Clinton suggests tapping wages for healthcare

[froggy]

frankcor said:

Clipper, if you're seeing a doctor who won't spend 15 or 20 minutes two times a year to hear your concerns, FIRE HIM (or her). Go find a doctor who will.

froggy's onto something, I think. Using the tax code to modify behavior is something our congress does regularly, but not always very intelligently. Why would you penalize people for saving money (interest income is taxable) but reward them for borrowing money (deductible mortgage interest and points)? And then they cry about the high levels of personal debt in the US? Health care presents an opportunity to modify behavior in a positive way. I hope they don't throw the opportunity away by mandating a government insurance program that diminishes the choices and quality we enjoy in America today but instead find ways to make our system, already the finest in the world, more affordable.

Yes, a doctor that doesn't listen to your concerns is not your doctor. There should be some level of a working relationship there.

And yes the tax code is fairly influential. Just straying for a moment to touch on part of what Frank stated about mortgage interest. Think about it. If you make it possible for people to write off property taxes and mortgage interest, its an attempt to get people to buy houses. A lot of tax code and tax policy is based on desirable social behavior, with the exception of the so called marriage penalty. That is up until they repealed it a few years ago.

If you think about it, the money people send out of pocket on healthcare, insured or not, is taxed money. I'm not talking about out of your paycheck premiums, I'm talking out of your pocket co-pays, prescriptions and what have you. Now, some people skimp on going to the doctor because they don't want to spend the money on it. Like me, I only go when I really have to, not periodically. Now, if you can give people a break on those expenditures, like what I suggest about deducting that from gross income, now you might get people to actually try to take care of themselves, or at least get better medical care.

Beyond the tax aspect of it, there needs to be changes to the current structure of healthcare insurance. Its not geared toward an individual like it should be. Its like a one-size-fits-all thing if you are getting thru your employer, with no options available if there are things you want covered or not covered, like the aforementioned vision rider. And because it is is geared more toward employers offering the coverage, the outside market is not priced where it can compete. Ask anyone who is self employed and they'll tell you what they pay or would pay is a lot more than what someone's employer can offer. And why does it have to be that way?

I don't think socialized healthcare is what the US should be looking for. I believe that is what Castro was after when he took over Cuba so long ago. He's a good example of where good ideas and intentions can work out all wrong. No, Government managed healthcare is not a good idea, but rather Government oversight is not bad. Give insurance providers the atmosphere to be able to sell directly to the public and make it cost beneficial.

[frankcor]

Yeah, the 500 would be a real challenge at my age. But I'm going into training right now.

That was well-stated, froggy.

[Swimmy]

froggy said:

BTW, to some extent, workers' wages are already garnishable (is that a word?) for medical insurance. I know if a child is on medicaid, the County will garnish the non-custodial parent for the medicaid coverage.

The trick with that is that your wages are not garnished because you didn't buy into insurance. They were garnished to cover child support, which is an entirely different beast altogether. Under the guise of child support, the government can garnish your wages for just about anything.

[kim]

I am so glad we have insurance. I take a medication for a chronic condition, which, while not that expensive, can add up since I'll be taking it for life. I only pay about $15.00 for a 3 month supply. If I didn't have that insurance, though, who knows what it would cost? My son's implant surgery was $60,000. We only paid $1,000. If not for insurance, he might not have had the surgery. I didn't have insurance for a while, and it was scary. From age 18 until age 23 I had no insurance. I always felt very lucky that nothing major ever came up! I would have been out of luck!

I don't like the idea of forcing everyone to buy health insurance, except for kids. Kids should be covered no matter what, but as or adults, it's their choice. However, I think if an adult is going to refuse just because they don't want to buy it, not because of any financial reason, they should sign a waiver indicating that nobody else has to pay for them if something happens. Now, if they can't buy it because of financial limitations, that's different.

[froggy]

swimmy said:

The trick with that is that your wages are not garnished because you didn't buy into insurance. They were garnished to cover child support, which is an entirely different beast altogether. Under the guise of child support, the government can garnish your wages for just about anything.

From that perspective, yes, because providing health coverage is considered part of supporting a child, thus you are correct it is garnishable under a provision within the child support laws. However, under that support provision, it is due to not buying insurance for the child(ren) involved.

My son's mom and I have a good relationship, we had agreements already when we went to court for support, custody and visitation. A true rarity, as one hearing examiner told us he wished they were all this easy. Anyway, the support order was put in place, to which we opted for me to pay her directly instead of having the county (or state) garnish me and she has to wait for a check in the mail. Now, when it came to her needing assistance for the kids, including ours, once she applied for publicly funded assistance, in this case medicaid, the county automatically acts on their behalf to collect it from the non custodial. The notice to appear said O/B/O <plaintiff's name> at the top. So, from the standpoint that the custodial parent was trying to push the issue is not the case, its the county trying to recoup. And she was also required to appear or the benefits for the kids would be suspended. Its called non-compliance with a support order.

kim said:

I don't like the idea of forcing everyone to buy health insurance, except for kids. Kids should be covered no matter what, but as or adults, it's their choice. However, I think if an adult is going to refuse just because they don't want to buy it, not because of any financial reason, they should sign a waiver indicating that nobody else has to pay for them if something happens. Now, if they can't buy it because of financial limitations, that's different.

Well, like I was referring to earlier and now in this posting, providing medical coverage to kids is technically speaking supporting them. As far as financial limitations, that is the biggest obstacle for a great deal of people out there. There are lots of people who make just enough to not qualify for subsidized coverage like a CHIP but don't make enough to opt for it through their employer.

[denise]

My sister has been working an a Independent Contractor for a few years and does not have health insurance. Believe me, it isn't that she doesn't want health insurance; she can't afford the premiums charged in the State of New York for health insurance. I think she was looking at around $500 per month for BC/BS the last time she checked. That is just crazy! I had her look into Healthy New York, but she was over the income threshold.

Maybe if premiums weren't through the roof, more people would opt to purchase health insurance. If the government "forces" people to purchase health insurance, people will be forced to take that money from someplace else like maybe their grocery money, or the money used to pay rent or mortgage. How is that helping anyone out??

[Clipper]

Hey Dave, at what age would one be qualified to obtain a learner's permit?? Can I be in instructor? Would one have their license suspended for doing it too fast? Would a wife be fined for failure to yield? Will tickets be issued for illegal tailgating, or using the wrong lane?

Get back to me, is you would. I need a new color cartridge if I am going to print "completion" certificates.

[frankcor]

Denise, you fell for the trap once again. See, you still think politicians get elected to help people out.

If you can free your mind of such old-fashioned foolishness and assume that they are there to grow their personal wealth and power, then everything they do starts to make sense.

[froggy]

$500 a month, is that just for her? Still a decent chunk of change regardless.

If the government is going to "require" or "force" people to buy into health coverage, then they better be prepared to step in and take on the health insurance industry also. If they think the economy is in trouble now, what will happen if, like you say, Denise, people have to start pondering between groceries or insurance or whatever? This is not a place they really want to go.

[froggy]

frankcor said:

Denise, you fell for the trap once again. See, you still think politicians get elected to help people out.

If you can free your mind of such old-fashioned foolishness and assume that they are there to grow their personal wealth and power, then everything they do starts to make sense.

Haha! So true. I asked a friend of mine years ago, back in my "young and naive" days, who he was voting for. His reply was "what difference does it make? They're just gonna screw you over in the end anyway."

[frankcor]

My cynicism sometimes overwhelms even me.

[thelma]

I was told that even if you have Medical coverage along with your Pension from your employer - both can be taken away from you and there isn't a darn thing you can do about it.

Does anyone know if this is true or not? I always thought Pensions were protected by our Government,but was recently told this was NOT true.

I spent 23 years of mostly torture working for an Insurance Company I always (still do) described as working for Hell just to make sure I had medical and pension coverage waiting for me the moment I "retired". To think these years MIGHT have been in vain is not a pleasing thought at all.

[Swimmy]

There is some truth to that. In 2003 or 2004, one of the major Airlines or auto companies filed a ch. 14 bankruptcy. As part of their re-structuring plan, the company terminated all pension plans. The court approved it with little outcry from the media. Hundreds of workers who put their life in that company and depended upon their pension plans just found themselves SOL.

[frankcor]

Companies on the verge of bankruptcy can put their guaranteed pension plans into receivership with a federal program. I've forgotten the name of it now. It's sort of like FDIC insurance, though. I believe benefits are not guaranteed 100% but the taxpayers are put on the hook for some percentage of the funds. I know Revere Copper is somewhere along that process now.

On the surface, it's something I would hate with a passion but it is an attempt to give companies a chance to bail out before they take all their employees' dreams "and run Venezuela. Everybody sing! -- Matilda. Matilda. Matilida she take the money and run Venezula."

[dgriffin]

>>>Hey Dave, at what age would one be qualified to obtain a learner's permit?? Can I be in instructor? Would one have their license suspended for doing it too fast? Would a wife be fined for failure to yield? Will tickets be issued for illegal tailgating, or using the wrong lane?<<<
Cliipper, good questions. I'll have to think about them. Right now, I'm stuck on how to handle traffic lights. "Slow down ahead" makes sense, but 4-way stop has me puzzled. Keyless ignition has me pondering, too, but I'm pretty sure I don't want to wind up a hybrid.