# Why are you afraid of universal health care?



## DaveNay

This is an honest question.  There are many members of FF that are vehemently opposed to the health care plan, and to ANY nationalized health care in general.

Discounting administrative and bureaucratic reasons (gov't inefficiencies, etc)...I ask "Why?".

What are your reasons for opposing the idea of health care, not this (or any other) actual implementation.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Taxes.  I don't want to pay them.  This type of thing costs a ton more in taxes.  I speak from experience on this.  However, at the end of the day UHC will be fine - everyone will get treatment and life will go on - we'll just have less money at the end of the year.


----------



## thcri RIP

I am more afraid of on how this whole thing was handled.  The buying of the votes, the earmarks tied to it and mostly what we don't know.  I also fear for business's now as I don't think many of the small business's in these lean times can afford it.  I was for getting the economy back on the road first. 


I have nothing against helping others out.


----------



## thcri RIP

One other thing, I really don't care much, Minnesota already has about the most expensive insurance out there because of no Pre-existing conditions law and I already pay for my employees.

But I do see business's closing due to this along with more manufacturing going overseas.  jmo


----------



## mak2

PBinWA said:


> Taxes.  I don't want to pay them.  This type of thing costs a ton more in taxes.  I speak from experience on this.  However, at the end of the day UHC will be fine - everyone will get treatment and life will go on - we'll just have less money at the end of the year.



As a rule from other counrties cost have went down significantly.  Remember the money is now going to premiums and we already have the most expensive system in the world.


----------



## mak2

thcri said:


> I am more afraid of on how this whole thing was handled.  The buying of the votes, the earmarks tied to it and mostly what we don't know.  I also fear for business's now as I don't think many of the small business's in these lean times can afford it.  I was for getting the economy back on the road first.
> 
> 
> I have nothing against helping others out.



You think the insurance companies and healthcare industry hasnt been buying votes for years?  Yes from both sides.


----------



## thcri RIP

mak2 said:


> You think the insurance companies and healthcare industry hasnt been buying votes for years?  Yes from both sides.



You know Mak you always bring up the other side don't you.  You don't give a rat's ass if it is wrong or not but just because someone else did it that makes it ok.

When will you get sick of all the lies and stealing?


----------



## joec

thcri said:


> One other thing, I really don't care much, Minnesota already has about the most expensive insurance out there because of no Pre-existing conditions law and I already pay for my employees.
> 
> But I do see business's closing due to this along with more manufacturing going overseas.  jmo



It is my understanding if you have 50 or less employees you will have health care costs subsidized and which will decline as one adds more employees. It is also my understanding that once this actually goes into effect their will be pools from which a bunch of small business can buy insurance getting the same rates as the larger companies.


----------



## mak2

thcri said:


> You know Mak you always bring up the other side don't you.  You don't give a rat's ass if it is wrong or not but just because someone else did it that makes it ok.
> 
> When will you get sick of all the lies and stealing?



Bring up the other side?  I hate them both, is this an ad hominem?  I really dont get your point.


----------



## thcri RIP

joec said:


> It is my understanding if you have 50 or less employees you will have health care costs subsidized and which will decline as one adds more employees. It is also my understanding that once this actually goes into effect their will be pools from which a bunch of small business can buy insurance getting the same rates as the larger companies.



Your understanding is right except for construction business's which is 5 people.  I am in construction.


----------



## thcri RIP

mak2 said:


> Bring up the other side?  I hate them both, is this an ad hominem?  I really dont get your point.



My point is your saying this whole thing of buying votes is ok because someone else bought votes.  You defended one because of the other.


----------



## joec

I wasn't aware that it was based on the business at all. I've sure never heard of that before this second. It is my understanding that it covers all small businesses period.


----------



## Melensdad

*Rationing of care.*
Every country that has some sort of nationalized health care has it.  I've tried to look at several major western nations and there is no denying that it exists far beyond any sort of rationing that private health insurance can/does impose.  See my final point for an example.

*Lack of innovation, stifling innovation.*
Take out the profit motive and innovation tends to go down.  Plain and simple fact and applies to every industry I know of, including medicine.

*Lack of choices, increased wait times, reduced services, reduced access to life saving specialties.* 
The system in place in the UK is that one I am most familiar with having friends there and by comparison they have all these things compared to our system.  My sister, now living in England, flies to New York City for her health care needs.  Our friend in Ireland has cancer, it is a very curable form of cancer here in the US, there he is forced to wait for months to see the oncologist, he's been waiting roughly 3 months and has 2 to 3 more to go before he gets to have the 1st meeting.  Basically he will die from a curable cancer because he can't get treatment.


----------



## Dargo

Some of the 'cost' of health care is to prevent every single mother from going to the doctor to have a Band-Aid put on little Tommy's knee every time he scrapes it.  You take out that factor, you multiply your wait factor (already bad) by about 10X. 

Next, you have the government discussing what physicians can charge for their services.  Sorry, but that's flat wrong.  My oldest daughter is the valedictorian of her high school and is looking into what under grad school will be best for her in prep for med school.  Sure, wanting to help others is a major part of why people want to be physicians, surgeons etc., but the other part is the monetary reward for the decades of extremely hard and dedicated work.  If there is no reward for that, why bother.  With Omamma care, you'll end up with fewer and less qualified physicians.

As already discussed, taxes.  Who is going to pay for this fiasco???  Seriously.  There are quite a few business owners in my position.  Tax me any more and I'll just quit.  I'll just retire and put several people out of work.  Why bust my ass and take all the stress just to give it to greedy politicians who are out to buy votes.  If you think they really "care" about the people, you're a moron.  I could go on and on, but why?


----------



## thcri RIP

joec said:


> I wasn't aware that it was based on the business at all. I've sure never heard of that before this second. It is my understanding that it covers all small businesses period.



I posted it here before.  You didn't see it then.  I will do a search for it.


----------



## thcri RIP

Here you go Joe  These are some of things that scare me about this bill.  Prime example of not knowing.




> H.R. 3590 contains government mandates likely to increase premiums  requiring every individual to purchase health care, in addition to $28  billion in new taxes on employers that do not provide  government-approved health plans.  The bill also singles out the  construction industry by *requiring firms with an average of five or more  employees* during the previous year and whose annual payroll expenses  exceed $250,000 to pay for health insurance for their workers or be  subject to a federally imposed fine of $750 per employee.   Comparatively, H.R. 3590 generally exempts other small businesses with  fewer than 50 employees from the fines.


----------



## joec

thcri said:


> I posted it here before.  You didn't see it then.  I will do a search for it.



I sure did miss it. Please post a link to it or even PM me with the link.


----------



## thcri RIP

easier to find the article,  reposted it just before you last post joe


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

mak2 said:


> As a rule from other counrties cost have went down significantly.  Remember the money is now going to premiums and we already have the most expensive system in the world.



Are you talking about the overall "cost" of healthcare or the overall "cost" to the taxpayer.

I'm sure healthcare costs will go down for some people but a lot of other people will pay more in taxes now.  Spread the wealth around - isn't that the campaign promise?


----------



## joec

Ok I see what you mean. 



> H.R. 3590 contains government mandates likely to increase premiums  requiring every individual to purchase health care, in addition to $28  billion in new taxes on employers that do not provide  government-approved health plans.  The bill also singles out the  construction industry by requiring firms with an average of five or more  employees during the previous year and whose annual payroll expenses  exceed $250,000 to pay for health insurance for their workers or be  subject to a federally imposed fine of $750 per employee.   Comparatively, H.R. 3590 generally exempts other small businesses with  fewer than 50 employees from the fines.



Now does your payroll exceed $250,000 per year. Isn't this covered differently under the fixes that are working through the reconciliation bill which is expected to pass later in the week.


----------



## thcri RIP

joec said:


> Ok I see what you mean.
> 
> 
> 
> Now does your payroll exceed $250,000 per year. Isn't this covered differently under the fixes that are working through the reconciliation bill which is expected to pass later in the week.



Five People at 50K each would exceed $250,000.  Most of my installers make over 50K.

As for it being part of the reconciliation bill I don't know.  Personally I think the whole thing is a big mess right now.


----------



## mak2

thcri said:


> My point is your saying this whole thing of buying votes is ok because someone else bought votes.  You defended one because of the other.



I have never said anything like that.  All I say is both sides are equally guilty and defend neither.  I have never defended teh political process or the demos or the repubs, just UHC. 

C'mon man, where did I say buying votes are ok?


----------



## mak2

PBinWA said:


> Are you talking about the overall "cost" of healthcare or the overall "cost" to the taxpayer.
> 
> I'm sure healthcare costs will go down for some people but a lot of other people will pay more in taxes now.  Spread the wealth around - isn't that the campaign promise?



Right now you and I pay much more in premiums than we would if everyone paid their own way.  Why doesnt that bother you?  It is figured by all the money spent on health care divided by the number of citizens.  Course the insurance companies wont profit like the do now.  Oh the shame.


----------



## mak2

Melensdad said:


> *Rationing of care.*
> Every country that has some sort of nationalized health care has it.  I've tried to look at several major western nations and there is no denying that it exists far beyond any sort of rationing that private health insurance can/does impose.  See my final point for an example.
> 
> *Lack of innovation, stifling innovation.*
> Take out the profit motive and innovation tends to go down.  Plain and simple fact and applies to every industry I know of, including medicine.
> 
> *Lack of choices, increased wait times, reduced services, reduced access to life saving specialties.*
> The system in place in the UK is that one I am most familiar with having friends there and by comparison they have all these things compared to our system.  My sister, now living in England, flies to New York City for her health care needs.  Our friend in Ireland has cancer, it is a very curable form of cancer here in the US, there he is forced to wait for months to see the oncologist, he's been waiting roughly 3 months and has 2 to 3 more to go before he gets to have the 1st meeting.  Basically he will die from a curable cancer because he can't get treatment.



There is rationing of care now.  How do you define far beyond?  What exactly do you mean by that.  Rush gushed on a few weeks ago about how one callers family member could not get his shoulder surgery cause that rationing.  Actulllay there are a whole lot of reason surgery is contraindicated.  The rationing with UHC is more reasonable use of resources instead of profit based rationing.

Innovation does no good if you cant afford it.

the choices, wait times and etc you talk about are not borne out by studies of the measures used to determine effectivness of care in England or Canada.  There are a few areas we do better at here, but very few.  Course to find out which ones they are you would have to read and think about the system you just know is so terrrible.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

mak2 said:


> Right now you and I pay much more in premiums than we would if everyone paid their own way.  Why doesnt that bother you?  It is figured by all the money spent on health care divided by the number of citizens.  Course the insurance companies wont profit like the do now.  Oh the shame.



I don't believe this.  I don't care about the insurance companies at all.  However, I do know that I paid a lot more taxes in Canada than I do here.  The difference was noticeable and crippling in Canada.  I have many friends my age that are still struggling to get ahead on salaries that would otherwise be considered quite good in the US.

You can present all the great social benefits of how I should care about the freeloader class but at the end of the day all I care about is my family, our financial security, and the legacy I leave for my kids.  Leaving them to pay for yet another ponzi tax scheme is not my idea of something that I can support.

I lived in Canada for 30 years and did not see any big difference between the standard of living or quality of life between Canada or the US.  This government healthcare isn't going to make the US a better place or solve any problems.  It just shifts more bureaucracy to the government where it is sheltered by layers of government.  At the end of the day it will cost the taxpayers more but they will not see the direct costs like they do now.  It will be hidden away as a line item on your paycheck and you will have no recourse other than to suck it up and deal with it.


----------



## joec

Here are the pharmaceutical companies around the world most of which are in countries with UHC. Most of these make the drugs we use today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pharmaceutical_companies_by_country


----------



## Melensdad

mak2 said:


> There is rationing of care now.  How do you define far beyond?  What exactly do you mean by that.  Rush gushed on a few weeks ago about how one callers family member could not get his shoulder surgery cause that rationing.  Actulllay there are a whole lot of reason surgery is contraindicated.  The rationing with UHC is more reasonable use of resources instead of profit based rationing.
> 
> Innovation does no good if you cant afford it.
> 
> the choices, wait times and etc you talk about are not borne out by studies of the measures used to determine effectivness of care in England or Canada.  There are a few areas we do better at here, but very few.  Course to find out which ones they are you would have to read and think about the system you just know is so terrrible.



Sure we have SOME VERY LIMITED rationing by our insurance companies but I've never known ANYONE who was cut off or prevented treatment by an insurance company so while SOME folks may face some limits, I've never seen it.  And as I said, before you insulted me in your last sentence, I did review many health care systems around the world.

As for innovation, it is always expensive at first, but it also ends up becoming more affordable and leading to better, more effective treatments.  So you say its no good if it can't be afforded, but taking your logic we would have aspirin and nothing else to relieve pain.  

As for the wait times, they are REAL for anyone who requires a specialty doctor.  I'm sorry but I know it for fact and you can name all the studies you want but when you present them to our dying friend in Ireland and hear his reply you will change your tune.


----------



## mak2

PBinWA said:


> You can present all the great social benefits of how I should care about the freeloader class but at the end of the day all I care about is my family, our financial security, and the legacy I leave for my kids.  Leaving them to pay for yet another ponzi tax scheme is not my idea of something that I can support.



I am not trying to chage you mind, but I dont really think much thought goes into this before the right decides they hate UHC.  Right now, today we are paying for the freeloader class.  Now, not under Obama care.  We have been paying for freeloaders every since they came out with insurance.  right now you are paying for every freeloader that goes into an ER every day in American.  I dont understand why it bothers you guys so much if everyone pays something into it (taxed based UHC) but it does not seem to bother you at all as long as the industry profits handsomely from your money *you are forced to pay against your will every time you pay for services or premiums* I just think all the inconsistancies of your postitions (the collective right) shows a lack of thinking it through.


----------



## RobsanX

thcri said:


> Here you go Joe  These are some of things that scare me about this bill.  Prime example of not knowing.



Why don't you just provide health insurance for them?


----------



## Adillo303

Melensdad said:


> Our friend in Ireland has cancer, it is a very curable form of cancer here in the US, there he is forced to wait for months to see the oncologist, he's been waiting roughly 3 months and has 2 to 3 more to go before he gets to have the 1st meeting.  Basically he will die from a curable cancer because he can't get treatment.



This is exactly what is happening to my Step Daughter's Fiancee in Canada. They are having to fight like crazy just to get appointments. 

My mom is in a nursing home, i do not have the $$ to pay for anything more for her. 

While I do not know exactly how much, I read that Medicare will be cut. What happens to her, I do not know.


----------



## thcri RIP

thcri said:


> One other thing, I really don't care much, Minnesota already has about the most expensive insurance out there because of no Pre-existing conditions law and* I already pay for my employees.*
> 
> But I do see business's closing due to this along with more manufacturing going overseas.  jmo





RobsanX said:


> Why don't you just provide health insurance for them?




You would realize that I do if you read the whole thread.  But my business is in the new construction industry which is hurting really bad.  Three years ago we did over 600 houses.  Last year we did 50 houses.  I am laying people off on a weekly basis and can not afford the expense to pay for health insurance anymore.  If the economy  does not change I may be forced to close my doors.  The burden will then be passed on you for both unemployment and health care.


----------



## joec

The cuts in Medicare are what they figured is over charges, double charges, fraud etc in the system. They will not be cutting services according to the ones that know.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

mak2 said:


> I am not trying to chage you mind, but I dont really think much thought goes into this before the right decides they hate UHC.  Right now, today we are paying for the freeloader class.  Now, not under Obama care.  We have been paying for freeloaders every since they came out with insurance.  right now you are paying for every freeloader that goes into an ER every day in American.  I dont understand why it bothers you guys so much if everyone pays something into it (taxed based UHC) but it does not seem to bother you at all as long as the industry profits handsomely from your money *you are forced to pay against your will every time you pay for services or premiums* I just think all the inconsistancies of your postitions (the collective right) shows a lack of thinking it through.



Sure, maybe I'm paying that overhead (I'd rather not) BUT that overhead only covers emergency visits and visits that people need to make some serious thought about whether or not they need them.

Now we will be covering 30 million people that will use healthcare services for a bad cough because there is no "cost" to them.  By cost I mean, financial, convenience, or some other impediment to them using the service.  

I've lived under UHC and know the bottom line.  You - joe average working class guy will pay more taxes.  Maybe not this year but it is coming and you may not even realize it when it happens.


----------



## thcri RIP

RobsanX said:


> Why don't you just provide health insurance for them?



One other thing Rob, why don't you pay for it.  Why should business be the one to hold the bag on this.  Next thing you know business will be forced to buy your next car or house.  Business should only have to pay a person for a fair wage, that is all.


----------



## RobsanX

thcri said:


> You would realize that I do if you read the whole thread.  But my business is in the new construction industry which is hurting really bad.  Three years ago we did over 600 houses.  Last year we did 50 houses.  I am laying people off on a weekly basis and can not afford the expense to pay for health insurance anymore.  If the economy  does not change I may be forced to close my doors.  The burden will then be passed on you for both unemployment and health care.



You're right, I missed that. I guess if you do have to discontinue providing insurance then your employees are now protected, and can buy their own.


----------



## jpr62902

RobsanX said:


> You're right, I missed that. I guess if you do have to discontinue providing insurance then your employees are now protected, and can buy their own.


 
They could do that before this bill passed.


----------



## Melensdad

jpr62902 said:


> They could do that before this bill passed.



Yup.  People simply do not want to take the responsibility themselves to do this.  This law does not change that.


----------



## RobsanX

thcri said:


> One other thing Rob, why don't you pay for it.  Why should business be the one to hold the bag on this.  Next thing you know business will be forced to buy your next car or house.  Business should only have to pay a person for a fair wage, that is all.



Oh, I pay alright. I pay plenty. Way more than any $750 fine that you would have to pay.

Our insurance sucks, but with my wife's preexisting conditions it's either sucky insurance, or no insurance.


----------



## Melensdad

And how would that change under this bill?


----------



## Adillo303

thcri said:


> One other thing Rob, why don't you pay for it.  Why should business be the one to hold the bag on this.  Next thing you know business will be forced to buy your next car or house.  Business should only have to pay a person for a fair wage, that is all.



Now there is an interesting thought.

I would think that a workable system would be that the individual procures their own insurance and caries it with them wherever they go. Business would then have to deduct what they pay for insurance from their cost of goods sold and whatever markup that would cause. 

Wait a minute1 Is that right? Honest question I do not know. Does the cost of company provided insurance go into cost of goods sold? Does that mean that it is subject to a markup? Is business then making profit on the medical insurance. 

I am a one person company, I really don't know


----------



## joec

thcri said:


> One other thing Rob, why don't you pay for it.  Why should business be the one to hold the bag on this.  Next thing you know business will be forced to buy your next car or house.  Business should only have to pay a person for a fair wage, that is all.



Because Richard Nixon said you will pay for it after discussing it with one of his supporters. Oh and the guy also had an insurance company specializing in HMO. Now I don't feel employers should pay for their employees health care at all and never have. This is the part of the legacy costs that moved a lot of our companies to country with UHC as well as brought down GM and Chrysler. This is also why the Japanese build cars cheaper than the US companies can, their health care in Japan is covered by taxes in the form of UHC.


----------



## RobsanX

Melensdad said:


> And how would that change under this bill?



A) Our insurance provider can't drop us if something big happens.
B) They can't cap our benefits.
C) Once the insurance pools are set up, we can look for something that costs less, and not have to worry about preexisting conditions.
D) It's possible that we could get a subsidy to help pay for our insurance. I haven't looked to see if we qualify.


----------



## thcri RIP

Adillo303 said:


> Now there is an interesting thought.
> 
> I would think that a workable system would be that the individual procures their own insurance and caries it with them wherever they go. Business would then have to deduct what they pay for insurance from their cost of goods sold and whatever markup that would cause.
> 
> Wait a minute1 Is that right? Honest question I do not know. Does the cost of company provided insurance go into cost of goods sold? Does that mean that it is subject to a markup? Is business then making profit on the medical insurance.
> 
> I am a one person company, I really don't know



We don't charge for handling the paperwork for health insurance, for their 401k's or cafeteria plans. But paying for the Health Insurance and the matching funds to their 401k's is a cost of business.  You the people will pay more for your services as no business is going to lose money.


----------



## thcri RIP

joec said:


> Because Richard Nixon said you will pay for it after discussing



I don't care what Nixon said, is it part of our Constitution?


----------



## joec

Oh and here is the video of which I mention as to why employers pay it. Also be very glad Watergate happened or his next step would of been even worse for you.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmHTte8jRLk&feature=related"]YouTube- Nixon HMOs[/ame]


----------



## thcri RIP

joec said:


> This is the part of the legacy costs that moved a lot of our companies to country with UHC as well as brought down GM and Chrysler. This is also why the Japanese build cars cheaper than the US companies can, their health care in Japan is covered by taxes in the form of UHC.



The only thing that brought down GM and Chrysler was themselves.  They allowed the unions to take control of them.  This process also made it easier for the Japanese to compete here in the United States.  jmo


----------



## joec

thcri said:


> The only thing that brought down GM and Chrysler was themselves.  They allowed the unions to take control of them.  This process also made it easier for the Japanese to compete here in the United States.  jmo




What ever you say thcri.


----------



## Melensdad

RobsanX said:


> A) Our insurance provider can't drop us if something big happens.
> B) They can't cap our benefits.
> C) Once the insurance pools are set up, we can look for something that costs less, and not have to worry about preexisting conditions.
> D) It's possible that we could get a subsidy to help pay for our insurance. I haven't looked to see if we qualify.



A) My daughter is a Type 1 Diabetic, we have not been dropped.  I have been treated for Rheumatoid Arthritis since 1983 and have not been dropped.  My mom had cancer (twice) never got dropped from insurance.  Dad had heart problems that he was born with, never got dropped.  My brother has ALL SORTS of medical issues, including heart problems from birth, nobody ever dropped him.  Most insurance companies continues coverages.
B) Most people never reach their caps so this is virtually a non-issue.
C) You can always look for a different pool today.  No change.  Go shopping now, nobody is stopping you.
D) For every 1 person who gets subsidies, 3 others will get increases to pay for the subsidies under the current plan.  Supposedly only the very low income, those just above poverty level and below will be getting subsidies.


----------



## thcri RIP

joec said:


> What ever you say thcri.



Joe it is my opinion.  But you cannot tell me that the unions did not drive up the overhead for GM, Ford and Chrysler both in wages and benefits.  Read what Ford has to say about what the unions did.


----------



## mak2

I truly dont remember, I read somewhere recently American execs make about 400x what their average worker makes, Japanese exec's make about 10x.  I am not trying to start something, really I am just asking.  Has anyone else seen figures like that.  If they have dont managemnt at least share the blame.  

I am from the midwest and it used to really bother me people with barely a high school education made as much as me with a 4 year degree.  So like I say, I dont know I am just trying to from an opinion.


----------



## RobsanX

Melensdad said:


> A) My daughter is a Type 1 Diabetic, we have not been dropped.  I have been treated for Rheumatoid Arthritis since 1983 and have not been dropped.  My mom had cancer (twice) never got dropped from insurance.  Dad had heart problems that he was born with, never got dropped.  My brother has ALL SORTS of medical issues, including heart problems from birth, nobody ever dropped him.  Most insurance companies continues coverages.
> B) Most people never reach their caps so this is virtually a non-issue.
> C) You can always look for a different pool today.  No change.  Go shopping now, nobody is stopping you.
> D) For every 1 person who gets subsidies, 3 others will get increases to pay for the subsidies under the current plan.  Supposedly only the very low income, those just above poverty level and below will be getting subsidies.



So if this bill doesn't change anything, then why all the irrational fear over it?


----------



## mtntopper

thcri said:


> One other thing Rob, why don't you pay for it. Why should business be the one to hold the bag on this. Next thing you know business will be forced to buy your next car or house. Business should only have to pay a person for a fair wage, that is all.


 
So you believe business is only responsible for wages to a person. I am really glad I do not work for you. Employers who want to retain productive employees will offer real benefits and incentives beyond a basic living wage to the people who are employees.

I had 22 employees and offered health insurance to all and the cost was built in to the cost of goods sold as is reality in all business expenses. So, if all businesses offer health insurance that actually evens out the playing field as the cost of it is built into the services or goods sold. Now the businesses not offering health insurance will have to make choices that will allow those that do pay for employee insurance to be more competitive and not cut throat by offering no benefits. I was always at a disadvantage cost of business wise to those in my industry that did not provide employee benefits. *If you already offer the health insurance benefit this new law should make you more competitive to the ones in your industry who give no benefits to employees and actually allow for more profitability.* 

I see only people afraid of change looking for any reason to bitch and complain about something that will actually benefit more than it will hurt in the long run.....


----------



## Melensdad

mtntopper said:


> So you believe business is only responsible for wages to a person. I am really glad I do not work for you. Employers who want to retain productive employees will offer real benefits and incentives beyond a basic living wage to the people who are employees.


Bill, when I owned a large company I provided health insurance to cover not only the employee but their family.  I covered roughly 75% of the total costs of the health care and 100% of the retirement contributions.  So I tend to agree with you.

However, now as a small employer, I simply cannot afford to offer such things and in the case of construction companies I see a similar issue in that they are going bankrupt due to a massive downturn in construction.  Those that will survive will do so by the skin of their teeth.

To my mind, and I think to yours, we offered benefits as a way to attract high producers and keep long term producers.  That is simply good business.  But not everyone can afford it.





RobsanX said:


> So if this bill doesn't change anything, then why all the irrational fear over it?


I already detailed a list of things I object to, none are irrational.  Why do you have to resort to the insults?


----------



## Big Dog

mtntopper said:


> I see only people afraid of change looking for any reason to bitch and complain about something that *will actually benefit more than it will hurt in the long run*.....



Will you guarantee that?


----------



## RobsanX

Melensdad said:


> I already detailed a list of things I object to, none are irrational.  Why do you have to resort to the insults?



You just told me that this bill changes nothing. So if you're not worried about the current system, and this bill doesn't change anything, that makes your fears irrational.


----------



## RobsanX

mtntopper said:


> So you believe business is only responsible for wages to a person. I am really glad I do not work for you. Employers who want to retain productive employees will offer real benefits and incentives beyond a basic living wage to the people who are employees.



You'd think they'd crack a history book and read about slave wages, child labor, unreasonable work hours, etc. and how it affected our country. There are many that would go back to that system in a heartbeat not even thinking about how hard life was for the majority of the population then.


----------



## mak2

this bill is not really UHC  so we could be arguing two differnet things.  I just hope it is the first step.

Child labor has been replaced with illegal immigration.  that is why the right doesnt get all worked up about it and Bush never built the fence.  JMHO.


----------



## Melensdad

RobsanX said:


> You just told me that this bill changes nothing. So if you're not worried about the current system, and this bill doesn't change anything, that makes your fears irrational.



No, I pointed out that the specific things you seem to be concerned about are not substantially, if at all, different.  There are lots of other things to consider in the bill.

You seem to have a very limited focus on things that does not take the whole scope into account.

As for the irrational part, none of the concerns I levied are irrational, please refer back to them.


----------



## Melensdad

mak2 said:


> Child labor has been replaced with illegal immigration.  that is why the right doesnt get all worked up about it and Bush never built the fence.  JMHO.


I agree with you except your characterization of "the right" because there are plenty, if not most, on the right who did get angry with Bush.  However it is also true that some big businesses/construction, etc and big agriculture do want lots of illegals.  I think that your pan of "the right" may need to be focused a bit more.


----------



## mak2

Melensdad said:


> I agree with you except your characterization of "the right" because there are plenty, if not most, on the right who did get angry with Bush.  However it is also true that some big businesses/construction, etc and big agriculture do want lots of illegals.  I think that your pan of "the right" may need to be focused a bit more.



OK, you are probably correct.  It is the power and money on the right that want to use illegals.


----------



## Tractors4u

Wasn't it discovered that Caroline Kennedy had a maid that was an illegal immigrant? How about Timothy Geithner who not only had an illegal immigrant maid, but had failed to pay his taxes as well and he was appointed treaury secretary.  I'm thinking that there were a few more.


----------



## mtntopper

> Originally Posted by *mtntopper*
> 
> 
> 
> _I see only people afraid of change looking for any reason to bitch and complain about something that *will actually benefit more than it will hurt in the long run*....._


 


Big Dog said:


> Will you guarantee that?


 
*And, you will guarantee that will hurt more than it helps? * 

There are too many simple lame responses to a very complicated problem that no one is able to know or completely understand what the actual future outcome of the legislation passed yesterday will be in the future. 

I see it as the *best available proactive approach today,* instead waiting until the problem of US health care reaches epidemic proportions as the so called "conservatives" approach or lack of to the problem of US health care and its effect on the whole country and future economy.


----------



## thcri RIP

mtntopper said:


> So you believe business is only responsible for wages to a person. I am really glad I do not work for you. Employers who want to retain productive employees will offer real benefits and incentives beyond a basic living wage to the people who are employees.
> 
> I had 22 employees and offered health insurance to all and the cost was built in to the cost of goods sold as is reality in all business expenses. So, if all businesses offer health insurance that actually evens out the playing field as the cost of it is built into the services or goods sold. Now the businesses not offering health insurance will have to make choices that will allow those that do pay for employee insurance to be more competitive and not cut throat by offering no benefits. I was always at a disadvantage cost of business wise to those in my industry that did not provide employee benefits. *If you already offer the health insurance benefit this new law should make you more competitive to the ones in your industry who give no benefits to employees and actually allow for more profitability.*
> 
> I see only people afraid of change looking for any reason to bitch and complain about something that will actually benefit more than it will hurt in the long run.....



Ah Bill you make me out to be a mean old bastard.  I do pay for my employees health insurance and have for over twenty years now.  You and I both paid for our employees for many years and it use to be you retained better employees.  I don't think that is as much true anymore as in the past as most people now expect it.  But you and I did it because we wanted to, we were not forced to.  Big difference in my book.

murph


----------



## Big Dog

mtntopper said:


> *And, you will guarantee that will hurt more than it helps? *



I didn't say a thing, you're the one making predictions or should I say "stating fact"? Typical answer by turning it around and not answering. Getting a lot of that these days.


----------



## joec

Here look it up this is the first site that popped up when I entered Nixon Health care plan.

http://modern-us-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_nixonkennedy_healthcare_plan



> *Nixon’s Plan for Universal Health Care*
> 
> By the time of President Richard Nixon’s election to office, the  debate over health care had once again resurfaced. In the same vein as  Teddy Roosevelt’s proposed “Square Deal”, which had first broached  national health insurance as a political topic in 1912, Nixon proposed a  plan that would provide health insurance for all Americans. Similar to  the situation faced by President Johnson, partisan opposition to Nixon's  policies was firmly entrenched. In this instance, few were prepared to  label the renowned anti-communist president as an advocate for  socialism. Instead his opponents, such as Senator Edward “Teddy” Kennedy  of Massachusetts, attacked Nixon on the grounds that he was offering a  deal that would see the insurance companies benefit.
> Nixon, for his part, was stalwart in his belief that a national  health insurance plan was vital to the country’s future. He stated in  his 1974  State of the Union Address that “The time is at hand this year to  bring comprehensive, high quality health care within the reach of every  American.” Nixon’s own past experience with poverty and family illness  made this a personal issue for the President. Yet Nixon’s call for an  employer mandate to provide health insurance as part of his planned  universal health care coverage for all citizens was seen as inadequate  by many democrats in congress. The plan was also opposed by powerful  unions such as the AFL-CIO and the United Autoworkers, who lobbied hard  to defeat the legislation.
> 
> Read more at  Suite101: The  Nixon-Kennedy Health Care Plan: How Richard Nixon and Edward Kennedy  Worked For American Health Care http://modern-us-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_nixonkennedy_healthcare_plan#ixzz0ivZg08vD
> ​



​


----------



## mtntopper

thcri said:


> Ah Bill you make me out to be a mean old bastard. I do pay for my employees health insurance and have for over twenty years now. You and I both paid for our employees for many years and it use to be you retained better employees. I don't think that is as much true anymore as in the past as most people now expect it. But you and I did it because we wanted to, we were not forced to. Big difference in my book.
> 
> murph


 
My point is: 





> *If you already offer the health insurance benefit this new law should make you more competitive to the ones in your industry who give no benefits to employees and actually allow for more profitability.*


 
And, why will this drive small businesses and you out of business.... Business's will survive this if they just approach it with reason and responsibility. 

*I always worked beside my employees and not above them.* They understood I cared by offering the best of benefits, wages, wanted the best for them and the business. So in turn many of them gave more than 110% back to the business which was worth the extra cost and efforts to have happy productive employees who also worked harder than the competitors employees. This is what made us the best in our trade area of 10 states. It's easy math to get the best employees who are the most productive and be the tops in your trade area by working the hardest and offering the most along with good leadership skills. Productivity overcomes expense and the right employees are the ones who make the business work not just the owner...... and, I had great employees who eventually were able to buy me out of my ownership role when I decided to sell as an added benefit for their efforts over the years.


----------



## thcri RIP

mtntopper said:


> My point is:
> 
> And, why will this drive small businesses and you out of business.... Business's will survive this if they just approach it with reason and responsibility.






mtntopper said:


> *If you already offer the health insurance  benefit this new law should make you more competitive to the ones in  your industry who give no benefits to employees and actually allow for  more profitability.*




It is not a competitive thing in our area as all of my competitors pay for the employees health insurance.  I am looking at the many business's that are going to fail with the added expense that don't pay for it.  I have employees health insurance that is costing dang near a thousand dollars a month and if a business is not prepared for that it will destroy them.  There is also the thing with the economy the way it is even if you are paying it right now there is not enough business to pay for it on top of the normal overhead.

Again I repeat, I think the economy should have been fixed first.


----------



## SShepherd

joec said:


> Because Richard Nixon said you will pay for it after discussing it with one of his supporters. Oh and the guy also had an insurance company specializing in HMO. Now I don't feel employers should pay for their employees health care at all and never have. This is the part of the legacy costs that moved a lot of our companies to country with UHC as well as brought down GM and Chrysler*. This is also why the Japanese build cars cheaper than the US companies can, their health care in Japan is covered by taxes in the form of UHC*.


 

uhh, I don't believe thats entirely true Joe...unions have alot to do with that cost factor


----------



## joec

How many non union companies go out of business every year? The labor costs are basically the same between union and non union, but if don't think it is true then check it out yourself.


----------



## Dargo

joec said:


> How many non union companies go out of business every year? The labor costs are basically the same between union and non union, but if don't think it is true then check it out yourself.



Unions are thieves then.  I've never had a union company give me a bid on a project that was competitive with a non-union company.  If their cost factor is the same, someone sure has their hand in the cookie jar!!


----------



## thcri RIP

joec said:


> How many non union companies go out of business every year? The labor costs are basically the same between union and non union, but if don't think it is true then check it out yourself.



In the construction trade unions have lost about 70% of the work.  Many have gone to commercial only and then out of business.


----------



## Dargo

joec said:


> Here look it up this is the first site that popped up when I entered Nixon Health care plan.



Nixon is dead and gone.  I don't give a squat about what may be true or not true about his supposed health plan.  A fact about Omamma's health plan is this: "In all, the bill would generate $409.2 billion in additional taxes by 2019, according to an analysis  by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan agency."

*I do NOT want my children and their children having to spend their money to cover the mistake made by this completely unqualified fool in the White House!*  Don't give me any crap about his "degrees" or his "education".  We know all about that garbage.  But, he sure can play a mean game of teleprompter reading!  He knows he needs big time help from illegals and those who don't work but who can vote to stay in office.


----------



## mtntopper

thcri said:


> It is not a competitive thing in our area as all of my competitors pay for the employees health insurance. I am looking at the many business's that are going to fail with the added expense that don't pay for it. I have employees health insurance that is costing dang near a thousand dollars a month and if a business is not prepared for that it will destroy them. There is also the thing with the economy the way it is even if you are paying it right now there is not enough business to pay for it on top of the normal overhead.
> 
> Again I repeat, I think the economy should have been fixed first.


 
The economy has been fixed too many times in the past. Without this current economic readjustment taking place the next fall may of been too catastrophic to ever recover. So, I go along with now or never to get a real norm/reality of true economics back in place and not false fortune building as has been done the past 30 years.



thcri said:


> Last year we did 50 houses. I am laying people off on a weekly basis and *can not afford the expense to pay for health insurance anymore*. If the economy does not change I may be forced to close my doors.


 
The economy is the factor for business shutting down not the health care legislation now put into law. If an economic downturn closes a business then I would not consider the business a really viable long term business. Planning for poor economic times is just as important or more as taking advantage of good economic conditions. Business has cycles, good, bad and the ownership or management needs to plan for both or fail.


----------



## thcri RIP

mtntopper said:


> The economy is the factor for business shutting down not the health care legislation now put into law. If an economic downturn closes a business then



Economy is hard enough on business right now.  Adding the expense of health care is not the answer right now.  It will put a lot of companies over the edge not to mention more jobs going overseas such as Microsoft.

Take a company like mine, 45 employees at $150.00 per month.  That turns into 81K.  Oh crap that $150 per month is for the young employees.  Add in the older ones like me that are costing $875 per month and it really ads up.


----------



## joec

thcri said:


> In the construction trade unions have lost about 70% of the work.  Many have gone to commercial only and then out of business.



I've been out of construction work since '76. I have said to you before that the construction labor unions are dead or dying out. In Florida at the time I was in the trades unions did about 80% of the construction work today I have no idea but would image it is way down now. At the time I was doing it the estimate was about 10% of a projects cost was labor with the rest on material, equipment and profit regardless of union or not.


----------



## RobsanX

Melensdad said:


> *Rationing of care.*
> Every country that has some sort of nationalized health care has it.  I've tried to look at several major western nations and there is no denying that it exists far beyond any sort of rationing that private health insurance can/does impose.  See my final point for an example.
> 
> *Lack of innovation, stifling innovation.*
> Take out the profit motive and innovation tends to go down.  Plain and simple fact and applies to every industry I know of, including medicine.
> 
> *Lack of choices, increased wait times, reduced services, reduced access to life saving specialties.*
> The system in place in the UK is that one I am most familiar with having friends there and by comparison they have all these things compared to our system.  My sister, now living in England, flies to New York City for her health care needs.  Our friend in Ireland has cancer, it is a very curable form of cancer here in the US, there he is forced to wait for months to see the oncologist, he's been waiting roughly 3 months and has 2 to 3 more to go before he gets to have the 1st meeting.  Basically he will die from a curable cancer because he can't get treatment.





Melensdad said:


> No, I pointed out that the specific things you seem to be concerned about are not substantially, if at all, different.  There are lots of other things to consider in the bill.
> 
> You seem to have a very limited focus on things that does not take the whole scope into account.
> 
> As for the irrational part, none of the concerns I levied are irrational, please refer back to them.



Your fears are based on a UK style single payer system. This bill is nothing like that system. So unless you can show me how the new US system is similar to the UK system, then yes your fears are irrational.


----------



## RobsanX

thcri said:


> Economy is hard enough on business right now.  Adding the expense of health care is not the answer right now.  It will put a lot of companies over the edge not to mention more jobs going overseas such as Microsoft.
> 
> Take a company like mine, 45 employees at $150.00 per month.  That turns into 81K.  Oh crap that $150 per month is for the young employees.  Add in the older ones like me that are costing $875 per month and it really ads up.



You're going to get a subsidy, starting this year.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704117304575137370275522704.html


----------



## Cityboy

DaveNay said:


> This is an honest question. There are many members of FF that are vehemently opposed to the health care plan, and to ANY nationalized health care in general.
> 
> Discounting administrative and bureaucratic reasons (gov't inefficiencies, etc)...I ask "Why?".
> 
> What are your reasons for opposing the idea of health care, not this (or any other) actual implementation.


 
Because Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz and Beck told them to be afraid?


----------



## thcri RIP

joec said:


> How many non union companies go out of business every year? The labor costs are basically the same between union and non union, but if don't think it is true then check it out yourself.




Joe, I think I missed what you said, I thought you said how many Union companies go out of business.  In the Construction trade many have gone out.  I apologize for the mis-read.



joec said:


> I've been out of construction work since '76. I have said to you before that the construction labor unions are dead or dying out. In Florida at the time I was in the trades unions did about 80% of the construction work today I have no idea but would image it is way down now. At the time I was doing it the estimate was about 10% of a projects cost was labor with the rest on material, equipment and profit regardless of union or not.




You are right. At one time in the construction trade the unions had about 80% of the work.  Today it is a total flip flop.  It has all boiled down to money.  The end user took the lower the price.  In most smaller jobs such as residential and light commercial the non union contractors get it done faster and more efficient.  The Unions could not compete.


----------



## joec

thcri said:


> Economy is hard enough on business right now.  Adding the expense of health care is not the answer right now.  It will put a lot of companies over the edge not to mention more jobs going overseas such as Microsoft.
> 
> Take a company like mine, 45 employees at $150.00 per month.  That turns into 81K.  Oh crap that $150 per month is for the young employees.  Add in the older ones like me that are costing $875 per month and it really ads up.



You will not see any costs till 2013 or 2014 and by then no telling what the economy will be like. Now without the legislation your insurance costs will continue to rise but you don't seem to understand that. It was raised 30% just last month of private insurance and has gone up almost 200% of the last decade. 

Now the current plan is to offer more options allowing small business to buy a cheaper rates similar to what the rates that big business buys at. You will be able to join a pool so you with many other companies will buy insurance like the big companies do and lower your rates. I don't seem to understand why that is so hard to understand.


----------



## joec

thcri said:


> Joe, I think I missed what you said, I thought you said how many Union companies go out of business.  In the Construction trade many have gone out.  I apologize for the mis-read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right. At one time in the construction trade the unions had about 80% of the work.  Today it is a total flip flop.  It has all boiled down to money.  The end user took the lower the price.  In most smaller jobs such as residential and light commercial the non union contractors get it done faster and more efficient.  The Unions could not compete.



Actually in Florida right to work laws killed the unions. Now that they are gone wages have dropped considerably.


----------



## thcri RIP

RobsanX said:


> You're going to get a subsidy, starting this year.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704117304575137370275522704.html



And where is the 940 Billion going to come from?  And keep in mind I am already paying my people.  I am just being a devils advocate here.


----------



## thcri RIP

joec said:


> Actually in Florida right to work laws killed the unions. Now that they are gone wages have dropped considerably.



Minnesota is a Right to Work State also.


----------



## joec

I rest my case then as that is what has killed the construction unions in this nation not non unions ability to compete.


----------



## RobsanX

thcri said:


> And where is the 940 Billion going to come from?  And keep in mind I am already paying my people.  I am just being a devils advocate here.



As I understand, the bulk of it will come from a tax hike on those making more than $250k, and from savings in Medicare.


----------



## mak2

Cityboy said:


> Because Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz and Beck told them to be afraid?



Amen.


----------



## joec

And allowing the Bush tax cuts for the vary rich to die later this year. That alone has cost around 500 billion dollars.


----------



## thcri RIP

joec said:


> I rest my case then as that is what has killed the construction unions in this nation not non unions ability to compete.




No as you said before, when unions raised their wages so did non-union.  You stated that some time ago Joe.  I believe the union's problem was based more on performance.


----------



## thcri RIP

RobsanX said:


> As I understand, the bulk of it will come from a tax hike on those making more than $250k, and from savings in Medicare.



Well I don't count in that field, but I wonder how many of the ones making over $250K per year will figure a way around that or just say screw it and quit or back themselves down?  I think an article on that was posted here some time ago.


----------



## joec

thcri said:


> No as you said before, when unions raised their wages so did non-union.  You stated that some time ago Joe.  I believe the union's problem was based more on performance.



The largest corporation in the world is Bectel corp. They are 100% union working in every country on the planet except Israel. Now Brown and Root the largest non union construction company in the US was replaced in Texas building a power plant due to cost overruns, shoddy workmanship etc. I know I was hired by Bectel to work it after they took the contract away for B&R. 

But believe what you want so if thinking union work was substandard go for it.


----------



## thcri RIP

joec said:


> But believe what you want so if thinking union work was substandard go for it.



Not what I said.  I think the costs running a union shop has gotten too high.  Even with prevailing wages the non union shops here will come in about 20% less on bids over union and if their experience is like mine they make money on the projects.  Also I see the hours with non union employees on a job runs less than a union like project.  A typical example is the housing industry or small commercial jobs.  The union cannot compete with the hours.

I pay my employees health insurance, I pay for vacation pay and many other bonuses that unions charge for.  Our wages once you add my benefits is almost the same as union.  But my guys will do a project in less time, thus I am more competitive.  In our area I have not seen a union contractor do a house in years.


----------



## joec

When I was in the union we got an hourly wage and some benefits such as health insurance and retirement. We didn't work we didn't get paid with the union being the hiring hall. In my day even in Florida every one was laid off in November and didn't go back to work till near the end of January. It had a lot to do with why I left the trades all together. It wasn't the unions doing it, it was the shops doing it. The shops charged 3x what our actual wage was which I discovered when I did estimating for one company.


----------



## thcri RIP

joec said:


> The shops charged 3x what our actual wage was which I discovered when I did estimating for one company.



3X seems high but not out of line.  Labor comes at a big expense.  I would rather just sit on my ass and sell equipment all day.  I can sell equipment at 3% and make more money than labor jobs at 3X my cost.  For the record most non union shops sell labor for 2x and less.  I don't know if the difference is record keeping or what.  But wait 3X is large if your making the employee pay the HC which typically unions do along with vacation.


----------



## SShepherd

well, I could list all the things is saw working in a UAW shop, but you probably wouldn't believe it, 

I can tell you it's probably the #2 reason GM went in the shitter.

production quotas; You made 200 parts in 4hrs, you sat around playing cards the rest of the day while getting paid. Those were union negotiated quotas.

union "perks"; if yer a union steward/official, you get "union time" sometimes days at a time- often for fund raising, or in the case that really pissed me off- handing out papers TELLING us who to vote for "to keep our jobs". Other times it was sitting in the union office, shooting the shit.

Thats just 2 , without getting into some larger issues with union members screaming racism if they were fired or reprimanded


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

When I worked at a union newspaper, I was scheduled for 8 hours, paid for 10 hours, showed up for about 6 hours and probably worked for 4 hours.  I was also one of the most productive people there.


----------



## SShepherd

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqojWrtnieI"]YouTube- Al Sharpton Claims American Public Voted for Socialism When Electing Obama[/ame]


I found this a bit disturbing


----------



## joec

Al Shapton is a moron that all I can say.


----------



## SShepherd

joec said:


> Al Shapton is a moron that all I can say.


 
oh, I agree 100%, but make no mistake he has alot of influence in D.C.


----------



## mak2

PBinWA said:


> When I worked at a union newspaper, I was scheduled for 8 hours, paid for 10 hours, showed up for about 6 hours and probably worked for 4 hours.  I was also one of the most productive people there.



that is more of a character thing than a union thing.  Just sayin.


----------



## Tractors4u

joec said:


> And allowing the Bush tax cuts for the vary rich to die later this year. That alone has cost around 500 billion dollars.



WRONG!  A tax cut does not cost anything!  It was our money to begin with.  Spending most costs something.  Not taking money from someone does not cost anything.  I don't make more than $250K and his takes cuts saved me money.


----------



## jimbo

Al Sharpton is a moron who has visited the White House 5 times since Obama took control.  He goes in the front door,and visits the oval office, then leaves by the front door.  The Dalai Lama, does not meet the president in the oval office, and leaves via the trash door, duly photographed and recorded.  It's all a question of priorities.


----------



## mak2

Tractors4u said:


> WRONG!  A tax cut does not cost anything!  It was our money to begin with.  Spending most costs something.  Not taking money from someone does not cost anything.  I don't make more than $250K and his takes cuts saved me money.



See you really need to think more.  Cutting the taxes on the very rich, without cutting the spending, means someone who is not very rich has to pay for it.  It is one thing to spew talking points, but you have to know when to use them.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Tractors4u said:


> WRONG!  A tax cut does not cost anything!  It was our money to begin with.  Spending most costs something.  Not taking money from someone does not cost anything.  I don't make more than $250K and his takes cuts saved me money.



Well said Brents!  

If anyone thinks this bill will only tax people who make more than $200K then they are dreaming.  At some point they will have to go after the middle class and they will reach down farther and farther until everyone is paying more.  Then they will tack on VAT to make it worse.


----------



## Tractors4u

mak2 said:


> See you really need to think more.  Cutting the taxes on the very rich, without cutting the spending, means someone who is not very rich has to pay for it.  It is one thing to spew talking points, but you have to know when to use them.



I'm not very rich, I'm not rich at all.  My do nothing mother in law got an income tax refund check after Bush implemented his tax cuts.  She is not rich and does not work.  Again, the tax cuts were not for the just the rich.  Since you mentioned the rich, isn't it the rich who typically do the hiring?  You guys love bashing the rich and corporate America, but when was the last time you were hired by a welfare recipient?  You don't need to bite the hand that feeds you.


----------



## joec

If you think so Tractors. I am so glad you make that kind of money and tells me a lot about some of the attitudes around here.


----------



## Tractors4u

I don't know where you got how much I make.  I can tell you that it is below $100K, well below.  I just choose not to fall for the class warfare tactics that the left loves to play.  Kind of like the race card that they play.


----------



## joec




----------



## jimbo

mak2 said:


> See you really need to think more.  Cutting the taxes on the very rich, without cutting the spending, means someone who is not very rich has to pay for it.  It is one thing to spew talking points, but you have to know when to use them.


Mak, your logic only works if you presume that the income of those over $250K was your money in the first place.  Then it will cost you money.  Otherwise, T4U is right.

What you suggest has another name.  Redistribution of wealth.


----------



## Tractors4u

Nice solid response Joe.  I don't have much for that.


----------



## mak2

jimbo said:


> Mak, your logic only works if you presume that the income of those over $250K was your money in the first place.  Then it will cost you money.  Otherwise, T4U is right.
> 
> What you suggest has another name.  Redistribution of wealth.



why should they redistribute your wealth, instead of people who make in excss of 250k?  Come on man, think a minute.


----------



## jimbo

mak2 said:


> why should they redistribute your wealth, instead of people who make in excss of 250k?  Come on man, think a minute.


I sorta agree with you there.  The government should not redistribute the wealth of anyone earning under $250K, (or anyone earning over $250K).

So now, have you switched your argument from "tax cuts cost money" to "Government should redistribute the wealth of the rich?"


----------



## Tractors4u

mak2 said:


> why should they redistribute your wealth, instead of people who make in excss of 250k?  Come on man, think a minute.



Why should anyone's wealth be redistributed? Why?


----------



## mak2

For one I was not making the argument, just pointing out the flaws.  So I dont have to defend it.  Your turn.


----------



## mak2

Tractors4u said:


> Why should anyone's wealth be redistributed? Why?



OK, get rid of taxes, we are all on our own, no roads no infrastructure.  Do you even realize what you are saying?


----------



## Tractors4u

I never said anything redistribution of wealth, you did.  I don't believe in the redistribution of wealth.  It kind of reminds me of when Obama mentioned it during one of his campaign stops, you have shown your true feelings.  Maybe a little class envy on your part?


----------



## RobsanX

Tractors4u said:


> Why should anyone's wealth be redistributed? Why?



I doubt someone receiving chemotherapy is feeling very wealthy.


----------



## Tractors4u

mak2 said:


> OK, get rid of taxes, we are all on our own, no roads no infrastructure.  Do you even realize what you are saying?



I understand that taxes are necessary to maintain infrastructure.  You believe that Uncle Sam should take care of everyone's needs and WANTS!  I believe in minimum government intervention.  You obviously don't feel that people can survive with Big Brother taking care of them.  Your redistribution mentality says "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".  Uncle Karl would be so proud of you!


----------



## Tractors4u

RobsanX said:


> I doubt someone receiving chemotherapy is feeling very wealthy.



Typical response.  So what have you done to help others?  How have you made your country better?  What is the sacrifice you have made?  You obviously expect others to carry the load, what are you doing to tow the line?


----------



## mak2

Tractors4u said:


> I understand that taxes are necessary to maintain infrastructure.  You believe that Uncle Sam should take care of everyone's needs and WANTS!  I believe in minimum government intervention.  You obviously don't feel that people can survive with Big Brother taking care of them.  Your redistribution mentality says "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".  Uncle Karl would be so proud of you!



I just looked back through the thread, I was not the first one to mention or describe redistibuting the wealth.  I pointed out the flaws in your arguments, if you can call them that, politely and not attacking you personally in any way.  Dont tell me what I beleive or think.  You are.....well stop right now telling me stuff. ok?


----------



## RobsanX

Tractors4u said:


> Typical response.  So what have you done to help others?  How have you made your country better?  What is the sacrifice you have made?  You obviously expect others to carry the load, what are you doing to tow the line?



I'm not one to toot my own horn. As far as health care is concerned, I voted for Barack Obama, as did millions of others who wanted this kind of change.


----------



## Tractors4u

RobsanX said:


> I'm not one to toot my own horn. As far as health care is concerned, I voted for Barack Obama, as did millions of others who wanted this kind of change.




That's what I thought.


----------



## mak2

Tractors4u said:


> I never said anything redistribution of wealth, you did.  I don't believe in the redistribution of wealth.  It kind of reminds me of when Obama mentioned it during one of his campaign stops, you have shown your true feelings.  Maybe a little class envy on your part?



.....


----------



## Dargo

RobsanX said:


> I'm not one to toot my own horn. As far as health care is concerned, I voted for Barack Obama, as did millions of others who wanted this kind of change.





You may very well be in the minority of those who were fooled into voting for him who actually want the "change" they are getting!  That, sir, is NOT just my opinion but the opinion reported by most every poll taken.


----------



## mak2

Tractors4u said:


> That's what I thought.



......


----------



## Tractors4u

mak2 said:


> Actually I just missed this post.  I am just shy of 200k, if I swithced to nights I would have to pay the increse you are talking about.  Do you have any idea what you are talking about even part of the time?



For someone who asked me to stop it, you just won't let go will you?  I had no idea what kind of money you make.  You seemed to be all about taxing the rich.  I was discussing this with JoeC when you jumped in and asked me twice to stop it.  So since you make more than twice as much as I do, maybe you should pay twice as much tax as I do.  Such a shame, a man making that much money and still wanting more from his government.


----------



## SShepherd

RobsanX said:


> I doubt someone receiving chemotherapy is feeling very wealthy.


 
and THAT is a typical emocrate responce...... a guilt trip. I'm glad I'm immune to it

just like your walter reed comment


----------



## mak2

Tractors4u said:


> For someone who asked me to stop it, you just won't let go will you?  I had no idea what kind of money you make.  You seemed to be all about taxing the rich.  I was discussing this with JoeC when you jumped in and asked me twice to stop it.  So since you make more than twice as much as I do, maybe you should pay twice as much tax as I do.  Such a shame, a man making that much money and still wanting more from his government.



OK fine.  I make twice what you do and you still dont know better then to try to tell me I have class envy.  I should pay twice the taxes you do, why are you so silly to think I shouldnt?  I dont want more from my governemnt, you just dont have a clue.


----------



## Tractors4u

mak2 said:


> OK fine.  I make twice what you do and you still dont know better then to try to tell me I have class envy.  I should pay twice the taxes you do, why are you so silly to think I shouldnt?  I dont want more from my governemnt, you just dont have a clue.



The class envy comment was not based on your income, I made that statement before you stated how much you made.  My comment about you paying double the taxes was sarcasm.  I don't believe you should have to pay a higher percentage of taxes because you make more.  You've obviously worked to get where you are at and you shouldn't be punished for your success.  I believe there should be a flat tax, for everyone.


----------



## mak2

Ok buddy and brother in arms, lets just drop it.  If I act out again let me know.  But dont pick on me.  Okay?


----------



## SShepherd

mak2 said:


> OK fine. I make twice what you do and you still dont know better then to try to tell me I have class envy. I should pay twice the taxes you do, why are you so silly to think I shouldnt? I dont want more from my governemnt, you just dont have a clue.


 

I dont understand why someone who makes 200k should get taxed more..

do they use twice as much road space? doent gas tax and plates take care of that?

do they have more land? maybe, but doesnt property tax take care of that?

do they buy more? They might, but they also play more in sales tax.

it just doesnt make sence, unless you buy into the whole "socialism" thing

in which case, I'll fight against untill I die.


----------



## mak2

SShepherd said:


> I dont understand why someone who makes 200k should get taxed more..
> 
> do they use twice as much road space? doent gas tax and plates take care of that?
> 
> do they have more land? maybe, but doesnt property tax take care of that?
> 
> do they buy more? They might, but they also play more in sales tax.
> 
> it just doesnt make sence, unless you buy into the whole "socialism" thing
> 
> in which case, I'll fight against untill I die.



I retracted that as soon as I thought about it a couple seconds.  I am sorry I said it.  But I can pay the same percentage anyone else does.  I buy food and pay utilities out of a smaller percentage of my check than people that make less so paying the same percentage still puts me ahead.  Paying less doesnt make sense to me.


----------



## Tractors4u

mak2 said:


> Ok buddy and brother in arms, lets just drop it.  If I act out again let me know.  But dont pick on me.  Okay?



You got it.  Didn't mean to pick on you.


----------



## mak2

deal, maybe I am starting my period or something. hehe.


----------



## Tractors4u

mak2 said:


> deal, maybe I am starting my period or something. hehe.



Don't talk like that or I will pick on you!


----------



## thcri RIP

mak2 said:


> Ok buddy and brother in arms, lets just drop it.  If I act out again let me know.  But dont pick on me.  Okay?





Tractors4u said:


> You got it.  Didn't mean to pick on you.




  Hey can it be my turn to pick on Mak


----------



## mak2




----------



## waybomb

Let me get this straight. 

We're going to be gifted with a health care  plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand  it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from  it, to be signed by a president who also hasn't read it and who smokes,  with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,  to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a  country that's broke. 

What the hell could possibly go wrong?


----------



## joec

Here read this will let you know what is going to change and what isn't going to change. Who gets what and who gets nothing. I haven't got the patients any more for the same old things being said when few if any of you even has bothered to follow what is in the bill that will be signed tomorrow into law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/your-money/health-insurance/22consumer.html?ref=politics


----------



## SShepherd

*Although most Americans who do not obtain health insurance would face a federal penalty starting in 2014, many experts question how strict the enforcement of that penalty would actually be.* 

ok, so what happens if they don't pay? Bigger fines? Go to jail?

There would be costs to consumers, too. Affluent families would be required to pay additional taxes. *Most Americans would be required to have health insurance and face federal penalties if they do not buy it*. And it is still unclear what effect, if any, the legislation would have on rising out-of-pocket medical costs and premiums. 

I'm not a lawyer.....but is that even legal?


----------



## waybomb

How many thousands of pages, condensed into one? That's better than Cliff Notes. And the NYT, that bastion of responsible reporting...

I don't have any patients either 

Well, maybe my cars.


----------



## thcri RIP

Joe,

How do they determine whether or not a family or person can afford it?  




> Most Americans would be required to have health insurance and face  federal penalties if they do not buy it


----------



## waybomb

SShepherd said:


> *Although most Americans who do not obtain health insurance would face a federal penalty starting in 2014, many experts question how strict the enforcement of that penalty would actually be.*
> 
> ok, so what happens if they don't pay? Bigger fines? Go to jail?
> 
> There would be costs to consumers, too. Affluent families would be required to pay additional taxes. *Most Americans would be required to have health insurance and face federal penalties if they do not buy it*. And it is still unclear what effect, if any, the legislation would have on rising out-of-pocket medical costs and premiums.
> 
> I'm not a lawyer.....but is that even legal?




That would be a sight - the IRS collecting in the hood.....


----------



## joec

thcri said:


> Joe,
> 
> How do they determine whether or not a family or person can afford it?



Based on their income. Here is a site with the current poverty levels and you can't afford it if you make 4x that for the average family based on number of people in the family as well.


----------



## thcri RIP

joec said:


> Based on their income. Here is a site with the current poverty levels and you can't afford it if you make 4x that for the average family based on number of people in the family as well.



Where is the site??


----------



## joec

Sorry about that here http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml


----------



## thcri RIP

Joe, so if I read that chart right and you say I can make up to 4x that amount for my wife and me that is 44K a year.  So any couple 65 and under making over the 44K but not much more they will be forced to buy their own insurance or fined right? 

The original amount on the chart was $11,161.00 times 4 = 44K


----------



## joec

Nope under 65 because at 65 you go on medicare. Where did you get 11,161 as it says family of 2 is 14,570 x 4 = 58280. Now you get supplemented less at that point up to the top limits of about 80K per year. Now none of this happens for 4 years on those fronts. I might add that one of the fixes going to start in the Senate to day is taking away the fine for not having it, removing the give aways to the 3 or 4 states and the Cadillac tax amount will be raised higher.


----------



## thcri RIP

joec said:


> Nope under 65 because at 65 you go on medicare. Where did you get 11,161 as it says family of 2 is 14,570 x 4 = 58280. Now you get supplemented less at that point up to the top limits of about 80K per year. Now none of this happens for 4 years on those fronts. I might add that one of the fixes going to start in the Senate to day is taking away the fine for not having it, removing the give aways to the 3 or 4 states and the Cadillac tax amount will be raised higher.




I was questioning my own ability to read the chart.  I was looking at the bracket of 65 and younger with no children under 18.  I have two children over 18.  My health insurance for my wife and I runs just over 18K per year no counting the deductibles and co-pay.  My children are added free so taking my children out doesn't change anything.  So a person making just over 58k is left with 40K to live on.  I am not sure a family of 4 could live on 40K.  Hmmm


----------



## joec

The new health care bill allows you to keep your children on it till they are 26 years old now. I have no children under the age of 40 so I haven't paid much attention to that part of it to be honest with you. I actually will see nothing from this bill except some changes in my opinion for the good in Medicare as my pre existing conditions problem would not be in force till a year after my wife is on medicare either. As I've stated before this bill will have little to no effect on me personally but will for my children and their families.

My wife and I live on a two/thirds of that in the 30K range very comfortably though we don't owe anything to anybody and we live within our means. Not saying you don't just stating a fact if you lose the interests charges or credit cards, car payments, mortgages etc it becomes a lot less expensive to live. Now with that said think about what you will pay over the next 10 years for your insurance premiums.


----------



## Big Dog

waybomb said:


> Let me get this straight.
> 
> We're going to be gifted with a health care  plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand  it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from  it, to be signed by a president who also hasn't read it and who smokes,  with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,  to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a  country that's broke.
> 
> What the hell could possibly go wrong?



And we have a WINNER!      ............. reps coming!!!


----------

