Progressive enough yet?

[dude1394]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html

Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%

by Scott A. Hodge
Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the "rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes.


Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.


Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.


To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.
Some in Washington say the tax system is still not progressive enough. However, the recent IRS data bolsters the findings of an OECD study released last year showing that the U.S.—not France or Sweden—has the most progressive income tax system among OECD nations. We rely more heavily on the top 10 percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation.

[chumdawg]

It's a remarkable statistic, when looked at in those terms. But as the article states, twenty years ago the bottom 95% still paid a highly significant proportion of the income taxes.

Another way to view this is to say that the rich get richer. I'm not sure this isn't exactly the case.

[Darth Ape]

Right. After Obama is through, there won't be any rich people left in America.

[Robillion]

If I was president there would be maximum wage laws... so be happy greedy people.

[alexamenos]

these sort of stats are nothing but annoying.

the biggest chunk of income taxes paid by that bottom 95% are social security and medicare taxes, highly regressive income taxes which are invariably excluded from these stats purportedly showing how progressive the income tax system is.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

these sort of stats are nothing but annoying.

the biggest chunk of income taxes paid by that bottom 95% are social security and medicare taxes, highly regressive income taxes which are invariably excluded from these stats purportedly showing how progressive the income tax system is.

Originally Posted by chumdawg

It's a remarkable statistic, when looked at in those terms. But as the article states, twenty years ago the bottom 95% still paid a highly significant proportion of the income taxes.

Another way to view this is to say that the rich get richer. I'm not sure this isn't exactly the case.

quoted for truth.

[92bDad]

Why is there such hatred for those who have created wealth for themselves and others around them?

I personally am far from "Wealthy" based on USA Standards, but as many of us in the USA...we are amongst the wealthiest in the world. So, are there some who have a "Guilty" feeling about their own wealth and thus project this guilt onto those who are more fortunate than themselves.

I see NO REASON to ever put a cap on what someone can be compensated.

It's a negotiation between employee and employer and unless the government is the one providing the funds, they should stay OUT!!!

By the way, the tax note in this thread is not surprising...I would like to see us move to a flat tax to truly make it fair across the board.

Imagine, if you made $10,000 per year or $10,000,000 per year that you still paid the same % to tax. How much more fair can that be?

Let's not forget that this whole tax thing started in 1913 with a tax on the wealthiest 1% of America...it has grown steady since then to the point of touching everyone who legally earns income in this country. Rather than raising more money...I'ld like to see more programs turned over to Private organizations and some open public audits as to where Tax dollars are going...and thus a better way of making cuts on government spending to programs that are not in the best public interest.

Let's not forget the money being spend by our government on "Porn" No doubt, we can agree that their are more than enough things that most of us could agree on and cut from the spending side of the Governments Budget.

[Kirobaito]

This is more a symptom than any cause of anything.

The US has significantly more income inequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient) than countries like Sweden or France. This is not something that's getting better. In 1978, the average executive earned thirty-five times more than the average worker. Now, that number is three hundred times more (other countries range from 11-50). If your wealth is being accumulated into fewer and fewer hands, then obviously those fewer and fewer hands will bear more and more of the tax burden. This is the natural result of unregulated capitalism. Those who have the capital get more of it. Those who don't have it get less and less. Despite our talks of the American dream, there aren't nearly enough exceptions to this rule.

The tax system is probably progressive enough on the surface, but what you need is for income equality to head the other direction. That will change the balance of tax burden, and make life a hell of a lot better for the working people of America.

[Underdog]

Kill the rich, eat the poor - everybody left alive is happy...

(and don't forget to vote for me in 2016!)

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Why is there such hatred for those who have created wealth for themselves and others around them?.

I think it's called socialism.

[Nowitzki4President]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I think it's called socialism.

Oh No!

Everyone run to the hills! Before we get healthcare and free education, even college!

God forbid we turn into Sweden. People used to think they have hot blonde chicks just because. But it's actually because those evil commies are depriving them of food! That's why they're so skinny!

So when's my family getting healthcare? Because my neighbor just died of cancer and Parkinsons because he "had a pre-existing condition". Poor Jim


As for the percentages... Let's just hope the numbers don't get so lop-sided that we look like pre-French Revolution France. At least with Obama in office, it won't happen. Don't fear the moderate my right winged comrades.

[dude1394]

Sorry buddy.. Once socialism and the medical rationing kicks in your neighbor won't be worth saving, since it won't be cost effective.

[Kirobaito]

http://correspondents.theatlantic.co...e_in_taxes.php

Conor Clarke basically repeats what I said. The rich are paying more because they're getting richer.

[alexamenos]

Just to be clear....

Total spending for the 2008 budget was $2.9 trillion. Income tax revenue was $1.25 trillion, or about 43% of the spending. If indeed the top 1% paid 40% of all income taxes, then the top 1% paid for 17.2% (40% x 43%) of the government services via the income tax.

If we're going to debate whether the top 1% pay their fair share or more, we ought to at least get the percentages right.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Nowitzki4President

Oh No!

Everyone run to the hills! Before we get healthcare and free education, even college!

God forbid we turn into Sweden. People used to think they have hot blonde chicks just because. But it's actually because those evil commies are depriving them of food! That's why they're so skinny!

So when's my family getting healthcare? Because my neighbor just died of cancer and Parkinsons because he "had a pre-existing condition". Poor Jim


As for the percentages... Let's just hope the numbers don't get so lop-sided that we look like pre-French Revolution France. At least with Obama in office, it won't happen. Don't fear the moderate my right winged comrades.

I don't fear the moderate. I'm really hoping for some in Congress after the election next year with the result Clintonizing Obama to move to the center he campaigned from.

Countries the size of North Carolina where Doctors make about $75K before having 50% in taxes lopped off aren't really a good example. You need to pass that info to recent Medical School Graduates who start with student loans in excess of $100K.

http://mdsalaries.blogspot.com/2008/...in-sweden.html

http://tinyurl.com/m8w365

Comparing Sweden with our size and population, current commence, tax and social structure is at best inaccurate and at worse disastrous. Attempting to have Congress lead us to the light?

This is not something Congress does well. They want to bring swag to their constituents after skimming a bit for themselves and be reelected. It's like a clown car running in NASCAR with the crew and driver getting switched out every ten laps. Their proper role is making sure the supply of fuel, tires and parts is sufficient and the tools are serviceable. They shouldn't attempt to drive or crew

They have no superior talents or expertise and selfless service doesn't ring through. Running 60% of the economy through the government is making them pit and crew with no stake in the success or failure.

http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/5702531/

The good news is malpractice insurance has dropped, lead by Texas:

http://tinyurl.com/lzbpy9

I've no doubt the lawyer-in-chief is aware that the tort reform in Texas had a big hand in this, and it's prominently represented somewhere in that Redwood size pile of legislation.

With the UAW effectively broken, maybe we can look forward to stuff like this eventually:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/275190

That's meant as a tongue in cheek, but the idea of starting at the end, universal coverage, instead of what should be done, lowering costs, is unlikely to be successful.

It's counterproductive to lay this all on insurance and drug companies and Repugs. Insurance companies didn't give us HMOs, Congress did.

We don't "get" anything. Edumakated or Health Care. We are already facing a shortage of primary care physicians.

It's one thing to tax 9 million people at 50% and provide services in an area slightly bigger than California with 85% in a single area.

Something else to think the system can work here. You could have your health care in 1975-1985. When it was private. Before lawyers could advertise.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

I don't fear the moderate. I'm really hoping for some in Congress after the election next year with the result Clintonizing Obama to move to the center he campaigned from.

Countries the size of North Carolina where Doctors make about $75K before having 50% in taxes lopped off aren't really a good example. You need to pass that info to recent Medical School Graduates who start with student loans in excess of $100K.

http://mdsalaries.blogspot.com/2008/...in-sweden.html

http://tinyurl.com/m8w365

Comparing Sweden with our size and population, current commence, tax and social structure is at best inaccurate and at worse disastrous. Attempting to have Congress lead us to the light?

This is not something Congress does well. They want to bring swag to their constituents after skimming a bit for themselves and be reelected. It's like a clown car running in NASCAR with the crew and driver getting switched out every ten laps. Their proper role is making sure the supply of fuel, tires and parts is sufficient and the tools are serviceable. They shouldn't attempt to drive or crew

They have no superior talents or expertise and selfless service doesn't ring through. Running 60% of the economy through the government is making them pit and crew with no stake in the success or failure.

http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/5702531/

The good news is malpractice insurance has dropped, lead by Texas:

http://tinyurl.com/lzbpy9

I've no doubt the lawyer-in-chief is aware that the tort reform in Texas had a big hand in this, and it's prominently represented somewhere in that Redwood size pile of legislation.

With the UAW effectively broken, maybe we can look forward to stuff like this eventually:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/275190

That's meant as a tongue in cheek, but the idea of starting at the end, universal coverage, instead of what should be done, lowering costs, is unlikely to be successful.

It's counterproductive to lay this all on insurance and drug companies and Repugs. Insurance companies didn't give us HMOs, Congress did.

We don't "get" anything. Edumakated or Health Care. We are already facing a shortage of primary care physicians.

It's one thing to tax 9 million people at 50% and provide services in an area slightly bigger than California with 85% in a single area.

Something else to think the system can work here. You could have your health care in 1975-1985. When it was private. Before lawyers could advertise.

wtf!?

that was perhaps the most nonlinear post I have read here.. which is saying ALOT!

[Mavdog]

saying "nonlinear" is being kind....

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

wtf!?

that was perhaps the most nonlinear post I have read here.. which is saying ALOT!

It was Sweden, free health care and education and don't fear the moderate in the previous post I was commenting about. People are continually yammering about "The only industrial nation without universal health care" which requires a leap in logic along the lines of a mouse and an elephant are the same because they're mammals. There is almost nothing in our system remotely like the ones in Sweden as far as health care is concerned. Not the way we get Doctors, the way we pay them or the financial and legal responsibilities they have in our system. GPs are an endangered species because of the financial burdens on a newly minted MD.

We are poorly served by not separating the issues of reforming the system and Congress directly managing the process as the best way to proceed.

The push to start at the end result before modifying the processes that generate it has a high likelihood of disaster. Handing it over to Congress where the members and political agenda can swing wildly in cycles of as little as two years is a bad one. Tort reforms work. It's not addressed in any meaningful full way that I can find in the current proposed solutions.

We have the Federal Reserve, Supreme Court and CBO who theoretically are above such things.

[Mavdog]

the straw man arguments that you throw out show a lot about the problem with the many people's understanding of the current health care debate.

the issue isn't any "yammering" about "The only industrial nation without universal health care", that isn't the only point in the debate.

the issue is we spend more on health care than any other industrialized country on the planet, spend more of our gdp on health care than any other industrialized country on the planet, have health care costs increasing 2x the rate of other goods, have health insurance costs that have increased over 2x the rate of inflation over the last couple of years and 3x the rate of inflation over the last decade, and also have the rising cost of health care entitlements consuming more and more of the federal and state budgets.

and that is with a system that is not the best in the world at delivering care, and not even in the top 20 by most measurements.

while family doctors do not make a much a many other medical specialties, they do make more than others. it isn't the pay scale for a gp that is reducing those ranks, it's the allure of other specialties that attracts doctors to those areas.

if you or anyone else has a better way to reform the health care system than by congress, let's hear it. the system is not going to reform itself, there's no reason they would.

[dalmations202]

Who to believe???? (my apologies for no link, I got this in email and question what posters here say versus what this email and other posters here say)
---------------------------------------------------------
10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care

by Scott Atlas

Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers and academics alike are beating the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. However, before turning to government as the solution, some unheralded facts about America's health care system should be considered.

Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1] Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.[2] Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.

Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3] Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.[4] Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:

* Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
* Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
* More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
* Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).

Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."[5]

Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]

Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."[9]

Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).[10]

Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade.[11] [See the table.] The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.[12]

Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.[13] The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country.[14] Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined.[15] In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.[16] [See the table.]

Conclusion. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.

[Underdog]

Fact No. 11: None of the above statistics apply to Americans who can't afford health care in the first place.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Fact No. 11: None of the above statistics apply to Americans who can't afford health care in the first place.

You mean like the ones that go to Parkland and get free healthcare?

I understand some people don't get treated for various reasons, but you will not convince me that people don't get taken care of when needed.

Both of my sons, born in 1990 and 1991 were delivered when we had no insurance, and we didn't pay a dime.

In 2002, I tore my ACL and I was underinsured...but I had surgery to clean out the loose cartlidge and deal with the recovery. again I didn't pay a dime.

I have had insurance through the companies I've worked for, and purchased individual/family coverage at around $300 per month.

I've gone without insurance, and even spent time in the military and received military medical services.

All this to say, that today we have the best if not one of the best Health Care Services in the entire world. People have opportunities to be seen and receive care if needed...yes, even those who don't have the financial means to do so.

Free care and Military care, still came at a price...waiting, not as great of a bed side manner, etc...

Meanwhile care via Insurance, where I've chosen who and where, has been filled with bells and whistles. (Better room, virtually hotel like, better food, better bedside manner, etc...)

This push by the Democrats and President Obama is playing on people's empathy and fears. It's very misleading if not down right lies to the American People.

The more people become DEPENDANT on the Government, the less freedom that people will have.

Let's remember the President and all politicians work for us the People. The People are in charge, we are the bosses...it's time that we stand up and take the lead by reminding these politicians who they work for.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

You mean like the ones that go to Parkland and get free healthcare?

I understand some people don't get treated for various reasons, but you will not convince me that people don't get taken care of when needed.

Both of my sons, born in 1990 and 1991 were delivered when we had no insurance, and we didn't pay a dime.

In 2002, I tore my ACL and I was underinsured...but I had surgery to clean out the loose cartlidge and deal with the recovery. again I didn't pay a dime.

gee, guess who paid for this care when you "didn't pay a dime"?

hint: the doctors still were paid something, and all those medical supplies that were provided to you cost the hospital something....and the hospital paid for the utilities used, and the nurses, and all those workers who cleaned the hospital and washed the sheets, they were paid too.

it was the taxpayers in (if you used parkland) dallas county!

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Who to believe???? (my apologies for no link, I got this in email and question what posters here say versus what this email and other posters here say)
---------------------------------------------------------
10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care

by Scott Atlas

Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers and academics alike are beating the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. However, before turning to government as the solution, some unheralded facts about America's health care system should be considered.

Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1] Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.[2] Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.

Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3] Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.[4] Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:

* Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
* Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
* More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
* Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).

Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."[5]

Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]

Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."[9]

Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).[10]

Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade.[11] [See the table.] The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.[12]

Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.[13] The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country.[14] Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined.[15] In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.[16] [See the table.]

Conclusion. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.

unfortunate that none of the data or notes were provided.

the data on costs is available

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

gee, guess who paid for this care when you "didn't pay a dime"?

hint: the doctors still were paid something, and all those medical supplies that were provided to you cost the hospital something....and the hospital paid for the utilities used, and the nurses, and all those workers who cleaned the hospital and washed the sheets, they were paid too.

it was the taxpayers in (if you used parkland) dallas county!

I'm well aware of that...the point being, the healthcare has already been provided, thus the problem is not what some politicians and media outlets are painting it to be.

Thus we already have Universal Healthcare of sorts...if your willing to go to Parkland. By the way, one of my kids was born over at Presbyterian (SP?) withOUT insurance and withOUT payment.

I and my family benefited from tax payer support.

I have since paid some serious taxes over the years...and oh ya, I benefited from tax payer support when I served in the ARMY.

So I'm not blind to the need of Taxes, but I object to the frivolous spending that is raising taxes and costs to each of us consumers.

The Obama plan is simply another way of ringing more money out of citizens for programs that are NOT needed.

Why fix something that is NOT broke? Why have the government break something to make it more inefficient?

Get the government OUT of the private sector...Business, and yes, the medical field is business as well...let the private sector do what it does best.

The Private sector is innovative as well as enterprising and they have the best ability to grow the economy as well as make the quality of life better for everyone.

Again, the Governments job is National Defense and to protect the constitituion and what it stands for. Let Freedom Reign!!!

[Underdog]

So Parkland covers free chemotherapy for cancer patients now?

(because the stats Dalm listed above never mentioned ER visits, which is something ANY doctor who has sworn a Hippocratic Oath is legally bound to anyway - even the guy who implants fake boobs into Plano houswives has to try to save your life if you're bleeding to death in front of him, otherwise he can go to jail...)

Obviously, health care goes beyond the emergency room...

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Again, the Governments job is National Defense and to protect the constitituion and what it stands for.

Did you drop out of high school?

National Defense & Constitutions don't mean a hell of a lot if your government doesn't concern itself with the economy (any idiot can swing a sword, but there isn't much worth defending if your country is broke...)

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Did you drop out of high school?

National Defense & Constitutions don't mean a hell of a lot if your government doesn't concern itself with the economy (any idiot can swing a sword, but there isn't much worth defending if your country is broke...)

Concern itself with the economy, not a problem...but to micro-manage, to stifle the private sector from doing what it does best...that's a far cry from concerning itself.

It's a less is more philosophy that I carry.

Currently, our government is OVERdoing and actually over stepping its role.

We've got more people worried about the Government and playing a bad game of CYA, rather than focusing on being innovative and developing new solutions that meet the demands of the market.

And for the record, yes, I dropped out of HS...joined the Army...obtained my degree...gained a moderate level of success in the business world.

I am for education, but against indoctrination (the whole school thing...but that's something for a different thread)

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

unfortunate that none of the data or notes were provided.

the data on costs is available

I found the Link here: Facts

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the straw man arguments that you throw out show a lot about the problem with the many people's understanding of the current health care debate.

I forget you know everything. My bad. I'll tell my who Dad was a Controller for a midsized hospital and an auditor for Blue Cross prior to that, for a period that spanned the the '70's to the '90's. He'll write you so you can clear up his misconceptions.

the issue isn't any "yammering" about "The only industrial nation without universal health care", that isn't the only point in the debate.

I never said it was. You might want clue in Reid and Pelosi , it's continually being used by them. Ask people where HMOs came from. 99% percent will say insurance companies. And they are convinced if the government takes over it'll get better. You might want to tell Obama, it's his main talking point implying we spend more and get less and this is caused because there isn't enough participation by our government. "Taking back" and "rights" are pretty prevalent. He isn't going to actually answer people's concerns, it'll be blamed on special interest groups and wingnuts. The "only evil special interests are keeping you from [insert benefit]" is pretty common rhetoric on the issue.

You don't hear why it isn't going to work because of our sheer size and the way our economy is setup prevents it. New MDs have huge financial obligations. Our hospitals and clinics aren't publicly owned and primarily supported by government collected tax money. People are sent bills. I firmly believe the majority of US citizens are absolutely clueless of how the system works. Attempting to simply cover people is going to be a messy disaster. I understand it better than many, quite probably better than you.

the issue is we spend more on health care than any other industrialized country on the planet, spend more of our gdp on health care than any other industrialized country on the planet, have health care costs increasing 2x the rate of other goods, have health insurance costs that have increased over 2x the rate of inflation over the last couple of years and 3x the rate of inflation over the last decade, and also have the rising cost of health care entitlements consuming more and more of the federal and state budgets.

Thanks for clearing up health care costs too much. Now why does it cost so much and how do you fix it? The problem and the solution aren't separate in most peoples minds. Which is the point. He is trying to fix an afford it problem with an access to it solution. We don't have an access problem, but the solution should give us one. You won't solve the crisis by insuring more people and the half ass, weak stab at cost containment of the current proposals. All those smaller hospitals in rural farm country aren't closed because the beds weren't occupied, they either couldn't afford the equipment required for reasonable liability rates or physicians needed a bigger pool themselves to cover expenses. It caused access problems because affordable wasn't addressed. It still isn't.

You will have less Doctors addressing the segment that is most critical and the fastest growing. That happens because defensive medicine and lowering lawsuit profile is currently very high priority.

and that is with a system that is not the best in the world at delivering care, and not even in the top 20 by most measurements.

Again you confuse access and affordable. People aren't getting maimed and killed from our inept health care system at the point of treatment. It's that they can't afford to get that treatment. Hospitals aren't expanding the morgues.

Doctors are refusing Medicare patients. It pays less than it costs to do procedures and it takes 4 months to get paid. Building another massive government entity where you spend money you don't earn and your performance is tied to tenure and not production. Saying "This is what you get for [insert procedure]", without making any effort to deal with other contributing factors is stupid and will fail.

while family doctors do not make a much a many other medical specialties, they do make more than others. it isn't the pay scale for a gp that is reducing those ranks, it's the allure of other specialties that attracts doctors to those areas.

Alright, even ceding your false point, which I'll do for the discussion sake, how do you fix it?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30430792/

http://www.boston.com/news/health/ar..._doctors_gone/

Here's a quick search:
http://tinyurl.com/l8oghn

I count the UK, New Zealand, South Africa and more with the type of system being touted as a "cure" having mild to severe shortages of primary care professionals. These are places that started with Doctors being paid much less and responsible for far less administrative and legal burdens. I'm 100% serious that a large chunk of the voters have got it in their heads a USDA treatment card is going to make care better for them

if you or anyone else has a better way to reform the health care system than by congress, let's hear it. the system is not going to reform itself, there's no reason they would.

Ahhh the anything is better than nothing argument. Since I'm against the current proposal it means I want nothing changed. I don't think birth control should be taught in public schools so I'm against birth control.

I never said Congress shouldn't reform health care. I said Congress directly managing the system is going to be disastrous. The CBO and most of the analysis I've seem to agree that it will worsen the situation. I think Congress has caused much of it by mandating, with noble intent, HMOs and other management by large group theory and refusing to curb lawsuits, not stepping on drug companies etc....

I happen to believe taking the trillions they want to use to make a Medicare-on-steroids system to cover everyone would be better used to lower costs so everyone can afford coverage again. Our previous free market system worked. It was the best in the world. It crashed because Congress decided to mandate coverage terms in the mid '70's and they continued to dick with it right up to now. It created an environment that instead of lowering the cost for higher cost patients, saw the nonregulated items become $20 aspirins. It killed individual plans. They had to offer certain procedures to everyone in the group regardless of age, health and preexisting conditions.

Reform the tort and lawsuit system. When you have malpractice underwriters settling cases because the costs of litigation is more than the settlement, something needs to be done. Regular folks show a perplexing ability to give outlandish settlements under the "punish the rich bastards" ignoring the costs are merely passed on. "Money will never make up for [insert reason for suit] and the plaintiffs aren't looking to profit from [insert reason for suit], but unfortunately it is still the only way to send [name defendant] a clear message such unconscionable, unethical practices will not be tolerated." Yeah, that will show them.

One of my friends is a surgeon who specializes in micro-vascular issues. He pops a cork at the 4 lawsuits his malpractice company settled where he felt he had no liability. If he refused to settle he lost coverage. Funny how trial lawyers aren't a "special interest", eh? It almost like Congress and the White House are filled with people with law degrees and little private sector experience.

Make the FDA more efficient by submitting the most critical and widest beneficial to a fast track process. It is far too complex and costly. Then lower the time for the approval or rejection in a prudent fashion. Then shorten the period of protection before generics hit. Go back to limiting prescription medicine to trade publications.

The government can buy drugs in bulk at set prices. People "misunderstand" and lump drug prices and medical procedures in a single group. This is counterproductive to reforming the process. There is much more that could be done, it wouldn't require massive new lead ass GI overseers and would be easily adjusted because the system is already there. It's BS to claim no one has ideas, haven't put them out for examination and only want Obama to fail.

But the biggest issue and creeping resource sucker is bunches of people passing information back and forth and adherence to cutting off the end of the roast principle. I'm sure you've heard of the newly married husband asking his wife why she cut off the end of roast off before putting it in the oven. "It's the way my Mother did it." Still curious, he called his Mother-in-Law who told him it was because that was what her Mother did. Unsatisfied he called the nursing home only to be in formed the reason for the practice was, "My favorite pan that did best job was a little too short."
That doesn't happen as much in the private sector because it's their money, it doesn't have to crawl through committees full of people whose priority is getting reelected and stockholders don't need to wait 4 years to toss CEOs.

I refused to believe a government who left tobacco legal for decades after an avalanche of evidence showed it to cause long, lingering suffering and deaths is who I want actively managing the process. Activities that qualify as antitrust and racketeering are SOP under Lobbyist.

[92bDad]

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/art...cle/198/28961/

There's nothing like unedited video of the President telling the people how he's going to get his way, which includes misleading the public.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Ahhh the anything is better than nothing argument. Since I'm against the current proposal it means I want nothing changed. I don't think birth control should be taught in public schools so I'm against birth control.

you're against birth control? interesting...

yes, an attempt to stop the rapidly escalating costs of health care is better than not attempting to stop the rapidly escalating costs of health care.

I never said Congress shouldn't reform health care. I said Congress directly managing the system is going to be disastrous. The CBO and most of the analysis I've seem to agree that it will worsen the situation. I think Congress has caused much of it by mandating, with noble intent, HMOs and other management by large group theory and refusing to curb lawsuits, not stepping on drug companies etc....

there is clearly going to be costs to the proposed plan, and there are costs that by most estimates are much greater to not reforming the system.

as for "congress directly managing the system", I don't agree that is an accurate statement.

I happen to believe taking the trillions they want to use to make a Medicare-on-steroids system to cover everyone would be better used to lower costs so everyone can afford coverage again. Our previous free market system worked. It was the best in the world. It crashed because Congress decided to mandate coverage terms in the mid '70's and they continued to dick with it right up to now. It created an environment that instead of lowering the cost for higher cost patients, saw the nonregulated items become $20 aspirins. It killed individual plans. They had to offer certain procedures to everyone in the group regardless of age, health and preexisting conditions.

HMOs existing a half century prior to congress mandated coverage, their 1970s bill didn't really change the structure nor the procedures of the insurers, after all they are mostly governed by state regulations not federal.

the previous system worked for thiose who were provided employee based coverage, but that is now less of the population than before, and the % of the pop who are provided coverage by their employer is less and less.

why should insurers be allowed to deny the insured procedures based on the insured's age, or their health, or a pre-existing condition? that contradicts the reason the person has paid for coverage!

Reform the tort and lawsuit system. When you have malpractice underwriters settling cases because the costs of litigation is more than the settlement, something needs to be done. Regular folks show a perplexing ability to give outlandish settlements under the "punish the rich bastards" ignoring the costs are merely passed on. "Money will never make up for [insert reason for suit] and the plaintiffs aren't looking to profit from [insert reason for suit], but unfortunately it is still the only way to send [name defendant] a clear message such unconscionable, unethical practices will not be tolerated." Yeah, that will show them.

caps on non-economic damage is a good idea, but the issue is how to provide recourse to a person who is victim of medical malfeasance. a very difficult line there...but that isn't the cause of the high increases in health care costs, and reforming the malpractice awards won't by itself solve the issue.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

yes, an attempt to stop the rapidly escalating costs of health care is better than not attempting to stop the rapidly escalating costs of health care.

Any proposal that blows off tort reform isn't serious. If you concentrate on simply handing out a coverage card, you are going to lose people delivering the service. It's accurate to say it's better to take steps that will lower cost. Call it the oh, Jesus principle. You take an action that seems like the thing to do. Light a match to check the fuel level. Sit on the branch so your cut is between you and the tree trunk so you can get a longer stroke. Then when it causes disaster you say "Jesus I wish I hadn't done that." Motion isn't the same as efficiency. The result and not the intent is the important thing. I believe I'll skip the disfigurement and deal with running out of gas and have to saw longer.

there is clearly going to be costs to the proposed plan, and there are costs that by most estimates are much greater to not reforming the system.

You need to clue in the CBO. They evaluated the proposal and said it would increase costs. And that's using the rosy projections supplied by Congress. Everyone agrees our health care system costs too much. That's not even worth mentioning. It's hard to see how mandating coverage at a set rate without dealing with the costs as beneficial.

as for "congress directly managing the system", I don't agree that is an accurate statement.

If you pass a law mandating coverage, setting the amount of payment for procedure and do almost nothing to reverse costs except dictating the amount of payment you will end up with no private carriers. See Medicare. Doctors are refusing Medicare patients because it takes too long to get paid and the amount doesn't pay their cost to do it. If your outgo exceeds your income your up keep becomes your down fall.

HMOs existing a half century prior to congress mandated coverage, their 1970s bill didn't really change the structure nor the procedures of the insurers, after all they are mostly governed by state regulations not federal.

It forced them to offer procedures at a set price regardless of risk factors. It defined them as 25 members or more. Insurance classes have been around a long time. Schools would fit the same conditions you pointed out. They are mostly state and local governed. But you have to have school x number of days, a student is defined to meet narrow criteria. States and districts pile criteria on top of it. But if you want to receive federal funds you have to meet federal guidelines.

HMOs gave companies some pretty nice benefits for managing costs. Corporate taxes were reduced, locking in to only using a small group of providers gave them lower charges for the same reasons agreeing to exclusivity does in everything else. The legislation that followed with PPOs saw them become a moot point, it tried to correct the flaws and make administration and reporting easier. But the original move was what set the direction. I could go to any Doctor I wanted pre-HMO. They could refer me to any specialist.


the previous system worked for thiose who were provided employee based coverage, but that is now less of the population than before, and the % of the pop who are provided coverage by their employer is less and less.

You're leaving out how it spiraled the costs of everything that wasn't controlled, making it even worse for the uninsured. Even the uninsured could afford run of the mill office examines and medicine. Pro Bono was common and the treatments were done by need instead of dictated to keep liability low.

The reason less and less are offered employer health plans is because it's too expensive. Your premise is flawed. Medical coverage wasn't a huge expense for either the employer or the employee. It didn't go up because employers stopped offering coverage, they stopped offering coverage because it got too expensive.

why should insurers be allowed to deny the insured procedures based on the insured's age, or their health, or a pre-existing condition? that contradicts the reason the person has paid for coverage!

Do you just not understand how insurance works? Because insurers have to charge an amount to cover the risk. They can't print money or raise fees and taxes to make up a shortfall. They can't be like California and just pass out IOUs or run a deficit.

If I have a bunch of speeding tickets and accidents or DWIs the odds are I'm more likely cause Geico to stroke a $50K or more check. They have to maintain reserves, mandated by law, to cover claims. They charge me more, but the rest of the people who didn't act recklessly didn't pay more for me.

Why do I have to pay more out of network? Because there is no agreement to cut a break because of exclusive promise.

You spread the risks and costs so the incremental creep is spread. If I had pancreatic cancer, I should be able to buy life insurance for the same cost as someone who doesn't have it? After all Life insurance is there to give your family funds after you can't. It's the whole purpose! Here's my $300 bucks for the six month premium, stroke my wife a $10,000,000 check. WTF? How come it's so hard to find life insurance?

The HMO act of 1973 did exactly what you you propose, They couldn't refuse coverage or take age or health into the premiums for the group.

My big problem with the current proposals is an almost total absence of attention to the things that drive the costs up. It is just going to drop the payments received.


caps on non-economic damage is a good idea, but the issue is how to provide recourse to a person who is victim of medical malfeasance. a very difficult line there...but that isn't the cause of the high increases in health care costs, and reforming the malpractice awards won't by itself solve the issue.

Maybe not, but it's certainly in the top 3 reasons on any analysis I've seen. It's high enough to merit attention in any attempt to reform the system. We shouldn't let people who don't have the expertise to properly evaluate the the situation decide civil damages. There should be some screening in place to blow out the obvious crap.

Only looking at the premiums isn't an accurate representation of the cost, either. It doesn't address purely defensive procedures or expensive equipment in place to head off "diligence and negligence" claims. Unnecessary procedures take staff and resources to do. Administration to record and file, administration to evaluate and release payment, apply payment etc.....

I wasn't kidding about that small hospital where my Dad was Controller. He was an insurance auditor for a decade, the guy they sent to hospitals of every size to ensure the facilities were meeting standards, claims were actually for procedures performed, and they weren't just inflating claims from slipping some unneeded ones.

And he was checking for a single provider. He knew how to efficiently manage risks and resources, the most common conditions and treatments to plan for and allocation of resources. He didn't tell Doctors how to treat patients or refuse to adjust charges and take a loss for humanitarian reasons. That facility closed because much of that was taken from him.

Even though the actually process of quality treatment didn't change a lick, some big payouts and the decision of some civilians that you needed to have rarely used, expensive equipment or you were negligent closed that place. The numbers stopped working.

That was over a decade ago. You won't find any value assigned to it on malpractice economic impact, just like the gas and room and board families incur because the nearest hospital is now over 100 miles away.

You need to be perfect or have enough quantity to buy the impression you have every base covered. You might feel better watching shysters trolling for class action clients on national television, that it is making your care better and more accessible, but I could introduce you to someone who disagrees vehemently.