government ran health care, the results...

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3221123
I can agree with this statement to a point, but the increase in premuims doesn't seem to follow the same scale as those of healthcare costs. Like I said, my wife is an ICU Nurse, and she knows what items are used on a daily basis. I don't see the cost to produce an aspirin, morphine, or a bag of saline to rise that much from year to year. My wife can attest her salary hasn't gone up 40% over the last 5 years. That MRI machine may have cost the hospital a couple million to buy, but they write most of the cost of that off with depreciation tax reductions. Not to mention, the unit probably pays for itself in a couple of years. Maintenance for those devices are high, but not astronomical. My wife told me her hospital charges $750/night to stay in a semi-private room. She said just a few year's back, that same rate was around $500/night. The room hasn't changed any in those couple of years - same bed, same TV, same bedside equipment. Yet the cost to stay in that room has gone up by $250/night.
And yet, the current cost of a semi private room in most other countries runs 250 a night and less....
But I won't lay blame at the feet of the hospitals.....as of sept 2009 70% of hospitals were only operating at a 3% profit margin, if that....30% of hospitals were operating in the red all year (meaning losing money). These numbers are better than the numbers from 2008, where 50% of hospital operated in the red, and only 50% were able to make any sort of profit.
MOST OF hospital revenue comes from investments (since many people don't pay their bills) The hospitals did have 21 massive layoffs though from 08 through 09. The cut costs (wages) by about 2%. They also increased some pricing as well....
Now, if the sole entity that ultimately dictates everything with in the market can barely make a 1% profit with the "ridiculously" high costs they are charging....how can you expect any sort of cost reductions....
Now, I have been doing some research, and every major country with state sponsored heath insurance places a cap on SS. In some cases the cap is at around 400 dollars a month (if I am understanding this correctly) yet they put in around the same percentage we do......meaning they get back less at retirement than we do. How many here would compensate their social security benefits to include some form of health insurance? How many of you would be willing to cut your social security monthly retirement check by atleast half. Because this is essentially what other countries have had to do. Do you think the currently retired would go for this or those soon to retire....What about those on dissability? re you willing to cut their income in half?
Just questions, I do not have an opinion on this either way at the moment.
See healthcare reform will affect EVERYTHING. Not just your healthcare bills, but your entire "quality" of life at some point. It will affect the entire system as well, and with out nation facing a budget deficit of over 8 trillion dollars for the next ten years as things stand NOW can health care truly be paid for withot cutting other "social" programs. Every other nation has had to, why would we be an exception?
Oh and then couple this with the fact most Canadian GP's only take home just under 100,000 a year after taxes.....all that schooling and upfront cost to make that little? sounds like a lot to most, but when you factor in the time in colege and the cost....it seems to a bit under their worth....also factor many come to the U.S. for their schooling....have to do a minimum 3 year residency and work an average of 60 hours a week....this is about 75,000 less than they make in the states...
 

fishtaco

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3221026
Enhhhhhhhhhhhhh,,,,wrong again.
The company i work for picks up 70 percent of the cost as one of my benefits...not bad for part-time...this was why i CHOSE to work part-time. so you ARE NOT picking up the extra cost....nice try though. I was facing that...and still was an elephant then. But I took care of matters myself.
Hey Darth, sorry about being on attack mode yesterday, I was feeling a little anger after getting my yearly health insurance increase and should not have taken it out on you or the forum.
Fishtaco
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3221187
Hey Darth, sorry about being on attack mode yesterday, I was feeling a little anger after getting my yearly health insurance increase and should not have taken it out on you or the forum.
Fishtaco
No worries, passion is what drives people to care about an issue, especially when it directly affects their lives. My main goal was just to attempt to keep the facts and numbers correct...so passion and emotion were not the only influence in coming to a conclusion.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3221034
And maybe, just maybe, if people knew the actual
cost of food and were required to pay it out of pocket instead of just laying corporate expenses on the back of the taxpayer, we'd eat more healthily and avoid the costs of reparative health care in the first place. Do you seriously think a McDonald's hamburger only costs what you pay at the register for it?
I find it hilarious that people who are so opposed to Socialism have no understanding of how Socialist corporate tax breaks are. It's somehow bad if an individual receives government funding, and good if corporations do.
It's a zero sum equation. If someone gets something from the gov't, someone else makes up the difference. Whether that someone receiving the break is a Corporation or an Individual, the someone making up the difference is an individual taxpayer.
Corporations don't pay taxes. Their clients do.
So why tax corporations at all? We would get our products cheaper, I assume the corporate employees would get raises or hire more employees because of increased demand for their product so the only loss of revenue to the government would be any decrease in costs charged to the consumer so what is the downside?
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3221263
So why tax corporations at all? We would get our products cheaper, I assume the corporate employees would get raises or hire more employees because of increased demand for their product so the only loss of revenue to the government would be any decrease in costs charged to the consumer so what is the downside?

Have you seen our defecit?
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3221187
Hey Darth, sorry about being on attack mode yesterday, I was feeling a little anger after getting my yearly health insurance increase and should not have taken it out on you or the forum.
Fishtaco

I think your signature modification covered it pretty well

That was classic
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3221265
Have you seen our defecit?
I personally think the revenue drop in the short term would be made up in the long run. Lets look at the possible scenarios,
1) Corporation puts the money into expansion. New jobs, more personal income tax collected and if you listen to the left corporations pay little or no taxes anyway so the government get the money back that way.
2) Corporation pays out bonuses. Government loves this. If the bonuses go to the officers and management they collect the top income tax rate on it, I guarantee you that is higher than the corporate rate even if you took away the corporate tax breaks and loop holes.
3) Corporation increases salaries top to bottom. This is the worst case scenario for the government because someone making 30 grand a year getting an extra thousand isn't going to generate a whole lot of income tax revenue. BUT it is as effective as the 800.00 checks the government gave out under the stimulus? The company and IRS avoids a whole lot of accounting paperwork associated with income taxes. Dunno.
4) Corporation just lets the money sit in the bank to avoid taxes. Yeah, like that's going to happen. Even if it did their stock prices would climb, government makes money off the capital gains on the stock trading.
Maybe an over simplification but I really think it is worth a shot.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3221285
I personally think the revenue drop in the short term would be made up in the long run. Lets look at the possible scenarios,
1) Corporation puts the money into expansion. New jobs, more personal income tax collected and if you listen to the left corporations pay little or no taxes anyway so the government get the money back that way.
2) Corporation pays out bonuses. Government loves this. If the bonuses go to the officers and management they collect the top income tax rate on it, I guarantee you that is higher than the corporate rate even if you took away the corporate tax breaks and loop holes.
3) Corporation increases salaries top to bottom. This is the worst case scenario for the government because someone making 30 grand a year getting an extra thousand isn't going to generate a whole lot of income tax revenue. BUT it is as effective as the 800.00 checks the government gave out under the stimulus? The company and IRS avoids a whole lot of accounting paperwork associated with income taxes. Dunno.
4) Corporation just lets the money sit in the bank to avoid taxes. Yeah, like that's going to happen. Even if it did their stock prices would climb, government makes money off the capital gains on the stock trading.
Maybe an over simplification but I really think it is worth a shot.
True to a degree...and I see where you are going with this. But there is one aspect that sticks out to me. Most of the products made are done overseas. This may constitute more jobs, but I feel they would be created overseas and such...thus the tax revenue lost would be directed overseas in the form of jobs. You might see state sales tax sales increase but this won't do much for tax able employee wages (but it might help the state budgets greatly). especially as the tax code sits now. since most of the cost is in employee wages for manufacturing...Nike only needs so many shoe salesmen...regardless how many shoes they are selling...it is the manufacturing side jobs that would be increased greatly, and these are primarily where?
I could see maybe having the corporate tax percentage being based on the percentage of employees living in the U.S.. This might even it out and be hugely beneficial....but then you run the risk of irritating countries that currently hold a good portion of our national debt.
I see us in a no win situation actually.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3221300
True to a degree...and I see where you are going with this. But there is one aspect that sticks out to me. Most of the products made are done overseas. This may constitute more jobs, but I feel they would be created overseas and such...thus the tax revenue lost would be directed overseas in the form of jobs. You might see state sales tax sales increase but this won't do much for tax able employee wages (but it might help the state budgets greatly). especially as the tax code sits now. since most of the cost is in employee wages for manufacturing...Nike only needs so many shoe salesmen...regardless how many shoes they are selling...it is the manufacturing side jobs that would be increased greatly, and these are primarily where?
I could see maybe having the corporate tax percentage being based on the percentage of employees living in the U.S.. This might even it out and be hugely beneficial....but then you run the risk of irritating countries that currently hold a good portion of our national debt.
I see us in a no win situation actually.

Yeah, I would set a threshold, x percent of corporate officers and x percent of the workforce has to be subject to US income taxes to qualify for the exemption. If you hit the numbers just right it would encourage foreign corporations to base more of their operations here.
 
Top