Iowa State @ 
Utah Bagley nails it.
Welcome Cyclones Fans! › Forums › Politics › Bagley nails it.
- This topic has 38 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by
bopahull.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
-
StradlaterParticipantI love Bagley.
-
UteThunderParticipantI would like to see his cartoon depicting my monthly insurance premium which has nearly tripled, along with my co-pays, deductibles, and out of pocket maximums which have all doubled since Obamacare went into effect.
-
Utahute72ParticipantThey have to pass the law to see what’s in the law.
-
StradlaterParticipant
Better yet, hide the law so nobody knows what’s in it.
-
-
PorterRockwellParticipantThink it’s bad now wait until republicans unveil their new plan where you “have more skin in the game” and remember republicans keep saying you’ll have “access” to health care they aren’t saying anything about everyone being covered, affordable care etc.
What republicans and conservatives fail to realize is that absent some sort of health care WE all pay for those that don’t have coverage
The ACA is far from perfect but it’s a start and it has done far more to make our country healthier than the obstructing republicans have done. Or not done by their lack of initiative action etc
-
UteThunderParticipant
First of all, ACA has some good parts with the pre-existing conditions provision being at the top of the list.
However, to say that “WE all pay for those that don’t have coverage” as some sort of warning is complete crap when you consider I am now paying MORE for everyone else to have coverage than I was paying before when some didn’t have coverage. The ACA, while making coverage available to pretty much everyone, has been anything but affordable for me and my family.
If some people not having coverage means that I have to “pay for them” like I did before, then I am all for it because that means I would be paying less than I am paying now.
p.s. I love the speculative scare tactic where you assume “access” means we are all screwed.
-
StradlaterParticipant
You talk as if healthcare costs wouldn’t have gone up anyway. The system is broken.
-
UteThunderParticipant
Before ACA, my monthly premiums either had no increase or very little increase from one year to the next and the coverage stayed relatively the same as far as co-pays, deductibles, etc.
Since ACA, my monthly premium has gone up every year and by substantial sums. My coverage has gotten progressively worse along with those increased premiums.
I agree that the system is broken, but it was far less broken before the ACA than what it is now.
-
StradlaterParticipant
That still doesn’t mean costs wouldn’t have gone up anyway in the last few years. Early versions of the ACA had cost control measures built in. They were removed and the ACA was heavily watered down by special interests. The special interests are the problem.
-
UteThunderParticipant
I’m not going to base my opinions on speculation of the unknown when I can base them on what is known.
What is known is that prior to ACA, my costs were low and rising at a snail’s pace. Since ACA was passed, my costs have skyrocketed.
-
StradlaterParticipant
That’s funny. Because your post is pure speculation on what would have happened without ACA in the last few years.
-
UteThunderParticipant
No, it isn’t.
My coverage had a known history prior to ACA. After ACA was passed, my coverage deviated substantially from that history.
It is basic cause and effect.
-
StradlaterParticipant
Well, yes it is speculation. Those earlier years have no bearing on what would have happened after. If your health insurance truly hadn’t gone up at all you were lucky. My family’s had doubled in the 3 years before ACA for no apparent reason.
-
UteThunderParticipant
Stradlater, actually, those earlier years have a lot of bearing on what would have happened in subsequent years as insurance premiums are typically based on past usage.
Our HR department has said that there haven’t been any significant increases in usage over previous years. We haven’t changed providers. The only significant variable that has changed is the ACA.
Again, it isn’t speculation. It is cause and effect.
-
StradlaterParticipant
I don’t disagree that ACA resulted in higher insurance premiums but I disagree that ACA was the only factor. It’s more complicated than that. Just ask Trump.
-
-
-
UtahFanSirParticipantThis happened to some friends of mine, and why they are so opposed to the ACA. Their costs more than doubled.
-
PorterRockwellParticipant
Thst happened to a lot of people. The question is why did it happen? Were insurers simply price gouging?
As long as we have multiple payors we will continue us to be stuck in this quagmire
Why is Medicare good enough for seniors but not the rest of us? Why do politicians vote themselves lifetime gold level insurance coverage thst is far better than what their constituents have? Because they can and we let them
-
-
-
-
-
-
PorterRockwellParticipant
Have you listened to Paul Ryan and other conservative republicans? They don’t care if you have health care coverage. They sure as hell do t care if it’s affordable or accessible. All they care about is making sure they and their cronies make a profit
Would republicans be so hell bent on repeal if this were named Romneycare?
There’s no doubt the ACA hasn’t been affordable to everyone in that area it has underperformed
As for scare tactic you may want to pay close attention the verbiage republicans are using when discussing this. The only good news is thst twenty million of our fellow Americans have health insurance thst didn’t before. It appears that few if any republicans want to be the one to vote to take that from them. They aren’t motivated by compassion. They are motivated by fear of being voted out in the midterms
-
Utahute72Participant
Except even with that provision there was a better way to do it.
-
PorterRockwellParticipant
I agree there likely is a Better way to do it but you aren’t thinking of the stockholders and all the middle men. They all gotta get paid first
-
-
UtahFanSirParticipant
Not sure the magnitude of costs, but to be sure we all pay for other folks pre-existing conditions, so yes, insurance companies jacked up rates to cover that.
On the other hand, when many more folks had no coverage. Many stiffed the hospitals, or they went bankrupt or both. In the first case, that loss was borne by hospitals and some by the USG. We all then pay indirectly, while that is a difficult financial trail to follow.
On personal bankruptcy see this Snopes piece: Medical Bills Bankruptcy.
Non-profit hospitals eat costs of the uninsured: Who Bears Cost of Uninsured.
Hospital costs per patient for the uninsured: Cost Per Patient Per Year.
Cost of Uncompensated Care: Uninsured Costs.
It would be great if all individuals did the responsible thing and purchased health care before they buy their motorized toys, guns, and other fun stuff, instead of pushing HC costs on to someone else. But we don’t live in a perfect world.
Something needs to be done, IMHO, and I wish in the first place, that our representatives in government, regardless of party affiliation, had been willing to work cooperatively to get to a better solution. I have been led to believe the GOP had a better solution, but I am learning that such a view is not accurate.
I wish I knew what was optimal for everyone. But, alas, I don’t.
-
-
-
StradlaterParticipant
I hope they can replace the ACA with something better. I’m skeptical.
-
PorterRockwellParticipant
So far all they’ve talked about is people having more skin in the game, higher premiums, higher out of pocket costs, bigger everything for the consumer
Why be skeptical? It’s not like republicans had eight plus years to address this issue and did nothing-
StradlaterParticipant
Did they really say “more skin in the game”? If so, they need some help with their messaging.
-
PorterRockwellParticipant
Yes they did say that. They believe they have a mandate and can do no wrong. They haven’t figured out yet that they actually need to govern now.
-
StradlaterParticipant
At least they didn’t say “pound of flesh”.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tony (admin)KeymasterHad an adult beverage at a christmas party with Bagley this past Dec. Good times.
-
Utahute72Participant
I have a couple of signed books by Pat that my wife acquired a few years ago.
-
-
Utahute72Participant
The Trump adminsitration is falling into the same trap the Obama administration did on health care. It’s too big and complex for a single one-time fix. The legislators would be better served by a piecemeal fix of the system.
-
DocBuff
ParticipantThe only way to fix it is a single payor system. Other countries have already figured this out. We are the only first world country that hasn’t figured it out. Medicare for all is the fix. Will it cost money? Yes. Will insurance companies and executives lose money? Hell yes. Will America finally be dragged into the 21st Century? Yes, thank God. This will happen. It is not a matter of if,but when. The only question is how much money will insurance companies, hospitals, big pharma, and med tech companies bilk the American people out of before it happens.
-
Utahute72Participant
The problem with single payer is you end up with higher costs and restrictions on service. We’re seeing that now even with the expanded medicare system. Japan has most of it’s hospitals running a deficit because of limited reimbursements. Reduction of waiting times is a constant battle in places like England and Canada. Every paradigm has some downside and to pretend that there is a silver bullet out there is just wrong.
-
UtahParticipantHigher costs and restrictions on service? I don’t think you understand how single payer works. First, it allows someone to negotiate the fees for the cost of medicine.
For example, in the US, a hip replacement costs, on average, $40,000. In the UK? $10,000.
So, no, the costs would not go up. Delta wouldn’t profit in the billions anymore. Dr’s probably wouldn’t make over a million a year anymore. But, costs would not go up. They would go down due to the fact we could actually negotiate fees instead of the system we have now, where fees are dictated by the insurance companies and people without insurance subsidize the insurance patients by paying 2, 3, 4 even 5x or higher more than insurance patients for the SAME PROCEDURE/MEDICATION.
Now, as far as restrictions on service, yeah, that might happen, but guess what: IT ALREADY HAPPENS. Your insurance company has a list of procedures that they will pay for and won’t pay for. Now, most people, when given the choice, would choose to do the procedures that insurance covers and not do the procedures that the insurance doesn’t cover or doesn’t cover as well.
So, that wouldn’t change at all.
Your concerns with single payer just aren’t reality. It’s more rhetoric.
-
StradlaterParticipant
This is the nut of it. Medical providers, insurance companies, big pharma are lobbying instead of competing. Republicans and Democrats should be fighting special interests instead of each other.
-
-
-
-
UtahParticipant
The problem with God, is that if I don’t go out and work my ass off, he doesn’t do anything either. Funny how that works.
-
Participant
Blue Cross overhead >>>>>> more than Medicare overhead.
Are people is Japan, Canada and England less healthy than us? No.
Your arguments are valid and I agree there is no easy fix. But I think it is uncivilized to not insure all of our citizens when the rest of the industrialized world does. Our priorities are messed up. We should spend less on defense and more on healthcare. Let the rest of our allies step up more with defense.
-
UtahParticipant
The problem with single payer is that government costs would increase from where they are today (duh). Someone would need to pay for that. And, to the right, that someone would probably be the 1%, who currently pay a smaller % of their income to taxes than most middle class citizens.
And they don’t like that, so they con their poorer followers with lies and misdirects so they can continue to screw them over.
I don’t get why they don’t simplify the tax code:
If your income was:
$0-35,000 you don’t pay any taxes.
$35,001-50,000: 5% to feds, 2% to state
$50,001-75,000: 7% to feds, 3% to state
$75,001-120,000: 15% to feds, 5% to state
$120,001-250,000: 20% to feds, 6% to state
$250,001-1,000,000: 25% to feds, 10% to state
$1,000,001-10,000,000: 30% to feds, 12% to state
$10,000,000-100,000,000: 35% to feds, 15% to state
$100,000,001+: 40% to feds, 20% to state
Easy fix. No deductions, no nothing else. Just pay the tax.
So, if you make $35,000, you pay no tax. Your monthly income after taxes is $2,916.
If you make $50,000, you pay $1,050 in taxes, or 2% of your income. Your monthly income after taxes is $4,079.
If you make $75,000, you pay $3,549 in taxes, or 5% of your income. Your monthly income after taxes is $5,954.
If you make $120,000, you pay $12,549 in taxes, or 10% of your income. Your monthly income after taxes is $8,954.
If you make $250,000, you pay $46,349 in taxes, or 19% of your income. Your monthly income after taxes is $16,970.
If you make $1,000,000, you pay $308,849 in taxes, or 31% of your income. Your monthly income after taxes is $57,595.
If you make $10,000,000, you pay $4,088,848 in taxes, or 41% of your income. Your monthly income after taxes is $492,595.
If you make $100,000,000, you pay $49,088,848 n taxes, or 49% of your income. Your monthly income after taxes is $4,242,595.
If you make over $200,000,000, you pay $120,000,000 in taxes, or 60% of your income. Your monthly income after taxes is $6,666,666 and you are the devil.
If you put this to popular vote, there isn’t a soul making less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS that wouldn’t vote for that, which is over 99% of the United States.
-
UteThunderParticipant
One problem: Do the calculations for the people at the bottom of each level and compare their post-tax income to the people at the top of the level below them. Not going to work.
The guy making $50,000 would net more income than the guy making $50,001. And it is the same for each of the levels you proposed.
-
bopahullParticipantI’ve always been a proponent of 0 income tax. A national/state sales tax of about 17% would be sufficient. That way EVERYONE would pay taxes. Exempt food and prescription meds as most states do. The more you spend on your life style, the more you pay in taxes. Even illegal income would then be taxed. Whatever income you earn will be take home pay.
That also would eliminate the need for the IRS. The states already collect a sales tax they could handle tax collection as they do now.
-
-
-
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.
