How health reform would affect employees’ take-home
July 6, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Special Report
The potential tax consequences of President Obama’s healthcare reform have some surprises in store for employees — and not in a good way.
Congress is looking for ways to raise more than $1 trillion in new tax revenues to finance health care for the uninsured. At the top of the list: several proposals that would cut employees’ take-home pay 9% to 14%, depending on their household income and tax situation. Several of the plans under consideration would require Payroll to treat as taxable income:
- health insurance premiums
- dental premiums
- vision premiums
- flexible spending account deposits, and
- health reimbursement arrangement contributions.
Right now, employees don’t pay taxes on these benefits because they’re deducted from their paychecks on a pre-tax basis.
Specifically, the proposals the Employer Council on Flexible Compensation reports are under consideration include:
- capping this proposed group health tax exclusion at $6,800 for individuals and $17,240 for group coverage in 2013
- imposing the cap on all workers with group coverage, or
- imposing the cap only on those earning more than $100,000 per year (married couples, more than $200,000) per year.
For more info
To see how the proposals might affect your a paycheck, go to www.nohealthbenefitstax.com and click on “Worksheet: How the health tax impacts your paycheck” on the right-hand side of the screen.
You’ll enter data such as income and tax status; employer’s benefit contributions; and pre- and post-tax benefit contributions. The spreadsheet will show your take-home pay (as entered) as of today, then calculate how much it could decline under each of the proposals. Another chart shows the increase in employer FICA, based on the values entered.
advertisement
Tags: Employer Council of Flexible Compensation, healthcare, Obama
July 7th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
The figure of 9 to 14 % is a gross overstatement. Let’s say that your marginal rate is 25% (your gross combined income is over $100,000 and you have itemized deductions). If your health insurance costs a total (employer’s share) of $10,000 a year, the most it would cost you is $2500 or 2%). However, if group coverage is capped at $17,240 you would not pay any extra tax unless your group coverage costs more than $17,240. This sounds like typical scare tactics to me. I suspect this group is backed by insurance companies who do not want any change.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Canada has done it and so have others! Why is it that the minute affordable healthcare or anything else for the American working class is proposed that will ease the financial burden on this group, the elite which consist of Corporate America and their lobbyist joined by elite elected officials find excuses as to why it can’t happen. Aren’t working class Americans as important as Wall Street? Bail us out or better yet, rescue us from skyrocketing health care costs! Working class Americans can’t wait and why should we…we want no more that what Congress has voted in for themselves!
Respectfully,
Diana Dorn-Jones
July 7th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
With Universal Health Care I won’t have a health, dental premium to worry about. Even if my medicare tax deduction goes up the savings to me will be substancial. It will also benefit my employer since they will no longer have the health and dental share to pay. Sounds like a win win for both employee and employer. It’s amazing that people are spinning it like it is a bad thing.
What we need to do is work with medical schools so that people going into medicine are not putting themselves in so much debt that they have to charge outragous fees in order to survive.
These are all things that can be worked out.
Thank goodness we are finally waking up.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
My friend suffered through the Canadian system. She needed a simple eye operation to save her eyesight. They told her she didn’t have a priority for the operation, and when she pressed the issue was told, that if she did go blind, there was money to retrain her. She ended up coming to the US to have the surgury done privately, for less than $US 500.00. What a stupid system they have in Canada.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
This is misleading and inaccurate number-crunching.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Do you really think you are not going to pay for it! Maybe not directly in your tax return, but somebody has to pay for it. If we leave it up to the elite to pay for it, do you really think they are going to pull money out of their savings account and send it to the government to pay for someone elses health care? All they will do is raise the price of the product or service they are providing and the consumer or end user will pay for it in end.
None of my grandparents or great grandparents had healthcare and they lived to be way too old. I’ve heard several times that .40 cents of every dollar paid in healthcare goes to law related fees like defending lawsuits. Unfortunately, we are not about to look at tort reform because our politicians are either lawyers themselves or they have sold their sole (or at least their vote) to the law lobbiests.
Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid have been so successfull, it only make sense that government would take control of healthcare. What ever happened to CAPITALISM!!!
July 7th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Anybody who believes they are not paying for someone elses health care right assumes for-profit hospitals eat the costs of treating the uninsured. I know what affects my take home pay. How about $700 per month, a 10% increase this year, $1000 deductible with $5k max out of pocket expenses. My options for my small business is to tell my employees their costs are going to go up substantially for the same coverage (again) or I am going to have to layoff some of them because I can no longer afford to provide insurance or I eliminate their insurance coverage altogether. Nice options huh? I bet if I ask them if they would prefer the “delayed care and long lines” in Canada the answer would be hell yes.
Which brings up another point. If there are long lines in Canada, if you die before being treated in Great Britain and lose limbs to improper care in Sweden how come not a SINGLE industrialized country is opting to scrap their single payer system for ours? Are they that stupid that they don’t know their systems are inept or are they so stupid they don’t know HOW to elect polticians who would scrap it.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
I read some of these responses in total amazement as to how uninformed most Americans are. First, to those that think the Canadian healthcare system works… I would suggest you do a little research. You might not be so eager to have a carbon copy here once you have the facts. I speak from both my own research as well as first hand knowledge from friends that live there.
To those that think our doctors are overpaid… again, I suggest you do a little research. Things are not what they once were! We do billing for physician’s offices. If you saw what the doctors actually receive from the insurance companies you would be shocked. Most insurance companies now pay their participating physicians a percentage of Medicare (not the way it was initially intended). Some as little as 65% of what Medicare pays for procedures. Medicare will be lowered, physician reimbursement will be lowered still. When the physicians complain, they are told by the insurance companies that if they don’t like the reimbursement plan they don’t have to be participating. The docs are then forced to choose between terrible payments for the services they provide or losing their patients. Older people don’t realize how much has changed in the last 2 decades. Quite honestly I am surprised any young people choose the medical profession at all, and the numbers that do are dwindling. Why would anyone spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, years and years of education, hard work, and no sleep for what they receive today? America needs to wake up and take a closer look.
Do we need healthcare reform? Absolutely. Do we need a better plan than what is being thrown at us? Without a doubt. Does someone need to stand up to the insurance companies and lobbiests? Bingo!
July 7th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
So based on the calculations those that currently have private health care will then be taxed so someone who doesn’t will be covered by Obama plan? Unless I am missing something, my taxes will go up $10,000.00 per year. Hell that should buy better health insurance than I have now.
Hope and change…..Tax the crap out of the producers so the leaches have an easier time of it. Show me the doorway that exits the house of Carl Marx and takes me back to the house of Thomas Jerfferson.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Hope and Change…..yeah right. At the rate the Dems/liberals are spending, I HOPE we have some pocket CHANGE left after Obama and his tribe get through with us.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Until the current economic meltdown, the leading cause of home foreclosure and bankruptcy was due to medical issues. What do most of those newly homeless people say? “I never thought it would happen to me.” Is this what we want for society? Tell me that my medical insurance premiums are not a tax. Just because the money is not going to the government doesn’t put it back into my pocket. Why are the premiums so high and growing? One reason is because uninsured people go to the emergency room where they can’t be turned away for not having insurance. Hospitals have to charge more to cover their losses, and insurance companies raise their rates. Watch when the next pandemic flu comes along, and those without insurance delay getting treatment–meanwhile going to work and spreading the flu. What happens to companies when half their workforce is out sick? Avoiding a tax increase does not mean avoiding expense, it means the bill will be higher when it comes due.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
It’s not about the numbers, the people and the Hospitals have to be paid what it cost and someone has to pay it. What this is all about is rationing Health Care and eventually economic euthanasia in the case of older adults. I have been all over the World and seen the systems and it will come down to a Federal Employee deciding what you need with the justification being fairness towards the greater good. Unfortunately that’s not what we signed up for when we started paying into the system and began saving and growing our nest eggs. By the way most good employers in the UK have private Health insurance, everyone pays the welfare health care system and pays for the private as well. That sort of works but your paying twice which is certainly not cheaper. Canada has started up private care as well and they are terrified that they might not have the U.S. system to use when they really need care that’s not life or death which does get attention. The only real money saving that might be had is to limit liability but the Trial Lawyers are the Democrats gravy train so that will not happen now.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
The easiest way to solve this issue is require Congress use the same health care system they are proposing for the “people”. We all know they are immune and insulated for ever having to live under the laws they pass. Remove all insulation and see what kind of bills are proposed. This is a symptom of a congress that is not accountable and pays no penalty for stupidity. Come on America it time to hold these representative accountable for what they are loading upon our children’s backs.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
This is quickly becoming the Dems vs Reps, but it really shouldn’t be. Those of us who are part of the productive portion of society, both Democrats and Republicans, are all fiscally conservative. Social concerns should really be left to the individual, not our government. But I’m leaving the topic. This is really a fight between capitalism (under our constitution) and socialism.
My suggestions:
1. Tort reform: Loser pays! This will stop frivolous law suits
2. High deductible – if you go in for the common cold, you need to pay for the visit. If you go in for brain surgery, you pay the deductible and the insurance company pays the rest. A hypochondriac in my office is constantly going to the doctor for random, non issue events like the sky is falling (she only pays the $20 co-pay). She’s also taking advantage of prescription drugs, where she typically pays only a $10 co-pay. Health insurance was intended to be like car insurance where it only covers the big, unexpected events. This is why it’s so expensive, and because every one takes advantage of it. Those of us who are responsible would save enough money on the insurance to more than cover our deductible.
3. Demand that people pay for the services if they use them without insurance. Even if they don’t pay the whole thing, expect something from them. Washing dishes, community service, Debters prison. Anyone who uses our medical services, cannot pay, and is not legal gets deported immediately if all three issues apply. If they are productive and pay for the services, I don’t have a problem with them being here.
Any other capitalistic suggestions are welcomed.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
The single payer system in England as well as the rest of the industrialized world WORKS! I grew up in England and never had the worry of wondering if I could afford to go to a doctor. I could choose any doctor I wanted and the couple of times I had to be treated in hospital there was no large bill looming after I was discharged. Since I emigrated here to the US in 1986 the healthcare issue for me has been a nightmare. How has such a system as the one here in the US taken over? GREED!! It’s time that people stood up and demanded that a single payer system is put in place. It is reprehensible that big busines (the health insurance and drug companies) can make so much money while people are dying because they can’t afford the care that they need. That there are so many that have no coverage at all (45 million). If a public option is not included in this healthcare reform that is under consideration by the Obama administration then people should start voting politicians out that do not support it. It’s time to name names and for the public to start flexing its muscle with politicians. To John Welborn saying that there is also private insurance in the UK. There always has been and its nothing new. It’s for a few of the more privelaged people. It does not matter what system is in place, there is always going to be some people that are willing to pay and get a little extra.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Please understand that members of congress have private health coverage-no public option. We want what they have. All of the talk about crunching the numbers and single payer plan means nothing if we don’t challenge the private sector and force competition. The Federal Gov. is in place to protect the American People. No more or no less. The Constitution is in place to protect the American from Gov. No more or no less.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
The private sector is competition. If an insurance company could afford to undercut everybody, someone would come in and make a fortune selling less expensive insurance. This has nothing to do with greed. They can’t undercut because expenses are so high with regards to lawsuits and payouts. The only reason Government insurance would be less expensive, is because they would subsidize it and the expenses would not show on the balance sheet. The productive people would pay for it and in the end, the consumer pays for it because the wealthy people will just raise the price of their products or services.
Since when do we have a right to health care?
Since when are we entitled?
This is the land of THE free, not the land of free.
If you want socialistic healthcare, why are you here in America? Probably because there is opportunity, which is quickly dwindling as we reduce incentives. We still have ideas here in America, but we have it produced somewhere else. Thanks for listening to my rant.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Shane, you are drinking the kool aid. Here are some facts:
LOOKING OUTSIDE OUR BORDERS…. About a month ago, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) told Fox News that the health care status quo in the United States is “the best health care system the world has ever known.”
It was a strikingly foolish thing to say, but it was also a reminder that as far as conservatives are concerned, health care systems outside the United States aren’t just awful, they’re dystopian nightmares. While some Americans are able to enjoy “the best health care system the world has ever known,” the right tells us, non-Americans are forced to endure rationing, life-threatening wait times, soul-crushing bureaucracies, and sub-standard medical care. (That many of these problems already plague the U.S. system is an inconvenient detail, usually ignored.)
Jonathan Cohn sets the record straight. While most conservative complaints focus on England and Canada, which rely on socialized medicine and single payer, it’s not the comparable model for U.S. reform.
Last year, I had the opportunity to spend time researching two of these countries: France and the Netherlands. Neither country gets the attention that Canada and England do. That might be because English isn’t their language. Or it might be because they don’t fit the negative stereotypes of life in countries where government is more directly involved in medical care.
Over the course of a month, I spoke to just about everybody I could find who might know something about these healthcare systems: Elected officials, industry leaders, scholars — plus, of course, doctors and patients. And sure enough, I heard some complaints. Dutch doctors, for example, thought they had too much paperwork. French public health experts thought patients with chronic disease weren’t getting the kind of sustained, coordinated medical care that they needed.
But in the course of a few dozen lengthy interviews, not once did I encounter an interview subject who wanted to trade places with an American. And it was easy enough to see why. People in these countries were getting precisely what most Americans say they want: Timely, quality care. Physicians felt free to practice medicine the way they wanted; companies got to concentrate on their lines of business, rather than develop expertise in managing health benefits. But, in contrast with the US, everybody had insurance. The papers weren’t filled with stories of people going bankrupt or skipping medical care because they couldn’t afford to pay their bills. And they did all this while paying substantially less, overall, than we do.
The people in these countries have a system marked by “convenience, quality, and affordability.” How horrific.
Kevin Drum added, “Now, the fact that the French spend about half what we do doesn’t mean that we’d cut our costs in half if we adopted a French-style system. We wouldn’t… But what it does mean is that if we adopted something close to their system, we could certainly achieve high-quality 100% basic coverage — with the ability to purchase extra coverage for anyone who wants it — for no more than we spend now and possibly a bit less. We won’t, of course, because too many people are still convinced that healthcare in the United States is better than it is in France — or anywhere else. It’s not. It’s worse and more expensive.”
Democrats have the White House, a 60-seat majority in the Senate, a 255-seat majority in the House, and a popular mandate. If they really want “the best health care system the world has ever known,” they can start making it happen right now.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
We will be just like Canada. We do have the greatest healthcare in the world and this Socialist that has been elected dictator is about to ruin it.
July 8th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
John,
First of all, I’d settle for one fact. It’s easy to sit here in the US and claim the French and Netherlands have a system marked by “convenience, quality, and affordability.” Your response has no information given about how they achieved such a magnificent health care system. How does their system differ from those of England and Canada that allows them to achieve this success? In typical Democratic fashion, rather than provide an actual plan with laid out suggestions, it’s easier to generalize and talk of grand plans than to show the actual route from point A to point B.
Our politicians have focused on Canada and England. How do you anticipate the United States enjoy the claimed successes of France and the Netherlands?
One a side note, I prefer a cold rum and coke to kool aid. That seems a little childish.
July 8th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Dear Shane,
Yes, there is opportunity here in America. I am here because America did not have enough of the technical skill that I posess and was recruited by an American company nearly 24 years ago. When you are young, as I was when I came here I really didn’t need healthcare. Now that I am getting up in years that is more of an issue as is with many Americans.
You are right this is the land of the free and you are still free to pay for your insurance if you wish. The single payer system is not free as some people think. Payroll deductions are taken to cover costs. It seems a little unfair when you are young, as I did, to pay for something I didn’t need but now looking back the cost was minimal compared to what I have to pay just to see a doctor now.
When the single payer system was first proposed in England there was great oposition to it by the conservatives (Republicans). The labor party (Democrats) pushed it through and the people of England are glad of it. Sure there are people who are dissatisfied with it. No system is perfect but on the whole it is a better way to go than with greedy insurance companies having the power of yes or no on who and what should be covered based on an ability to pay. With single payer, everone is covered no matter what is wrong with you.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:41 am
According to the World Health Organization the United States ranks 37th in health care, just after Costa Rica. I have seen a couple of other surveys and our rank is nothing to be proud of. Our costs are the highest.
July 12th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
“who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness – by whose stripes you were healed.” 1 Peter 2:24
Problem solved
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Actually, the Obama Administration has specifically ruled out taxing individual health benefits granted by employers. (That was actually an idea advocated by John McCain in last year’s campaign.)
It’s irresponsible for this writer to imply that this is being seriously considered by President Obama. Either he’s unaware of the actual facts or he’s just trying to scare people to serve a biased political agenda.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Every once and a while, a doctor or a hospital makes a grave error. (Like the time a surgeon cut off the healthy leg of a patient instead of the one that actually required amputation.)
In those cases, the incompetent or uncaring medical professionals deserve to get sued. And they should be forced to pay accordingly.
“Tort Reform” would allow these incompetents to literally kill people and never be held accountable. And, even a more mild version of “Tort Reform” would allow big time, $500 per hour lawyers to decimate the people who try and sue their incompetent clients.
However, even if all medical related lawsuits went away, most studies show that it would only reduce our premiums by 2 or 3 percent. This isn’t very significant.
This “Tort Reform” talk is largely political propaganda. I consider most of it from the source.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
A little late to the party, but I accept…
Consider most of it from what source! And what is “it?”
The only political propaganda is our lawyers telling us how tort reform will hurt the little man, or the poor man, when in fact it is quite the opposite. The only persons being hurt by tort reform are the lawyers themselves (they lose business) and people and corporations with money to throw at a situation (corporate bullies). How can it be right for someone, who the court deems wrong, to not compensate their victim for the likely ridiculous lawsuit they created? I might add that many of the frivolous laws are never paid for by the prosecutor/plaintiff anyway, but instead these cases are performed on contingency where the lawyer gets paid a percentage of the “winnings” (otherwise known as the ambulance chaser). If they lose the lawyer doesn’t get paid anyway.
Why would you think these lawyers would cease to pick up these cases, the odds haven’t changed for them, only for the plaintiff. If someone has a serious case, they are still going to pursue compensation, but they will be sure to have a solid case before entering the court room. If they don’t have a solid case, it’s probably not serious enough to file suit.
Canada currently has Tort Reform called “Loser Pays” and England has their version known as “English Rule.” These countries have litigation costs per person that are less than half of persons in the US. Also propaganda is a statement like “most studies show that it would only reduce our premiums by 2 or 3 percent. This isn’t very significant.” Everything I have read indicates that up to 40% of healthcare costs go toward legal expenses. Keep in mind that our insurance companies have legal fees and that we pay to cover the doctors’ outrageous liability insurance. The doctors aren’t going to just take money out of their savings; they are going to pass it on to their customers (the middle class).
Lastly, why do we want to hold our doctors to such a high level of perfection? I have never met a doctor who joined their profession to make horrendous amounts of money. They do it for the rewards associated with helping people. For a lot less education, they could become a lawyer! I think you should be personally liable for every mistake you make at work. Oh, that’s right, socialist don’t work.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Shane, you say “Canada currently has Tort Reform called “Loser Pays” and England has their version known as “English Rule.” These countries have litigation costs per person that are less than half of persons in the US.”
Interesting you would cite these two countries. How convenient. Are you aware that people don’t pay one dime out of pocket for full, comprehensive health care in both Canada and the United Kingdom? Are you in favor of that too?
Are you citing the Canadian and British systems as examples when you assume they’ll support your arguments and ignoring them when they’ll contradict it?
Insofar as “tort reform” is concerned, the very phrase is part of a propaganda campaign pushed by big insurance companies that refuse to take responsibility when they screw up and cause the death or serious injury of a patient.
Don’t argue with me about the costs of lawsuits adding to the costs of healthcare: go argue with the data which says that only 1 to 3 percent of medical costs are due to lawsuits.
The doctors and their levels of compensation are not the problem. The problem is the private, for-profit insurance companies which routinely deny care, increase premiums, and sell crappy policies with fine print that screws the people who buy them. They see health care as a way to make money, not as a way of taking care of human beings who need it.
You think you have “good health care coverage”? Wait until you, or a member of your family becomes seriously ill or injured (which I sincerely hope never happens to you or anyone). Then, and only then, will you realize what a sham and a cruel joke your “coverage” really is. Don’t believe me? Just wait and see…
July 30th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Steve,
My argument is not that Canada is good or England is great. If I thought their systems were perfect, I’d be there right now arguing with someone who has bad teeth and a funny accent. My point is that their costs are not lower than ours because of socialized medicine; they are lower because of external factors.
I see that you are the definitive answer on health care costs, so I’ll progress. In addition to good for health care, tort reform is good for the business environment and the economy. Big business takes advantage of their power and capital to pressure small business and entrepreneurs in the form of frivolous suites far more than people do. Or at least it is on a larger scale. My family business has first hand experience with the leader in our industry bullying our company and its new product. Loser pays probably would not have stopped their tactics, but it would have given us back the capital we needed to get a jump start. Eight years later we are debt free with the exception of our manufacturing facility. My argument is that the sign of a healthy economy is small business, not big business or government. Tort reform would aid small business.
The other reason our insurance costs are so high are because it is not health insurance any more, it is health care. Insurance is intended to cover unexpected and catastrophic events, not everyday events like the common cold, cuts and nose bleeds. If insurance plans only covered large events like cancer, broken parts, etc. costs would go down. Plus, if I had to pay to see the doctor about this rash I have and he quotes me some crazy amount, I’m going to call the doctor down the street. I still have choices, and more shopping means the market gets back to where it is supposed to be.
Imagine your car insurance covering the cost of fuel, oil changes, car washes, detailing, tires, etc. It would encourage you to drive more often, change oil and tires more frequently (like every 3,000 miles instead of the factory recommended 5,000 miles for oil) and have your car cleaned every week by some government employee. If you are a traveling sales person, I am paying into a pool for your fuel and maintenance. Government interference and regulation is what cause health insurance to move toward this idea of health care. How can you possibly think that costs will go down on our health costs if government gets involved? Yes, it will be available to more people able to join a program, but I would also argue that almost no one gets turned away from care right now. If they do, they go to the hospital down the road.
Lastly, I truly believe that our drugs are expensive in US because of a couple things.
1. Insurance pays for them not us – so we abuse it. Our insurance goes up and the drug price goes up because the market is tampered with (no value shoppers).
2. Americans pay the Research and Development for these drugs, not Canada or the rest of the world. After we cover the R & D, every other country they sell to is gravy, so to speak.
If government gets involved, the incentive to perform R & D will diminish. The idea of socialized medicine sounds great, but the reality is profit and competition drives production and service. I do think that our system is flawed, but adopting systems that are bankrupting in other countries like France, Canada, and England is not the solution. By the way, thanks for the friendly banter.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Well, I wasn’t debating the pros and cons of “socialized medicine”. That’s largely a straw man used by the insurance industry to kill any and all changes that might cost them some of their profit margin. That’s a discussion for another time.
I’m defending a Public Option; voluntary and available to all citizens as an alternative to the monopoly of the private, for-profit insurance companies. As a small business owner, I consider a public option essential to the future of my business and my family.
However, I don’t think you can credibly say that France, Canada, and England are “bankrupt”. Factually speaking, they are in much better shape than the United States. No industrialized country is in nearly as much debt as we are. We are the bankrupt ones—not them.
Yes, I appreciate the civil tone and the friendly banter as well. Best to you!
July 30th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
One last thought…
If we do not fix private insurance first, it will not survive a public option. The only people who could afford it would be big corporate and government officials, not us small business men. Ultimately, a lone public option where there is no competition is the worst of all options.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Well, that’s their problem, isn’t it? When any business is facing challenges, it adapts. Or it dies. Simple law of capitalism.
If the private, for-profit insurance companies offered a good product at a good price, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. They’ve failed us. And now they’re paying the price of that failure.
Cover everyone and do so at a reasonable price. If you can do that, you deserve to thrive. If you cheat people, lie about your policies, refuse to cover sick people and manipulate things in order to maximize gain at the expense of our health, you don’t deserve to be protected by congressmen you’ve bought off with your lobbyists; who, ironically, are paid for by our premiums!
August 11th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Do we have a perfect system, no. Are any of you rushing to another country for medical coverage, no. The fact is no one is denied medical care, I believe every county has a county hospital. Will you sit sometimes to long, yes, it doesn’t make our system the worse. There need to be changes but the facts are nothing the goverment controls is lean ans mean, it’s fat and bloated. When they can take care of our vets in an efficient manner I will consider listening further, until then I think not.