US healthcare: a post mortem

[ParanoiA]

*A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.

 

What the hell is that all about? Don't tell me the right wing forecasters that predicted subsequent behavior modification following the major government interjection into health care were right. Granted, we've had behavior modification through taxation since the founding, disgusting as it is, but this appears to be directly associated with the health care initiative - exactly as they've been saying will happen.

 

The publicly paid health care system is ready to be used as the excuse to tax and legislate behaviors, which will lead to an even greater politicized mess of subjective judgment.

 

Just wait until the neocons get power again. They'll claim a lack of belief in god causes medical issues, and raise your taxes for being an atheist...

[iNow]

What the hell is that all about? Don't tell me the right wing forecasters that predicted subsequent behavior modification following the major government interjection into health care were right.

 

<...>

 

The publicly paid health care system is ready to be used as the excuse to tax and legislate behaviors, which will lead to an even greater politicized mess of subjective judgment.

 

Just wait until the neocons get power again. They'll claim a lack of belief in god causes medical issues, and raise your taxes for being an atheist...

Well, I suppose that's all possible... yeah, but another reasonable explanation is that this is a lot like the tax on cigarettes. Since there is a demonstrated risk from this tanning activity... a risk which with extreme likelihood results in larger healthcare costs down the road when the cancers require treatment... it seems reasonable to attempt to discourage that behavior or ask them to contribute a bit more if they choose to engage in it.

 

 

http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/tip-sheet-tanning-booths

Long-term exposure to artificial sources of ultraviolet rays like tanning beds (or to the sun's natural rays) increases both men and women's risk of developing skin cancer. In addition, exposure to tanning salon rays increases damage caused by sunlight because ultraviolet light actually thins the skin, making it less able to heal. Women who use tanning beds more than once a month are 55 percent more likely to develop malignant melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer.

[Mr Skeptic]

What the hell is that all about? Don't tell me the right wing forecasters that predicted subsequent behavior modification following the major government interjection into health care were right.

 

It is the most reasonable solution. The free market cannot handle the presence of externalities. Properly, this tax should only apply to the uninsured (with all the money going to uninsured skin cancer patients) and the insurance companies should raise the rates of people who visit the tanning saloons, but I doubt anyone would appreciate the intrusion on privacy that this would generate. Basically, this is a perfect example of government doing as it should: fix a flaw in the free market, and yet not restrict anyone's liberties while doing so.

[ParanoiA]

It is the most reasonable solution. The free market cannot handle the presence of externalities. Properly, this tax should only apply to the uninsured (with all the money going to uninsured skin cancer patients) and the insurance companies should raise the rates of people who visit the tanning saloons, but I doubt anyone would appreciate the intrusion on privacy that this would generate. Basically, this is a perfect example of government doing as it should: fix a flaw in the free market, and yet not restrict anyone's liberties while doing so.

 

Really? What about people who don't get cancer when tanning? what about people who don't get cancer from smoking cigarettes? This behavioral tax is only perfect if everyone had the exact same model of body.

 

That's why the free market is better, because only people who actually get cancer treatment are the ones who should be paying for cancer treatment - not a blanket assumption that is wrong a significant percentage of the time.

 

If people managed their health care costs like they do their groceries, and if insurance companies were treated like insurance companies, then they will have to pay for their own self generated health complications.

 

This is being introduced because they have created the anomaly that requires it. By pooling everyone together, we have undermined usage sensitive expenditures, so we recreate them artificially with tax law. Law and interference that begets more law and interference.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's why the free market is better, because only people who actually get cancer treatment are the ones who should be paying for cancer treatment - not a blanket assumption that is wrong a significant percentage of the time.

 

That defeats the purpose of the pool, doesn't it? You can't lower costs for those with serious diseases because they're lumped together with everyone else who has a serious disease, and so either they pay an insurance premium roughly equal to the average cost of treating their serious disease, or they can't afford the insurance and give up.

[jackson33]

I'm unsure where you've been hearing that (although, I do have my suspicions), but it's simply untrue. It's possible that it was a simple misunderstanding, so I will include more information than is relevant to my rebuttal to ensure deepest clarity (and will bold the part that addresses directly your mistaken suggestion above). [/Quote]

 

iNow; Part of my Scottrade account, allows 24-7-365 news streaming (includes AP), which I do not copy or print out (too costly), but was where I first heard this story. Pangloss has given you the article in full...

 

*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers. [/Quote]

 

Define small business and "some"? Most small business offer co-payment plans for Health Insurance, if they offer anything. Most will discontinue these plans entirely, choosing the fine, which will be far less than their current cost, for years. Since the larger business, are subsidizing some medical cost, including 100% of 'Drug Cost' and will no longer be allowed the deduction. What's given by one plan (hand) is taken by the other plan (hand) and in most cases will be more.

 

*A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.[/Quote]

 

This is pure political bigotry and a slap across the face on a certain portion of the US Population. I'd love to take this to trial and equate this business to people going to some beach or local pool. Imagine taxing one business, not another with the same consequences for practicing, or worse yet taxing people to use a free service. This will not hold up in court, IMO. By the way, I have no idea what a tanning booth, looks like, although I did use a 'Sun Lamp' years ago. Are those going to now be illegal or maybe tanning oils or sprays.

 

Now, where hearing their is no enforcement behind 'Fines' for non-compliance for BUYING insurance. What are those 16,500 new IRS agents going to enforce, oh I forgot this bill is open for REVISION at anytime, think about what that means. There are 98 new programs involved, no telling how many people, will need to be hired and there just now getting started in writing the Government Policy involved. This BILL is a horrible joke and you know it.

[ParanoiA]

That defeats the purpose of the pool, doesn't it? You can't lower costs for those with serious diseases because they're lumped together with everyone else who has a serious disease, and so either they pay an insurance premium roughly equal to the average cost of treating their serious disease, or they can't afford the insurance and give up.

 

It does, but that's why I don't agree with inviting ourselves to help people, and then reasoning that it gives us the auto-magic authority to subsequently invite ourselves into regulating their life.

 

If we're going to insist on inviting ourselves to help these people, then we should accept their choices that got them there.

 

I don't believe that my offering to pay for your kid's college gives me a right to tell him what classes to take - unless that's part of the condition prior to the agreement.

 

Conditional help would be an appropriate angle to tie behavior to cost - but then that would defeat the purpose as well. I don't see how we can insert ourselves as their billpayer and use that to insert ourselves as their regulator. That sure is a slivery way to give ourselves authority over civil choices. Remember, it isn't help that's "applied" for, or even only applies to people receiving this help - it's taxed on to everyone who tans. Everyone who behaves as X.

 

That's how sloppy artificial forces are. Like using a shotgun to kill a fly (where have I heard that before?)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If we're going to insist on inviting ourselves to help these people, then we should accept their choices that got them there.

 

I don't believe that my offering to pay for your kid's college gives me a right to tell him what classes to take - unless that's part of the condition prior to the agreement.

We can accept those choices, but we can also try to prevent others from taking them, can we not? In your college example, sure, you don't have that right, but you certainly can nag other parents to save up for their kids' college so you don't have to pay for everyone.

 

Incidentally, if you'd like to pay for my college, I wouldn't mind at all.

[pioneer]

Insurance pools everyone's money to cover the extra costs of a smaller percentage of people, including all the middlemen. The majority of those paying premiums will never get their money's worth. For most, it is an investment in swamp land with negative return on investment.

 

Think of it logically, if everyone got their money's worth, you could not support all middlemen and all those who use more resources than they pay into the system. We need a lot of sheep for that much extra wool. The tactic used to get a lot of people to invest in a bad economic deal, without most knowing it, is done via fear. We create imaginary scary places in the mind, so enough people pump money into a bad investment.

 

An analogy of the pitch is the human body is like owning a house. It needs basic upkeep or it will end in disrepair. However, if I pitch all the worse cases scenarios of floods, high winds, excessive snow load, etc., I might be able to get you afraid of what might happen. The goal of this pitch, is too get extra people to invest too much money into their houses, to appease the fear, even if it makes no rational economic sense.

 

Since it is hard to avoid this money pit, when all the neighbors are doing it, to make better economic sense of this bad investment, one needs to figure out ways to get their money's worth; closer to break even. One won't get a rebate for not using the system. Therefore, we need to be creative to make better economic sense of all the money we are told to invest that is making a negative return. Many people now use the doctor for more minor things since this makes economic sense, allowing one to get at least some value for all that money down the drain.

 

Because of supply and demand, this extra demand for goods and services, to help make economic sense of a bad deal, causes the overall costs to go up, raising the premiums. The question is how do you get people who are already invested in swamp land to buy even more swamp land? We can use the government, at point of gun (law) to force the investment into the extra swamp land. This restores the excess money needed for all the middlemen and all the over users. There will also be enough excess to add another layer of middlemen, i.e., fund the payroll for hundreds of thousands of government workers. That will take many acres of swamp land.

 

One should be able to tax deduct losses if this is a bad investment; those who pay more than they use and get a negative return.

[ParanoiA]

We can accept those choices, but we can also try to prevent others from taking them, can we not? In your college example, sure, you don't have that right, but you certainly can nag other parents to save up for their kids' college so you don't have to pay for everyone.

 

Incidentally, if you'd like to pay for my college, I wouldn't mind at all.

 

Well, through persuasion, you bet but I don't agree with using legal devices. What if a republican congress tries to tax homosexual behaviors? Or tax black folks more for pork than others since they have more inherent heart problems?

 

I don't think it wise to argue for a subjective behavior modification model empowered by legislation, even if it's just taxation. I'd rather see us not judge each other, we've already got way, way too much of that, and accept the limitation of our authority that individual freedom affords.

 

Otherwise, you're not actually helping people. You're ruling them, right down to the basics of individual happiness. You're defining "quality of life" for them - you have to in order to make the argument that something is "bad" for someone. To be "bad", it has to run counter to their objectives for happiness - and if you are the one defining what's "bad", then you are defining their objectives for them.

 

 

Oh, and thanks for the offer. I could probably cover something like, cheeseburger college. Or maybe tire rotation school.

Edited March 27, 2010 by ParanoiA

[jackson33]

Obama said in his speech that Congress should give “another 1 million students” the ability to pay reduced rates on their student loans and have the government forgive any outstanding balances after 20 years – or after 10 years if the person works for the government.

 

“And let’s tell another 1 million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years – and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service.”[/Quote]

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/60724

 

We can accept those choices, but we can also try to prevent others from taking them, can we not? In your college example, sure, you don't have that right, but you certainly can nag other parents to save up for their kids' college so you don't have to pay for everyone. [/Quote]

 

The way it will work....

 

Any choice, will be offered in the pudding, not from the request for a student loan. For instance, if GP's (General Practitioners) are in short supply (they are now and many more will be needed under the HCB) rather than being forgiven in 20 years (assume after College), you will be forgiven in 10 years, as is proposed Federal Employees or Careers in public service. If certain professionals are needed in urban areas, they could be forgiven any outstanding balances in the same manner and so on. You could be talking 100K$ or more in today's dollar, as an advantage to taking up the offer.

 

Keep in mind not all students, needing loans for higher education, in fact ever graduate or could they pay off these loans (Bankruptcy an option), a civil matter in the courts. If backed or through the Federal Government, they are not subject to the same restrictions, especially the IRS and I'd bet the enforcer for this program as well, then a criminal matter, called evasion. (Note; Opinion) All loans up to 2008, were made by a Private Industry, some backed in total or part by the Government (SallieMae)

 

Dec. 8, 2005 – The Supreme Court yesterday said the Social Security payments to senior citizens are up for grabs by the government to collect on old student loans.

 

The case addressed specifically loans that are over 10 years old. The government argued they needed this tool to collect on the $5.7 billion they are owed on student loan debt that is more than 10 years passed due. The total outstanding student loan amount is $33 billion.[/Quote]

 

http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/SocialSecurity/5-12-08-SS-StudentLoans.htm

 

Here is one example of how debt grows, originally owing 1800.00 in 1989 and now owing 19,000,00, cannot be discharged in 'Bankruptcy' (Penalties and interest) and it won't be long any accrued estates, will be subject to paying.

 

http://www.justanswer.com/questions/1m1zi-i-have-an-old-federally-insured-student-loan-which-started

[toastywombel]

CNS news is not a really good news source, just fyi.

[iNow]

I just loved this quote made on Friday by Charles Fried, the former US Solicitor General who served under Ronald Reagan.

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-wh-sr-adviser-valerie-jarrett/story?id=10210079&page=2

Anybody who proposes something like this [that the healthcare bill is somehow unconstitutional] is either ignorant -- I mean, deeply ignorant -- or just grandstanding in a preposterous way.

 

It is simply a political ploy and a pathetic one at that.

 

 

For those of you who don't know, the US Solicitor General is the person who represents the US Government in cases before the Supreme Court.

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.

Define small business and "some"?

Businesses with under 25 employees with an average wage of 50K/year or less will receive a tax credit.

 

 

http://www.businesspundit.com/what-health-care-reform-means-for-small-business/

How will health care reform affect small businesses?

In quite a few ways, it turns out. We sifted through the bill to provide you with the most important small business-related facts.

 

How does the government define a small business?

According to the federal government, a small business is company with fewer than 100 employees. Your state may define a small business differently, eg. as a company with fewer than 50 employees. Check with your state to be sure.

 

Who gets the most tax credits?

Very small companies (10 or fewer employees) with low-wage workers.

 

 

Starting this year:

 

You can get a 35% tax credit

if you have 10 or fewer employees, and they earn less than $25,000 on average.

 

You qualify for a smaller tax credit

if you have 25 or fewer employees with an average wage $50,000 or less.

Edited March 28, 2010 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.