RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tazzygirl -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/6/2009 9:07:38 PM)

Actually, sanity, you are being deliberately difficult. Either that, or you truly do not understand what a not for profit organization does and its difference from its for profit counterparts.

Non-profits make up the majority of our nation’s hospitals and must meet a long list of governmental regulations. The most important, for our purposes, is the hospital’s use of its profit, or any excess of revenues over expenses, for the benefit of the hospital. For-profit companies may use their profits to distribute monies to their owners or shareholders, and they can also reinvest that profit into the business. Non-profits only have the latter choice, that is, they must invest all profits into the business.

http://www.physiciansnews.com/business/707steinberg.html

I think that is pretty simple. Simple enough for even you to understand sanity.

Are you suggesting that cosmetic clinics, plastic surgery centers, ect, cannot be non profit?

I assure you, this isnt the truth.

For example...

http://faces.sansumclinic.org/

Santa Barbara, Ca

Copyright © 2005-2009 Sansum Clinic and its licensors. All rights reserved. | A Non-profit 501(C)(3) Organization | (800) 472-6786 x7844
Terms of Service

Ever think that, maybe, just maybe, these Drs open such clinics to prevent having to pay out all the profit to a bunch of shareholders, opting instead to reinvest the profits back into the business in the forms of better equipment, higher salaries and benefits, among other things?




Brain -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/6/2009 9:33:47 PM)

He's being deliberately difficult and he knows exactly what he's doing. I may be wrong but in my opinion, he's getting his talking points from Blue Cross. I posted a story, I think it was on this thread, how Blue Cross is trying to pretend to the public that they’re looking to reform healthcare in a constructive way. But the truth is Blue Cross and people like Sanity are only interested in maintaining the status quo so he's trying to muck things up as best he can pretending not to understand something he doesn’t like.



tazzygirl -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/6/2009 9:37:43 PM)

To save health care, this is an important step. Anyone recall Ma Bell? We fucked up as a country by allowing a bunch of bean counters and lawyers tell Drs how to pratice medicine. Its time to return to how things were and how they ran the best for this country, not the selected few shareholders and CEOs.



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/6/2009 9:52:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lorr47

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Well, three things.

One, many on the Left (which is behind the push for "free" health care) would like nothing better than to totally destroy all religion, and religion is declining. Yet Catholics run the majority of nonprofit hospitals in this nation. How is this disparity reconciled in your perfect little world?

Two, the nurses discussed in your link aren't nonprofit. Why should they be allowed to profit while someone who wants to open a private clinic or a small private hospital shouldn't be allowed to? Again, would you outlaw cosmetic surgery, and other medical practices that may not be covered by nonprofits?

And three - how many Doctors are nonprofit? How many desire to be nonprofit. How many students would choose other careers if they were prohibited from profiting in the medical field.





Would anybody care to translate?



Not me. One of the reasons I've got him on ignore is specifically because nothing he says makes sense in any known Terran language. I do have to admit, though, that he's always good for a giggle whenever I read his babblings quoted in an Earthling's post.



cadenas -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/6/2009 10:38:21 PM)

Tazzy, unfortunately not-for-profit is not the solution. There are a number of highly profitable "not-for-profit" companies, and it is actually easy to extract the profits from such non-profits through inflated salaries and various other arrangements. I have personally seen that at a private university that made their founders multimillionaires while maintaining non-profit tax status.

Several health insurance companies ARE non-profit companies. For instance, the insurance part of Kaiser-Permanente is. Kaiser is the insurance, Permanente is the medical part. Permanente is for-profit.

So it doesn't really matter whether it's called non-profit or for-profit, unfortunately.

Of course there are many legitimate non-profit corporations, but it is very easy to abuse.




tazzygirl -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/7/2009 1:04:00 AM)

Something which it seems the IRS and other branches of the government are currently looking to crack down on.



cadenas -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/7/2009 8:02:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Something which it seems the IRS and other branches of the government are currently looking to crack down on.


I sure hope so, but I'm not getting my hopes up. Congress cracked down on Blue Cross' nonprofit status 20 years ago, but it hasn't exactly changed much.




Moonhead -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/7/2009 8:15:53 AM)

[image]http://trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/redshirt.jpg[/image]



willbeurdaddy -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/7/2009 12:29:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas


Personally, I believe that the solution - if there is one - is much simpler than that: eliminate the cap on social security taxes. That, too, should not be a huge political problem.




It would be a huge political problem and an economic disaster. I would literally bankrupt many in the 100-300k salary range. Not to re-state the inequity that creates, since benefits are based on limited salary.



tazzygirl -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/7/2009 8:31:34 PM)

Um.. may wanna recheck your figures... the 100,000 pay range has already been paying

Maximum Taxable Earnings:

Social Security (OASDI only) 2008 - $102,000 and 2009 - $106,800

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=310

and i havent heard a word about them going bankrupt



rulemylife -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/7/2009 8:36:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas


Personally, I believe that the solution - if there is one - is much simpler than that: eliminate the cap on social security taxes. That, too, should not be a huge political problem.




It would be a huge political problem and an economic disaster. I would literally bankrupt many in the 100-300k salary range. Not to re-state the inequity that creates, since benefits are based on limited salary.


So, let me see if I understand this.

Those making $40k a year are able and required to contribute to Social Security but requiring those making $300k a year to contribute would bankrupt the latter?



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/7/2009 9:54:41 PM)

Jesus - I  sure miss out on some side-splitters by having Willbur on ignore, don't I? I'm glad you guys quote some of the funnier ones, though. It's like putting Reverend Jim on Meet the Press. 



tazzygirl -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/7/2009 9:56:52 PM)

LOL Panda. Im sure you are, just like im missing the insane side of vinnie



cadenas -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/8/2009 5:42:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas
Personally, I believe that the solution - if there is one - is much simpler than that: eliminate the cap on social security taxes. That, too, should not be a huge political problem.

It would be a huge political problem and an economic disaster. I would literally bankrupt many in the 100-300k salary range. Not to re-state the inequity that creates, since benefits are based on limited salary.


So, let me see if I understand this.

Those making $40k a year are able and required to contribute to Social Security but requiring those making $300k a year to contribute would bankrupt the latter?


Not only that. Even worse: it might actually result in Warren Buffet paying more taxes than his secretary! Gasp. Can't have that.




Brain -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/8/2009 12:32:26 PM)

I just don’t understand why people are so confused. This is so simple but I guess it must be all the lies and money that’s spent by the insurance companies. Maybe this article helps:

Americans Don't Understand the Public Option! (This is News?) - The Atlantic Business Channel

Back in September the Washington Post released a poll that taught lawmakers this: (1) A majority (55 percent) support a government-sponsored health care plan. (2) A minority (46 percent) support health care reform overall. (3) A plurality (50 percent) support health care reform overall if you take out the public option. Killing the most popular part of health care reform makes health care reform more popular? I mean ... you figure that one out for yourself.

The public option is pretty simple. It's a government-sponsored (ie, public) health care plan to compete with regulated private insurance plans (so it's an option) with the long-term goal of pressuring insurance prices down. Why does two-thirds of the country not know this? I guess we could blame the press for turning the health care debate into a harlequin space opera of cross-partisan hysteria. But Americans aren't little baby birds who need Wolf Blitzer or Glenn Beck to regularly mouth-feed us with basic information on our nesting couches because we can't find it ourselves. Simply Google (or Bing!) "What is the public option" and you get some really respectable links that offer both surface-level definitions and in-depth analysis and opinion. One of the great things about the information revolution is that it's really easy to find answers to questions of definition. So, yeah I blame the press for acting too much like a live-action Bartlett's and less like a simple glossary, but a little bit of research on the public's part shouldn't be purely optional.


http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/12/americans_dont_understand_the_public_option_this_is_news.php



willbeurdaddy -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/8/2009 2:30:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Um.. may wanna recheck your figures... the 100,000 pay range has already been paying

Maximum Taxable Earnings:

Social Security (OASDI only) 2008 - $102,000 and 2009 - $106,800

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=310

and i havent heard a word about them going bankrupt


excuuuuuse me for rounding. 6% of 6800...4k extra taxes, no big deal. 6% of 200k (the range I put) 12k...very big deal, even to a 300k earner.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/8/2009 2:31:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas


Personally, I believe that the solution - if there is one - is much simpler than that: eliminate the cap on social security taxes. That, too, should not be a huge political problem.




It would be a huge political problem and an economic disaster. I would literally bankrupt many in the 100-300k salary range. Not to re-state the inequity that creates, since benefits are based on limited salary.


So, let me see if I understand this.

Those making $40k a year are able and required to contribute to Social Security but requiring those making $300k a year to contribute would bankrupt the latter?



When you change the rules of the game after they have committed their finances? Damn straight.



cadenas -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/8/2009 9:25:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas
Personally, I believe that the solution - if there is one - is much simpler than that: eliminate the cap on social security taxes. That, too, should not be a huge political problem.

It would be a huge political problem and an economic disaster. I would literally bankrupt many in the 100-300k salary range. Not to re-state the inequity that creates, since benefits are based on limited salary.

So, let me see if I understand this.

Those making $40k a year are able and required to contribute to Social Security but requiring those making $300k a year to contribute would bankrupt the latter?

When you change the rules of the game after they have committed their finances? Damn straight.

And when health insurance premiums after the $40k family has committed their finances, it won't bankrupt them?




willbeurdaddy -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/9/2009 11:38:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas
Personally, I believe that the solution - if there is one - is much simpler than that: eliminate the cap on social security taxes. That, too, should not be a huge political problem.

It would be a huge political problem and an economic disaster. I would literally bankrupt many in the 100-300k salary range. Not to re-state the inequity that creates, since benefits are based on limited salary.

So, let me see if I understand this.

Those making $40k a year are able and required to contribute to Social Security but requiring those making $300k a year to contribute would bankrupt the latter?

When you change the rules of the game after they have committed their finances? Damn straight.

And when health insurance premiums after the $40k family has committed their finances, it won't bankrupt them?




No, because in a free market it is impossible for health insurance premiums to increase to the point where only the wealthy can afford them. The implication would be that medical care is only provided to the wealthy, which is a reducto ad absurdum.



mnottertail -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/9/2009 11:41:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas
Personally, I believe that the solution - if there is one - is much simpler than that: eliminate the cap on social security taxes. That, too, should not be a huge political problem.

It would be a huge political problem and an economic disaster. I would literally bankrupt many in the 100-300k salary range. Not to re-state the inequity that creates, since benefits are based on limited salary.

So, let me see if I understand this.

Those making $40k a year are able and required to contribute to Social Security but requiring those making $300k a year to contribute would bankrupt the latter?

When you change the rules of the game after they have committed their finances? Damn straight.

And when health insurance premiums after the $40k family has committed their finances, it won't bankrupt them?




No, because in a free market it is impossible for health insurance premiums to increase to the point where only the wealthy can afford them. The implication would be that medical care is only provided to the wealthy, which is a reducto ad absurdum.


well, you would need a free market to have that situation, which is a further reductio ad absurdum.

Ron



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875