Blue Cross of Calif. Insurance rise.....I am sure this is just the tip of the berg for all other insurances.....
jloomis
February 11, 2009|By Victoria Colliver, Chronicle Staff Writer
Anthem Blue Cross, which plans to raise premiums for about four-fifths of
the health insurer's individual policyholders effective March 1, has
outraged members, many of whom have been hit with price increases of more
than 30 percent.
San Francisco resident and cafe owner Jesse Fink, who has had Blue Cross
coverage for at least 30 years, has gotten used to regular premium
increases. But he wasn't prepared for a letter telling him the cost to cover
himself and his family would jump by 31 percent on March 1.
"How could they just charge a 31 percent increase?" said Fink, 55, who
already has raised his annual deductibles from $2,500 to $5,000 per family
member. He said his 23-year-old son, who is on a separate policy, got a 40
percent increase.
"This is pushing the need for health care reform," he said. "When someone
gets, God forbid, cancer or something, are we supposed to go broke?"
Anthem Blue Cross, formerly Blue Cross of California, covers about 800,000
individual policyholders in California, more individual members than any
other insurer in the state. Individual policies are typically purchased by
people who do not have access to a group policy through an employer.
Anthem officials confirmed the company will raise rates March 1 for about 80
percent of its individual members.
Higher costs blamed
In a statement, the insurer blamed the increase in health costs for the
higher premiums, in particular "the increasing need for medical services,
the use of new, expensive prescription drugs and advanced technologies."
"We have seen double-digit premium increases. This year seems higher, and
there's a large block, a majority, who are seeing double-digit increases,
and some are clearly higher than others," said Anthem Blue Cross spokesman
Ben Singer. Singer said some plans have been repriced. "The new rates
reflect both the current medical costs that that product has seen with
individual members, as well as projections," he said, adding that members
also may see increases due to their age.
The insurer's response did little to assuage customers like Alla Marinow, a
Berkeley resident and small-business owner who received a 31 percent premium
increase for herself and her husband. Coverage will cost the couple $855 a
month starting March 1.
Marinow, 57, filed a grievance and has asked Anthem Blue Cross' chief
financial officer for a detailed financial explanation of the increase.
"We'll see what happens. I'll probably get nothing, but it makes me feel
better," she said.
I had to put this in........I am not the only one outraged......
john
I.P. Freely
I repeat in part: Your premiums are forecast to increase by at least 53%
under Obamacare -- likely much more if young people don't buy Obamacare
and old sick people do -- according to industry statistics contractually
analyzed by the Oliver Wyman consulting firm for Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
Yes. Your 30% increase is the tip of an iceberg if Pelosi is a good
pole-vaulter.
I.P.
jloomis
If everyone paid into the system we would all benefit.
The trouble is not everyone pays......they are riding free.........
The Health Inusrance olicy should cover all.
Politicians and American citizens. (equally)
We should all pay into it equally, and cut out the profit aspect........
You have government insurance.......
It is easy for you to get on the pulpit........
I do not.
john
"I.P. Freely" <fuhghed...@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:D8k9n.29381$_96....@newsfe02.iad...
He'sDeadJim
God can't you ever just stfu?This is why this newsgroup doesn't have
much of membership. It's because of you continually turning this into
a political forum insted of what it should be.
So I.P we're supposed to weigh your SPECULATIVE healthcare increases
that you get from Faux news over the REALITY of a 30% increase that
has been announced.
I'm a gambler lets see a healthcare bill passed and see what really
happens. It can't be much worse that what is happeniong now or could
be much better. Who knows anymore. Either way the current trend in
health insurance wil soon be unaffordable to most of us. But not you
with your goverenment healthcare eh IP? What a hypocrite you are.
Steve Jordan
> God can't you ever just stfu?This is why this newsgroup doesn't have
> much of membership. It's because of you continually turning this into
> a political forum insted of what it should be.
>
> So I.P we're supposed to weigh your SPECULATIVE healthcare increases
> that you get from Faux news over the REALITY of a 30% increase that
> has been announced.
Those increases are set out in the pending bill, and a gratuitous
stab at
Fox News is exactly the sort of politics that "Jim" complains of.
IP paid for his VA benefits via his military service.
So far as Medicare is concerned, "Jim" wants to gamble with the fact
that the monstrosity presently on the table provides for
withdrawal of
$500,000,000,000 from Medicare funding. For "efficiency" dontcha
know.
How many of us on Medicare will die as a result? Is that the
intended result?
I dunno.
Regards,
Steve J
He'sDeadJim
wrote:
There's no gamble going on now? People are losing health insurance
every day now or being priced out of the mareket. In fact I am a
veteran and also a federal government retiree with excellent
insurance. With that said I unlike IP can still feel empathy for what
friends and family are going through in the current healthcare fiasco.
You know that insurance cartel that pays it ceos with Wall stree type
bonuses along with being able to spend millions on anti-healthcare tv
ads while denying coverage to many of those who have paid premiums.
Yeah the current state is just great isn't it? No wonder we are the
laughingstock of the rest of the first world because of that. So with
the status quo yeah I'll gamble because this can't go on much longer.
AS far as your medicare argument first you need to be able to reach
the age of 65 to even get it. Man of those showing up uninsured
now at emergency rooms with advanced disesaes never will then include
those underinsured too.
Yeah I'll knock fox news with it's over 65 undereducated audience many
who mouth the nonsense of Beck against their interests. Reminds me of
the Fox sponsored tea baggers here one who fater a scufflr wound up at
a local hopspital wiuth a broken anke and no insurance. Guess who paid
for his medical care? It wasn't fox news.
The current healthcare is a monstrosity I agree I'm all for blowing up
the archaic senate filibuster rules to to pass better legislation. No
wonder the world keeps laughiung at us we have a body of government
where 41 - 59 is in all essence a majority that represents 30+% of
the population.
So no comment on my line how IP limits the active members of this
newgroup with his continual effort to turn all he can into a politcal
discussion? There's a few web sites where you can get far more
support than you can where without all the republican talking points
and the always present fox news propaganda courtesy of IP. Few
participate here very long or often because of him.
I.P. Freely
> That is hog wash.
I agree. That's why Reid and Pelosi should consider the many other bills
and solutions submitted in droves by the 500+ Congressmen to their
political right. Many less destructive and far cheaper ways to improve
our health care system have been formally proposed to those two clowns,
but they refuse to consider them.
> If everyone paid into the system we would all benefit.
No, *some of* those who earn less than the average would benefit.
This, of course, also applies to other commodities such as houses, cars,
incomes, school grades, plasma TVs, and college tuition. Where should we
draw the line? If everyone benefited from socialism, why did the USSR
collapse?
> The trouble is not everyone pays......they are riding free
The health care bills do not change that. In fact they make it worse;
under them no (rational) person of any age will have any reason to buy
health care insurance before his collision or cancer diagnosis.
> The Health Inusrance olicy should cover allPoliticians
Of course. But they make the laws, so they get to exclude themselves, as
they do in every other regard.
> and American citizens. (equally)
Still hung up on that USSR model, huh? Geez, man, if you want to live
under communism or socialism, there's always Cuba or Switzerland. I'm
sorry to seem so cold to a fellow cancer survivor, but I get tired of
people live here by choice but want to destroy what's best about this
nation, especially its freedom and opportunity.
> We should all pay into it equally, and cut out the profit aspect
With no profit motive, who's going to administer the care, do any
research, develop new medicines and equipment, manage the paperwork,
count the beans, etc? How often to DMV clerks stay late because there
are still customers in line?
> You have government insurance
What's your point with that mantra? It sucks compared with your Blue
Cross insurance, but because I manage my own health care despite
government ineptitude, I've gotten by with it so far.
> I do not.
I made choices. You made choices. Everyone made choices. Only a small
percentage of us are true victims of circumstances beyond our control.
Why do I have any right to have the government take money from Bill
Gates at gunpoint and give it to me just because I earn less? Hell, my
family gave his family money decades ago (his future wife babysat my
nieces), so it's not like we started out in different worlds of
opportunity.
I.P.
Steve Jordan
diatribe that includes so many errors and evasions (how about the
$5 trillion taken from Medicare?) that it would require much more
space to answer point by point than (I think) most here would
tolerate.
A little judicious political comment is fine, IMO. Much of what
is intended to happen
to healthcare is most certainly politically-inspired and comment
thereon (and only thereon) is, again IMO, not out of place.
As for defending IP from "Jim's" comment about running people
off, he's a big boy
and can handle that himself.
As for calling people "tea baggers," I wonder whether "Jim" is
aware of its sexual-deviance meaning. If he is, he should be
ashamed of using such a term to insult and
try to degrade folks who are very worried about the future of
their health care.
I am one of them. I am terrified that my med onc just might dump
me if/when the current plans for Medicare are in force. I know
people who are being required to find a different medic because
their current one has decided not to deal with Medicare.
Some time ago, my med onc referred me to a uro (ugh) for an
updated exam. He refused; will not accept Medicare. He's one of
the best and brightest, as well as a PCa patient, himself. Very
disappointing.
I don't know of anyone who desires that sick people be denied
care. I also don't know of anyone who has died in the gutter
because such care was unavailable. That sort of story is pure
lawn fertilizer.
Last political remark: "Jim" seems to believe that "the world"
laughs at us because we have a political system wherein the
majority rules. And if he doesn't like the result, he
wants something different that will be satisfactory to him.
Once. I doubt that "Jim" is correct, and even if he were, so
what? I care not what any foreigner thinks of my country.
Enough. I'm at risk of writing a book.
Regards,
Steve J
"The most important aspect in the care of the patient is caring
about the patient."
--Sir Francis Peabody
Address to Harvard Medical Students, 1926
Ronju99
What drives inflation is Demand. In this case when the insurance
companies and medical institutions anticipate increase demand from the
Federal Government; via universal health care, they start raising
their rates. It's plain economics. Medicare itself has been a source
of ever increasing demand over the past several years driving up cost.
It will only get worse.
If you want to gamble, go to Vegas, but don't gamble with my taxes.
I'm also one of those uneducated followers of Fox news and Glenn Beck.
I.P., Hang in there. I find your comments enlightening.
Ron S.
He'sDeadJim
wrote:
>On 1/31/10 2:05 PM, He'sDeadJim replied to me with a political
>diatribe that includes so many errors and evasions (how about the
>$5 trillion taken from Medicare?) that it would require much more
>space to answer point by point than (I think) most here would
>tolerate.
>
>A little judicious political comment is fine, IMO. Much of what
>is intended to happen
>to healthcare is most certainly politically-inspired and comment
>thereon (and only thereon) is, again IMO, not out of place
No not out of place at times. IP tries to bring it up all he can and
this is not a poltical forum. As I've said before I go way back in the
newsgroups and I can see a newsgroup bully like IP a mile away. One
who believe he's the first amongst all here and owns the group.
>
>As for defending IP from "Jim's" comment about running people
>off, he's a big boy
>and can handle that himself.
>
>As for calling people "tea baggers," I wonder whether "Jim" is
>aware of its sexual-deviance meaning. If he is, he should be
>ashamed of using such a term to insult and
>try to degrade folks who are very worried about the future of
>their health care.
Yes and I wonder if you are trying to deny it was the tea baggers
first who called themselves that unbeknownest as to it's sexual
meaning. So don't blame me for their being naive. At the outset last
summer there many protesters were wearing tea bags and one of the
original corporate funded tea party organizers ordered a truck load
of tea bags for it.
>
>I am one of them. I am terrified that my med onc just might dump
>me if/when the current plans for Medicare are in force. I know
>people who are being required to find a different medic because
>their current one has decided not to deal with Medicare.
And how many are now losing jobs and thus their medical insurance soon
after. How many employers are eliminating such because of rising
premiums?
>Some time ago, my med onc referred me to a uro (ugh) for an
>updated exam. He refused; will not accept Medicare. He's one of
>the best and brightest, as well as a PCa patient, himself. Very
>disappointing.
At least you have the medicare option others younger with PCa don't.
But you were disappointed. My god the humanity!!!!!. Not quite the
same IMO.
>
>I don't know of anyone who desires that sick people be denied
>care. I also don't know of anyone who has died in the gutter
>because such care was unavailable. That sort of story is pure
>lawn fertilizer.
I never said died in the gutter. You are putting words in my mouth., I
said the show up eventually in emergency rooms many who by then are
terminal.
>
>Last political remark: "Jim" seems to believe that "the world"
>laughs at us because we have a political system wherein the
>majority rules. And if he doesn't like the result, he
> wants something different that will be satisfactory to him.
>Once. I doubt that "Jim" is correct, and even if he were, so
>what? I care not what any foreigner thinks of my country.
Of course not for you righties it's all about me me me. It's like Rush
Limbaugh who is a multi millionaire staying in a posh resort has
chest pains and declares all is well in US healthcare by the way his
rich fat ass was treated.
>
>Enough. I'm at risk of writing a book.
Yeah you guys sure don't read many.
>
>Regards,
>
>Steve J
Love,
HDJim
>
He'sDeadJim
Of course they have to pay their ceo wall street type bonuses and fund
million dolar a day tv adds fighting reform. Are those costs part of
your demand?
>
>If you want to gamble, go to Vegas, but don't gamble with my taxes.
>I'm also one of those uneducated followers of Fox news and Glenn Beck.
Sorry when someone listens to a blubbery crazy man talk about FEMA
building reeducation camps I can't help question your intelligence and
education. So aren't you concerned about your premiums continuing to
rise to the point they are not affordable? Or are you one those over
65 tea baggers holding up signs to stop the government from taking
over medicare?
>
>I.P., Hang in there. I find your comments enlightening.
Shed a few tears with Uncle Glen that'll make you feel even better.
>
>Ron S.
I.P. Freely
>
> I.P., Hang in there. I find your comments enlightening.
Thanks, Ron. I plan to, if for no other reason than to try to open
people's eyes to forces and facts, plus a few opinions identified as
such, relevant to the charter of this forum. I've tried hard in recent
months to avoid politics not relevant to our health. If some people
don't want to hear politics which are inseparable from their health,
they know how to killfile me. Politics, like cancer and its effects,
disgust me, too, but certain aspects of both affect our very lives and
our families; we ignore either at our own and our families' peril.
I was stunned to learn that the living will I researched at length and
paid a lot of money for can be rejected by so many hospitals; given any
options I will choose my terminal care facility and physicians with
utmost care and require them to agree in writing to honor my and my
wife's objections to indefinite artificial brain wave support.
Jim, it's $435B, not $5T.
I.P.
Steve Jordan
That he paid zero attention to my post re: "tea bagger" and the
fact that the phrase is that of a sexual pervert.
Too bad.
Steve J
"Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't."
-- Mark Twain
Steve Jordan
Much that has little relevance to real life among those of us who
are trying to cope with PCa.
I have nothing further to say to him. He WILL NOT learn.
Especially about the the "moral equivalence" argument: I'll use
"tea bagger" cuz the demonstrators (allegedly) did so. They did
it (not knowing it implied sexual deviance) so I will, too,
knowing exactly what it means.
Uh huh.
Regards,
Steve J
Alan Meyer
> Big jump in Blue Cross premiums sparks outrage
> February 11, 2009|By Victoria Colliver, Chronicle Staff Writer
> Anthem Blue Cross, which plans to raise premiums for about
> four-fifths of the health insurer's individual policyholders
> effective March 1, has outraged members, many of whom have been
> hit with price increases of more than 30 percent.
I'm going to pour a little gasoline on this fire and say that,
personally, I would favor a single payer health plan.
I know that government bureaucrats aren't always the brightest
and most motivated folks, but I can't say that the insurance
company bureaucrats I've talked to are prize winners either.
Furthermore, unlike the government bureaucrats, the insurance
company folks often lie, cheat and steal from you and from the
doctors, under pressure from their bosses to reduce payments.
So you get the same incompetence but leavened with a bigger dose
of malfeasance as well.
As for costs, insurance companies spend a fortune on their own
administration and, on top of that, pay managed care companies as
intermediaries and, on top of that, pay million dollar plus
salaries and bonuses to top officials, and in some cases have
shareholders to pay too. They also virtually force the doctors
to pay lots of money to clerical workers and/or collection
agencies to do the billing and fight the companies in order to
get paid what they are due. So extra costs are built-in all
along the line.
The private insurers have little incentive to hold down costs
since, unlike taxes, there is no one to stop them from raising
premiums and competition is something of a joke (a little like
the competition between Viagra, Levitra and Cialis - which has
nothing to do with price.) As I understand it, all the studies
show that both Medicare and the Canadian health service have
significantly lower administrative costs than private insurers
and, unlike them, they insure almost everyone, and they don't
look for ways to drop people from the rolls if they get sick.
I am particularly amused at the arguments that say we shouldn't
have health care reform because some of the money might come out
of Medicare. This amuses me because the people who want to block
health care reform are the very ones that did their level best to
prevent Medicare from existing at all.
I have a Republican cousin who yelled at me for not understanding
what a serious problem it is when the Obama administration did
not raise Social Security payments this year (actually not their
choice but a consequence of the built-in payment rules) and for
possible harm to Medicare. I couldn't convince him that if the
Republicans had their way, there wouldn't be any Social Security
or Medicare at all since both of the programs were passed over
strenuous Republican efforts to stop them, and later efforts to
water them down (for example the Bush proposals to put SS into
the stock market - proposals that somehow disappeared when the
market crashed.) He's a guy that would truly be up the creek if
those two programs went away, but he's out there listening to
Limbaugh and Beck and voting Republican every time.
I.P. thinks that we each make choices and those of us suffering
from health insurance troubles should have chosen differently.
But it ain't that simple. There are many people who worked hard
all their lives, paid insurance premiums all their lives, and now
find that, although they've put many tens of thousands of dollars
into the system, now, when they need it, the insurance is being
priced way over their heads and no other insurers will take them.
Assuming they didn't have the chance to become insurance company
executives, stock brokers, or bankers, I don't know what choice
people could have made to enable them to comfortably pay $20,000
a year for health insurance. And who among us, thirty years ago,
imagined we'd be paying this much for insurance?
Now I've said it. Strike the match! Go ahead and roast my hide.
[Isn't this fun?]
Alan
jloomis
Thank You for giving some explaination and light in this dark divided
tunnel.
I feel as an American that Health Care should not be a capitalistic venture
but a right for both rich and poor.
john loomis
"Alan Meyer" <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hk5jgs$ijf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Steve Kramer
news:hk5jgs$ijf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> I'm going to pour a little gasoline on this fire and say that,
> personally, I would favor a single payer health plan.
>
> I know that government bureaucrats aren't always the brightest
> and most motivated folks, but I can't say that the insurance
> company bureaucrats I've talked to are prize winners either.
> Furthermore, unlike the government bureaucrats, the insurance
> company folks often lie, cheat and steal from you and from the
> doctors, under pressure from their bosses to reduce payments.
> So you get the same incompetence but leavened with a bigger dose
> of malfeasance as well.
-- skramer remarks
It may be (is almost certainly) true that there is amoral and possibly
illegal activity within insurance companies and whatever there is is likely
driving up our costs. There are other problems, including illegal
activities, by doctors, nurses, and patients with respect to drugs,
diagnoses, and incompetence that are driving up our costs. There are
external factors, such as ridiculous law suits and government interference
driving up our costs. And, there is more.
The only intelligent way to solve these or any problems is through a problem
resolution process. Perhaps the worst way is to say, 'okay, there is a
problem so the Federal Government gets to take over.' A very short problem
resolution model is SARA - Scan, Analyze, Respond, and Assess. Over the
years, there I have seen five step, six step, seven step and even a nine
step models. But,the all boil down to using a process that finds the best
response to a problem and then assess it to determine what improvements need
to be made or if it was the wrong idea. Giving a problem to the Federal
Government does exactly the opposite of problem resolution. They go to
straight to Respond and stop there and nothing - NOTHING- ever gets improved
or revoked.
To introduce the Federal Government now does two things very quickly (and
certainly): One, it replaces insurance companies as the defrauders of
America (without replaceing the fraudulent doctors, nurses, patients,
lawyers). Two, it causes rules arbitrarily established by insurance
companies to become Federal Law arbitrarily established by the government.
You might want to add a third, in that there will now be no government
oversight, so the sky is the limit on the waste and death they will cause.
This most recent spectacle in the House and Senate should serve as the
perfect example of what sort of rules/laws you will receive. There is no
doubt in my mind that no one will, in time, receive treatment for prostate
cancer based on PSA results or after they are 70 because they had to buy a
bridge in Kansas for the vote.
Furthermore, the Federal Government MAY NOT take over the health industry.
Not that it has stopped them in with the banks and auto industry, but there
are no provisions for taking over private industry. Some may say they
cannot even regulate it as it does not constitute any definition of
'interstate commerce' known to any man in 1791. Indeed, this problem is
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In other words, in the problem resolution process, when you get to the
analysis stage, one would poke his hand up and say, "they are not
Constitutionally permitted to do so" and the group gives a collective sigh
and says, "okay, move on to the next idea."
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD 0.56 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.40 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA undetectable since. Next Assay 02/02/10
Illegitimati non carborundum
He'sDeadJim
wrote:
>On 1/31/10 4:16 PM, "Jim" wrote:
You tea bagger you. Like that's such a major issue. Sorry dude I still
see those old ladies with tea bags stapled all over their straw hats
in my mind every time the tea baggers get in the news. Paying Sarah
Palin how much to speak at their convention? Such a grass roots thing.
LOL
Funny thing about all these healthcare bill protesters is the large
number of hypocrites among them on government medicare;. That's fine
if you're 65 but hell no!!! if you're 64
I.P. Freely
>
> Now I've said it. Strike the match! Go ahead and roast my hide.
No, thanks. I could write several pages of facts and a few opinions
blowing more than a bakers's dozen gaping holes in that post ... to what
avail? Your basis in this issue is ideology, not reality, and I can't
fight that. You get to skate this time.
I.P.
jloomis
Ups I made a mistake....
The insurance premium has been raised 5,6500.00
That is 22,356.00 per year for a couple.
Last year the premium total was 16,706.00
So this is how it should be?
john
"I.P. Freely" <fuhghed...@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:eUL9n.69090$U83....@newsfe10.iad...
I.P. Freely
> Hi I.P.
> Ups I made a mistake....
>
> That is 22,356.00 per year for a couple.
> Last year the premium total was 16,706.00
>
> So this is how it should be?
Of course not. So how are you going to feel when Obamacare kicks in and
your premium hits $25,560.18, as Blue Cross estimates at LEAST? Even the
CBO issued a fairly blistering report concerning the ability of the
current health care reform plans to save money and control health care
costs for the long term. In an ominous sign for proponents,
Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf told the Senate
Budget Committee that none of the bills he has seen would contain health
care costs to reduce them significantly over time. (This is the main
argument offered by Obama and Democrats as to why Congress can spend $1
trillion and save money.) �In the legislation that has been reported we
do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to
reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant
amount,� Elmendorf said.
That's a small part of why the Republicans have submitted so many
comprehensive counter-proposals to the ridiculous Senate and House
health care bills, and an even bigger part of why Obamacare is dead,
just like the previous 5 or 6 attempts since WW II to pass universal
health care legislation. Pelosi can pole vault and parachute 'til the
cows come home, but now that the informed public has -- despite the
administration's heroic efforts to keep both the bills and their
resolution secret from the Republicans, the public, and most Democratic
congressmen -- seen the hundreds of criminal, unconstitutional,
federally bankruptive, math-defying, anti-capitalist,
public-funded-abortion, pro Big Pharma, pro lawyer, pro union,
physician-refused, proven-to-fail concepts and clauses of these
outrageous bills, it's apparently history.
If Obama is smart, he'll try a different tack after the midterm
elections: a rational, affordable, functional, joint health care reform
generated by both sides of the aisle, which improves, rather than
destroys, U.S. health care.
I.P.
Alan Meyer
> ...
> As for costs, insurance companies spend a fortune on their own
> administration and, on top of that, pay managed care companies as
> intermediaries and, on top of that, pay million dollar plus
> salaries and bonuses to top officials, and in some cases have
> shareholders to pay too. They also virtually force the doctors
> to pay lots of money to clerical workers and/or collection
> agencies to do the billing and fight the companies in order to
> get paid what they are due. So extra costs are built-in all
> along the line.
I forgot to add sales and advertising costs, which are not
insignificant, lobbying costs for lobbying local, state and
federal governments, campaign finance costs for bribes to
government officials, money contributed to associations for
the purpose of influencing elections without using the names
of the actual contributors, costs of resorts, travel,
season football tickets and mistress expenses for the top
men in the company, costs for limousines and private jets,
and costs for lawyers to defend all the lawsuits from
angry clients and other lawyers to write the fine print
in the policies.
Have I left anything out?
Alan
Ed Friedman
> Alan Meyer wrote:
>
> Have I left anything out?
>
> Alan
Alan,
Yes, don't forget the solid gold toilet seats for all of the executives:)
Ed Friedman
Alan Meyer
Thanks for the very thoughtful reply Steve.
I've interspersed some responses to some of your comments.
> It may be (is almost certainly) true that there is amoral and
> possibly illegal activity within insurance companies and
> whatever there is is likely driving up our costs. There are
> other problems, including illegal activities, by doctors,
> nurses, and patients with respect to drugs, diagnoses, and
> incompetence that are driving up our costs. There are external
> factors, such as ridiculous law suits and government
> interference driving up our costs. And, there is more.
Agreed, and I also agree that those problems will continue
whether the U.S. government or the private companies provide
health insurance.
> The only intelligent way to solve these or any problems is
> through a problem resolution process. Perhaps the worst way is
> to say, 'okay, there is a problem so the Federal Government
> gets to take over.' A very short problem resolution model is
> SARA - Scan, Analyze, Respond, and Assess. Over the years,
> there I have seen five step, six step, seven step and even a
> nine step models. But,the all boil down to using a process
> that finds the best response to a problem and then assess it to
> determine what improvements need to be made or if it was the
> wrong idea. Giving a problem to the Federal Government does
> exactly the opposite of problem resolution. They go to
> straight to Respond and stop there and nothing - NOTHING- ever
> gets improved or revoked.
I like the concept you are proposing. Unfortunately, it doesn't
work with political footballs like health care. If everyone were
on the same page with regard to what the problems are, and what
the advantages and disadvantages of various solutions are, we
could use a more rational problem resolution process. But, as we
all know, the different "stakeholders" have competing and
conflicting interests. Insurance companies, doctors, drug
companies, managed care companies, Republicans, Democrats,
seniors, young adults, etc., all have axes to grind. Many of
the the private companies involved are unwilling to compromise
since huge sums of money are at stake. Ditto for politicians for
whom election results are in the balance. For most companies,
there is nothing that will persuade them to do something that
hurts their bottom line. Arguments be damned. This is business.
Similarly, for many politicians, there is nothing that will
persuade them to oppose their constituents (often very liberal
for Democrats and very conservative for Replubicans) if the issue
has high visibility, as health care does.
So the process becomes a matter of battling and horse trading
instead of rationl planning.
BUT! It doesn't follow from that that we can just ignore all
big problems that have conflicting constituencies. We do much
too much of that now. I think we've got to wade in and battle
and horse trade if that's what it takes to make progress.
> To introduce the Federal Government now does two things very
> quickly (and certainly): One, it replaces insurance companies
> as the defrauders of America (without replaceing the fraudulent
> doctors, nurses, patients, lawyers). Two, it causes rules
> arbitrarily established by insurance companies to become
> Federal Law arbitrarily established by the government. You
> might want to add a third, in that there will now be no
> government oversight, so the sky is the limit on the waste and
> death they will cause. This most recent spectacle in the House
> and Senate should serve as the perfect example of what sort of
> rules/laws you will receive. There is no doubt in my mind that
> no one will, in time, receive treatment for prostate cancer
> based on PSA results or after they are 70 because they had to
> buy a bridge in Kansas for the vote.
I might be more likely to agree with you if we didn't have the
experience of Medicare. Unlike the VA, Medicare is not a
government run health system. It's a government run insurance
system. Most people seem to like it and there are damned few who
would vote to take it away.
Even many of the most conservative Republican politicians, people
whose progenitors fought bitterly to prevent the Medicare program
from ever existing, now pose as defenders of Medicare and critics
of new plans that might take some money from some parts of it.
That's how successful Medicare has been!
> Furthermore, the Federal Government MAY NOT take over the
> health industry. Not that it has stopped them in with the
> banks and auto industry, but there are no provisions for taking
> over private industry. Some may say they cannot even regulate
> it as it does not constitute any definition of 'interstate
> commerce' known to any man in 1791. Indeed, this problem is
> reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
>
> In other words, in the problem resolution process, when you get
> to the analysis stage, one would poke his hand up and say,
> "they are not Constitutionally permitted to do so" and the
> group gives a collective sigh and says, "okay, move on to the
> next idea."
I'll leave the legal issue to the lawyers. I know that the
Federal government does do a lot of things that are also done by
state and local governments and by private industry. That
includes law enforcement (FBI, etc.), health care (VA), health
insurance (Medicare), pensions (Social Security), health research
(NIH), weather forecasting, wildlife and forest management, and
on and on.
One last point I'll make is that, if I had my way, we'd have a
single payer system like Canada or like Medicare but, like with
Medicare, we would allow private companies to provide
"supplemental" health insurance.
I'd want the single payer government agency to provide at least
enough coverage that a person could survive without any other
insurance. If that meant no coverage for PSA tests after age 75,
or before 50, or no proton beam treatment, or whatever, so be it.
There would be other alternatives for those who felt they had to
have those things, including paying out of pocket and/or buying
supplemental insurance.
Thanks again for your response.
Alan
Steve Kramer
> On 2/1/2010 7:24 AM, Steve Kramer wrote:
> Thanks again for your response.
No thanks required. It is a pleasure doing debate with you.
I.P. Freely
>
> That's how successful Medicare has been!
Alan, IT'S A PONZI SCHEME that is quickly going bankrupt despite denying
twice as many claims as private insurers do. It may as well be run by
Bernie Madoff, who should be on death row on a short fuse.
Jordan wrote
>> "they are not Constitutionally permitted to do so"
When asked about the constitutionality of a bill before the House,
Pelosi scoffed that that's not relevant. *It's the law that defines what
laws may be passed*, and she says it's irrelevant.
> Even many of the most conservative Republican politicians, people
> whose progenitors fought bitterly to prevent the Medicare program
> from ever existing, now pose as defenders of Medicare and critics
> of new plans that might take some money from some parts of it.
Yet another reason not to bankrupt the nation with a health care system
that has failed miserably whenever tried on a scale larger than New York
City. Once an entitlement is out of the bottle, it won't go back in very
easily.
> I'll leave the legal issue to the lawyers. I know that the
> Federal government does do a lot of things that are also done by
> state and local governments and by private industry. That
> includes law enforcement (FBI, etc.), health care (VA), health
> insurance (Medicare), pensions (Social Security), health research
> (NIH), weather forecasting, wildlife and forest management, and
> on and on.
Several of those are expressly allowed in the Constitution, but even if
they weren't, how would that excuse more violations?
> One last point I'll make is that, if I had my way, we'd have a
> single payer system like Canada
PLEASE explain why any rational person would condemn our nation to a
system proven to fail?
> I'd want the single payer government agency to provide at least
> enough coverage that a person could survive without any other
> insurance.
Bill Gates' insurance can't guarantee that.
> If that meant no coverage for PSA tests after age 75,
> or before 50, or no proton beam treatment, or whatever, so be it.
> There would be other alternatives for those who felt they had to
> have those things, including paying out of pocket and/or buying
> supplemental insurance.
WHY ARE SOCIALISTS SO DAMNED JEALOUS OF THE FACT THAT SOME PEOPLE EARN
MORE THAN OTHERS?
WHAT THE HELL BUSINESS IS IT OF MINE IF SOMEONE ELSE HONESTLY *EARNS*
MORE THAN I DO?
WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO MOTIVATE SUCCESS -- WHICH USUALLY HELPS EVERYONE --
IF NOT GREATER REWARDS FOR GREATER RISK?
WHY ARE SOCIALISTS SO EAGER TO DRAG THE RICH TO THEIR KNEES *RATHER
THAN* LIFTING EVERYONE ELSE TO THEIR FEET?
WHO DO LIBERALS, WHO EARN 6% MORE THAN CONSERVATIVES, GIVE 30% LESS THAN
CONSERVATIVES TO CHARITY?
If Bill Gates is not allowed to pay for the development of the spine
transplant when his fails, it will never get developed.
WHY ARE LIBERALS SO *DAMNED* EAGER TO CONTROL EVERYONE ELSE'S LIVES?
Sorry to be so blunt with the nicest guy here, Alan, but I'm furious at
today's "If I can't have it, no one else should, either", "The
government knows better than the individual how the individual should
live his life", and "GIMME!" mentalities. I've created a great deal of
personal freedom in my life even by American standards, all at my own
initiative, effort, and sacrifice which any competent person could put
forth. A government or an ideology which could deny the next person that
same opportunity by decreeing uniform mediocrity should disgust every
individual on the *planet* and would threatens this nation's future.
Does anyone think the people who pioneered this nation lived by the
paradigms in this paragraph's opening sentence?
I.P.
Alan Meyer
Thank you for the kind words I.P., and also for your analysis.
Although I rarely agree with you, I always find interesting ideas
in your posts, with a point of view that makes clear to me that
there are other intelligent perspectives on all this than mine.
I won't go into your posting in detail but would like to say
that, although I think capitalism works very well for many
things, I think socialism in health insurance is a good thing.
Remember, it's the health insurance I propose to socialize, not
the health providers.
There are many socialized services in the U.S. that I would be
very hard put to do without, including the public schools that
educated my parents, myself, my wife, and my children, and the
public libraries that provide 90% of the books that I read, and
which I would have some trouble affording if I had to buy them
all. I also believe in public police departments, fire
departments, transportation departments, park services, health
research, space exploration, and many other things.
I worked for five years as a librarian in Baltimore's public
library, and I can tell you that the great majority of the
librarians I met were pretty dedicated civil servants. They
worked for a very low salary compared to private industry, but
they believed in what they were doing and got many personal
rewards from helping people to find good books.
I now work with Federal civil servants at the National Cancer
Institute (I'm a contractor, not a civil servant myself.) I have
no hesitation in saying that the majority of people I work with
are dedicated believers in fighting cancer and do the best job
they can. Many of them put in many unpaid extra hours and many
are highly intelligent and effective in their jobs.
As far as I know, every single other developed country has some
sort of universal health care guaranteed by government
involvement of one sort or another. As far as I know, every
single one of them costs less per patient than our private
insurance charges. Also, by many important measures, including
life expectancy, infant mortality, and some others, they provide
better care. These countries are not failing. Some are doing
better than we are economically.
I have a friend from El Salvador who works as a janitor. He's a
relatively uneducated, working class guy. Even his very poor
country provided him with reasonable health care at a very low
cost - something he has a great deal of trouble getting here in
the U.S.
I want everyone to have decent health care partly for altruistic
reasons, but also partly for selfish ones. I don't want people
that I know and care about to suffer, and I don't want to live in
a society among desperate people. It's not a matter of leveling.
It's not a matter of dragging down people with money. I'm
content for there to be rich people. It's a matter of living in
a decent, middle class society.
I support public education for the same reason. Just as I don't
want to live in a society with sick people on the street, I don't
want to live in a society with ignorant illiterates. I don't
want my country to turn into an economic backwater, filled with
large numbers of uneducated, barely employable, half sick,
unproductive people. So I support a strong social safety net
that keeps people out of ignorance, illness, and desperate
poverty, or at least tries hard to do so.
Will rich people have to pay for that? Yes, they will certainly
have to contribute a significant share. But there's no danger of
their becoming poor as a result, or of losing their privileged
life (whether hard earned or merely inherited).
Alan
Steve Kramer
> As far as I know, every single other developed country has some
> sort of universal health care guaranteed by government
> involvement of one sort or another.
-- skramer remarks
Just a point to consider. What makes a country "developed"? It is a
rhetorical question. I have brushed off that argument ever since the first
time one of my kids said, "all the other kids are allowed."
It should be pointed out that the United States is NOT all those other
"developed" countries. We set up our government through a problem
resolution process whereby we looked at all the "developing nations" from
which we fled and brainstormed what was wrong with them. Ben, George, Tom,
John, and others came up with a better idea; some would say the best idea
yet. Indeed, almost all those other "developing" countries adopted very
similar governments in the last two hundred years and most of those have
stuck with them, at least in constitutional wording.
Many have regressed into socialism. Socialism is a mighty attractive
concept. For good and wholesome men, it appears to be the epitome of
fairness. For evildoers, it is an easy and quick way to control masses of
people. The greatest of these are Mao (Communist), Hitler (National
Socialist), Minh (Communist), Kim Il Sung (Communist), Hussein (Arab
Socialist), Mussolini (fascist socialist), Lenin (Communist), and Polpot
(Communist). Socialism just doesn't work. It is a concept held dear by the
ignorant and eveil. It's been tried on every continent (including America)
and failed everywhere it's been tried.
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD 0.56 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.40 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA undetectable since. Next Assay 02/04/10
Illegitimati non carborundum
I.P. Freely
>by many important measures, including
> life expectancy, infant mortality, and some others, they provide
> better care.
As discussed in detail often here before, those are bogus numbers.
Beyond that, three words: Canada, United Kingdom.
> These countries are not failing. Some are doing
> better than we are economically.
Yes, for the moment and because some of the major players (e.g., China)
only recently began their transitions from socialism to capitalism.
They're where we were 100 years ago, maybe including in ways we don't
want to think about.
> I have a friend from El Salvador who works as a janitor. He's a
> relatively uneducated, working class guy. Even his very poor
> country provided him with reasonable health care at a very low
> cost - something he has a great deal of trouble getting here in
> the U.S.
Why? There are several reasonable care systems in place he can use. Has
he, like a majority of people entitled to use them, refused to apply for
them? If El Salvador is such a better place to live, why is he here? OH,
better wages -- thanks to capitalism, motivation, unions, etc. -- and
lower taxes than in El Salvador.
> I don't want to live in a society among desperate people.
But mediocrity, which leads to oblivion for a target as big as we are,
is OK with you?
> It's not a matter of leveling.
> It's not a matter of dragging down people with money.
Of course it is. Even if the truly rich contributed every cent they have
and make, it would not fund Obama's agenda.
> I'm content for there to be rich people.
But only as long as they are not allowed to use it to buy something your
El Salvadorian friend can't afford. Besides, who but the rich are in a
position to pay for UHC? They pay the VAST majority of all income taxes.
> It's a matter of living in a decent, middle class society.
� Who's going to pay for that?
� How well did it work in Cuba, the USSR, etc.?
� Who provides the jobs?
� Why would industry, large or small, remain in a nation whose taxes
will double and government "command and control" -- to use Obama's words
-- is skyrocketing?
Even if you won't watch the most trusted source of news -- Fox News, by
far* -- I implore you to watch the Fox Business Network. You'll be in
for quite a shock.
* The Democratic polling organization Public Policy Polling makes no
apologies for its political leanings but stands by its numbers, and the
Wall Street Journal pegged it as highly accurate in the 2008 elections,
saying its swing-state polling was the second most accurate in the
country. Its latest poll shows that of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox News,
Fox is the only one that more people say they trust than distrust. 49%
(vs 31 - 35% for the others) say they trust Fox while 37% (vs 41 - 46%
for the others) do not trust Fox. (PPP�s national survey of 1,151
registered voters on January 18th and 19th has a margin of error of
+/-2.8%.) PPP President Debnam, a heavy Democratic party donor, blames
this on Americans listening to �what they want to hear� � unwittingly
implying that most Americans prefer hearing what Fox News has to say.
> I don't
> want to live in a society with ignorant illiterates. I don't
> want my country to turn into an economic backwater, filled with
> large numbers of uneducated, barely employable, half sick,
> unproductive people. So I support a strong social safety net
> that keeps people out of ignorance, illness, and desperate
> poverty, or at least tries hard to do so.
It should be obvious that welfare for half the nation going to
encourage, not discourage, those problems. Why would the less motivated
HALF of the population bother with school, a job, insurance of any kind,
starting a business ... producing a damn thing ... if the more motivated
half of the nation is forced at gunpoint to take care of them from
cradle to grave?
Nothing personal, Alan, but your thinking is dangerous to our nation and
thus the world.
> Will rich people have to pay for that? Yes, they will certainly
> have to contribute a significant share.
They already pay the vast majority of all income taxes.
> But there's no danger of
> their becoming poor as a result, or of losing their privileged
> life (whether hard earned or merely inherited).
If you ruled, you say you would deny them the right to develop and
undergo a spinal transplant. Medical advances would screech to a vitual
halt.
Besides, most of the services you name, from schools to fire
departments, could be done more efficiently and often much more
effectively by private, CAPITALIST, industry. What corporation would pay
700 problem employees $70,000 and more to sit in rubber rooms doing
absolutely nothing (or running a private business) for months to decades
like NYC does because they can't be fired?
I.P.
Alan Meyer
I consider many of your points to be well taken, but I'd like to
offer a different point of view.
First of all, I'm not advocating general socialism. I'm
advocating the socialization of health insurance. I'm not
advocating socialization of medical care. I'm not proposing that
doctors become government employees. I'm certainly not proposing
the socialization of all industry. I'm only proposing the
socialization of medical insurance.
Secondly, I'd like to argue that both capitalism and socialism
have strengths and weaknesses. We probably agree on the evils
and weaknesses of socialism, as both of you have laid them out.
But capitalism too has evils and weaknesses.
Consider what capitalism was like in the United States before the
government intervened to regulate and control it. We had up to
70 hour work weeks, no minimum wage with many people on what were
essentially starvation wages, no worker safety or health
regulations, no FDA regulation of quack medicines, no FDIC bank
insurance or federal pension insurance - with people routinely
wiped out in hard times, and on and on. Even capitalism itself
was threatened by capitalism in that, before anti-trust
legislation initiated by Teddy Roosevelt, great monopolies like
Standard Oil were wiping out all of their competitors and then
driving up the price of their commodities. It was every man for
himself and devil take the hindmost, and the game was very much
rigged against the common man by the rich.
Does that mean that capitalism is evil and must be eliminated? I
don't think so, but it does mean that it needs serious government
regulation.
Thirdly, I'd like to question the idea that the rich pay for the
rest of us in our government regulated society. I think a pretty
good argument could be made that the majority of taxes are not
paid by the rich and, furthermore, for a great many rich people,
the _percentage_ of their income paid in taxes is lower than the
percentage paid by the middle class.
Here's how that works.
Consider first the entitlement programs. Both Social Security
and Medicare are paid out of special taxes for those purposes,
and both have a cap on the amount to be paid. I believe the
current income limit for Social Security is $106,800. Anyone
making more than that pays no SS tax on the income above that.
In effect the percentage of their income paid to Social Security
decreases as their income increases.
As a self-employed person, Social Security and Medicare taxes are
a significant percentage of the total taxes I pay. For a rich
man, they are insignificant.
Social Security, although an "entitlement", is not an income
redistribution. What you get out depends on what you pay in. It
was designed that way specifically because FDR wanted it to pass
and knew that the rich people of the country would kill it if it
redistributed income.
Then consider the basis of taxation. For working stiffs whose
income is in the form of wages, taxes are progressive. The more
money you make, up to a point, the higher the marginal tax rate.
But if your income does not come from wages, if it comes from
capital gains and dividends (which is how the rich get most of
their money), taxes are capped at a percentage level well below
the top marginal wage tax rate. So the percentage that those
people pay in income tax is lower than mine or many other middle
class people. Note too that there are no Social Security or
Medicare taxes on capital gains or dividends, only wages. So if,
like Bill Gates, you earn no wages, you pay no Social Security or
Medicare tax.
One of Karl Marx's famous statements was, "The ruling ideas are
the ideas of the ruling class." I think he had that one right.
Lots of Americans are bamboozled into believing that the rich
support the rest of us and it's not right to regulate or tax
them further.
Alan
Vince
Very well said, Alan. Nice to read an intelligent post on these issues
versus some of the stuff I've read on here lately. Thanks.
Vince
--
PSA 4.73 07/2000 @ 48
Biopsy 07/2000 G7 (3+4)
RRP 09/2000 @ 49 G7 (3+4), T2b Neg margins
PSA < 0.1 for 14 months post op
PSA .8 .8 .6 .8 04/2008 thru 12/2008
IMRT 02/2009 - 04/2009, 38 treatments, 60.8 Gy total
PSA .02 05/18/09
PSA .01 09/22/09
PSA <0.008 01/25/10
Steve Kramer
Your essay is well written and well intentioned, but any response to it
would be redundant. Suffice it to say, there is much that you suggest that
is illegal in accordance with the law of the land, and none that I agree
with, except...
> "The ruling ideas are
> the ideas of the ruling class."
I agree with Marx on this. Our country was established as a representative
republic. The 'ruling class' was established as 'of the people, by the
people, and for the people.' When the central government began to 'rule'
instead of respond and 'we the People' did nothing about it, those usurpers
of power became the ruling class.
Sadly, the first to breach the Constitution in a serious manner was ole TJ
himself. He didn't even wait 12 years after ratification. Some of the most
famous presidents were the worst Constitutional crooks - Johnson (x2),
Lincoln, Roosevelt (x2), etc. Of course, there was Harding, Nixon, Clinton,
etc. who were just plain crooks. And, while TJ was doing the same thing, he
was visibly pissed at Marshall for taking the Supreme Court into
unconstitutional waters. Since then, the Court has propped itself up as a
second legislative branch. And who can forget the greatest usurpers of
all - the Congress. While this latest travesty of ceding votes by proxy to
House and Senate POLITICAL PARTY leaders while stifling the other party's
right to free speech may be the most grievous of all time, I'm sure Marx
would agree that 'the People' have for nearly the entire existence of the
Constitution been both victimized and too lazy to fight for their rights.
I.P. Freely
>
> Does that mean that capitalism is evil and must be eliminated? I
> don't think so, but it does mean that it needs serious government
> regulation.
And we have it, imperfect though it may be. It needs improvement, not
total replacement, regarding every sector, not just health insurance. If
we let insurance purveyors purvey across state lines, competition will
drive prices down.
> Thirdly, I'd like to question the idea that the rich pay for the
> rest of us in our government regulated society. I think a pretty
> good argument could be made that the majority of taxes are not
> paid by the rich
> Lots of Americans are bamboozled into believing that the rich
> support the rest of us
Sorry, but IRS facts trump "I think" and are far from bamboozlement.
From the WSJ's Stephen Moore at
http://tinyurl.com/2k4hkq , based on government data, not Keith Olbermann:
"The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per�cent of the
income but pay 37 percent of the gross U.S. income tax. The top 10
percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50
percent�those below the median income level�now earn 13 percent of the
income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes."
Later in that excellent article:
"3. But didn�t the Bush tax cuts favor the rich?
But Americans did respond to the tax cuts. There was more investment,
more hiring by businesses, and a stronger stock market. When we compare
the taxes paid under the old system with those paid after the Bush tax
cuts, the rich are now actually paying a higher proportion of income
taxes. The latest IRS data show an increase of more than $100 billion in
tax payments from the wealthy by 2005 alone. The number of tax filers
who claimed taxable income of more than $1 million increased from
approximately 180,000 in 2003 to over 300,000 in 2005. The total taxes
paid by these millionaire households rose by about 80 percent in two
years, from $132 billion to $236 billion."
Guys, MSNBC lies to you. Get used to it.
You MUST start watching more accurate, HONEST, unbiased actual NEWS
sources AND verifying what even they tell you.
From the Tax Foundation at
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html ,
based on government data, not NPRBS:
Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%
Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional
Beltway rhetoric that the "rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes.
Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007�the most recent data
available�the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total
income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest
percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8
percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986
tax reform act.
Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now
exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined.
In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax
burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden
they paid twenty years ago.
To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4
million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden
now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.
Some in Washington say the tax system is still not progressive enough.
However, the recent IRS data bolsters the findings of an OECD study
released last year showing that the U.S.�not France or Sweden�has the
most progressive income tax system among OECD nations. We rely more
heavily on the top 10 percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our
poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation.
We are definitely overdue for some honesty in the debate over the
progressivity of the nation's tax burden before lawmakers enact any new
taxes to pay for expanded health care.
> for a great many rich people,
> the _percentage_ of their income paid in taxes is lower than the
> percentage paid by the middle class.
So.
Freaking.
What?
They STILL carry everybody else on their backs, even despite having
fleets of well-paid tax lawyers in their employ. FAR more effective ways
to cut your taxes AND slash unemployment AND make every U.S. citizen
richer AND bring millions of NEW jobs and thousands of corporations into
the U.S. are tax CUTS and/or the Fair Tax. We'll never get either from a
dominant Democratic party.
I.P.
len
> On 2/1/10 6:29 PM, jloomis wrote:
>
> > Hi I.P.
> > Ups I made a mistake....
> > The insurance premium has been raised 5,650.00
>
> > That is 22,356.00 per year for a couple.
> > Last year the premium total was 16,706.00
>
> > So this is how it should be?
>
> Of course not. So how are you going to feel when Obamacare kicks in and
> your premium hits $25,560.18, as Blue Cross estimates at LEAST? Even the
> CBO issued a fairly blistering report concerning the ability of the
> current health care reform plans to save money and control health care
> costs for the long term. In an ominous sign for proponents,
> Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf told the Senate
> Budget Committee that none of the bills he has seen would contain health
> care costs to reduce them significantly over time. (This is the main
> argument offered by Obama and Democrats as to why Congress can spend $1
> do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to
> reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant
>
> That's a small part of why the Republicans have submitted so many
> comprehensive counter-proposals to the ridiculous Senate and House
> health care bills, and an even bigger part of why Obamacare is dead,
> just like the previous 5 or 6 attempts since WW II to pass universal
> health care legislation. Pelosi can pole vault and parachute 'til the
> cows come home, but now that the informed public has -- despite the
> administration's heroic efforts to keep both the bills and their
> resolution secret from the Republicans, the public, and most Democratic
> congressmen -- seen the hundreds of criminal, unconstitutional,
> federally bankruptive, math-defying, anti-capitalist,
> public-funded-abortion, pro Big Pharma, pro lawyer, pro union,
> physician-refused, proven-to-fail concepts and clauses of these
> outrageous bills, it's apparently history.
>
> If Obama is smart, he'll try a different tack after the midterm
> elections: a rational, affordable, functional, joint health care reform
> generated by both sides of the aisle, which improves, rather than
> destroys, U.S. health care.
>
> I.P.
I am curious just what YOU would do to reform health insurance in the
US.
Let me state three principles that I believe are necessary.
(1) No one should be denied coverage because of their medical
condition. This also means premiums can't be set based on an
individuals medical situation.
(2) Insurance should pay for things that actually happen, even rare
things that are very expensive. On one should have to go bankrupt
because of the cost of medical care. In particular, there should be
no lifetime limits.
(3) Some mechanism needs to be developed to restrain the growth of
medical costs. This is the hardest of all, and I don't thin either
Republicans or Democrats have any proposals which deal with this. If
you think the Republicans have some secret way to do this, explain
just how it is supposed to work. I don't see anything of that kind in
any of their proposals.
If you disagree. please say what you do believe.
Vince
>
> Guys, MSNBC lies to you. Get used to it. You MUST start watching more
> accurate, HONEST, unbiased actual NEWS sources AND verifying what even
> they tell you.
Oh and I presume you mean FOX news is not lying to us? Give me a break.
My opinions on political matters will not be gotten by watching the the
drivel on FAUX news or from certain members of this PROSTATE CANCER
SUPPORT group. I like MOST posters in this news group DO have a brain
and are intelligent.
I.P. Freely
> FOX news is not lying to us? Give me a break.
Can you back that up?
Left-wing-sponsored research performed by the journalism schools of
three universities say you're wrong, and left-wing polls show that of
ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox News, Fox is the only one that more people
say they trust than distrust.
> I ... DO have a brain and are intelligent.
Neither your grammar nor your ready acceptance of Keith Olbermnn's tax
BS over the IRS's hard data demonstrates that. Maybe you can redeem that
by proving that Fox News lies. Hundreds of politicians, Hollywood kooks,
ACLU lawyers, zealots, and (barely) competing networks record and
analyze every word Fox airs trying to catch them in lies with which to
bring them down, but Fox just keeps outperforming them by larger margins
every month. Maybe you can provide them the proof they so desperately
seek; it would make you quite rich.
I.P.
Vince
You know I.P. I appreciate the help you give people on here when it comes
to prostate cancer. Which is what this group is supposed to be all
about. But you have continually tried to impose your political views on
this group since the the last presidential election. Most of us in this
group, I dare say, are over 50 and you are not going to change the
political views of us old farts. So give it a rest already. Every news
group has a few bullies that try to impose their views on the rest. You
are not going to bully me. I'd hate to have to add you to my killfile.
Vince
PS - Your quote of my typo above, was just that. Not bad grammer, just a
typo. Sorry we're not all perfect like you.
gvk2
Well, I've just read the 37 replies here.
Seems there will be a 39% increase for many Blue Cross customers.
One side says that is immoral, questioning how any costs could rise
39% in one year.
The others, wed to the idea that capitalism is efficiently moral, say
suck it up and pay the 39% or face 50% from some imagined Obama care.
Those who can't pay a 39% increase after 35 years of paying premiums,
are essentially being told to go away, and if you get sick go get in
line at the welfare desk because you are a failure.
You should have planned for and expected 39% increases in health
care.
Your whole life should have been aimed at expecting such increases.
In effect, you are a bad person. If you were a good person, you'd
just dip into your savings for 10 or more years until you get to age
65.
Seems all the people telling everyone to suck up the 39% increases are
so often those folks already collecting either Medicare or some for
of veterans benefits...or both.
They always see the other guy as the failure, the bad person, the
fellow who failed to live properly.
39%...39%...39%... Something is rotten in Denmark.
Steve Kramer
>> I ... DO have a brain and are intelligent.
>
> Neither your grammar
Please reserve your personal attacks for trolls. Vince is a prostate cancer
victim, apparently intelligence, and is only discussing this topic because
some dumbass continues to poison the prostate cancer discussion with it.
Please proof those sentences.
I.P. Freely
> You know I.P. I appreciate the help you give people on here when it comes
> to prostate cancer. Which is what this group is supposed to be all
> about. But you have continually tried to impose your political views on
> this group since the the last presidential election. Most of us in this
> group, I dare say, are over 50 and you are not going to change the
> political views of us old farts. So give it a rest already. Every news
> group has a few bullies that try to impose their views on the rest. You
> are not going to bully me. I'd hate to have to add you to my killfile.
>
> Vince
>
> PS - Your quote of my typo above, was just that. Not bad grammer, just a
> typo. Sorry we're not all perfect like you.
Your still-unsupported libel of Fox News, not your typo, was the real
issue; the humorous typo was simply too good to ignore. I apologize for
that one, because neither typos nor genuine grammar errors are fair game.
Others here recognize and have explicitly stated that the Obamacare
debate is very relevant to their health care and expenses. Without Fox
News -- which you brought up -- and the rational segment of conservative
talk radio, where would we hear about the realities of Obamacare? Yes,
the AP and the NYT and even the Boston Globe sometimes reveal its seamy
sides, but usually months later than, to a FAR lesser degree than, and,
I think, because of, Fox's reports on the same issues.
I operate under the assumption that many of us are still quite capable
of and interested in learning, thinking, and changing. We had sure
better be, considering how rapidly the nation and world are changing.
The Gordian knot of politics, health care, and national and/or personal
finances is vital to even healthy people our age, let alone us cancer
survivors. I spend well over a thousand hours every year studying topics
like those as they relate to my life, and formed and changed my
objective and subjective body of knowledge on those issues by thousands
of percent in my 50s and probably that much more in my 60s. In
particular, my political awareness and opinions went from Park to fourth
gear in just my mid-50s alone, and then into 6th gear overdrive in my
early 60s. I read a dozen PCa books in late 2004, a dozen books on
global/national/personal economics/finance this winter, >20 books on
physical fitness last winter, etc., and each of those sessions had very
significant positive impacts on my physical and fiscal health (IMO, and
as John Loomis accurately laments, fiscal and physical health are
strongly related). (I won't even mention the winter studying global
warming, or the one devoted to legal issues, as they aren't related to
my health.)
I still hope to live another 20+ years, so even though I have no
descendants' health care (or debts from my health care) to consider,
this $#!+ *matters* to my QOL, maybe even to my very life. I wish the
people here who don't or can't see those connections would stop trying
to bully those who do see those connections into ignoring them. We're
not trying to bully anyone, just trying to present another, often
hidden, side to these inseparable issues. The only bullying I see is
personal attacks.
I.P.
I.P. Freely
> I am curious just what YOU would do to reform health insurance in the
> US.
I dunno. That's way beyond my pay grade. If someone paid me enough, I'd
gather up all the dozens of health care plans submitted by Democratic
and Republican and independent congressmen, other politicians, radio and
TV show hosts, and the talking heads thereon. Then I'd distill each plan
into discrete one-line bullet points with no tags identifying their
sources, build a health care and insurance plan from them, and demand
that legislators expand my list into workable laws without one single
earmark or one arm-twisting or multi-million-dollar bribe from their
party. I'd fire any legislator caught favoring political ideology over
national benefit. Of course, that would quickly leave me standing up
there all by myself, making the final vote very quick and easy ... and
obviously wrong, because health care is too complex for any one human to
comprehend and fix.
One specific thing I would NOT do is destroy both our economy and our
great although flawed health care system in an attempt to permanently
subjugate every citizen to one party's rule.
> No one should be denied coverage because of their medical condition.
No one -- not even a jihadist mass murderer -- on U.S. soil is denied
necessary medical services at present.
> premiums can't be set based on an individuals medical situation.
Should Bill, a 20-year-old athlete, pay the same premium as Ann, an
80-yo obese smoker with diabetes and Alzheimer's? Should Bill be
required to buy insurance against Alzheimer's, uterine cancer, and
prenatal care? Should Bill, who lives on a mountaintop in bone-dry New
Mexico, pay the same premium for flood insurance as Ann, who lives 20
feet from the Gulf of Mexico at one foot above sea level?
> Insurance should pay for things that actually happen, even rare
> things that are very expensive.
Then your annual insurance premium will probably run into six figures.
Ready for that?
> No one should have to go bankrupt because of the cost of medical care.
> In particular, there should be no lifetime limits.
Why not? $#!+ happens, whether it's a meteor strike, a mugging, a war,
cigarettes, stock in Enron, or bad genes. People go bankrupt all the
time, often just to avoid paying for their bling. Neither you nor the
Constitution guarantees me a problem-free life.
> Some mechanism needs to be developed to restrain the growth of
> medical costs.
> This is the hardest of all, and I don't thin either
> Republicans or Democrats have any proposals which deal with this. If
> you think the Republicans have some secret way to do this, explain
> just how it is supposed to work. I don't see anything of that kind in
> any of their proposals.
Capitalism, especially interstate insurance competition now denied by
law, with some regulation, would go a LONG ways towards doing that. The
same coverage can cost 300% more in some states than in others.
> If you disagree. please say what you do believe.
Based on scores of huge, large, and small statements and actions from
all three of these people, I am 99.9% certain that Pelosi and Reid care
<1% about anyone's personal well-being and >99% about permanent public
subjugation to the Democratic Party, and that Obama is a naive
academician who actually believes that giant, oppressive, "ism"-founded
government is the path to Nirvana. The rest is details ... hundreds of
them ranging from simple arithmetic to major heads of state saying our
administration is nuts.
I.P.
He'sDeadJim
I P is an obsessed wignut. He has driven a number of people away with
his continual political mantra. This is supposed to be a PCa support
newsgroup not a politcial one. His childlike faith in Fox news is
laughable. And no you two winghuts I don't take all MSNBC says as
gospel . AS I've said before I go back to the mid 90s in the
newsgroups ala the pirate music ngs. What you say about the ng bully
is right on but to have a bully always trying to espouse his whacko
political beliefs in a cancer support newsgroup is reprehensible.
It's also true it's not too effective we are not after all gullible
kids or Fox news kool aid drinkers here for the most except for the
two obvious exceptions. But the one with the juvenile PCa name is by
far the worse. He's only here because in any web based PCa
support site he would have been banned by now . I'm sure asking him to
stop the polictal mantra would be of no avail. Still gets me what a
hypocrite he is being on government healthcare but wanting to deny it
to all others.
Funny how for many wingnuts being on medicare at age 65 is fine but
lower it to 64 and it's socialism or hell more like communism.. LOL
that's the mentality of wignuts and/or tea baggers
If IP gets to you all then by all means killfile hime. I just ignore
him but I don't come here for any real PCa support.
If you want better and just MEDICAL advice go to
Vince
> I P is an obsessed wignut. He has driven a number of people away with
> his continual political mantra. This is supposed to be a PCa support
> newsgroup not a politcial one. His childlike faith in Fox news is
> laughable. And no you two winghuts I don't take all MSNBC says as gospel
> . AS I've said before I go back to the mid 90s in the newsgroups ala the
> pirate music ngs. What you say about the ng bully is right on but to
> have a bully always trying to espouse his whacko political beliefs in a
> cancer support newsgroup is reprehensible. It's also true it's not too
> effective we are not after all gullible kids or Fox news kool aid
> drinkers here for the most except for the two obvious exceptions. But
> the one with the juvenile PCa name is by far the worse. He's only here
> because in any web based PCa support site he would have been banned by
> now . I'm sure asking him to stop the polictal mantra would be of no
> avail. Still gets me what a hypocrite he is being on government
> healthcare but wanting to deny it to all others.
>
> Funny how for many wingnuts being on medicare at age 65 is fine but
> lower it to 64 and it's socialism or hell more like communism.. LOL
> that's the mentality of wignuts and/or tea baggers
>
> If IP gets to you all then by all means killfile hime. I just ignore him
> but I don't come here for any real PCa support. If you want better and
> just MEDICAL advice go to
>
> http://www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=35
Yeah, I was a UNIX Systems Admin back in 1992 and have been on various
news groups since then. There are always a couple of wingnuts (I can
think of a better word) in every group. It's unfortunate, but some
people just think that everyone should live in their version of reality
and get upset when their views and beliefs are opposed or questioned.
But like I said, that's what killfiles are for. On the other hand they
do provide a certain amount of comic relief listening to them babble on.
Vince
I.P. Freely
> FOX news is not lying to us? Give me a break.
> give it a rest already
> Every newsgroup has a few bullies that try to impose their views
> on the rest
> You are not going to bully me.
> always a couple of wingnuts (I can think of a better word)
> in every group
> get upset [and libel others, I suppose?] when their views and beliefs
> are opposed or questioned
Let’s see if the archives have this straight:
• Someone says we’re being misled, that the rich don’t pay most of the
taxes.
• I provide government data proving otherwise, and implore people to
seek better news sources.
• You not only incorrectly assume I’m suggesting Fox and only Fox, but
also libel Fox.
• I ask you to support your libel with facts, so we can all judge your
accusation on its facts.
• You refuse to even try to back up your libel, you add me to your
sniping target list, and you try to impose your views on what is
relevant to our health care on the rest of us.
• Then you call *me* the bully.
That about right?
I.P.
Yvan Hall
Log on to Find out how you can make money by clicking my Web Site.
You will find good Affiiliates for health products, such as EDTA-Oral
Chelation,
Apricot kernels for cancer treament, Other affiliates are related to
Computers,
household products, Satellite TV (You may watch International Channel on
your Computer),
Download Commmercial Movies, Email, Free Horoscope.
"I.P. Freely" <fuhghed...@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:yoEcn.79763$Fe4....@newsfe21.iad...
> Vince wrote:
>
>> FOX news is not lying to us? Give me a break.
>
>> give it a rest already
>
> > Every newsgroup has a few bullies that try to impose their views
> > on the rest
>
>> You are not going to bully me.
>
> > always a couple of wingnuts (I can think of a better word)
> > in every group
>
> > get upset [and libel others, I suppose?] when their views and beliefs
> > are opposed or questioned
>
> Let's see if the archives have this straight:
> . Someone says we're being misled, that the rich don't pay most of the
> taxes.
> . I provide government data proving otherwise, and implore people to seek
> better news sources.
> . You not only incorrectly assume I'm suggesting Fox and only Fox, but
> also libel Fox.
> . I ask you to support your libel with facts, so we can all judge your
> accusation on its facts.
> . You refuse to even try to back up your libel, you add me to your sniping
> target list, and you try to impose your views on what is relevant to our
> health care on the rest of us.
> . Then you call *me* the bully.
>
> That about right?
>
> I.P.