How's Obama Going to Raise $4.3 Trillion?

[Gan]

The most troublesome tax increases in Barack Obama's plan are not those we can already see but those sure to be announced later, after the election is over and budget realities rear their ugly head.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AI431_reynol_D_20081023150339.jpg M.E. Cohen


The new president, whoever he is, will start out facing a budget deficit of at least $1 trillion, possibly much more. Sen. Obama has nonetheless promised to devote another $1.32 trillion over the next 10 years to several new or expanded refundable tax credits and a special exemption for seniors, according to the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center (TPC). He calls this a "middle-class tax cut," while suggesting the middle class includes 95% of those who work.

Mr. Obama's proposed income-based health-insurance subsidies, tax credits for tiny businesses, and expanded Medicaid eligibility would cost another $1.63 trillion, according to the TPC. Thus his tax rebates and health insurance subsidies alone would lift the undisclosed bill to future taxpayers by $2.95 trillion -- roughly $295 billion a year by 2012.

But that's not all. Mr. Obama has also promised to spend more on 176 other programs, according to an 85-page list of campaign promises (actual quotations) compiled by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. The NTUF was able to produce cost estimates for only 77 of the 176, so its estimate is low. Excluding the Obama health plan, the NTUF estimates that Mr. Obama would raise spending by $611.5 billion over the next five years; the 10-year total (aside from health) would surely exceed $1.4 trillion, because spending typically grows at least as quickly as nominal GDP.

A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. Altogether, Mr. Obama is promising at least $4.3 trillion of increased spending and reduced tax revenue from 2009 to 2018 -- roughly an extra $430 billion a year by 2012-2013.
How is he going to pay for it?

Raising the tax rates on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $200,000-$250,000, and phasing out their exemptions and deductions, can raise only a small fraction of the amount. Even if we have a strong economy, Mr. Obama's proposed tax hikes on the dwindling ranks of high earners would be unlikely to raise much more than $30 billion-$35 billion a year by 2012.

Besides, Mr. Obama does not claim he can finance his ambitious plans for tax credits, health insurance, etc. by taxing the rich. On the contrary, he has an even less likely revenue source in mind.

In his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention on Aug. 28, Mr. Obama said, "I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime -- by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens." That comment refers to $924.1 billion over 10 years from what the TPC wisely labels "unverifiable revenue raisers." To put that huge figure in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office optimistically expects a total of $3.7 trillion from corporate taxes over that period. In other words, Mr. Obama is counting on increasing corporate tax collections by more than 25% simply by closing "loopholes" and complaining about foreign "tax havens."

Nobody, including the Tax Policy Center, believes that is remotely feasible. And Mr. Obama's dream of squeezing more revenue out of corporate profits, dividends and capital gains looks increasingly unbelievable now that profits are falling, banks have cut or eliminated dividends, and only a few short-sellers have any capital gains left to tax.

When it comes to direct spending -- as opposed to handing out "refund" checks through the tax code -- Mr. Obama claims he won't need more revenue because there will be no more spending. He even claims to be proposing to cut more spending ending up with a "net spending cut." That was Mr. Obama's most direct answer to Bob Schieffer, the moderator of the last debate, right after Mr. Schieffer said "The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CFARB) ran the numbers" and found otherwise.

When CFARB "ran the numbers," they relied almost entirely on unverifiable numbers eagerly provided to them by the Obama campaign. That explains why their list of Mr. Obama's new spending plans is so much shorter than the National Taxpayers Union fully documented list.

But nothing quite explains why even the vaguest promises to save money are recorded by CFARB as if they had substance. Mr. Obama is thus credited with saving $50 billion in a single year (2013) by reducing "wasteful spending" and unnamed "obsolete programs." He is said to save Medicare $43 billion a year by importing foreign drugs and negotiating bargains from drug companies. Yet even proponents of that approach such as the Lewin Group find that cannot save more than $6 billion a year. So the remaining $37 billion turns out to depend on what the Obama campaign refers to as undertaking "additional measures as necessary" (more taxes?).

The number of U.S. troops in Iraq will decline, regardless of who the next president is. Yet the CFARB credits John McCain's budget with only a $5 billion savings from troop reduction in Iraq, while Mr. Obama gets an extra $55 billion.

Straining to add credibility to Mr. Obama's fantasy about discovering $75 billion in 2013 from "closing corporate loopholes and tax havens," CFARB assures us that "the campaign has said that an Obama administration would look for other sources of revenue." Indeed they would.

In one respect, CFARB is more candid than the Obama campaign. Mr. Obama favors a relatively draconian cap-and-trade scheme in which the government would sell rights to emit carbon dioxide. The effect on U.S. families and firms would be like a steep tax on electricity, gasoline and energy-intensive products such as paper, plastic and aluminum. Whenever Mr. Obama claims he has not (yet) proposed any tax increase on couples earning less than $250,000, he forgets to mention his de facto $100 billion annual tax on energy. (The McCain-Lieberman cap-and-trade plan is more gradual and much less costly.)

CFARB assumes Mr. Obama's cap-and-trade tax would raise $100 billion in 2013 alone, but the actual revenue raised would be much lower. Like every other steep surge in energy costs, the Obama cap-and-trade tax would crush the economy, reducing tax receipts from profits and personal income.

The Joint Tax Committee reports that the bottom 60% of taxpayers with incomes below $50,000 paid less than 1% of the federal income tax in 2006, while the 3.3% with incomes above $200,000 paid more than 58%. Most of Mr. Obama's tax rebates go to the bottom 60%. They can't possibly be financed by shifting an even larger share of the tax burden to the top 3.3%.

Mr. Obama has offered no clue as to how he intends to pay for his health-insurance plans, or doubling foreign aid, or any of the other 175 programs he's promised to expand. Although he may hope to collect an even larger share of loot from the top of the heap, the harsh reality is that this Democrat's quest for hundreds of billions more revenue each year would have to reach deep into the pockets of the people much lower on the economic ladder. Even then he'd come up short.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122480790550265061.html

[Warriorbird]

Not all of it will pass.

The same way McCain will pay for 'Surplus 2', the Iran War, and continuing every single Bush tax cut plus more.

[Parkbandit]

Not all of it will pass.

The same way McCain will pay for 'Surplus 2', the Iran War, and continuing every single Bush tax cut plus more.

Who is going to stop him? If Obama is elected and the current Congressional races go as polled, there will be a big enough majority in both houses to rubber stamp any legislation in both branches.

And LOL at your constant "Iran War" bullshit.

[Keller]

And LOL at your constant "Iran War" bullshit.

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb;
Bomb, Bomb Iran!

[Parkbandit]

And I can't believe people are still believing his "95% of Americans won't pay a single penny more in taxes under an Obama administration". Hell, let's just say he's actually telling the truth for once and he really WILL propose tax "rebates" for everyone promised.. he has still said he's going to raise capital gains and dividends taxes.. which accounts for FAR more than 5% of Americans.

[nub]

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb;
Bomb, Bomb Iran!

That's enough proof right there!

[Ravenstorm]

Who is going to stop him? If Obama is elected and the current Congressional races go as polled, there will be a big enough majority in both houses to rubber stamp any legislation in both branches

Because we all know that the Blue Dog Democrats always vote the party line. Really, you should stop listening to Limbaugh and O'Reilly and start reading real intellectual conservatives.

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot intellectuals were a bad thing to the Republican base. Never mind, carry on. Back to those stock answers the RNC gives you to say!

[crb]

Not all of it will pass.

The same way McCain will pay for 'Surplus 2', the Iran War, and continuing every single Bush tax cut plus more.
McCain does not want to cut any personal income taxes. He does not want to give the rich a tax cut, he just doesn't want to raise their taxes.

McCain wants to double the child tax credit, which helps the middle class and poor most. McCain wants to give a 5000 tax credit for healthcare, which the TPC (which is liberal remember) said will end up with a net benefit for most and proportionally help the poorest the most.

The only rate he really wants to cut is our second highest in the world corporate tax rate. That, is the ultimate stimulus. Extending unemployment benefits is not a stimulus, it is a handout. You want to get the economy moving, help businesses create jobs by letting them keep 10% more of their profits. Our business tax rate literally chases jobs overseas, and Obama wants to stop that flow by leaving it the same?

His entire economic argument rests on attacking McCain over the business tax cut. "McCain wants to give a tax cut to the biggest corporations, oil companies, and companies that ship jobs overseas, he is evil."

"Well, Mr Obama, if thats true then you want to give a tax credit to working class child porn traffickers. You lightweight dipshit, I want to give all businesses a tax cut because asking them to pay the second highest tax rate in the first world is what encourages to ship jobs overseas. God damn ninny."

The point being, a tax cut doesn't always result in less tax revenue, sometimes it spurs the economy and actually results in more. The federal government took in MORE money after the bush tax cuts than before them. Don't forget.

[nub]

and socializing our banks (do I need to say this makes no sense?).

I am not sure I follow you here. I thought Obama was saying we need more regulation because Bush didn't have enough?

And if you're talking about what was recently happening, isn't it the Democrats who pushed the first $750billion that didn't get passed and blamed the Republicans for not voting on it?

This was unilateral the socializing of the banks, or trying anyway, not just Republicans.

[Parkbandit]

Because we all know that the Blue Dog Democrats always vote the party line. Really, you should stop listening to Limbaugh and O'Reilly and start reading real intellectual conservatives.

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot intellectuals were a bad thing to the Republican base. Never mind, carry on. Back to those stock answers the RNC gives you to say!

They are only real intellectual conservatives when they agree with you no doubt. And let's be honest, when someone like you starts falling back to the ol' "OMG U ONLY LISTEN 2 RUSH AND O'REILLY", your stupidity drowns out anything intelligent you might have been trying to say. Let's be honest, those times for you are very rare.

Fact: Obama came from Chicago.

Fact: Newspaper from Chicago endorses him.

Fact: Big fucking deal. Hometown papers support their hometown candidates many times... and you trying to make this some groundbreaking news is a fucking joke.

[Parkbandit]

The record simply doesn't support your argument. The Democrats had control of both the legislature and the executive for decades of the last century and we didn't see the rise of socialism or uncontrollable spending.

On the other hand, the vast increases I've seen in government spending and size of government have been from the right. From the much glorified Ronald Reagan, expanding both the power, size and spending of the federal government, and executive tremendously. The next president to do so was the much vilified, eternally self-deluded George W. Bush.

Republicans now have the history of expanding federal power (makes no sense under a traditional conservative viewpoint), expanding federal spending (again, no sense), consolidating power in the executive (once again, no sense), and socializing our banks (do I need to say this makes no sense?).

Do I really need to say anything more? This is a huge reason why I supported/support Ron Paul and even Obama over McCain. The Republicans are bankrupt. They have no message except hypocritical attacks on spending (Hello? They're worse) and the enforcement of Christian morality on every last person in the nation. No thanks.

Actually, the only times that the Democrats had the "needed" majority (filabuster proof) was in the 1930's (New Deal) and 1960's (New Society).. and I'm sure most will agree that those were both epic failures.

[Parkbandit]

They are only real intellectual conservatives when they agree with you no doubt. And let's be honest, when someone like you starts falling back to the ol' "OMG U ONLY LISTEN 2 RUSH AND O'REILLY", your stupidity drowns out anything intelligent you might have been trying to say. Let's be honest, those times for you are very rare.

Fact: Obama came from Chicago.

Fact: Newspaper from Chicago endorses him.

Fact: Big fucking deal. Hometown papers support their hometown candidates many times... and you trying to make this some groundbreaking news is a fucking joke.


I may or may not have conjoined two separate threads into this one...

[crb]

It made no sense from a conservative perspective to socialize our bank system, which is essentially what we've done by buying stakes in all these huge banks. The Republicans sealed the deal, which is disappointing from a conservative standpoint. The Democrats, I expected to--they're liberals.

All I'm saying is that it makes no sense to say that the Democrats (and NOT the Republicans) will turn the country socialist and increase spending when we've seen the exact thing, and worse, from both Reagan and GWB.
We had too because we had already gone down that road. F&F owned half of all mortgages, half, and you know what? They're GSEs. This wasn't a failure of free markets, this was a failure of government tinkering in free markets.

[Parkbandit]

It made no sense from a conservative perspective to socialize our bank system, which is essentially what we've done by buying stakes in all these huge banks. The Republicans sealed the deal, which is disappointing from a conservative standpoint. The Democrats, I expected to--they're liberals.

All I'm saying is that it makes no sense to say that the Democrats (and NOT the Republicans) will turn the country socialist and increase spending when we've seen the exact thing, and worse, from both Reagan and GWB.

I am still against the Bailout.. OMG I MEAN RESCUE bill.. but I honestly don't know what else should have been done. Had they not done anything, experts say that there would have been a massive collapse of the stock market.

[crb]

They plan on doing both don't they? They already own half of all mortgages with the 6 trillion dollar F&F bailout.

Yes... if you use the metric of measuring for the F&F bailout as you did for the 700b bank one, it was 6 trillion.

[Gan]

Its ok people, they can print up as much money as they need.

[ElanthianSiren]

Just drawing from what the article says, the most likely solutions are he doesn't plan to balance, he's lying, or he doesn't believe much will pass. Judging from what PB said, we're left with the first and second options.

I suppose it wouldn't be the first time the debt increased astronomically. Then again, I don't see how anyone can berate Obama for this and condone Bush's policies. If someone wants to explain the differences, I'm all eyes; I'm a doctor in training, not an accountant.

[TheEschaton]

Are you gonna be like Meredith Gray on Gray's Anatomy when you're a doctor?

Or are you not going to be an annoying bitch?

(I just had to say it, that character annoys the fuck out of me.)

[ElanthianSiren]

I don't watch tv and have never seen Grey's, so yes, no, maybe, no opinion.

I'm assuming that they work with patients though; I'll be working in research.

[TheEschaton]

Yeah, a show about research doctors would be pretty fucking awful.

[ElanthianSiren]

Feh! Reversing genetic abberations through drug synthesis is where it's AT in late night tv. Get with the program!

[Drew]

Just drawing from what the article says, the most likely solutions are he doesn't plan to balance, he's lying, or he doesn't believe much will pass. Judging from what PB said, we're left with the first and second options.

I suppose it wouldn't be the first time the debt increased astronomically. Then again, I don't see how anyone can berate Obama for this and condone Bush's policies. If someone wants to explain the differences, I'm all eyes; I'm a doctor in training, not an accountant.



I didn't support Bush's spending and I won't support Obama's. I think you'll find a lot of conservatives did not support the spending Bush did.

[ElanthianSiren]

I didn't support Bush's spending and I won't support Obama's. I think you'll find a lot of conservatives did not support the spending Bush did.

So Bush was voted into his second term by independents and democrats?

[Sean]

Tax the homeless obviously.

[Parkbandit]

Tax the homeless obviously.

Give homeless tax "rebates" by taxing the shit out of the "rich" because that will definately help the economy.

Both are really, really dumb ideas. Unfortunately, one is being proposed by a candidate for President........

[Warriorbird]

So Bush was voted into his second term by independents and democrats?

I'd love to see some sort of response to this...

[Parkbandit]

So Bush was voted into his second term by independents and democrats?

Mostly by people who thought Kerry was a fake piece of elitist shit.

Responded to satisfy WB's desires.

[Keller]

Give homeless tax "rebates" by taxing the shit out of the "rich" because that will definately help the economy.

Both are really, really dumb ideas. Unfortunately, one is being proposed by a candidate for President........

Will the homeless be getting tax rebates?

[DeV]

The rich pay a higher share of the tax burden yet for some mysterious and untold reason they continue to get richer. :thinking:

[Tsa`ah]

Loop holes and cheating?

[Keller]

Loop holes and cheating?

Because they keep getting paid more money than poor peope?

Wages are pretty difficult to shelter.

[Gan]

So Bush was voted into his second term by independents and democrats?


I'd love to see some sort of response to this...


Mostly by people who thought Kerry was a fake piece of elitist shit.

Responded to satisfy WB's desires.

Winner winner chicken dinner.

[Gan]

The rich pay a higher share of the tax burden yet for some mysterious and untold reason they continue to get richer. :thinking:


Loop holes and cheating?
:facepalm:
Right, because motivation, drive, the will to succeed, education and the will to learn more are never factors of successful people who get paid.
If success could be found in a bottle, everyone would have it.


Because they keep getting paid more money than poor peope?

Wages are pretty difficult to shelter.
And why do they get paid more than poor people?

(sorry to interrupt the populist robin hood circle jerk session)
:jerkit:

[Tsa`ah]

:facepalm:
Right, because motivation, drive, the will to succeed, education and the will to learn more are never factors of successful people who get paid.
If success could be found in a bottle, everyone would have it.

Let's not forget stashing it off-shore, unreported income, inherited wealth, slew of shelters, and gouging the working class ... just to name a few.

[Gan]

Let's not forget stashing it off-shore, unreported income, inherited wealth, slew of shelters, and gouging the working class ... just to name a few.
Thats a byproduct of the loopholes of Congress. Both sides.

[Kembal]

And I can't believe people are still believing his "95% of Americans won't pay a single penny more in taxes under an Obama administration". Hell, let's just say he's actually telling the truth for once and he really WILL propose tax "rebates" for everyone promised.. he has still said he's going to raise capital gains and dividends taxes.. which accounts for FAR more than 5% of Americans.

Well, yes....but seriously, how many people do you know that are going to pay capital gains taxes in the next few years? I'm pretty sure I'll be doing a carry forward on my losses for a while. :(

[DeV]

If success could be found in a bottle, everyone would have it.

It would be taxed.

And my post was merely pointing out a widely known fact.

Why you consider it a diss against the tools of motivation, determination, education, and a powerful will to succeed is beyond me. Obviously the wealthy drive the American economy, but let's not forget that the middle-class ride it just as hard.

Every time someone gets all up in arms about how the wealthy are being over-taxed and treated so unfairly I can't help but think of CEO compensation.

[Gan]

It would be taxed.

And my post was merely pointing out a widely known fact.

Why you consider it a diss against the tools of motivation, determination, education, and a powerful will to succeed is beyond me. Obviously the wealthy drive the American economy, but let's not forget that the middle-class ride it just as hard.

Every time someone gets all up in arms about how the wealthy are being over-taxed and treated so unfairly I can't help but think of CEO compensation.

I think I only included your post for context. It was not meant as a dis in as much as I am highlighting the fact that income is not the only difference in rich people and poor people.

And yes, I think some of the CEO compensation that is being paid out right now is stupid insane; however, the only way I know of to mitigate that from happening is to encourage more employee owned participation that way the share holders would be willing to reward the workers more than lumping it all in the pay of the CEO.

[Parkbandit]

Well, yes....but seriously, how many people do you know that are going to pay capital gains taxes in the next few years? I'm pretty sure I'll be doing a carry forward on my losses for a while. :(

I will.

:shrug:

[ElanthianSiren]

Mostly by people who thought Kerry was a fake piece of elitist shit.

Responded to satisfy WB's desires.

Then those same people supported the Bush tax policies via supporting him.

IMO Obama will probably cut defense also. Those who hold defense as a sacred cow may begin complaining now. The truth is that every administrative set has their sacred programs IMO, and none of them are good with money.

[Tsa`ah]

It would be taxed.

And my post was merely pointing out a widely known fact.

Why you consider it a diss against the tools of motivation, determination, education, and a powerful will to succeed is beyond me. Obviously the wealthy drive the American economy, but let's not forget that the middle-class ride it just as hard.

Every time someone gets all up in arms about how the wealthy are being over-taxed and treated so unfairly I can't help but think of CEO compensation.

http://www.lcurve.org/

audio explanation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woIkIph5xcU

[DeV]

And yes, I think some of the CEO compensation that is being paid out right now is stupid insane; however, the only way I know of to mitigate that from happening is to encourage more employee owned participation that way the share holders would be willing to reward the workers more than lumping it all in the pay of the CEO.That's a great starting point, in theory, but can you imagine the board of directors actually giving an idea like yours a second thought? I can't. Plus, it'd be highly dependent on who owns the lions share of those shares (ceo's, cfo's, exec's? -- most already highly paid).

[Gan]

That's a great starting point, in theory, but can you imagine the board of directors actually giving an idea like yours a second thought? I can't. Plus, it'd be highly dependent on who owns the lions share of those shares (ceo's, cfo's, exec's? -- most already highly paid).
I can when a majority of the shareholders are employees of the company. However, this is not a legislative item. The path that will be followed is the path to money, because thats what makes the world go around (in any economy, in any society). So businesses who want to hire the best and the brightest will face a high demand price for it in order to attempt to maximize profits. Thats the tradeoff. Outrageous? Sure. But you have to look at where that expectation started and how its perpetuated. I can not think of any other way around it in a free or quasi-free market economy. Especially in a society that encourages individuality. Unless there was a massive revolt among the workers (a-la Karl Marx)... But that would lead to a race to mediocraty for most instances. And its doubtful that employees will walk away from money on the table simply because their CEO makes more than another company's CEO. (Meaning the employee would choose a lesser paying job over a higher paying job due to related CEO pay.)


http://www.lcurve.org/

audio explanation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woIkIph5xcU

Interestingly bad example.
So Bill Gates, having founded Microsoft, does not have any legitimacy in making what he makes from Microsoft? Is it his fault that almost every PC user (whom he's responsible for creating) uses his product? And it does not take into consideration any of his philanthropic efforts to repay society for his success either.

I think if a CEO is making big bucks and the company's successful, turns out a good product, and is recognized as a very employee friendly company (Forbes Best Companies to Work For list), then they deserve the pay.

Its when they tank the company, tank the stock, cause loss on the market because of said tanking, and requires tax payer bailout, not to mention investigation of fraud or any other law violation then I definately have an issue with said CEO banking their high dollar salary, options, benefits, and of course that coveted golden parachute.

That fucker needs to freefall from 5 thousand feet, fuck the parachute.

[Warriorbird]

I'm just curious if you've never asked yourself how Republicans intend to pay for all their spending?

[DeV]

I can when a majority of the shareholders are employees of the company.Like I said initially it sounds good in theory.

[Celephais]

Reparations!
http://thumbnails.truveo.com/0005/8C/64/8C645D3F681707F7D74545_Large.jpg

(I didn't read any of this thread, just responding to the title).

[Gan]

I'm just curious if you've never asked yourself how Republicans intend to pay for all their spending?

Providing how the elections go for the senate and house, I am hoping that we see massive reform to government spending on bullshit earmarks and other out of control spending. Redirect that towards the deficit or programs that will have long term budget effects like energy (drilling, nuclear, shale, wind, etc.)

Seek reform to the big 3: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. Stop the stupid spending and plug the holes (inefficiency and waste).

I would say the big emphasis is on minimizing dependence on foreign energy sources is right along with eliminating the terrible spending habits that infest our current Congress. Encouraging that idea through increased local drilling, exploration, shale production, LP production, nuclear production, and increased investment in wind and other energy alternatives.

Since McCain is not seeking to nationalize healthcare - thats one huge expenditure that he'll not have to try and pay for.

I might have said in an earlier thread that I support the reduction of the top tier tax bracket to 35%, and I want to iterate that with one exception. That exception being during a time of war, such as what we're in now, I would liked to have seen it remain at 39%. I recently read where the top tax bracket was between 70 and 90% during WWII. And as amazing as that sounds, I can understand why thats important.

Taxes are an integral part of our society, there's no doubt about it. Its just up for argument as to what is considered fair and or appropriate. And giving a federal tax break that would mean a larger handout going to those who do not pay federal income taxes to begin with is not something I support. And not something that I think we can afford.

[Warriorbird]

You forgot war/defense spending and the current 'bailout' bills.

Earmarks are tiny compared to that.

[Gan]

You forgot war/defense spending and the current 'bailout' bills.

Earmarks are tiny compared to that.

Considering that both presidents will be faced with the deficit costs of the war, I gave that neutral consideration.

As much as Obama would like to pull out immediately - he'll need to stick to the agreed upon timeframe much like McCain will.

And yes, its a no brainer that the war is expensive. You've iterated that point quite belatedly to the point of becoming Capt. Obvious over it.

[ElanthianSiren]

IMO overhauls of defense spending and highway spending are also in order. I'm not saying that we should do away with them, just find a way to eliminate the $300.00 hammer, contracts that don't complete and languish endlessly etc.

As far as I know the waste on medicare is pretty trim. How exactly would you propose overhauling that? I'm assuming that you don't want to nationalize things, as Obama is saying. However, the only plan I've seen/heard of from McCain is dissolution.

Theoretically, he says that these people would then be able to purchase insurance over state lines. That's a big if though, once you consider that medicare is for seniors, often with pre-existing conditions. McCain himself has admitted that his health care plan will be disadventagous to people with such conditions, and he says he will set aside money for states to cover people who will not be able to easily purchase across state lines. So even the republican candidate is talking about creating a new level of beauracracy.

I just don't quite see where your overhaul is going to come from.

[Garnet Doyle]

McCain wants to double the child tax credit, which helps the middle class and poor most. McCain wants to give a 5000 tax credit for healthcare, which the TPC (which is liberal remember) said will end up with a net benefit for most and proportionally help the poorest the most.



Actually, that $5k tax credit is for families. Individuals will get half that. Say, can you think of some major medical procedure $2,500 a year will help you cover? I sure as shit can't.


And that's how he's going to 'help' the uninsured, guess what happens to the insured? Well the health benefits they receive now, will be taxable as income. So you can be certain those already insured, will be paying out the ass as far as taxes are concerned. I'm not sure if the insured are borked period, or they get to use some of that $2500 to offset all that they'll be paying extra for having health insurance, as I honestly stopped listening when I heard current benefits as taxable income.

But I wouldn't be surprised at all if having insurance automatically disqualifies them from that 2.5k


WOOWOO! MCCAIN/PALIN! And remember, if you don't vote for them, you're a terrorist secret muslim supporter! The TV said so!

[Jack]

2500 dollars would cover my current medical insurance policy, with some left over. I guess if you're morbidly obese, a chain smoker, or have some pre-existing medical condition, you'd have trouble finding coverage for that amount.

[Parkbandit]

$2500 would cover my family's monthly insurance premium for the year.

:shrug:

[Warriorbird]

People with pre-existing conditions... continuous medications... things like that aren't quite so conveniently cheap.

[AestheticDeath]

My mothers diabetes makes their premium go up quite a bit, may be something else to I don't know about. Though she doesn't work and dad's job is at a small company that can't afford good insurance. So he winds up paying like $500 a month just for her to be added to the policy.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

People with pre-existing conditions... continuous medications... things like that aren't quite so conveniently cheap.

Pretty much.

Coincidentally, also the same people who need healthcare reform the most.

[ElanthianSiren]

My mothers diabetes makes their premium go up quite a bit, may be something else to I don't know about. Though she doesn't work and dad's job is at a small company that can't afford good insurance. So he winds up paying like $500 a month just for her to be added to the policy.

I don't know about your father/mother's policy specifically but have her look at what's actually covered and what's deductable etc. Be careful with this setup. I've worked with diabetics who had no idea how much of their own care they were responsible for until it was too late. This is as big of a problem as not having insurance IMO; it's called inadequate coverage, and it's a huge deal, specifically for people with chronic conditions.

[Daniel]

My mothers diabetes makes their premium go up quite a bit, may be something else to I don't know about. Though she doesn't work and dad's job is at a small company that can't afford good insurance. So he winds up paying like $500 a month just for her to be added to the policy.

It's obviously your mom's fault that she has diabetes.

Take responsibility for yourself FFS

[ElanthianSiren]

With Type II diabetes, which I'm assuming his mom has, I was actually amazed to find out that that's not the case at all. I know you're being sarcastic, but I was always under the impression that type II diabetes was mostly the person's fault; lack of activity, high carbohydrate, high fat diet, etc. It turns out that it's caused by faulty receptors for insulin on the cells, which results in less insulin uptake and obviously less sugar metabolism. Depending on the severity of the mutation to the receptors, you can be born with T2.

The obvious answer is to cut out all but the most unrefined carbohydrates, but it's still very interesting to me, from a researcher's point of view, what causes mutations and why they're so prevelent in certain ethnic groups (population genetics of african americans, latinos, and native americans). We see an evolutionary mechanism for most disorders (some of you may not care). Sickle cell in african americans, Cistic Fibrosis in whites (connected to bubonic plague and the industrial revolution). It's just fascinating to me... I'll stop now though.

[Stanley Burrell]

With Type II diabetes, which I'm assuming his mom has, I was actually amazed to find out that that's not the case at all. I know you're being sarcastic, but I was always under the impression that type II diabetes was mostly the person's fault; lack of activity, high carbohydrate, high fat diet, etc. It turns out that it's caused by faulty receptors for insulin on the cells, which results in less insulin uptake and obviously less sugar metabolism. Depending on the severity of the mutation to the receptors, you can be born with T2.

The obvious answer is to cut out all but the most unrefined carbohydrates, but it's still very interesting to me, from a researcher's point of view, what causes mutations and why they're so prevelent in certain ethnic groups (population genetics of african americans, latinos, and native americans). We see an evolutionary mechanism for most disorders (some of you may not care). Sickle cell in african americans, Cistic Fibrosis in whites (connected to bubonic plague and the industrial revolution). It's just fascinating to me... I'll stop now though.

Type II used to carry a unofficial tag as being "older onset." Insulin hindrance genetics over the last few decades have been multiplied, quantitatively, nine gajillion times. The fact that I'm your ~200th cousin (by the greatest possible margin) and live in this country, means that the Golden Arches will tend to outweigh Centrum and phytochemicals.

McCain and the Diabetes Guy is a weird image. Think islet cell tissue culture.

[ElanthianSiren]

Yeah, I just didn't expect the PC to understand things like anti onco genes and their subsequent mutation over time, which I feel probably parallels the mechanism of T2 development. Not that anti onco genes are involved, just a similar process with a genetic succeptibility component.

[Parkbandit]

My mothers diabetes makes their premium go up quite a bit, may be something else to I don't know about. Though she doesn't work and dad's job is at a small company that can't afford good insurance. So he winds up paying like $500 a month just for her to be added to the policy.


Talk to an insurance broker. There's no way you can tell me you can't get insurance for a single individual for less than $500 a month.

[Daniel]

Yea. All those people in America not getting healthcare just aren't trying hard enough!

[ElanthianSiren]

Talk to an insurance broker. There's no way you can tell me you can't get insurance for a single individual for less than $500 a month.

With people who actually need to use their insurance, it isn't really about just getting insurance. She already has it. It's about getting insurance that's comprehensive and covers the services you require while not bankrupting you should you, god forbid, need to see a specialist or be admitted. For his mother, she would need prescription, dental, medical, and optic. These are all systems directly tied to diabetic complications that need to be closely monitored. Dental for mouth abscesses, medical for obvious reasons, optic for retinopathy, and prescription for medications and test strips.

T2 diabetes isn't a problem that's cured by just popping a pill and bam you're okay. People with perfect blood sugar numbers and HBA1Cs still get complications because the treatment of T1 and T2 diabetes isn't ideal. The cost for comprehensive insurance with any chronic condition reflects knowledge of treatment limitations by the insurance companies.

[Warriorbird]

Having sold insurance... there's some people who can't get 20% insurance for 500 a month.

[TheEschaton]

LEt's consider we're not even talking about $500 a month for the year as a limit.

On 5k, the average is 416.66 a month, for an individual who gets 2.5k, it's half that: 208.33 a month for your insurance.

Now, how many people can't make that happen? I thought I heard that the average health care cost for families of four was more than double 5k.

[Drew]

So Bush was voted into his second term by independents and democrats?

If another candidate had run against him in the primaries I certainly would have considered it. Just because I didn't support Bush in his economic policies didn't make Kerry a better choice for me.

[Parkbandit]

Now, how many people can't make that happen? I thought I heard that the average health care cost for families of four was more than double 5k.

Have a source on that or am I just leading a very charmed life? I don't even pay $5,000 a year with a wife that has a precondition. We got an insurance broker who spent 3 hours (seemed like 12) at our home, detailing out the plan coverages and we selected a modest plan right in the middle. We could have paid MUCH less, but we would have had insurance. Is it because I'm living in Florida?

[TheEschaton]

Average family health care costs $11k....3 years ago (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2005-09-14-family-health-policy_x.htm)

I can't find anything more recent (since I'm in int'l law right now), but it seems to me that it would have only risen since then.


The average cost for a family health insurance policy topped $10,000 for the first time this year, although premium costs rose at their slowest rate since 2000, a closely watched survey of employers released Wednesday shows.

[Parkbandit]

Average family health care costs $11k....3 years ago (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2005-09-14-family-health-policy_x.htm)

I can't find anything more recent (since I'm in int'l law right now), but it seems to me that it would have only risen since then.

I think you missed this important part:

This year, the average annual premium for family coverage hit $10,880, with employers paying an average of 74% of that cost and workers paying the rest. Workers this year paid on average $2,713 toward family coverage, or $1,094 more than they paid five years ago, the survey found.


So the cost for the average family is actually $2,713.. not the $11,000 the "author" intended the reader to believe.

Since I am self employed, I pay both parts.. and I pay less than $5000 for a family of four.

[TheEschaton]

I'm glad everyone in this country works then.

[ElanthianSiren]

He's talking about a study from the kaiser foundation.

[Warriorbird]

You have a pretty good deal. I wrote a client who's monthly cost I couldn't get below $900 at one point... and this was roughly four and a half years ago.

[Parkbandit]

You have a pretty good deal. I wrote a client who's monthly cost I couldn't get below $900 at one point... and this was roughly four and a half years ago.

Why do I have such a great deal though? I honestly know shit about insurance. Is it because I'm in Florida and they somehow force insurance policies to remain low? I certainly don't have the best plan out there.. my wife is on Blue Cross and Blue Shield for her precondition.. and my kids and I are under Humana. Like I said.. my policy is really down the middle. I could have gone much cheaper with catastrophic on myself (I never go to the doctors).. and I could have paid over double of what I have.

[Parkbandit]

I'm glad everyone in this country works then.


I pay more for my cable TV and my cellphones than I do for my insurance. It's amazing how many people have those "necessities" though.

[Gan]

Thought you knew. Your cellphone and TV are a right too. ;)

[ElanthianSiren]

Why do I have such a great deal though? I honestly know shit about insurance. Is it because I'm in Florida and they somehow force insurance policies to remain low? I certainly don't have the best plan out there.. my wife is on Blue Cross and Blue Shield for her precondition.. and my kids and I are under Humana. Like I said.. my policy is really down the middle. I could have gone much cheaper with catastrophic on myself (I never go to the doctors).. and I could have paid over double of what I have.

You have such a good deal most likely because 1. you never visit the doctor. 2. the other two people on your policy are children (insurance policies are age dependent). 3. the amount you pay for your wife changes with the precondition. It isn't like the insurance companies lump all preconditions together. If she has something like allergies, that's a pre condition, but it's not one that the company sees as incurring much cost. It also depends on the technology available to treat the pre-condition. See what I mentioned about diabetes treatment always being non-ideal.

I refuse to believe that you don't grasp the fact that states don't mediate costs right now, unless you're on something like SCHIP. If you're admitting to not having a comprehensive plan, I believe you've found your answer.

[Parkbandit]

You have such a good deal most likely because 1. you never visit the doctor. 2. the other two people on your policy are children (insurance policies are age dependent). 3. the amount you pay for your wife changes with the precondition. It isn't like the insurance companies lump all preconditions together. If she has something like allergies, that's a pre condition, but it's not one that the company sees as incurring much cost. It also depends on the technology available to treat the pre-condition. See what I mentioned about diabetes treatment always being non-ideal.

I refuse to believe that you don't grasp the fact that states don't mediate costs right now, unless you're on something like SCHIP. If you're admitting to not having a comprehensive plan, I believe you've found your answer.

1) The number of times I go to the doctor's office has zero to do with my plan or the price I pay.

2) Isn't that always the case with a family of four? It's not like I am including my crazy ass aunt.

3) Her precondition was one which she wasn't even accepted with Humana, so we had to leave her on BC&BS

I've already stated I know shit about insurance and whatever role the State has in the pricing.. so you can go ahead and believe it.

[ElanthianSiren]

1) The number of times I go to the doctor's office has zero to do with my plan or the price I pay.

2) Isn't that always the case with a family of four? It's not like I am including my crazy ass aunt.

3) Her precondition was one which she wasn't even accepted with Humana, so we had to leave her on BC&BS

I've already stated I know shit about insurance and whatever role the State has in the pricing.. so you can go ahead and believe it.

1) I wasn't insinuating it did. However, when you fill out forms to attain insurance, they ask you about your health state. If you're never visiting the doctor, obviously you're not a risk to insurance profits. They can afford then to give you a better rate. Basic economics. Why do people in Lousiana pay a huge amount for flood insurance?

2) The fact that your daughters are healthy children makes them statistically less likely to use insurance. Therefor, you get a better rate. If one of your daughters, however, had something like cistic fibrosis, you'd be screwed buying coverage for your family.

3) Again, I can't comment without knowing what it is, except to tell you that the price for coverage with pre-existing conditions varies, depending on what the condition is, how much the insurance company anticipates spending on it, if it's chronic and treatable, curable or not, seasonal, and especially life threatening. Economics again.

The problem with health care isn't so much that it's run under a system that forces people who will use it more to pay more. It's more that the cost has become prohibitive for millions of Americans who need coverage most and are incurring huge costs by taking emergency routes instead of preventative care.