More than a sound bite, this clip has teeth.

[Kulindahr]

naked:

what the credit does is make it so those who don't have jobs or even with a job can't afford premiums have a way to pay those premiums. Yes, that's going to make a discrepancy, but that's easily fixed: which would you rather have -- a deduction, which reduces the amount of income you're taxed on, or a credit, which reduces the amount of tax you pay directly? Once people catch on to that, they'll start ditching their other insurance.

 

[Kulindahr]

Something I haven't heard anyone mention here is the fact that a lot of people who presently have no insurance spend more than enough on tobacco and alcohol to be able to afford a good plan. Are we going to reward irresponsibility?

 

[Kulindahr]

Hm, how is this accomplished? The taxation is by the federal or by the states? And who is buying out the inefficient ones?

I would think expanding Medicare to cover everyone would be best, then everyone would just cancel the plans they currently have. It would be the easiest and fastest way to get the consumer and the supplier, patients and doctors, in direct communication between each other, without having a middle man stealing from both and costing livelihood and lives by refusing/delaying medical treatment. Much of the oversight against quackery and abuse would be handled by state departments of insurance, so no new bureaucracies would be created.

Tell me more about your plan, however.

This way you're not suddenly kicking a whole batch of people out of work. Additionally, your single-payer bureaucracy is going to need experienced people; the transition would let those be acquired from the private outfits being bought out. Obviously not all those workers would be needed, but the quality could be kept and the rest left go.

 

[Kulindahr]

I guess if there were mandates requiring people to spend their money, they wouldn't be able to afford such destructive luxuries, right? But isn't such a suggestion anti-libertarian?

So are the mandates.
I'm just making an observation.

 

[LaloGS]

^ What? Where do you get that?

In a previous job, I worked in a Hollywood sound studio, putting sound to major films. I have trained ears. There are differences in both syntax and style in the two clips. Also the first clip, even viewing the man's lip movements and hearing the words, it is not what he is saying at all. Not even close.

Even with the poor quality sync in the two clips, anyone listening to just the sound without looking at the images, would easily hear the differences in syntax and style.

It is faked; a very poorly faked at that. Simple as that. but then, the faker who made this said what you wanted to hear didn't he?

As Simon says: "A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."

 

[naked gent]

naked:

what the credit does is make it so those who don't have jobs or even with a job can't afford premiums have a way to pay those premiums. Yes, that's going to make a discrepancy, but that's easily fixed: which would you rather have -- a deduction, which reduces the amount of income you're taxed on, or a credit, which reduces the amount of tax you pay directly? Once people catch on to that, they'll start ditching their other insurance.

Kul I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. The way you describe the credit is the way the subsidy would work, as in you don't have a job or your income is not sufficient to afford health insurance by the standards the government sets so they kick in the difference.

What I'm talking about is the part of the insurance bill you actually pay out of your own pocket, either the whole thing or part of it with the subsidy picking up the rest. That amount should be deductible as then your cost would be the same as the cost for those who get it through their jobs.

Now maybe I'm just being paranoid here but to make it a credit instead of a deduction
might make it easier for the government to foist more of the cost onto you as the cost of the insurance rises. While the same thing could be said of deductions the rational for the deduction which makes all health insurance dollars the same would make it a more difficult sell because it would look unfair.

On the other hand since the credit is a kind of government handout they might feel more justified in reducing it as the government costs under the program rises. Their costs go up 10% but your credit is "only" reduced by 5%.....thats not unfair is it?

Today the self-employed are allowed to fully deduct their health insurance costs but if you work and don't receive it through your job and still pay for it you get no deduction. Thats absurd and if the government really wanted you to purchase it why don't they just give you the deduction?

It makes me suspicious that they refuse to give you the deduction but are comfortable with"giving" you a tax credit.

Like I say maybe I'm just paranoid.