Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (4263)	2/4/2008 9:36:00 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

From 2007 State of the Unions Address: ... A future of hope and opportunity requires that all our citizens have affordable and available health care. (Applause.) When it comes to health care, government has an obligation to care for the elderly, the disabled, and poor children. And we will meet those responsibilities. For all other Americans, private health insurance is the best way to meet their needs. (Applause.) But many Americans cannot afford a health insurance policy. And so tonight, I propose two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their own insurance. First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents. Families with health insurance will pay no income on payroll tax -- or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income. With this reform, more than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills. At the same time, this reform will level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job. For Americans who now purchase health insurance on their own, this proposal would mean a substantial tax savings -- $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year. And for the millions of other Americans who have no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within their reach. Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making health care affordable for more Americans. (Applause.) My second proposal is to help the states that are coming up with innovative ways to cover the uninsured. States that make basic private health insurance available to all their citizens should receive federal funds to help them provide this coverage to the poor and the sick. I have asked the Secretary of Health and Human Services to work with Congress to take existing federal funds and use them to create "Affordable Choices" grants. These grants would give our nation's governors more money and more flexibility to get private health insurance to those most in need. There are many other ways that Congress can help. We need to expand Health Savings Accounts. (Applause.) We need to help small businesses through Association Health Plans. (Applause.) We need to reduce costs and medical errors with better information technology. (Applause.) We will encourage price transparency. And to protect good doctors from junk lawsuits, we passing medical liability reform. (Applause.) In all we do, we must remember that the best health care decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors. (Applause.) ... whitehouse.gov

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (4263)	2/4/2008 10:19:52 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Peter, While Bush's plan is great, because once fully digested and implemented, would provide incentives for people to be healthy - what would happen, people with good health would get out of their company accounts and sign up for private Health Savings Accounts. Once in HSA, they would save a bundle. This obviously does not set well with Democrats. A Democrat, by nature is a collectivist and vehemently opposes personal responsibility. So on one hand, they would detest the idea of responsible individuals reaping financial gain for their responsibility. On the other hand, the responsible individuals would not be there to subsidise irresponsible ones - the subsidy would lessen. And Democrats love re-distributing wealth... So it is obvious why Bush's program did not go anywhere. If you recall, there was a huge fight over Health Saving Accounts, Democrats opposed, Republicans eventually prevailed. Democrats don't want even an ounce of personal responsibility to be a part of current or future health care. Joe