For money from the government.....

QUOTE(2jellybeans @ Jan 27 2008, 08:17 PM) [snapback]592026[/snapback]
You say it is a minority, but I have seen it happen too many times. My question to you is, what is wrong with welfare and healthcare being offered but for limited timeframes? I just don't see how someone who is perfectly healthy and able is not able to find a job. I can't fathom it.
Oh, and I am not talking from my butt here, I have so many family members that would rather mooch off the system then do something about it. My own brother works full-time but has no health insurance. We have been onto him for years about getting something, but no he would rather go drink beer, shoot darts, oh and buy a Lexus SUV! Seriously, he can't afford health insurance but he can afford a $600 a month car payment! Well, low and behold he had a mild heart attack almost two years ago. He could not pay the almost $100,000 in bills, so the hospital wrote it all off for him, kind of like pro bono work. Do you think he learned from this, no, he is still not covered even though my parents have researched it for him and talked to they are blue in the face. His response to them is "Well, if something happens to me, just don't sign anything, then you aren't responsible"....nice, really nice! He is completely healthy now and could work a job that provided insurance, but is lazy, plain and simple. He likes his cush, easy office job....he only has this job because my dad talked his boss into hiring him! He could go work part-time at UPS which offers great benefits to even their part time employees, but that would cut into his time! I have no patience for this way of thinking.
My former brother in law and his siblings have abused so many programs and the system it is sickening. They think running up their credit cards and then filing bankruptcy is the American Dream. My sister was the one that worked so hard to keep them out of bankruptcy and I truly believe the stress from that added to her depression and ultimate suicide.
My mom has these "friends" she knows from when she worked (she is now retired) that think the same thing. They haven't paid taxes in six years! The government has liens on their property and yet they are still going out to bingo, and to Vegas. This woman's daughter will get $1800 in the rebate and is so lazy it is sickening. She gets free daycare, free medical, help with school, and yet her or husband cannot seem to hold down a job! Now why can't they go in the military and become a contributing member to society instead of leech sucking it dry?



I know many stories like this too...believe me..the small town that I came from...I see a lot of people abusing the system...but again...they are still the minority..that is what I am doing...looking at the big picture of who would be helped by this. Factual statistics show that a majority without healthcare again are..children, seniors, and regular working class citizens. As I said in a previous post....there are always going to be people that abuse the system...but as somebody else said...Universal healthcare..you won't be able to abuse the system...

I have never been on welfare...like I said..I used medicaid for the twins for 12 months..which is all that we qualifyed...and I was glad I had it at that time...I don't necessarily see anything wrong with offering welfare for a limited time...but medical benefits are not available with thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs out there. And if there was Universal healthcare...do you realize how companies could pay employees a better wage because they are not paying medical premiums for their employees.

A job I had about 9 years ago...when DH worked for a bank and had good benefits...I was able to opt out of our insurance coverage....I got paid over $600 more per month by not taking the company insurance. Even though DH has his really crappy insurance right now..his company still will pay $350 more per month if you opt out....boy what we could do with that money...but we need the little coverage that we receive.

 

I agree the current insurance situation in this country is ridiculous. I would love for us to devise a plan for all to have health care and don't mind an increase in our tax burden to support it. I will say though, that our gov't administering universal health care scares the &$%@ out of me. I'm envisioning a complete fiasco. I personally know families/individuals that are responsible & hardworking who are either not insured at all or underinsured. (And I'm sure everyone on here does - you just may not know it) In my former life, working for $$, I was a lender in several different capacities - small business & mortgage. I have seen people of all walks of life, education & income levels devastated by the joke of a system we have now. There are so many jobs that DO NOT provide coverage - how can anyone say that those people should just go find jobs that provide it? The fact of the matter is there are millions of jobs out there that do not - and we all (as a society) need someone to do those jobs. SO those people are undeserving of healthcare & children?? I would also add that it really is not true that home ownership is available to all. Don't you think we would have higher levels of home ownership if that were true? And, medical expenses & medical collections are a major hinderance to many people that I worked with in the past to buy homes - either in the form of medical collections or that they had so much money going to paying for health ins out of pocket or back medical bills that they couldn't save for a downpayment or get approved for the loan. As far as the no downpayment loans, the credit criteria & debt-to-income ratios are stricter, not to mention that the high interest rate & private mortgage insurance on the second mortgage to cover the downpayment priced many out of the market. The assertion early on on this thread that people that do not have a certain level of income & health ins should not have children was frankly shocking and appalling. I will agree with caba on one thing though - if I was working, we would be above the $150,000 and I would be irate that we would get back less since I was working than we would with me staying home. It doesn't make sense, and it is not fair. But as Craig pointed out, this is not about fairness to the individual taxpayer, it is about a plan to put $$ in people hands to stimulate the economy and they had to put some guidelines out there. I would like to be as selfless about it as Mamakim and some other pp's, but I'll admit I'm not. I actually don't agree with the stimulus package at all. I would rather they not send out the checks...but since they are I would want my fair share. I would certainly not think my family should get less because I was working. I wonder if those of you that think the people over 150,000 shouldn't need/get it would feel the same if the cutoff line - an arbitrary figure -was an amount that reduced your rebate?

 

I just wanted to interject that in NY state anyone who applies for services has to attend a job search assistance program. You are required, as long as you do not have a condition that prohibits you from working, to actively search for and persue a job. If you do not meet all of their requirements you can no longer receive services, so even if you wanted to be "lazy" you couldn't be. They are doing what they can to make it so that only the people who have come into a situation in which they need assistance can get it. I am grateful for the assistance I got when I needed it, and am glad that I can help others when they need it. I know that there are a lot of people out there who take advantage of the system, or at least try to, but they have really soured the help the people who need it are receiving. The stigma needs to stop, these people feel bad enough when they are at this low point in life. Just needed to say that.

 

QUOTE(Susanna+3 @ Jan 27 2008, 12:42 PM) [snapback]592048[/snapback]
Out of curiosity what is your tax rate? What percentage of your income goes to the government....?


I borrowed this info from Revenue Canada, I'm not sure how it compares to what you pay there...

15% on the first $37,885 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $37,884 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $37,885 and $75,769), +
26% on the next $47,415 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $75,769 and $123,184), +
29% of taxable income over $123,184.

 

QUOTE(tinalb @ Jan 27 2008, 02:57 PM) [snapback]592059[/snapback]
I borrowed this info from Revenue Canada, I'm not sure how it compares to what you pay there...

15% on the first $37,885 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $37,884 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $37,885 and $75,769), +
26% on the next $47,415 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $75,769 and $123,184), +
29% of taxable income over $123,184.


It's quite comparable to our tax system, and it tops out lower than our tax system. Plus, no premiums and co-pays!

QUOTE
I would certainly not think my family should get less because I was working. I wonder if those of you that think the people over 150,000 shouldn't need/get it would feel the same if the cutoff line - an arbitrary figure -was an amount that reduced your rebate?


The last time they did this, we did not qualify. This time we probably will. I don't think this is an especially great way to stimulate the economy, considering our government is in the red already, but for my part I would not resent it if they moved the cut-off to where I would not qualify. It would be nice, sure, but it's not really free money in the big picture of our whole economy.

 

Things are getting so nasty that I just couldn't read the last few pages of responses. So please forgive me if I'm repeating something that's already been said. However, trying to get back to the original question (and trying to avoid any sticky generalizations):

QUOTE
You want to take care of your own and have a good life...to keep up your standard of living, the entire country needs to have a better standard of living...I still cannot get a straight answer as to why everyone would not want people to have healthcare available to them from the gov't if a system could be made for universal healthcare that really worked.

Someone please answer me why you would not want everyone in this country to have a good standard of care and be taken care of medically. Just because you think you are going to pay more taxes for it??? Again, don't you realize that a MAJORITY of the people that would benefit from universal healthcare ARE PEOPLE THAT PAY TAXES JUST LIKE YOU!!!


I COMPLETELY agree that the health care system is a nightmare. It's seriously broken and too many people are going without care. This ends up costing us more in the long run too.

Think about this scenario: Say, I don't have insurance because we just can't afford it (no matter how hard we try). I find a little lump in my breast, but it's tiny and WebMD says if it moves then it should be fine. So, I try to forget about it because I can't justify spending $1000 or more to go and get it checked out. That would mean we either don't have lights or don't have food and it's probably nothing. Peace of mind is an EXPENSIVE LUXURY. Anyway, I keep ignoring it for months, maybe years while it grows and has been there so long that I'm used to it and don't think of it at all. It eventually causes too much pain, fear, discomfort whatever and I can't ignore it anymore. I bite the bullet and go to the clinic to get it checked out. Sure, they won't make me pay that day, but I will get a bill for $2500 just for the visit and tests. Tests come back and its cancer. And now we're in for $thousands of $$ of treatment (or sub-standard "oh, you don't have insurance treatment") and a definite bankruptcy over the bills (since we don't have a house or anything for them to take).

This scenario didn't happen to me, but has happened to MANY women that I know (I worked in a non-profit that tried to find help for these women). Sometimes breast cancer, sometimes cervical cancer. Either way, it is crappy that we have to ignore our own preventative medical needs because we can't justify the expense.

For me, the taxes aren't the issue. I'm pretty sure, if we had a universal system, that my whole family would qualify for assistance through it. With that said, I am not convinced universal health care is the answer. I'm open to seeing the plans and trying to find an answer though! I think there is a lot of work to be done with the corrupt insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and malpractice costs. There should be some kind of limit as to how much a hospital can "mark up" products and services. And that limit shouldn't be "what the insurance company will pay".

Another fear that many people have about Universal Healthcare is the possibility of government enforced morality. If a smoker has bronchitis, a fat person has diabetes or drug addict had HIV are they going to be given a lower priority because of their life choices? I don't know, but I don't think its unrealistic to assume that this could happen. We already have morality taxes on things like cigarettes & alcohol and some areas are even considering taxing sugary sodas because they make us fat. So, that door is already open. I think a fully government controlled healthcare system sounds too scary and big-brother like for me and many other people. But I know if we all (or the politicians, rather) put our petty differences and accusations aside and put all of our ideas on the table, we can come up with a hybrid plan that will work for ALL Americans. ...but maybe I'm too much of an idealist.

Just my two cents. I hope I didn't say anything that will add fuel to the fire!!

 

QUOTE(three_precious_girls @ Jan 25 2008, 05:03 PM) [snapback]589218[/snapback]
This has been bothering me since I saw the thread because it reminded me of the posts many made that universal healthcare meant having a "socialist government".
Lots of people here were against the government providing healthcare for all because it implied socialism and basically believed that insurance should stay privatized.
However, many of those same people are totally excited that the government could be sending them a monetary handout.
Isnt this hypocritical? How can you be against the lower middle class getting health assistance, but for monetary assistance? Depending on the government to give you money because you qualify in a certain bracket is basically depending on those in America that make over 75k individually or 150k as a couple to pay into the government and give it to you. And, this is on top of their taxes as well.
I myself am for universal healthcare, and I am all for assisting those that need help. I dont however see how you can be against one and for another simply because it "helps you out".
I would love to be enlightened to both sides especially someone's view opposite than mine because I am truly not looking for a fight I am just utterly confused...




I was one of those people. You can't compare the two. They are two separate issues. The govt isn't giving the tax rebate as a handout. It's to help stimulate the economy right now that is slowing down. We are not in a recession. Alan Greenspan said the other day we have a 50/50 chance of getting into a recession right now. Things are slow right now because of all the sumprime mortgages. People and lenders took out these mortgages that people couldn't realistically pay for in the first place and gave them ridiculoulsy low interest rates at 1% or 0% at first then jumped up to 25% without looking at the fine print. Bush is hoping by giving the money back to indivduals that paid in to help boost the economy like a "shot in the arm". I'm one of those people who likes lower taxes and less government. I personally have been looking into the fair tax.

I explained what I felt about universal health care in a post back. I am very against any government run mandated health care system. As I said before I do not want some bureaurcrat deciding what surgeries that I have or what procedure I can have done. I don't want the government deciding on what doctors I can see or not see. That's why I like privitzed health insurance because you have so many choices. Also if you start forcing or mandating everyone to have insurance how do you suppose this will get paid. The democrats aren't really saying much but we will all pay higher taxes and so will American businesses. Some of the smaller business can't afford things like this. This will kill or hurt small business. You will see prices go up on things and wages being cut and maybe jobs will slow down. It will a trickle down. They are thinking the universal health care will cost 120 billion a year. People don't think about how things are going to get paid when these programs get brought up.

There are many things we can do differently with health care besides universal health care. I like the idea of buying health care like you would buy a car. Not a government one fits all scenerio. There are the savings accounts for medical debt or paying medical bills. That is what I'm doing right now for my mounting medical debt. It takes it out of DH's paycheck tax free and lowers his income putting him in a lower income bracket. I do think health care should be more affordable on a consumer base not government one.

Elizabeth

 

QUOTE(Elizabeth H @ Jan 27 2008, 04:32 PM) [snapback]592103[/snapback]
I explained what I felt about universal health care in a post back. I am very against any government run mandated health care system. As I said before I do not want some bureaurcrat deciding what surgeries that I have or what procedure I can have done. I don't want the government deciding on what doctors I can see or not see. That's why I like privitzed health insurance because you have so many choices. Also if you start forcing or mandating everyone to have insurance how do you suppose this will get paid. The democrats aren't really saying much but we will all pay higher taxes and so will American businesses. Some of the smaller business can't afford things like this. This will kill or hurt small business. You will see prices go up on things and wages being cut and maybe jobs will slow down. It will a trickle down. They are thinking the universal health care will cost 120 billion a year. People don't think about how things are going to get paid when these programs get brought up.


Elizabeth


This is my problem with Tricare. I hate dealing with the reps on the line who can make or break an authorization. When I was pregnant and needed to see a perinatologist they finally approved it for a neonatologist....when I tried to call and get it fixed the rep said "Aren't they the same thing"....she had no clue as to what she was talking about. It took several phone calls, faxes, and many hours of frustration to get everything fixed. Before that when I was trying to get my fertility meds I had a rep say "Oh, well what is one more month, if you have to wait"....for someone going through fertility, a month is an eternity! I hate the feeling I get everytime I have to schedule a visit that isn't with my primary doctor....do I have the authorization, do I have a copy, are the dates correct, am I at the right facility, because even that matters. I once saw a doctor that had two offices, because I went to the wrong office my visit wasn't covered....it is ridiculous the red tape I have had to jump through, for healthcare! So I am very hesistant like Elizabeth to have the government running healthcare for the entire country!

 

QUOTE
I borrowed this info from Revenue Canada, I'm not sure how it compares to what you pay there...

15% on the first $37,885 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $37,884 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $37,885 and $75,769), +
26% on the next $47,415 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $75,769 and $123,184), +
29% of taxable income over $123,184.


I just wanted to add that we also pay provincial tax on top of these rates - in Alberta where I live, we pay 10% of taxable income. I believe this would make us in Canada taxed higher than those of you in the U.S.

As a born and raised Canadian, I only have experience with our health care system so I can't judge/compare ours with the American one but for me, the health care part of the higher taxes we pay are worth the piece of mind of knowing that myself and my family are always covered.

 

Would provincial tax be equivalent to state tax? Many states in the US have state income tax in additional to the federal tax.

 

In a very quick search it looks like 7 US states do not have income tax based on 2007.

 

QUOTE(ehm @ Jan 27 2008, 09:47 PM) [snapback]592120[/snapback]
Would provincial tax be equivalent to state tax? Many states in the US have state income tax in additional to the federal tax.


I'm not positive but it sounds like provincial and state taxes are the same.

 

Bottom line in all of it - WE are ALL allowed to think independently about Universal health care and whether or not we are FOR or AGAINST it.

 

QUOTE
If they were giving a rebate based on a certain percentage of your taxes paid, then I guess I could see why the higher income folks would be ticked at being excluded....but this rebate is pretty much a flat rebate..and won't exceed $2000 for most families... that's only 1.3% of your income for someone earning 150k... 3% for someone earning 65k..and almost 7% for someone earning 30k... so clearly that amount of money means a lot more for someone providing for a family at the 30k level


This is my point. In Oregon, when they give back a state tax rebate, they do a straight percentage of WHAT YOU PAID IN. It's fair to everyone and everyone is happy. Having the federal government play Robin Hood ONCE AGAIN, is annoying. It's discrimination against those who make more money. How would everyone feel if they did it in reverse? Say, pay more money to those that paid more in last year, and then say, "sorry, you people who only paid in your $50,000 tax bracket wouldn't be getting much back anyway, so I'm sure you don't mind." The whole country would be up in arms! But, people feels it's "their right" to not give a rebate to those making more money than they do because they feel more deserving. My argument is that it should be fair for ALL Americans who pay taxes. Why should the government pay people who don't even pay into the system? They are already getting plenty of help with Medicaid and other subsidies, but let's give people a "tax rebate" too, even if they didn't pay taxes?

And what does "pretty much a flat rebate" mean? A justification to write off all the 150K+ people? "It's only 1.3% of your income so I'm sure you don't mind giving your check over to someone else?" I would like to have that option to donate it to one of the many WORTHY charities I donate to, not have it decided for me. People have prejudices against many things and after reading this thread, I see that people in the 150K+ category are one of them.

 

QUOTE(Elizabeth H @ Jan 27 2008, 01:32 PM) [snapback]592103[/snapback]
As I said before I do not want some bureaurcrat deciding what surgeries that I have or what procedure I can have done. I don't want the government deciding on what doctors I can see or not see.


Do the insurance companies not already do this? Decide which doctors you see & what will be covered? In my mind, it's the same thing just someone different making the decisions.

 

QUOTE(ehm @ Jan 27 2008, 03:52 PM) [snapback]592122[/snapback]
In a very quick search it looks like 7 US states do not have income tax based on 2007.


Yes, we are a state with no state tax. And that can work in a state that has revenues from something else (like oil in Texas when I was much, much younger). However, in TN this is just stupid. We have ridiculous sales tax (which is regressive) and big professional taxes and things like that because people are pre-conditioned to think a state tax is a bad thing. That's one reason we're so broke and plenty of needy people can't get Medicaid in TN. Many of the people who are dead-set against having a state tax don't even make enough money to be at risk of paying a state tax. Instead they pay an unavoidable and *high* sales tax. It's absurd.

And, just for the record, we probably do make enough that we would have to pay state taxes if there were state taxes here.

However, I agree: I would not mind paying slightly higher taxes for the peace of mind that comes from knowing I can go to the dr any time I need to. (I do have private insurance that we pay for out of pocket, and I can get seen, but I have in the past been uninsured and I am all too familiar with "I hope it's nothing.")

 

QUOTE(DinaJ @ Jan 27 2008, 10:04 PM) [snapback]592132[/snapback]
This is my point. In Oregon, when they give back a state tax rebate, they do a straight percentage of WHAT YOU PAID IN. It's fair to everyone and everyone is happy. Having the federal government play Robin Hood ONCE AGAIN, is annoying. It's discrimination against those who make more money. How would everyone feel if they did it in reverse? Say, pay more money to those that paid more in last year, and then say, "sorry, you people who only paid in your $50,000 tax bracket wouldn't be getting much back anyway, so I'm sure you don't mind." The whole country would be up in arms! But, people feels it's "their right" to not give a rebate to those making more money than they do because they feel more deserving. My argument is that it should be fair for ALL Americans who pay taxes. Why should the government pay people who don't even pay into the system? They are already getting plenty of help with Medicaid and other subsidies, but let's give people a "tax rebate" too, even if they didn't pay taxes?

And what does "pretty much a flat rebate" mean? A justification to write off all the 150K+ people? "It's only 1.3% of your income so I'm sure you don't mind giving your check over to someone else?" I would like to have that option to donate it to one of the many WORTHY charities I donate to, not have it decided for me. People have prejudices against many things and after reading this thread, I see that people in the 150K+ category are one of them.


Very well said. I'm a little confused about how in general the rebate will stimulate spending. If you give it to people making less than a certain amount, aren't those people more likely to save it, or pay bills, or pay down debt. Wouldn't it make more sense to give the money to the people with higher incomes so they turn around and spend it and put it right back out there?

Now before you hit reply, I know this makes no sense. I'm certainly not saying this is what they should do. I guess I'm confused about how giving money back to the lower bracket will stimulate the economy. Because it sounds like most people said they would save it, or put it aside for their kids, etc. Not many people said they would spend is frivilously (sp?).

And to a previous poster, getting $1800 back for my family would be HUGE! Even though we make over 150K. Our day care cost is $650 a WEEK! So that would be 3 weeks worth, and boy could we use that now! To say that it's just a drop in the bucket to me just shows that you have NO idea what it is like to walk in my shoes. Maybe it's because of where I live (the tri-state areas is notoriously expensive) but I pay between $2600-3200 a month in daycare (depending on 4 or 5 week month).

 

QUOTE(tinalb @ Jan 27 2008, 10:11 PM) [snapback]592138[/snapback]
Do the insurance companies not already do this? Decide which doctors you see & what will be covered? In my mind, it's the same thing just someone different making the decisions.


Yeah, but it's making a decision that will affect the whole country! And it's not the insurance companies always making the decisions. A lot of times it is your employer. My employer is self-insured. Meaning they pay out of pocket for all their claims. The insurance company does nothing but act as a broker. My company made a decision to what they will cover and not cover. They we all pay into it, and that money gets held in an account. Then they use that to pay for claiims of the employees. I work for a wonderful company that is huge and actually takes into account what we want and need. My company offers $7500 reimbursement if you adopt. But they did not offer fertility treatment. We (as a company) complained, and they added a ryder to the insurance to cover infertitliy treatment up to 10K. It's not much in the world of infertility, but it's something.

If the government was making the decisions, they are going to do their best to save as much money as possible. I can't imagine that any infertility would be covered. And there are a lot more implications to adding a service like that for the whole country. It was easier for my company to add it for us when they were dealing with a finite set of employees. My employer has also started offering benefits for part-time employees.

Maybe if the government offered some tax breaks to companies in return for offering employees health insurance, more companies that can't afford to offer it would. I don't have a fix. But I still don't like the idea of government run health care. I'm very much a proponent of hands off government.

 

QUOTE(caba @ Jan 27 2008, 04:57 PM) [snapback]592178[/snapback]
Very well said. I'm a little confused about how in general the rebate will stimulate spending. If you give it to people making less than a certain amount, aren't those people more likely to save it, or pay bills, or pay down debt. Wouldn't it make more sense to give the money to the people with higher incomes so they turn around and spend it and put it right back out there?

Now before you hit reply, I know this makes no sense. I'm certainly not saying this is what they should do. I guess I'm confused about how giving money back to the lower bracket will stimulate the economy. Because it sounds like most people said they would save it, or put it aside for their kids, etc. Not many people said they would spend is frivilously (sp?).

And to a previous poster, getting $1800 back for my family would be HUGE! Even though we make over 150K. Our day care cost is $650 a WEEK! So that would be 3 weeks worth, and boy could we use that now! To say that it's just a drop in the bucket to me just shows that you have NO idea what it is like to walk in my shoes. Maybe it's because of where I live (the tri-state areas is notoriously expensive) but I pay between $2600-3200 a month in daycare (depending on 4 or 5 week month).


Just to play Devil's Advocate: perhaps the best way to stimulate the economy is to give the rebate only to people--in any income level whatsoever--who live below their means and have no debt. These are the people who can "afford" to spend the money on luxuries and stimulate the economy.

Now, of course, there's no way to go about this because the census to determine this would be a.) expensive and b.) invasive of privacy.

However, it does sound like the best way to have the money spent on non-necessities is to give it to people who live well below their means, whatever those means are.

eta: override unwanted smiley

 

QUOTE(tinalb @ Jan 27 2008, 05:11 PM) [snapback]592138[/snapback]
Do the insurance companies not already do this? Decide which doctors you see & what will be covered? In my mind, it's the same thing just someone different making the decisions.


It really depends on the insurance you have, the type of plan you have, etc. There are some plans where you can only see docs within a certain "circle" or "hospital group". There are others that give you more freedom. And the costs associated with the different types of plans differ. I know when I was working we had 4 or 5 different plans available to us at different prices and with different levels of service.


QUOTE(caba @ Jan 27 2008, 05:57 PM) [snapback]592178[/snapback]
Very well said. I'm a little confused about how in general the rebate will stimulate spending. If you give it to people making less than a certain amount, aren't those people more likely to save it, or pay bills, or pay down debt. Wouldn't it make more sense to give the money to the people with higher incomes so they turn around and spend it and put it right back out there?

Now before you hit reply, I know this makes no sense. I'm certainly not saying this is what they should do. I guess I'm confused about how giving money back to the lower bracket will stimulate the economy. Because it sounds like most people said they would save it, or put it aside for their kids, etc. Not many people said they would spend is frivilously (sp?).


What you are saying makes sense. I can tell you, I'm not sure what we will be getting back, but it will probably go to paying down some debt or to pay for pre-school costs in the fall. We are not going to be heading out and buying anything that we don't really need like a new tv, a vacation, whatever. But....I know there are a lot of people (and I have friends that are like this) that as soon as they get what they see as some "extra" money, they spend it on something, anything for themselves....like an expensive outfit, coat, pocketbook that they don't really need

 

Hi ladies, this is off topic, however, I wanted to apologize for the statements that I made that were unnecessarily harsh and antagonistic. I'm very sorry.

 

QUOTE
How would everyone feel if they did it in reverse? Say, pay more money to those that paid more in last year, and then say, "sorry, you people who only paid in your $50,000 tax bracket wouldn't be getting much back anyway, so I'm sure you don't mind." The whole country would be up in arms!
I had previously stated that I did not receive the rebate in 2001. I was not up in arms about it, I knew when I read the criteria (I think I might have to do a search for what that was because I don't remember why I didn't get it) that I wasn't going to be eligible and sure enough I never received a check. Honestly, I didn't 'mind', the criteria was the criteria and I didn't qualify.

I am not saying that I think people over 150K shouldn't receive anything (the latest I read though said something about 174K, not sure if that is accurate) just saying that I have been on the did not qualify side of the fence so I do know how I would react and it was not as you describe.

 

QUOTE(2jellybeans @ Jan 27 2008, 04:43 PM) [snapback]592116[/snapback]
This is my problem with Tricare. I hate dealing with the reps on the line who can make or break an authorization. When I was pregnant and needed to see a perinatologist they finally approved it for a neonatologist....when I tried to call and get it fixed the rep said "Aren't they the same thing"....she had no clue as to what she was talking about. It took several phone calls, faxes, and many hours of frustration to get everything fixed. Before that when I was trying to get my fertility meds I had a rep say "Oh, well what is one more month, if you have to wait"....for someone going through fertility, a month is an eternity! I hate the feeling I get everytime I have to schedule a visit that isn't with my primary doctor....do I have the authorization, do I have a copy, are the dates correct, am I at the right facility, because even that matters. I once saw a doctor that had two offices, because I went to the wrong office my visit wasn't covered....it is ridiculous the red tape I have had to jump through, for healthcare! So I am very hesistant like Elizabeth to have the government running healthcare for the entire country!


Do you think if you have private insurance, it's some kind of cakewalk?? I have dealt with the same crap too. I was trying to find a pediatric orthopedist. The customer service person tells me to go look on the website (already did that, thanks!). She couldn't find one, so she tells me to call around and ask if they take our insurance. Same thing with trying to find a reproductive endocrinologist, and they only pay 50% of IVF. I know that's better than nothing, but it would still be thousands of dollars. It also took me a good 6 months to get the NICU and birth bills straightened out, while I dealt with collection notices. Fun!

 

QUOTE(caba @ Jan 27 2008, 06:05 PM) [snapback]592189[/snapback]
If the government was making the decisions, they are going to do their best to save as much money as possible. I can't imagine that any infertility would be covered.


Oh, and insurance companies don't make decisions based on saving money? Give me a break! Our insurance company only allows us to get x-rays at once radiology place. When Ainsley had an appt with an orthopedist, he wanted x-rays, which could have been done at their office. But no, I had to go to another place to get the x-rays, and then come back with the x-rays, and then have another appt so the doctor could look at them. That cost me $80(two $30 specialist copays, and a $20 x-ray copay). If we had universal healthcare, I wouldn't have had to pay $80, plus take up three afternoons doing what could have been done in one day. Sorry, I kind of went on a tangent here.

BTW, I have worked in medical billing, I've dealt with this on that side of things too.
Infertility coverage is mandated in several states, I doubt at least in those states, they could repeal it, that would be unfair.

 

QUOTE(Snittens @ Jan 27 2008, 08:48 PM) [snapback]592365[/snapback]
Do you think if you have private insurance, it's some kind of cakewalk?? I have dealt with the same crap too. I was trying to find a pediatric orthopedist. The customer service person tells me to go look on the website (already did that, thanks!). She couldn't find one, so she tells me to call around and ask if they take our insurance. Same thing with trying to find a reproductive endocrinologist, and they only pay 50% of IVF. I know that's better than nothing, but it would still be thousands of dollars. It also took me a good 6 months to get the NICU and birth bills straightened out, while I dealt with collection notices. Fun!


At least your insurance paid for fertility. Tricare only pays for it (medicines, ultrasounds, doctor visits) if you are doing "timed intercourse". That is a joke to me, as soon as we switch to IUI or IVF they cut off everything!
I have had private healthcare prior to being married, I will take it any day over what I have now. Think about it, do you honestly believe that the top person in a medical class goes to work at a military hospital? The civilian doctors are all basically the lowest bidder and it shows. I will say this though, the actual doctors who are in the military are excellent! I will take one of them anyday, however they are hard to get in too because they are always deployed or in such high demand.

 

QUOTE(Snittens @ Jan 27 2008, 08:57 PM) [snapback]592382[/snapback]
Infertility coverage is mandated in several states, I doubt at least in those states, they could repeal it, that would be unfair.


We lived in NY, one of the several states you are referring to here, because Tricare is a federal program they do not have to follow state law or regulation and therefore did not have to pay for any fertility beyond "timed intercourse". Nice!

 

If we had a truly universal plan, this would include all sorts of doctors, not just lowest-bidder doctors, unless all the upper-tier doctors suddenly left the country.

I was not always completely thrilled with the military doctors, but I was *always* happy to know that at any time of day or night I could get seen and my kids could get seen and cost was not an issue.

 

QUOTE
the health care part of the higher taxes we pay are worth the piece of mind of knowing that myself and my family are always covered.


My thoughts exactly!!

 

QUOTE(Snittens @ Jan 28 2008, 01:57 AM) [snapback]592382[/snapback]
Oh, and insurance companies don't make decisions based on saving money? Give me a break! Our insurance company only allows us to get x-rays at once radiology place. When Ainsley had an appt with an orthopedist, he wanted x-rays, which could have been done at their office. But no, I had to go to another place to get the x-rays, and then come back with the x-rays, and then have another appt so the doctor could look at them. That cost me $80(two $30 specialist copays, and a $20 x-ray copay). If we had universal healthcare, I wouldn't have had to pay $80, plus take up three afternoons doing what could have been done in one day. Sorry, I kind of went on a tangent here.

BTW, I have worked in medical billing, I've dealt with this on that side of things too.
Infertility coverage is mandated in several states, I doubt at least in those states, they could repeal it, that would be unfair.


I live in a state with the mandates as well. Doesn't apply to companies that are self-insured. Since my company is self-insured, I paid 22K out of pocket to have my kids. Hence some of the debt I have to pay off with all the money we make. But like others said, it's my fault I have credit card debt. If only I was lucky enough to have babies without having to pay for them.

Unless you buy your coverage directly from a insurance company, they don't make the decision of what coverage you get. The company you work for sets up their insurance policies. So being that my company is self-insured, they do not have to follow state mandates. So it's not the insurance company that decided you need to see two different doctors, it's technically the company that you or DH works for that offers you your healthcare insurance.

 

QUOTE(2jellybeans @ Jan 27 2008, 09:01 PM) [snapback]592393[/snapback]
We lived in NY, one of the several states you are referring to here, because Tricare is a federal program they do not have to follow state law or regulation and therefore did not have to pay for any fertility beyond "timed intercourse". Nice!

I didn't know that, that stinks. Also, self-insured companies do not have to provide coverage.

I was looking up infertility coverage laws because I wanted to find out about self-insured co's (wasn't 100% on that), and I see that this is NY's mandated coverage. If I read this correctly, it does not mandate IVF: (link to site)

New York
Mandates coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of correctable medical conditions. Requires coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of infertility for patients between the ages of 21 and 44, who have been covered under the policy for at least 12 months. Certain procedures are excluded, including IVF, GIFT, reversal of elective sterilization, sex change procedures, cloning, and experimental procedures. Plans that include prescription coverage must cover drugs approved by FDA for use in diagnosis and treatment of infertility (including Ovulation Induction (OI)). The law does not apply to HMOs.

 

QUOTE(Snittens @ Jan 27 2008, 09:28 PM) [snapback]592457[/snapback]
I didn't know that, that stinks. Also, self-insured companies do not have to provide coverage.

I was looking up infertility coverage laws because I wanted to find out about self-insured co's (wasn't 100% on that), and I see that this is NY's mandated coverage. If I read this correctly, it does not mandate IVF: (link to site)

New York
Mandates coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of correctable medical conditions. Requires coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of infertility for patients between the ages of 21 and 44, who have been covered under the policy for at least 12 months. Certain procedures are excluded, including IVF, GIFT, reversal of elective sterilization, sex change procedures, cloning, and experimental procedures. Plans that include prescription coverage must cover drugs approved by FDA for use in diagnosis and treatment of infertility (including Ovulation Induction (OI)). The law does not apply to HMOs.


It was my understanding in NY they do not mandate IVF but they will pay for the meds, doctors visits , ultrasounds and you can pay out of pocket for the actual IVF procedure. That would have been a savings for the average IVF patient of anywhere from $5000-10,000! For me my meds were about $3000 a month, plus the cost of the doctor's visits and ultrasounds it was about $5000 a month altogether.

 

Back to the original topic just for kicks.

I think the OP was trying to make the point that alot of the people who probably need universal health care are sometimes the ones who are dead set against it.

Example: Most of the poorest states are RED states and yet they are the states who could use a little liberal economics. Some of the people who would benefit the most from Democratic policies shoot themselves in the foot by voting Republican based purely on social issues.

 

I'm guessing that's because people base their vote on so many different things. Like religion, social issues, etc. If I voted based solely on economics, I would vote Rebulican, but on social issues, I am fully Democratic. And I'm huge for seperation between church and government, so again, more Democrat. So it's always hard to find who the right person is for you to vote for. All you can do is figure out which are the most important issues TO YOU, and I guess go from there.

 

QUOTE(ABCKids @ Jan 27 2008, 12:48 PM) [snapback]591883[/snapback]
I will requote myself again..everyone is missing the big picture here. You want to take care of your own and have a good life...to keep up your standard of living, the entire country needs to have a better standard of living...I still cannot get a straight answer as to why everyone would not want people to have healthcare available to them from the gov't if a system could be made for universal healthcare that really worked.

Someone please answer me why you would not want everyone in this country to have a good standard of care and be taken care of medically. Just because you think you are going to pay more taxes for it??? Again, don't you realize that a MAJORITY of the people that would benefit from universal healthcare ARE PEOPLE THAT PAY TAXES JUST LIKE YOU!!!
I agree but I also think the tax rebate thing and the health care crisis are two separate issues here.


QUOTE(Susanna+3 @ Jan 27 2008, 02:51 PM) [snapback]591992[/snapback]
I think the problem with this issue is that everyone's situation is very different. You can't just categorize people the way it's been done in this thread.

Here's the thing too... $1200 or even $2400 isn't going to make or break my budget...and I'm sitting on a very thrifty lifestyle well below 100k... So for those who are earning more than 150k I would think that $1200 looks a bit more like loose change. i know it's all proportional and that many who are at 150k don't have extra money leftover (although that kind of mystifies me.... since like many have pointed out we all have choices...so those who are at 150k also have choices about what level house they buy, what cars, what tv, etc...I would think it'd be much easier to have a little leftover each paycheck if you're earning 150k than if you are earning 65k.... :unknw: ) but proportionally $1200 is much smaller for those who earn over 150k than it is for those who earn much, much less. So I guess I fail to see what the big deal is. If they were giving a rebate based on a certain percentage of your taxes paid, then I guess I could see why the higher income folks would be ticked at being excluded....but this rebate is pretty much a flat rebate..and won't exceed $2000 for most families... that's only 1.3% of your income for someone earning 150k... 3% for someone earning 65k..and almost 7% for someone earning 30k... so clearly that amount of money means a lot more for someone providing for a family at the 30k level no matter what your proportionally increased expenditures are in your local geographical area. I'm sitting here at less than 100k and feel like it's petty to be bickering over $2000 (not that the money wouldn't help a bit.) ...so wouldn't that also follow for those sitting above 150k?
I agree that you cannot categorize people like this because everyone's situation IS very different. But I just wanted to point out that for many couples making $150K in some of the very expensive areas of the country, it isn't always so simple. I know my IL's live on Long Island. They live in a 2200 sq. ft. house in a modest, middle income neighborhood. Their home if it were on the market today could be sold for nearly $800,000!!!! Property taxes? Over $10,000/year. Even the small starter home they bought when they first married (3 bedroom, 1500 sq. ft.) would be upwards of $575,000 now. It's out of control. We started out our marriage on Long Island and soon realized there was no way we could afford to buy a home there and raise a family there as it would take every penny both of us could make just to keep a roof over our heads and pay the bills. So it really does depend upon your area as to how far a salary in the $150K range will go.


QUOTE(ABCKids @ Jan 27 2008, 03:18 PM) [snapback]592028[/snapback]
So true...and I have seen a lot of companies that used to offer benefits for the entire family, take away coverage for family and only offer for the worker, then they have to pay a heftly premium to have their family on the benefits package.

Another good point to keep in mind..how many stories that you hear about good working families that do suffer through a terrible illness of themselves or their chilren and lose their homes due to medical bills...that happens a lot in this country..and it is a shame as the medical and drug companies just keep getting richer and richer.
I worry about our health care coverage all the time. I would say this is my #1 concern as a family. DH works for a great company but it is small. The cost of our health care is outrageous and it keeps going up. They have changed insurance companies a few times in the years he has worked there. But because of the size of the company, and the fact that three of their employees have had some big health issues (one a major heart attack, one a severe back injury, another several high risk pregnancies complicated by diabetes), their premiums have gone through the roof! In order to compensate, they have had to reassess their insurance plan yearly and every year we get less and less benefits for more in premiums. For example, we now have a $3500 family deductible ($1500 per person with a max at $3500) per calendar year. Our co-pays have gone from $15 per visit to $20 to now $30 per OV ($45 for a specialist). Our prescription plan continues to escalate as well. It just keeps spiraling more out of control. Yet, we still do have insurance and for that we are grateful. But at what point does it all break? My DH makes a good salary but I can see where some families would not only not be able to afford the coverage but they would also have trouble meeting those deductibles every year. It's mind boggling.

So, the tax rebate question aside, I really want to see some sort of insurance/health care reform. The distribution of benefits is very inequitable in our current system.

 

QUOTE(rubyturquoise @ Jan 25 2008, 12:34 PM) [snapback]589558[/snapback]
There are plenty of people who work very, very hard (at paid employment) for companies that don't offer health care that can't afford private insurance. I do think there should be some option available to them besides "gee, I hope this illness isn't serious." My ILs, also self-employed, were between insurances (actually switching, but one agent was a little slow) and MIL cut her hand and it was $10,000 to get it fixed (which they paid for out of pocket). Plenty of people who work very hard cannot come up with $10,000 to fix an injury. Are we to blame them for their bad luck and punish them with no access to medical care?
It is possible to work every bit as hard as someone else and not make as much money. It hardly seems fair to consider that person less deserving of medical care.

One of my best friends is in this situation. She is a single mom and works full-time to provide for her son and herself. She could get insurance from her work, but it would cost more a month than she makes! She currently has healthcare on her son, but when he turns 2 in May, she will lose that. She does not have any insurace for herslef and just hopes that she doesn't get sick so she can still work and earn an income for her kid. I wish there was something available for her and her son that would allow them both to have healthcare, but there isn't.

QUOTE(caba @ Jan 25 2008, 12:48 PM) [snapback]589598[/snapback]
Seriously? You think my 33% that I pay in taxes should take care of other people's healthcare, while I STILL have to pay for my own? Something seems really odd about that.

If there is universal healthcare, then NO ONE would have no pay a premium...unless you want to.

QUOTE(rubyturquoise @ Jan 25 2008, 12:56 PM) [snapback]589615[/snapback]
What about people who start their own businesses? What about the people who work for the small companies like that? Those companies are the backbone of America, and a great many of them are priced out of the healthcare market, and they cannot offer their employees healthcare. Not everyone has the option to work for a major corporation (and some major corporations, such as Wal-Mart, do not offer low-level employees health care) and get health care.

My parents owned thier own business for over 20 years and did not have any insurance. If we had to go tot he Dr, we paid out of pocket. My parents worked d*mn hard to provide for themselves and me...they are no lesser people just because they didn't have health care!!

QUOTE(BaaRamEwe @ Jan 25 2008, 06:03 PM) [snapback]590138[/snapback]
I haven't read all the replies, and I am not making this statement towards any one person. But all of this reminds me of a situation at DH's work. DH and this co-worker(Jon) of his are the same age. Both have the same level of education, but have total different incomes. DH's makes approx 65k a year and his Jon makes probably 25-30k a year. DH is always listening to Jon complain about how unfair it is that "we" have a trailer, and atv's, and own a home, and can afford to go camping often. He, is always telling DH how unfair life is that DH makes a good living and has nice things. None of our vehicles, trailer, etc, are brand new, but its all nice enough. I am fortunate enough to stay home with my kids,( I do work part time). Jon is always putting DH down because he has so much more. The other day DH finally had it. He told him, "we were both given the same opportunities, I just chose to work harder and better myself" Jon is always calling in sick for work, spending his money on beer and stuff they don't really need, but it is always DHs fault that Jon's life is the way it is.

I personally have a problem supporting Jon and his family because of the poor decisions he has made. I have a problem supporting those who do nothing to help themselves. I have a girlfriend who choses not to work because it is just easier to take the handouts for her and her kids, but she is perfdectly capable of working. I think it is wonderful for people to be SAHM's, but only when they have the means to supprt their family and lifestyle. If it meant that by me staying home, we would be receiving assistance, I would not have done it. It is not someone else's responsiblity to go to work and put their children in daycare so that I can be with mine. I guess I just feel better taking care of my own. I do not have an issue with helping those who truely need the help, the ones who have tried or are trying to better themselves. I think that all children should have healthcare.

I truely hope I have not offended anyone.

ETA: I get what the OP is saying. I guess if I had to go one way or the other, I am considered anti-universal healthcare, but I am also not "Whoo-hooo free money" But I am also not going to send it back to the govt.

I agree 100% here!!