|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 144 responses total. |
mvpel
|
|
response 50 of 144:
| 
Apr 14 04:51 UTC 2002 |
Re: 47 - one of the hallmarks of a socialist society is what's called a
"progressive" income tax - where you are taxed at a higher rate the more money
you make. I gather in Australia it's something over 50% if you make more than
$25,000 a year.
|
klg
|
|
response 51 of 144:
|
Apr 14 15:49 UTC 2002 |
re: "#49 of 50: by Joe (gelinas) on Sat, Apr 13, 2002 (23:58):
If I recall correctly, the unused balance is forfeit to the IRS at the end
of the year." Not true. The unused balance is retained by the
employer. If the employer choses to do so, he may use the funds to
offset administrative expenses or (I believe) distribute the funds
among the accounts of all participants. You may also wish to note
that the employee may use up to 100% of the projected annual
contributions early in the year, before making any or all contributions
and then leave the company, leaving the employer to make up the deficit.
|
klg
|
|
response 52 of 144:
|
Apr 14 19:13 UTC 2002 |
Also, note that it was President Georg Bush who want to change the law
so that an individual may carry his unused funds over to the next year.
|
other
|
|
response 53 of 144:
|
Apr 14 19:51 UTC 2002 |
I think the ONLY legitimate way to operate such funds is to allow them to be
carried over indefinitely, and transferred from employer to employer. It
would be a whole lot more efficient than taxing the money and then refunding
or crediting it at the end of the year.
|
other
|
|
response 54 of 144:
|
Apr 14 19:55 UTC 2002 |
(Of course, by legitimate I don't mean "now legal." I mean sensible, honest
and ethical.)
|
jep
|
|
response 55 of 144:
|
Apr 14 21:59 UTC 2002 |
My understanding has always been if you don't use the money within the
year, you lose it. It does seem to be a strange program in that way.
I don't understand the purpose of the way it works.
I've searched the IRS home page at http://www.irs.gov and not found any
information about the program or the rules. I'll have to check the
intranet page at work or contact my HR department to find out more, I
guess.
|
jp2
|
|
response 56 of 144:
|
Apr 14 22:48 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
scg
|
|
response 57 of 144:
|
Apr 15 00:55 UTC 2002 |
The program like that we hve where I work is set up such that if you don't
use it by the end of the year the money goes away. I haven't seen any
explanation of where the money goes when it goes away. Since the accounts
are administered by the health insurance company, I've been assuming they
either go to the health insurance company or to the IRS. If the former, I
wonder what's required to get licensed to administer such a fund. ;)
|
keesan
|
|
response 58 of 144:
|
Apr 15 02:42 UTC 2002 |
Why not just allow people to deduct all of their medical expenses, including
all of their insurance costs, from their earnings? Better yet, supply
everyone with free medical care like in civilized countries. The above system
sounds like something made up by the conservatives as a sop to the liberals.
|
mvpel
|
|
response 59 of 144:
|
Apr 15 06:34 UTC 2002 |
You forgot to put quotes around the word "free" in your response, Sindi.
And you should do some reading about the "free" health care system in that
"civilized" country called Great Britain for a dose of reality.
|
senna
|
|
response 60 of 144:
|
Apr 15 06:41 UTC 2002 |
mvpel rhetoric aside, medical care is never free.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 61 of 144:
|
Apr 15 07:43 UTC 2002 |
What about Canada? I know Tony Blair has admitted that the UK
socialized health care system has problems, but I haven't heard what
the problems are with the Canadian system.
My understanding is that Canada's isn't fully socialized: there are
some things that aren't covered and require private insurance. I
think some sort of basic health care should be socialized-- I haven't
heard much to the contrary besides the notion that it's simply 'a bad
idea.'
Information, please?
And yes, of course, medical care is never free. The question is just
whether it should remain largely private, or largely public. I think,
again, there should be perhaps *something* at the federal level. I am
on state subsidized, and I still have to pay $121 or so out of pocket
a month.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 62 of 144:
|
Apr 15 08:00 UTC 2002 |
btw, this is for the bipolar condition mentioned last season. It
would not be a good idea to just say, "Gee, I can manage without the
medication." I've had to cut the meds due to lack of finances, with
disastrous results. I use therapy fairly pro-actively and
assertively, which helps, and I stayed informed about my treatment.
Although it is largely senior citizens who have made health care a
huge issue recently, there are many others (including those like
myself) who are struggling with health care costs.
I have a friend with leukemia who's about my age.. she *and* her
husband are working long hours just to keep up with everything. I'm
sure they've got it worse. They vote conservatively and are
Republican, but I am unsure if they would disagree with something
partially public. HMO's were a solution to rising health care costs
in the past, and now we are stuck with many bureaucrats in agencies
who are cutting corners in the name of curbing costs.
So many HMO's call certain procedures 'cosmetic.' My wife had to take
Dexadrine for ADD a while back. The insurance company said it
was 'cosmetic' and my in-laws had to really battle it out to assure
them it was not. (Dexadrine over-the-counter is known as Dexatrim.)
Now they are fighting again because the dentist had to use porcelain
for my sister-in-laws recent fillings. Both Julie and my sister-in-
law are allergic to metal fillings. Yes, porcelain is more tooth
colored, but it does not slowly leech toxins into your system like
metal fillings. Dentists prefer to use porcelain more these days for
that reason, but the insurance companies seem slow to realize the
benefits. They have been commanded to seek the bottom line, and that
is cutting costs.
Good grief, there are even a few doctors who have gone to opening
practices where costs are paid fully by their patients (I forget where
the AP Press article can be found.. have to look it up, but it was
covered some time ago). Yes, only the rich can afford it, and all
parties seem to like it because the patient pool is thereby smaller.
|
mvpel
|
|
response 63 of 144:
|
Apr 15 21:37 UTC 2002 |
I gather that setting a leg broken while skiing is covered in Canada, but a
decompression chamber for a bent scuba diver is not. Go figure...
The reason you're seeing these problems in health care is not due to
insufficient government involvement, in fact, they're just an inkling of what
you would see if the Feds disregarded the Constitution and got into health
care in a really big way.
Third-party-payer and subsidized health care distorts market economies, and
while people are bringing their kids to the doctor over a case of the sniffles
because it's only a $5 co-pay thus causing the demand to balloon, doctors are
being squeezed on the other end, having to serve many more patients just to
break even as their plan participation premiums and insurance rates are jacked
up while their fixed billing rates are dropped.
|
scott
|
|
response 64 of 144:
|
Apr 15 23:21 UTC 2002 |
So how is that any different than the HMO's? Haven't the free-market people
ever read "Dilbert"?
|
oval
|
|
response 65 of 144:
|
Apr 16 00:54 UTC 2002 |
the problem with socialized health care (or socialism in general) is that is
does work in a capitalist environment. i would say england's flaws are that
people with money have access to better doctors, doctors make more money
than if they work in the government healthe care system. there is no
integration.
|
jep
|
|
response 66 of 144:
|
Apr 16 02:18 UTC 2002 |
I found out how the flexible spending account thing works. They
collect the money from you pre-tax, then you pay your co-pays and
additional expenses, then submit a claim and get reimbursed from the
insurance company. The money has to be used up by the end of the
year. I asked if I can sign up for it in the middle of the year, or do
I have to wait until the next open enrollment period.
I can probably sign up for it when my divorce is finalized, anyway; I
can make changes to my benefits at that time such as removing my then
ex-wife from my insurance.
|
oval
|
|
response 67 of 144:
|
Apr 16 02:29 UTC 2002 |
umm, #65 is supposed to say socialized health care does NOT work within
capitalism. maybe it could, but it ain't so far.
|
russ
|
|
response 68 of 144:
|
Apr 16 04:02 UTC 2002 |
Re #61: Let me tell you about a recent experience with Canadian
"free" health care.
Child has a large birthmark. For years it is no problem, but not
long ago it is bumped not too heavily, yet it starts bleeding. This
is a characteristic of cancerous growths, and this thing is *huge*.
Having it removed immediately before it can metastasize or hemmorhage
is an extremely good idea.
It took weeks to get an appointment with a doctor. It took *months*
to get an appointment with a surgeon. The thing has finally been
removed, but at the cost of months of needless worry and risk of
future health problems. And this is an optimal case, because said
child's mother is a health-care professional with lots of contacts
and knowledge of how to work the system. Ordinary people do not have
it so good, no matter how little it costs in cash.
I saw a bumper sticker once:
Socialized Health Care:
The Efficiency of the Postal Service
The Compassion of the IRS...
At Pentagon Prices!
It wouldn't all happen, but enough would to make it very scary.
|
mvpel
|
|
response 69 of 144:
|
Apr 16 04:08 UTC 2002 |
Why do you think Tom Green came to the US to have his testicular cancer
treated?
That bumper sticker CRACKED me up, Russ! :-)
|
jp2
|
|
response 70 of 144:
|
Apr 16 12:48 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 71 of 144:
|
Apr 16 14:16 UTC 2002 |
Re #68: The difference being a poor person with a part-time job, who had
a child with the same birthmark, would be out of luck in the U.S., but
would still get the same happy ending you did in Canada.
As a Canadian friend of mine once put it, "the health care I can get in
Canada isn't quite as high-tech as the health care I wouldn't be able to
afford in the U.S."
|
jp2
|
|
response 72 of 144:
|
Apr 16 14:18 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 73 of 144:
|
Apr 16 14:23 UTC 2002 |
Great Britain spends 6% of GDP on health care. US spends 14%. GDP is lower
per person in Great Britain. I don't know the figures for Canada, but if the
same amount of money were spent on health care in the US without the big cut
taken by for-profit insurance companies and associated paperwork, there would
be plenty of money left to care for the currently uninsured, who I am sure
would much rather have something than nothing.
|
slynne
|
|
response 74 of 144:
|
Apr 16 14:41 UTC 2002 |
You know, there might be a public good in providing very basic health
care on a socialized basis while still keeping private health insurance
for more advanced kinds of treatment.
It seems that having large segments of the population with no health
insurance could be a public health issue. There are lots of contagious
things that people dont seek treatment for because they cant afford to
go to the doctor.
Medicaid sucks and really only provides very basic care but wouldnt it
be nice if the working poor could be given an option to buy into it at
rates that are affordable to them?
|