Giantaxe

An NHS-style system isn't on the political agenda in the US and never will be.

Btw, it seems over 18k a year die from MRSA-related illnesses in the US:

http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-a...mrsa-than-aids

Indeed, which is why removing tax-deductibility for employer-provided insurance would have been the way to go. It's rather like mortgage-interest deductibility, which in the long run benefits no one but the banks.

chartreuse

So, you're saying that tax relief on mortgage interest should be abolished, except for trade unionists and other cronies of the current administration, who should get tax breaks that nobody else does?

fatbrit

So I can your mind at rest. T Here are no plans for an NHS-style system in the US, the current Congress has never had plans for an NHS-style system in the US, and I would bet a lot of money that there never will be an NHS-style system in the US.

You can rest easy now.......despite the fact your anecdote was pure bunkum.

Giantaxe

Where in the statement "Indeed, which is why removing tax-deductibility for employer-provided insurance would have been the way to go. It's rather like mortgage-interest deductibility, which in the long run benefits no one but the banks." is there an implication that I wouldn't want it to apply to union members? I'm all ears. I made a pretty simple point, and you'd have to be pretty simple not to understand it.

chartreuse

In the way that, despite the OP starting this thread specifically to discuss the issue of union health plans etc. being exempt from this new tax, you persistently refuse to even acknowledge the existence of the giant fscking elephant in the room.

Look, I'm not trying to be confrontational, but in this context it's utter toss for you to say "this would be a good thing to do" when you know full well that it's only going to be done to some.

Kaffy Mintcake

The first healthcare reform bill, if it passes, will be far from perfect. The two parties are just too far apart from one another. The Republicans are almost universally opposing the current plan as it is.

So I ask you, would you prefer this bill or the status quo? That I believe is the choice.

Giantaxe

Where have I said "this will be a good thing to do"? Answer: I haven't. In fact, I've consistently argued that instead the deductibility of employer-provided health insurance should be completely removed. How you leap from this statement to the belief that it shouldn't apply to union members is mystifying. If you're not trying to be confrontational, I can only conclude you're just not very bright.

chartreuse

You can call me stupid all you like (indeed, I believe it's traditional, when one has a weak argument), but the fact remains that the breaks for "union plans" in the current proposals are iniquitous and smack of cronyism.

Why are you getting so upset about people pointing that out?

Giantaxe

Where have I said I am? I'm all ears... The only thing I'm "upset" about is your continuing to attribute to me statements that I've never made.

And back to your previous comment - which I see you chose to ignore - where have I said that union members should be excluded from my assertion that the deductibility of employer-provided health insurance be completely removed? I'm all ears... And where have I said that "this will be a good thing to do" to exclude union members from the Senate's proposal to tax "Cadillac" plans? Once again, I'm all ears... time for you to put up or shut up. The thread's only 24 posts long so it shouldn't be difficult for you.

chrisfromusa

The way I see it, why can't we have the same choice of plans that the politicians get? If it works for them, it'll work for us. Course then there's the issue that the politicians are usually much healthier than us peons as a whole so that might become an issue.

I would be open to like a two-tier system where you have public on one side and private in other but like others have pointed out, it's never gonna happen. Though it would be interesting to see how that would work out.

chartreuse

Yawn. This always happens with healthcare threads. Somebody asks a specific question, then it gets all tribal.

The tone of your posts demonstrates your emotional attitude. And, FWIW (though I'm getting heartily sick of this) you've spent your whole engagement with this thread attempting to divert attention from the sweetheart deal with the unions. That's repugnant, IMHO.

If you really believe that the deal is immoral - say so. If you don't, at least have the courage of your convictions and admit the fact, instead of hiding behind circumlocutions.

Giantaxe

So a complete inability to quote the things that you (erroneously) claimed I'd said. Ho hum, absolutely no surprise there...

Here's a really big clue for you. If I state very clearly that I believe that the deductibility of employer-provided health insurance should be completely removed, maybe, just maybe, that includes for union members? You do understand what the word "completely" means don't you?

Of course, the ironic thing in all this, is that what I posited should be done would have the unions squealing to high heaven rather more than the original Senate Cadillac tax proposal did...

Bob

bugger....things might go south, what with Brown winning the MA senate vote...and he's mental...

Banksia

Could it just be the "concession" on the start date excise tax for Cadillac plans is not confined to unionists http://mediamatters.org/research/201001150027.

Does mention of 2018 suggest there will be no real reform on health care insurance till after then because the problem has been dealt with? Like other issues sitting in the too hard basket?

Banksia

Is that because until a country is broke and has its back to the wall economically (GB circa 1948), the parties look after their own private interests? But when the times are tough, they actually pull together, ignore the lobbyists and give more consideration to the common good?

US as the major creditor of GB then, China as the major creditor of US now. Look out: a solution might be imposed.