Health Savings Account-Health Savings Account Info

Bulk Vanderhuge asked:


Why don’t most liberals see this? It is confounding to me…

excerpt…
Suppose that some editor offered me $1,000 to write an article. If there were no taxes of any kind, this $1,000 of income would translate into $1,000 in extra saving. If I invested it in the stock of a company that earned, say, 8 percent a year on its capital, then 30 years from now, when I pass on, my children would inherit about $10,000. That is simply the miracle of compounding.

Now let’s put taxes into the calculus. First, assuming that the Bush tax cuts expire, I would pay 39.6 percent in federal income taxes on that extra income. Beyond that, the phaseout of deductions adds 1.2 percentage points to my effective marginal tax rate. I also pay Medicare tax, which the recent health care bill is raising to 3.8 percent, starting in 2013. And in Massachusetts, I pay 5.3 percent in state income taxes, part of which I get back as a federal deduction. Putting all those taxes together, that $1,000 of pretax income becomes only $523 of saving.

And that saving no longer earns 8 percent. First, the corporation in which I have invested pays a 35 percent corporate tax on its earnings. So I get only 5.2 percent in dividends and capital gains. Then, on that income, I pay taxes at the federal and state level. As a result, I earn about 4 percent after taxes, and the $523 in saving grows to $1,700 after 30 years.

Then, when my children inherit the money, the estate tax will kick in. The marginal estate tax rate is scheduled to go as high as 55 percent next year, but Congress may reduce it a bit. Most likely, when that $1,700 enters my estate, my kids will get, at most, $1,000 of it.

HERE’S the bottom line: Without any taxes, accepting that editor’s assignment would have yielded my children an extra $10,000. With taxes, it yields only $1,000. In effect, once the entire tax system is taken into account, my family’s marginal tax rate is about 90 percent. Is it any wonder that I turn down most of the money-making opportunities I am offered?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/business/economy/10view.html?_r=1

Excuse me…I meant intellectual, not liberal

Mason Keding

Demonrat asked:


No new taxes, but big welfare cuts in Schwarzenegger’s California budget plan

The poor would be hard hit under the budget proposal submitted Friday by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

His $83.4-billion plan would eliminate the state’s welfare-to-work program and most child care for the poor.

It would freeze funding for local schools, further cut state workers’ pay and take away 60% of state money for local mental health programs.

State parks and higher education are among the few areas the governor’s proposal would spare.

The plan, which would not raise taxes, also relies on $3.4 billion in help from Washington – half of what the governor sought earlier this year — to help close a budget gap now estimated at $19.1 billion. Billions of dollars more would be saved through accounting moves and fund shifts.

The governor blamed legislative inaction for the deep wound to state services.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/05/no-new-taxes-but-big-welfare-cuts-in-schwarzenegers-california-budget-plan-1.html

Doesn’t he realize that we have a welfare based economy where the GDP revolves around welfare?
This is a joke BTW I don’t really mean any of this Schwarzenegger is a good man and I am glad he is doing something about the real problem here.
Maybe the Liberals will get it when I do it like this lol.
Jerry Brown will probably reverse everything and give out more welfare. California should just declare bankruptcy and let all the services collapse. That will wake up the people there.

Yajaira Lobner

Judicator asked:


Still a work in progress, but here it goes

-National Gov.-

Fiscal (Domestic)

13 % National Flat Tax

States have the ability to levy any other form of taxes

Fiscal (International)

Congress has the ability to negotiate and set trade rules and restrictions against hostile countries. Vital products such as food and energy are subject to protectionists policies. No international trade organizations which would compromise this ability, though general principles of laissez faire capitalism would still be the rule, just not uncompromising law.

-Foreign Affairs-

NATO was designed with a specific purpose which has been completed, making it outdated, thus a new military alliance should be established to replace it, consisting of America’s fewer but truer allies.

Reduce participation in international organizations and treaties.

Pay back debt owned to other countries.

-Health care-

Since any blanket plan that covers a political region as diverse as the entire US would be inefficient, states have the sole ability to set up any system of healthcare (private or state government) for themselves, designed to meet any special needs or unique circumstances of the state.

-Welfare-

The form of such would be limited only to unemployment (which requires 7 resumes sent a week, and effort to regain a job), disability (those who physically or mentally can not work), or temporary welfare for those with jobs who encounter “bad times”, the service lasting more than 6 months, no exceptions.

General welfare will be replaced with workfare. Where the state provides jobs that are made for the unskilled and the work is generally unfavorable, consisting of manual labor, contract work, creating state use only items, or environmental work (city/beach clean up projects), pay would be based on results. There will also be more feminine related jobs for single mothers to participate in instead. Half the wages will be held by the state in an account for the participant once the individual leaves the program. ¼ of the wages will be paid to the state to supply shelter, food, water, as well as educational or skill based programs to the individual. The last ¼ is free for recreational use. Drug use is not permitted while on the program.

-Social-

Abortion, euthanasia, *** marriage, and other social items will be decided by the states via propositions

-Crime-

No automatic repeal in capital cases (you can still repeal for mistakes and flaws).

Electrocution and other forms of punishment brought back and allowed if desired by the state, sentence carried out within 3 years after sentencing (for all new cases, not older ones).

Length of incarceration for all non capital felonies need to be reduced, while removing TVs, weight training equipment, coffee, and any other luxury items that are not conducive to reducing recidivism. Saves money with fewer years of incarceration and less required commodities, the money saved can be pocketed or placed into rehabilitative programs.

Establish a law enforcement agency that routinely patrols both borders and oceans.

-Immigration-

Ban on all immigrants who possess incurable infectious diseases or excessive/violent criminal records.

To assure greater integration and to prevent societal marginalization of immigrants, proficient English is a requirement.

Expand work visas for all law abiding and hard working immigrants.

Increase the quota for Mexican immigrates.

-MISC-

Get the US back to a factory/industrial based economy, by whatever means possible.
I didn’t change or cut unemployment from what it is now, I have no current suggestions for any modifications for unemployment, so the current system that operates under Obama is what I would still operate under, until I can figure a more apporpirate meausre.
I merely suggested a replacement of the welfare system.

Please don’t put words in my mouth.

Soraya Ximenez

Bored asked:


What is middle class anyway? If I own my own house, have two cars, four televisions, cable, two laptops, a few other computers, health insurance, blast the AC all day, go out to eat at least once a week, go on vacation every year, have two kids, a pool, and so on.. All on my measly $15 an hour and my wife’s $12 an hour, all without any aid from the government and saving money in my bank account for an emergency. Is this poverty?

I could do a lot better, but am content with my lifestyle. I live fairly frugally, fix my own cars with barely any experience but make use of manuals and the Internet, do my own repairs to my house, buy used furniture, etc. Why is it so many healthy people are struggling, getting a job is not that hard.. I got laid off and found another one by applying on the Internet in a couple of weeks.

Herb Nowitzke

jack asked:


do we have to wait another 4 years for many of the services? Yet at the same time we will begin paying taxes on those very programs we are being denied for four years? Also included in the so called Reform there are “additions,” that help insurance companies pocket billions of dollars, and if you think it is not look it up? or better yet us some Common Sense. Does anyone in America think that Insurance Companies would still be in business today after a so called “Reform,” took place? NO! They would have taken the Billions they already have and the Presidents and CEO’s of these companies would have went to Russia, China or were ever and told us to go ***** ourselves.? Then of course there is the Government Accounting Office. for you Democrats that is the division in the Government that calculates all proposed bills to find there effect, now when they added the entire bill together for its entire life they said it would cost over 1 trillion dollars for ten years of us, however Obama says ‘it will only cost 810 billion for ten years and will help our debt.” now, while i like Obama as a person, where is the change? where is the Reform to our health care? the insurance companies still get there money! Government still get Gold Care(does anyone really think the President of the United States will have the same Health care as “me and you,” if you do you need to wake up.” Someone please explain to me what has this man changed for the better, and i mean real change, and if you can present your case in a Intelligent manner and show me that the Government Accounting Office is wrong i will Apologize to you and Obama and i will change my view and i will support health care. However saying that it will save 16,000 lives a year or month means nothing because for evey life that is saved another is lost so that argument is about as worthless as a day old hot dog..

Jordon Pultz

pdooma asked:


Instead, you could take the money you would be paying into premiums, put it into a health account that rolls over from year to year, and save it. Then when you are sick, think about how much cash you’d have in there to actually just pay for your treatments? Of course, that would require discipline which is pretty much unheard of nowadays.

Kimberlee Cripe

The MobFather asked:


Health law may end job-based coverage

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101024/ap_on_bi_ge/us_employer_health_plans

The new health care law wasn’t supposed to undercut employer plans that have provided most people in the U.S. with coverage for generations.

But last week a leading manufacturer told workers their costs will jump partly because of the law. Also, a Democratic governor laid out a scheme for employers to get out of health care by shifting workers into taxpayer-subsidized insurance markets that open in 2014.

Tennessee Gov. Bredesen (Democrat) said last week that employers could save big money by dropping their health plans and sending workers to buy coverage in the exchange. They’d face a fine of $2,000 per worker, but that’s still way less than the cost of providing health insurance. Employers could even afford to give workers a raise and still come out ahead, Bredesen wrote in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece.

The above is from YAHOO..

****Same Story from Same reporter.. This was LEFT OUT on Yahoo.. but included at the FOX News Site !****

“I don’t think you are going to hear anybody publicly say ‘We’ve made a decision to drop insurance,’ ” said Paul Keckley, executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. “What we are hearing in our meetings is, ‘We don’t want to be the first one to drop benefits, but we would be the fast second.’ We are hearing that a lot.” Deloitte is a major accounting and consulting firm.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/24/companies-examine-health-care-laws-effect-employee-coverage/?test=latestnews

FFFFUUUUU Are you capable or reading?

Lana Bachmann

I love yanking your chain asked:


Would this be so bad? This is only an excerpt from a first-hand account with insurance in France. It makes sense.

“How good is the French medical care? Surveys by the World Health Organization rate the French system as the best in the world, and far better than average health care in the United States. Life expectancy and most other relevant rankings are also higher in France than in the United States.

From our own experience, we would agree that French medicine is much better and far cheaper than in the United States. When we lived in Florida, my very expensive heart specialist seemed content for me to have a bit of high blood pressure, which he saw as natural for a person of my age. Not so here in France, where the doctors kept changing my pills until they got me down to the normal 120 over 80. The French doctors also found a way to end a long-standing enlargement of my heart that never bothered my American doctors.

To be fair, not all doctors here are as good as the ones who’ve treated us, and we’ve heard the same kind of horror stories we heard in the States about doctors who buried their mistakes. We also hear threats to cut back funding, which is already far less per head than spending on medical care in the United States. But, so far, we’ve gotten the best of care, as do all our neighbors, including workmen, farmers and retirees on limited budgets.

Why, then, can’t Americans have the same kind of socialized medicine? Mostly, because of the health maintenance organizations and insurance companies, who take such a big slice off the top. So strong is their influence that almost no one of any clout in American politics dares to talk of a single-payer system that would simply do away with private medical insurance, except perhaps as the kind of top-up they have here.

Hopefully, if enough Americans get to know what exists here in France, the debate will open up. Something like the French system would certainly save Americans a great deal of money and provide much better care.

But, for Anna and me, it’s already too late. We’ve become so enslaved by the great medical care we now have that we cannot see ever moving back to the United States or anywhere else. That, I suppose, is the true horror of socialized medicine that all those Florida doctors warned about back in the 1940s.”

http://www.truthout.org/112108A

Allyson Burrough

Slaol asked:


Sorry about the length… I promise it is worth the read!

***********************************************
Besides paying some of the highest prices for health care, we have the dubious distinction of having the most heavily regulated healthcare system in the world. In no other country on earth are doctors and hospitals subjected to as many oversight and enforcement agencies, bureaus and commissions. Rules, regulations, and laws are duplicated, redundant, multiplied, magnified, and contradictory. Laws and regulations covering doctors and hospitals plus all the other parts of our healthcare system now account for over half of all the words, sentences, and paragraphs in our entire body of law.

If regulations could make a healthcare system work better, ours would surely be perfect. In fact, the opposite has occurred. Even those who believe that only government regulation can assure quality health care should face this fact. More laws and regulations are not going to fix our system. If we are truly concerned about the high cost of health care, if we really desire greater safety and higher quality, then we must undertake a dispassionate analysis of the current mess. If we wish to begin effective treatment of our healthcare system, we must first make an accurate diagnosis….

We have to go very far back to the first meeting of what would become the American Medical Association. This meeting was held in New York City in 1846. Twenty-nine allopathic doctors (MDs) attended the meeting. They wanted to establish a monopoly over health care in the United States for those doctors that practiced higher quality medicine, such as themselves. They felt there were too many different kinds of doctors practicing too many questionable forms of medicine. They wanted only doctors that conformed to their brand of medicine to be allowed to practice. They wished to set up their association as a medical elite and obtain a government-enforced monopoly over health care in the United States.

The following year the AMA was officially launched. Members’ efforts were at first slow to yield results. One of their first successes was in getting the exclusive right to positions in the federal government. Then, around 1870, the AMA began to find success at setting up medical boards in each state…

Soon after the medical monopoly was formed it began to push its agenda of destroying all competition. A well organized and funded nationwide purge of all non-MDs was undertaken. Over the course of the first half of the twentieth century this medical monopoly managed to shut down over forty medical schools. Their idea was to keep the number of doctors low in order to keep fees up. After WW II the medical monopoly started rigidly controlling how many of each medical specialty it would allow to be trained. So ophthalmologists, orthopedists, dermatologists, obstetricians, and others began to be in short supply. And of course when supplies are low, fees are high. The medical monopoly also managed to outlaw or marginalize over seventy healthcare professions. Protection of the healthcare consumer was, as always, the rationale for this power grab.

Whether the object of destruction by the medical monopoly be homeopaths, midwives, chiropractors, or internet prescribers, the purge is conducted in the same manner. No scientific proof or research data is offered to discredit these practitioners. The entire approach is one of character assassination directed at their profession.

On one occasion the medical monopoly did try to behave “scientifically,” but this approach backfired: They tried to show that obstetricians achieved a lower infant mortality rate than did midwives, but when the data was compiled it showed the reverse was true—midwives had the better record. The medical monopoly quickly abandoned this approach and returned to their proven method of buying lawmakers and writing nasty unsubstantiated accusations in their journals. It seems the public always falls for propaganda that promises greater consumer safety…

We should strongly consider abolishing state medical boards. Do we really need an additional and separate secret police for doctors? If we elect to keep the state medical board system, then governors should not be allowed to appoint doctors to medical boards or pharmacists to boards of pharmacy. This is like putting the foxes in charge of henhouse security! If these are supposed to be consumer protection agencies, then staff them with consumers. The ideal board member is the owner-operator of a small business. Such boards could consult anyone they wish for technical or professional advice.

I am sure that the Federal Trade Commission has looked at this, probably more than once. The legal problem is that the AMA does not directly intervene in the marketplace. The medical monopoly is cleverly divided up into numerous components with legal separations that make it nearly impossible to mount an effective antitrust case. Th
The AMA makes sure that it stays at arms length from the state medical boards and even has the Federation of State Medical Boards in between. The communication, cooperation, and even conspiratorial planning between the components of the medical monopoly are unquestionable, but such contact is always couched in terms of protecting the public.

If, however, the state medical board system were abolished, or disempowered, the medical monopoly would suffer a fatal blow. Cut off the small head of a giant rattlesnake and the huge body of the snake is rendered harmless. The beneficial effect of such action to healthcare consumers, American workers, and the economy would be enormous and immediate. Less appreciated would be an even more important effect: The breakup of the medical monopoly would go a long way toward taking American medicine out of its current political orientation and back into its proper scientific orientation.

http://mises.org/story/1749

I can’t even imagine how far “innovative doctors” could lower prices for their patients if they were only allowed to do so.
I am in Medical School and would love to see the changes made to the system that the article above speaks of.

Kirk Bhairo

wat u say? asked:


if so does that mean the GOP only cares about their bank accounts?

If the GOP was so damn good we would have had health care reform when Gingrich was the speaker instead of that lunitic botox queen.

but we all know the GOP failed misrably at their jobs and now the dems are in control. The dems are also failing.. but doing better than the “YES SIR GEORGE.. YES SIR!!” GOP congress.
i am sorry cons but the heath care bill will be passed and you morons cant do anything about it. I am mixed on the current health care bill but its better than doing nothing.

If the GOP was so amazing they would be in the majority right now. Please save your bellyaching for someone who is an idiot. because I am not buying “dems are evil and we GOP are awesome” because I know the Nazi’s in germany probably said the same thing to themselves and look where that got them

Roxy Conkey