Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

still just me wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:28:19 -0500, Peaceful Bill
> <snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>
>>> Only for emergencies. Try getting physical therapy for muscle and bone
>>> injuries without insurance. Try getting a bad hip replaced without
>>> insurance. Look into scoliosis treatment. The list goes on.
>> If they are in need, there's existing tax-funded plans that will cover them.
>
> No, there are not. Those are only for people with very low incomes.
> People in between low income and high income fall into a large hole.

Lie. Unless you consider $50,000 per year "low income".

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

still just me wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:27:19 -0500, Peaceful Bill
> <snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>
>>> You seem to be someone who has always had employer paid coverage which
>>> they consider "free" - and not someone who has even run a company and
>>> had to shoulder the $8K per year per employee or an individual who has
>>> to pay $10K per year for short coverage.
>> I shopped for my employer. If people were more selective about who they
>> worked for and took more personal responsibility for their own welfare,
>> the "problem" would not exist.
>
> Seems like you're one of the "it doesn't cost me anything, my employer
> pays for it all" crowd. I bet you smile with delight when you pay $15
> for an office visit that costs $60 and then don't even worry about
> where the other $45 comes from. I imagine you've never had a loved one
> denied care because some profit minded insurance executive didn't want
> to pay for it and reduce their multi-billion $ profits.
>
> Try being the employer/owner some time and paying the costs out of
> your own pocket. You'll realize how broken the system is very quickly.

Get a clue. You might have to actually do some research. Or maybe get
your third grade teacher to help you read.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

still just me wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:13:36 -0500, Gordon McGrew
> <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:12:31 -0700 (PDT), Foobar
>> <bamberbert@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok. Show me one person in the 15% tax bracket that pays 15%. Just
>>> one.
>> By definition, everyone in the 15% bracket pays a marginal rate of
>> 15%.
>
>
> Not really. Marginal rate vs. effective rate.

What a complete imbecile.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

You ire should be directed where it belongs, to the Congress, not the
President

"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4qin54lfmkvqti4e8qkf9hgcc1mfrfuodu@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:28:25 -0700 (PDT), Foobar
> <bamberbert@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The real burden fell on George "read my lips, no new taxes" Bush who
>>> had to raise taxes appreciably to combat the wild overspending and
>>> trillion $ deficits accumulated by Reagan. Note that the piper is
>>> coming due now on GWB's wild overspending and trillion $ deficits.
>>
>>Depends on what the meaning of is "is".
>
> A valid point. GWB won't have to pay the piper. Just like with Reagan,
> the successor gets the joy of recognizing reality.
>
> Like Perot says "the first thing to do when you're in a hole is to
> stop digging". Bush II doesn't even understand that part, let alone
> the follow on.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:30:58 GMT, still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com>
wrote:


>Seems like you're one of the "it doesn't cost me anything, my employer
>pays for it all" crowd. I bet you smile with delight when you pay $15
>for an office visit that costs $60 and then don't even worry about
>where the other $45 comes from. I imagine you've never had a loved one
>denied care because some profit minded insurance executive didn't want
>to pay for it and reduce their multi-billion $ profits.
>
>Try being the employer/owner some time and paying the costs out of
>your own pocket. You'll realize how broken the system is very quickly.

I pay $12.00 for a $75.00 office call. Part of the balance isn't paid, the
Doctor discounts it. part of the reason an office call is so expensive. The
rest of the balance is paid by the insurance company I pay premiums to.

I have never had a family member denied care for any reason, even when my
uninsured adult daughter broke her leg. What would be worse, a "profit minded
insurance executive" denying care, or a TSA style government bureaucrat denying
care because the system is bankrupt?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:42:04 -0500, Peaceful Bill
<snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:

>> A valid point. GWB won't have to pay the piper. Just like with Reagan,
>> the successor gets the joy of recognizing reality.
>>
>> Like Perot says "the first thing to do when you're in a hole is to
>> stop digging". Bush II doesn't even understand that part, let alone
>> the follow on.
>
>He inherited the given to him by Clinton. Remember the destructive
> and contentious change of power from "the impeached" to Bush? The
>economic collapse of Clinton's last year? The deception regarding the
> threat (why did Sandy Berger steal and destroy those documents?).

What a load of crap. Bush II has been in office for eight years. What
the economy is doing now falls fully in his lap. Fortunately only a
few brainwashed neo-con ideologues like you would even attempt to
blame it on the former President.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:42:40 -0500, Peaceful Bill
<snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:

>> There's a hug gape between people who qualify for public assistance
>> (low income) and people who don't make enough to pay for their own
>> health insurance (middle class). In addition, the cost of insurance to
>> employers is out of sight.
>>
>> It's clear you never had to pay for either out of your own pocket or
>> you might have a clue.
>
>Its clear that you don't have a clue.

Your one line attacks show that you have no real evidence to argue
with.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:25:33 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com>
wrote:

>On 2008-06-20, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:12:31 -0700 (PDT), Foobar
>><bamberbert@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Ok. Show me one person in the 15% tax bracket that pays 15%. Just
>>>one.
>>
>> By definition, everyone in the 15% bracket pays a marginal rate of
>> 15%.
>
>No, they do not. They pay 15% of their adjusted income.

You are not being very clear here. If you mean that someone in the
15% tax bracket pays 15% of their Adjusted Gross Income in taxes, you
are just plain wrong. If you mean that adjustments to income affect
your effective marginal rate you are essentially wrong there as well.
Adjusted Gross Income reflects losses (such as writing off a debt owed
to you), certain taxes paid (half the self employment tax) or costs
paid (e.g. tuition, health insurance premiums for self employed) or
credits given the taxpayer by the government (e.g hybrid car credit).
Also IRA contributions up to a limit. As far as I can see, these
adjustments are not affected by income. In other words, if you earn
another dollar, your AGI will go up by $1. The same is generally true
of deductions. 401K contribution deduction limits may increase
proportionally with income (not sue of that) and you may choose to
make 401K contributions based on a percentage of your income, but that
is really just a tax deferral and you could end up paying more than
your current bracket percentage on that income.

Unless you chose to contribute a portion of an additional dollar to a
tax deferred retirement account, you will pay 15% of it in taxes if
you are in the 15% bracket. In any event, you will pay much less than
15% of your net income in taxes.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:42:04 -0500, Peaceful Bill
<snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:

>still just me wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:28:25 -0700 (PDT), Foobar
>> <bamberbert@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The real burden fell on George "read my lips, no new taxes" Bush who
>>>> had to raise taxes appreciably to combat the wild overspending and
>>>> trillion $ deficits accumulated by Reagan. Note that the piper is
>>>> coming due now on GWB's wild overspending and trillion $ deficits.
>>> Depends on what the meaning of is "is".
>>
>> A valid point. GWB won't have to pay the piper. Just like with Reagan,
>> the successor gets the joy of recognizing reality.
>>
>> Like Perot says "the first thing to do when you're in a hole is to
>> stop digging". Bush II doesn't even understand that part, let alone
>> the follow on.
>
>He inherited the given to him by Clinton.

You mean the budget surplus?

> Remember the destructive
> and contentious change of power from "the impeached" to Bush?

The only thing contentious that I recall is the Supreme Court halting
the recount and declaring Bush the winner. That was highly irregular.

> The
>economic collapse of Clinton's last year?

You mean the modest recession after the greatest economic boom in US
history?

> The deception regarding the
> threat (why did Sandy Berger steal and destroy those documents?).

Good question, it was a pretty bizarre incident in which he destroyed
three copies of the same document but left two others untouched. "The
document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert
Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000
detailing the administration's actions to thwart attacks
during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable
discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat
of attacks on U.S. soil."

Doesn't seem like much of a scandal compared to what we learned from
the 911 Commission Report. Berger was only fined $10,000.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:30:26 -0500, Peaceful Bill
<snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:

>still just me wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:22:25 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Medicaid. AFDC.
>>
>> They are highly restricted by income. You really have no feel for the
>> depth of the health insurance problem.
>
>If a person doesn't have enough to cover insurance premiums they will
>fall in that category. If they make enough to not fall in that
>lower-income category then they will have enough to get their insurance.
> IF THEY TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

You don't seem to get it. I agree that if you can get private
insurance at an affordable price you should get it. However, if you
have an identifiable risk, you may find it very difficult to find a
policy and, if you do, the premiums may be unaffordable to all but the
very wealthy. Even without a health problem, many families not poor
enough to qualify for Medicaid can't afford $10,000+ in annual
premiums.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:25:44 GMT, still just me
<wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:30:26 -0500, Peaceful Bill
><snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>
>>> They are highly restricted by income. You really have no feel for the
>>> depth of the health insurance problem.
>>
>>If a person doesn't have enough to cover insurance premiums they will
>>fall in that category. If they make enough to not fall in that
>>lower-income category then they will have enough to get their insurance.
>> IF THEY TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
>
>There's a hug gape between people who qualify for public assistance
>(low income) and people who don't make enough to pay for their own
>health insurance (middle class). In addition, the cost of insurance to
>employers is out of sight.

Average annual cost for employer-provided family insurance in 2007:

Employer $12,106
Employee 3,281
Total $15,387

>It's clear you never had to pay for either out of your own pocket or
>you might have a clue.

I have known a few conservative gubmint-out-of-my-healthcare types who
had to modify their position when they found out how vulnerable they
actually were.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

Peaceful Bill wrote:

> still just me wrote:

> > Like Perot says "the first thing to do when you're in a hole is to
> > stop digging". Bush II doesn't even understand that part, let alone
> > the follow on.
>
> He inherited the given to him by Clinton. Remember the destructive
> nd contentious change of power from "the impeached" to Bush? The
> economic collapse of Clinton's last year?

Fox News and the Republican party tried to pin the recession on
Clinton, but the Conference Board, considered the referee of US
economic activity, said the recession started during the GW Bush
presidency.

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On 2008-06-20, still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:25:18 -0500, Peaceful Bill
><snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>
>>> Apparently you don't know the definition of "insurance" vs. "state
>>> payout for the uninsured". Perhaps a look at Webster's would help you
>>> understand "Insurance - Coverage by a contract binding a party to
>>> indemnify another against specified loss in return for premiums paid."
>>
>>Same result. We're paying the premiums one way or another.
>
> AH... we come to your fundamental misunderstanding about the
> difference between "insurance" and "paying money to cover an
> incident".
>
> Insurance companies take in money from lots of people. They
> risk. They pay out claims, although less than they take in. But while
> they have the money in their hands, they make lots of money from
> investing it.

Right. That's the good part. Even if Insurance companies were to pay
out every penny they brought in (through premiums), they would still
be profitable.

>
> The state takes state and federal taxpayer funds and pays for the
> uninsured. No risk ing. No investments. They just take tax
> dollars and spend them. Hundreds of millions in most states.

Right. That's what the government does. They take money from MOST
everyone (Not from the poor), and spend the money on everyone. The
risk ing is the same. Whether it is at an insurance company
with 10,000 customers, or the federal government with 200 Million
paying the "premium". Of course, with the government, there is no
competition, no choice, and no investment...

>
> I'd like to see them stop using my money to pay the claims. I'd also
> like to see lower rates, which would be the result of removing the
> profit taking insurance companies from the middle where they serve no
> value added function.

How would they stop using your money if the provider was the
government? Rather than stop using your money to pay the claims of
only the uninsured, they would use your money to pay the claims of
everyone.

>
> But you, brainwashed by those in power, have come to believe that
> somehow magical money pays for your insurance and that you are not
> paying, through state and federal taxes, for the uninsured.

Not at all. I pay my entire premium, roughly $500/month these days.
It is too much. The "insurance" industry needs some reform. But the
high costs do not originate with the insurance companies. For the
most part, the rates that doctors and hospitals charge are dictated by
medicaire, and the insurance companies glom on to those rates.

Even worse, though, is malpractice lawsuits. They have driven the
cost of medical care out of control. So long as doctors and hospitals
are able to be sued for every bit of human error, the costs will not
come down, no matter who is paying the bill.

>
> You get gouged by the insurance company but you don't feel it because
> you work for people who feel it for you. You pay lots in taxes to
> cover the other claims but you don't feel it because you never look at
> the Federal or State budget at the Medi* payment lines or at the taxes
> they charge you for it.

"Gouged" isn't necessarily a fair term. You cannot get gouged for any
service that is optional. There are alternatives. The fact that most
people do not explore them is of little consequence. Health care in
the US is expensive. There are several reasons for it, but the
insurance companies really aren't one of them. They make a healthy
profit, and as well they should. They also sometimes make very
questionable calls when refusing payment for certain conditions. They
are motivated by profit, which also makes them competitive.

One thing that is very common in countries with socialized medicine is
protection from lawsuits for the medical community. Rather than
dragging every claim of negligence to court, spending millions on
lawyers and investigations, they use review boards that are government
run, but consist of private doctors. They review the case, with no
testimony, and determine if it was negligence, or simple human error.
They make all awards, and the courts are not involved. This greatly
reduces the cost.

Beyond that, medical care in the US is the best in the world, so long
as you can afford it. I have no problem with a system being
established like what has been started in NY. We have Child Care
Plus, Family Care Plus, and one for small businesses. These allow
people that cannot afford traditional insurance to have very good
coverage, but it is not available to those in higher economic classes,
and charges a premium to those that can pay. Still not ideal, IMO, as
it uses taxpayer money to fund much of the program, but it is a far
cry better than trying to have the most inefficient entity known to
man control the health care of everyone.



--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On 2008-06-20, Peaceful Bill <snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
> still just me wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:07:47 -0500, Peaceful Bill
>> <snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>>
>>> You seem to be one of the uneducated. So read slowly so you can
>>> understand. I'm not going to repeat this even if you just don't get it....
>>>
>>> Medicaid, Medicare.
>>
>> Do you have any idea how many people are not eligible for Medicaid or
>> Medicare yet still don't make enough to shell out $10K per year for
>> insurance after paying for housing and food? Word up - we're not
>> talking about the "poor" here, we're talking about millions of middle
>> class Americans.
>>
>>> Any hospital MUST take patients even if they can't pay.
>>
>> Only for emergencies. Try getting physical therapy for muscle and bone
>> injuries without insurance. Try getting a bad hip replaced without
>> insurance. Look into scoliosis treatment. The list goes on.
>
> If they are in need, there's existing tax-funded plans that will cover them.

Not to mention that PT isn't all that expensive. Around here it is
about $100/hour. My wife just had 6 weeks of PT for her knee, twice a
week. 1 Hour sessions. $1200 total, though I only paid $30/visit out
of pocket. The rest came from my PPO provider, who got it discounted
to $50/hour, and paid the remaining $20.


--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

Re: OT Cheney - Cutting Gas Tax Stupid
 

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:43:37 -0500, Peaceful Bill
<snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:

>still just me wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:28:19 -0500, Peaceful Bill
>> <snails.pace@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Only for emergencies. Try getting physical therapy for muscle and bone
>>>> injuries without insurance. Try getting a bad hip replaced without
>>>> insurance. Look into scoliosis treatment. The list goes on.
>>> If they are in need, there's existing tax-funded plans that will cover them.
>>
>> No, there are not. Those are only for people with very low incomes.
>> People in between low income and high income fall into a large hole.
>
>Lie. Unless you consider $50,000 per year "low income".

Well, it is above the median family income so it doesn't seem to
qualify on that account. And if you have insurance through your
employer, no problem. Let's see how those finances might work out for
a family of five living in the Chicago suburbs and buying insurance on
the open market.

Income 50,000

Expenses:
Fed Income tax 3,000
Social security 3,000
Medicare 700
State tax 1,400
Housing/utilities 14,000
Food 6,000
Clothing 3,000
Transportation 5,000
Misc. expenses 1,900
Retirement 3,000
Childcare 3,000
------
Total Expenses 44,000


That leaves $6,000 to buy health insurance and pay for out of pocket
medical expenses. Do you really think you can get a policy for a
family of five for that? What if one of the kids has asthma? What if
one of the parents is diabetic? You could easily be looking at a
premium of $20,000 a year or more. I don't think there is a lot of
fat in the above budget, but maybe you can find some. Selling one of
the kids would help.