Healthcare and responsibility.

[jeezeweeze]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

probably a couple years older than me but I will bet I've been as many places and seen as much as you have...

I don't know about that

You ever been to a really, really BAD SWINGERS PARTY.

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by wordsmythe

So what makes it any different if my employer pays for my healthcare as part of my "service" to the company?

There's difference between serving your company and serving your country and hopefully you understand that there is a difference. If you don't know the difference you can waste my time and yours and I will elaborate.

As far as healthcare if you company had the same benefit as the military then so be it. The employer pays for the policy you have. My view is you know what it is and if you don't like it go somewhere else. That's what makes our country great....you have choice. If they pay for it as part of your service it's part of your compensation or package just like us. What's your question?

[wordsmythe]

No question at all.

If they don't pay it and I think they should I can negotiate with them to do so, Maybe the government gives them a huge tax break or tax CUT for paying it or a big chunk of it.

What's wrong with that?

oops there's the question after all

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by wordsmythe

No question at all.

If they don't pay it and I think they should I can negotiate with them to do so, Maybe the government gives them a huge tax break or tax CUT for paying it or a big chunk of it.

What's wrong with that?

oops there's the question after all

There are negotiations all the time between people and their employers for healthcare benefits, especially if you are in a union. It's called contract negotiations.

I do think the gov't should give business a tax incentive or a tax break to help them with insurance. Dang Wordy.. you sound like a Republican.

[jeezeweeze]

Getting back to who is going to pay for this healthcare, and congress thinks a big ole hike in cigarette tax would be a good idea. I am reasonably sure all the non smokers prolly figure uh huh good idea.

Well I was researching to see if there maybe is a website like "send a brick to Washington. com, only send a diaper.......... I ran across this and this should stir up a big ole hornets nest.

Try to read it if you can. Whoa

Anyway how bout we raise taxes on disposable diapers, after all they are not necessary..............UH OH we are gonna strike nerve here.

Point is, there is something in everyone's life that could be a sticky wicket if it is singled out for higher taxes.

A Tale of Two Diapers by Peggy O'Mara - Editorials on Natural Family Living

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by jeezeweeze

Getting back to who is going to pay for this healthcare, and congress thinks a big ole hike in cigarette tax would be a good idea. I am reasonably sure all the non smokers prolly figure uh huh good idea.

Well I was researching to see if there maybe is a website like "send a brick to Washington. com, only send a diaper.......... I ran across this and this should stir up a big ole hornets nest.

Try to read it if you can. Whoa

Anyway how bout we raise taxes on disposable diapers, after all they are not necessary..............UH OH we are gonna strike nerve here.

Point is, there is something in everyone's life that could be a sticky wicket if it is singled out for higher taxes.

A Tale of Two Diapers by Peggy O'Mara - Editorials on Natural Family Living

The Dems proposing to raise "sin taxes" on smokes and or alcohol is an ez way out. More poor people smoke than do wealthy so they are going to charge them more to pay for their own healthcare...hmmmm...

*One-third of lower-income adults smoke versus one-fifth of middle- and high-income earners, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

*High school graduates who smoke spend some $1,453 on tobacco products each year, versus just $1,248 for smokers with professional degrees.

*High school dropouts who smoke spend three to four times as much of their income on tobacco products as professionals who smoke (4.47 percent and 1.27 percent, respectively).

Actually raising taxes on anything is not the way to pay for something. How about cutting back in other area's.

The Dems are always coming up with ways to raise taxes because they think they can spend your money better than you do.

Another tax on stupidity is the lottery.....

*The dollar amount spent on the lottery by the lowest-income individuals
(earning less than $10,000 annually) is twice as much as the highest earners (earning more than $100,000 annually).

*But lotteries have worse odds than other forms of gambling; in fact, states retain some 33 cents of each dollar of lottery revenue - whereas privately owned casinos keep just 4.4 percent of the take.

[Highwayman]

Here’s a little reminder what happens when Republicans give in to Democrats that want to raise taxes.

...Consider Rep. Patrick Kennedy's (D-R.I.) proposed legislation to succor the yacht industry and assuage the pains of its most put-upon customers.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 was the budget agreement by which President Bush broke his "read-my-lips" vow not to agree to new taxes. The act was, as omnibus bills tend to be, an eye-of-newt-and-hair-of-toad brew of this and that and some other things, and it included--in the name of fairness, of course--a stern tax on "luxury items."

Those items included automobiles, aircraft, jewelry and furs over certain prices. And yachts costing more than $100,000.

In 1990 there were no luxury excise taxes, all of them having been repealed in 1965. But perhaps every quarter-century or so government--it cannot help itself--must go on a "fairness" bender, the memory of the hangover from similar misadventures having faded.

In 1990 the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the 1991 revenue yield from luxury taxes would be $31 million. It was $16.6 million. Why? Because (surprise!) the taxation changed behavior: Fewer people bought the taxed products. Demand went down when prices went up. Washington was amazed. People bought yachts overseas. Who would have thought it?

According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off by $38.6 million.

George Will

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by jeezeweeze

There are so many catch 22's in the REAL WORLD health care. Like pre-existing conditions for you or your family, if you choose to get a higher paid job, Limits to what is paid for certain conditions, whether is is pre-existing or not. Thats is just 2 of the many little " unless" clauses in the fine print.

Just dropping in and too busy to play right now some of you are doing great with the Sargent without a clue. HIPAA eliminated pre-existing conditions when changing health insurance carriers. When moving from one plan to another, the plan you are leaving will issue a letter stating you have had insurance for x number of months. That letter is given to the new insurer and the pre-existing stipulations are waived. I think the law requires 18 months of continuous coverage.

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by Outofdodge

Just dropping in and too busy to play right now some of you are doing great with the Sargent without a clue. HIPAA eliminated pre-existing conditions when changing health insurance carriers. When moving from one plan to another, the plan you are leaving will issue a letter stating you have had insurance for x number of months. That letter is given to the new insurer and the pre-existing stipulations are waived. I think the law requires 18 months of continuous coverage.

That's good information to know. I'll pass that on..... =)

[jeezeweeze]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

Here’s a little reminder what happens when Republicans give in to Democrats that want to raise taxes.

George Will

UNFAIR comparison Hwy. That is a RICH issue not a party issue.
Do you think Republicans don't buy Yachts? I guess you have to be a card carrying Democrat to reap the rewards of this.

I can see it now. Yacht dealer: Do you have your card to prove you are a democrat ?
Buyer : no
yacht dealer : I cant sell you a yacht until you show me a card.

Hwy you and army are so cute. I just love this social intercourse that we have daily........................

The rich Kennedys are just republicans in democrat clothing. That way the laws passed by either party benefits them.


Here is another quote from your post
This legislation is a matter of fairness, says Kennedy, who acknowledges that hitherto he has supported "targeted tax cuts" targeted at people of modest means. But his proposal, as he explains it, is really sort of like that. The benefit of up to $2 million for each purchaser of a luxury yacht would benefit the nearly 6,000 Rhode Islanders working in the state's more than $1 billion-a-year boat-building industry, and workers elsewhere.

PRETTY DAMN SLICK I WOULD SAY......damn them slick willys.