Daily Kos

View Story | 733 comments

  •  Technically, (30+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    cdreid, ebie, importer, Geenius at Wrok, Pescadero Bill, behan, cartwrightdale, My Philosophy, ChemBob, Brooke In Seattle, Audri, zorthron, ZenTrainer, high coup haiku, Balam, Van Buren, Cofcos, wagdog, James Kresnik, divitius, ryan81, Norm in Chicago, amk for obama, polar bear, Starlight Express, FeDhu, annieli, atg, Reed Young, CMYK

    This is how Social Security works.  It's a government run pension that everyone MUST pay into, with a few exceptions.  But we're paying into a government plan.

    Kagro is right.  They can track me down and toss my butt in jail before they tell me I have to pay a private, for-profit corporation.

    No PO, no $$$, no kidding. (kerplunk) No rights, no $$$. You want some fiscal lovin', then pony up some *&##ing equality!!! (earicicle)

    by Heiuan on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 09:43:33 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  But can they take it out of your check? (6+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Audri, zorthron, kaolin, divitius, polar bear, SoCaliana

      Can it become a deduction just like social security?

      uh-oh

      by trinityfly on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 09:45:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's what I'd like to see (6+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Miles, trinityfly, high coup haiku, Van Buren, Tennessee Dave, divitius

        I'd like for some economist/number guru who is running the cost figures for these plans to estimate what the system would look like if we raised payroll Medicare tax by 5% and simply covered everyone?

        No PO, no $$$, no kidding. (kerplunk) No rights, no $$$. You want some fiscal lovin', then pony up some *&##ing equality!!! (earicicle)

        by Heiuan on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:05:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  pretty sure that doesn't come close to working. (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Heiuan

          the reimbursement rates for physicians/hospitals would probably have to be increased too since they wouldn't be able to make up the difference by shifting costs to everyone else.

          nevertheless, i'm also pretty certain that a souped up medicare for all would cost less overall.

          The Republican idea of a lifeline is the little string that holds up your swim trunks.

          by chicago jeff on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:37:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Heh...hence (0+ / 0-)

            the caveat about having someone who really knows WTH they're talking about, lol.  But I really would like to see what figure emerged if we seriously talked about Medicare for those who want it.

            No PO, no $$$, no kidding. (kerplunk) No rights, no $$$. You want some fiscal lovin', then pony up some *&##ing equality!!! (earicicle)

            by Heiuan on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 04:23:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  enforce taxes on rich, end exemptions/deductions (0+ / 0-)

          I can't crunch all the numbers for you right now, but I'm confident that just getting the rich to pay the 40% of their income they rightfully owe rather than the 17% they get away with after exemptions, deductions and offshore havens, would get us most of the way there.  For the rest, increasing the top marginal income tax rate would be good for everybody, and help even the over-privileged bypreventing future market crashes!

          "Whoever says that isn't torture should just have it done to them." ~Khaled el-Masri~ (oops, CIA intended to torture a different Khaled el-Masri)

          by Reed Young on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 08:27:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  And Make Quarterly Payments to Insurance Cos.? (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        James Kresnik

        That would be rich.  Imagine the headlines.  "Government Makes First Payment of $12 Billion to Insurance Companies".

        by rgembry on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:31:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  that's how it's set up. (0+ / 0-)

        if you're employed, it's taken out of your paycheck.
        if you're unemployed, either the govt. picks up the tab or you're exempted.

        that said, your employer picks up the bulk of the cost unless your employer doesn't offer coverage--in which case you're eligible for the exchange and you get to pick which plan you want.

        i'm not sure if the premium's still deducted if you're in the exchange but i think it is.

        The Republican idea of a lifeline is the little string that holds up your swim trunks.

        by chicago jeff on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:34:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And if you're self-employed, (0+ / 0-)

          and making $1K over the "subsidy cutoff" (which seems pretty low to me), you'd be forced to buy insurance but get no subsidy.

          If you don't, or still can't afford to get any, I imagine the $750 fine would be added into your tax return calculations.  Isn't that special?

          by Prognosticator on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:35:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  are you sure? (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Prognosticator, ZenTrainer

            is that in HELP or HR3200?

            Plus, the "subsidy cut-off" in either is over 80k for a family of four in either bill.

            I believe for self-employed persons your business expenses aren't treated as personal income.  So the $80k would be what you put in the bank (on top of revenue).  Maybe I'm wrong.

            The Republican idea of a lifeline is the little string that holds up your swim trunks.

            by chicago jeff on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 01:38:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, we're talking net income (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              chicago jeff

              after expenses.  But STILL, four times the poverty rate is no great shakes, and a huge hunk of the middle class will not get "help" (subsidy) but a forced new EXPENSE.

              Sorry, I forget which version it came from, and can't find the article link that summarized each.  But here's a chart of a version where the cutoffs are even less!

              The version I'm thinking of had the subsidy cutoff for those making over $88K, which was 4x the poverty level of $22,000 for a family of four (which is $5,500 a YEAR for each person to live on - poverty indeed).  

              I think that $22,000/yr per person (4x that, which is $1,833/mo) is pretty low for "middle class", given a mortgage/rent, transportation (car payment/insurance/fuel), utilities, food, clothes, etc., and add health insurance on TOP of that?

              And anyone making over $1833 a month won't get a health insurance subsidy, but will be forced to pay at LEAST another $62.50/mo (the $750 "fine"), or whatever their health premium is?

              I fail to see how this will not burden a huge hunk of (ahem) "middle class" people.

              by Prognosticator on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 03:44:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's the Senate Finance Committee POC (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Prognosticator

                POC = Piece of Crap.

                With the subsidy ending at 300% of the FPL.
                A truly awful, oppressive plan worth less than nothing at all to people struggling to pay for insurance.

                Affordability, imo, is a more important issue than the public option, which is very important.

                The Republican idea of a lifeline is the little string that holds up your swim trunks.

                by chicago jeff on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 05:09:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Self Employed... (0+ / 0-)

            They're going to try to fine me $750 for not giving corporate welfare to a corrupt industry that I reject on moral grounds? When I absolutely refuse to have anything to do with profiteering-driven western medicine at all, so I won't use the (probably crappy) coverage even if on death's doorstep? Are they also forcing Christian Scientists into this lunacy? Or do are they exempt due to mental illness religious convictions?

            I suppose they can try to fine me, and I'll simply refuse to pay -- I operate my business on a cash basis and if it comes down to it I could survive without any sort of bank account. And then they can jail me when I refuse to pay, ensuring that I cost the taxpayers far more. Fuckers.

            If I break my finger, I'm able to set and splint it myself. But I'd like x-rays and some mild narcotics. I can't walk in and pay cash for those without seeing an MD for an expensive consultation. If I ever run across an MD who is on fire, I'll tell him to wait while I locate combustion termination consultant.

            Think I'm kidding? I wanted some simple lab work done a year ago, about something entirely non-life-threatening. I was forced to pay $180 to see a "doctor" for a "consultation", who tried to load on a bunch of other tests that I needed to firmly decline. So the $180 was to get him to order the test, which the lab wouldn't do without the signature of a doctor, even if I were to pay cash up front. So I paid $180 to, in effect, have a doctor read the very simple binary "positive" or "negative" test result needed no interpretation.

            Hell, I should have done the test myself with a microscope and it would have been cheaper... but I needed "documentation" that I was, in fact, infertile after a vasectomy ages ago that was never followed up on (sorry if that was TMI). At least the lab itself "only" charged about $80.

            Sorry for the rant.

            by AndreMA on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 07:39:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Technically, SS is an insurance plan..... (5+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      cdreid, Geenius at Wrok, Heiuan, ZenTrainer, James Kresnik

      if you become disabled or die before retirement age, SS will pay you or your family benefits.  If you run the race and make it to retirement age, SS was supposed to be a hedge against destitution.  

      Having a small monthly check coming in would give old people a little dignity and relieve their children of some of the burden of providing for older relatives while trying to raise their own families.  

      importer

      by importer on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:05:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Beg to differ. (0+ / 0-)

        Social Security and Medicare are human welfare programs that pay current benefits from current taxes.  They are not capitalized the way insurance companies have to be -- i.e. "too important to fail" security money. They don't need to be -- they have the government behind them, which by definition is too important to fail.

        by Tennessee Dave on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 01:50:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Judging by AIG, the insurance companies aren't (0+ / 0-)

          properly capitalized.  If they get in trouble they run to the government for money, or file bankruptcy and renig on their obligations.

          Social Security and Medicare are human welfare programs that pay current benefits from current taxes.

          SS is still running a surplus because the boomers have been paying not only for their parents' retirement, but for their own, thanks to Big Ronnie who supposedly never raised taxes.  The biggest hike in taxes in our history was doubling the SS/Med deduction from payroll taxes.

          The problem with SS/med is that the government has been using it as its own personal piggy bank since Johnson.  The Congress and WH have been able to avoid raising taxes appropriately because they have looted SS.  That's why they are screaming now that something has to be done, because the payouts are going to catch up in 2017 or 2040 depending who you believe.

          importer

          by importer on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 11:05:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  but do you drive a car? (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      zorthron

      That's what they'll do to you if you don't buy private insurance to operate it.... or at least take away your license.

      by Miles on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:19:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Driving is a priviledge, (0+ / 0-)

        and you CAN opt out of driving and not buy the insurance.

        LIFE is a RIGHT, and you can't easily "opt out" of living, to escape the mandated insurance expense.

        by Prognosticator on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:38:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I never liked that "driving is a priviledge" meme (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Prognosticator

          If you live in a sprawling Southwestern city where public transportation is scarce, unpredictable, and tedious to use, then the only option to insure your livelihood is through the necessity of owning a car. By extension, you have the right to drive, which can be revoked for criminal offenses. Not at all "a privilege" which smacks of cloying paternalism. Privilege implies things that are arbitrarily granted and suspended by a  ruling elite with no recourse to petition.

          by behan on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 06:18:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  that only applies if you *own* a car. (0+ / 0-)

        . . . and cars are treated as weapons by the law.

        Just because you can doesn't mean you should, but if you can, and you should, then you ought.

        by firant on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:43:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

View Story | 733 comments