Anti-kerry Film Sparks Dnc Response
- Thread starter atabuy
- Start date
"The Blue Cross POS plan which I chose for myself and my family will cost me $640.99 a month in 2005. Other choices were: Kaiser HMO $429.41, Blue Cross HMO $429.41, Blue Cross PPO 787.85 and Blue Cross Catastrophic $337.31."
Jim, tell me more about the BC Cat coverage. What does it cover?
Jim, tell me more about the BC Cat coverage. What does it cover?
TWAnr
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
- Reaction score
- 0
Busdrvr said:
I am not Jim, but I posted it.
This particular Blue Cross of California Catastrophic plan (it is a group plan, not individual) starts with a $2,000 per person / $4,000 per family deductible (vs. No deductible in the POS plan). Yearly out of pocket maximum is $10K per person, $15K per family (vs. $1,500 / $3,000). Lifetime maximum benefits are $2,000,000 (vs. Unlimited). Office visits, after satisfying the deductible, are paid at 75% (vs. $25 copay w/o a deductible), same for lab work X-rays, etc. Emergency care is $100 copay (vs. $25). Hospitalization and surgery are covered at 75% (vs. 80% or No Charge if admitted by an HMO physician). Prescriptions are also covered at the 75% level (vs. a $10 co-payment for generic and $15 for name brand).
This is another good link about health care
It is extensive and just shows the facts. I do not think it is biased one way or the other.
http://www.nrharural.org/pagefile/issuepapers/ipaper15.html
America remains the only industrialized country in the world that does not offer health care coverage to all its citizens. Yet the United States spends 40 percent more (as a percentage of gross domestic product) and 75 percent more (on a per capita basis) than any other country on health care (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1998). Our country now has the highest percentage of uninsured-16.1 percent in 1997-since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in the '60s. This growth in the number and percentage of the uninsured is even more startling given that the late '90s have been a time of unparalleled economic prosperity for America.
And we brag about being the best country in the world.
It is extensive and just shows the facts. I do not think it is biased one way or the other.
http://www.nrharural.org/pagefile/issuepapers/ipaper15.html
America remains the only industrialized country in the world that does not offer health care coverage to all its citizens. Yet the United States spends 40 percent more (as a percentage of gross domestic product) and 75 percent more (on a per capita basis) than any other country on health care (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1998). Our country now has the highest percentage of uninsured-16.1 percent in 1997-since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in the '60s. This growth in the number and percentage of the uninsured is even more startling given that the late '90s have been a time of unparalleled economic prosperity for America.
And we brag about being the best country in the world.
How are you going to tell a United States citizen that they cannot live within the United States simply because they are an executive of a foreign company? You've been the advocate for constitutional rights right along....
First of all, I have never supported the practice of offshoring jobs. Quite the opposite, I have been trying to query the group on ways to stop it from happening, and there have been some pretty good ideas coming out as a result of it. Second of all, let me go on record to say that I am not an airline employee. I've entertained this forum's presumption without confirming that simply because I've been there and I feel for the people who currently sit where I used to sit. You know what happens when you ASSUME....
It's not just me, TWAnr. It's this entire country... we, culturally and societally, want it better and cheaper. That's a fact of life that others here have warmed up to and acknowledged, I didn't create that problem.
How can you be so callous to say something like this? And then go on to say you didn't mean it to be a personal attack? On the record again, I certainly pay my share of taxes, lot's more than most other Americans out there. I'm penalized more under this tax system because I am financially successful. That's the nature of the beast, and I accept it. I also regularly donate to several charities throughout the year, which I feel fulfills my civic obligation to my community and other efforts. So please don't presume to know my life story simply because you've read a few of my posts that are argument of principle, and I promise not to do the same to you.
Thanks NWA.
What formula do you use to determine what makes a tax cut "trivial"? I'd have to imagine, since everyone is completely different from the next guy, it's a pretty complex one.
There are dozens on dozens of "industrialized" nations in this world that do not even offer bathroom breaks to their employees, let alone health insurance.
Truthfully, I would never oppose a system that could affordably, and efficiently cover the health costs of Americans who are less fortunate than others. I support a tax system that fairly divides the cost burdens of everything from welfare and health care to defense and national security. And I believe in starting from the top, from those who are bearing the largest burden of that cost to begin with. I've said it before, "A President who robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." We ALL must share the burden, not just those who worked extra hard to make a little something for themselves. Do I want people to starve? Or suffer unnecessarily because they cannot afford health care? No, of course not. And, as NWA suggested, if we don't, as a nation, drop this idea of cheaper is always better, than we will continue to see the erosion we see today. And the rest of the world will keep burying us in the sand economically until we are completely underground. It's an eat or be eaten world now. The guy with the least loses, unfortunately. I don't like it anymore than the next guy. I can only support the leader that I think has a better solution to the problem.
USAir757 said:
It is if we let it be. We determine the terms of competition and the level.
I can only support the leader that thinks it IS a problem to begin with and has a workable solution for it, rather than having a vested interest in seeing it get worse.
I disagree with you entirely. We rely heavily on production and import/export from other nations. They are critical to the operation of our economy. We are the IBM of the world right now... old, antiquated in our operations, and uncompetitive in the market. We don't have control over how these businesses operate in other countries, and with a free enterprise system, we cannot control how they sell their products here. We determine how we work, not how they work. That's only half the equation.
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,581
- Reaction score
- 1,455
USAir757 said:
CAn you name foreign manufacturer who has impacted the profitablitity of a US company? I can name several US companies who have offshored as a way to get an "edge" on the US competitor. IBM, Dell, Sprint, Delta, Compaq (HP) pop into mind immediately. They weren't facing competition from foreign companies...they were shipping jobs to other countries to cut their costs here at home so they could better compete with their AMERICAN competition...all for the benefit of the "investment community".
You say that American's want things on the cheap...but at what point does a company say - "sorry...this is as low as we can go and remain profitable". Do you really think somebody's going to settle for a Daewoo when the Caddy dealer says "that's my best price"? You are right...Americans want a Caddy for a Chevy price...but what was wrong with the "old days" when, if one wanted a Caddy, they PAID the price for a Caddy? What is right about an American company sending jobs outside the borders of the US to be built on the cheap, but turning around and charging prices as if only "overpaid American workers" built them? Who does that help, outside the "shareholders" of the company in the name of increased profits?
America needs to get the focus of the economy off the Wall Street stock prices. As an example, say a company posts a profit for the quarter, but the profits did not meet "analysts expectations". The result...a profitable company LAYS OFF employees or offshores jobs to get costs down so that they do not disappoint the "analysts". Geez....a profit is a profit....why are companies "punished" by Wall Street because their profit wasn't as high as they thought it should be? How screwed up is THAT?
KC,
I have been reading this thread for a while and I don't think that you fully grasp the economic factors here.
First, there are so many things tied to stock prices, that stock prices are very important and not just to wall street. IRA's tend to be heavily invested in stocks, so they are affected. ESOP programs. Leveraged buyouts and mergers all have in some part a basis in stock price. Stock price is not purely based on the profits of a company, but also tend to show the overall health of the company.
Also, and this actually lends support to some of what you are saying, bonuses and the like are tied to stock prices as well. So there is a lot more going on here than just what happens on wall street.
The next part of this that is way off base is the statement that if a company moves it headquarters offshore, they incure no US income tax. That is false. Any company deriving a profit within the US is subject to US income taxes. What these companies are trying to do, it to get away from the double taxation that occurs for international companies based in the US. See, the us tax code is unique in the world in that it charges US based companies income tax on income earned in other countries. For example, if say Coke made 1M profit in sales in say england, Coke would have to pay taxes on that amount not only in england for that profit, but also is liable for income taxed right back here it the good old USA. Contrast that with say airbus. For sales in the us, they would have to pay income taxes to the US government but not back home in europe.
You talk about wanting to level the playing field, then support removing these double taxes and then these countries would have no incentive to move their headquarters offshore.
One other thing while I am at it,
That is patently false. He has instructed the military to released all of his records as opposed to Kerry who refused to do so. And it is only important because Kerry wanted to make it the centerpiece of his campaign, Bush never has.
I have been reading this thread for a while and I don't think that you fully grasp the economic factors here.
First, there are so many things tied to stock prices, that stock prices are very important and not just to wall street. IRA's tend to be heavily invested in stocks, so they are affected. ESOP programs. Leveraged buyouts and mergers all have in some part a basis in stock price. Stock price is not purely based on the profits of a company, but also tend to show the overall health of the company.
Also, and this actually lends support to some of what you are saying, bonuses and the like are tied to stock prices as well. So there is a lot more going on here than just what happens on wall street.
The next part of this that is way off base is the statement that if a company moves it headquarters offshore, they incure no US income tax. That is false. Any company deriving a profit within the US is subject to US income taxes. What these companies are trying to do, it to get away from the double taxation that occurs for international companies based in the US. See, the us tax code is unique in the world in that it charges US based companies income tax on income earned in other countries. For example, if say Coke made 1M profit in sales in say england, Coke would have to pay taxes on that amount not only in england for that profit, but also is liable for income taxed right back here it the good old USA. Contrast that with say airbus. For sales in the us, they would have to pay income taxes to the US government but not back home in europe.
You talk about wanting to level the playing field, then support removing these double taxes and then these countries would have no incentive to move their headquarters offshore.
One other thing while I am at it,
That is patently false. He has instructed the military to released all of his records as opposed to Kerry who refused to do so. And it is only important because Kerry wanted to make it the centerpiece of his campaign, Bush never has.
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,581
- Reaction score
- 1,455
You mean like Enron's did....and then 24 days later they were bankrupt? LBO's were the start of the downfall of many good companies....debt is good? The "redundancies" in merged companies results in...lost jobs. The sky high debt of a newly bought out company results in cost cuts....lost jobs. Look at what happened to TWA after their "leveraged buyout". Made a couple of guys really rich....killed the company though.
Bonuses are tied to stock prices...unfortunatly bonuses are also "reevaluated" and stock options "repriced" to reward those at the top so that it's a "can't lose" deal. Betcha a dollar to a donught that a mid-level manager whose division missed their targets would be summarily dismissed. Top management on the other hand simply has the board, "redo" the bonus program so that they are rewarded....no matter what kind of job they do. Think a midlevel manager gets a nice little severance agreement guaranteeing them millions should they leave the company...no matter how good or bad of a job they did?
Kerry didn't want to make it a "centerpeice" of his campaign. The only reason it is mentioned is because Kerry understands what it is like to be on the ground in a war zone doing something other than delivering turkeys. George Bush is leading a war where neither he, nor any of his advisors have ever seen the field of combat in the role of a soldier. Kerry has. Toss aside the medals. Toss aside the statements about Vietnam being wrong (as most in the US...even those who fought there...feel that it WAS wrong). Just boil it down to one thing...which candidate knows what it's like to have a bullet zing by his head on a battlefield. Kerry does. Bush does not. And because Bush does not, he has no idea of what he just sent his troops into.
FWIW...I'm in the process of reading "The Price of Loyalty". Interesting reading about how invading Iraq was an issue just 10 short days after taking office. Miss Cleo would be proud of W...knowing that that bad old Saddam had a role in 9/11 7 months before it happened.
sentrido
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 0
Actually, large US companies that do pay any tax(A lot now dont) would only be taxed on money they bring back to the US. Which they dont. They lent the money to the US subsidairy(Wich they may never pay back) and then get to deduct the interest from that "Loan" towards their US taxes. Also they may change thier logo slightly, have thier bermuda subsitdiary or parent own it, and then charge themselves a royalty to use the logo, and deduct the cost from thier US taxes. Or, If you own a comany, and can get away with not paying any taxes, which happens a lot, you can pay yourself with a big dividend, and end up paying almost no income tax, wow! Any way, if you want to learn about how taxes really work in the US, read this book:
Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else
Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else
Why do you insist in using an example where the law was clearly broken to support your argument? If you want to talk about illegal activities, then why even bother to talk about laws or policy or anything else that the government may or may not do since they don't apply?
And yes Kerry did try to make his candidacy about his service in the war. That was all he had, he couldn't and still to this day won't run on his record in the senate.
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,581
- Reaction score
- 1,455
FredF said:
I guess I mention that because up until 24 days before they filed bankruptcy, the general public...the fund managers handling money for retirement funds...and the EMPLOYEES of the company were told that the stock was "a steal" at these prices. I guess I also have to mention Enron because Kenny Boy approached the Bush administration about bailing them out. Wonder what would have happened had Kenny got to Cheney before he got to O'Neill.
What record did Bush have to run on in 2000? A governor of a state where the governor's position is weak...by state law. And sorry, but when it comes to sending our men and women to fight a dubious "war on terror", I'd rather like to have a president who at least has SOME advisors who have seen combat. Most of Bush's didn't have any military service at all. Might make you think twice about committing troops to battle if you knew what battle was like.
