McCain's Healthcare Tax

[Cancel 2016.2]

To answer your last question first, you are forced to leave a group plan when there is no longer a group plan for you to participate in, i.e. when your employer no longer provides health insurance benefits because the tax is too expensive.

Second, note the bolded words above. In short, McCain has no plan for those with pre-existing conditions. None. He just wants to kick them to the individual markets and hope for the best. That's not a plan.

Again, as you stated yesterday, the plan NOW does not increase taxes on employers. So what are you basing your information on to suggest that costs to employers will change?

Second, read his whole plan, his plan is to allow for greater portability of insurance. Meaning that even if you are correct and some employers dump plans... those already covered under those plans would be able to continue them.

Third... you are making shit up with regards to 'kicking them to the individual markets'.... either SUPPORT that claim or do stop attempting to use that as the basis of your argument. There is no tax increase to employers. So WHAT is (in your opinion) going to increase costs to employers that will cause them to dump plans?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's not emotional to state the fact this plan is DOA, and you are too much of an ideologue to understand that Americans simply are not clamoring to be thrown into the free market for their health care.

In fact, big majorities of them want government guaranteed health insurance. Americans have moved in the opposite direction.

The kind of plan I want, is succesfully modeled in places such as France. The kind of plan you want, will kill people, cost them more for less coverage, and leave them at the mercy of health care coverage rising as they have less and less money to pay for it, eventually leaving more and more with not even the bad coverage your plan woudl give them, but with no coverage.

The problem? they know that. And they're saying, thanks, but no thanks. Sorry.

Oh, and did I mention this is DOA? And that right now, Coleman is getting beat over the head with it? And that as his poll numbers are dropping, other candiates are noticing that?

No one will run on this lunatic plan, and it's done. I think it's so funny that you ideologues are always the last to find out. I saw this happen with SS. This won't even get that far, and that never got far. But it will probably put a couple more Democrats in power, so please, by all means, keep shining up those pebbles and trying to sell them.

yeah, right... no emotion in your response at all...

1) This plan doesn't appear to throw people into the individual markets. Unless you care to back that claim up with SOME sort of evidence. The two of you keep SAYING it, but are not providing a rationale for WHY you believe it.

2) You are full of shit that a competitive market will provide less care at greater costs. As I provided on the other thread (which I linked to on this one) the average costs of individual plans is LESS than the costs found in group plans. Second, there is nothing that I have seen that suggests employers will stop providing plans as a result of his plan. PLEASE provide the information you are using to support this claim.

 

[Bonestorm]

first, YOU are assuming that the employer would have some incentive to stop providing healthcare. WHY would the employer stop providing care as a result of this plan???? I ran the numbers to show that under their CURRENT plan, the employees would not be seeing a tax increase as Obama suggested. I also stated that employees would not leave their employer plan if it was a net INCREASE to them to do so. Thus, the only ones that would voluntarily leave would be those that would BENEFIT from doing so.

That said, IF there is something that I am missing that is leading you to believe that employers would cut healthcare benefits as a result of this plan, please explain it. Because I am obviously not seeing it.

Second.... you continue to say that, but I do not see that anywhere in his plan. Please provide whatever you are using as a reference to suggest that he is looking to eliminate employer sponsored plans. Because your tax argument has already been discussed. The bulk of that $3.6 trillion is simply a shift of taxes... that results in the $1.3 trillion savings to employees. That $1.3 trillion (as we already discussed) does indeed need to be made up to keep this plan cost neutral. McCain thinks he can get the remainder from making M&M more efficient and eliminating (as much as possible) the fraud that occurs from within them. So please explain how the costs to employers changes at all, because I am not following you in that line of logic.

Third, I do not know how much waste is in M&M. According to the GAO (which I tend to detest) the annual figure is $60b. If that is accurate, then you are correct. He would need to find the other $70b elsewhere.

Lastly... true, a family plan is not going to be found for $5000. But that $5000 is tax CREDIT. Which means it reduces your tax liability dollar for dollar. I will have to go back to the other thread to get the average plan costs and then run the numbers. I will have to get back to you on this point.

Please do us all a favor and read the article linked below and then we can chat about this:

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

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, as you stated yesterday, the plan NOW does not increase taxes on employers. So what are you basing your information on to suggest that costs to employers will change?

Second, read his whole plan, his plan is to allow for greater portability of insurance. Meaning that even if you are correct and some employers dump plans... those already covered under those plans would be able to continue them.

Third... you are making shit up with regards to 'kicking them to the individual markets'.... either SUPPORT that claim or do stop attempting to use that as the basis of your argument. There is no tax increase to employers. So WHAT is (in your opinion) going to increase costs to employers that will cause them to dump plans?

1) I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

2) Uh, that's total bullshit. Saying something doesn't make it true.

3) As a mid-level estimate the McCain plan will result in 20 million people losing their employer provided health insurance. And that's the whole point.

 

[Cancel7]

yeah, right... no emotion in your response at all...

1) This plan doesn't appear to throw people into the individual markets. Unless you care to back that claim up with SOME sort of evidence. The two of you keep SAYING it, but are not providing a rationale for WHY you believe it.

2) You are full of shit that a competitive market will provide less care at greater costs. As I provided on the other thread (which I linked to on this one) the average costs of individual plans is LESS than the costs found in group plans. Second, there is nothing that I have seen that suggests employers will stop providing plans as a result of his plan. PLEASE provide the information you are using to support this claim.

You know what really bothers me about you? Here I am, having been reading about the effects of this health care proposal, for I don't know how long now, maybe two months? Before anyone was talking about it at any rate. From all different sources and places, and gaining a really good overview of what would happen while doing so.

Then you come along, hear about the proposal, decide to LOVE it because it's John McCains, do a couple of quick googles and pull some horseshit out of your butt, and then demand that I go re-research everything, just so I can fight with you for maybe 3,000 posts, about something YOU will never stipulate you are wrong on no matter what, and which has ZERO chance of ever passing anyway.

That said, go read what DH posted, and when I get back later or tomorrow, I will be interested in seeing how you have denied everything and became very irate. I expect a lot of cursing.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

1) I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

2) Uh, that's total bullshit. Saying something doesn't make it true.

3) As a mid-level estimate the McCain plan will result in 20 million people losing their employer provided health insurance. And that's the whole point.

1) That is not surprising

2) So if it is a part of his plan, something that YOUR article AGREES with, you are going to ignore it because you don't like the sound of it????

3) If you actually read your own article, while they assume 20 million people will lose EMPLOYER provided insurance, they ALSO assume that the NET effect will be to INCREASE the number of people insured.

They go on to state that the non-group market place is providing less coverage etc... well yes, that can be true. Because I guarantee many like myself would increase their deductible and decrease payments into an individual plan because we DO NOT NEED the greater coverage. At my previous employer, I opted into catastrophic coverage. I paid half the costs of the group plan. I had a higher deductible (but that was covered once my HSA was funded) my preventative care was fully covered and my major medical was covered.

The existing group plans are yet another attempt for the responsible to subsidize the irresponsible. I should not be required to pay higher premiums just because the majority of Americans are overweight which leads to greater health risks. If you aren't going to take care of yourself... YOU should have to pay higher premiums. I should not be required to subsidize your bad habits.

4) That said, your article does bring up valid criticisms of McCains plan. It is certainly not a perfect plan and could be tweaked with ideas taken from Obamas plan and others (as your article suggests). But your attempts to pretend that this plan is somehow detrimental is flawed in that it relys upon ASSUMPTIONS made by your articles author. They make the same mistake you do when talking about the rise in healthcare costs vs. the credit only being inflation adjusted. They ignore the fact that both Obama AND McCain have stated that to work, their plans rely upon reducing healthcare costs, reducing waste in M&M, increasing portability and finding ways to cover high-risk individuals.

 

[Onceler]

"Then you come along, hear about the proposal, decide to LOVE it because it's John McCains, do a couple of quick googles and pull some horseshit out of your butt, and then demand that I go re-research everything, just so I can fight with you for maybe 3,000 posts, about something YOU will never stipulate you are wrong on no matter what, and which has ZERO chance of ever passing anyway."

What a gloriously accurate depiction that is...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You know what really bothers me about you? Here I am, having been reading about the effects of this health care proposal, for I don't know how long now, maybe two months? Before anyone was talking about it at any rate. From all different sources and places, and gaining a really good overview of what would happen while doing so.

Then you come along, hear about the proposal, decide to LOVE it because it's John McCains, do a couple of quick googles and pull some horseshit out of your butt, and then demand that I go re-research everything, just so I can fight with you for maybe 3,000 posts, about something YOU will never stipulate you are wrong on no matter what, and which has ZERO chance of ever passing anyway.

That said, go read what DH posted, and when I get back later or tomorrow, I will be interested in seeing how you have denied everything and became very irate. I expect a lot of cursing.

LMAO.... you know what bothers me about you.... you really could care less what McCain proposes. All you care about is that HE is the one that proposed it. Then you come on here and yet again attack me rather than discuss the issue. If you notice, Dung and I disagree and are having a discussion on those disagreements. You on the other hand come out with yet another emotional pile of BS.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Then you come along, hear about the proposal, decide to LOVE it because it's John McCains, do a couple of quick googles and pull some horseshit out of your butt, and then demand that I go re-research everything, just so I can fight with you for maybe 3,000 posts, about something YOU will never stipulate you are wrong on no matter what, and which has ZERO chance of ever passing anyway."

What a gloriously accurate depiction that is...

oh look... lorax is trying to form yet another circle jerk....

 

[Bonestorm]

1) That is not surprising

2) So if it is a part of his plan, something that YOUR article AGREES with, you are going to ignore it because you don't like the sound of it????

3) If you actually read your own article, while they assume 20 million people will lose EMPLOYER provided insurance, they ALSO assume that the NET effect will be to INCREASE the number of people insured.

They go on to state that the non-group market place is providing less coverage etc... well yes, that can be true. Because I guarantee many like myself would increase their deductible and decrease payments into an individual plan because we DO NOT NEED the greater coverage. At my previous employer, I opted into catastrophic coverage. I paid half the costs of the group plan. I had a higher deductible (but that was covered once my HSA was funded) my preventative care was fully covered and my major medical was covered.

The existing group plans are yet another attempt for the responsible to subsidize the irresponsible. I should not be required to pay higher premiums just because the majority of Americans are overweight which leads to greater health risks. If you aren't going to take care of yourself... YOU should have to pay higher premiums. I should not be required to subsidize your bad habits.

4) That said, your article does bring up valid criticisms of McCains plan. It is certainly not a perfect plan and could be tweaked with ideas taken from Obamas plan and others (as your article suggests). But your attempts to pretend that this plan is somehow detrimental is flawed in that it relys upon ASSUMPTIONS made by your articles author. They make the same mistake you do when talking about the rise in healthcare costs vs. the credit only being inflation adjusted. They ignore the fact that both Obama AND McCain have stated that to work, their plans rely upon reducing healthcare costs, reducing waste in M&M, increasing portability and finding ways to cover high-risk individuals.

On point three, the bolded portion tells me all I need to know about you and your approach to life in general. In short, it sickens me. You're a selfish prick with no fucking clue how lucky you are. Yes, LUCKY.

Not that I would wish ill upon you ever, but I think you'd be singing a different tune if you lost your job (and health insurance) and got really really sick due to no fault of your own. Cancer is like that you know. So is MS. So are a lot of illnesses.

Asshole.

 

[Cancel7]

oh look... lorax is trying to form yet another circle jerk....

No, that would definitely be one-on-one and you are totally not invited.

Oh shit, i'm so pissed I have to go I am seriously just starting to enjoy this! I will get you later though!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

On point three, the bolded portion tells me all I need to know about you and your approach to life in general. In short, it sickens me. You're a selfish prick with no fucking clue how lucky you are. Yes, LUCKY.

Not that I would wish ill upon you ever, but I think you'd be singing a different tune if you lost your job (and health insurance) and got really really sick due to no fault of your own. Cancer is like that you know. So is MS. So are a lot of illnesses.

Asshole.

Wow, so you provide an extreme example and pretend that is why I have a problem subsidizing people? That is quite sad on your part. The vast majority of the problem in this country with regards to healthcare is that our country continues to become more and more obese.

The more obese a person becomes, the greater their healthrisks. Yes, anyone can get cancer etc... but guess what Sherlock... THAT is priced into ANY insurance policy. Including the catastrophic plan I used to posess.

The ADDITIONAL costs that are subsidized stem from peoples increased health risks that are by CHOICE. Smoking, excessive drinking, lack of exercise, poor eating habits etc... When you have a group plan, regardless of your health you are paying for the risks of Cancer etc... but the add on, the part that ends up being subsidized is the part where the insurance company takes the average obesity in this country, the average use of tobacco products, the average alcohol consumption etc... and applies it to EVERYONE. Which means those that have greater risks are subsidized by those that take better care of themselves.

A 400lb man who eats like shit and doesn't exercise has pretty much the same chances of developing cancer that I do. So I am not subsidizing THAT health risk.

But nice little emo attempt to divert the topic. That tells ME everything I need to know about the strength of your argument.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No, that would definitely be one-on-one and you are totally not invited.

Oh shit, i'm so pissed I have to go I am seriously just starting to enjoy this! I will get you later though!

Bring it on!

Side note: if it is one-on-one, naturally no one else would be invited. Thus, quite redundant of you.

 

[Bonestorm]

Wow, so you provide an extreme example and pretend that is why I have a problem subsidizing people? That is quite sad on your part. The vast majority of the problem in this country with regards to healthcare is that our country continues to become more and more obese.

The more obese a person becomes, the greater their healthrisks. Yes, anyone can get cancer etc... but guess what Sherlock... THAT is priced into ANY insurance policy. Including the catastrophic plan I used to posess.

The ADDITIONAL costs that are subsidized stem from peoples increased health risks that are by CHOICE. Smoking, excessive drinking, lack of exercise, poor eating habits etc... When you have a group plan, regardless of your health you are paying for the risks of Cancer etc... but the add on, the part that ends up being subsidized is the part where the insurance company takes the average obesity in this country, the average use of tobacco products, the average alcohol consumption etc... and applies it to EVERYONE. Which means those that have greater risks are subsidized by those that take better care of themselves.

A 400lb man who eats like shit and doesn't exercise has pretty much the same chances of developing cancer that I do. So I am not subsidizing THAT health risk.

But nice little emo attempt to divert the topic. That tells ME everything I need to know about the strength of your argument.

Actually, for my "extreme examples" I was actually thinking of (1) the sister of a very close friend of mine who recently had a bill passed by Congress in her name (kinda) allowing college students that get cancer to remain covered under their parent's insurers even though they do not attend school full time because they are too sick to do so (google "Michelle's Law") and (2) a close family member of mine. If you are sick and lose your job or otherwise lose your insurance you are fucked. It's that simple.

It's not emo. It's life. For you to pretend otherwise is the most ignorant shit I've seen posted on this board. And there's lots of ignorant shit on here. This is a very serious issue and for you to just pretend that non-discrimination rules, risk pooling and the like are just means for healthy people to subsidize the fatties is a disgrace. For you to attempt to defend it is disgusting.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Actually, for my "extreme examples" I was actually thinking of (1) the sister of a very close friend of mine who recently had a bill passed by Congress in her name (kinda) allowing college students that get cancer to remain covered under their parent's insurers even though they do not attend school full time because they are too sick to do so (google "Michelle's Law") and (2) a close family member of mine. If you are sick and lose your job or otherwise lose your insurance you are fucked. It's that simple.

It's not emo. It's life. For you to pretend otherwise is the most ignorant shit I've seen posted on this board. And there's lots of ignorant shit on here. This is a very serious issue and for you to just pretend that non-discrimination rules, risk pooling and the like are just means for healthy people to subsidize the fatties is a disgrace. For you to attempt to defend it is disgusting.

My sister recently fought and won against cancer. But that does not change the fact that the catastrophic type situations such as cancer are still priced into damn near every policy given that the risks to you and I are fairly identical, regardless of lifestyle (tobacco use being an exception to that).

Again, if you are sick and lose your job.... THAT is the point of having portability of plans. If you are sick and lose your job right now, you almost always HAVE to go try and find a new plan. That is the portability issue. McCains plan addresses that. As does Obama's.

I understand this is a serious issue. But bottom line, as YOUR article states, the high-risk individuals are subsidized by the low risk individuals within group plans. That is FACT.

Again, when you have a risk that is associated to anyone, such as getting cancer etc... that is included in your policy and mine, regardless of whether we use a group plan or an individual plan. THAT is NOT the part we are subsidizing. You are using the cancer as an example to elicit an emotional response. It is the other health risks that are NOT associated with everyone that are subsidized under a group plan. The more obese you are, the greater your chance for heart disease, diabetes, stroke, breathing and circulatory problems etc... THAT is what the healthy people subsidize. Not the odds of someone getting cancer etc...

http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/obesity-health-risks

 

[Bonestorm]

My sister recently fought and won against cancer. But that does not change the fact that the catastrophic type situations such as cancer are still priced into damn near every policy given that the risks to you and I are fairly identical, regardless of lifestyle (tobacco use being an exception to that).

Again, if you are sick and lose your job.... THAT is the point of having portability of plans. If you are sick and lose your job right now, you almost always HAVE to go try and find a new plan. That is the portability issue. McCains plan addresses that. As does Obama's.

I understand this is a serious issue. But bottom line, as YOUR article states, the high-risk individuals are subsidized by the low risk individuals within group plans. That is FACT.

Again, when you have a risk that is associated to anyone, such as getting cancer etc... that is included in your policy and mine, regardless of whether we use a group plan or an individual plan. THAT is NOT the part we are subsidizing. You are using the cancer as an example to elicit an emotional response. It is the other health risks that are NOT associated with everyone that are subsidized under a group plan. The more obese you are, the greater your chance for heart disease, diabetes, stroke, breathing and circulatory problems etc... THAT is what the healthy people subsidize. Not the odds of someone getting cancer etc...

http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/obesity-health-risks

Actually, you and I do indeed subsidize people getting cancer and people with cancer and people with MS and people with other chronic illnesses that work at the same companies that we work at. Group plans through employer are required to accept all individuals through nondiscrimination rules and risk pooling. They can't refuse to accept you because of preexisting conditions.

On the portablility issue. John McCain's plan makes insurance portable by pushing people to the individual market, not by allowing you to keep your employer sponsored plan when you get fired.

You have no idea what you are talking about whatsoever. In the end, it really doesn't matter. McCain's shitty idea and your shitty support for it won't matter one bit even if he is elected. And maybe some day you'll be thankful.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Actually, you and I do indeed subsidize people getting cancer and people with cancer and people with MS and people with other chronic illnesses that work at the same companies that we work at. Group plans through employer are required to accept all individuals through nondiscrimination rules and risk pooling. They can't refuse to accept you because of preexisting conditions.

On the portablility issue. John McCain's plan makes insurance portable by pushing people to the individual market, not by allowing you to keep your employer sponsored plan when you get fired.

You have no idea what you are talking about whatsoever. In the end, it really doesn't matter. McCain's shitty idea and your shitty support for it won't matter one bit even if he is elected. And maybe some day you'll be thankful.

LMAO.... so because YOU say that is what McCains plan means when it comes to portability we should just accept it? Your OWN ARTICLE doesn't even state such stupidity. No matter how many times you repeat this crap, it doesn't make it true.

 

[uscitizen]

Actually, for my "extreme examples" I was actually thinking of (1) the sister of a very close friend of mine who recently had a bill passed by Congress in her name (kinda) allowing college students that get cancer to remain covered under their parent's insurers even though they do not attend school full time because they are too sick to do so (google "Michelle's Law") and (2) a close family member of mine. If you are sick and lose your job or otherwise lose your insurance you are fucked. It's that simple.

It's not emo. It's life. For you to pretend otherwise is the most ignorant shit I've seen posted on this board. And there's lots of ignorant shit on here. This is a very serious issue and for you to just pretend that non-discrimination rules, risk pooling and the like are just means for healthy people to subsidize the fatties is a disgrace. For you to attempt to defend it is disgusting.

Most personal bankruptcies are due to medical expenses not subprime loans.