Healthcare going forward

[gsdx]

My mom's recent ambulance ride thirty miles from a nursing facility to a hospital cost $467.

$25 is a flat rate here in Peterborough. There is also a flat-rate fee for making false police or fire calls.

 

[Kulindahr]

The chart is wrong in calling payroll taxes Federal revenue. It goes to a separate fund and not spent for federal purposes.

It's correct in that the government counts it that way, something that started under Johnson as a way to try to minimize the impact of the Vietnam war.

 

[Kulindahr]

And calling the earned income tax credit a "gift" from the federal government? I've had it up to here with the right...these are people working hard who are not receiving welfare and not working but getting enough to supplement their income to allow them the incredibly generous possibility of barely keeping their heads above water.

What the right doesn't want anyone to pay attention to is the fact that if the EIC didn't exist, for the sake of the economy it should be implemented. It is indeed a wimpy version of what Milton Friedman and other economists, all conservatives, argued in favor of as beneficial to the economy because it makes everyone wealthier. In fact it's an implementation of a concept from the days of the founding of the country, when it was held that the country belongs to all the people so all the people should share in its wealth.

What we really ought to do is make the country and all its resources the property of a corporation of the whole, with each citizen getting two (non-transferable) shares and each non-citizen legal resident one, charging for the use of land and resources, and distributing quarterly payments -- a capitalist approach to sharing the wealth.

 

[Benvolio]

If you read the post, it was plain that there are MANY of the rich who do not in fact pay taxes. What's needed is a minimum, maybe based on the next lower bracket, so no one will pay less than, say half the rate of the next lower bracket their income would fall into.


BTW, as for paying in less than they eventually receive, my Edward Jones investment advisor has pointed out repeatedly that the return most people get on Social Security is still less than they would have gotten if they'd invested in a market-average fund -- so of course they should get back more than they pay in!

'Rich" is a description of net worth, not income. One can be very rich and have a net losss for the year. Many give to charity to avoid tax. The Constitution allows income tax but prohibits asset tax--unless it is proportionate to the census.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is why I make sure that I present sources in posts that I make... because this stuff is so complicated that it's really hard to explain to people who haven't worked in public service.

Here's the Source.

Remember Al Gore saying, "Social Security lockbox"? That's an example of the public's misunderstanding of government finance and budgeting. There is no lockbox. Money taken in from "social security taxes" goes into general revenue at the federal level and it is reported as such. The government spends that money the same way they spend incomes from every other source.

The government mails the US public a "statement" from their SSI paid as if that money is sitting in a bank waiting for them to retire. It's bullshit.

This is how the Federal Budget shows "Revenue" aka "Federal Receipts":

Congress wants to cut corporate income taxes and cut income taxes for the high earners. That means that an increasing amount of the Federal Budget is financed by money coming from "social security" and "medicare" taxes (aka FICA). That falls directly on the back of the middle class.

All those sources go into the general funds and the Congress is able to use them in any way they want. There's no vault in Fort Knox that stores gold bought with "social security taxes".


So, let me explain this with an example:

Scenario 1:
I'm a single taxpayer. I work as an accountant. I get payroll checks totaling $150,000 per year.
I pay 6.2% Social Security Tax on the first $127,200. $7,887 comes out of my check
I pay 1.45% Medicare tax on the full $150,000. $2,175 comes out of my check
I pay income tax of about 23% - $34,500 comes out of my check
My net pay for the year is $105,438 - about 70% of my gross pay.

Scenario 2:
I am a stock trader. This year, I sold $250,000 in stocks that I bough last year for $100,000, so my net income is $150,000.
I pay long term capital gains of 20% on the $150,000 net income= $30,000
After tax, I net $120,000- 80% of my "net income".

So, the person working for a living and getting a $150K/year paycheck in Scenario 1 makes $105,438 after taxes.
The person living off capital gains of $150,000 (Scenario 2) makes $120,000 and pays no Social Security or Medicare taxes.

Neither of these people making $150,000 would pay the ACA supplemental tax, by the way.

The ACA "tax" is actually a premium on wage earners (those guys in Scenario #1). The ACA tax is an additional 0.9% Medicare tax paid on earnings over $250,000 per year. In other words, if I make $300,000 per year, I pay 0.9% on the $50,000 that I made over $250,000 ($300,000 minus $250,000 = $50,000). That's an additional $450 if you're trying to calculate it.

The guy in Scenario #2 who lives off stock sales. He pays no ACA tax.

Does anyone feel sorry that someone making $300,000 has to pay $450 to help finance health insurance for the poor?


The ACA tax that is pissing off the wealthy people (like the Koch Brothers, for example) is a 3.8% tax on non-payroll incomes over $250,000 per year. The guys in Scenario #1 and Scenario #2 still don't pay this 3.8% ACA tax. However, someone making $750,000 in capital gains (no payroll and no payroll tax) has to pay 3.8% of $500,000 (the amount over $250,000) which would be $9,500 on an income of $750,000. Do you feel sorry for them now?

See what I mean about this stuff giving people a migraine?

But that's exactly what the right wants these days: a total rejection of the Judeo-Christian heritage that says working should be rewarded. Instead of St. Paul's "If a man won't work, don't let him eat", they praise those who don't work and rush to give them more wealth.

 

[Kulindahr]

There's not much to debate because these Republican legislators have ensured that they will keep their salary and benefits when they are retired in the next election.

Here's a quote from Sen Grassley explaining the rationale for trying to pass something that will result in defunding state health and human service budgets and resulting in the loss of healthcare coverage for millions of Americans... which will lead to the failure of a large number of small rural hospitals that are dependent upon Medicaid and ACA plans.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/21/politics/grassley-trump-health-care/index.html

Kinda on par with telling people to cross the street without looking -- there are lots of reasons not to, but since someone made a dare.....

 

[Kulindahr]

^ That is irrelevant. The government may be an employer, but Americans own the company and pay the wages of the people who run it. The government is supposed to work for the American people and not for themselves. After all, the American people are their bosses.

Right there is the main difference between the two sides: one side believes that the country belongs to the people, and the other believes it belongs to whoever can play the financial game the best. The first believes we really are "We, the people", while the second believes in might makes right.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is a tragedy knowing that money is wasted on unnecessary tests, and by extortionate charging for low cost items such as aspirin, or for medication that is more expensive than the generic option.

It's a tragedy because the wealthy get every test available, while the vast majority get only those tests that their so-called insurers figure will maximize their profits.

The U.S. health care system is de facto worship of Mammon, with a few exceptions in the not-for-profit part.

 

[rareboy]

 

[Benvolio]

For most Americans, single payer i.e. socialism would be a serious degradation in their health care. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...x.html&usg=AFQjCNEeDXgjn3B7srhLvbxQEUaNE1Ovqg

 

[ballcaphair]

R&D and advertising. It's necessary to keep the drug companies in business.

Worth repeating .

Big Pharma is awful. They leave free samples and trinkets at our clinic. Rx prices are robbery; R & D is a red herring. The auto industry has redesigned their whole product to be more powerful, more compact across the whole power train. Four cylinders provide more of everything than did their forbearing V8s. Now incredible efficiency and safety are realized. Yes, I know, autos are not cheaper, but their evolution is more cost effective and also improves and saves lives.

 

[thewiz]

R&D and advertising. It's necessary to keep the drug companies in business.

Two problems. First, much of the R & D money comes through the federal government both in terms of direct payment or through tax credits that reduce the overall tax rate to either $0 or deliver a refund to pharmaceutical companies. An example would be new vaccines for Ebola and other diseases that were exclusively funded through CDC and NIH (unless they are eliminated as proposed by the current White House occupant). Second, for most new drugs in the US, the pharmaceutical companies enjoy a monopoly on the medication for more than two decades. Wouldn't you love to develop something and know you won't have any competition or anyone undercutting whatever you want to charge for two decades? Here's a link: http://khn.org/news/government-protected-monopolies-drive-drug-prices-higher-study-says/

 

[gsdx]

Two problems.

I do hope Benvolio reads your post. Mine was meant as a bit of sarcasm since that is Ben's oft-repeated reasoning behind the extraordinarily-high cost of drugs in the United States. It's never for profit. It's always R&D (very minimal percentage of profits) and advertising (about twice the amount of R&D).

He has yet to justify why the drugs cost many times more in the States than they do in Canada and around the world, and he refuses to even look at any evidence we provide. And he refuses to even acknowledge that American drug companies own the government.

 

[thewiz]

I do hope Benvolio reads your post. Mine was meant as a bit of sarcasm since that is Ben's oft-repeated reasoning behind the extraordinarily-high cost of drugs in the United States. It's never for profit. It's always R&D (very minimal percentage of profits) and advertising (about twice the amount of R&D).

He has yet to justify why the drugs cost many times more in the States than they do in Canada and around the world, and he refuses to even look at any evidence we provide. And he refuses to even acknowledge that American drug companies own the government.

Whew! For a minute I thought he was multiplying....

 

[Stardreamer]

Senate Republicans have decided to not vote on their latest ObamaCare repeal legislation, signaling a collapse in their last-ditch effort to kill off President Obama's signature law.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/352503-senate-wont-vote-on-obamacare-repeal-bill

Say it with me now in your best William Shatner satire voice: So.......Much........Winning!

 

[gsdx]

^ I'm sure Spock would find these past 8 months fascinating, although he would also find them completely illogical.

 

[Kulindahr]

'Rich" is a description of net worth, not income. One can be very rich and have a net losss for the year. Many give to charity to avoid tax. The Constitution allows income tax but prohibits asset tax--unless it is proportionate to the census.

Statistically, today's wealthy give less charitably than those living below the federal poverty level. In the Judeo-Christian heritage, it was understood that God allows some to become wealthy so that they may give bountifully to those in need; in today's GOP, the understanding is that the rich will give only to causes that benefit the rich, and fuck the people in need.d

 

[Benvolio]

Statistically, today's wealthy give less charitably than those living below the federal poverty level. In the Judeo-Christian heritage, it was understood that God allows some to become wealthy so that they may give bountifully to those in need; in today's GOP, the understanding is that the rich will give only to causes that benefit the rich, and fuck the people in need.d

Wrong https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...o-much&usg=AFQjCNEsk8Y9Bgfa8Y7QB7bk7T_4VoGZIQ

 

[kallipolis]

It has been noted that it is not how much we contribute to the needy, but the sacrifice of the little that we have to share. Jesus of Nazareth addressed this matter in simple language that even the ideologue can understand.

Mark 12:41-44New International Version (NIV)

The Widow’s Offering
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

 

[ballcaphair]

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/352503-senate-wont-vote-on-obamacare-repeal-bill

Say it with me now in your best William Shatner satire voice: So.......Much........Winning!

^ I'm sure Spock would find these past 8 months fascinating, although he would also find them completely illogical.

Beam me up, Scotty!