List of jobs lost since the Bamster's re-election
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
I suppose there are things that are a "right" in theory but not necessarily in reality. When the country goes completely belly up and can't pay doctors and nurses, you will still have the "right" to any healthcare that you can pay for. -
It has to be paid for in one form or another, be it cash from your wallet or via taxes.
This is, in part, what the US is going through with Obamacare. In principle, the program is great, however, BO's timing on this is terrible - it is very expensive (as is expected), but the economy is soft and the cost that is being downloaded to the employers is not doable in many cases.
There are some companies (apparently) that are making internal changes that will allow them to absolve themselves from paying those additional fees (change people from F/T to P/T or layoffs). Regardless of how they do it, the result is that someone's income will drop and/or those folks will not have their company healthcare plan.
It's a double-whammy in my eyes.
This is, in part, what the US is going through with Obamacare. In principle, the program is great, however, BO's timing on this is terrible - it is very expensive (as is expected), but the economy is soft and the cost that is being downloaded to the employers is not doable in many cases.
There are some companies (apparently) that are making internal changes that will allow them to absolve themselves from paying those additional fees (change people from F/T to P/T or layoffs). Regardless of how they do it, the result is that someone's income will drop and/or those folks will not have their company healthcare plan.
It's a double-whammy in my eyes.
Which priciple is that, forcing people to buy thing they don't want or need?
Unfortunately, a lot of businesses were holding off doing anything until after the election. There are also a lot of investors with money to invest that were holding off until after the election. Business don't arbitrarily "lay off" people for no reason. Despite profit being a "dirty" word for lefty's a business actually has to have some in order to survive. With taxes on the rise, the businesses are protecting themselves as best they can under the circumstances. This should be no surprise to anyone.
JMHO
JMHO
Ultimately, this program is stating that everyone 'needs' it, but also has to pay for it regardless of who you are. Obama made the mistake that corp America would meekly go along and fund the nations healthcare plan.... As we are seeing, that is not the case.
At any rate, I wonder if the accessibility to services for those without insurance via the State hospitals will be affected. I think that the low income earners will be hit hardest from this program - obviously not what Obamacare intended
One fallacy to your statement Walter, unless you are a millionaire or are prepared to die, health being a precarious thing you don't know what you are eventually going to want or need. The responsible thing to do is to pony up, up front so you will never have to be a burden on your fellow citizen.
Making businesses pay for healthcare was not the smartest of ideas. I would have thought they would have done more like Canada where employers pay none to all of health care depending on your union contract or lack thereof but businesses do the remitting.
Ultimately, the individual has to pay for healthcare, but many people can't wrap their mind around that fact. The fewer steps that are taken to get the money from the individual into the system the better. Otherwise we are just adding to bureaucracy! -
captain morgan; said:
Access doesn't mean sh!t if someone is stuck with a bill they cannot pay. What happens is that if a person can't keep up with a bill the doctors either deny or limit the amount of service. Try going to a pharmacy, demand medicine, and then give a promissory note - you'll go home without any medicine.
Therefore, I suggest a level playing field - for all those big time corporations who take tax deductions for medical costs, I say deny them that deduction on their 1120 forms. This way their employees and managers will be at the same level as those who work for small companies or who are self employed. By the way, when these companies get a tax deduction, this means it is the taxpayers who are underwriting these expenses. Eliminate this "right" and watch as the beneficiaries start clamoring for help once they go broke from paying all those medical bills.
I think the idea is pretty simple. We all have a right to adequate health care. The govt is charged with the duty to protect our rights. The government collects plenty of our money to pay for them to protect our rights and should fully fund the system.
What we do not have a right to is things like biligualism, multi-culturalism etc and the money spent on those things should be going to fund things we have rights to like health & education.
I have said it many times, the govt should collect enough to fully fund what we, the citizens, deem 'essential' services and that should be the end of any budget. Only what is essential!
What we do not have a right to is things like biligualism, multi-culturalism etc and the money spent on those things should be going to fund things we have rights to like health & education.
I have said it many times, the govt should collect enough to fully fund what we, the citizens, deem 'essential' services and that should be the end of any budget. Only what is essential!
Fine. But "essential" must be defined in a way that applies equally to all across the board. Therefore, if I am privileged enough to work for a Fortune 500 company, get free medical insurance because it is deducted on my employer's 1120 form (and which ultimately is subsidized by the taxpayers) & if you work for MacDonalds and sweep floors for a living, then you should have the same subsidized coverage as well. I just want a level playing field for all. If this is the egalitarian society it claims to be, then this scenario should apply across the board for everyone under all circumstances.
I see.. So, these inalienable global rights on healthcare are really subject to the vastly relative measure of affordability, are they? Here's the real issue: healthcare is not a right; it's a great benefit that has been developed.
How about we really level the playing field completely equally.
2 tax rates (0% under the poverty threshold and 'X'% for everyone else including corporations). No deductions for anyone in any form - everyone pays the true cost.
As I mentioned to gopher's post... Healthcare is not a right, it's a benefit. But if you really want to travel down that road, then define 'adequate' healthcare
Healthcare takes up the largest percentage of provincial GDP in every jurisdiction in Canada... I'm guessing that as healthcare evolves, (expensive) tech advances come about and more people 'demand' more 'rights' for 'adequate' healthcare; the solution will be to tax the net contributors more heavily?
What about the right for equal treatment, including taxation? Does that come on the radar at any point or is it one of those areas that conveniently get ignored in every conversation?
I don't know what the tax rules are in the US but here if your employer pays your medical premiums that become a taxable benefit to you.
""
adequate healthcare is about what was available when our "free" health care system was set up.
Problem is: that is an ever moving target that will require the definition of 'adequate' to be reevaluated so frequently that the entire system becomes a joke
I agree with you but by the same token I don't see why we couldn't make it a "right" if the majority of the electorate wants that. Some of us are born lucky and have good health, others aren't as lucky. I'm not generally in favour of taxing the rich just because they are rich, but maybe this has to be looked at carefully. Some people are rich partly because they have good health, so maybe those in the top 10% income bracket could share the cost of what it takes to provide health benefits to the destitute. (I know some people have poor health because of their own bad decisions, but we all make bad decisions so perhaps it best to let go of that "witchhunt")