? ...LOL!! And your failure to respond to my earlier comments by making a few accusations is basicaly dishonest, Joe. I know you're an Obama fan and a major backer of the healthcare plan, but I haven't know you to be dishonest before ...it's new for you, isn't it? Baron Max
Actually that sounds really fair. What do rich people need all that money for? they certainly have not been using it to keep the economy running strong, that for sure! While poor people need money to eat, rich people need money to snort cocaine and bang high price hookers, no fat fugly $5 whores for them, no sir!
Baron, just because someone shows that you are short on facts and your arguements don't hold water, does not mean that they are dishonest. In cases where your claims have been proven false, a rational person would reevaluate their position...not claim that the one who has disproven your positions is dishonest. You have not proven one thing I have written to be false and you will never be able to do so, because I have not written anything false. I have gone out of the way to make sure I presented good honest and truthful facts. And I have responded to all of your relevant claims and questions. And I am not about to engage in a lot of repetition for your behalf. But I would be happy to address or answer new questions. For the record, I am not complaining about the "fairness" of the Medicare Advantage issue. I responded to it because someone claimed that the Democrat healthcare plan was unfair to Medicare Advantage members. I just pointed out the Medicare Advantage program was not much of an advantage to the taxpayer, other Medicare participants or to the Medicare Advantage member. Now again you bring up the dreaded "socialism" word, the "s" word. What countries are socialist in your view? Socialism is not a word I would use to describe the Democrat healthcare reform proposals. Government is not taking ownership of the heatlhcare industry as the word socialism implies. Countries that you probably think of as socialized are also democratic and citizens are not up in arms protesting in the streets. If fact they seem to be very happy with what they have. The other thing I find interesting in your comments is you think a person has a quantifiable worth to society. I would be interested to know how you derive a persons quantifiable value to society. How much are you worth to society? How do you determine what a person is worth? Personally I don't think you can accurate define people in that way since none of us can know the future.
But my point is that if the amount that Bob is able to pay isn't factored in to the amount of services he's eligible for, it limits the amount of money that can be saved by such a measure. Healthcare can be pricey, so people who pay little or nothing will quickly become burdens on the system.
In the interest of civil freedom you are correct, but in the interest of everyone, their hording the money is a detriment to us all, even them, as it leads to revolts not unlike the Russian Revolution where the people take it all from the rich without mercy.
well on this topic i had a few questions and heres as good as any to ask.. whats the problel with universal healthcare? im currently have a job so it doesnt matter to me at all but why is everyone throwing a fit? if you have a job now. and lose it and with it your healthcare will you have the same opinion? Or if you have a non curable disease or condition and lose your parents healthcare or your healthcare thru your job will you have the same opinion? i just dont see waht alll the fus is about.
Would you rather have them pay something rather than nothing? Because they are going to get some kind of care in any event, unless you want to make a law saying that healthcare providers are under no obligation to provide services to the uninsured. And in that case, you had better hope that you can provide proof of insurance 24/7 in case you or memebers of your family have an medical emergence. Because the first question asked by healthcare providers will not be about your health but about your health insurance, delaying what could be critical care.
That is so very true Electric. The calculation of GDP is Money Supply * Velocity. Where money supply = how many times the currency turns over within a given period. If it is being hoarded, it is not stimulating the economy and does nothing for economic growth.
First, everyone has a stake in universal healthcare wither they have healthcare insurance today or not. Because universal healthcare as is being proposed will cut the ability of providers to raise prices and incent them to become more efficient, and quality driven. So universal healthcare reform for the already insured means, lower healthcare premiums down the road. It also means lower projected fiscal deficits (federal government) ten years from now. To your question, I think the real issue is that the healthcare industry, specfically insurance companies, are fighting reform tooth and nail because their industry is going to have to compete in free markets. So they are very much incented to feed lies and fear and build on existing preconcieved public notions in order to kill healthcare reform.
I don't buy that "velocity of money" crap. Suppose someone "hoards" his money for several years and then uses the money he's saved to start a business. His "hoarding" of money results in more jobs and increased GDP. Compare that with someone who immediately spent every penny he ever got his hands on buying booze, whores, and video games. Which activity benefits the economy more? The hoarder, hands down. Sure, the spendthrift provides some temporary stimulus, but that's like eating your seedstock. Actual substainable growth requires investment and work, not madcap spending of money.
Frum writes: "I continue to support the public option personally and will work for it to be established later. For now, my priorities are (1) insurance reform, to outlaw the practices that most offend Americans, and (2) to create exchanges like those created by Gov. Romney in Massachusetts so that individuals and small businesses can buy insurance at the same favorable prices paid by large employers. We're going to have an individual mandate to buy insurance – and subsidies to help those who can't. We're going to shift regulation of health insurance from the states to the federal government, so that we can write a single, predictable set of rules, rather than 50 different rules that allow lobbyists in places like New Jersey to push insurance prices up and up and up." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2009/nov/19/david-frum-healthcare-obama
that's not hoarding and you damn well know it. and I have yet to here of people saving to start a business. they usually go out and get loans
The examples you cited Mad are not hoarding. They are savings and investment. Both are needed for economic growth. Part of the problem today, in the US is lack of investment.
So what are you refering to, stuffing the money in the mattress? I'm saving right now to acquire a new business. I'll also be getting a loan, but you need to have some kind of down payment.
Suppose he just sits on it living without working? Say he goes to Dubai, takes his wealth and uses it to pay for free rights to rape little boys? That hoarding.
Electric is on the money again. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Wealthy investors have been taking their dollars and investing it overseas, in particular China and Latin America. That is for all intense and purposes hoarding. It does not help the US economy in any way.
I agree that such activities are of little or no benefit to the US economy, but I don't think hoarding is the correct term. This might be a case where smart tax laws could help. Perhaps cutting corporate taxes for income invested or spent domestically and raise it for any money earned here and sent/spent elsewhere. I believe BillyT has suggested something similiar to this in the past.
