Obama should say I am sorry for being a liar the last 3 years about your Healthcare.

[Kevin]

Are we the only Country in the world where the various political parties desire and celebrate failure?

All those Republicans who hate Obama and the ACA are now complaining about the difficulty people are having trying to sign up for the ACA.

What flagrant, political hypocrisy.

Who's being stupid now?

GG

Wow Gordon, you find no hypocrisy in the fact that the republicans were blasted for trying to delay the law, however, now you have had about a dozen democrats in the past week pleading with the White House to do exactly that? Had they just voted along with the republicans in the first place, this mess could have been avoided. How about the fact that those same democrats are all ones who come from moderate districts and all come up for reelection in 2014. Does that not basically say, "to heck with those losing their insurance or having their premiums skyrocket, I might lose my political future over this"?

Now the proposed fix is to allow the insurance companies to stay on these policies that are in the process of being non-renewed. But I can't imagine that is as easy as it sounds. I believe that some of these companies were even exiting out of some states due to the new law. So now you have insurance companies that will need to take the canceled or cancelling policies, rescind the cancellation, come up with rates for the next year, and then issue out a renewal- in many cases within the next 6 weeks. What about the people who were canceled that have existing major current medical issues (cancer treatment in some cases)? Will an insurance company voluntarily rescind a cancellation notice on them or is the government now going to force the renewal after having forced the cancellation in the first place?

Does this answer your last question??

 

[Kevin]

Big Pharma spends more on advertising than it does on R & D. The most important R & D advances come from medical centers and universities which have been seriously set back by cuts to the NIH budget. Once again, priorities have been skewed and the public interest screwed.

The NIH budge was cut by 5%. You say this represents a serious setback, but interestingly, when it came to the administrations claims of "you can keep your health care if you like it....period", they didn't deem the 5% predicted to be canceled even significant enough to count. How does that add up?

 

[Gordon Gray]

Kevin,

As always, you make valid points. Thank you.

In response, I was making my comments at the 10,000 foot level and frankly, the first line of my last post applies to both parties. In the latest case of this cynical / toxic Washington environment (second sentence), I believe it is true that the Reps were trying to score "gotcha" political points.

And yes, what occurred regarding Obama's promise (you can keep your policy if you wish) and reality (policy cancellations), is very unfortunate and frankly inexcusable. This should never have happened. Stupid.

Best,

Gordon

 

[timm]

here is an interesting read... from 2009 that I ran across.... but I think relevent....Discusses issues with health care in Canada.... taxation to help cover health care... and also some of the moral issues that go along with having a system that has a 'have/have not' approach..... It is from cbs news... not sure of their political leanings or anything of the sort.... but, curious what others think of this article... (this is not canada bashing - just looking at a country with national health care - and a discussion of the problems they are having with it....)

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-681801.html

 

[Kevin]

Sometime back, I responded about the wait time problem in Canada, and was promptly told that it was just a right wing myth. But Canada actually created and funded a commission years ago to study the wait time and what could be done to improve it, so I'm not sure why they would have taken this on for just a 'myth'. In short, there is no perfect health care system that makes 100% of the people 100% satisfied. There are pros and cons to each system. Our health care and health insurance system is flawed and could have used improvements, but it didn't need a 2,700 page law to make those improvements. In my opinion, and I respectfully know that others may disagree, we took a flawed system and replaced it with something worse.

Gordon- you mentioned the immigration bill earlier, and I didn't comment because the original topic was about health insurance. But I can actually relate it to the health insurance topic. I believe the immigration bill is around 1,200 pages long the last I heard, perhaps longer. Do you think Congress, whether for or against, has taken the time to read it, never mind actually even studying it just a bit? Those pages are dealing with much more than just turning millions of illegal residents into legal citizens. There are pages dedicated to what the agriculture industry will be required to offer for minimum pay to field and processing workers just for an example. Has anyone looked at the impact such things may have?

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi Kevin,

Here's what I've read / heard.

The Senate wanted to pass a "comprehensive" bill including "a path to citizenship" amongst other things. Even Republicans, such as Marco Rubio, were in favor of such an approach. The House wanted to approach this issue from a "piecemeal" perspective. Small parts here and there on the assumption that eventually the "puzzle" would be eventually be filled in and become a comprehensive package. Now, Boehner is saying the House doesn't want to consider ANY immigration reform legislation this coming year.

Why?

My speculation is that given the upcoming election in 2014, this would harm the Republicans more than the Democrats within the context of maintaining a majority in the House and cause further disaray within the Republican Party.

I'm certainly willing to hear other reasons for this "agenda change" but .........................

To your question of our elected's reading the legislation before they vote, anecdotally and pragmatically, probably not. Given our current state of dysfunctionality and partisan politics in Washington, most members (on both sides) will likely decide on philosophical / party political grounds and call it good regardless of whether there are good elements in the proposed legislation that they could otherwise support.

The recent government shutdown premised solely on dismantling the ACA and what occurred within the Republican Party (moderates versus ultra conservatives and McCain calling Cruz crazy) are good examples of how ideology trumps pragmatism, the former ensuring that little if anything of value to the American people is realized and the later allowing for potential resolution of issues in a constructive / non destructive manner.

Regards,

Gordon

 

[MDSPHOTO]

Regardless of their ad budget the amount they spend on r&d is notable. Secondly my guess is that a lot of universities and non profits work off of government grants which is our tax dollars right? So I guess my question is if u dump big pharma do you think we should replace their r&d with more grants or more taxes to cover them?

Unfortunately money drives the machine and it will get paid thru private companies looking for a profit or thru your increased taxes trying to support it.

So, I always stay out of these political discussions, primarily because they are all circuitous arguments that no one on an audio board is going to solve. However, the continued finger pointing at the pharma industry as the big bad evil is an uneducated and uninformed point that I feel I need to address. In the late 80's our government decided that the cost of pharmaceuticals was the reason that our healthcare expenses were so high. Hatch-Waxman and others reasoned that allowing generic drugs onto the market faster would reduce the overall cost of healthcare. In 2012 89% of all prescriptions written in the US were for a generic medicine. The highest volume drug company is a generic house called TEVA based in Israel. I don't know about you, but my health care costs of gone up every single year even though generics are the dominant drugs in the market. With Obamacare and the government more involved in healthcare it is increasingly difficult not only to bring a new drug to market, but also to gain access for the product on healthcare formularies. We are seeing branded drug companies failing with closures and mergers by the dozens. My industry has lost 200K jobs in the lat 5 years, strange that a President that screams about job creation is not interested in saving jobs in this sector. And don't think I'm an Obama hater, we need a whole new system in place regardless of party, D.C. is broken and needs an enema. When they create systems and policies for us that they do not have to participate in because they have their own system, that is part of the problem.
Rant over.

 

[Kevin]

Hi Gordon-

I knew Boehner had put off any discussion on the immigration bill for this year, of which not much remains, but I haven't heard or read anything saying he's taken it off the table for "this coming year". I would have to research that, because I would think that is political suicide for the republicans. I do know that he doesn't want to entertain the current Senate version.

If I were really dogmatic, I too could say that the 'only' reason that democrats want to quickly give citizenship to 12 -13 million illegals is political as well, as it would add a good number of democratic voters to their rolls. But I don't think it would be of much help for the 2014 election, because the pathway to citizenship as I understood it would take years. But it could help with persuading the votes of those who are already legal and able to vote. In that context, I'm not sure how it helps republicans to block any discussion for the next year, as it only reinforces the lefts message that the republicans are against 'foreigners'. Isn't that the reason why those like Rubio wanted to take up an immigration bill? For what remains of this year, I think with the health care problems, this is probably where they want to place their focus.

For my own thoughts on it, and perhaps this is the thought of a number of republicans in Congress as well, I don't like these huge bills that are stuffed with things that only cause further complications. In 1986, Ted Kennedy, after the passage of that years amnesty bill said this, "We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this." Sound familiar? That bill provided citizenship to just a little over a million illegals, this current bill would provide citizenship to 12-13 millions illegals. What would this do to our already strained entitlement programs? What would it do to health care premiums? Maybe we take the hit on these, but is there a guarantee that we aren't revisiting this exact same situation another 20 years down the road?

I happen to actually work with a good number of those from Latin America, and consider a woman from Mexico, that I often work with, as being one of my best friends. In fun, she often calls me her 'brother'. From being around her, and those she works with, I find the majority of them to be really nice, good natured, often very religious (of which I'm not), family oriented and extremely hard working. If the republicans were smart, and often they aren't, I don't see why they can't be republican supporters. My friend votes for republicans.

Concerning Cruz, and the dismantling of the ACA, I'm not sure that today he seems quite as crazy as when he was telling people of the coming disaster from this bill. As I said at the time, my problem with him was more on style than substance. But I consider Reid and Pelosi as being just as crazy, only they actually hold leadership positions. Obama, just this past Thursday, concerning the policy cancellations said, ".....there is no doubt, that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate". Meanwhile, on the very same day, Pelosi said at a press conference, "What the president said was completely accurate." In the mental wards, they call this a classic symptom of denial, and they look at readjusting your medications.

 

[InterMechanico]

Wait times in B.C.

here is an interesting read... from 2009 that I ran across.... but I think relevent....Discusses issues with health care in Canada.... taxation to help cover health care... and also some of the moral issues that go along with having a system that has a 'have/have not' approach..... It is from cbs news... not sure of their political leanings or anything of the sort.... but, curious what others think of this article... (this is not canada bashing - just looking at a country with national health care - and a discussion of the problems they are having with it....)

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-681801.html

Well, if you want to verify the accuracy of the news story, or just have a peek at the actual statistics (in British Columbia), have a look at this.

http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/swt/

It is a surprisingly detailed list of wait times in B.C. for specific surgeries. The surgeries are elective, meaning quality of life stuff. Emergency surgery is treated as such; right away.

I couldn't find that article to read, unfortunately. Timm, you're right about no one system being perfect, including ours... but I have to say, care is really pretty great here. But here's the kicker; Last year in British Columbia, roughly 50% of the total government budget wemt to health care in some form or another. Yikes, hey? But I will also say that in other areas of government, such as infrastructure spending, social programs, etc..., the service is good -great as well. We may pay more income and sales tax though. I guess that's just the cost of doing business this way.

I can only speak to the status of British Columbia though, because I live here (best place on earth, so the tourism ads say.lol). As for as Ontario goes, or Quebec, I have no idea, other than the crazy antics of the current Mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Julian,

How much do you pay for income tax and sales tax on a percentage basis?

By the way, I have visited Vancouver and Victoria. Stunning in many ways.

Gordon

 

[twich54]

Julian,

How much do you pay for income tax and sales tax on a percentage basis?

By the way, I have visited Vancouver and Victoria. Stunning in many ways.

Gordon

couldn't agree more Gordon, Vancouver is one of my favorite urban areas on the planet, love Stanley Park !!

 

[InterMechanico]

Julian,

How much do you pay for income tax and sales tax on a percentage basis?

By the way, I have visited Vancouver and Victoria. Stunning in many ways.

Gordon

Okay, so i've found a link that shows our income tax rates in B.C. Look at the second graph indicating the combined tax rates (federal and provincial).

http://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/bc.htm

The basic personal exemptions are different federally and provincially; these are the amounts before which any income tax is charged. The sales tax rates in B.C. are 7% provincially and 5% federally. Food is generally exempt from sales tax. Also, as in the U.S. , there are a number of income tax deductions a person may qualify for, such as the child tax credit, certain types of training, rrsp's, etc...

As a real example my actual tax rate for 2013, including Canada pension amount, was 23.9 %.

Martin logan products are generally considered by me to be 100% tax exempt when justifying a new purchase to my wonderful girlfriend

 

[twich54]

so you're saying your sales tax is effectively 12 % ?? ………..wow, I'll take living twenty minutes away from Delaware anytime….NO SALES TAX !!

 

[timm]

So, I always stay out of these political discussions, primarily because they are all circuitous arguments that no one on an audio board is going to solve. However, the continued finger pointing at the pharma industry as the big bad evil is an uneducated and uninformed point that I feel I need to address. In the late 80's our government decided that the cost of pharmaceuticals was the reason that our healthcare expenses were so high. Hatch-Waxman and others reasoned that allowing generic drugs onto the market faster would reduce the overall cost of healthcare. In 2012 89% of all prescriptions written in the US were for a generic medicine. The highest volume drug company is a generic house called TEVA based in Israel. I don't know about you, but my health care costs of gone up every single year even though generics are the dominant drugs in the market. With Obamacare and the government more involved in healthcare it is increasingly difficult not only to bring a new drug to market, but also to gain access for the product on healthcare formularies. We are seeing branded drug companies failing with closures and mergers by the dozens. My industry has lost 200K jobs in the lat 5 years, strange that a President that screams about job creation is not interested in saving jobs in this sector. And don't think I'm an Obama hater, we need a whole new system in place regardless of party, D.C. is broken and needs an enema. When they create systems and policies for us that they do not have to participate in because they have their own system, that is part of the problem.
Rant over.

Mds - just a quick response. I am not anti pharma as an FYI. My point was we let private business handle it and they make a profit. Or our taxes just increase to cover the r&d that would be lacking if pharma went away. I believe if you take risk by throwing tons of dough developing a drug then you should be rewarded if that drug is successful. I have not really seen any proof that the government handles these types of things well since in many cases if something is a flop - the solution is to take more from my paycheck to throw more money at it. Just for clarity.

 

[timm]

Intermechanico. Am I reading that right? If you have a married couple where each make 75k (150k total) - they are taxed 45% on their total and then also have to pay 16% to BC in addition? I am not sure I am reading it correctly.

 

[InterMechanico]

Intermechanico. Am I reading that right? If you have a married couple where each make 75k (150k total) - they are taxed 45% on their total and then also have to pay 16% to BC in addition? I am not sure I am reading it correctly.

I think you're reading it incorrectly. The combines tax rate may be 45%, but it's not that simple. It works in stages. For example, using simple figures, you pay 20% on everything over 8k up to 38k, 23% on the next 22k, and so on. Anything over 150k is taxed at 45%, not all your income at the same rate. I don't like the system though, because it tends to dissuade people from working harder and being more productive because they'll get diminishing returns on their labour.

The sales tax is another issue. It varies province to province. The federal government levies 5%, and depending on what province you're in, there may be a provincial tax of up to 7%, or as little as 0%. Wages are quite a bit higher in B.C. Though, not that that justifies the sales tax, but I suppose it's more manageable.

 

[InterMechanico]

OK, please say thank you because I just did an awful lot of math, Timm. But here is the info on income tax rates, using your figure of 150k. Bear in mind that this does not include any deductions; everyone has a few.

Timm, if you earned 150k on your own, you would pay a total of 48k (31.8%) in income tax31.8%).

If both you and your wife each earned 75k, you would each pay 18.3k (24.3%) total income tax.

 

[timm]

Hahaha. Thank you intermechanico!! I am sorry for causing you grief!! I get it now.

 

[Kevin]

I have not really seen any proof that the government handles these types of things well since in many cases if something is a flop - the solution is to take more from my paycheck to throw more money at it. Just for clarity.

Very true. That will end up being the case for this new health care law. Much more money will end up being spent, and already has been spent, than we were first told. Unlike private startups, government programs don't fail in the traditional sense of failing, because they just get more money thrown in as the 'fix'. In fact, one of the solutions floated as way of making up for those losing their existing insurance plans and subsequently finding the new ones much more expensive, was to raise the income level for those that would qualify for a subsidy. This probably would have been the administrations preferred plan, but it would have really raised the budget for the program, and the political fallout would have been that much worse. As it is, allowing the health insurance companies to keep the plans for just another year isn't a solution, it is just a political band-aid for democrats in the 2014 elections.

 

[Len44]

So I read today that the House of Representatives has decided to not take up any immigration reform legislation in 2014 because they are doing "other things".

GG

Reminds me of Dick Cheney, the draft-dodger who applied for (and received) at least five deferments: "I had other priorities."

Yeah, like not fighting for your Country...