Universal Health Coverage

[Shapley]

Since 47% of Americans don’t pay any taxes

That's an interesting and provocative number

I believe the figure is "47% don't pay income taxes, but I'm not sure.

According to the Tax Foundation, 31.8% of tax filers in 2003 (the latest year for which figures were available) had zero tax liability. This only counts those who file taxes. I'm don't have the data, but I would assume that a sizable percentage of people don't file taxes, so the figure of 47% may be accurate.

Keep in mind that even those that owe no tax liability but have taxes withheld also have Medicare/Medicaid taxes withheld, which they do not recoup, although the 'earned income credit' could offset those taxes in some cases. Since Federal income and FICA taxes are the only federal taxes most people pay directly to the government, many consider people who don't pay them as paying "no taxes". Of course, if they drive, they pay excise taxes on gasoline and tires, among other things. They also pay State, county, and local taxes whenever they buy things or engage in taxable activities, such as renting or owning a home.

[Haggis@wk]

Haggis, in your own quote, it shows qualifiers which skew the opinion. Of course people won't support something if it will cost them more money.

God forbid we ask the question with qualifiers that reflect reality.

But, while we're at it, let's throw some more polls on the pile:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/10/new-poll-public-option-up-gop-down.html Hmm, this one says a majority are willing to pay more for a public option.

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-HealthcareReform/idUSTRE58T0MY20090930 Hmm, this one does, too.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/06/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4923731.shtml This one's kinda stale, but it says most Americans are in favor of the dreaded, evil universal health care. (edit: This is probably the same one Jamie cited.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html?_r=1 Why, it's the same with this poll, too!


As I said, if this is as popular as you suggest why isn't it already in law???
And this poll confirms what I said at the beginning of this post.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/poll-americans-overwhelmingly-favor-universal-health-care----until-taxes-are-mentioned.php

Polls are almost as much fun as statistics!

[Haggis@wk]

Since 47% of Americans don’t pay any taxes

That's an interesting and provocative number

I believe the figure is "47% don't pay income taxes, but I'm not sure.

47% will pay no federal income tax

In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks

I stand corrected, I meant income tax. This is alarming stuff. 47% of Americans can demand bread and circuses that you and I will pay for.

[Shapley]

That's right. Government ceases to be free when the people discover they can write themselves checques from the treasury. They discovered that about eighty years ago, and the number of takes began to outnumber the givers at the polls about forty years ago, I'm guessing.

I believe the twenty-sixth amendment made it permanent.

[piqaboo]

I suspect a reasonable share of the non-income tax payers are those folks w good incomes and better tax advisors.
But there will be a majority that simply earns below the threshold (or doesnt earn at all).

[OperaTenor]

Haggis, in your own quote, it shows qualifiers which skew the opinion. Of course people won't support something if it will cost them more money.

God forbid we ask the question with qualifiers that reflect reality.

But, while we're at it, let's throw some more polls on the pile:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/10/new-poll-public-option-up-gop-down.html Hmm, this one says a majority are willing to pay more for a public option.

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-HealthcareReform/idUSTRE58T0MY20090930 Hmm, this one does, too.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/06/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4923731.shtml This one's kinda stale, but it says most Americans are in favor of the dreaded, evil universal health care. (edit: This is probably the same one Jamie cited.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html?_r=1 Why, it's the same with this poll, too!


As I said, if this is as popular as you suggest why isn't it already in law???
And this poll confirms what I said at the beginning of this post.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/poll-americans-overwhelmingly-favor-universal-health-care----until-taxes-are-mentioned.php

Polls are almost as much fun as statistics!

Because here in the Corporate States of America, we have the best health care money can buy.

[Haggis@wk]

Because here in the Corporate States of America, we have the best health care money can buy.

I can't argue with that but I suspect you see it as a negative while I view it as a positive.

[Shapley]

OT,

As I noted, you have complained about the profits made by health-insurance companies as well. I gather from reading your posts that you think it is immoral to make money from health care. Does that stand for all aspects of the industry? Are hospitals, physician, nurses, medical equipment manufacturers, health care laboratories, pharmaceutical manufacturers, ambulance manufactures, oxygen suppliers, and linen makers also immoral for profiting from the health-care market? What specific individual involved in the provision of health care would you demand do so voluntarily, or at cost, as opposed to being able to receive a return on their dollars invested?

I see this question remains unanswered...

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

OT,

As I noted, you have complained about the profits made by health-insurance companies as well. I gather from reading your posts that you think it is immoral to make money from health care. Does that stand for all aspects of the industry? Are hospitals, physician, nurses, medical equipment manufacturers, health care laboratories, pharmaceutical manufacturers, ambulance manufactures, oxygen suppliers, and linen makers also immoral for profiting from the health-care market? What specific individual involved in the provision of health care would you demand do so voluntarily, or at cost, as opposed to being able to receive a return on their dollars invested?

I see this question remains unanswered...

As well it should. The phrasing displays a mean-spirited desire to provoke spiteful wrangling and general crankiness.

[Shapley]

As well it should. The phrasing displays a mean-spirited desire to provoke spiteful wrangling and general crankiness.

Not at all. OT Wrote:

And you still refuse to understand what I'm saying. One of the tenets of my argument is that health care is not a for-profit commodity. It is for you. Ergo, you will act as if it's pork bellies, while I will put it in a class by itself.

I would think that it would be reasonable to believe that, if it is to be in a class by itself, there would have to be some parameters defined. OT does not like insurance making a profit, which he has stated. But insurance is a financial service, not a health-care service, which I've noted, so it seems his mandate on not-for-profit status would extend beyond the limits of health-care provision. I merely want to know how far.

At what point does a commodity cease to be for-profit? What parameters dictate that any commodity be moved into the not-for-profit classification? I honestly want to understand the thought process there, because there are many industries that, to my may of thinking, would be forced into the not-for-profit classification if health care is to be done so: Food, housing, clothing. All of these are at least as important to our well-being as health care, and all are for-profit (unless you talk to farmers, who'll claim they never make a profit ) What makes health-care unique? Is it possible for the industry to thrive and survive if it moves into the realm of a not-for-profit commodity? There is no question that vast advances have been made in the health-care field, largely driven by the profit to be made there.

I'll grant you Mother Theresa devoted her life and livelihood to the care of the sick, and sought no profit therefrom. I'll also accept that Many others follow in her footsteps, and many more beat the path upon which she trod. However, they remain in the minority, and they were able to practice largely because of the largess of the for-profit community, including the for-profit health-care industry.

[Haggis@wk]

...One of the tenets of my argument is that health care is not a for-profit commodity

What other type of service would fit that category?? Just curious.

[OperaTenor]

...One of the tenets of my argument is that health care is not a for-profit commodity

What other type of service would fit that category?? Just curious.

Nothing, as I said above.

Why does it have to conform to anything else?

[OperaTenor]

As well it should. The phrasing displays a mean-spirited desire to provoke spiteful wrangling and general crankiness.

Not at all. OT Wrote:

And you still refuse to understand what I'm saying. One of the tenets of my argument is that health care is not a for-profit commodity. It is for you. Ergo, you will act as if it's pork bellies, while I will put it in a class by itself.

I would think that it would be reasonable to believe that, if it is to be in a class by itself, there would have to be some parameters defined. OT does not like insurance making a profit, which he has stated. But insurance is a financial service, not a health-care service, which I've noted, so it seems his mandate on not-for-profit status would extend beyond the limits of health-care provision. I merely want to know how far.

At what point does a commodity cease to be for-profit? What parameters dictate that any commodity be moved into the not-for-profit classification? I honestly want to understand the thought process there, because there are many industries that, to my may of thinking, would be forced into the not-for-profit classification if health care is to be done so: Food, housing, clothing. All of these are at least as important to our well-being as health care, and all are for-profit (unless you talk to farmers, who'll claim they never make a profit ) What makes health-care unique? Is it possible for the industry to thrive and survive if it moves into the realm of a not-for-profit commodity? There is no question that vast advances have been made in the health-care field, largely driven by the profit to be made there.

I'll grant you Mother Theresa devoted her life and livelihood to the care of the sick, and sought no profit therefrom. I'll also accept that Many others follow in her footsteps, and many more beat the path upon which she trod. However, they remain in the minority, and they were able to practice largely because of the largess of the for-profit community, including the for-profit health-care industry.

I have said here, ad nauseam, that I see the health insurance industry as an unnecessary profit center in the chain of health care delivery. You seem to fail to understand my point, and any attempt I make to delineate it further will be twisted - that's your m.o.

From my experience in obtaining a health/life insurance license in the state of California, and in my short tenure at NYL, I never once heard the insurance business referred to as a financial service, so I'd sure like to know where you get that notion.

What makes health care unique, at least to some of us, is our perception that access to it should be the right of every US citizen, as can be directly interpreted from the Constitution, let alone basic human decency. Access to pork bellies isn't a right, constitutionally or morally.

As for if it can survive, that's just silly. Every other industrialized nation does it for everyone and does it cheaper. Not rocket surgery. (And don't start with the anecdotes or wild accusations about the evils of socialized medicine.)

And since you persist in treating healthcare as a common commodity, I'll say it one more time: You see it as pork bellies, I don't.

[Shapley]

From my experience in obtaining a health/life insurance license in the state of California, and in my short tenure at NYL, I never once heard the insurance business referred to as a financial service, so I'd sure like to know where you get that notion.

Wikipedia: Health care [/b](often healthcare in American English), is the treatment and management of illness, and the preservation of health through services offered by the medical, dental, complementary and alternative medicine, pharmaceutical, clinical vimto sciences (in vitro diagnostics), nursing, and allied health professions. Health care embraces all the goods and services designed to promote health, including “preventive, curative and palliative interventions, whether directed to individuals or to populations”.

[b]Financial services refer to services provided by the finance industry. The finance industry encompasses a broad range of organizations that deal with the management of money. Among these organizations are banks, credit card companies, insurance companies, consumer finance companies, stock brokerages, investment funds and some government sponsored enterprises. As of 2004, the financial services industry represented 20% of the market capitalization of the S&P 500 in the United States.

InsuranceInsurance brokerage - Insurance brokers shop for insurance (generally corporate property and casualty insurance) on behalf of customers. Recently a number of websites have been created to give consumers basic price comparisons for services such as insurance, causing controversy within the industry.[5]
Insurance underwriting - Personal lines insurance underwriters actually underwrite insurance for individuals, a service still offered primarily through agents, insurance brokers, and stock brokers. Underwriters may also offer similar commercial lines of coverage for businesses. Activities include insurance and annuities, life insurance, retirement insurance, health insurance, and property & casualty insurance.
Reinsurance - Reinsurance is insurance sold to insurers themselves, to protect them from catastrophic losses.

And, of course, you have to look at who sells it.

[OperaTenor]

You're using Principal as an example of a health insurance company?! Good one. Show me where on that site they offer individual life or health policies.

Here Shap, I'll give some fodder for bemoaning more how the Democrats are sending this country straight to Hell:
Senator Dianne Feinstein, 11/2/096: "I basically believe the medical insurance industry nonprofit, not profit-making." (And her history of America's 100 year-old medical insurance system.)

Go to town...

[OperaTenor]

Financial services refer to services provided by the finance industry. The finance industry encompasses a broad range of organizations that deal with the management of money. Among these organizations are banks, credit card companies, insurance companies, consumer finance companies, stock brokerages, investment funds and some government sponsored enterprises. As of 2004, the financial services industry represented 20% of the market capitalization of the S&P 500 in the United States.

InsuranceInsurance brokerage - Insurance brokers shop for insurance (generally corporate property and casualty insurance) on behalf of customers. Recently a number of websites have been created to give consumers basic price comparisons for services such as insurance, causing controversy within the industry.[5]
Insurance underwriting - Personal lines insurance underwriters actually underwrite insurance for individuals, a service still offered primarily through agents, insurance brokers, and stock brokers. Underwriters may also offer similar commercial lines of coverage for businesses. Activities include insurance and annuities, life insurance, retirement insurance, health insurance, and property & casualty insurance.
Reinsurance - Reinsurance is insurance sold to insurers themselves, to protect them from catastrophic losses.

And this bloviate has to do *what* with health insurance being a financial service, as you contend?

[Shapley]

You're using Principal as an example of a health insurance company?! Good one. Show me where on that site they offer individual life or health policies.

Principal Group Health

For Businesses: Group Life & Health

Over 125 years in the insurance business. Nearly 70 years as a leader in employee benefits. More than 75,000 employers with 5.2 million group insurance members. That’s Principal Life Insurance Company, a member of the Principal Financial Group® (The Principal®).

All you had to do was click on the "Insurance" tab on their website.

[Shapley]

And this bloviate has to do *what* with health insurance being a financial service, as you contend?

Again with the "bloviate" label. You said that no one but I considered health insurance to be a financial service rather than a part of health care. I posted the Wikipedia definition of 'Financial Services' which, you will note, includes "insurance". I then posted the definition of 'insurnce' to show that it includes 'health insurane', thus putting 'health insurance' in the realm of 'financial services'.

I also posted the definition of "health care" which, you will note, does not encompass 'health insurance'.

Ergo, someone besides me considers 'health insurance' to be a financial services industry rather than a health care industry.

[Haggis@wk]

...One of the tenets of my argument is that health care is not a for-profit commodity

What other type of service would fit that category?? Just curious.

Nothing, as I said above.

Why does it have to conform to anything else?

Because there'd be a precedent?

[jamiebk]

And this bloviate has to do *what* with health insurance being a financial service, as you contend?

Again with the "bloviate" label. You said that noone but I considered health insurance to be a financial service rather than a part of health care. I posted the Wikipedia definition of 'Financial Services' which, you will note, includes "insurance". I then posted the definition of 'insurnce' to show that it includes 'health insurane', thus putting 'health insurance' in the realm of 'financial services'.

I also posted the definition of "health care" which, you will note, does not encompass 'health insurance'.

Ergo, someone besides me considers 'health insurance' to be a financial services industry rather than a health care industry.

Insurance has always been designated a "Financial Service". I work for an insurance company. However, I am not sure that this designation really bears on the discussion here.

There are two elements to Health Care....one is the actual care that you receive from hospitals, doctors, clinics etc. It has a cost. Many (probably most) of these health care providing institutions are "for profit" enterprises...not all. Then there are insurers who have developed coverages to assist individuals and companies with paying for access to the helath facilities. There are two different roles here. So far, most of the debate I see happening here (or in congress) is with regard to Insurance and "coverage" issues...not the actual cost of the health care itself. I still don't see what's being done to address the actual cost of the care we get (most of the focus has been on the cost of the insurance that provides a partial source of funds to pay for the health service we get). Certainly MUCH can and should be done to ensure that this (insurance) part of the equasion is as economical as possible and does not add to the cost. However, we still need to address the base cost of medical care as well.