Intentionally gave this thread a boring title to keep the people who think politics is all about whether you're for or against FOX News out. Well, at least for a little bit...

Now that Obama is realizing his stupid plan has no chance in hell of passing, the bill with the next most support is the Wyden-Bennet Health Bill, a.k.a. the Healthy Americans Act. With, as there always is, some items that don't make sense to everyone, this bill is a hell of a lot closer to reality than that government-controlled nonsense Obama was hyping.

The main thing for me, is that it breaks the govt.'s mass manipulation where if you have insurance through your job, you get preferential treatment. If you're retired before 65 or just between jobs, amongst other scenarios, you get nothing. This is what Wyden has to say about the inequity:

Quote:

---

And Labor? Unions have every right to bargain for the best possible package, he says. "But nobody, be it a CEO or a labor [union] member ought to be getting what amounts to gold-plated coverage with the tax subsidies paid for by somebody who is a modestly compensated woman at a small business who doesn't have a health plan."

---

Source: Click

How he breaks the govt.'s prejudice towards business supplied health insurance is taking away their tax deduction for it and giving it where it belongs, to individuals. Which not only gives them a tax break, but restructures the market towards individual policies instead of group ones. So, peopel aren't dependent upon a company to provide health insurance they're happy with.

The weirdest thing to me is how Wyden applies the tax benefits for individuals. Here's how it works:

Quote:

---

Individuals and families earning at or below 100 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) would receive a subsidy to offset the full cost of coverage. Individuals and families earning up to 400 percent of the FPL would receive a partial subsidy based on a sliding scale. In addition, the bill establishes an "above the line" tax deduction for health care. The deduction begins to phase out for individuals earning above $62,500 and families earning above $125,000. It is fully phased out for individuals earning $125,000 and families earning $250,000.

---

Source: Click

I don't know how the math works as to what the government can afford. But, if there's such a small percentage of "families" who make more than $250K/yr., why is it necessary to exclude them from the tax breaks? And, if it is a "family" making over $250K, from links I've posted here numerous times, if they do make that much, they are often a small business owner. This tax hike on them, it's money they could use to expand their business, which is the most immediate event that expands our economy. Just don't get the soak the successful philosophy.

Problems, but this system sounds workable. It's not so fucked up even some guy who's just a news junkie can tell it's a piece of shit.

Oh, no! Oh, please no! They want to make us pay for it ourselves, directly, out of what little margin the middle class has left. And probably require us to pay the big insurance companies. I see nothing about reeling in the abuses the insurance companies are heaping on us, either.

This does nothing to address the current huge problems. It just plays into the hands of the folks who fucked everything up to begin with, and profit from fucking the people over.

Wyden quote from the WSJ article linked:

Quote:

---

"Ever since the 1940s, we essentially disconnected individuals from being involved in health care. It's all about third parties, and they pay all the bills and individuals don't have the opportunities for the choices. In fact, millions of people who are lucky enough to have employer coverage don't get any choice."

---

Which is why we need a public option. And legislation that causes consumers to be better informed and have a stake in the co-pay, making people shop for services.

Again,

Quote:

---

"I think the way to go," Mr. Wyden says, "is with a generous deduction that sends a market-oriented message." He says that means that, if you shop carefully for your health care, you're going to get your taxes cut.

---

The rank and file, and I, will not become tax-aware when doing this. Tax breaks will not work for this.

Question - how does this become cost neutral to the Gov't with the massive tax write-offs? I don't understand it, but I don't dispute the CBO.

-Chuck, Vegetarian fanboy

Thanks, I forgot about the employer tax breaks.

It would actually benefit someone like me, who wants to retire early. But, if I wait 'til '12, my employer will let me keep my coverage and retire at 55.

As Paulina says, "Either way, it work out fine."

But, how about all this shit about pre-existing conditions, throwing people off when they get really sick, insurance companies deciding who gets what treatment, and all the other abuses? Will there be legislated caps, so some poor alcoholic heart attack cancer survivor on depression meds like me won't be facing astronomical rates, and forced by law to pay them? These are the real problems.

-Chuck, Vegetarian fanboy

Related Story

WASHINGTON—After months of committee meetings and hundreds of hours of heated debate, the United States Congress remained deadlocked this week over the best possible way to deny Americans health care.
"Both parties understand that the current system is broken," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Monday. "But what we can't seem to agree upon is how to best keep it broken, while still ensuring that no elected official takes any political risk whatsoever. It’s a very complicated issue."
"Ultimately, though, it's our responsibility as lawmakers to put these differences aside and focus on refusing Americans the health care they deserve," Pelosi added.
The legislative stalemate largely stems from competing ideologies deeply rooted along party lines. Democrats want to create a government-run system for not providing health care, while Republicans say coverage is best denied by allowing private insurers to make it unaffordable for as many citizens as possible.
"We have over 40 million people without insurance in this country today, and that is unacceptable," Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said. "If we would just quit squabbling so much, we could get that number up to 50 or even 100 million. Why, there's no reason we can't work together to deny health care to everyone but the richest 1 percent of the population."
"That's what America is all about," he added.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said on Meet The Press that Republicans would never agree to a plan that doesn't allow citizens the choice to be denied medical care in the private sector.
"Americans don't need some government official telling them they don't have the proper coverage to receive treatment," Boehner said. "What they need is massive insurance companies to become even more rich and powerful by withholding from average citizens the care they so desperately require. We're talking about people's health and the obscene profits associated with that, after all."
Though there remain irreconcilable points, both parties have reached some common ground in recent weeks. Senate leaders Harry Reid (D-NV) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) point to Congress' failure to pass legislation before a July 31 deadline as proof of just how serious lawmakers are about stringing along the American people and never actually reforming the health care industry in any meaningful way.
"People should know that every day we are working without their best interests in mind," Reid said. "But the goal here is not to push through some watered-down bill that only denies health care to a few Americans here and a few Americans there. The goal is to recognize that all Americans have a God-given right to proper medical attention and then make sure there's no chance in hell that ever happens."
"No matter what we come up with," Reid continued, "rest assured that millions of citizens will remain dangerously uninsured, and the inflated health care industry will continue to bankrupt the country for decades."
Other lawmakers stressed that, while there has been some progress, the window of cooperation was closing.
"When you get into the nuts and bolts of how best not to provide people with care essential to their survival, there are many things to take into consideration," Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said. "I believe we can create a plan for Americans that allows them to not be able to go to the hospital, not get the treatment they need, and ultimately wither away and die. But we've got to act fast."
For his part, President Barack Obama claimed to be optimistic, even saying he believes that a health care denial bill will pass in both houses of Congress by the end of the year.
"We have an opportunity to do something truly historic in 2009," Obama said to a mostly silent crowd during a town hall meeting in Virginia yesterday. "I promise I will only sign a clear and comprehensive health care bill that fully denies coverage to you, your sick mother, her husband, middle-class Americans, single-parent households, the unemployed, and most importantly, anyone in need of emergency medical attention."
"This administration is committed to not providing health care," Obama added. "Not just for this generation of Americans, but for many generations to come."

You fucken fruits need to have a kid... or at the very least join an organized sport. No doubt most of have a curved spine and arthritic wrists, but for those of you with a fighting chance of reproducing understand this... Your political views don't mean SHIT. And even if they did posting said thoughts here discounts those views by almost a hundred percent.

Do carry on though, Cunts. I'll be back to point and laugh at my convenience.

So, working Joe gets a much bigger check, because there is less witholding tax because of the insurance tax credit, and the company pays him more instead of paying his health insurance. Between the two of those, let's say Joe makes enough more to pay for his insurance. Will every working Joe dutifully send in the check every month? Ha! So, make the employer send the check, just like before.

And when Joe gets laid off, the company obviously doesn't send that portion of his pay to the insurance company anymore. So, Joe is no better off than the current COBRA system.

What has been fixed?

-Chuck, Vegetarian fanboy

@Lou
Man is naturally a political animal.
-Aristotle

Final objection, then my dog wants me to go to bed. He had a rough day and is still high from the sedation.

I think, just like us progressives would like "public option" to segue into "single payer", ya'll conservatives would like this plan to segue into "you're on your own".

-Chuck, Vegetarian fanboy

Joe pays his rent, utility bills, even his cable bill. Joe can pay his medical insurance. Hell, Blue Cross lets me set it up so they just take the money out of my checking account. I don't even have to write a check.

And, with COBRA, Joe doesn't get the preferential tax treatment corporations do. So, making health insurance a standard deductible for the individual and not the corporation, helps Joe pay the premium. And say the next position Joe finds is a contract position, without any benefits? Or, Joe wants to retire? COBRA only lasts for 18 months.

For someone who distrusts big companies, it's kind of surprising your enthused about them being the ones who control health care.

It may be more difficult for someone who has one of those jobs from the 1950's where the company acting like it was a "Mother Company" who took care of your lifestyle forever. But, the system is become more and more dynamic where people aren't staying at the same job for 5, or even 2, years. Needing health care you can keep across jobs has become more important.