and if you had religiously bought ear plugs with your own money and worn them every day, you would have perfect hearing but would still be paying taxes for someone else's hearing aid.
healthcare reform is coming
- Thread starter Cutehumor
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Okay, so I think we'll all agree that no matter which way you go, there will be either exploitation or corruption.
Our medical cartel has a choke point on access to the system ..at least they've managed to milk producers on their terms.
The state funded process (privately administered) would have the same producers footing the bill, but probably "peak shave" services to some form of "resource allocation". Right now we have the opposite of this. Right now doctors approve even more services as routine ..increasing the baseline costs of routine care. A percentage of the static costs are justified due to liability issues, but this too has become a cash cow that's milked to grab whatever is allowed. Doctors now figure out what tests they're allowed to perform on you ..and how often. Retired or administrative doctors determine what these standards are, and do it for the benefit of physicians where no harm comes to the patients in the process. That's only in the sense of physical harm ..they'll let the economists and politicians figure out how much economic harm is allowed.
They're providing a smorgasbord of revenue streams to doctors. The inverted view of this, if allowed to continue, will be rationing and allocation after the market has too little revenue to sustain them.
State operated medical care would probably end up being the worst of both.
Our medical cartel has a choke point on access to the system ..at least they've managed to milk producers on their terms.
The state funded process (privately administered) would have the same producers footing the bill, but probably "peak shave" services to some form of "resource allocation". Right now we have the opposite of this. Right now doctors approve even more services as routine ..increasing the baseline costs of routine care. A percentage of the static costs are justified due to liability issues, but this too has become a cash cow that's milked to grab whatever is allowed. Doctors now figure out what tests they're allowed to perform on you ..and how often. Retired or administrative doctors determine what these standards are, and do it for the benefit of physicians where no harm comes to the patients in the process. That's only in the sense of physical harm ..they'll let the economists and politicians figure out how much economic harm is allowed.
They're providing a smorgasbord of revenue streams to doctors. The inverted view of this, if allowed to continue, will be rationing and allocation after the market has too little revenue to sustain them.
State operated medical care would probably end up being the worst of both.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
oilyriser, then there's a right to "trespass", as there should be no right to property if all have an equal right to live.
Say what??
Crinkles you talk about the cost of getting approval for drugs. Shannow, you talk about that drugs used for animals cannot be sold for humans.
Government regulations are the common factor.
oilyriser, then there's a right to "trespass", as there should be no right to property if all have an equal right to live.
Say what??
Crinkles you talk about the cost of getting approval for drugs. Shannow, you talk about that drugs used for animals cannot be sold for humans.
Government regulations are the common factor.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/study-confirms-health-monopoly-fears
Quote:
The AMA says it has taken up this antitrust issue with the U.S. Department of Justice but says it has run into roadblocks with regulators. AMA officials say regulators seem uninterested, even though government officials are more than willing to target doctors' groups and hospitals on antitrust matters.
Justice Department officials did not respond to requests for comment.
A former Justice official says, however, that the health insurance market doesn't operate by normal rules. Constance K. Robinson, the department's former director of operations, says there are a number of issues to consider when deciding if competition is hampered in a particular market.
A single carrier may have naturally accumulated huge market share as more consumers became less enchanted with rivals or a dominant carrier could be keeping medical costs down. Managed care plans have fallen into disfavor in many cases as well.
So if numbers show a high concentration of market power, there may be more to the story, she said.
"The answer any antitrust lawyer should tell you is, it depends," said Robinson, who left the department in late 2003 to become an antitrust lawyer in the private sector. "Health care is not a so-called normal market. You have different drivers."
So it appears the Gov. has no interest in breaking things up. This attitude hasn't changed as of late.
Quote:
Erhhhhhhhhhhhh, try again!
So individuals can deduct their self provided health care?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/study-confirms-health-monopoly-fears
Quote:
The AMA says it has taken up this antitrust issue with the U.S. Department of Justice but says it has run into roadblocks with regulators. AMA officials say regulators seem uninterested, even though government officials are more than willing to target doctors' groups and hospitals on antitrust matters.
Justice Department officials did not respond to requests for comment.
A former Justice official says, however, that the health insurance market doesn't operate by normal rules. Constance K. Robinson, the department's former director of operations, says there are a number of issues to consider when deciding if competition is hampered in a particular market.
A single carrier may have naturally accumulated huge market share as more consumers became less enchanted with rivals or a dominant carrier could be keeping medical costs down. Managed care plans have fallen into disfavor in many cases as well.
So if numbers show a high concentration of market power, there may be more to the story, she said.
"The answer any antitrust lawyer should tell you is, it depends," said Robinson, who left the department in late 2003 to become an antitrust lawyer in the private sector. "Health care is not a so-called normal market. You have different drivers."
So it appears the Gov. has no interest in breaking things up. This attitude hasn't changed as of late.
Quote:
Erhhhhhhhhhhhh, try again!
So individuals can deduct their self provided health care?
Quote:
Tempest and I have a long standing opposition to each others philosophical view on humanity. He's views it from the top down, while I look from the bottom up.
You can't get anymore "top down" than having government in charge of things.
Crinkles, I do indeed want to help people. Stealing money from people to give to other people (for votes) is not helping people. Nor is making them dependant on government for their existence and rights.
Tempest and I have a long standing opposition to each others philosophical view on humanity. He's views it from the top down, while I look from the bottom up.
You can't get anymore "top down" than having government in charge of things.
Crinkles, I do indeed want to help people. Stealing money from people to give to other people (for votes) is not helping people. Nor is making them dependant on government for their existence and rights.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Quote:
You can't get anymore "top down" than having government in charge of things.
Then put a knife to the throat of those who make the nanny state so appealing. Make your belief PAY.
You can't. You can only give access to power acquisition through commerce. That will tend to be, as it has proven to be, a self empowering focusing of wealth, which you appear to also endorse.
I really need you to cite the chapter and verse of the Constitution where it supports the disenfranchisement of any segment of the society? Where opportunity is the opportunity to prey upon your fellow citizen with impunity ..just because you've manage to figure a way to do it.
I need to see this warped and diabolical mentality in the founding fathers of this fine nation.
You'll never convince me that they were just configuring an alternative aristocracy/feudal system that was SPECIFICALLY designed to be EXACTLY THE SAME as the monarchy that they dispensed with ..just letting commerce and shrewed cunning be the deciding factor on who rules as opposed to blood lines.
You can't get anymore "top down" than having government in charge of things.
Then put a knife to the throat of those who make the nanny state so appealing. Make your belief PAY.
You can't. You can only give access to power acquisition through commerce. That will tend to be, as it has proven to be, a self empowering focusing of wealth, which you appear to also endorse.
I really need you to cite the chapter and verse of the Constitution where it supports the disenfranchisement of any segment of the society? Where opportunity is the opportunity to prey upon your fellow citizen with impunity ..just because you've manage to figure a way to do it.
I need to see this warped and diabolical mentality in the founding fathers of this fine nation.
You'll never convince me that they were just configuring an alternative aristocracy/feudal system that was SPECIFICALLY designed to be EXACTLY THE SAME as the monarchy that they dispensed with ..just letting commerce and shrewed cunning be the deciding factor on who rules as opposed to blood lines.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Erhhhhhhhhhhhh, try again!
So individuals can deduct their self provided health care?
Absolutely - well, all medical expenses above 7.5% of AGI. It's the first item on schedule A (ie, you have to itemize deductions to take advantage of it). This also includes things like life insurance, medical expenses paid by you for others etc., so it can really add up if your AGI is low enough and you have a lot of medical expenses.
If you're self employed in any way, you can get sneaky and deduct all of your medical expenses and insurance. Having a side gig where you do a schedule C can really be a nice tax shelter.
:edit: not life insurance, but disability and long term care insurance.
Quote:
Erhhhhhhhhhhhh, try again!
So individuals can deduct their self provided health care?
Absolutely - well, all medical expenses above 7.5% of AGI. It's the first item on schedule A (ie, you have to itemize deductions to take advantage of it). This also includes things like life insurance, medical expenses paid by you for others etc., so it can really add up if your AGI is low enough and you have a lot of medical expenses.
If you're self employed in any way, you can get sneaky and deduct all of your medical expenses and insurance. Having a side gig where you do a schedule C can really be a nice tax shelter.
:edit: not life insurance, but disability and long term care insurance.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Tempest
You can't get anymore "top down" than having government in charge of things.
Yes you can, we can have a warlord society and that's even more top down.
Quote:
Crinkles, I do indeed want to help people. Stealing money from people to give to other people (for votes) is not helping people. Nor is making them dependant on government for their existence and rights.
Then when is your idea of helping people? Giving them discount that they cannot afford to exercise in the form of tax cut for health insurance?
You can't get anymore "top down" than having government in charge of things.
Yes you can, we can have a warlord society and that's even more top down.
Quote:
Crinkles, I do indeed want to help people. Stealing money from people to give to other people (for votes) is not helping people. Nor is making them dependant on government for their existence and rights.
Then when is your idea of helping people? Giving them discount that they cannot afford to exercise in the form of tax cut for health insurance?
Originally Posted By: digitalSniperX1
Tempest who is constantly attacked for his philosophical point of view endures (while maintining generally dignified responses) Gary's (and now other's) constant subtle derisions and negative innuendo.
He's not "attacked" as in people calling him stupid, like you do to people you disagree with.
Tempest who is constantly attacked for his philosophical point of view endures (while maintining generally dignified responses) Gary's (and now other's) constant subtle derisions and negative innuendo.
He's not "attacked" as in people calling him stupid, like you do to people you disagree with.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: digitalSniperX1
Tempest who is constantly attacked for his philosophical point of view endures (while maintining generally dignified responses) Gary's (and now other's) constant subtle derisions and negative innuendo.
He's not "attacked" as in people calling him stupid, like you do to people you disagree with.
Yep. I just have a literary style that really gets under your skin. It doesn't outright insult, just brings to light the "untidy" aspects of your belief so that they can fully be understood for the flip side of the coin.
So far, on any of the tough challenges, I've only gotten either cherry picked quotes (edited) or links ...or .........silence.
Some people know what fights they cannot win. Instead of concession to the obvious, they choose not to participate.
It would be fun if you could do that in real life. Cherry pick what you find favorable, dispose of that which isn't ..and ignore the rest.
..but it doesn't work that way.
Originally Posted By: digitalSniperX1
Tempest who is constantly attacked for his philosophical point of view endures (while maintining generally dignified responses) Gary's (and now other's) constant subtle derisions and negative innuendo.
He's not "attacked" as in people calling him stupid, like you do to people you disagree with.
Yep. I just have a literary style that really gets under your skin. It doesn't outright insult, just brings to light the "untidy" aspects of your belief so that they can fully be understood for the flip side of the coin.
So far, on any of the tough challenges, I've only gotten either cherry picked quotes (edited) or links ...or .........silence.
Some people know what fights they cannot win. Instead of concession to the obvious, they choose not to participate.
It would be fun if you could do that in real life. Cherry pick what you find favorable, dispose of that which isn't ..and ignore the rest.
..but it doesn't work that way.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Erhhhhhhhhhhhh, try again!
So individuals can deduct their self provided health care?
Absolutely - well, all medical expenses above 7.5% of AGI. It's the first item on schedule A (ie, you have to itemize deductions to take advantage of it). This also includes things like life insurance, medical expenses paid by you for others etc., so it can really add up if your AGI is low enough and you have a lot of medical expenses.
If you're self employed in any way, you can get sneaky and deduct all of your medical expenses and insurance. Having a side gig where you do a schedule C can really be a nice tax shelter.
:edit: not life insurance, but disability and long term care insurance.
Yes, but their health insurance?
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Erhhhhhhhhhhhh, try again!
So individuals can deduct their self provided health care?
Absolutely - well, all medical expenses above 7.5% of AGI. It's the first item on schedule A (ie, you have to itemize deductions to take advantage of it). This also includes things like life insurance, medical expenses paid by you for others etc., so it can really add up if your AGI is low enough and you have a lot of medical expenses.
If you're self employed in any way, you can get sneaky and deduct all of your medical expenses and insurance. Having a side gig where you do a schedule C can really be a nice tax shelter.
:edit: not life insurance, but disability and long term care insurance.
Yes, but their health insurance?
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Erhhhhhhhhhhhh, try again!
So individuals can deduct their self provided health care?
Absolutely - well, all medical expenses above 7.5% of AGI. It's the first item on schedule A (ie, you have to itemize deductions to take advantage of it). This also includes things like life insurance, medical expenses paid by you for others etc., so it can really add up if your AGI is low enough and you have a lot of medical expenses.
If you're self employed in any way, you can get sneaky and deduct all of your medical expenses and insurance. Having a side gig where you do a schedule C can really be a nice tax shelter.
:edit: not life insurance, but disability and long term care insurance.
Yes, but their health insurance?
Yes.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Erhhhhhhhhhhhh, try again!
So individuals can deduct their self provided health care?
Absolutely - well, all medical expenses above 7.5% of AGI. It's the first item on schedule A (ie, you have to itemize deductions to take advantage of it). This also includes things like life insurance, medical expenses paid by you for others etc., so it can really add up if your AGI is low enough and you have a lot of medical expenses.
If you're self employed in any way, you can get sneaky and deduct all of your medical expenses and insurance. Having a side gig where you do a schedule C can really be a nice tax shelter.
:edit: not life insurance, but disability and long term care insurance.
Yes, but their health insurance?
Yes.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Quote:
not life insurance
Unless it has changed, I think it is deductible if the enterprise is the beneficiary. This may require a corporate umbrella (I was incorporated at one time).
not life insurance
Unless it has changed, I think it is deductible if the enterprise is the beneficiary. This may require a corporate umbrella (I was incorporated at one time).
Quote:
You'll never convince me that they were just configuring an alternative aristocracy/feudal system that was SPECIFICALLY designed to be EXACTLY THE SAME as the monarchy that they dispensed with ..just letting commerce and shrewed cunning be the deciding factor on who rules as opposed to blood lines.
Ruling and being rich are 2 different things. The Founding Fathers were RICH people, and they wanted everyone else to have a CHANCE at the same. The real feudal system and central bankers were limiting their chance at improving their lives and others. If they wanted the government to steal from people to simply hand to someone else, they would have written it into the Constitution. There is none there, but there are plenty of protections against such.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest they believed in equal OUTCOMES, which is what you are supporting.
You'll never convince me that they were just configuring an alternative aristocracy/feudal system that was SPECIFICALLY designed to be EXACTLY THE SAME as the monarchy that they dispensed with ..just letting commerce and shrewed cunning be the deciding factor on who rules as opposed to blood lines.
Ruling and being rich are 2 different things. The Founding Fathers were RICH people, and they wanted everyone else to have a CHANCE at the same. The real feudal system and central bankers were limiting their chance at improving their lives and others. If they wanted the government to steal from people to simply hand to someone else, they would have written it into the Constitution. There is none there, but there are plenty of protections against such.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest they believed in equal OUTCOMES, which is what you are supporting.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Yes.
http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/taxexperts/archive/2007/03/0326.html
Quote:
Health insurance premiums are a deductible medical expense, but the catch is that very few taxpayers really get to deduct the cost. First, to get a tax benefit, you must itemize deductions ... and most taxpayers do not because they are better off using the standard deduction.
Second, medical expenses are deductible only to the extent that the total of your unreimbursed expenses exceeds 7.5% of your adjusted gross income. So, if you make $50,000, the first $3,750 of your medical expenses doesn't count. If you do itemize and have significant medical bills, you deduct medical costs on Schedule A.
That is a weee bit different than being able to deduct 100% the way businesses can.
Yes.
http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/taxexperts/archive/2007/03/0326.html
Quote:
Health insurance premiums are a deductible medical expense, but the catch is that very few taxpayers really get to deduct the cost. First, to get a tax benefit, you must itemize deductions ... and most taxpayers do not because they are better off using the standard deduction.
Second, medical expenses are deductible only to the extent that the total of your unreimbursed expenses exceeds 7.5% of your adjusted gross income. So, if you make $50,000, the first $3,750 of your medical expenses doesn't count. If you do itemize and have significant medical bills, you deduct medical costs on Schedule A.
That is a weee bit different than being able to deduct 100% the way businesses can.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
You'll never convince me that they were just configuring an alternative aristocracy/feudal system that was SPECIFICALLY designed to be EXACTLY THE SAME as the monarchy that they dispensed with ..just letting commerce and shrewed cunning be the deciding factor on who rules as opposed to blood lines.
Ruling and being rich are 2 different things. The Founding Fathers were RICH people, and they wanted everyone else to have a CHANCE at the same. The real feudal system and central bankers were limiting their chance at improving their lives and others. If they wanted the government to steal from people to simply hand to someone else, they would have written it into the Constitution. There is none there, but there are plenty of protections against such.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest they believed in equal OUTCOMES, which is what you are supporting.
No one would expect equal outcomes. One also would not expect, under the ideals promoted, that dysfunction would abound.
You fully support corporations in leveraging themselves against the society's best interests. You have repeatedly rationalized anti-social behavior as long at it's on the wealthy side of life.
You're always on the side of power acquisition and retention that wants to exclude all others from challenge.
This is not what I read into the Constitution.
God Bless America - for the opportunity to create my own fiefdom of self glorification at the expense of my fellow citizen!!
..and, btw, I'm just fine with your vision for Tempestdytopia. You just REALLY need to start confessing to the "untidy" side effects of the belief. Being silent sure does make it seem like you've got a whole lot to hide.
I think you fully realize that there are few hearts and mind to win out of the vast majority ..since under your belief, most of them will be reduced to labor fodder for the nobles.
Like so much toilet paper. what do you do with so many wipes?
Quote:
You'll never convince me that they were just configuring an alternative aristocracy/feudal system that was SPECIFICALLY designed to be EXACTLY THE SAME as the monarchy that they dispensed with ..just letting commerce and shrewed cunning be the deciding factor on who rules as opposed to blood lines.
Ruling and being rich are 2 different things. The Founding Fathers were RICH people, and they wanted everyone else to have a CHANCE at the same. The real feudal system and central bankers were limiting their chance at improving their lives and others. If they wanted the government to steal from people to simply hand to someone else, they would have written it into the Constitution. There is none there, but there are plenty of protections against such.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest they believed in equal OUTCOMES, which is what you are supporting.
No one would expect equal outcomes. One also would not expect, under the ideals promoted, that dysfunction would abound.
You fully support corporations in leveraging themselves against the society's best interests. You have repeatedly rationalized anti-social behavior as long at it's on the wealthy side of life.
You're always on the side of power acquisition and retention that wants to exclude all others from challenge.
This is not what I read into the Constitution.
God Bless America - for the opportunity to create my own fiefdom of self glorification at the expense of my fellow citizen!!
..and, btw, I'm just fine with your vision for Tempestdytopia. You just REALLY need to start confessing to the "untidy" side effects of the belief. Being silent sure does make it seem like you've got a whole lot to hide.
I think you fully realize that there are few hearts and mind to win out of the vast majority ..since under your belief, most of them will be reduced to labor fodder for the nobles.
Like so much toilet paper. what do you do with so many wipes?
Quote:
One also would not expect, under the ideals promoted, that dysfunction would abound.
What dysfunction exists today, that didn't exist at the time of the Founders?
One also would not expect, under the ideals promoted, that dysfunction would abound.
What dysfunction exists today, that didn't exist at the time of the Founders?
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
You'll never convince me that they were just configuring an alternative aristocracy/feudal system that was SPECIFICALLY designed to be EXACTLY THE SAME as the monarchy that they dispensed with ..just letting commerce and shrewed cunning be the deciding factor on who rules as opposed to blood lines.
There would be more people on top overall though if there wasn't just the one monarchy, wouldn't there? Think, hmmm... globally.
You'll never convince me that they were just configuring an alternative aristocracy/feudal system that was SPECIFICALLY designed to be EXACTLY THE SAME as the monarchy that they dispensed with ..just letting commerce and shrewed cunning be the deciding factor on who rules as opposed to blood lines.
There would be more people on top overall though if there wasn't just the one monarchy, wouldn't there? Think, hmmm... globally.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
That is a weee bit different than being able to deduct 100% the way businesses can.
One of my biggest annoyances is that the libs used to argue that they'd brought the average tax rate down to the level of business taxes (30%).
Difference is that I'm taxed on "turnover", business on wat's left over (profit)
That is a weee bit different than being able to deduct 100% the way businesses can.
One of my biggest annoyances is that the libs used to argue that they'd brought the average tax rate down to the level of business taxes (30%).
Difference is that I'm taxed on "turnover", business on wat's left over (profit)
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Shannow
oilyriser, then there's a right to "trespass", as there should be no right to property if all have an equal right to live.
Say what??
If I've got a right to life, and no right to getting given anything from anybody else, then surely nobody else can have a right to stop me doing/taking what I need to live.
Make sense ?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
oilyriser, then there's a right to "trespass", as there should be no right to property if all have an equal right to live.
Say what??
If I've got a right to life, and no right to getting given anything from anybody else, then surely nobody else can have a right to stop me doing/taking what I need to live.
Make sense ?
- Status
Similar threads
