Health Subsidies

Liberal Conservative asked:


If you work for “Corporate Socialist” groups aka “Unions” then you won’t get a raise on your health care plan.

This is the most obvious forced Nationalizing I have seen… in 30 minutes.

Imagine, your nice free company will have to tack on huge fees but if you happen to get sick of those HUGE fees you could vote a UNION into your little company and get yourself some socialist capitalism.

Is this not the most pathetic crap you have seen!!! We all will pay with blood except welfare people and Union cronies.

http://www.lp.org/blogs/austin-petersen/new-taxation-of-your-health-benefits-oh-except-unions

Vaughn

John A asked:


Correct me if I’m wrong, but I heard that Obama is trying to push a public health system that will allow everybody to have health insurance no matter what pre existing conditions he or she may have.
If this is reached, what would happen to insurance carriers like Blue Cross, Blue Shield? Will we need these companies and health insurance agents?

Ester

Leslie B asked:


Aside from driving the best of the medical care providers away from government control health care, Obama is also threatening to take money out of my husband’s insufficient paycheck in order to provide health care for those that can’t and WON’T get a job.

How is this not considered “raising taxes”. I thought Obama’s premise was to rob from the rich so that they can do their patriotic duty and share the wealth.

Why then is he “considering” taxing me?

Terrance

Ana Stasia Nika asked:


http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090301/Stimulus.Health.Insurance/

Normally the COBRA subsidy kicked in right away but with new provisions in the stimulus bill newly laid-off people have been left with the full cost of COBRA, and been told they will be reimbursed “Later after the kinks have been worked out”

What are your thoughts?
Blonde: perhaps you should get your facts right there has been a subsidy for years:
It is called the HCTC:

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=109915,00.html
John you and Blonde need to research - you know not of what you speak.
Again Blonde if you do this for a “living” you have had to encounter this before.

Christian

Trouble Maker asked:


These folks will not work enough to support themselves and expect the government to pick up the tab . They want food stamps , rent subsidies , afdc ,and health insurance .
We spend billions to educate people so we do not need to care for them their entire life .
Something has broken down in the system that allows so many people to expect some kind of free government service .
For the 40 ,000,000 who have no health insurance it might be a good idea to stop having children you can not pay for . Eat a better diet and lay off the drugs and smokes and booze .

It would be nice if I could sit on a porch ,paid for by the government ,and smoke ***** from the first to the fifth of each month and drink cheap beer /malt liquor and wine watching the world go by while I wait for the Oprah/Dr. Phill show to come on .
Sell my prescription pain pills I get for free at $10-$20 a piece , which I get for my bad back that allows me to do nothing except collect free stuff and not work .

Christi

Willis Jeffords asked:


I’m trying to understand your mindset. If I want to buy something, no matter what it is, I either save for it or work harder for it. In either case, I benefit society by being self-sufficient.

It seems liberals take the position that other, richer people should pay for the things they want. So, if they want better unemployment benefits or healthcare benefits, it should come from society in general. For rich libs, the increase in taxes never impacts their lifestyle. For poor libs, the increase in benefits always outweighs the increase in taxes. What is the reasoning behind this?

Lorenzo

Yak Rider asked:


Rumor has it she’s going to model it on Massachusetts which forces all uninsured people to purchase a health care policy. It’s not optional. You aren’t given a choice. You buy a policy or they take your money and buy it for you. Low income people will get a subsidy.

1. Will this cause businesses that now cover their employees to drop coverage and let employees fend for themselves?

2. Will illegal aliens be forced into purchasing their own health care coverage and, if so, is it really the job of the US taxpayer to subsidies low income illegal aliens to help them pay?

Allen

Pelosi & Lefts Ruined California asked:


Obama’s newest plan is to take away health benefits from Veterans, is the only way Obama can get his health plan thru is to start screwing the people over changing the good parts of their health plans? He now thinks if a veteran gets hurt while on duty they should pay for it out of their pocket. Is this man insane?
If this plan passed anyone up for re-election next year won’t get re-elected! Thats for sure! I don’t think Obama has as much power as he thought he would! Thank goodness!
thehoydo RE: Don’t get too excited I have BC BS insurance- it don’t matter what insurance you got its the doctors and there is not many good ones at all! It depends where you live- all the good ones are in big cities. Everyone gets mis-diagnoised on a regular basis unless its obvious in my view. I have heard horror stories about our doctors in my town.

Jamie

RajinCajin asked:


Allowing for subsidies to help with the cost.

Is this going to help? Is this the best plan the Democrats have?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_health_care;_ylt=Ap79AAi7EvsMRwgrY71BSe.yFz4D
If your a democrat, do you support this plan?

Josiah

justagirl asked:


An analysis of McCain’s plan by four professors from Columbia University, Harvard, Purdue and the University of Michigan:

Eliminating the tax exclusion would greatly reduce the number of people who obtain health insurance through their employers. This decline would be driven by three factors: the effective price of employer-sponsored coverage would increase, the nondiscrimination rules would no longer apply, and low-risk employees would have less incentive to remain in employer-sponsored groups.

Elasticity estimates from published studies can be used to predict the coverage reduction caused by the effective price increase. Anne Royalty provides an estimate that is typical of those found by researchers in this area: her results suggest that eliminating the income tax preference for health insurance would result in a 17 percent decrease in the share of workers who are offered health insurance by their employers. This translates to a net decrease of twenty-eight million Americans (one out of every six people with employer-based coverage) covered by employer-provided health insurance. …

Studies suggest that many employers would be quick to drop health benefits in response to a major policy change, such as the McCain plan, that greatly altered the business case for offering benefits. Also, as we note above, these estimates account only for the price effect of eliminating the tax preference; they do not account for the number of low-wage workers who might lose employer-sponsored insurance when employers are no longer bound by the nondiscrimination rules, nor do they capture the impact of breaking up existing risk pools.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.27.6.w472/DC1

Jacquelyn