Insuring the uninsured is worth it. We should want people who can't even afford basic insurance to be protect. This is America after all!
Congratulations to the Democrats for passing a smaller, less corrupt version of Obama's health care plan to cover the 30 million+ Americans who are uninsured. I've read numerous articles about the pros and cons of this plan, and I still can't figure it all out.
An Associated Press article writes, “Obama practically needs a spreadsheet to tell people what's going on and when.” That said, progress has been made. I'd like to go over some of the basics, and end with a discussion.
Insuring Each Other And Supporting Our Nation
Unlike making money, we can only do so much with our health until genetics take over. We can eat fruits and vegetables until the cows come home. We can work out 5 hours a week and play another 5 hours of tennis on the weekends to improve our fitness. But who's to say we don't get cancer one day and die because we can no longer afford to treat the disease? As far as scientists can tell, if we're destined to get some disease, we will. Wealth helps keep us alive.
Earning a living, on the other hand, is pretty straight forward. Don't slack off in grade school, go to a good university, get a reasonable job, don't slack off at work, add value, spend less than you earn, and voila! You will be rich when you retire. Along the way, you'll find impasses such as economic Armageddon we just experienced. You might lose your job, or 30% of your net worth like I did. But that's OK. We just go back to school, find another profession, extend our retirement age by a couple years and keep marching forward.
You can't march forward if you are sick. You can't even stand sometimes. This is where we MUST step in and provide a safety net for those who cannot help themselves.
Health And Poverty Is Indiscriminate
Watching a documentary about personal bankruptcies the other day, it was amazing to learn that 3 out of the 4 families profiled were living in poverty due to health related issues.
A beauty queen broke her neck, and couldn't continue working. She now lives in a shelter because she couldn't afford to pay her medical bills. A family of four live in their broken down car because the father severed a nerve in his arm at work, and could no longer operate the machinery. The insurance for rehab ran out, and he was left stuck, unable to do return to his old job.
If we had a better health care system, perhaps we'd have less health related bankruptcies. Is that so bad? Should we not try and help others out who bet on red but get black? We should.
The Objecting Crowd To Insuring Others
Everything comes down to money and service. Those who oppose ask how we can afford free coverage for 30 million more people? The opposition also asks with 30 million people in the system, does that mean my doctor's visit wait jumps from 15 minutes to an 1 hour? Do the citizens who can afford to pay get crowded out as a result? Good questions, and I don't have the answer.
However, if you were to ask me whether it's OK to raise my taxes by a couple percent a year to insure that everybody in America can get proper health care, I say yes. Let's say I earn $100,000 a year, and the tax increase of 2% is earmarked for health care reform. I'm willing to pay an extra $2,000 a year to ensure we all have the right to health care.
Whether my premiums go up $2,000 a year or my taxes go up by $2,000, it's the same thing, so I'm not arguing where the money will come from. Ask me to pay $2,000 more in taxes a year for some pork spending I have no idea about, I would vehemently vote no.
Let's say I do have to wait 45 more minutes for the doctor because of a crowding out effect. Fine, let me surf the web on my PDA, read some magazines, do some stretching, and perhaps take a nap. Maybe I have to wait a week longer than normal to see a doctor. That is a problem which will be solved by capitalists who will open more independent practices to meet demand. Just knowing that I will get assistance tempers my worries. And if you never had a shot at seeing a doctor in the first place, you won't be complaining about a wait.
If I have an emergency, then off to the emergency room I go. I will be treated according to the degree of my trauma. Hopefully there won't be millions of new hypochondriacs who abuse the emergency room system, but that is a chance I'm willing to take.
Insuring The Uninsured Is Worth IT
I feel it in my gut, opposing health care reform is bad. It's as if the karma police is watching me. We can only do so much to control the outcome of our lives. We don't know how long we will live, and whether we will die peacefully or painfully. Sickness affects a billionaire as easily as it affects a beggar. Why should someone lose everything just because they are poor? They shouldn't, and that's why I congratulate the passage of this bill again. Let's just make sure everybody helps pitch in, and not just those who aren't lucky enough to be Nebraskans or particular union workers.
Related: Healthcare Subsidy Amounts By Income For The Affordable Care Act
RECOMMENDATION TO BUILD WEALTH
Track Your Wealth For Free: In order to optimize your finances, you've first got to track your finances. I recommend signing up for Empower's free financial tools so you can track your net worth, analyze your investment portfolios for excessive fees, and run your financials through their fantastic Retirement Planning Calculator.
Those who are on top of their finances build much greater wealth longer term than those who don't. I've used Personal Capital since 2012. It's the best free financial app out there to manage your money.
Insuring the uninsured is a FS original post.
America spends more money than any other country on health care and we have LOUSY health outcomes. Both public and private health care spending are bloated. Our health care system, whether you’re talking private or public, is so bloated that WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO SPEND ANOTHER DIME IN TAXES to make it better.
Certainly genetics plays a role in health, but even scientists will tell you that 70% of our health care costs are driven by unhealthy lifestyle choices. 70%. That’s HUGE. Our publicly funded health care has done nothing to address these issues for the last 50 years….so I don’t see why Obamacare will be any different.
Just my opinion, I think Obamacare is more about centralizing power and control. You’ve said it in your other posts about Big Government….Government is greedy (for your tax dollars as well as power). It will try to gain more power over our lives by any means necessary. And yes, I get it, same thing goes for big business….the two have become so intertwined they’ve practically become a single entity (which was the goal all along, I think).
I think you will like my latest post entitled, “Subsidy Amounts By Income For Obamacare“. Even millionaires can get subsidies now b/c the subsidy amount is based on wealth and not income! Equality for all!
@Investor Junkie
Since you are provably factually wrong on almost every point you make, how do you expect to come to the right conclusion?
Sorry, most people who will have insurance, employer-covered or from the exchanges, will have “skin in the game”. Most people will NOT get a 100% subsidy, NO plans in ACA have zero deductible, most plans, ACA or otherwise, have co-pays, etc. Perhaps you want people to have NO insurance, which means that when someone gets a $50,000 bill they have no hope of paying, then the taxpayers and people WITH insurance end up having all THEIR “skin in the game.”
Sorry, Medical Loss Ratio is already saving premium payers money by limiting insurance company profits, and ACA’s wider risk pooling, price transparency, wider competition, standardized plan levels, requirement that “health-so-far” people get coverage and (hopefully) more use of preventative care and better healthcare outcomes should ALL reduce actuarial cost, as they are specifically designed to do.
Sorry, you can’t get insurance “on the way to the hospital”. Google “ACA open enrollment window”. It works the same way as employer-covered plans have for a long time. If you get bit by a snake on a hike in 2014, and spend a week in the hospital, that $50,000 bill comes to YOU and YOU alone, NOT to the insurance company you sign up for the NEXT YEAR, in 2015, during the next open enrollment. And having insurance sure is better than trying to negotiate a lower cost of care, by yourself, from your gurney, “on the way to the hospital”. And certainly better than trying to negotiate after the bill comes.
Sorry, the current economic recovery is slow because we had the worst crash since the great depression, and because the SINGLE sector that has NEGATIVE growth right now is the GOVERNMENT sector–the rest of the sectors are doing okay, and the economy would be doing better if we weren’t cutting government with the sequestor. The other reason for the slow recovery is the richest few percent are HOARDING cash rather than investing, because demand isn’t there. Demand isn’t there because the rich have been favored and coddled for a decade, so that the middle class is almost gone, and there is just NO WAY the richest 1% spends into the economy at a rate of 99 times the other 99% of people. This inequality is getting worse, and it’s already as bad as it was right before the Great Depression, which lasted more than ten years and ONLY ENDED DUE TO MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON A WAR.
I also have the same opinion that not everyone MUST get health insurance. I believe you should have the choice. This leads to more freedom and I think it just makes sense.
I do not subscribe to the idea that healthCARE is a RIGHT. Especially the way I see so many folks “caring” for their health. As you pointed out in the original article, genetics eventually takes over. Why do we prolong the inevitable? Death is truly the only guarantee after birth. Actually caring for one’s personal health is the best we can do.
We already have Medicare and Medicaid that are abused beyond belief. Now we want to add more? Whether it’s insurance or MediCare/MedicAid, payments are usually only ~80% at absolute best. Health provider overhead is tremendous. I am so very against these enabling programs at the state and Federal levels. The greater population is only willing to do the minimum amount needed to get by. e.g. I knew a couple of folks who worked harder to work the system than to actually work. I have since met many more like them in my travels.
Our overall system is not meant to support parasites. Our system works with symbiosis, as well it should. Any relationship that moves unilaterally tends to break down over time. I think we are seeing the results of that break down in the enabling programs. Helping is NOT doing for.
I agree with some aspects of the bill, but let’s be clear here: This is not a health CARE reform bill, it is a health INSURANCE reform bill.
Very little in this bill addresses actual health care costs. It is assumed that if everyone has insurance, then costs will go down because there is coverage for services. They never drove down to the root of the problem. Why does a tablet of aspirin cost $20?
I think the root of this problem is insurance itself, it masks true cost and eliminates competition. As soon as cost oversight is removed from the equation, costs rise. The only time I’ve (and I’m guessing 99% of insured Americans) ever looked up the cost of a health care service is when I have to pay out of pocket or through a health savings account. One way to combat this and still have insurance is to open state boundaries. That creates nationwide insurance competition. That could have been a huge win for both sides, because competition drives down insurance costs, which will eventually drive back down service costs.
The drastic increase in medical tourism is a prime example of this. Now insurance companies are promoting it, because they pay less and make more money off of your premiums! Medical tourism is cheap not because of low cost of living locations like in India, it’s because you are paying the true cost of the services. Most of the doctors you see overseas are trained in American schools and use state of the art equipment. They don’t jack up their fees because it’s competitive!
Again, I agree with insuring everyone (although I don’t agree with mandating coverage, if you don’t want it and you get sick and die because of it, your problem), and I especially agree with insuring kids. Unfortunately, they stopped half way. The next bill needs to address costs and competition.
Tom, thanks for your insights and vey well said on ALL points!
The thing I think most people forget is that every insured individual is already paying for the uninsured. The uninsured receive medical care everyday at every hospital and clinic in the country. And usually they are getting help for something major since they never went to the doctor before. Furthermore, even the uninsured who self-insure end up bankrupting themselves trying to pay, and the hospital or doctor still doesn’t get paid.
The cost of this care is simply added to the bills of every paying customer. What many people don’t understand is that by requiring every person to be insured, you open up this huge new market to insurance companies, which they can make pay. This would lower the rates for most people (maybe not the ones who see the doctor for every minor issue) because now most people are in the system.
I think most people agree health care is already ridiculously expensive. Given the case, what’s another several hundred to a thousand bucks more a year to prevent catastrophies for others? Nothing, esp if we can convince the 47% of American workers who don’t pay any taxes to contribute.
Btw, can’t comment on ur blog bc I need to log in
I’ve been going through David Cutler’s slides on the bill. Re: wait time, wait times are considered too high under the current system and the government is hoping to reduce, not increase, that. I know I have to wait forever to see a doctor with my private insurance, and that’s costly and leads to increased emergency room usage, which is inefficient.
It is a complicated bill because it is a complicated problem. It would be much less complicated if we could scrap everything and go straight to a national single payer system, but that’s just not possible in today’s political climate. Clinton tried and failed. Nixon tried and failed…
Here’s the Kaiser Family Fund’s little fact-sheet. (Possibly less biased than the government’s version): https://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf
Thx. Will have a look. I mentally prepare a min 30 min wait everytime. Any shorter and it’s an upside surprise !
Affording is pretty easy. Here’s a very simplistic argument. As far as I remember, insurance companies have a combined ratio (the money they swipe) of about 10% (maybe that number is different for health). There are 300+ million Americans. Eliminate the insurance companies and replace them with a single payer system. That should release treatment money for 30 million extra people.
A big reason for the mess is that they’re/we’re trying to change the current system into something it’s not. If you’re going to have roughly the same treatment options for everybody, does it make any sense to have a middle man?
Only for the middle man … so there’s a lot of lobbying.
From a stand point of the US paying twice as much as the next nation for a similar level of health, the entire system is broken beyond repair. There’s no fix. Scratch it and start over.
Health insurance lobby group is way too powerful to change. Govt needs to just charge all of us more and that’s that. It’s the right thing to do since health discriminates against no one unlike the govt!
Is this the mid season recap? :) This is great for me because I only started following Financial Samurai in the last month or so.
I agree with you 100% on this. I would pay more tax if it goes toward health care.
My parents are retired in Thailand and they can go see a doctor and pay about $1.50 each visit. If they were rich, they can go to a private hospital and pay as much as they want to get excellent health care. Many foreigners go to Thailand to get excellent health care and pay a lot less than at home.
The negative I see is the upward spiral cost of health care in the US. Cost of health care seems uncontrollable and probably will bankrupt any single payer program. There need to be a cost-reward analysis and we should instate a “death panel.” Tax payer should get good return for their money. If you need $1 million to extend your life for one month – forget it. You can pay for it yourself if you have the money.
Parents in Thailand huh? Nice. I try and bring up posts that are relevant in the moment. With election season upon us, now is opportune.
Robert Heinlein wrote about this 50 years ago in his science fiction novels. He proposed that no democracy could ever survive, because the poor people would always vote for “Bread and Circuses” if given the opportunity, which eventually bankrupts the state.
TANSTAAFL (look it up)
I can’t say I know enough about all the details of health care reform.
However, I would love if everyone could be insured in an affordable manner. I have always had nothing but empathy for those who went bankrupt for medical reasons, that must be the absolute worst. There is a real problem in this country if you end homeless because of a neck injury.
I guess my problem is I am just turning into a cynic of sorts. People get out of paying taxes, which shortchanges everyone. People cheat to get out of paying their mortgage even though they can afford it. Apparently there is nothing illegal about what people are doing or jails would be filled up by now. But there are plenty of loopholes, and people are obviously finding them… So, I wouldn’t be surprised if it took a lot more than 2 percent in taxes to cover health insurance.
I never understood why everyone couldn’t pay a set amount and get into the federal government’s program. Health care costs are so high that even a millionaire can be bankrupted by having no coverage. I don’t get how other countries can make healthcare work and we have not been able to.
Well, what we learned from our Canadian friends is that they tax at a 40%+ rate with income over 100k equivalent!
If only America could get every worker to pay some taxes, not half the worker population, I think we can make unihealth a reality!
We definitely don’t need a 40% tax rate. Agreed…if every working American paid something in taxes that would go a long way to creating a uniform healthcare system.
Universal coverage just makes more sense, both socially and economically. Those countries with the widest government health coverage actually have the LOWEST cost. Whereas in counties like the US it costs far more to provide the same services. No health system can ever be perfect, nor is it possible for government to treat every sick person as far as humanly possible. The cost would be too great. But government can and society should protect the weakest and poorest. What does it say about a country that can spend trillions fighting wars, but won’t give cancer drugs to its poorest?
It’s says we are fooked up, for sure.
I don’t know all the ins and outs of the insurance plan but I am glad that we have coverage for everyone. If it leads to everyone having access then it seems like a good thing.
.-= Jerry´s last blog ..How To Instantly Improve Your Selling Ability =-.
We do have a moral obligation to provide emergency-room-type healthcare services to folks with no way of paying for it. I’m not so sure we have the obligation to provide the same level of drug coverage, physical therapy, mental-health services, aromatherapy, etc services. Where does that thinking stop?
High-deductible plans with HSAs were a step in the right direction for a number of reasons (price-shopping and competition, better knowledge of the true costs of healthcare) but are being killed by this plan. I have to wonder if the fact that they were working (i.e. lowering healthcare consumption) is exactly why they were killed…
.-= gn´s last blog ..Time Machine: Health Care in USA circa 2025 =-.
Have you read it, Rob?
Every last comma and footnote.
Truth be told, there were a few commas that I thought were extremely>/i> well placed.
Rob
.-= Rob Bennett´s last blog ..Google Knol #2 — The Bull Market Caused the Economic Crisis =-.
Rob Bennett “I oppose the bill that passed.”
Have you read it, Rob?
No?
I thought not. As usual, the important thing for you is that you speak a lot and get seen, not that you understand, learn, or communicate.
I’m not satisfied – and I won’t be until we take care of everybody – and I mean EVERYBODY! We are the wealthiest people in the world, and it’s a disgrace that over 5 billion people in the world go without adequate health care – not to mention clean drinking water and enough food to satisfy their daily hunger. None among us is superior over any of our fellow human beings – so we should not act it. We need to give up our investments, our savings, our 401(k), our Roth IRA, our huge house, our big cars and trucks, our vacations, condo on the beach, cottage on the lake, weekend get-a-way, and anything else that gives us any kind of pleasure – how dare we live like this while our own kind suffer?
The OP gave an example of having a $100,000 income and this bill costing him an additional $2,000. I would suggest that if he indeed DOES have a $100,000 income, more than 90% of it should go toward feeding, watering, and caring for the rest of the world. Why stop at our borders? What gives us the right to live this way?
ALL men (and women) should be equal!
Hi DB, just to clarify, you want me to get taxed 90% of my income so that I giveaway $90,000 and live off $10,000? Then, I will be the problem person in society and require everybody else out to bail me out.
Hey Sam,
The Beatles had a song about that, when they were getting taxed 95%. Next thing you know, John and Paul left England and moved to the U.S. There is only so much you can tax people before it kills the incentive to work and create new jobs. In my opinion, a tax rate above 35%, even for the wealthiest Americans, is way too much.
The Government needs to go on a diet and stop wasting all of our tax money. Then, we could have less debt and better services, for the same amount of taxes. In case anyone hasn’t figured this out, most of our tax money is going to wealthy entities like Haliburton, ADM and Goldman Sachs, instead of providing services to our citizens. The problem isn’t that our taxes are too low. The problem is that our Government is corrupt and inneficient.
Bret
Bret, I like it! Going on a spending diet and stop wasting our money is definitely a good idea. Thanks for sharing! You may be interested in an upcoming post on charity and taxes. Cheers, Sam
this is bad news for American, for Business. See link.
One more comment- right now Medicare billing costs are lower than other programs. Basically Medicare is subsidized by the uninsured and people with weak plans. Therefore for HRC to work everyone will have to pay much more. No such thing as a free lunch, as we will all soon find out.
-Mike
Sam,
I see a few big problems with the HRC passage, although perhaps ramming it down this way will force some changes to surface:
1. I had read that this legislation eliminates the option for catastrophic insurance, meaning people are forced to buy a policy and pay a high premium even though the young and healthy should only need a catastrophic policy.
2. Already insurers are raising premiums and companies will need to lay off people if they are going to grow and get up to an employee count of over 50 people.
3. What about Americans living and working overseas? It makes no sense that they would need to purchase a US based insurance but currently there is no provision for these individuals, who total up to over 1 million.
4. Why should illegals not be subject to the IRS penalty and why do they need to be treated at general taxpayer expense?
5. How come this legislation maintains that drugs and medical devices cannot be re-imported back to the USA? Did you realize that US citizens pay several times more than non-US countries for drugs and medical devices?
Still a lot more work to do here and this ramrod passage makes me a hater of Obama and his policies. I expect him to try this approach with more bad bills like cap and trade. Obama is much smarter but Bush will have done less harm for the USA. Of course time will tell, but this is my strong prediction.
I agree that having insurance companies dropping people is not the right thing to do. But there are many other ways to solve this, such as creating a catastrophic insurance pool that is run by a non-profit agency. Sometimes keeping it simple does the best job.
-Mike
Hi Mike – All salient points and unfortunately, nothing is simple in politics because everyone has an agenda. What I’m counting on are for people like you and the GOP to now fight like mad to highlight these issues and come to more compromise.
This is only the beginning. I have to believe more compromises will be made.
Best, Sam
Good points and questions, Mike, let me reply.
1) Basically, yes. There’s a bit of a rock & a hard place problem there. You are right that catastrophic coverage can make sense for some, but I disagree that those are ‘the young and healthy’. Rather, it’s the ‘young, healthy, and wealthy’ (meaning, wealthy enough to be able to pay several grand (or several tens of grands) out of pocket in the case of that catastrophe).
Otherwise, what would happen is you’d have a lot of poor people purchasing only catastrophic coverage to save money, despite the fact that there’s no way they can cover the cost if they do get ill. Those people would have no preventive coverage, and would still continue to wait until major illnesses strike and go to the ER, rather than seeking the preventive check-ups that can hopefully keep them health in the first place.
Do remember that the ‘mandate’ is only a tax penalty. So if you decide its more worthwhile for you to pay the penalty and save more by carrying only catastrophic coverage, no one will stop you from doing so (but yes, it does change the equation).
So while it would be nice to open up the possibility for those that it makes sense for, you can’t really do so without opening up the option for exactly for whom it’s exactly the wrong thing, yet still very tempting.
As far as your ‘simplier way’ to fix the problem via catastrophic insurance, it really depends what you define ‘the problem’ to be, I guess. If you think the problem is people having no coverage at all, then catastrophic coverage is a solution. If you define the problem as people not seeking care until they get very sick, and then being unable to pay multiple-thousands of dollars of bills that go unpaid and hard hospitals, then catastrophic coverage wouldn’t fix the problem. Saying that giving catastrophic coverage is providing health care, is a little like saying that giving every kid an encyclopedia is providing them an education.
2) Insurers have been raising premiums drastically for years. Is there something to say it has to do with this just-passed bill, or is it just a continuation of what’s already been occurring?
The penalty for employers over 50 people is not *that* large. Its 50 minus a 30 person deductible times $2000 = $40,000. If you have a company that needs to grow, it seems rather foolhardy to refuse to do so to save the equivalent of one person’s salary or less. I don’t deny it it will have effects, but it won’t be the end of the economy like some people want to play it up as.
3) Good point about overseas. I would hope the IRS finds some rationale to make an exception in that case. Or they can conclude that the foreign coverage (or foreign government’s coverage) is sufficient. If not, it seems like a minor rule change would be due.
4) Are illegal’s officially exempt? Whether yes or no, you’d be trying to squeeze blood from a stone because illegals don’t file tax returns. They *may* pay taxes through withholdings, but there would be no way to collect a tax penalty with no return filed.
Besides, if you were to require them to purchase it (utterly enforceable), then you’d have to provide them subsidies to purchase it, and people would kick and scream and benefits to illegals (they already do kick and scream even though there’s no a dime paid out in this bill).
5) Alas this bill doesn’t fix every problem or issue. The counterargument though (usually the conservative argument) is that it would destroy the revenue of companies who develop these things in the first place, and there wouldn’t be the R&D money to develop the next big thing.
IJ,
Are you saying there is something other than Keynesian Economics…BLASPHAMY
.-= Evan´s last blog ..Explanation of Health Care Bill in Time Line Form =-.
In the end we are all dead right? :-)
Keynes vs. Hayek rap video
https://cafehayek.com/2010/01/keynes-vs-hayek-rap-video.html
.-= Investor Junkie´s last blog ..Will The Wealthy Donate Less Because Of Health Care? =-.
I was surprised to read Jim’s comment. During the heated debates last summer, I happened to be in Washington. In order to learn more about the cost to the reform, I managed to find time to watch every debate that President Obama was to give. No president up to now has cared enough about our country’s financial debt and many uninsured people’s hopeless situation, and said that he didn’t care if he was re-elected for a second term or not, or something to that effect.
I personally have spent many years doing research on finding out an easy way to stay healthy. (I had a Biology background and always like to find out the “why” and “how” to questions and problems.) I have come to a conclusion that I would rather stay healthy and give the insurance money that I paid for others to use.
During my research, I also found many medical professionals, including people in the pharmaceutical field, were not honest… It was part of the reasons why our Government has to waste so much money… I would be able to name a few if I could speak to you in person.
Lovingkind,
“No president up to now has cared enough about our country’s financial debt and many uninsured people’s hopeless situation, and said that he didn’t care if he was re-elected for a second term or not, or something to that effect. ”
Is this a serious comment? Obama has INCREASED the national debt more than any president EVER. People think Bush was bad with 500bill per year. So far Obama has done 1.5 Trillion, in 14 months. How has he cared about the debt? To think Obama cares about you personally or the general public (or any politician for that matter) is delusional. Obama obviously has not listened to the general public (based upon polls that were obviously against this) otherwise this bill will not have gone through.
“During my research, I also found many medical professionals, including people in the pharmaceutical field, were not honest… It was part of the reasons why our Government has to waste so much money…”
I think many medical professionals would take issue with this statement. So you trust the government and politicians more? Based upon the way this bill was shoved through congress? The government is the problem not the solution. Government wastes money because they are inefficient. They have no incentive to do better. Always have been, always will be..
.-= Investor Junkie´s last blog ..Will The Wealthy Donate Less Because Of Health Care? =-.
IJ, I can’t speak for Loving Kind, but does it make no difference to you that we were fighting off a huge recession and are still fighting substantial after-effects? Government policies are supposed to be counter-cyclical… if you took money out of the economy in a financial downturn, you’d just be making it worse.
I too believe that President Obama cares about reducing the deficit, but is also smart enough to understand that the middle of high unemployment and just after a major recessions, it is counterproductive to make it your first priority. The top priority has to be getting the economy back on solid footing.
And if he doesn’t, I’m not sure where to turn… to the Republicans that blocked a fiscal commission to study to reducing the deficit? To the Republicans that voted against installing pay-as-you-go rules in the house and senate, and never do so when they’re in the majority. To the Republicans who haven’t had a president run a balanced budget in 35+ years?
Hi Fredct,
Yes I understand we are in a huge recession. At least you didn’t state it’s Bushes
fault as most state. :-) Believe me I was no fan.
You are confusing fed policy with govt policy. At least with the govt policy a
counter augment (Austrian Econ) that govt spending does nothing to help
stimulate the econ and only prolongs the recession. It can be said the govt is
causing uncertainty with their policies and sucking money out of the econ that
can be used productively by business and individuals.
Ok let’s use the CBO estimates of debt, since everyone loves to use them for the
HC debate that health care will be neutral (I also have a bridge in NYC to sell)
The CBO now estimates in 2020 the debt will rise to 90% of GDP.
Honestly this isn’t a R or D issue and really don’t like either party. What we
need is a much smaller government, and less taxes to grow. Not more of each.
History has shown neither works well (not just here).
News for you in reality neither party has balanced the budget. Even for Clinton it was mainly smoke and mirrors.
Time will tell, and I hope I’m wrong. My prediction Obama will make the
deficit worse than any other president and will make Bush look like he was
fiscally conservative (which he obviously wasn’t).
.-= Investor Junkie´s last blog ..Will The Wealthy Donate Less Because Of Health Care? =-.
Oh, one more thing…
“Obama obviously has not listened to the general public (based upon polls that were obviously against this) otherwise this bill will not have gone through.”
First, I find it funny that… if anyone remembers… President Bush was always very proud of the fact that he did not ‘govern by opinion polls’. He was proud of it, he made it a thing, and the people who supported him supported that. And now much of the same people are saying its an outrage and utterly undemocratic not to govern by opinion polls? Come on, that’s just too much.
Second, the polling on health care has been massively influenced by wording, which allows either side to pick-and-choose polls to prove their point. For instance, on the public opition, if the question was asked “do you support establishing a federal-run insurance plan, controlled by government bureaucrats”, the popularity was distinctly negative. But if the question was asked “do you support establishing a public insurance plan, like medicare, that people could elect to purchase insurance from if they wanted”, the popularity was pretty high.
It bugs the heck out of me, that something like 20-30% of people changed their opinion based on that kind of wording… when its really asking the same thing! But, they did.
The same went for the plan as a whole. If the question included words like ‘government run’ (or the very inflaming ‘government takeover’), the opinion was negative. But if the question focused on ‘deficit reducing’ or ‘expanding coverage’ the opinion was positive.
The most neutral questions – those that simply asked something like ‘do you support or oppose the plan currently before congress’, in recent days, generally found a slightly negative opinion, but not drastically, something like 40-45. But those that dug deeper did find that something like 10% of the opposition was from the left… people who opposed it because it didn’t include a public option, or single payer, or (boogabooga) socialized medicine.
Long story short, to imply that there’s overwhelming opposition to this bill – as many have done – is untrue, and its pretty likely that the people who oppose it from the left still support it as an improvement over the status quo.
I’ve just returned from the UK where people to a man complained about their poor health care system. The two in our crowd from the Netherlands complained about their 52% tax rate. The people who can afford it get private insurance and the better doctors.
Socialism is a slippery slope. Europe is rotting from the inside out and it’s now spread to America.
It’s easy to say ‘I care’ and everyone should get healthcare, particularly when you’re taking money from one person to give it to another. But where does it end?
I’m pretty disappointed w/ your lack of financial reality, and therefore will be deleting your website from my favorites.
Best of Luck.
The money I’m taking from one person is my own. Thanks Jim for hanging around so far!
Talk about lack of reality. Sure, people like to complain, and I’ve heard that complaining about health care in Britain referred to a ‘national sport’, or something like that, but when push comes to shove, Brits are distinctly happier with their system then Americans are with ours. Or should I say, ever so gratefully, with our *former*, ending system.
Sure, 52% of Brits are ‘somewhat or very dissatisfied’ with the healthcare system according to one poll. But in the US, 72% are! Trying do eliminate the NHS in Britain is the third rail of politics, like Medicare or SS here. No one dares touch it. Trying to make it sounds like they all want to get rid of it… or like they would prefer the American system where your care depends on your income level and employment… *thats* lack of reality.
While I like the idea of improving health care, I don’t know if we are going to pay for this bill. The first (and most glaring example in my opinion) is the tax on tanning beds. Why tanning beds? Is skin cancer really such a drain on our health care system that we should tax tanning beds? What about other things that encourage activites that could result in skin cancer (can we say tax on beach equipment, pools)? I would be more satisfied with a tax on unhealthy food or fast food chains or clothing for large individuals.
Personally, it irritates me when taxes are levied against an industry in such a manner. The second is more from a personal situation. The reduction in benefits for the flexible spending account is something I strongly disagree with. While imposing a limit of $2,500 isn’t that big of a deal, the removal of allowing over the counter meds to count is very problematic. This does nothing but increases the cost of health care. I’ll be hard pressed to set aside enough to cover typical health care expenses in this account for fear of losing it if something changes during the year.
For example, what if my wife no longer needs her maintenance medication half way through the year (border-line thyroid problem) or instead only needs to have blood work once a year instead of the typical twice a year? We’ll be left looking for ways make up that difference instead of having the safety net of increasing our supply of cold medicine and advil. Those are just my two cents of what is wrong with the bill. Overall, I’m still deciding if I’m for or against it.