Republican Candidates
- Thread starter stdreb27
- Start date
bang guy
Moderator
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
And Obama will make them pay more...
"virtually all businesses would have to share in the cost of coverage for their workers"... (Boston Globe)
For some unknown reason many Dems don't understand that employers assign a certain worth to an employee. If they have to pay more for Health insurance then they have to lower some other compensation component.
And Obama will make them pay more...
"virtually all businesses would have to share in the cost of coverage for their workers"... (Boston Globe)
For some unknown reason many Dems don't understand that employers assign a certain worth to an employee. If they have to pay more for Health insurance then they have to lower some other compensation component.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
You are misinformed... this is a plan that people will pay for ... its not a free universal plan... The "Cost" means the amount your hospital charges you on medical bills.
I'm misinformed? Your own freakin candidate calls it a Universal plan
"so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives..." (Obama)
Guess what, we've already got a plan where everyone pays for health care. It's called a medical bill...
You are misinformed... this is a plan that people will pay for ... its not a free universal plan... The "Cost" means the amount your hospital charges you on medical bills.
I'm misinformed? Your own freakin candidate calls it a Universal plan
"so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives..." (Obama)
Guess what, we've already got a plan where everyone pays for health care. It's called a medical bill...
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
And Obama will make them pay more...
"virtually all businesses would have to share in the cost of coverage for their workers"... (Boston Globe)
Most businesses do this already, for the ones that don't it would now be an affordable option to do it as a small or group or to even have an indivdual plan. Most people can't afford individual plans because it costs the insurance company more thus gets passed to the consumer.
And Obama will make them pay more...
"virtually all businesses would have to share in the cost of coverage for their workers"... (Boston Globe)
Most businesses do this already, for the ones that don't it would now be an affordable option to do it as a small or group or to even have an indivdual plan. Most people can't afford individual plans because it costs the insurance company more thus gets passed to the consumer.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Most businesses do this already, for the ones that don't it would now be an affordable option to do it as a small or group or to even have an indivdual plan. Most people can't afford individual plans because it costs the insurance company more thus gets passed to the consumer.
Let's make this real easy Ryan; Where does the expense of medical treatment go? How does Obama make it disappear?
Most businesses do this already, for the ones that don't it would now be an affordable option to do it as a small or group or to even have an indivdual plan. Most people can't afford individual plans because it costs the insurance company more thus gets passed to the consumer.
Let's make this real easy Ryan; Where does the expense of medical treatment go? How does Obama make it disappear?
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
You are misinformed... this is a plan that people will pay for ... its not a free universal plan... The "Cost" means the amount your hospital charges you on medical bills.
So is hilary's plan. We'll pay for it, higher taxes, lower wages, we will most definately pay for it.
You are misinformed... this is a plan that people will pay for ... its not a free universal plan... The "Cost" means the amount your hospital charges you on medical bills.
So is hilary's plan. We'll pay for it, higher taxes, lower wages, we will most definately pay for it.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
For some unknown reason many Dems don't understand that employers assign a certain worth to an employee. If they have to pay more for Health insurance then they have to lower some other compensation component.
Exactly. Or cut jobs and drive up unemployment, which leads to higher costs in welfare, which leads to more taxes on businesses, which leads to more layoffs, etc...
For some unknown reason many Dems don't understand that employers assign a certain worth to an employee. If they have to pay more for Health insurance then they have to lower some other compensation component.
Exactly. Or cut jobs and drive up unemployment, which leads to higher costs in welfare, which leads to more taxes on businesses, which leads to more layoffs, etc...
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
For some unknown reason many Dems don't understand that employers assign a certain worth to an employee. If they have to pay more for Health insurance then they have to lower some other compensation component.
I do understand this... and as i mentioned this would make insurance more affordable for individuals and those in small businesses. Insurance companies charge less to large employers because they offer group rates which cost less to insure and easier to handle paperwork wise. No one said pay mor... but the opposite.
For some unknown reason many Dems don't understand that employers assign a certain worth to an employee. If they have to pay more for Health insurance then they have to lower some other compensation component.
I do understand this... and as i mentioned this would make insurance more affordable for individuals and those in small businesses. Insurance companies charge less to large employers because they offer group rates which cost less to insure and easier to handle paperwork wise. No one said pay mor... but the opposite.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
I do understand this... and as i mentioned this would make insurance more affordable for individuals and those in small businesses. Insurance companies charge less to large employers because they offer group rates which cost less to insure and easier to handle paperwork wise. No one said pay mor... but the opposite.
When have you seen the federal government pay less for anything?
I do understand this... and as i mentioned this would make insurance more affordable for individuals and those in small businesses. Insurance companies charge less to large employers because they offer group rates which cost less to insure and easier to handle paperwork wise. No one said pay mor... but the opposite.
When have you seen the federal government pay less for anything?
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Exactly. Or cut jobs and drive up unemployment, which leads to higher costs in welfare, which leads to more taxes on businesses, which leads to more layoffs, etc...
Bush is already doing this... unemployment is at a high right now... And there have been tons of layoffs during this admin... do you think this is going to change with a like minded pres .
Exactly. Or cut jobs and drive up unemployment, which leads to higher costs in welfare, which leads to more taxes on businesses, which leads to more layoffs, etc...
Bush is already doing this... unemployment is at a high right now... And there have been tons of layoffs during this admin... do you think this is going to change with a like minded pres .
natemd
Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
I'm not sure how his plan does it, but generally sales tax is taken by multiplying the price by one point the tax rate. Making 23 cents. the tax on a dollar.
I think it is fair but politically impossible.
Gotta play devils advocate. Personally I think it is an intreguing concept worth exploring but the first complaint you are going to hear from most people that it actually taxes people much worse. For example lets say you make 10 million dollars but only end up spending $500,000 of those dollars to live. The rest you save and put into stocks, CD's, IRA's and the such. You only pay 23 cents on each one of those dollars spent so essentially you pay $115,000 in taxes or 1.15% of your gross income.
Now say I make $20,000 a year and between my food and other daily living expenses it cost me $15,000 to survive. I would pay $3450 over the course of the year. Which comes out to be about 17.25% of my gross income.
So it has its downfalls. However, most supporters propose a tax refund for money spent up to the national "poverty level" which would offset this a little but the poor in turn will end up paying way more in taxes than the well off who can afford to invest there money.
*Disclaimer* Math is generalized and using 23 cent on every dollar rather than the percentage. But it will still essentially work out to be the same.*
I'm not sure how his plan does it, but generally sales tax is taken by multiplying the price by one point the tax rate. Making 23 cents. the tax on a dollar.
I think it is fair but politically impossible.
Gotta play devils advocate. Personally I think it is an intreguing concept worth exploring but the first complaint you are going to hear from most people that it actually taxes people much worse. For example lets say you make 10 million dollars but only end up spending $500,000 of those dollars to live. The rest you save and put into stocks, CD's, IRA's and the such. You only pay 23 cents on each one of those dollars spent so essentially you pay $115,000 in taxes or 1.15% of your gross income.
Now say I make $20,000 a year and between my food and other daily living expenses it cost me $15,000 to survive. I would pay $3450 over the course of the year. Which comes out to be about 17.25% of my gross income.
So it has its downfalls. However, most supporters propose a tax refund for money spent up to the national "poverty level" which would offset this a little but the poor in turn will end up paying way more in taxes than the well off who can afford to invest there money.
*Disclaimer* Math is generalized and using 23 cent on every dollar rather than the percentage. But it will still essentially work out to be the same.*
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
I do understand this... and as i mentioned this would make insurance more affordable for individuals and those in small businesses. Insurance companies charge less to large employers because they offer group rates which cost less to insure and easier to handle paperwork wise. No one said pay mor... but the opposite.
Again Ryan, where does the cost vanish too?
You've said:
People will pay less
Children will get free coverage
Insurance companies will charge less
Hopsitals will charge less
Business will get cheaper rates
Brilliant plan, but who is going to pay the difference? You've racked up quite a debtload there.
I do understand this... and as i mentioned this would make insurance more affordable for individuals and those in small businesses. Insurance companies charge less to large employers because they offer group rates which cost less to insure and easier to handle paperwork wise. No one said pay mor... but the opposite.
Again Ryan, where does the cost vanish too?
You've said:
People will pay less
Children will get free coverage
Insurance companies will charge less
Hopsitals will charge less
Business will get cheaper rates
Brilliant plan, but who is going to pay the difference? You've racked up quite a debtload there.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Bush is already doing this... unemployment is at a high right now... And there have been tons of layoffs during this admin... do you think this is going to change with a like minded pres .
Where the heck do you get your facts from? That is absurdly false.
Current unemployment at 5%
According to the US Department of Labor in previous years unemployment has averaged:
1975 8.5
1976 7.7
1977 7.1
1978 6.1
1979 5.8
1980 7.1
1981 7.6
1982 9.7
1983 9.6
1984 7.5
1985 7.2
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3
1990 5.6
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
Bush is already doing this... unemployment is at a high right now... And there have been tons of layoffs during this admin... do you think this is going to change with a like minded pres .
Where the heck do you get your facts from? That is absurdly false.
Current unemployment at 5%
According to the US Department of Labor in previous years unemployment has averaged:
1975 8.5
1976 7.7
1977 7.1
1978 6.1
1979 5.8
1980 7.1
1981 7.6
1982 9.7
1983 9.6
1984 7.5
1985 7.2
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3
1990 5.6
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
jerthunter
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Again Ryan, where does the cost vanish too?
You've said:
People will pay less
Children will get free coverage
Insurance companies will charge less
Hopsitals will charge less
Business will get cheaper rates
Brilliant plan, but who is going to pay the difference? You've racked up quite a debtload there.
Well I think the best place for that money to come from is the insurance companies... They currently make alot of money off the fact that people get sick. If we limit the amount of profit off of people's illness everyone, except the few making a bundle from insurance, will be better off.
Again Ryan, where does the cost vanish too?
You've said:
People will pay less
Children will get free coverage
Insurance companies will charge less
Hopsitals will charge less
Business will get cheaper rates
Brilliant plan, but who is going to pay the difference? You've racked up quite a debtload there.
Well I think the best place for that money to come from is the insurance companies... They currently make alot of money off the fact that people get sick. If we limit the amount of profit off of people's illness everyone, except the few making a bundle from insurance, will be better off.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by natemd
Gotta play devils advocate. Personally I think it is an intreguing concept worth exploring but the first complaint you are going to hear from most people that it actually taxes people much worse. For example lets say you make 10 million dollars but only end up spending $500,000 of those dollars to live. The rest you save and put into stocks, CD's, IRA's and the such. You only pay 23 cents on each one of those dollars spent so essentially you pay $115,000 in taxes or 1.15% of your gross income.
Now say I make $20,000 a year and between my food and other daily living expenses it cost me $15,000 to survive. I would pay $3450 over the course of the year. Which comes out to be about 17.25% of my gross income.
So it has its downfalls. However, most supporters propose a tax refund for money spent up to the national "poverty level" which would offset this a little but the poor in turn will end up paying way more in taxes than the well off who can afford to invest there money.
*Disclaimer* Math is generalized and using 23 cent on every dollar rather than the percentage. But it will still essentially work out to be the same.*
Yeah, that is why it is politically impossible, it is progressive as a form of %. But it is titalating when it comes to not having the IRS. The value added tax is interesting too. It would level our playing field tax wise when it comes to trading with other countries. No matter what is done there will be loosers in a different tax system, just like there are loosers now.
Gotta play devils advocate. Personally I think it is an intreguing concept worth exploring but the first complaint you are going to hear from most people that it actually taxes people much worse. For example lets say you make 10 million dollars but only end up spending $500,000 of those dollars to live. The rest you save and put into stocks, CD's, IRA's and the such. You only pay 23 cents on each one of those dollars spent so essentially you pay $115,000 in taxes or 1.15% of your gross income.
Now say I make $20,000 a year and between my food and other daily living expenses it cost me $15,000 to survive. I would pay $3450 over the course of the year. Which comes out to be about 17.25% of my gross income.
So it has its downfalls. However, most supporters propose a tax refund for money spent up to the national "poverty level" which would offset this a little but the poor in turn will end up paying way more in taxes than the well off who can afford to invest there money.
*Disclaimer* Math is generalized and using 23 cent on every dollar rather than the percentage. But it will still essentially work out to be the same.*
Yeah, that is why it is politically impossible, it is progressive as a form of %. But it is titalating when it comes to not having the IRS. The value added tax is interesting too. It would level our playing field tax wise when it comes to trading with other countries. No matter what is done there will be loosers in a different tax system, just like there are loosers now.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
... I am a Obama supporter, but from the GOP side....
Originally Posted by ryan1
I'm not a republican... I'd say I'm a DemocraticIndependent
You got us confused here Ryan.
... I am a Obama supporter, but from the GOP side....
Originally Posted by ryan1
I'm not a republican... I'd say I'm a DemocraticIndependent
You got us confused here Ryan.
