List of New Taxes in Senate Healthcare Bill

[blazerboy30]

I'm not sure how the existence of taxes proves we can't afford it.

Pretty self explanatory. If you need more money than you have, in order to pay for something, you can't afford it. That isn't confusing.

Yeah, that's what I've been saying too. Good that we agree on something.

That is scary.

The actual decision for congress to make is healthcare for the uninsured plus these various tax increases, or not. Not some completely different proposal that you'd prefer.

barfo

Are you stating that where the tax increases take place is irrelevant?

 

[barfo]

There's 26M veterans total. That's from WWI, WWII, etc.

They're all entitled to VA care. Yet by your figures, only 6.1M of them show up. Sounds about right, because that's how insurance works. Most people are healthy and pay premiums and use some tiny fraction of what they pay, and the rest subsidize those who pay premiums and use more than what they pay.

That's what insurance is.

6M out of 26M? Sounds about right. It's still $1400 per.

Despite them all having limbs blown off, ptsd, etc? Only 6 out of 26 make a visit to the doctor per year? Seems like they must be a pretty healthy group.

Actually, there are only 7.84M enrolled in VA healthcare. Why, when there are 23M vets? I don't know. My guess is that many vets are covered by employer plans which are in some way considered superior to the VA care.

So let's do the math again. 47B/7.84M = $6000 per person. (Oddly enough, pretty much exactly what my employer healthcare costs). 30 million uninsured * 6K = $180B/yr.
2014-2019 cost: $1.08T. Senate bill: $848B. Seems like it's in the ballpark.

barfo

 

[barfo]

BTW, from the Wikipedia link:

In May 2006, a laptop computer containing in the clear (unencrypted) social security numbers of 26.5 million U.S. veterans was stolen from a Veterans Affairs analyst’s home. The analyst violated existing VA policy by removing the data from his workplace.[9]

Either some of them were dead then, or a lot died off since, because as of 2008, the VA claims 23.4M total living vets.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Despite them all having limbs blown off, ptsd, etc? Only 6 out of 26 make a visit to the doctor per year? Seems like they must be a pretty healthy group.

Actually, there are only 7.84M enrolled in VA healthcare. Why, when there are 23M vets? I don't know. My guess is that many vets are covered by employer plans which are in some way considered superior to the VA care.

So let's do the math again. 47B/7.84M = $6000 per person. (Oddly enough, pretty much exactly what my employer healthcare costs). 30 million uninsured * 6K = $180B/yr.
2014-2019 cost: $1.08T. Senate bill: $848B. Seems like it's in the ballpark.

barfo

You don't seem to get how insurance works. I'll say it again.

It works because most people pay premiums but receive less in benefits. The excess they pay subsidizes those who need more benefits than they pay.

It's still $1400.

Your logic is like saying there are 300M people in the USA, but only 30M end up in the hospital, so take all the premiums all 300M pay and divide by 30M and it's really expensive.

 

[barfo]

Are you stating that where the tax increases take place is irrelevant?

No... not at all. It would be interesting, for example, to see an analysis of PapaG's list in terms of who actually pays those various taxes. What does a family of 4 making $25K pay? Or $100K? OR 500K?

barfo

 

[barfo]

You don't seem to get how insurance works. I'll say it again.

It works because most people pay premiums but receive less in benefits. The excess they pay subsidizes those who need more benefits than they pay.

It's still $1400.

Your logic is like saying there are 300M people in the USA, but only 30M end up in the hospital, so take all the premiums all 300M pay and divide by 30M and it's really expensive.

Try reading my post again. There are only 7.84M people enrolled (aka insured) in the VA program. The fact that 23 million people are eligible to sign up but didn't is irrelevant.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Try reading my post again. There are only 7.84M people enrolled (aka insured) in the VA program. The fact that 23 million people are eligible to sign up but didn't is irrelevant.

barfo

Not really. How many of the 23 million chose a private plan over the government plan? Let's start there, and take the debate forward from that starting point. I know for a fact that many vets bypass the VA. What does your data say, barfo?

 

[barfo]

Not really. How many of the 23 million chose a private plan over the government plan? Let's start there, and take the debate forward from that starting point. I know for a fact that many vets bypass the VA. What does your data say, barfo?

That agrees with my hypothesis, although I don't have any data on what the 15 million who aren't signed up for VA healthcare are doing. It seems logical that they are on private plans, most likely employer plans.

My argument to Denny is that if they are on private plans then they aren't costing the government anything - none of the $47 million VA coverage is being spent on them. Unless the VA reimburses vets for private care - if that's the case, my numbers would be wrong.

Edit: oh, Medicare - i guess that vets over 65 might be covered by medicare instead of the VA?

barfo

 

[barfo]

Ok, so here's some more data. This is from a survey, and the numbers differ significantly from the data the VA provided - not sure why exactly - but the conclusions are still the same. In the survey, even fewer vets used the VA (3.7 million instead of 6.1 million), and the number of vets was 27 million not 23 million.

But it's clear that most vets don't in fact use the VA. At all. They have private insurance, they have medicare, or they have no insurance (even though the VA would provide it for free).

Those that don't use the VA, I assert, do not cost the VA anything. Now, you can probably claim that some fraction of the uninsured-by-VA vets are simply waiting till they get sick, and then they'll sign up for the VA coverage. And I'm sure that there are some people in that category, but it is probably small. In the first table in the paper, you'll see that of the people who do not use the VA at all, only 26% have not been to the doctor in the past year. In other words, most veterans not using the VA are in fact getting healthcare from other sources.

Here's a nice graph from the CBO on VA enrollment:

If you read this CBO report very carefully, you'll find that they report an average cost per patient of $5800, which is very close to the $6000 that I computed.

So, in summary, Denny, your $1400 estimate is wildly incorrect. [As it had to be - you would be the first one to point out that the government isn't going to be able to do something more efficiently than private enterprise - right?] The true cost is closer to $6K, and when you scale that up to the 30 million uninsured that are intended to be covered by the healthcare bill, you find that the projected costs are in the same range as the reported cost of the bill. Of course, the healthcare bill is actually quite a bit more complex than simply paying for coverage for 30 million people, but these calculations do show that there is no giant "bamboozling" or siphoning off to Goldman Sachs or whatever. Healthcare costs a lot of money; covering 30 million people costs 30 million times a lot of money.

And I now know far more about the VA than I really ever needed to.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Barfo, you're still not getting it.

Assume 100 people pay $1,000 a year for insurance. One goes to the hospital and needs a $75,000 operation. The remaining 99 are healthy and don't go to the doctor at all.

The cost to the insurer is $75K. The income is $100K. So they profit by $25K. 100 people are insured.

By your reasoning, insurance costs $75K and only 1 person is insured, so it's $75K/person.

The government IS insuring 26.5M vets. It is irrelevant how many participate. Of 26.5M, 3.7M need care. Their costs are $7000 in medical services (like the $75K in my example) per vet who gets treatment. It is not $7000 per veteran in insurance cost/premiums.

Those 3.7M out of 26.5M seek care is going to be a higher % than in the general population because those guys were shot at, etc.

 

[barfo]

Barfo, you're still not getting it.

Assume 100 people pay $1,000 a year for insurance. One goes to the hospital and needs a $75,000 operation. The remaining 99 are healthy and don't go to the doctor at all.

The cost to the insurer is $75K. The income is $100K. So they profit by $25K. 100 people are insured.

By your reasoning, insurance costs $75K and only 1 person is insured, so it's $75K/person.

The government IS insuring 26.5M vets. It is irrelevant how many participate. Of 26.5M, 3.7M need care. Their costs are $7000 in medical services (like the $75K in my example) per vet who gets treatment. It is not $7000 per veteran in insurance cost/premiums.

Those 3.7M out of 26.5M seek care is going to be a higher % than in the general population because those guys were shot at, etc.

No Denny, 'tis you that is not getting it. The government is not insuring 26.5 million vets.
26.5 million vets (well, or maybe 23.4 million) are eligible to be insured. There is a difference between eligibility for insurance, and being insured.

Your claim that only 3.7M out of 26M need medical care is completely ludicrous, and is disproven by the data I presented (only 26% of those not using VA care have not had medical care in the past 12 months).

What you aren't getting is that there are ~15 million vets who are covered by other insurance. They don't use VA care. Ever. It's not that they aren't sick this year. It's that they get their healthcare somewhere else. And they'll presumably continue to do so. Which means they don't cost the government anything. Ever. They aren't insured by the government in any meaningful sense.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Those 3.7M out of 26.5M seek care is going to be a higher % than in the general population because those guys were shot at, etc.

In the general population, 82.8% of people seek medical care in any 12 month period [see first table, #158]. You are in fact claiming here that vets are far, far healthier than the general population. Which might be true, but seems pretty unlikely, since they've been shot at, etc.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Did it ever occur to anyone that veterans have the option of getting free healthcare from the VA, yet choose to pay for private insurance themselves?

The VA is a foreshadowing of Obamacare; and that's not a good thing.

 

[barfo]

Did it ever occur to anyone that veterans have the option of getting free healthcare from the VA, yet choose to pay for private insurance themselves?

Yes, it occured to me in posts 62, 68,69, and 71, and to PapaG in post 67.

The VA is a foreshadowing of Obamacare; and that's not a good thing.

I'd have to agree - it is certainly not a good sign that so many people walk away from VA care. Of course, in some cases they may be getting free care from their employers too, but probably in many cases they are paying at least some of the cost of private insurance themselves.

However, note that there is a very significant difference between VA care and "Obamacare". Obamacare isn't going to send you to a VA hospital, or require you to see VA doctors.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Yes, it occured to me in posts 62, 68,69, and 71, and to PapaG in post 67.

I generally skim pissing matches, so I apologize for missing it.

I'd have to agree - it is certainly not a good sign that so many people walk away from VA care. Of course, in some cases they may be getting free care from their employers too, but probably in many cases they are paying at least some of the cost of private insurance themselves.

However, note that there is a very significant difference between VA care and "Obamacare". Obamacare isn't going to send you to a VA hospital, or require you to see VA doctors.

barfo

I think you've his upon one of the fundamental points of our disagreement. You seem to see this healthcare bill as a one-off thing that will remain static. I see it as putting us on the waterslide of slippery slopes. I think if we even allow a foothold of the government controlling healthcare, we get the UK's health system within a decade. I won't re-hash my reasoning behind that line of thinking, but I think Americans deserve better healthcare than something like the VA.

 

[barfo]

I generally skim pissing matches, so I apologize for missing it.

Oddly enough, what you refer to as a pissing match I'd call a fact-based debate. I didn't see either Denny or I doing any "pissing".

I think you've his upon one of the fundamental points of our disagreement. You seem to see this healthcare bill as a one-off thing that will remain static. I see it as putting us on the waterslide of slippery slopes. I think if we even allow a foothold of the government controlling healthcare, we get the UK's health system within a decade. I won't re-hash my reasoning behind that line of thinking, but I think Americans deserve better healthcare than something like the VA.

Yeah, I know you think that, but as I posted in another thread, your grandpappy used that same argument against Medicare. Turns out he was wrong. Makes me think maybe you are too.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Yeah, I know you think that, but as I posted in another thread, your grandpappy used that same argument against Medicare. Turns out he was wrong. Makes me think maybe you are too.

barfo

The difference, of course, is that this isn't legislation to take care of a limited group. No one made these arguments about SCHIP. This is about the wholesale takeover of EVERYONE's healthcare.

 

[barfo]

The difference, of course, is that this isn't legislation to take care of a limited group. No one made these arguments about SCHIP. This is about the wholesale takeover of EVERYONE's healthcare.

No, it isn't. This bill isn't about taking over everyone's healthcare any more than the Medicare bill was. Less so than Medicare, actually.

Conservatives said we'd have the UK system in ten years if we passed Medicare. It wasn't true. Now you say the same thing about this bill. Why should we believe you this time?

barfo

 

[julius]

Conservatives said we'd have the UK system in ten years if we passed Medicare. It wasn't true. Now you say the same thing about this bill. Why should we believe you this time?

barfo

While both sides are prone to hyperbole when it comes to everything, this time they mean it!

 

[barfo]

While both sides are prone to hyperbole when it comes to everything, this time they mean it!

Well, in the Boy who Cried Wolf, eventually the Socialist Wolf did come and eat something (the lambs? the boy? a whole order of jalapeno poppers? I don't remember).

So, maybe the Socialist Wolf is at our door, and he's going to huff and puff and blow our healthcare down. If I actually see a Socialist Wolf, then maybe I'll get the AWBM (anti-wolf ballistic missle) out. But I'm not going to take the Conservative Boy's word for it. He cries Socialist Wolf every time the wind blows.

barfo

 

[julius]

Well, in the Boy who Cried Wolf, eventually the Socialist Wolf did come and eat something (the lambs? the boy? a whole order of jalapeno poppers? I don't remember).

So, maybe the Socialist Wolf is at our door, and he's going to huff and puff and blow our healthcare down. If I actually see a Socialist Wolf, then maybe I'll get the AWBM (anti-wolf ballistic missle) out. But I'm not going to take the Conservative Boy's word for it. He cries Socialist Wolf every time the wind blows.

barfo

Well, I think they could argue, in your allegory, that it's too late to do anything about it once the SW is at your door. Or at least to fix the situation you have to blow him up and your front door, and it might take out your car, grandmother who is sunbathing nude in your front yard (who lives with you upstairs because she can't afford her medical bills), your neighbor who is having sex with your nude sunbathing grandmother, and your cat Toonces who was actually driving your car.

 

[blazerboy30]

Well, in the Boy who Cried Wolf, eventually the Socialist Wolf did come and eat something (the lambs? the boy? a whole order of jalapeno poppers? I don't remember).

So, maybe the Socialist Wolf is at our door, and he's going to huff and puff and blow our healthcare down. If I actually see a Socialist Wolf, then maybe I'll get the AWBM (anti-wolf ballistic missle) out. But I'm not going to take the Conservative Boy's word for it. He cries Socialist Wolf every time the wind blows.

barfo

I thought he was your friend and hero?

 

[barfo]

Well, I think they could argue, in your allegory, that it's too late to do anything about it once the SW is at your door. Or at least to fix the situation you have to blow him up and your front door, and it might take out your car, grandmother who is sunbathing nude in your front yard (who lives with you upstairs because she can't afford her medical bills), your neighbor who is having sex with your nude sunbathing grandmother, and your cat Toonces who was actually driving your car.

That's ok. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. I would like to spare Toonces, though.

barfo

 

[barfo]

I thought he was your friend and hero?

Nah, my friend and hero is the Capitalist Chipmunk. He's just so cute, stuffing everything he can find into his cheeks.

barfo

 

[elcap15]

No, it isn't. This bill isn't about taking over everyone's healthcare any more than the Medicare bill was. Less so than Medicare, actually.

Conservatives said we'd have the UK system in ten years if we passed Medicare. It wasn't true. Now you say the same thing about this bill. Why should we believe you this time?

barfo

Some of the criticisms fo Medicare did come true. Mostly about its ever increasing cost and unsustainability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)

Unforseen tax increases happened

Medicare is partially financed by payroll taxes imposed by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and the Self-Employment Contributions Act of 1954. In the case of employees, the tax is equal to 2.9% (1.45% withheld from the worker and a matching 1.45% paid by the employer) of the wages, salaries and other compensation in connection with employment. Until December 31, 1993, the law provided a maximum amount of wages, etc., on which the Medicare tax could be imposed each year.[6] Beginning January 1, 1994, the compensation limit was removed. In the case of self-employed individuals, the entire 2.9% tax of self employed net earnings must be paid by the self-employed individual, however half of the tax can be deducted from the income calculated for income tax purposes.

And costs couldnt be controlled

The costs of Medicare doubled every four years between 1966 and 1980

Medicare spending is growing steadily in both absolute terms and as a percentage of the federal budget. Total Medicare spending reached $440 billion for fiscal year 2007, or 16% of all federal spending. The only larger categories of federal spending are Social Security and defense.

Medicare faces continuing financial challenges. In its 2008 annual report to Congress, the Medicare Board of Trustees reported that the program's hospital insurance trust fund could run out of money by 2017. The trustees have made such projections in the past, but this one was bleaker than the outlook reported in 2007.[68]

Richard W. Fisher, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas has remarked that in order to "cover the unfunded liability" for the Medicare program today over an infinite time horizon, "you would be stuck with an $85.6 trillion bill" which is "more than six times the annual output of the entire U.S. economy", and noted that "Medicare was a pay-as-you-go program from the very beginning."[47]

The present value of unfunded obligations under all parts of Medicare during FY 2007 over a 75-year forecast horizon is approximately $34.0 trillion. In other words, this amount would have to be set aside today such that the principal and interest would cover the shortfall over the next 75 years.[48]

 

[maxiep]

No, it isn't. This bill isn't about taking over everyone's healthcare any more than the Medicare bill was. Less so than Medicare, actually.

Again, don't focus on the current legislation as an ending point, but rather a beginning one.

Conservatives said we'd have the UK system in ten years if we passed Medicare. It wasn't true. Now you say the same thing about this bill. Why should we believe you this time?

barfo

I never said anything about Medicare as I wasn't born when it passed. Those of us on the right don't all think alike. My comments are about this healthcare debate. And this debate has nothing to do with giving everyone access to care, but rather with expanding the power of the state over the individual and more specifically with trying to permanently shift the political power in this country to the Left. If they just wanted to cover the uninsured, there are cheaper and simpler ways to do it.

 

[barfo]

Again, don't focus on the current legislation as an ending point, but rather a beginning one.

I prefer to consider legislation as individual bills, because that's the way they are voted on in congress. I understand you see it as some sort of predestination where future congresspeople lack free will and this one bill sets in motion an unstoppable series of future events, but I just don't see it that way. My opinion, there are many many possible future paths, and our future congressfolk will be choosing among them.

I never said anything about Medicare as I wasn't born when it passed.

I know you didn't - but the fact that you are repeating their (proven incorrect) arguments suggests to me that maybe there is some learning from history that should be going on here.

And this debate has nothing to do with giving everyone access to care, but rather with expanding the power of the state over the individual and more specifically with trying to permanently shift the political power in this country to the Left. If they just wanted to cover the uninsured, there are cheaper and simpler ways to do it.

Well, obviously the two of us are never going to convince each other. But I think you are being unnecessarily paranoid. The sky is not going to fall if we insure another 30 million people. And, sure, there would be better ways to do this. This bill is a compromise, it's not anybody's ideal bill. It's what we can do given the governmental system we have.

barfo