Republicans: Higher Taxes Are Not the Health Care Reform We Need

[megarational]

Actually this bill will reduce h.c. costs for small businesses & those individuals who have to purchase insur. directly by the following provisions: 1) allowing those individuals to pool their buying power by selecting a plan from an "exchange"; 2) h.c. premium tax credits for small businesses, 3) premium subsidies for low-income individuals, & 4) focus on preventative care & methods of h.c. delivery (reimbursement to treat the medical condition) that should reduce all costs.

[CPAsheldon]

I do hope that these parts of the bill will work well if enacted as it is critically important to help small businesses and protect job losses. But when you look at the bigger picture it seems like we will only get a bigger government with many penalties and taxes. You must have a lot of faith in larger government.

[megarational]

The founding fathers created State & Fed. governments to give people a voice and to achieve national & regional goals that people cannot accomplish as individuals. Governments have abused that. However, it will require government to step into the breech if the U.S. ever hopes to reach a goal of access to affordable h.c. for all citizens regardless of income.

[megarational]

"Step by step approach"? This from the GOP who didn't take even step 1 when they were in power.

[CPAsheldon]

... if the workers get the same tax break as any corporation gets for buying health insurance, then many would opt out of the company plan. The highest corporate tax rate is currently 39% and if anyone could get a refundable tax credit of 39% of their health care premium many more would get a plan of their own. This would not cost the government a lot. Businesses could be more competitive and hire more workers and everyone would be happier. Let's make a U-turn for something better.

[megarational]

The bills include tax credits for small businesses, not for individuals.

[megarational]

@CPAsheldon I couldnt agree more that it would be good for both businesses and individuals if individuals didnt have to depend on their employer for h. insurance.

The public option would have been the perfect vehicle to accomplish that goal. It was one of the reasons behind the public option. But thanks to Republicans fighting arm in arm with the insurance industry you no longer have any hope of the public option.

[CPAsheldon]

If the senators are insane enough to pass this bill, we no doubt will be trying to fix every page of the bill for the next 2000 years. But I'm not sure America will have much of an economy after this passes. Let's do something simpler to encourage more private competition. It can be done. Let's not require any business to pay for health care costs for their workers and remove all restrictions. That will encourage more hiring immediately. This can be easily done if the workers get ...

[megarational]

The majority of people have h.c. insurance though their employers, who typically foot up to 80% of the bill. If employers don't do that, who will pick up those costs?

[CPAsheldon]

The employees really pay for their own benefits now in lower wages. By requiring the individual to have some type of major medical coverage (giving them a subsidy or refundable tax credit) and a lot of freedom to pick different types of plans, as well as the ability to keep or move out of the employer plan at no additional cost, it would encourage more private insurance competition. All would be encouraged to find a plan perfect for themselves and not for a whole group of employees.

[megarational]

Yup. And the public option gives yet one more choice.

(Something the insurance companies want to avoid at all costs. Such "real" competition might actually force them to curtail some of their corporate jets & multimillion $ CEO wages.)

[CPAsheldon]

The government can't provide "real" competition in any industry. It might be able to do some things the same and then provide an unfair competition. That is why the public option is an unnecessary part and cost of the bill. If the government does so well that it provides better benefits that private insurers, those private companies will possibly conclude that they should get out of this business and go do one that will allow them to have more profits & perks like you mention.

[megarational]

What you don't seem to understand is that the public option is just an insurance plan that would be professionally administered and would operate under the same rules as private insurance plans. So its a red herring and deceptive to characterize it as "competition from government".

[networkingdefence1]

@megarational

You're right. The private sector doesn't have competion.. they treat us like dirt deny us coerage and the worst of all, deny kids coverage.. I'm happy obama is putting them where they belong.

[megarational]

@networkingdefence1

[buddy34]

Right on!!!

Thank you!!!