Why Should Insurance Companies Have to Pay for Autism?

[ClydeR]

The Democrats are making a big deal complaining about it, but I agree with Sharon Angle. She said that when Nevada mandated that insurance companies cover autism and maternity leave, that increases everybody's insurance premiums and she said those are the sorts of things she wants to get rid of. She said she's not going to have any more babies, but it still affects her insurance premiums.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqxCCLr3Fa4

By the way she says "autism," you can tell that it may be something people make up just to get money from the insurance companies.

[Ryvicke]

Here are the six major changes that go into effect today for anyone with healthcare or buying from now on:


Young people can remain on parents' insurance until age 26

The health care reform legislation requires insurance companies to allow dependent children to remain on their parents' insurance policies until their 26th birthday. The children can't have jobs that offer insurance.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, several health insurers began early implementation of this policy in May, months ahead of the September 23 deadline.

Until Thursday, in most states dependents were booted off their parent's health insurance policy before age 26, sometimes as early as age 19. A handful of states allow dependents to remain on a parent's policy until age 30, and HHS says those locations will continue to do so. To find out the specifics for your state, go to Gettingcovered.org and look at the state facts or check the state-by-state "definition of dependency" list from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

No discrimination against children with pre-existing conditions

Starting Thursday, consumer protections prohibit all employer plans and all new plans in the individual market from denying coverage to children age 18 and younger who have pre-existing conditions.

However, ahead of this provision, several large health insurance companies announced plans to suspend child-only insurance policies because of concerns over clarity of the new rules, as well as reservations that the provisions create an "unlevel playing field."

"Given the current uncertainty in the niche marketplace for child-only coverage, health plans have to make very difficult decisions about the types of new policies they will offer," says Robert Zirkelbach, press secretary for America's Health Insurance Plans, the national association representing health insurance providers.

"While well intended, the current regulation provides a powerful incentive for parents to wait to purchase coverage until after their children become sick," Zirkelbach says.

"I think it's very unfortunate that the insurance companies continue to make decisions on the backs of children and families that need their help," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters on Tuesday.

He said that even though child-only policies represent a small portion of the individual market, the goal is to make sure nobody falls through the cracks.

If you have a child-only policy, you can keep it, America's Health Insurance Plans says. If you were planning to purchase a child-only policy but have learned it is no longer offered by your insurance carrier, your child may qualify for SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Here is a state-by-state directory of SCHIP programs.

Adults who can't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition can look for a Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP). Visit PCIP.gov to find out whether you are eligible and to learn more about what the monthly premiums are in your state.

No dropping people from coverage when they get sick

Insurance companies can no longer drop a customer when that person gets sick, nor can they look for errors on your insurance application and then not pay for a service when you get sick.

No lifetime limits on coverage

If you purchase a new health policy on or after Thursday, the Affordable Care Act prohibits that plan from placing a lifetime cap on the coverage you can receive for hospital stays and other expenses associated with your condition. Keep in mind that this does not include the use of annual dollar limits, which will be phased out over the next three years, and will be banned by 2014.

New plans must offer free preventive care

If you purchase a new health policy on or after Thursday, certain preventive screenings, immunizations and tests must be covered without your having to pay a copayment, coinsurance or meet your deductible when these services are delivered by a network provider. If you are already insured, these services should be offered to you during open enrollment, or when your individual policy renews. A full list of the preventive services covered under the Affordable Care Act can be found on Healthcare.gov.

Expanded ability to appeal decisions made by the health plan

Under current rules, when an insurer denies you coverage, you really didn't have many options.

About 44 states provide for some form of external appeal and the laws governing these processes vary greatly.

If you buy or join a new policy starting Thursday, you should be able to appeal to an independent third party. According to Jay Angoff, the director of the Office of Consumer Information and Insurance for Health and Human Services, your health insurance company is required to inform you of how to access the independent, objective reviewer.

Another resource if you have questions about whether the appeal process applies to you is your state insurance regulator. Also, later this fall, you will be able to find state-by-state lists of consumer assistance programs on Healthcare.gov.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/23/health.care.reform/index.html?hpt=C2)

Enjoy corporations not being able to kill you!

[Jack]

Here are the six major changes that go into effect today for anyone with healthcare or buying from now on:



Source (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/23/health.care.reform/index.html?hpt=C2)

Enjoy corporations not being able to kill you!

How well did that really work out? Wellpoint, Cigna, and CoventryOne just stopped selling all new policies that cover children. I'm sure they aren't the only companies to do so, but they're the ones I know for sure about.

[Ryvicke]

How well did that really work out? Wellpoint, Cigna, and CoventryOne just stopped selling all new policies that cover children. I'm sure they aren't the only companies to do so, but they're the ones I know for sure about.

I'd say it worked out well, Jack! Now that Aetna, Wellpoint, Cigna, United Healthcare et al have pulled child-only coverage packages you will no longer have to pay premiums to insure your child until they get sick and then the big boys pull a recission and you're stuck with the bill--it's going to save a lot of money and DEAD BABIES.

In any event, should you not be a cave-dweller and understand how to insure your child (awesomely there are a silly number of options other than those above, companies that have too many shareholders to adequately care for sick American babies AND make enough money) no insurance company can ever deny coverage for any reason at all.

[Showal]

By the way she says "autism," you can tell that it may be something people make up just to get money from the insurance companies.

This convinced me. I never thought it was made up before today. The way she said it, with the air quotes, really drove it home though.

[Atlanteax]

This convinced me. I never thought it was made up before today. The way she said it, with the air quotes, really drove it home though.

Well played...

[Jarvan]

You know what's funny about the Health insurance Bill? Once it's all in effect, they can't deny you coverage for any reason, and can't charge you more for any reason.

Imagine if car insurance was like that. Oh, you total your car every other month? Well thats ok, it's still only 200 a month and can never go up other then reg yearly increases, and we can never deny you coverage. Yeah, that would work well.

You know, it's really funny how people feel they are entitled to things. When did this start happening? How can you be entitled to healthcare? it's like anything else, if you can't afford it, you can't get it. Are you entitled to owning a car? a House ( scratch that, the dems think you are )? a disney vacation every year?

Everyone always seems to blame the "evil" insurance companies. you know you don't have to have insurance, just pay for it all yourself. What's that? you can't afford a $10,000 surgery cause the anesthesiologist charges $7,000 for 30 min of his time cause he knows you have no choice? Yeah, that's the evil insurance companies fault. Do these companies do some things that are wrong? yeah. Does every company? hell Yeah.

Also, when it comes to Company insurance plans, remember there are two types. Fully insured and Self insured. Whats the real difference? Fully insured means the Insurance company covers your costs and you company pays them a premium. Self insured means the insurance company administers the plan for a fee, and the company pays for all the claims. The two types are fairly close, with self insured being 55% of the market. So half the time, it's the company telling you they would rather have you "Die" then pay for your bill.

health insurance for all will only work when A) EVERYONE stops being greedy and works for the common good of mankind.. (Laughs) or B) Technology gets to the point where we all have nano bots in us that cure everything fairly instantly (Except for those people that would refuse, guess they just get to die, oh wait, I am sure the government will mandate this too).

Guess it comes down to, if I am healthy why should I pay for you to go to the doctor? Are you going to pay for my electricity bill if I can't one month?

Just my 5 cents.

P.S. As for Autism, I have had 5 relatives supposedly given this diagnosis in the last 2 years. One, My Nephew, doesn't like to go to school (the other kids make fun of him for being overweight), want's to stay home and play video games, and doesn't like to clean his room.... that's what? 80% of the male population? Seriously, Dr's now use this for anything they can't quantify. And some parents use this to justify their kid being a spoiled brat. Yes there is some austistic kids out there, but at the rate that they are claiming increases, in 10 years every kid will be austistic.

[Ryvicke]

You know what's funny about the Health insurance Bill? Once it's all in effect, they can't deny you coverage for any reason, and can't charge you more for any reason.

Imagine if car insurance was like that. Oh, you total your car every other month? Well thats ok, it's still only 200 a month and can never go up other then reg yearly increases, and we can never deny you coverage. Yeah, that would work well.

You know, it's really funny how people feel they are entitled to things. When did this start happening? How can you be entitled to healthcare? it's like anything else, if you can't afford it, you can't get it. Are you entitled to owning a car? a House ( scratch that, the dems think you are )? a disney vacation every year?

Everyone always seems to blame the "evil" insurance companies. you know you don't have to have insurance, just pay for it all yourself. What's that? you can't afford a $10,000 surgery cause the anesthesiologist charges $7,000 for 30 min of his time cause he knows you have no choice? Yeah, that's the evil insurance companies fault. Do these companies do some things that are wrong? yeah. Does every company? hell Yeah.

Also, when it comes to Company insurance plans, remember there are two types. Fully insured and Self insured. Whats the real difference? Fully insured means the Insurance company covers your costs and you company pays them a premium. Self insured means the insurance company administers the plan for a fee, and the company pays for all the claims. The two types are fairly close, with self insured being 55% of the market. So half the time, it's the company telling you they would rather have you "Die" then pay for your bill.

health insurance for all will only work when A) EVERYONE stops being greedy and works for the common good of mankind.. (Laughs) or B) Technology gets to the point where we all have nano bots in us that cure everything fairly instantly (Except for those people that would refuse, guess they just get to die, oh wait, I am sure the government will mandate this too).

Guess it comes down to, if I am healthy why should I pay for you to go to the doctor? Are you going to pay for my electricity bill if I can't one month?

Just my 5 cents.

P.S. As for Autism, I have had 5 relatives supposedly given this diagnosis in the last 2 years. One, My Nephew, doesn't like to go to school (the other kids make fun of him for being overweight), want's to stay home and play video games, and doesn't like to clean his room.... that's what? 80% of the male population? Seriously, Dr's now use this for anything they can't quantify. And some parents use this to justify their kid being a spoiled brat. Yes there is some austistic kids out there, but at the rate that they are claiming increases, in 10 years every kid will be austistic.

You wrote a lot.

Your health insurance/car insurance comparison only works if the person in question cuts their arm off once per month. In which case they are insane, and this would only work for two months.

In closing: we're not a third-world country. Your health and access to 21st century medical treatment is a right in this world. Go live in any other country for 2 months and watch what happens when someone gets sick. They go to a doctor without thinking about how much they're going to pay or worrying about a premium going up.

[Keller]

Enjoy corporations not being able to kill you!

This may be the stupidest thing you've ever said.

And I'm a fan of the healthcare legislation.

[Ryvicke]

This may be the stupidest thing you've ever said.

And I'm a fan of the healthcare legislation.

I'm admittedly just saying a ton of stupid shit today.

Perhaps it has something to do with the Majora's Mask evil-moon invading my avatar in a complex narrative that has been affecting my avatar for weeks that people might be really interested in paying attention to.

And maybe in a really post-modern meta-universe that avatar narrative (or narratar) affects how I post.

[radamanthys]

Health insurance reform was billed as "healthcare is too expensive, lets fix that".

And then everything they did made it more expensive.


I don't get it.


FWIW, I was paying for my own healthcare. Now you're all gonna pick up the tab for me, even though I can afford it. Thanks Obama!

[Jarvan]

You wrote a lot.

Your health insurance/car insurance comparison only works if the person in question cuts their arm off once per month. In which case they are insane, and this would only work for two months.

In closing: we're not a third-world country. Your health and access to 21st century medical treatment is a right in this world. Go live in any other country for 2 months and watch what happens when someone gets sick. They go to a doctor without thinking about how much they're going to pay or worrying about a premium going up.

Wrong, also works for people that are hypochondriac, accident prone, diseases, cancer, tumors.. I could go on. Hell, I know a guy that's had a heart transplant, a kidney transplant AND a liver transplant. So.. 1 person had to die, 1 gave up a kidney ( if not died ) and one had to go thru a surgery where there is a 5% chance to die ( if not died ) to keep this one guy alive. Yep, I can totally see Government healthcare doing all that. besides, people have to GIVE their organs.. charity. I wonder then if the government is just going to decide you HAVE to give them instead, if there isn't enough. I mean, healthcare is a "Right" after all, that guy has a right to live, and if you have a healthy kidney it's only "Fair" that you give it to him.

I'm sorry.. I forgot when these "rights" were given out. Only rights anyone has are put forth in the Constitution. I forget, Where exactly does it say in there that if I am sick or injured SOMEONE has to take care of me? but apparently they do, cause it's only "fair".

Life isn't fair.

We can throw that old saying out the window, since some people have decided it is their job to make life fair. the day the Liberal left, and the progressive mindless start working for free, or donate all their money to charity, is the day I will believe that they actually believe the nonsense they spout.

[Warriorbird]

There's this little thing called standard deviation. It happens in insurance too. Most people are nowhere near the extremes.

[crb]

You wrote a lot.

Your health insurance/car insurance comparison only works if the person in question cuts their arm off once per month. In which case they are insane, and this would only work for two months.

In closing: we're not a third-world country. Your health and access to 21st century medical treatment is a right in this world. Go live in any other country for 2 months and watch what happens when someone gets sick. They go to a doctor without thinking about how much they're going to pay or worrying about a premium going up.

Healthcare the quality 85% of people in the US enjoy is a limited quantity, it is a limited resource like oil, or gold, or hot women.

If you try to add patients while keeping cost the same, you will lose quality. If you try to add features or services, you can't, not without increasing costs.

Obamacare may do a lot of nice things, but the biggest lie is that it will do anything for healthcare spending other than accelerate it. My insurance copays just went up, my deductible just went up, how about yours? Everyone knew costs would go up, the CBO knew, and guess what, they did?

When costs continue to rise, because Obamacare did absolutely nothing to bend the cost curve down and address the problem of runaway medical inflation, benefits will have to be cut, or quality and services will have to be cut.

This happens everywhere that has socialized medicine (not that thats what we've got now). It happens in the US in poor areas where the only patients have medicaid or medicare. I'm from a small farm town, almost everyone is on government insurance there, the hospital there recently had to eliminate obstetrics, eliminate it. They couldn't, by law, turn away the people with government insurance while accepting private insurance that'll actual reimburse appropriately, so they eliminated it. Now a pregnant woman in labor has a 45 minute drive.

You can't give quality healthcare to everyone. It will always be rationed. By price (our system) by waiting (canada) or by service limitations (britain). Because it is a limited resource.

Personally I prefer the system where the worst that can happen to you is bankruptcy, as opposed to the systems where you simply might not be allowed a life saving treatment, so you die.

You may feel morally compelled to provide high quality healthcare to everyone, but remember it is a limited resource. You can't do it the same as you can't give everyone a full tank of gas once a week.

One might say "well, just increase the resource." but how are you going to encourage more hospitals to be built or doctors to be educated when you decrease the incentive to do such things? "We'd like you to do more, and we'll pay you less for it." Generally doesn't work.

[Warriorbird]

So why then do we pay more of our GDP for care than any other country in the world?

It's like the Cuban education system. They pay more for education than anybody and they get some results. They're still not the best.

The system isn't going to mysteriously fix itself. The companies do whatever tactics they can to profiteer and shut out any competition.

[Parkbandit]

I'd say it worked out well, Jack! Now that Aetna, Wellpoint, Cigna, United Healthcare et al have pulled child-only coverage packages you will no longer have to pay premiums to insure your child until they get sick and then the big boys pull a recission and you're stuck with the bill--it's going to save a lot of money and DEAD BABIES.

In any event, should you not be a cave-dweller and understand how to insure your child (awesomely there are a silly number of options other than those above, companies that have too many shareholders to adequately care for sick American babies AND make enough money) no insurance company can ever deny coverage for any reason at all.

And you are there to decide what "enough money" is....

Awesome Comrade.

[Parkbandit]

I'm admittedly just saying a ton of stupid shit today.

Perhaps it has something to do with the Majora's Mask evil-moon invading my avatar in a complex narrative that has been affecting my avatar for weeks that people might be really interested in paying attention to.

And maybe in a really post-modern meta-universe that avatar narrative (or narratar) affects how I post.

It might just be that you are a stupid person.. since today doesn't seem to be the exception to the rule.

:shrug:

[Parkbandit]

The system isn't going to mysteriously fix itself. The companies do whatever tactics they can to profiteer and shut out any competition.

That's what government is for.. to ensure companies cannot shut out any competition.

What our governments have done is actually the opposite. There are what.. thousands of health insurance companies in this country? Why is it I can pick from maybe 10 in my area?

[Ryvicke]

It might just be that you are a stupid person.. since today doesn't seem to be the exception to the rule.

:shrug:

Cute, but that post was primarily to introduce my narratar. I actually didn't believe what Keller (a bro) said about my statement, which I don't find stupid.

All these other posts are tl;dr. Except I did read them, except debating health care was so 2009.

As someone who makes his living planning individual and exponential public service ramp-ups in times of disaster I can only tell V that our nation's health care system has limitless potential to become more robust. Health care is not "a limited resource" like fuel. I work daily to assure that massive quantities of both can reach areas affected by catastrophic disaster.

Anywho, sorry you guys are all going to die when $.02 more is taken from your paycheck so a little brown kid can go to the doctor. I understand how pissed off that must make you.

[Ryvicke]

And you are there to decide what "enough money" is....

Awesome Comrade.

"Enough money" is whatever quarterly profit line is needed for shareholders to not boot whoever is running the company. Any CEO of a publicly traded company is going to do whatever it takes to keep that job/make that bonus/pad that resume. It just so happens that in the business of health care that shit might run up against the best wishes of your consumer.

So comrade--why not just make this one choice a little easier for them. Hell, I believe there were a few insurance company CEO's last year that said they would welcome the change and find new ways to profit.

This isn't news. If you haven't read at least 10 stories in the last 5 years of people who have died due to an insurance company pulling their coverage on some technicality than you haven't been reading anything.

[Keller]

Cute, but that post was primarily to introduce my narratar. I actually didn't believe what Keller (a bro) said about my statement, which I don't find stupid.

All these other posts are tl;dr. Except I did read them, except debating health care was so 2009.

As someone who makes his living planning individual and exponential public service ramp-ups in times of disaster I can only tell V that our nation's health care system has limitless potential to become more robust. Health care is not "a limited resource" like fuel. I work daily to assure that massive quantities of both can reach areas affected by catastrophic disaster.

Anywho, sorry you guys are all going to die when $.02 more is taken from your paycheck so a little brown kid can go to the doctor. I understand how pissed off that must make you.

$.02? Seriously?

Do you even understand how revenue will be raised for this legislation?

[Warriorbird]

I wouldn't call it two cents. Places like Denmark have a profitable insurance industry still though.

[Keller]

"Enough money" is whatever quarterly profit line is needed for shareholders to not boot whoever is running the company. Any CEO of a publicly traded company is going to do whatever it takes to keep that job/make that bonus/pad that resume. It just so happens that in the business of health care that shit might run up against the best wishes of your consumer.

So comrade--why not just make this one choice a little easier for them. Hell, I believe there were a few insurance company CEO's last year that said they would welcome the change and find new ways to profit.

This isn't news. If you haven't read at least 10 stories in the last 5 years of people who have died due to an insurance company pulling their coverage on some technicality than you haven't been reading anything.

I don't know what the fuck "best wishes of your consumer" even means, but I'll assume you mean the best interests of your consumer.

In that case, is there a single for-profit industry that does nothing against the best interests of their consumers?

[Ryvicke]

$.02? Seriously?

Do you even understand how revenue will be raised for this legislation?

I do--lemme know how much you get tagged for on this one. $.02 per paycheck sounds right to me.


I don't know what the fuck "best wishes of your consumer" even means, but I'll assume you mean the best interests of your consumer.

In that case, is there a single for-profit industry that does nothing against the best interests of their consumers?

Good assumption, you cracked the case.

That second part though Keller... that's just retardedly pessimistic and out of touch. There are thousands of for-profit industries that aren't trying to fuck anyone to make a dollar. Consumer rights is actually kind of a dorky interest of mine--but you're right, some companies certainly are better than others!

[Jarvan]

Cute, but that post was primarily to introduce my narratar. I actually didn't believe what Keller (a bro) said about my statement, which I don't find stupid.

All these other posts are tl;dr. Except I did read them, except debating health care was so 2009.

As someone who makes his living planning individual and exponential public service ramp-ups in times of disaster I can only tell V that our nation's health care system has limitless potential to become more robust. Health care is not "a limited resource" like fuel. I work daily to assure that massive quantities of both can reach areas affected by catastrophic disaster.

Anywho, sorry you guys are all going to die when $.02 more is taken from your paycheck so a little brown kid can go to the doctor. I understand how pissed off that must make you.

Your racsim disgusts me.

And yes, healthcare IS a limited resource. X amount of doctors Y amount of patients. if the ratio is 1:100 and you Increase Y without increasing X...

that's a limitation.

if a Hospital has 200 beds, and they have 500 people that need them, again, a Limitation. if there is 500 people waiting for a heart.. well.. guess what, your waiting. Sounds like a limitation to me.

if there possibility for Increases in healthcare in our country? yes, is it limitless? No way in hell. Not even close. First off, who is going to spend the hundreds of millions to build a hospital when they will never make the money back? Oh, I forgot, evil companies shouldn't care about that.

Btw, I forgot, do you work for free? You must be an evil person to require money for the work you do, after all that Brown kid may not have food or clothing either. Your taking food and clothing from the brown kid.

[Warriorbird]

So, Jarvan. Why do we spend more of our GDP on it than anywhere else in the world if the system is so awesome? Including those horrible countries where they cover everybody?

[Kembal]

That's what government is for.. to ensure companies cannot shut out any competition.

What our governments have done is actually the opposite. There are what.. thousands of health insurance companies in this country? Why is it I can pick from maybe 10 in my area?

Insurance companies have an antitrust exemption. It was not repealed in the new law. It was proposed to repeal it, but conservative Democrats and Republicans refused to go along with it.

As far as the Republican plan to allow selling across state lines, that was/is going to be with the exemption intact. So they get the benefit of lower regulation (because they'd just sell the plans from the least-regulated state), without having to face federal scrutiny for anti-competitive practices.

[Jarvan]

I do--lemme know how much you get tagged for on this one. $.02 per paycheck sounds right to me.



Good assumption, you cracked the case.

That second part though Keller... that's just retardedly pessimistic and out of touch. There are thousands of for-profit industries that aren't trying to fuck anyone to make a dollar. Consumer rights is actually kind of a dorky interest of mine--but you're right, some companies certainly are better than others!

You forget tho, profit is bad. After all, thats all we hear coming out of this administration.

ALL companies screw someone over for their profits. There is no for profit company that doesn't. I'd love to see you try to name one, and I am sure I can come up with at least 5 ways they dick over people to make a profit.

the funny thing is, if it wasn't for profit, we wouldn't have anything really. there have been VERY few times where someone invented something, then GAVE it away for the good of the people. if it wasn't for, for-profit drug companies, we wouldn't have half of the life saving/extending stuff we have, Plain and simple.

What are the chances if you came up with something you would just give it away? Or would you at least want to make some money of it?

[Keller]

I do--lemme know how much you get tagged for on this one. $.02 per paycheck sounds right to me.



Good assumption, you cracked the case.

That second part though Keller... that's just retardedly pessimistic and out of touch. There are thousands of for-profit industries that aren't trying to fuck anyone to make a dollar. Consumer rights is actually kind of a dorky interest of mine--but you're right, some companies certainly are better than others!

It is in my best interests to get stuff and not pay.

FUCK THOSE COMPANIES THAT MAKE ME PAY FOR THINGS!!!! DON'T THEY ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH MONEY!!!

Some companies sacrifice public image for more money, but suffice to say all companies are formed to make money. The only way they make money take something that costs them X and charge you more than X. They all are trying to fuck you over to make a dollar. That's the entire point.

[Keller]

I do--lemme know how much you get tagged for on this one. $.02 per paycheck sounds right to me.

Listen, Daragon, I'm not going to disprove your retarded statement.

Go read up on the revenue raisers and come back to apologize for being such a vocal, but ignorant, blowhard.

Most Americans won't have a single cent (let alone two) withheld from their paycheck to finance this legislation.

[Ryvicke]

Listen, Daragon, I'm not going to disprove your retarded statement.

Go read up on the revenue raisers and come back to apologize for being such a vocal, but ignorant, blowhard.

Most Americans won't have a single cent (let alone two) withheld from their paycheck to finance this legislation.

Dude wtf. Isn't it obvious I'm militantly PRO this legislation? And like a super liberal? See all those posts up there saying this is good and that people will have health care? I was trying to say the cost would be "near-zero" with my $.02. WB were you also confused?

But yes, I am Daragon.

[Jarvan]

So, Jarvan. Why do we spend more of our GDP on it than anywhere else in the world if the system is so awesome? Including those horrible countries where they cover everybody?

There are countless reasons. here are a few

1) Defensive medicine. You go to the Dr saying you have been light headed and dizzy lately, and Haven't been sleeping well. they proscribe 10 tests, and tell you to see a specialist. then the specialist runs some of those same 10 tests himself. if your a woman over the age of 12, and you go to the hospital, they always run a pregnancy test. They say they have to. My grandmother when she went in for a test after her 65th birthday got billed for one. Makes total sense.

2) A portion of that cost is also malpractice insurance. Nowadays someone screws up, you sue them, after all, it's like hitting the lotto. it's one thing if the Dr was drunk/High and cut off the wrong leg. it's another if the dr accidentally nicked a veil taking out a tumor and had to open you up to fix the vein. ( happened to a relative, who did NOT sue, since the Dr had still saved their life, but the DR worried they would be sued ) Dr's and Hospitals pass this charge onto you.

3) We have access to more care. Plain and simple. Medical Imaging in Canada, 2007 reports that in 2007, there were 419 CT scanners and 222 MRI machines installed and operational in Canada, up from 325 and 149, respectively, in 2003. 222 MRI machines in Canada.. Estimates are 6 machines per million people. The US by contrast has 27 machines per million people. More machines, more use = more cost.

If you want more, I am sure I can find them.

As for countries like England, it's easy for them to have a lost cost. Since in a number of cases even you can find on the internet, if you have cancer or a disease, they just wait till your terminal before offering help. Dead people cost very little after all.

[Parkbandit]

Dude wtf. Isn't it obvious I'm militantly PRO this legislation? And like a super liberal? See all those posts up there saying this is good and that people will have health care? I was trying to say the cost would be "near-zero" with my $.02. WB were you also confused?

But yes, I am Daragon.

Meltdown Alert....

[Ryvicke]

Meltdown Alert....

PBuddy, I was actually excited Keller was out-liberaling me. It will take more than epic epeen miscommunication to draw my inevitable meltdown.

[Parkbandit]

PBuddy, I was actually excited Keller was out-liberaling me. It will take more than epic epeen miscommunication to draw my inevitable meltdown.

Where exactly did Keller out-liberal you?

Scary enough, he was like a voice of reason compared to your ignorant rampage.

[Ryvicke]

Where exactly did Keller out-liberal you?

Scary enough, he was like a voice of reason compared to your ignorant rampage.

When he said every for profit business hurts people and the health care plan would cost taxpayers nothing. It was glorious.

[Rocktar]

Most Americans won't have a single cent (let alone two) withheld from their paycheck to finance this legislation.

Not by the Federal Government, technically, no. It will just not be in their paycheck to start with. They will have lost wages due to lost jobs, or simply loosing pay increases due to companies increased expenses. And then there is the nasty inflation that will come as companies raise prices on everything to cover the costs incurred. So no, they won't have taxes taken out directly, but again, your Liberal Socialist mush head shines through by trying a distraction and ignoring the facts.

There is no free lunch, you don't get something for nothing and this legislation is not revenue neutral. It uses 10 years of revenue to pay for 6 years of benefits in the beginning and then once the demon is out of Pandora's box, just hopes that people will suck up and pay for what the unwashed, unproductive masses have become accustomed too. Assuming the entire economy hasn't collapsed by then due to rampant inflation, loss of buying power overseas as the US dollar crashes and our debt becomes devastating.

We are rapidly racing to a point where there are not enough people working to produce enough to pay for those that don't and no amount of pie in the sky, Obama ass kissing, head in the sand, Socialist economic wishing on Karl Marx will change that. Just look to the Soviet Union and Cuba to see the results of that kind of thinking.

[Parkbandit]

When he said every for profit business hurts people and the health care plan would cost taxpayers nothing. It was glorious.

:rofl:

He was being sarcastic.. I thought he was actually being realistic for once.

At least now, it's not scary.

[Keller]

Not by the Federal Government, technically, no. It will just not be in their paycheck to start with. They will have lost wages due to lost jobs, or simply loosing pay increases due to companies increased expenses. And then there is the nasty inflation that will come as companies raise prices on everything to cover the costs incurred. So no, they won't have taxes taken out directly, but again, your Liberal Socialist mush head shines through by trying a distraction and ignoring the facts.

There is no free lunch, you don't get something for nothing and this legislation is not revenue neutral. It uses 10 years of revenue to pay for 6 years of benefits in the beginning and then once the demon is out of Pandora's box, just hopes that people will suck up and pay for what the unwashed, unproductive masses have become accustomed too. Assuming the entire economy hasn't collapsed by then due to rampant inflation, loss of buying power overseas as the US dollar crashes and our debt becomes devastating.

We are rapidly racing to a point where there are not enough people working to produce enough to pay for those that don't and no amount of pie in the sky, Obama ass kissing, head in the sand, Socialist economic wishing on Karl Marx will change that. Just look to the Soviet Union and Cuba to see the results of that kind of thinking.

Step away from the glue.

[Keller]

I believe he said taxpayers won't have any money withheld from their paychecks, not that the health care plan will cost taxpayers nothing. There is a big difference there. Do you honestly think the health care plan isn't going to cost people money?

Reading comprehension is hard for some of these folks.

Thanks.

[Keller]

Dude wtf. Isn't it obvious I'm militantly PRO this legislation? And like a super liberal? See all those posts up there saying this is good and that people will have health care? I was trying to say the cost would be "near-zero" with my $.02. WB were you also confused?

But yes, I am Daragon.

It won't cost near zero. The fact that you don't even know how the revenue will be raised should have clued you in to the fact that you've got very little idea what it will cost.

And I was pointing out how absurd it is to make a claim and then tell someone else it is their job to prove you wrong. I was not actually calling you Daragon. Don't be so dramatic.

[Rocktar]

Step away from the glue.

I would have a witty retort, but I am too tired. Again, fail reply is fail since everything I said is true.

[Keller]

I would have a witty retort, but I am too tired. Again, fail reply is fail since everything I said is true.

It was a self-righteous rant based on your failure to comprehend a very simple point I was making.

Regardless of whether a single statement you made was true, it made you look foolish.

[Stanley Burrell]

Democrats

Ah. Heh.

[Ryvicke]

It won't cost near zero. The fact that you don't even know how the revenue will be raised should have clued you in to the fact that you've got very little idea what it will cost.

And I was pointing out how absurd it is to make a claim and then tell someone else it is their job to prove you wrong. I was not actually calling you Daragon. Don't be so dramatic.

Whoa whoa whoa. Keller--although I've seen a zillion and a half Rocktar/PB posts telling people to "prove my numbers wrong" (and taken part in a few!) I certainly did not in this case. It crossed my mind for a second to type up a little "hey, if you don't believe my .02 PROVEZ IT." But I didn't, cause that's a cock move. kk.

Also--I have in the past admitted to being a fagular anthropologist studying the daragons. Also in this thread I forwarded a theory that my avatar is forming a narrative that possibly coincides with a creepypasta regarding a haunted majora's mask N64 cartridge. I can only ask you to look to these two facts to know that there be no drama in my postings here.

But, that said, your claims that I've not read the exact financial details of how the health care bill will be funded are specious. I've done an almost wrong-headed amount of reading on the issue and $.02 was my final outcome. I'll never jerk your chain.

Conclusion: we're pretty good friends. On the same side of an issue. Chillzor.

[Rocktar]

It was a factual rant based on my inane statements made while trying to look witty and sophisticated.

Because every statement made was true, I again tried a diversionary ad homonym attack and failed miserably.



Fixed.

[Rocktar]

There are some what, 150 million workers in America? 52 paychecks a year at 2 cents a paycheck. All of that research you've done on the subject and you figured it would only cost 156 million dollars a year to ensure every US citizen had medical coverage? Don't you think if it was that cheap they would have done that decades ago?

Oh snap, now you are bringing logic into it.

[Ryvicke]

There are some what, 150 million workers in America? 52 paychecks a year at 2 cents a paycheck. All of that research you've done on the subject and you figured it would only cost 156 million dollars a year to ensure every US citizen had medical coverage? Don't you think if it was that cheap they would have done that decades ago?

Right?! It does seem almost crazy to get passed up (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html) by every other developed nation (http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/preventable_deaths_country_ranks_1997-1998_2002-2003_2008.html) (and some not so developed ;_; (http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_health_expenditure_as_pecent_of_gdp_2000_to_ 2005.html))!

We should've done this years ago! When everyone else was!

[Keller]

Fixed.

Take a huff from your inhaler and calm down, Rocktard.

What I said was 100% accurate. Sorry you thought it was inane.

[Warriorbird]

There are countless reasons. here are a few

1) Defensive medicine. You go to the Dr saying you have been light headed and dizzy lately, and Haven't been sleeping well. they proscribe 10 tests, and tell you to see a specialist. then the specialist runs some of those same 10 tests himself. if your a woman over the age of 12, and you go to the hospital, they always run a pregnancy test. They say they have to. My grandmother when she went in for a test after her 65th birthday got billed for one. Makes total sense.

2) A portion of that cost is also malpractice insurance. Nowadays someone screws up, you sue them, after all, it's like hitting the lotto. it's one thing if the Dr was drunk/High and cut off the wrong leg. it's another if the dr accidentally nicked a veil taking out a tumor and had to open you up to fix the vein. ( happened to a relative, who did NOT sue, since the Dr had still saved their life, but the DR worried they would be sued ) Dr's and Hospitals pass this charge onto you.

3) We have access to more care. Plain and simple. Medical Imaging in Canada, 2007 reports that in 2007, there were 419 CT scanners and 222 MRI machines installed and operational in Canada, up from 325 and 149, respectively, in 2003. 222 MRI machines in Canada.. Estimates are 6 machines per million people. The US by contrast has 27 machines per million people. More machines, more use = more cost.

If you want more, I am sure I can find them.

As for countries like England, it's easy for them to have a lost cost. Since in a number of cases even you can find on the internet, if you have cancer or a disease, they just wait till your terminal before offering help. Dead people cost very little after all.

A. This doesn't suggest this system is magical or good.

B. This doesn't suggest the system will fix itself.

Malpractice isn't exactly the lotto. My mother's heart attacks were misdiagnosed for a solid week. If she'd died I'd have certainly looked into suing.

If you crow off about tort reform as some sort of solution (it's already in place in many many states) I'd like to question whether you'd believe in some sort of cap if one of your parents died.

We have a higher degree of ingenuity than any other country in the world. We can do better.

Also, do you seriously think people don't die from not being able to access care in America?

[radamanthys]

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Health%20Care&year=1903_2010&sname=US&units=p&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&col=c&spending0=0.25_0.27_0.25_0.25_0.24_0.29_0.28_0.29_ 0.30_0.29_0.29_0.34_0.36_0.31_0.28_0.25_0.28_0.28_ 0.40_0.48_0.43_0.44_0.43_0.42_0.45_0.47_0.47_0.57_ 0.72_0.99_0.99_0.81_0.77_0.71_0.69_0.79_0.77_0.72_ 0.57_0.44_0.40_0.39_0.45_0.51_0.63_0.72_0.87_0.92_ 0.87_0.89_0.86_0.89_0.83_0.85_0.90_0.98_1.00_1.00_ 1.04_0.95_0.99_1.01_0.99_1.08_1.53_1.82_1.97_2.10_ 2.19_2.34_2.26_2.42_2.73_2.86_2.94_2.89_2.94_3.14_ 3.27_3.53_3.54_3.42_3.53_3.58_3.63_3.63_3.60_3.87_ 4.18_4.62_4.76_4.88_5.09_5.07_5.01_4.89_4.72_4.73_ 5.00_5.31_5.55_5.66_5.84_5.86_6.10_6.27_7.15_7.57&legend=&source=i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i _i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i _a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_g_g


1965 was when medicare and medicaid were introduced. You tell me if there's a correlation between rising costs and government intervention.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

2) A portion of that cost is also malpractice insurance. Nowadays someone screws up, you sue them, after all, it's like hitting the lotto. it's one thing if the Dr was drunk/High and cut off the wrong leg. it's another if the dr accidentally nicked a veil taking out a tumor and had to open you up to fix the vein. ( happened to a relative, who did NOT sue, since the Dr had still saved their life, but the DR worried they would be sued ) Dr's and Hospitals pass this charge onto you.

I'm not going to get into it about the government's health reform..... but this.. Wow, I wonder where my massive amounts of money are since I filed and won a malpractice suit?

[Warriorbird]

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Health%20Care&year=1903_2010&sname=US&units=p&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&col=c&spending0=0.25_0.27_0.25_0.25_0.24_0.29_0.28_0.29_ 0.30_0.29_0.29_0.34_0.36_0.31_0.28_0.25_0.28_0.28_ 0.40_0.48_0.43_0.44_0.43_0.42_0.45_0.47_0.47_0.57_ 0.72_0.99_0.99_0.81_0.77_0.71_0.69_0.79_0.77_0.72_ 0.57_0.44_0.40_0.39_0.45_0.51_0.63_0.72_0.87_0.92_ 0.87_0.89_0.86_0.89_0.83_0.85_0.90_0.98_1.00_1.00_ 1.04_0.95_0.99_1.01_0.99_1.08_1.53_1.82_1.97_2.10_ 2.19_2.34_2.26_2.42_2.73_2.86_2.94_2.89_2.94_3.14_ 3.27_3.53_3.54_3.42_3.53_3.58_3.63_3.63_3.60_3.87_ 4.18_4.62_4.76_4.88_5.09_5.07_5.01_4.89_4.72_4.73_ 5.00_5.31_5.55_5.66_5.84_5.86_6.10_6.27_7.15_7.57&legend=&source=i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i _i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i _a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_g_g


1965 was when medicare and medicaid were introduced. You tell me if there's a correlation between rising costs and government intervention.

You tell me if you think we had a good healthcare system in 1965.

[TheEschaton]

This thread is like $7 gas, it needs some Gor to get anyone to read it.

[crb]

"Enough money" is whatever quarterly profit line is needed for shareholders to not boot whoever is running the company. Any CEO of a publicly traded company is going to do whatever it takes to keep that job/make that bonus/pad that resume. It just so happens that in the business of health care that shit might run up against the best wishes of your consumer.

So comrade--why not just make this one choice a little easier for them. Hell, I believe there were a few insurance company CEO's last year that said they would welcome the change and find new ways to profit.


Here is my problem with the class warfare and anticapitalism that runs through your posts.

1. Health insurance companies have some of the slimmest profit margins of any industry, period.

2. not for profit health insurance companies are all over the place, I can't speak for everywhere, but in my state the largest insurer is the federal government (like everywhere else) but the second largest insurer is a nonprofit. It still has rate increases, it still charges a lot. Health insurance companies are not robber baron profiteers.



This isn't news. If you haven't read at least 10 stories in the last 5 years of people who have died due to an insurance company pulling their coverage on some technicality than you haven't been reading anything

How does this happen? Honestly. If you're employed, and get insurance from your employer, you keep your insurance as long as you're employed there. If you get fired, you keep it with a federal subsidy through XX weeks (I don't know what it is anymore, they raised it a bunch the last few years).

If you're one of the few who buys it on the individual market, there are insurers who sell nonmedically underwritten insurance, such as the large nonprofit in my state, that don't kick people out because they don't care about your risk factors.

But what is a technicality? Lying about smoking or family history to a medically underwritten policy provider? How is that a technicality? If you want life insurance and fail to tell the insurance company you have 1 month to live, that is fraud.

In anycase, the healthcare bills removal of lifetime limits as a good thing, the preexisting conditions thing was a good thing (but it ONLY works with an individual mandate, for obvious reasons), the 26 year old slacker thing was stupid.

As I said though, the problem with the bill is it did nothing to address medical inflation. You're going to hurt quality of care and increase costs. Already insurance premiums are rising directly because of the bill, and as reimbursements are cut or stay level (while simultaneously adding 30 million people into the system) quality of care will decrease.

[crb]

So, Jarvan. Why do we spend more of our GDP on it than anywhere else in the world if the system is so awesome? Including those horrible countries where they cover everybody?

1. You have to compare apples to apples. Countries that cover everybody do so by having lower quality care or rationing by waiting, limiting cutting edge treatments, etc.

Have you seen pictures of a real cuban hospital that treats cubans, and not foreigners.

http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm

Go, look at the pictures. Seriously, go. Then let us know if that is the kind of healthcare you want.

2. 85% of our population has the best healthcare in the world. Another 15% of our population can go into hospital ERs and get free care subsidized by rich people (people with insurance). Many of them also qualify for existing federal programs like medicaid, but fail to sign up. And then there are free clinics. Any elderly person who has had a job in their life is given free healthcare, as are children of the poor. Disabled people are also given free healthcare. Only people of working age who are not disabled are expected to work for it. This is bad how?

Providing 85% of your population the best healthcare in the world is expensive. We also have a problem of overconsumption. Gold plated health insurance plans like many unions have where the individual consumer has no out of pocket costs for many services results in moral hazard and overconsumption. Imposing a tax on these plans, OR doing what every economist has suggested we do and tax all employee health plans as the wages they are, would result in less overconsumption, and lower overall costs. Obama thought about doing this, to his credit.... until his backers in the unions fought it. It was removed from the bill.

Also, remember, in the 15% who don't have insurance are people who could afford it, but chose not to. They chose to drive nicer cars or go on more vacations, they're usually young, and single, and think they're invincible. They could afford insurance, but they don't.

You keep mentioning how much we spend and inferring we're the worst in the world. We're not, we have the best healthcare. Our survival rates for all major diseases from cancer to heart disease is at the top in every survey. Our waiting times for procedures are the lowest. And 85% of our population has this.

[crb]

I'm not going to get into it about the government's health reform..... but this.. Wow, I wonder where my massive amounts of money are since I filed and won a malpractice suit?

the lawyer has it.

[Bobmuhthol]

I tend to believe PhD NBER health economists over "I did this and I don't have a lot of money because of it." Incentives as a result of medical malpractice torts drive the cost of health care up significantly.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I know tort reform is needed, but Jarvan's language is incendiary, not to mention very 'blame the victim'. Yes, a lot of money gets paid out but when you take into account the massive lawyer and medical bills, not even counting wages/income lost by the victim (and sometimes victim's family) due to the malpractice in the first place, and the arduous and emotionally and mentally taxing judicial process, implying that a malpractice suit is an easy, holy-grail pathway to richness is retarded.

TL;DR version - I don't object to the sentiment that we need tort reform, I do object to being an alarmist dickhole about it.

[Sean]

I'm not going to get into it about the government's health reform..... but this.. Wow, I wonder where my massive amounts of money are since I filed and won a malpractice suit?

Wait you won a settlement? Drinks are on Nikki at the next gathering.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Wait you won a settlement? Drinks are on Nikki at the next gathering.

The drinks were on me at the last gathering!

If you count nestled in my cleavage as "on", that is.

eta: just saw your edit comment. :(

[Ryvicke]

You all realize that every single major industry carries insurance for their actions, right? Avoiding liability through general contracting, proprietary product guarantees, non-liability waivers and any other way people can dream up is de rigeur. Possible legal action affects the price of everything.

[Ryvicke]

Here is my problem with the class warfare and anticapitalism that runs through your posts.

I am in no way anti-capitalist. I am firmly opposed to communism, socialism and any form of collectivist society that could possibly take root in America.

That said, this one's gon blow all yalls minds: TAXES/SOCIAL SERVICES != COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM.

It's a lazy tactic to just keep repeating that these things are linked.

Also I disagree that there is any strain of "class warfare" running throughout my posts. For the first three years I was in New York I profited greatly from the mega-rich (the .01th percentile). I'm definitely glad they exist, they have more money than they know what to do with. In my three years of work I learned the ways these people can and do avoid massive amounts of taxes. I'd like to see that end and their taxes raised--that's all.

[g++]

Also I disagree that there is any strain of "class warfare" running throughout my posts. For the first three years I was in New York I profited greatly from the mega-rich (the .01th percentile). I'm definitely glad they exist, they have more money than they know what to do with. In my three years of work I learned the ways these people can and do avoid massive amounts of taxes. I'd like to see that end and their taxes raised--that's all.

So once we manage to redistribute the wealth of a minority of our citizens (but in a very non-socialist way of course!) what will be the point of attempting to get rich. How do you define the .01%? Whats the minimum and if we need more money do you think expanding to 1% would be ok? What about 5%? Do you think theres something wrong with arbitrarily taking money from people based on how much money they have?

[Sean]

I am in no way anti-capitalist. I am firmly opposed to communism, socialism and any form of collectivist society that could possibly take root in America.

That said, this one's gon blow all yalls minds: TAXES/SOCIAL SERVICES != COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM.

It's a lazy tactic to just keep repeating that these things are linked.

Also I disagree that there is any strain of "class warfare" running throughout my posts. For the first three years I was in New York I profited greatly from the mega-rich (the .01th percentile). I'm definitely glad they exist, they have more money than they know what to do with. In my three years of work I learned the ways these people can and do avoid massive amounts of taxes. I'd like to see that end and their taxes raised--that's all.

Don't you work for FEMA? Stop using my tax dollars to help people!

[Ryvicke]

So once we manage to redistribute the wealth of a minority of our citizens (but in a very non-socialist way of course!) what will be the point of attempting to get rich. How do you define the .01%? Whats the minimum and if we need more money do you think expanding to 1% would be ok? What about 5%? Do you think theres something wrong with arbitrarily taking money from people based on how much money they have?

Really?

[g++]

Really?

I just thought this was the most appropriate response.

[Bobmuhthol]

Taxes are marginal. There is no such thing as taxing someone "based on how much money they have."

[g++]

Exuse me, change the bolded part to "makes the most money". By the way no one had any idea what I was saying until we got that out of the way.

[Daniel]

So once we manage to redistribute the wealth of a minority of our citizens (but in a very non-socialist way of course!) what will be the point of attempting to get rich.

I'd imagine it will be the same motivation that made you strive to make money before taxes were increased: To make money.

[Bobmuhthol]

No, I don't think there's anything wrong with taxing people based on how much money they make.

[g++]

I'd imagine it will be the same motivation that made you strive to make money before taxes were increased: To make money.

If you tax one bracket disproportionately it will become clear to people they are operating at diminishing returns. Not to mention the problems that arise on tax bracket bounderies that already exist on the lower spectrum of income. IE "I cant go full time because ill lose my benefits" etc. It does change behavior and lower motivation.

[Daniel]

If you tax one bracket disproportionately it will become clear to people they are operating at diminishing returns. Not to mention the problems that arise on tax bracket bounderies that already exist on the lower spectrum of income. IE "I cant go full time because ill lose my benefits" etc. It does change behavior and lower motivation.

So? You think people don't want to make money even with diminishing returns?

[g++]

Of course they do but if someone is making just under the amount to enter a bracket that will trigger taxes that offset their earnings do you think they wont realize that? If the boss makes 50k more than you and gives 25k of it to the government and dies 10 years earlier because of the stress who the hell wants to be the boss?

[Daniel]

Of course they do but if someone is making just under the amount to enter a bracket that will trigger taxes that offset their earnings do you think they wont realize that? If the boss makes 50k more than you and gives 25k of it to the government and dies 10 years earlier because of the stress who the hell wants to be the boss?

So you don't understand how taxes work?

[Bobmuhthol]

Yeah you seriously don't understand taxes.

[g++]

So you don't understand how taxes work?

I understand you're taxed on each bracket. That doesnt mean someone would not understand that if they accepted a much harder job that paid 50k more into a rediculously over taxed bracket that that money would not actually be the same as the rest of their salary.

[Daniel]

I understand you're taxed on each bracket. That doesnt mean someone would not understand that if they accepted a much harder job that paid 50k more into a rediculously over taxed bracket that that money would not actually be the same as the rest of their salary.

Yea. I'd conjecture that most people in this country would take 50k more a year (with a median income somewhere in the thirties), even if they had to work harder for it.

If we're talking about someone who makes more than 250k a year, which we are, we're probably nor talking a dramatic shift in what they're doing for that pay increase. You just don't all of a sudden up and make 250k a year.

[g++]

Yea. I'd conjecture that most people in this country would take 50k more a year (with a median income somewhere in the thirties), even if they had to work harder for it.

If we're talking about someone who makes more than 250k a year, which we are, we're probably nor talking a dramatic shift in what they're doing for that pay increase. You just don't all of a sudden up and make 250k a year.

Yah true enough. Im just saying if you solve all of your problems by saying just tax the top eventually the top will just stop trying to work harder and jobs with varying degrees of difficulty will have essentially the same pay. What that threshold is I have no idea but Im sure it exists.

If the tax scale went completely gradient and after 5 million you were taxed 80% of your income for instance then taking a promotion or looking for a better job would basically be a joke. Its an extreme but its getting there in some other countries.

It causes a loss of incentive bottom line. Its just harder to see because were talking about people who already make large amounts of money. The precedent is not good though in my opinion.

[Daniel]

Yah true enough. Im just saying if you solve all of your problems by saying just tax the top eventually the top will just stop trying to work harder and jobs with varying degrees of difficulty will have essentially the same pay. What that threshold is I have no idea but Im sure it exists.

If the tax scale went completely gradient and after 5 million you were taxed 80% of your income for instance then taking a promotion or looking for a better job would basically be a joke. Its an extreme but its getting there in some other countries.

It causes a loss of incentive bottom line. Its just harder to see because were talking about people who already make large amounts of money. The precedent is not good though in my opinion.


Probably not. There aren't many 5million dollar a year salaries hanging around. Even still, even if they taxed you 80% (which is VERY VERY far from wha tis being talked about) after 5million then you're still doing pretty well for yourself and still have all the incentive in the world to keep working.

[Bobmuhthol]

Income is not even close to being a function of effort. Higher income is definitely not associated with harder work.

[Ryvicke]

Income is not even close to being a function of effort. Higher income is definitely not associated with harder work.

I'm loving you in this thread.

[Warriorbird]

The best entrepreneurs are often the best fish in barrel shooters.