Bush's Tax / Health Insurance Proposals

[guido911]

shadows:
"...Clinton's wife spread out on the table..."  

Thanks for that mental image that will haunt me for eternity.

Steve:  No one can honestly disagree with your moral and ethical argument. The problem is that real people work in the health care field. People who have dedicated a large portion of their lives to obtaining an education and training so they can deliver the health care that you believe everyone has a right to have. These people should be compensated appropriately.
Bill Gates is the richest man in the world, but can you state how many illnesses he has cured? Alex Rodriguez signs a $250 Mil. contract...to play baseball. In your ideal world, I guess that's fair.

[tim huntzinger]

Steve, thank you for making sense of the proposal (or at least explaining it because this is more GOP gimmicky BS in drag as a solution.)

So the dollar amount of the benefit would be taxed as if added straight to gross salary?  Is that right?

Emperor Huntzinger would radically realign public education toward math, sciences, and medical education.  A capitalist approach using supply and demand would indicate that more doctors and medical supplies would lead to a cost reduction, not stealth shifting of costs to the nickel and dimed American consumer.

If the State so much has an interest in my well-being that it can direct its officers to issue citations if I fail to wear the proper safety harness in my vehicle, the State has the responsibility to provide health care.

[waterboy]

Good discussion. Steve your philosophy is admirable and I agree with it. It should be said though that what Guido says about free speech, even for corporates, is true. The only reason that pharmaceutical and legal advertising in "the day" was banned was because of the integrity and ethics of the medical and legal associations. We all lament the loss of that integrity and ethics. But the door is open and not likely to be pushed shut. They advertise in this manner because they have reason to believe it works. Keep in mind merely 17% of the population has a higher degree.

I believe the reason medical cost started to swirl out of control starting in the 70's was twofold. One, has been the startling increase in technology applied to medicine. The costs of these technologies are not cheap but drastically improved diagnostic and treatment effectiveness. That cost was passed on to end users (insurance companies or private pockets). Of course once a price is increased, it seldom comes down. We suffered massive inflation in the 70's as well.

Secondly, the reluctance of corporate America to drag lower and middle class income up as fast as upper income levels in spite of improved productivity. The same technology that improved medicine, meant fewer humans were needed to do the same task in the workplace. A huge shift occurred in income distribution. People make less $ proportionately now than in the 60's yet they are more sick than ever due to poor lifestyle. There health costs are added to the total and passed on. There has been increased demand for high tech employees and one of the easiest ways to attract them is with health benefits.

I'm sure there are loads of other factors but these two come to mind.

[Steve]

Thanks to everyone for their previous replies to this thread.  I never meant to question the integrity or sincere intentions of health care workers today (drug companies excepted!).  The issue is very complicated.

I feel that at the rate the cost of quality health care in the US is going, some drastic changes are in order or inevitable.  I saw a recent story on TV about U.S. patients that are traveling to India, southeast Asia, and other countries for surgery, because they can not afford the same procedure in the United States!  Not some experimental thing, but routine surgery.  What does that say about U.S. health care?  They get first class luxury care at 1/2 the price, even factoring in the cost of airfare and lodging.  That speaks volumes about the state of health care in the U.S.