Round #2 - Presidential Debate....

[Bavarian]

When and where did he say, "even if the baby is born and survives, they should be killed"?

When BHO was an Illinois State Senator, a bill to protect babies that survive abortion was in the legislature, he voted against it.

They were discarded, alive, with the soiled laundary. Now, how many would survive long is unknown, but they should have at least been given tender loving care until then. One who did survive because a caring nurse saved her was on H&C awhile back, she is articulate, happy has MS from the saline burn, but survived. Alan Colmes was speachless.

Do people want so extreme an abortion suporter in the White House?

 

[awpitt]

i dont know if it was his example, but i thought you got that from who ever said "if your insurance costs 4k/year you will have 1k/year to go into a HSA"

or something like that.

the problem is going tocome if our employers decide to reduce their contribution. then our portion will go up.

right now i pay 200 every 2 weeks for men and my son. thats about 4800/year. so mccans plan would do what for me?

It depends on what the total cost of your coverage is. You're having 4800 per year deducted from your paycheck plus your employer is contributing the rest. Let's say the total cost is $9K since it's for you and your son. That means your employer is paying $4200. Under McCains's plan, your employer wouldn't be contributing the $4200 but you'd get the tax credit of $5K so you'd be okay assuming a total coverage cost of $9K but if the total cost is over $9200 per year then you would start to have to come up with extra money beyond what you're paying now.

 

[awpitt]

When BHO was an Illinois State Senator, a bill to protect babies that survive abortion was in the legislature, he voted against it.

They were discarded, alive, with the soiled laundary. Now, how many would survive long is unknown, but they should have at least been given tender loving care until then. One who did survive because a caring nurse saved her was on H&C awhile back, she is articulate, happy has MS from the saline burn, but survived. Alan Colmes was speachless.

Do people want so extreme an abortion suporter in the White House?

There has to be more to that story than this. There must have been something else in the bill to cause one to vote against it.

 

[tommyjones]

It depends on what the total cost of your coverage is. You're having 4800 per year deducted from your paycheck plus your employer is contributing the rest. Let's say the total cost is $9K since it's for you and your son. That means your employer is paying $4200. Under McCains's plan, your employer wouldn't be contributing the $4200 but you'd get the tax credit of $5K so you'd be okay assuming a total coverage cost of $9K but if the total cost is over $9200 per year then you would start to have to come up with extra money beyond what you're paying now.

thats what i am saying. I dont see Mccains plan making anything better for me, and it has the potential to make it much worse.

 

[tommyjones]

Do people want so extreme an abortion suporter in the White House?

yes. most of us do.

ABORTIONS FOR ALL

 

[ylexot]

My response to this was that a stand alone HSA is not a good idea because one event could wipe it out. That statement holds true even if someone puts in $10K per year and most definately if one puts in only $1K per year.

Reading comprehension. I never said that an HSA would make sense for me. Ditching my $1k per year plan to put that into an HSA would be moronic. Ditching a $10k per year plan might not be (thus the "might I suggest").

I'll put it another way. If you're paying in $10k per year and getting no where near $10k worth of medical treatment per year, you might be a moron.

BTW, the $5k number came from McCain.

 

[This_person]

Quote:
One of the main goals of McCain's plan is to move away from the employment based health system.

So it was based upon a quote from Obama, and a CNN fact check that says Obama quoted a source.

Gotcha

 

[This_person]

It depends on what the total cost of your coverage is. You're having 4800 per year deducted from your paycheck plus your employer is contributing the rest. Let's say the total cost is $9K since it's for you and your son. That means your employer is paying $4200. Under McCains's plan, your employer wouldn't be contributing the $4200 but you'd get the tax credit of $5K so you'd be okay assuming a total coverage cost of $9K but if the total cost is over $9200 per year then you would start to have to come up with extra money beyond what you're paying now.

you've assumed, once again, that the employer would stop. Nothing is mandating the employer provide anything NOW, so why would they stop?

 

[This_person]

thats what i am saying. I dont see Mccains plan making anything better for me, and it has the potential to make it much worse.

Because you're believing an inaccurate source.

 

[tommyjones]

Because you're believing an inaccurate source.

you mean mccain?

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

yes. most of us do.

ABORTIONS FOR ALL

Unfortunately for socialists, they do not constitute a majority of American citizens.

 

[This_person]

you mean mccain?

No, I mean AWPitt.

There is absolutely no reason to think that the employers would stop providing assistance to health care. It's a staple in an employment offer. Now, they may reduce it based upon their tax benefit, but it's still going to be there.

So, if you have $5k more to spend towards insurance, and they are still going to provide a significant portion towards that insurance cost, the net result is that your employer pays less, you pay less, and your health care coverage stays the same. The advantage is the millions who have no health care coverage will now be $5k closer to getting at least some coverage.

It's a no lose situation, all gain. Read here, find out the facts of the plan.

Stop listening to people who get their information from biased individuals in the media, or the opponent of the plan's sponsor. I read Obama and McCain's websites almost daily to see which is lying about the other's plan. I'd tell you my results, but it may influence you not to read and determine for yourself.

 

[awpitt]

So it was based upon a quote from Obama, and a CNN fact check that says Obama quoted a source.

Gotcha

...and McCain who has talked about moving away from the employer based system.

 

[ylexot]

There is absolutely no reason to think that the employers would stop providing assistance to health care. It's a staple in an employment offer. Now, they may reduce it based upon their tax benefit, but it's still going to be there.

So, if you have $5k more to spend towards insurance, and they are still going to provide a significant portion towards that insurance cost, the net result is that your employer pays less, you pay less, and your health care coverage stays the same. The advantage is the millions who have no health care coverage will now be $5k closer to getting at least some coverage.

It's a no lose situation, all gain. Read here, find out the facts of the plan.

The other option is if an employer diverts all $5k to their portion of the healthcare burden, they could give the employee a $5k raise.

If your employer sucks, leave.

 

[awpitt]

you've assumed, once again, that the employer would stop. Nothing is mandating the employer provide anything NOW, so why would they stop?

Because the tax advantage will be gone. The tax adavantage is why employers do it to begin with.

Originally Posted by CNN
Fact Check.

McCain's health plan includes a $2,500 tax credit for individuals, or $5,000 for families, but also would end the tax-free status that employer-provided health plans currently have.

 

[This_person]

...and McCain who has talked about moving away from the employer based system.

There is a huge difference between an employer based system and whether employers will still provide benefits to their employees. McCain's position seems to be that the plan needs to be portable enough that ANY insurance provider could provide.

Employers are NOT going to, en masse, stop providing coverage because of a $5k tax incentive to their employees. It would be unthinkable to any common sense person to assume that. It's like saying that if we just fine oil company's revenues enough, they'll lower their prices. It makes absolutely no sense.

 

[ylexot]

...and McCain who has talked about moving away from the employer based system.

I think moving away from the employer based system is the right thing to do...no matter where it came from. :shrug:

 

[awpitt]

There is a huge difference between an employer based system and whether employers will still provide benefits to their employees. McCain's position seems to be that the plan needs to be portable enough that ANY insurance provider could provide.

Employers are NOT going to, en masse, stop providing coverage because of a $5k tax incentive to their employees. It would be unthinkable to any common sense person to assume that. It's like saying that if we just fine oil company's revenues enough, they'll lower their prices. It makes absolutely no sense.

If an employee opt out of their employer's plan they get the tax credit and they're on their own. If they stay in the employer's plan they get the contribution. In no case do they get both.

 

[This_person]

Because the tax advantage will be gone. The tax adavantage is why employers do it to begin with.

Originally Posted by CNN
Fact Check.

McCain's health plan includes a $2,500 tax credit for individuals, or $5,000 for families, but also would end the tax-free status that employer-provided health plans currently have.

Do you really think that employers get a $5k advantage over a $12k policy that they're paying $8k of?

Yes, they'd lose that advantage. Why was the advantage there? To reward employers for doing the right thing. Much like Social Security, it will never now go away, because employees demand it as a part of their overall compensation package. So, employers will still provide it, probably at the same cost it was for them before.

Let's presume that the employer is taxed at a 40% rate (higher than average now, but it's in your favor). So, if they can write off $8k from their income as a health care benefit per employee, that means they're gaining a benefit of $3200. So, of that $8k, it really only costs the employer $4800. This is all still predicated on your very fair hypothetical of $12k for insurance cost, $8k by the employer and $4k by the employee.

So, now, the insurance still costs $12k. The cost is offset by a $5k credit, bringing the cost to $7k. The employer was already putting out $4800 - and let's say he's a greedy bastard that cuts it down to $4500 (two things in your favor, unrealistically). $7000 - $4500 is $2500 left for you to pay. So, you were paying $4000 untaxed, with a $5k tax incentive you're paying $2500 taxed. Unless you're in the almost 50% tax bracket, you get a HUGE relief. The employer got a $300 relief per employee, and millions more get health insurance that otherwise did not have it, and were costing you in Medicaid and emergency room visits for normal health care.

Where's the downside?

 

[awpitt]

The other option is if an employer diverts all $5k to their portion of the healthcare burden, they could give the employee a $5k raise.

Figure the odds of that happening. Just ask anyone who has declined coverage. At best they get a $25 - $100 opt out credit not $5k.