RE: Obama offers universal health care plan

RE: Obama offers universal health care plan (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Sinergy -> RE: Obama offers universal health care plan (5/30/2007 7:02:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Even when you work a full time job and have a family insurance can cost anywhere from 400 to 900 dollars per month for a family. $ 1088.66/month HMO + Dental. Every contract negotiation, the shipping company negotiators try to get us to sign on to co-pay, etc. Of course, since they have to get a majority of the rank and file to agree to it, their efforts for the past 50 years have been unsuccessful. United we bargain, divided we beg. Sinergy

Archer -> RE: Obama offers universal health care plan (5/31/2007 10:25:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Road traffic fatality rates are higher in Europe than in North America: http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/statistics/statistics.htm So much for that theory. You're grasping at straws. Wonderfull showing the same tactic again LOL. Change the item measured to counter the argument. I compare US to Cuba instaed of a European country you deflect by saying you don't care about Cuba. I compare The US to the UK and you shift gears toss in 30+ other countries I wasn't addresing at the time and call that a counter argument. Comparing the entire North American Continent to all of Europe tells us nothing about the comparison between the US and the UK. Deflection and a poor quality one at that.

popeye1250 -> RE: Obama offers universal health care plan (5/31/2007 10:35:21 AM)
I think everyone would agree that something needs to be done in this area. I don't think we need another giant govt. beaurocracy but you would need govt. to finance a National Healthcare System through taxes. I do think we would need to find or create an entity to Administer such a program that doesn't include insurance companies or the govt.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Obama offers universal health care plan (5/31/2007 10:45:57 AM)
Oh please. I've been showing that life expectancies are higher in EVERY comparable European country than in the U.S. My explanation? Maybe our healthcare system isn't all it's cracked up to be. Your explanation? Well, we log more miles than they do, so maybe we're suffering from more highway accidents. And we're not. More information on road fatality rates, in case you have an epiphany and decide to take a look at facts for once: http://www.factbook.net/EGRF_Regional_analyses_HMCs.htm Anyway, I'm done arguing with you, because this is pointless. You're going to stick to your preconceptions no matter what information anyone gives you. God bless--it's your right. But to anyone else, it's a bit like talking to a brick wall. By the way, others who are seriously interested in the question of rampant privatization and whether it has really benefited the U.S. might be interested in the recent book by John C. Bogle called The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism (Yale University Press, 2005). Bogle is not exactly a Commie, either; he was the founder of The Vanguard Group. quote: ORIGINAL: Archer quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Road traffic fatality rates are higher in Europe than in North America: http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/statistics/statistics.htm So much for that theory. You're grasping at straws. Wonderfull showing the same tactic again LOL. Change the item measured to counter the argument. I compare US to Cuba instaed of a European country you deflect by saying you don't care about Cuba. I compare The US to the UK and you shift gears toss in 30+ other countries I wasn't addresing at the time and call that a counter argument. Comparing the entire North American Continent to all of Europe tells us nothing about the comparison between the US and the UK. Deflection and a poor quality one at that.

BOUNTYHUNTER -> RE: Obama offers universal health care plan (5/31/2007 10:52:23 AM)
MY insurance is covered by big brother but DIANE'S kills us and shes still a fairly young woman..There should be a way for a national health plan with out breaking the bank.perhaps a luxury tax on tobacco, liquor and gas guzzlers..Keeping the greedy hands of high dollar management personal at bay,There should be a way,I just don't have an answer...bounty

NorthernGent -> RE: Obama offers universal health care plan (5/31/2007 12:52:47 PM)
The problem is that your man Obama has to deal with the corporations. Let's say he wins the next election, and he's good for his word. The corporations will threaten to move production abroad in order to avoid redirecting corporate welfare to public programmes. It's happening all over the West. Isn't this what happened with Clinton? He had big plans, made big speeches about ending poverty in the US. As soon as elected, a visit from Greenspan & co and they help to change his mind. Next thing, ideas of public programmes are scrapped. Politicians are not prepared to live with the social and political costs of businesses upping sticks and moving production elsewhere, and it's not necessarily to save their own careers. They're the servants of corporations, so any good intentions have to fit in with their plans, and the average person isn't on their map.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Obama offers universal health care plan (5/31/2007 1:03:30 PM)
quote: The problem is that your man Obama has to deal with the corporations. Let's say he wins the next election, and he's good for his word. The corporations will threaten to move production abroad in order to avoid redirecting corporate welfare to public programmes. Why? Corporate taxes are based upon profits, easily manipulated. Currently the cost of providing employee benefits is 100% deducted. If the expense of providing health insurance was shifted from the corporations to the government, individual taxpayers would pay most of the bill - not corporations. The only potential Corporate adversaries are in the health industry, insurance industry, and perhaps the legal industry if malpractice policies are amended in the process. Formidable forces, but only a small sector of US Corporations. Much of the Corporate lobbing in favor of a National health program comes from the the auto sector who would love to put the current $3,000 per car cost burden for self-insured health programs off their books and pass it on to the taxpayers. However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a $3,000 price reduction should that become a reality.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Obama offers universal health care plan (5/31/2007 1:19:14 PM)
If only that were the case! You're forgotting about subsidies and corporate tax breaks. A typical example of the sweetheart deals with local governments that corporations have been able to work out for themselves: http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate_subsidy/dell.cfm quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Corporate taxes are based upon profits

LdyScarletDomina -> RE: Obama offers universal health care plan (5/31/2007 1:43:12 PM)
Please forgive that I haven't had time to read all the responses. I just watched the interview between Bill Mahaer (spelling?) and Michael Moore about Moore's movie sicko about the health care industry in USA. During the study the US ranked the lowest of countries for health care BELOW Costa Rica! I only recently was lucky enough to get my daughter and myself on the new state program that Blagovich (IL govenor) passed. Its called Family Care and it is a state medicaid program for low income that guarentees health coverage to minor's under 18 AND their biological parent or guardian. Its the only good thing this man has done for our state, although because of the $$$$ involved in HMO most private doctors offices won't accept it, leaving most of us with only the county health department as a treatment option. It would impress me if there could MINIMALLY be a low income insurance that ALL doctors and hospitals are required to take, regardless of private practice or not. at least it would be a start. Lady S

Mercnbeth -> RE: Obama offers universal health care plan (5/31/2007 1:47:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster If only that were the case! You're forgetting about subsidies and corporate tax breaks. A typical example of the sweetheart deals with local governments that corporations have been able to work out for themselves: http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate_subsidy/dell.cfm quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Corporate taxes are based upon profits L&M, Short of giving a dissertation on Corporate economics the reference was speaking in generality. Specifically, my Corporation only pays tax if my gross income exceeds my expense. This is know as "profit". I'm a small fish. At the end of the year - I base my employee bonuses, paid to ALL employees, by having my accountant estimate my annual profit and sharing the result with my people. My goal is making my taxable profit as close to zero as possible. I'd much rather my employees get the money instead of the government. I know my people and their families will use it for a better purpose. Granted that's small potatoes compared to Dell, but the point is, the same occurs with the largest public companies. The goal is to report the smallest taxable income possible; with methods like dividends replacing bonuses. It's why taxing Corporations never works, better tax lawyers and accountants work for Corporations than work for the government. I'm not at the level to receive subsidy, tax or otherwise. If the elected officials voted in by the people of NC determined it was in the best interests of their citizens to give Dell a subsidy, is it Dell's fault? Far be it for me to suggest that perhaps if that weren't the case, the citizens of the State vote them out of office. Your point is not on topic, but I'll use it to advance my original post. Do you think that that after Dell's employees are on a National Health program that Dell's bottom line will show the difference as taxable income? Do you believe their subsidy would be reduced?

Lordandmaster -> RE: Obama offers universal health care plan (5/31/2007 1:52:16 PM)
Well, to that extent we agree. I've always thought a national health system would be beneficial for corporations, since they're currently competing at a disadvantage with foreign companies who don't have to shoulder as much of the load for their employees' health care.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Obama offers universal health care plan (5/31/2007 2:09:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Well, to that extent we agree. I've always thought a national health system would be beneficial for corporations, since they're currently competing at a disadvantage with foreign companies who don't have to shoulder as much of the load for their employees' health care. A level playing field for foreign competition is about the only reason I would support such an initiative. Consider that every foreign built product has an employee heath care subsidy attached to it. Companies like Volkswagen, and Honda begin priced $3,000 less than a comparable US built auto. "Yankee Ingenuity" (A-Rod aside) is working with a big disadvantage. Question: You know, I assuming something that may not be the case. Is there any per employee heath insurance tax or assessment incurred by foreign based Corporations? Can some of our posters from across the pond enlighten me how, or if, Corporations contribute to their Country's socialized health programs?

NorthernGent -> RE: Obama offers universal health care plan (5/31/2007 2:25:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: The problem is that your man Obama has to deal with the corporations. Let's say he wins the next election, and he's good for his word. The corporations will threaten to move production abroad in order to avoid redirecting corporate welfare to public programmes. Why? The tax to fund public programmes has to come from somewhere. At the moment, US taxpayers are supporting corporate America through tax breaks, business assistance programmes and subsidies. Apparently, direct subsidies to businesses total over $75 billion annually. There are 3 options: 1) The above mentioned taxes are redirected to public programmes. Can you envisgae this happening in a market dominated culture? Can you envisage the corporations who are prepared to pay millions, perhaps billions, to buy off policitians suddenly agreeing to a redistibution of wealth? This is what they aim to guard against when they buy the politicians in the first place. 2) You pay more tax. 3) The money is found from elsewhere. Where, though? By way of example, in Arkansas, the state government spent over $10m building new infrastructure to lure Frito-Lay while a neighbouring town plagued by dirty water supplies waited for ten years to get the $750,000 to build the new water infrastructure. The priorities lie in a market society rather than a democratic society and the corporations hold the power to ensure this remains the case.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Obama offers universal health care plan (5/31/2007 2:30:31 PM)
That varies from country to country, but, in Europe, for example, even when employers have to make a contribution, it's nothing like what our employers have to pay for insurance premiums. Table 3.1 in this massive U.N. document shows the employer/employee distribution of health-care revenue in a few typical European countries; you can also see that most of them have instituted a relatively low annual ceiling on such contributions. http://www.euro.who.int/document/E84968.pdf (Chapter 3 discusses in depth how these various social insurance programs are funded. Generally the state assumes the lion's share.) quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Question: You know, I assuming something that may not be the case. Is there any per employee heath insurance tax or assessment incurred by foreign based Corporations? Can some of our posters from across the pond enlighten me how, or if, Corporations contribute to their Country's socialized health programs?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Obama offers universal health care plan (5/31/2007 2:33:44 PM)
quote: The tax to fund public programmes has to come from somewhere. I agree, but it won't come from Corporations. I've previously stated that faced with more taxes, Corporations manipulate their bottom line to avoid them. It will come have to come from individual tax payers. The problem is people, like my employees for example, who are currently getting very good health coverage paid 100% by me the "corporation"; will instead be part of a social program run by the US government, and pay for it in taxes versus getting it for free. Off the top of my head, I don't know the percentage of people uninsured. Nor do I know the percentage of people who have their health coverage paid by their employees. The point I'm making is that all will now be in the national program and instead of getting it for free, their personal tax will go up. Unlike Corporations, individuals have few subsidies and nowhere near as much opportunity to avoid tax as do Corporations. Do you know the answer to my question regarding the health program contribution by Corporations in the UK?

NorthernGent -> RE: Obama offers universal health care plan (5/31/2007 3:19:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: The tax to fund public programmes has to come from somewhere. I agree, but it won't come from Corporations. I've previously stated that faced with more taxes, Corporations manipulate their bottom line to avoid them. It will come have to come from individual tax payers. The problem is people, like my employees for example, who are currently getting very good health coverage paid 100% by me the "corporation"; will instead be part of a social program run by the US government, and pay for it in taxes versus getting it for free. Something like 45 million Americans do not have health insurance. Surely, these are the people who need a universal system most. If the system is going to be universal, then the government has a role to play because the market will not provide for these people. Obviously, others are going to have foot the bill for their insurance. Ideally, it would be the large corporations, but it comes back to my point you replied to - a society for everyone, or a society for the "winners"? If the tax breaks, subsidies etc paid to your multinationals were to be redirected, then I'm sure it would make a huge dent in the cost of health provision. If the statistic of 1% owning 40% of the wealth was to become 1% owning 35% of the wealth, then there'd be enough to go 'round for everyone. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Off the top of my head, I don't know the percentage of people uninsured. Nor do I know the percentage of people who have their health coverage paid by their employees. The point I'm making is that all will now be in the national program and instead of getting it for free, their personal tax will go up. Unlike Corporations, individuals have few subsidies and nowhere near as much opportunity to avoid tax as do Corporations. I'm an accountant by trade - CIMA qualified, which is the UK industry accounting qualification. In Britain, it could be different in the US, the tax auditors and financial statements auditors are like chalk and cheese. The financial statements auditors manage materiality and reasonableness. The tax auditors are scrupuluous - to the penny. Nothing, and I mean nothing, gets past them. Plus, the tax auditors are never consultants whereas the financial statements auditors can be (e.g. Enron) and as such they have a vested interest in a favourable set of accounts. Anyway, in Britain, it is not the quality of tax auditing that is the problem, the problem is the deals conducted in the upper echelons that mean people like Murdoch avoid their tax responsibilities. Ditto the US - deals done in the upper echelons mean tax breaks for the multinationals. Ultimately, it is much easier to pull a fast one with auditors such as arthur anderson and the likes than it is with the tax man - if the US is anything like Britain. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Do you know the answer to my question regarding the health program contribution by Corporations in the UK? They pay national health insurance contributions, pension contributions and Corporation Tax. National health insurance and pension contributions are around 25% on basic salary in total (I think, it's a long time since I was involved in PAYE). CT is 30% and I think 22% for small and medium businesses - could be wrong again. Edited to add: small companies is 20%.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Obama offers universal health care plan (5/31/2007 3:48:34 PM)
quote: In Britain, it could be different in the US, the tax auditors and financial statements auditors are like chalk and cheese. The financial statements auditors manage materiality and reasonableness. The tax auditors are scrupulous - to the penny. Nothing, and I mean nothing, gets past them. I don't think that it is much different in the US. Exceptions considered, the methods used to avoid paying taxes are mostly legal, or at least have enough basis in legality to support a defense under scrutiny of audit. Enron and other well published scandals are more a result of personal greed played out within the Corporation and routinely involve decimal point moving accountants. Getting caught most often involves the fraudulent tax returns. It should be remembered, Al Capone's ultimate demise and incarceration was the result of tax fraud. Had he a better accountant he may have gotten off just paying a fine. quote: They pay national health insurance contributions, pension contributions and Corporation Tax. National health insurance and pension contributions are around 25% on basic salary in total (I think, it's a long time since I was involved in PAYE). CT is 30% and I think 22% for small and medium businesses - could be wrong again. Edited to add: small companies is 20%. Thanks very much for the information. I hope you can provide the subsequent questions it generated. The exact percentage isn't critical, I'm just trying to get the comparative employer incurred cost to an "apples to apples" common denominator. The percentage you provided, 20% of the employee's salary for small companies, is that the cost to the corporation regardless of corporate income? Would that be specifically allocated to the health care program, the equivalent of the employer paid portion of the US Social Security Program? Is that the only tax incurred by the employer that is not profit driven? As a small company, for discussion purposes defined as gross income of $4 Million and 10 employees with an annual payroll of $500k, what would be the assessment for the health coverage? At present the total cost for health benefits, medical/dental/eye-care, for this model would be $15 - 24k depending on coverage type and deductibles to be paid by the employee. At 20% of the payroll, that cost would balloon to $200k.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Obama offers universal health care plan (5/31/2007 3:49:45 PM)
Cynical old me says that however it is financed a universal health sytem will be fiendishly expensive if people perceive it as being "free" I cant understand why Rupert Murdoch should recieve any criticism, I wonder how much he contributes to the UK economy by the number of jobs he provides. Never forget, BEAN COUNTERS of all kinds, you know who I mean, are welfare dependants, but they just dont know it or wont admit it. he he he he he he I think the questions that Mercbeth is asking require more detailed knowledge than is likely to be available on CM. We shall see.

popeye1250 -> RE: Obama offers universal health care plan (5/31/2007 4:25:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent The problem is that your man Obama has to deal with the corporations. Let's say he wins the next election, and he's good for his word. The corporations will threaten to move production abroad in order to avoid redirecting corporate welfare to public programmes. It's happening all over the West. Isn't this what happened with Clinton? He had big plans, made big speeches about ending poverty in the US. As soon as elected, a visit from Greenspan & co and they help to change his mind. Next thing, ideas of public programmes are scrapped. Politicians are not prepared to live with the social and political costs of businesses upping sticks and moving production elsewhere, and it's not necessarily to save their own careers. They're the servants of corporations, so any good intentions have to fit in with their plans, and the average person isn't on their map. Gent, that's simple, you just deny those companies and any other company that "outsources" their plants and employees access to our market. People want out of these one-way trade deals anyway. There is just no good reason to keep things like "NAFTA" going. The only ones who want them are the only ones who benefit from them, big corporations.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Obama offers universal health care plan (5/31/2007 5:32:16 PM)
Merc, the chart I showed you answers a lot of those questions. In some countries, the maximum contribution is capped at 1,000 Euros per employee! That's tiny. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth The exact percentage isn't critical, I'm just trying to get the comparative employer incurred cost to an "apples to apples" common denominator. The percentage you provided, 20% of the employee's salary for small companies, is that the cost to the corporation regardless of corporate income? Would that be specifically allocated to the health care program, the equivalent of the employer paid portion of the US Social Security Program? Is that the only tax incurred by the employer that is not profit driven? As a small company, for discussion purposes defined as gross income of $4 Million and 10 employees with an annual payroll of $500k, what would be the assessment for the health coverage? At present the total cost for health benefits, medical/dental/eye-care, for this model would be $15 - 24k depending on coverage type and deductibles to be paid by the employee. At 20% of the payroll, that cost would balloon to $200k.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125