Friday, August 31, 2007

"Healthcare Issue" Card...

.





We heard it numerous times during the 2006 campaigns. It first picked up steam during the 2004 campaigns and has become a familiar staple to the Democratic Party candidates speech lineup… It’s the overused claim that “47 Million Americans live in America without any Healthcare Insurance”…


The actual numbers from the Census Bureau are out and they show that not all of the 47 million claimed are uninsured because of the cruel, cruel, world of free enterprise.. It is enlightening to see the actual numbers and to see the amount of people who choose not to carry medical insurance but yet they can easily afford it, are not actual citizens of the United States, or are “Young and Invincible”.



The article “The ’47 million uninsured’ myth” that appeared in IBD brings up some interesting points and questions. First let’s look at some actual numbers provided by the Census Bureau and ignored by the “Democratic Party Issue Machine” http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-19231302.htm


Who are the Uninsured?:

White alone (not Hispanic):……10.8%……..21.162 million
Black alone:………………………20.5%…….7.652 million
Asian alone:……………………..15.5%………2.045 million
Hispanic (any race):…………….34.1%…….11.328 million

Foreign born:…………………….33.8%……..12.615 million
(Naturalized)……………………..16.4%……..2.384 million
(non-citizen)………………………45.0%…….10.231 million

Less the $25,000.………………..24.9%……..13.933 million
$25k to $49.9k……………………21.1%……..15.319 million
$50k to $74.9k……………………14.4%……..8.459 million
$75k and up………………………8.5%……….9.283 million


“One of the shocking things in the Census Bureau's report this week on poverty and health care in America is that so many well-to-do people can easily afford health care, but choose to go without it“.



“The median household income, according to the data released this week, is $48,200. You might be surprised to discover that 38% of all the uninsured -- that's almost 18 million people -- have incomes higher than $50,000 a year. An astounding 20% of all uninsured have incomes over $75,000. These are people who can afford coverage“.


Where will the money for this “Universal Healthcare for All” come from and what type of healthcare will we get for “Our” money”

“Is it really a good idea to tax working people to subsidize those who refuse to pay for a necessity they could easily buy? The answer, of course, is no.”


Who will pay for this Universal Healthcare that the democrats so advocate? Several examples and questions about this to follow but for now lets look at H.R. bill #676 and Democratic Representatives John Conyers website that provides the following proposed sources for income to pay for this Healthcare…


New Sources of Revenue Under H.R. 676 = $1,259 billion


1. Payroll Tax (3.3% additional on employer\employee…
This increase and source of revenue will come from those of us in the workforce and paying payroll taxes…


2. Stock Transfer Tax (0.25% on seller and buyer)
A form of additional tax on those investing their money in the Stock market and United States economy. These investments are responsible for much of the outstanding economy we have had for six years running…


3. Reduce Corporate Welfare.
Libertarian Neal Boortz has an interesting statement in the form of a question here. Do corporations pay taxes? Or are the additional taxes just passed on to the consumer?

4. Reverse 2001 and 2002 Tax Cuts…
Once again the Democrats solution to everything is to eliminate the evil Bush tax cuts for they are unfair. They again ignore that the tax cuts by President’s Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush 43 all resulted in growing economies and much more revenue coming into the governments treasuries…

5. Tax Surcharge: 5% on Richest 5% of Taxpayers; 10% on Richest 1%:
Again the Democratic Party’s solution is to go after those who create most of the jobs and opportunities for the rest of us. A perfect example of the “Class-Warfare” card…


Another important element of the H.R. 676 bill is that universal healthcare for all will be available for everybody residing in the United States. At no time will it be required that the person seeking free healthcare will have to produce a social security card. The IBD article has an interesting point about this:


“That latter piece of data is alarming. Drilling even deeper, one finds that fully 27% of all the uninsured in the U.S. -- that's 12.6 million people -- aren't even citizens.
Not coincidentally, the government also estimates that about 12 million illegals now reside in the U.S., though some think tanks put the number as high as 20 million.
Putting the two together, this suggests that -- surprise -- a major reason for the uninsured "problem" is our failure to enforce our border”.



These numbers from the Census Bureau show the true number and status of the 47 million that the Democrats love to talk about but the truth is also that there are those out there that are not covered and should be taken care of. IBD provides an interesting point on this subject also:


“Once you whittle it down, you start to realize that the number of hard-core uninsured who are citizens is in fact fairly small -- perhaps half the reported 47 million or less.
Yet it's not clear that shrinking the 47 million to zero would help all that much. Because the uninsured still get health care. They get it through Medicaid, the state-run, federally funded program for the indigent. They get care, by law, in any emergency room in the country.”


The Democratic Party Candidates claim that they will make the healthcare system available to all, no matter what their status, make it more affordable, and the government will provide for all those 47 million. But we have seen what happens when the Government steps in and tries to run important aspects of our life and also take more control and liberties from us.


“Making consumers responsible for spending their own health care dollars -- and letting them benefit when they control costs -- is the real answer to our "uninsured problem."
It would lead to lower costs, and wider coverage -- something universal care advocates promise, but can't deliver“.





My local area has a “Coalition” that has been focusing on the “Healthcare for All” issue for years and have been very vocal in parades and other public forums for sometime. It is commendable that this coalition is looking out for those less “fortunate” but the above data shows that there are many different categories to a claim. Many of these same “Coalition” members have also been very vocal in their opposition to the President and his administration when it comes to the healthcare issue.

But lets look a few aspects of this issue that the Democratic Candidates seem to exclude from their stump speeches:

It looks like the vast majority of the revenue for H.R. bill #676 will come from the payroll tax payer. The person going out and working and paying those payroll taxes and lets not forget the additional tax on the employer. Remember what Boortz said about who really pays for taxes to the corporations or employer? You the consumer pays…

What about those who are no longer in the workforce and paying payroll taxes? How do they contribute to the H.R. 676 solution in providing “Healthcare for all”?
There is a tax surcharge on the top 1% and 5% but does that mean the income earners or tax on all wealth in America? If the person is retired and has their “Riches” already will they be taxed or is it just the working people or “Income” tax payers? If I am retired or rich already does that mean all that I will pay is an additional tax on “Income” or a tax on my wealth that I already have?

“Healthcare for All”? Does that mean my payroll taxes will pay for the free healthcare for Bill Gates, Barbara Striesand, Al Gore, Donald Trump? And what about the 17.74 million that the above data reports who make $50,000 and more but decide not to pay for their own healthcare? The worker should instead pay increased taxes so the the government can run this program?

And what about those in “Coalitions” that are retired, no longer pay payroll taxes, can afford their own healthcare, have already made their riches and pay taxes on little income? Sure they are going to advocate “Healthcare for All” when the bill is going to paid by everybody else….


7 comments:

Newt said...

You will notice that they never talk about where the money for this health care for all will come from. The deal is that the expense will be placed on the payroll taxpayer and those who are not working for whatever reason will not be taxed.

The argument is that since the payroll tax is going up you will then not have to pay for med insurance for you will get it free for all. The only problem is you, the taxpayer, is now standing in a long line with many people now getting FREE healthcare and going to the doctor at every sniffle.

Socialist medicine

Dignan said...

So you would rather have millions go without healthcare?

You capitalist PIGS!!!!

RightsideVA said...

Dignan.

The Census people clearly show that there are not the 47 MILLION that your party continues to claim. You and your mainstream media will continue to claim that all of these people are victims of the system but what do you say of the 17+ million who are making over $50,000 but dont buy their own coverage?

The payroll workers should pay for these? We should pay the bill for the retired person who has already made their money, live in a nice house, have comfortable bank account, husband is a Doctor, and marches in a wheel chair in a parade protesting?

Hobie said...

I see you used photos of those Dem/S who marched in the July 4th parade.

I just can't say anything about more about the idea of universal health care that isn't unfit for print. However, I would like to say that I fully support the idea that young or old, rich or poor you should be able to decide to or not to spend money on health insurance. Just not MY money.

RightsideVA said...

Hobie,

I see you identified the photos but from what parade and what year? Also did you catch the Tirade at the end of the parade by the person in the last phot and the reaction from the people there to watch the parade? If you do see it you will understand even more the agenda of this "Coalition"...

I agree that it should be up to the individual how and if they spend their money on healthcare. The otherside of the coin is that if you don't take care of yourself dont expect the Govt to cure you once you are 300lbs, heart disease, diabetic, smoking lung disease, and have a grey liver from years of alcohol abuse...

We will, and have done in the past, treat those injured. Aid is already there for the poor. The Democrats are using this as a political tool...

NavyGuy said...

Why do you really oppose health care for all Americans?

Seriously, that is the question, you can yell about the numbers (which are questionable), you can scream about the coverage, but the reality is that Americans are uninsured and every European nation and Canada has a better system than we do. Trust me, my family is from Canada, they have a market driven system - the only difference is that the market economies are directed at health and not profit.

Moreover, what is interesting to me, is talking to my father - who is a doctor and a specialist, and his friends, who have almost all gone from opposing a single-payer system to supporting one over the past 10 years. In part because of the ridiculous profits being made by a few at the pinicle of the insurance companies, but also because the harm our system is doing to the health and health care of all Americans - and particularly the children.

If Republicans truly believe in a meritocracy where everyone, and every child has an equal chance to succeed, they need to begin by allowing every child to start life with health. If you don't have health, you can't thrive and you certainly can't succeed.

Food for thought.

RightsideVA said...

NavyGuy,

Thank you for your reply and bringing issues out for discussion. I was told by several before posting this topic that it would open Rightside to ridicule and attacks for opposing a issue that has not been fully explained in the media. I have waited for my local newspaper to bring up this issue in their “forum” area on their website, and to present all of the facts about HR 676 including some that have been posted here. Unfortunately it seems that information would not fit their “agenda” or the agenda of the political party that they favor…

When you say “Healthcare for all Americans” does that include the illegal people who are not citizens and in this country illegally and approximately 12-15 million?

What type of healthcare coverage do you mean? Medical treatment, mental, emergency injury coverage, preventative healthcare, cosmetic, etc?

And what should be covered? Should taxpayers pay directly for the consequences for those who do not take care of themselves? Look at the amount of obese in our population who do not take care of themselves or make the effort? The smokers who chain smoke, alcohol use past moderation, and diabetes because we have become a “Fat” society? There are many more but space is limited.

How much should taxpayers pay for this healthcare? Should taxpayers pay for those making $50-75,000+ but don’t want to spend their $$$ on healthcare?
Payroll tax will go from 1.5% to 4.5% and will that be enough or should we tax the worker more? How much do you think is fair? 5%, 10%, 25%, 50%??? Have you seen any information about this revenue structure included by those calling for healthcare for all?

All of Canada and Europe may have coverage but how does it compare to the care available in America? What are the wait times and actual quality of care?
Are there enough doctors for the workload or is that the reason for the long waits for treatment? If we go to a government system that will limit the amount made by the doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies, will this improve, maintain, or lower the healthcare that we will receive? Will Free healthcare for all with low or no deductibles result in people going to the doctor at the first sniffle, scrape, or just don’t feel well enough to go to work today?

If we target the “Evil” pharmaceutical companies because they are making “Insane Profits” and limit the profit potential will this improve, maintain, or lower the quality of the drugs they produce? Will they continue to invest millions into research for new drugs in the future? We now have drugs that treat and control cholesterol since many of us have such a poor diet by CHOICE. If we continue to have a “pill to treat our ill” where is the incentive to improve our habits? If somebody else is footing the “bill for the pill”, why should I take better care of myself? How many of these cutting edge drugs come out of Canadian or European countries?

If Republicans, and you are the one that brought up party affiliation, really do want opportunity for every child, how should the government provide this opportunity in the healthcare environment? The government provides school lunches now to help ensure a “balanced” diet while at school but if the parents only feeds them junk food and Micky-d’s at home what do we do? Put the kids on the magical cholesterol drugs even at that age and teach them a pill will take the place of responsibility? These same schools are the ones that have allowed SODA machines in school and fortunately have learned the error of that thinking. Child diabetes rate is at a history high now and how can that be? At what point does the government take enhanced control of all of our responsibilities? Look at all of the children on Riddlein(?) which controls their actions, moods, and level of activity. Do we need to drug up our kids instead of teaching them proper ways of taking care of themselves? I am all for teaching them proper healthcare and hope they will pass what they learn “UP” to the prior generation.

Again I thank you for bringing issues on healthcare to light by your comments and questions. I can only hope that these issues and debates see the light of day in other “forums” such as the one described above…

RightsideVA