Health Care Premiums Rise 6.1 Percent

[SueEllenRules!]

Health care premiums rise 6.1 percent
The increasing cost of health insurance is putting coverage out of reach for many small to midsize companies and their workers, even though the rise in premiums this year was the lowest increase in eight years.

• Since 2001, the cost of premiums has gone up 78 percent, far outpacing a 19 percent increase in wages and 17 percent jump in inflation, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health care research group that annually tracks the cost of health insurance.

• This year, the cost of premiums paid by workers and their employers was up 6.1 percent, while wages rose an average of 3.7 percent and inflation went up 2.6 percent, the survey said. Kaiser estimates that between 1 million and 2 million people join the ranks of the uninsured every year.

• "There's no scientific tipping point that you can point to at which health insurance becomes unaffordable," said Drew Altman, the foundation's president and CEO. "But it does seem like we've crossed a threshold where health insurance is increasingly unaffordable for medium-sized employers, particularly smaller employers and average people this year."

• Insurance costs probably will rise again next year, according to the survey. Many of the more than 3,000 companies surveyed said they planned to make significant changes to their health plans and benefits, and nearly half said they were very or somewhat likely to raise premiums.

• This year, premiums averaged $12,106 for a family of four, with workers paying, on average, $3,281 of that. Premiums to cover a single person cost $4,479, with employees paying $694.

• Families typically pay 28 percent of their premiums, while single people pay 16 percent, the survey said, and those proportions have been stable. But the amount workers have been paying has nearly doubled since 2001. This year, monthly contributions averaged $273 for families and $58 for single workers.

• The companies surveyed reported that premiums for families increased 6.1 percent, on average. That's the lowest growth rate since 1999, when premiums rose 5.3 percent and cost an average of $2,196 for individuals and $5,791 for families. Health care premiums rose 7.7 percent last year, when individuals paid an average of $4,242 and families paid $11,480.

• This year also marks the fourth year that the increase has slowed. But Altman said it doesn't mean much when it outpaces wages and inflation, and now companies and employees are dropping insurance. He said that's why the number of uninsured Americans continues to rise. The Census Bureau estimates 15.8 percent of Americans were uninsured last year, up from 15.3 percent the year before.

• As costs rise for workers and companies, revenues for health care insurers continue to soar. But health insurance companies are still paying out roughly the same as they have for years, said Charles Boorady, an equity research analyst with Citigroup. So when insurers charge more for premiums, they're trying to cover what they pay out in claims, he said, and that means profits are fairly level.

• "The price increase doesn't looked aimed at expanding margins, it looks aimed at preserving margins," Boorady said.

• WellPoint, the nation's largest health insurer, reported profits were up 11 percent in the most recent quarter, to $835.2 million and revenue rose nearly 8 percent to $15.3 billion.

• Bob McIntire, senior vice president of health care management for the Indianapolis-based company, said it's trying to keep costs down by helping consumers understand their own spending and even negotiating longer term contracts with hospitals to keep costs in line.

• UnitedHealth spokesman Greg Thompson said premiums are rising because of the increasing cost for hospital stays, and people's desire for costly, new state-of-the-art treatments.

• UnitedHealth, the nation's second-largest insurer, said earnings rose 22 percent to $1.2 billion, during the most recent quarter. The Minnetonka, Minn.-based company saw revenue increase 5.9 percent to $18.93 billion.

• Some 158 million people have health insurance through their employers. Sixty percent of companies offer health insurance to their employees, about the same as last year but down from 69 percent in 2000, the survey said.

• Nearly all companies with 50 or more employees offer coverage, with firms with more than 200 employees particularly stable over the years, Kaiser said. But only 45 percent of firms with three to nine employees offer health care, down from 57 percent in 2000.

• Many companies don't plan to cancel plans even as costs rise, the Kaiser survey said. Only 3 percent of respondents said they planned to drop coverage next year. Five percent said they planned to limit eligibility, though the survey did not ask them how they would do that.

• But more companies are looking at changing benefits, whether by adding lower-cost insurance options or shifting more costs to employees, according to the Kaiser survey and another that was recently released.

• Preliminary results of the Mercer Health & Benefits survey of 1,557 employer plans shows more than half of the respondents planned to shift costs to employees through higher premiums, deductibles, copays or out-of-pocket maximums.

• The companies said that if they made no changes to their plans from this year, their costs would go up on average 9 percent next year.

• The New York-based human resources consulting firm said given those changes, next year's increase to premiums is expected to be 6.7 percent.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070911/ap_on_bi_ge/insurance_rising_premiums

Source: Associated Press

[Magnum]

Cap damages against doctors. The price of health care will fall.

We live in a world where if someone spills a cup of coffe on their lap, they can sue and win millions of dollars.

[SueEllenRules!]

Cap damages against doctors. The price of health care will fall.

We live in a world where if someone spills a cup of coffe on their lap, they can sue and win millions of dollars.The article didn't even mention malpractice claims against doctors as an issue in rising health care costs. It seems unbelievable that premiums have increased 78% since 2001 for that reason. However, if you believe the article, one of the primary problems might be the extraordinary profits being made by the insurers:

• As costs rise for workers and companies, revenues for health care insurers continue to soar. But health insurance companies are still paying out roughly the same as they have for years, said Charles Boorady, an equity research analyst with Citigroup. So when insurers charge more for premiums, they're trying to cover what they pay out in claims, he said, and that means profits are fairly level.

• WellPoint, the nation's largest health insurer, reported profits were up 11 percent in the most recent quarter, to $835.2 million and revenue rose nearly 8 percent to $15.3 billion.

• UnitedHealth, the nation's second-largest insurer, said earnings rose 22 percent to $1.2 billion, during the most recent quarter. The Minnetonka, Minn.-based company saw revenue increase 5.9 percent to $18.93 billion.

[Magnum]

The article didn't even mention malpractice claims against doctors as an issue in rising health care costs. It seems unbelievable that premiums have increased 78% since 2001 for that reason. However, if you believe the article, one of the primary problems might be the extraordinary profits being made by the insurers:

• As costs rise for workers and companies, revenues for health care insurers continue to soar. But health insurance companies are still paying out roughly the same as they have for years, said Charles Boorady, an equity research analyst with Citigroup. So when insurers charge more for premiums, they're trying to cover what they pay out in claims, he said, and that means profits are fairly level.

• WellPoint, the nation's largest health insurer, reported profits were up 11 percent in the most recent quarter, to $835.2 million and revenue rose nearly 8 percent to $15.3 billion.

• UnitedHealth, the nation's second-largest insurer, said earnings rose 22 percent to $1.2 billion, during the most recent quarter. The Minnetonka, Minn.-based company saw revenue increase 5.9 percent to $18.93 billion.


Don't be fooled. The reason health care is very expensive is because doctors are forced to pay $100,000+ in malpractice insurance every year. The doctors pass the bill to the customers. Some doctors pay much more malpractice insurance depending on the specialty they perform.

I do not trust insurance companies. Here is the game they play. You pay your premium every month. 40 years from now when you are old and sick your doctor has a treatment. But the insurance company says they will not pay for this good treatment, you are forced to a cheaper treatment. Or worse, the insurance company tells the doctor they are not allowed from mentioning the better treatment. You get a lawyer to sue the insurance company. Here is where it is evil-- the insurance company does not need to win the lawsuit. The insurance company drags out the lawsuit for years until the patient dies and the case is closed. This is common with cancer patients who have a short life expectancy. The insurance company wants the patient to die because it is cheaper.

We need cheaper health care. If doctors were not bankrupt by greedy people who sue, then health care would be cheaper. I remember as a young person paying $35 per office visit when I needed to see the doctor. If I had a cold, the doctor always had samples of the right medicine so I would not need the pharmacy. This is how medicine should work.

One more major difference. Back then I could talk to the doctor for 20 minutes. He was not in a hurry. He asked about how the family is doing, we could talk. Today it is the nurse who does most of the work, and the doctor spends 2 minutes writing out a prescription. Because the malpractice insurance is so expensive, doctors are forced to see more people in less time. This is how mistakes happen. The insurance is making medicine worse.

[SueEllenRules!]

Don't be fooled. The reason health care is very expensive is because doctors are forced to pay $100,000+ in malpractice insurance every year. The doctors pass the bill to the customers. Some doctors pay much more malpractice insurance depending on the specialty they perform.I have no way of knowing whether or not your facts and figures are accurate, but for the sake of argument, let's say that they are. I agree that there are probably a lot of malpractice claims that are somewhat frivolous. But do you not agree that there are some doctors out there who are truly and seriously incompetent? How is capping damage awards on these doctors going to adequately compensate someone who is genuinely and profoundly harmed by them?


I do not trust insurance companies. Here is the game they play. You pay your premium every month. 40 years from now when you are old and sick your doctor has a treatment. But the insurance company says they will not pay for this good treatment, you are forced to a cheaper treatment. Or worse, the insurance company tells the doctor they are not allowed from mentioning the better treatment. You get a lawyer to sue the insurance company. Here is where it is evil-- the insurance company does not need to win the lawsuit. The insurance company drags out the lawsuit for years until the patient dies and the case is closed. This is common with cancer patients who have a short life expectancy. The insurance company wants the patient to die because it is cheaper.I don't trust insurance companies either. I've had far too much experience with them doing what they do best: getting out of paying legitimate claims. Some people make a very strong argument that: 1) It is a disgrace that all American citizens don't have basic health care coverage; and 2) It's an even bigger disgrace that huge corporations are making billions of dollars in profits while millions of Americans are uninsured.


We need cheaper health care. If doctors were not bankrupt by greedy people who sue, then health care would be cheaper.Doctors are bankrupt? If the types of houses that they're buying in my area is any indication, they seem to be doing quite well.


I remember as a young person paying $35 per office visit when I needed to see the doctor. If I had a cold, the doctor always had samples of the right medicine so I would not need the pharmacy. This is how medicine should work.Almost sounds like a national health care plan. :) Or "socialized medicine" as most Republicans would call it. :rolleyes:


One more major difference. Back then I could talk to the doctor for 20 minutes. He was not in a hurry. He asked about how the family is doing, we could talk. Today it is the nurse who does most of the work, and the doctor spends 2 minutes writing out a prescription. Because the malpractice insurance is so expensive, doctors are forced to see more people in less time. This is how mistakes happen.I'm sorry, but that sounds like a load of horse hockey to me. There might be a lot of reasons that doctors rush patients through the system, but I seriously doubt that paying malpractice insurance premiums has much of anything to do with it. I suspect it has more to do with being in a hurry to get back out to the golf course. Or increasing the bottom line of their practice. But then again, I'm cynical.


The insurance is making medicine worse.I'm not sure if you mean malpractice insurance or health insurance. Either way, I agree. Therefore, we need the alternative: a national health care plan. Let the insurance companies go leech off someone else.

[Mrs.JockEwing]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20920548/

WASHINGTON - President Bush again called Democrats "irresponsible" on Saturday for pushing an expansion he opposes to a children's health insurance program.

"Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be vetoed," Bush said of the measure that draws significant bipartisan support, repeating in his weekly radio address an accusation he made earlier in the week. "Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point."

In the Democrat's response, also broadcast Saturday, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell turned the tables on the president, saying that if Bush doesn't sign the bill, 15 states will have no funding left for the program by the end of the month.

At issue is the Children's Health Insurance Program, a state-federal program that subsidizes health coverage for low-income people, mostly children, in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private coverage. It expires Sept. 30.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers announced a proposal Friday that would add $35 billion over five years to the program, adding 4 million people to the 6.6 million already participating. It would be financed by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The idea is overwhelmingly supported by Congress' majority Democrats, who scheduled it for a vote Tuesday in the House. It has substantial Republican support as well.

‘The health of our children is far too important’
But Bush has promised a veto, saying the measure is too costly, unacceptably raises taxes, extends government-covered insurance to children in families who can afford private coverage, and smacks of a move toward completely federalized health care. He has asked Congress to pass a simple extension of the current program while debate continues, saying it's children who will suffer if they do not.

"Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage — not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage," Bush said.

The bill's backers have vigorously rejected Bush's claim it would steer public money to families that can readily afford health insurance, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children. The bill would provide financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first, they said.

Many governors want the flexibility to expand eligibility for the program. So the proposal would overturn recent guidelines from the administration making it difficult for states to steer CHIP funds to families with incomes exceeding 250 percent of the official poverty level.

Rendell said thousands of children will lose health care coverage if Bush doesn't sign the bill.

"The administration has tried to turn this into a partisan issue and has threatened to veto. The health of our children is far too important for partisan politics as usual," he said. "If the administration is serious about solving our health care crisis, it should be expanding, not cutting back, this program which has made private health insurance affordable for millions of children."

[CarlD]

Something has needed to be done with health care for decades now.

However, the USA still has the best healthcare system in the world, and people from all over the world come here for treatments and surgeries.

[SueEllenRules!]

Something has needed to be done with health care for decades now.

However, the USA still has the best healthcare system in the world, and people from all over the world come here for treatments and surgeries.Perhaps they should try Germany, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, or Canada instead:

U.S. Healthcare System Ranks Last Compared to Five Other Wealthy Nations
http://www.soapchat.burtonhosting.com/showthread.php?t=156354


U.S. healthcare expensive, inefficient: report
Americans get the poorest healthcare and yet pay the most compared to five other rich countries, according to a report released on Tuesday.

• Germany, Britain, Australia and Canada all provide better care for less money, the Commonwealth Fund report found.

• "The U.S. healthcare system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes," the non-profit group which studies healthcare issues said in a statement.

• Canada rates second worst out of the five overall. Germany scored highest, followed by Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

• "The United States is not getting value for the money that is spent on healthcare," Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis said in a telephone interview.

• The group has consistently found that the United States, the only one of the six nations that does not provide universal healthcare, scores more poorly than the others on many measures of health care.

• Congress, President George W. Bush, many employers and insurers have all agreed in recent months to overhaul the U.S. health care system -- an uncoordinated conglomeration of employer-funded care, private health insurance and government programs.

• The current system leaves about 45 million people with no insurance at all, according to U.S. government estimates from 2005, and many studies have shown most of these people do not receive preventive services that not only keep them healthier, but reduce long-term costs.

• Davis said the fund's researchers looked at hard data for the report.

• "It is pretty indisputable that we spend twice what other countries spend on average," she said.

• Per capita health spending in the United States in 2004 was $6,102, twice that of Germany, which spent $3,005. Canada spent $3,165, New Zealand $2,083 and Australia $2,876, while Britain spent $2,546 per person.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/healthcar...K87tjp.s0NUE

Source: Reuters

[jen.n]

In his speech, Bush said he vetoed it because it expanded the program to parents making up to $80,000. This puts strain on the original program already in place to cover kids who really need it.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20920548/

WASHINGTON - President Bush again called Democrats "irresponsible" on Saturday for pushing an expansion he opposes to a children's health insurance program.

"Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be vetoed," Bush said of the measure that draws significant bipartisan support, repeating in his weekly radio address an accusation he made earlier in the week. "Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point."

In the Democrat's response, also broadcast Saturday, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell turned the tables on the president, saying that if Bush doesn't sign the bill, 15 states will have no funding left for the program by the end of the month.

At issue is the Children's Health Insurance Program, a state-federal program that subsidizes health coverage for low-income people, mostly children, in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private coverage. It expires Sept. 30.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers announced a proposal Friday that would add $35 billion over five years to the program, adding 4 million people to the 6.6 million already participating. It would be financed by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The idea is overwhelmingly supported by Congress' majority Democrats, who scheduled it for a vote Tuesday in the House. It has substantial Republican support as well.

‘The health of our children is far too important’
But Bush has promised a veto, saying the measure is too costly, unacceptably raises taxes, extends government-covered insurance to children in families who can afford private coverage, and smacks of a move toward completely federalized health care. He has asked Congress to pass a simple extension of the current program while debate continues, saying it's children who will suffer if they do not.

"Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage — not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage," Bush said.

The bill's backers have vigorously rejected Bush's claim it would steer public money to families that can readily afford health insurance, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children. The bill would provide financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first, they said.

Many governors want the flexibility to expand eligibility for the program. So the proposal would overturn recent guidelines from the administration making it difficult for states to steer CHIP funds to families with incomes exceeding 250 percent of the official poverty level.

Rendell said thousands of children will lose health care coverage if Bush doesn't sign the bill.

"The administration has tried to turn this into a partisan issue and has threatened to veto. The health of our children is far too important for partisan politics as usual," he said. "If the administration is serious about solving our health care crisis, it should be expanding, not cutting back, this program which has made private health insurance affordable for millions of children."

[SueEllenRules!]

In his speech, Bush said he vetoed it because it expanded the program to parents making up to $80,000. This puts strain on the original program already in place to cover kids who really need it. At the current rate that the cost of health insurance is increasing, it won't be long before people who make $80,000 won't be able to afford it. Of course, if we had a universal healthcare program like any of the 5 wealthy nations who have better healthcare systems than we do, all of this would be a moot point.

[Mrs.JockEwing]

In his speech, Bush said he vetoed it because it expanded the program to parents making up to $80,000. This puts strain on the original program already in place to cover kids who really need it.

Read the article again. What about kids whose parents make too much to get Medicaid, yet cannot afford private insurance because the premiums are too high or their employer will not offer it?

WASHINGTON - President Bush again called Democrats "irresponsible" on Saturday for pushing an expansion he opposes to a children's health insurance program.

"Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be vetoed," Bush said of the measure that draws significant bipartisan support, repeating in his weekly radio address an accusation he made earlier in the week. "Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point."

In the Democrat's response, also broadcast Saturday, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell turned the tables on the president, saying that if Bush doesn't sign the bill, 15 states will have no funding left for the program by the end of the month.

At issue is the Children's Health Insurance Program, a state-federal program that subsidizes health coverage for low-income people, mostly children, in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private coverage. It expires Sept. 30.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers announced a proposal Friday that would add $35 billion over five years to the program, adding 4 million people to the 6.6 million already participating. It would be financed by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The idea is overwhelmingly supported by Congress' majority Democrats, who scheduled it for a vote Tuesday in the House. It has substantial Republican support as well.

‘The health of our children is far too important’
But Bush has promised a veto, saying the measure is too costly, unacceptably raises taxes, extends government-covered insurance to children in families who can afford private coverage, and smacks of a move toward completely federalized health care. He has asked Congress to pass a simple extension of the current program while debate continues, saying it's children who will suffer if they do not.

"Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage — not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage," Bush said.

The bill's backers have vigorously rejected Bush's claim it would steer public money to families that can readily afford health insurance, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children. The bill would provide financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first, they said.

Many governors want the flexibility to expand eligibility for the program. So the proposal would overturn recent guidelines from the administration making it difficult for states to steer CHIP funds to families with incomes exceeding 250 percent of the official poverty level.

Rendell said thousands of children will lose health care coverage if Bush doesn't sign the bill.

"The administration has tried to turn this into a partisan issue and has threatened to veto. The health of our children is far too important for partisan politics as usual," he said. "If the administration is serious about solving our health care crisis, it should be expanding, not cutting back, this program which has made private health insurance affordable for millions of children."

[jen.n]

:confused: I read it the first time ... and that is why he called them "irresponsible"!!! If it was that crucial to poor kids, the Dems shouldn't weigh it down by extending it to those that aren't needy --- making $83,000 from what I've heard reported --- making it sure to get rejected!!



President Bush again called Democrats "irresponsible" on Saturday for pushing an expansion he opposes to a children's health insurance program.

[CarlD]

Don't be fooled. The reason health care is very expensive is because doctors are forced to pay $100,000+ in malpractice insurance every year. The doctors pass the bill to the customers. Some doctors pay much more malpractice insurance depending on the specialty they perform.

I do not trust insurance companies. Here is the game they play. You pay your premium every month. 40 years from now when you are old and sick your doctor has a treatment. But the insurance company says they will not pay for this good treatment, you are forced to a cheaper treatment. Or worse, the insurance company tells the doctor they are not allowed from mentioning the better treatment. You get a lawyer to sue the insurance company. Here is where it is evil-- the insurance company does not need to win the lawsuit. The insurance company drags out the lawsuit for years until the patient dies and the case is closed. This is common with cancer patients who have a short life expectancy. The insurance company wants the patient to die because it is cheaper.

We need cheaper health care. If doctors were not bankrupt by greedy people who sue, then health care would be cheaper. I remember as a young person paying $35 per office visit when I needed to see the doctor. If I had a cold, the doctor always had samples of the right medicine so I would not need the pharmacy. This is how medicine should work.

One more major difference. Back then I could talk to the doctor for 20 minutes. He was not in a hurry. He asked about how the family is doing, we could talk. Today it is the nurse who does most of the work, and the doctor spends 2 minutes writing out a prescription. Because the malpractice insurance is so expensive, doctors are forced to see more people in less time. This is how mistakes happen. The insurance is making medicine worse.


EXACTLY !!!!!

Also, the fact that thousands and thousands of illegal aliens are getting FREE health care is also a MAJOR reason health care costs keep going up and up. As the # of illegals flooding our ER's keeps increasing, so will the health care costs.

[jen.n]

The government's main priority is to protect citizens from foreign invasion and attacks, and protect law abiding citizens from crime.

If you are expecting them to take care of you, to provide for you, guarantee success, happiness, health, assist you with everyday stuff, make sure you floss everyday, eat well balanced meals, etc ... you will be disappointed.

[Mrs.JockEwing]

:confused: I read it the first time ... and that is why he called them "irresponsible"!!! If it was that crucial to poor kids, the Dems shouldn't weigh it down by extending it to those that aren't needy --- making $83,000 from what I've heard reported --- making it sure to get rejected!!

How is irresponsible to make sure children get adequate care? Even the majority of Republicans support this.

[jen.n]

How is irresponsible to make sure children get adequate care? Even the majority of Republicans support this.

Read the article again. :wiggle:

[SueEllenRules!]

The government's main priority is to protect citizens from foreign invasion and attacks, and protect law abiding citizens from crime.Yes, but that's certainly not an accurate depiction of everything the government actually provides for its citizens. For example, Social Security, Medicare, education, highway construction, etc.


If you are expecting them to take care of you, to provide for you,I do expect them to provide something in return for the taxes I pay.


guarantee success, happiness, health, assist you with everyday stuff, make sure you floss everyday, eat well balanced meals, etc ... you will be disappointed.Who expects that? And what's the purpose of the condescending tone? :rolleyes: Call me crazy, but I think health care would be a much better investment of our money than the hundreds of billions of dollars that we've spent in Iraq to accomplish absolutely nothing. The UK has had a universal health care system for almost 60 years and life as they know it doesn't seem to have come to an end.

[jen.n]

Yes, but that's certainly not an accurate depiction of everything the government actually provides for its citizens. For example, Social Security, Medicare, education, highway construction, etc.


I did say "main priority" didn't I? Most of the other stuff got added on later.


I do expect them to provide something in return for the taxes I pay.

So then, you do expect the government to provide for you.



Who expects that?

You do, see directly above...


The UK has had a universal health care system for almost 60 years and life as they know it doesn't seem to have come to an end.

We don't have it, and life as we know it doesn't seem to have come to an end. So what is your point?

[Mrs.JockEwing]

I do expect them to provide something in return for the taxes I pay.

Who expects that? And what's the purpose of the condescending tone? :rolleyes: Call me crazy, but I think health care would be a much better investment of our money than the hundreds of billions of dollars that we've spent in Iraq to accomplish absolutely nothing. The UK has had a universal health care system for almost 60 years and life as they know it doesn't seem to have come to an end.

:good:

Taxes should be an investment, not an expense. I pay a gas tax everytime I fill up my car, so I should expect good safe roads and bridges right? Didn't get it because our Republican governor cut spending and as a result 13 people lost their lives.

I pay property taxes so I should expect good schools. The school district I live in is now on the NCLB list because funding did not come through.

What is wrong with expecting a return on your investment. I don't like paying taxes anymore than Jen does, but I expect my tax money to be put to good use, like health care, bridges, and schools, not things like wars and pay raises for politicians.

[SueEllenRules!]

I did say "main priority" didn't I? Most of the other stuff got added on later.Clearly, your implication was that most of "the other stuff" that got added on later shouldn't be the government's concern. So what is your point?


So then, you do expect the government to provide for you.Yes, in return for the taxes I pay. Do you not? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we supposed to have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people? Therefore, as I see it, we the people are providing for ourselves.


You do, see directly above...No, I don't expect the government to guarantee success, happiness, health, assist me with everyday stuff, make sure I floss everyday, eat well balanced meals, etc. But nice try. This is just a laundry list of ridiculous assertions that people like you throw out to distract from the perfectly reasonable expectations that most sane people have of the government.


We don't have it, and life as we know it doesn't seem to have come to an end. So what is your point?So according to you, this country doesn't have a looming health care crisis? It doesn't concern you that the cost of health insurance premiums has gone up 78 percent over the last 6 years, far outpacing a 19 percent increase in wages and 17 percent jump in inflation? Or that the middle class is finding it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to afford health insurance (if their employers can even afford to provide it)? Or that 45 million Americans have no health insurance at all, with an additional 1-2 million people joining the ranks of the uninsured every year?

[jen.n]

Clearly, your implication was that most of "the other stuff" that got added on later shouldn't be the government's concern. So what is your point?

My point is that it isn't the main priority and those programs got added later... over a century later. Can't you read????



I do expect them to provide something in return for the taxes I pay.

Didn't you say they already DO???? :::::

Yes, but that's certainly not an accurate depiction of everything the government actually provides for its citizens. For example, Social Security, Medicare, education, highway construction, etc.





So according to you, this country doesn't have a looming health care crisis? It doesn't concern you that the cost of health insurance premiums has gone up 78 percent over the last 6 years, far outpacing a 19 percent increase in wages and 17 percent jump in inflation? Or that the middle class is finding it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to afford health insurance (if their employers can even afford to provide it)? Or that 45 million Americans have no health insurance at all, with an additional 1-2 million people joining the ranks of the uninsured every year?

So, according to you, the solution is to make it illegal to not purchase your own health insurance, like the Democrats are proposing? See, I can put words in your mouth too!

[jen.n]

Taxes should be an investment, not an expense. I pay a gas tax everytime I fill up my car, so I should expect good safe roads and bridges right? Didn't get it because our Republican governor cut spending and as a result 13 people lost their lives.

The bridge is very old and existed under governors that were Democrats, Independents and Republicans. Of course, the bridge CHOSE to collapse to punish you for electing a Republican governor, right? The last governor held it up with his bare hands! http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/35.gif

[SueEllenRules!]

My point is that it isn't the main priority and those programs got added later... over a century later.That's not really a point. It's more like an observation of the obvious. As I see it, your "point" is that most of the programs that got added later shouldn't be the government's concern. If you don't take issue with these programs, I fail to see why you would bother to mention them in this context at all.


Can't you read????Quite well, actually. Especially between the lines. :lolo:


Didn't you say they already DO???? :::::Yes and I expect them to spend my money wisely and efficiently (I know that's laughable, considering the $454 billion spent to date on Iraq, but everybody's got a dream).


So, according to you, the solution is to make it illegal to not purchase your own health insurance, like the Democrats are proposing?By "the Democrats", I'm assuming that you mean some of the Democratic candidates for president? But to answer your question, I think the solution is to create a universal healthcare system similar to those of the 5 wealthy nations who have universal healthcare (Germany, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada) and provide better care for less money. Why should Americans get the poorer healthcare than any of those nations and yet pay the most?


See, I can put words in your mouth too!What words did I put in your mouth that weren't accurate?