New York Tax Triple Whammy for the Rich

Well, we have to save the overpaid jobs of hospital workers, don't we?

you are truly clueless steve.

And this is why Obama will be a one term President......

The big shame is that Obama blew a huge chance to lower the country's health care costs. He did nothing to end the employer link to health care,engage in meaningful tort reform and create incentives to keep prices low. He chose instead to focus on increasing coverage.

how much would tort reform save us? what type of incentives would you suggest to keep prices low?

Hi columbiacounty

Why do Republicans love tort reform so much? If a doctor cuts off the wrong leg or leaves a knife inside someone, I think tha patient should get a ton of money. But hey, maybe that is just me.

Hey, let's play GOP talking point Bingo. As someone mentions a GOP health care talking point (buy insurance across state lines, tort reform, HSA, tax credit, tax cut, deregulation, etc.) mark a box on your Bingo card.

Just in from Georgia:

State high court overturns state's tort reform

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

A unanimous Georgia Supreme Court on Monday struck down limits on jury awards in medical malpractice cases, the cornerstone of the state's sweeping 2005 tort reform law.

The state high court determined that a $350,000 cap on noneconomic damages, which includes compensation for a plaintiff's pain and suffering, violates the right to a jury trial as guaranteed under the Georgia Constitution.

The ruling upheld a $1.265 million jury award to Marietta real estate agent Betty Nestlehutt, now 75. After a face-lift operation in 2006, Nestlehutt's face was covered with gaping wounds that required prolonged, excruciating treatments to keep them from becoming infected. The wounds left her permanently disfigured.

because its a great sound bite and the trial lawyers are big donors to the dems. more hot air. and they love to cite imaginary stats about how docs will stop all the tests once they're not afraid of law suits. as long as the tests are covered ( and they still will be) who wants to not have one and run even a 1% chance of missing something?

That's actually a good point. I have 6 doctors in my family, and they do tests for money far more than to protect themselves from lawsuits. Tort reform would not change that.

Tort reform saves money b/c less money is paid out in litigation. It would probably save some money, but not a significant amount.

Tort reform is easy to support, until your the one with the botched surgery and you instantly becme opposed to it.

Tort reform is needed not just in medicine, but across the board. Every time my office fires a woman or a minority - even people are incompetent, have chronic absenteeism, etc - we get sued. Sure, we usually don't pay a ton of money. But we spend $200,000 fighting the lawsuit. Something is wrong when someone can sue just for being black, or having boobs.

Brooklynheights,

Tort reform lowers costs in more ways than just money paid out to litigants. The larger savings come from lower across the board medical malpractice insurance rates (which can be so crippling in certain fields as to almost create a barrier to entry -- which in turn makes those procedures vastly more expensive than they would otherwise be). It would also cut back on frivolous lawsuits as the incentive for ambulance chasing lawyers to sue over every procedure would diminish. Also, it would cut back on Dr.'s who practice "defensive medicine", ie., ordering 10 tests when 99% of the time 1 test would suffice. Problem is if that crazy 1% unlikely event occurs and you did not order that test you get sued with some paid expert testifying that "of course you should have checked for that." Now, might this leave some deserving victims of real malpractice with less than they would otherwise obtain (perhaps undeservingly so)? Of course it will. Haven't we all heard that there are no free lunches? Its about doing the best we can as a society without unlimited resources. Tough decisions must be made. Does this serve the greater good of lowering health care costs so that more people can get access at reasonable prices? It helps. Are there some side effect? Sure. If these were easy questions or there were easy answers we would all agree on what to do. Only in America do we believe we never have to face tough questions or make difficult decisions. Tort reform serves the greater good, in my opinion of course.

Over paid Hospital workers. I am a health care provider and I can say I am the poorest person living in a 500 unit high rise on the west side. My car is 10 years old and the 23 year old banker down the hall drives a 100k 2010 sports car.; So please give me a break.

The CBO already scored the GOP's most recent medical tort reform proposal. $54 billion over ten years. That's all it would save the government (and the overall economy, just over 2X that.) That's it. We already have tort reform in California, the largest state, as well as in several others, so its not a hypothetical example they scored. Its a giant red herring.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=389

maybe the country wouldnt be in a position to HAVE TO raise taxes if the Repulican administration and congress from the past 8 years was not so reckless and bankrupted our country.

If you guys didnt blow the surplus from Clinton and actually created some jobs and industries then we would have health care, a surplus and tax breaks.

Which by the way 95 % of all Americans have received tax breaks under Obama. That is about 94% more than under 8 years of Republican rule.

People can criticize Obama all they want, but he came into office directly after the most moronic president ever completely destroyed the positive conditions that existed when Clinton left office, not the least of which was wastefully and unnecessarily spending BILLIONS of dollars in Iraq/Afghanistan. I would submit that the cost of this new healthcare bill - whatever the total is - could easily be funded with just a portion of those dollars, which might have been available but for the man who stated the following (one of my personal favorites of his): "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."

Fair enough Jason10006, however, the 2nd giant red hearing in the room is that insurance companies are the reason health care costs are rising so fast. I am no fan of insurance companies but their profit margin is 4%. That comes to about 10 billion, or less than 1% of health care costs. It made good politics to demonize the health care industry (easy target to bash), however, even if Congress limited by law all profits to 2% (or zero) the cost of health care would not stop rising and it would have not effect. Health insurance companies pass on costs, they are a middle man in the process. The costs are with the hospitals, Dr's., nurses, drug makers, medical devices etc. The insurance industry makes a good boogeyman but people will learn that this bill does not reign in costs in any meaningful manner (it is a bill to expand coverage, not reduce costs -- which is a great moral achievement in and of itself but not reform of the system). When you ban the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions or ban lifetime caps you raise the cost of coverage that those same insurance companies spread around, through higher premiums. Again, helps those in need and perhaps morally the completely correct course to take but again, people like to think none of his has consequences. Does anyone really believe we are going to save 500 billion on Medicare (that somehow only now have we found out how to save that 1/3 of every wasted Medicare dollar that before today we never could)? Does anyone really believe that in 2018 that "Cadillac" tax will ever be enacted? This will become one more huge entitlement that, together with social security spiraling out of control, will leave our kids in a welfare state with a crushing tax burden to pay for all of us as we age. Hope I’m wrong, fear I am not. If our politics has taught us anything its that all polticians care about is getting re-elected and passing the dificult decisions down the line to future generations until the music finally stops and crisis strikes (Greece being the perfect window into our future).

petrfitz,

Your last line does not even make any sense. Like him or hate him, Bush cut taxes accross the board for all brackets and eliminated the lowest bracket alltogether. Obama is keeping the tax cuts Bush made for the very group you are claiming did not receive one under him.

Alpie Take 1: "you are truly clueless steve."

Alpie Take 2: "I have 6 doctors in my family, and they do tests for money far more than to protect themselves from lawsuits."

So on the one hand you agree with me (Take 2), and on the other hand I'm clueless (Take 1).

So you mean you're clueless, too?

These liberal talking points are just ridiculous. This bill massively increases government and does nothing to control costs of health care, while raising tax burdens. Moving away from employer based care would be the best thing to do, with tort reform and national competition the next positive steps.

This idea that Clinton made things great is a myth. He had a surplus from massively downsizing the military, which didn't work out very well. He also came into office with the economy rising and left office in a recession that had already started to reduce the surplus.

In a nationalized health care system lawsuits are a thing of the past, try suing the govenment. But I for one would not want the care they offer in the VA system.

LICC, you have too much free time on your hands.

"Moving away from employer based care"

Toward what?

"with tort reform"

Marginal effect, at best, though it would be useful.

"and national competition the next positive steps."

You mean whoever offers the lowest amount of care for the cheapest price wins? This whole Vienna School of neoclassical economics just makes me laugh. The states where it has been implemented - predominantly the south - fall last in just about every category, except unemployment, where they score tops.

The truth is, the wealthier a place gets - with tiny exceptions like Monaco - the more the government spends. People demand the benefits that government provides best.

And LICC - you're Clintonian Revisionism is really, really funny. Completely untrue, but very funny.

Move away from employer based care to individual tax credits for health insurance purchases. Not that hard for most people to understand steve.

Of course you couldn't counter with any facts or substance regarding Clinton.

"Of course you couldn't counter with any facts or substance regarding Clinton."

Because you didn't provide anything to refute.

"Move away from employer based care to individual tax credits for health insurance purchases."

It already exists, LICC - health insurance premiums are tax deductible. The problem with your method is that insurers get rich by charging individual policy rates rather than large group policy rates.

N'est pas?

Just ask someone from Western Europe if they have ever heard about a case where a serious illness cause a bankruptcy

They will not understand what the f your are talking about

Same on Social Security:
Germany became the first nation in the world to adopt an old-age social insurance program in 1889, designed by Germany's Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck. The idea was first put forward, at Bismarck's behest, in 1881 by Germany's Emperor, William the First, in a ground-breaking letter to the German Parliament. William wrote: ". . .those who are disabled from work by age and invalidity have a well-grounded claim to care from the state."

"Alpie Take 1: "you are truly clueless steve."

Alpie Take 2: "I have 6 doctors in my family, and they do tests for money far more than to protect themselves from lawsuits."

Hey dimwit, all of the doctors in my family are in private practice. They don't work for any hospitals.

"Move away from employer based care to individual tax credits for health insurance purchases."

The GOP solution to every problem: TAX CUTS!!! Have cancer? Here is a tax cut! Have MS? Here, take a tax credit. Have a down synrome baby? TAX CUT!

One fact all you experts keep ignoring -- corporate-provided health insurance is almost entirely SELF-INSURED. The "insurance" companies are simply providing administrative services (claims processing) and putting the screws to the providers to control cost and utilization. Your employer PAYS the claims through its own checking account.

Nevertheless, the underlying costs (medical cost "trend") continues to inflate at 8%-10% per year. Corporate America hates that 8% inflating budget item with a passion and has tried every trick in the book to bring that number down. Taking the employers out of the mix gets you NOTHING. Providers will increase unit costs, shift to more expensive services, up-bill, prescribe the newer pricier drugs, over-refer to specialists, etc etc.

The only answer:

-- eliminate ALL "first dollar" coverage -- everybody pays the first $5000 or $10,000 of their costs for example out of their OWN pocket. (and starts to price shop for care!!!)
-- EVERYBODY has to carry catastrophic coverage -- that pays for everything in excess of the first 5000-10,000 -- and this is either paid for by your employer, yourself, or the gubment.
-- Plans richer than the "basic catastrophic plan' get taxed

This would work -- everything else is a money sink hole

Individual tax credits will stabilize risk pools and competition would also reduce costs. As always, steve is in fantasyland with his theories.

"eliminate ALL "first dollar" coverage -- everybody pays the first $5000 or $10,000 of their costs for example out of their OWN pocket. (and starts to price shop for care!!!)"

And what if some poor slob does not have the $5k or $10k? Should they die in the street?

"Individual tax credits will stabilize risk pools and competition would also reduce costs. As always, steve is in fantasyland with his theories."

Letting young people buy into Medicare would also increase competition.

Re: And what if some poor slob does not have the $5k or $10k? Should they die in the street?

Dont be a moron. Everyone gets treatment just like they get it now. But you get a bill. And you pay your bill, over time if necessary. Just like you pay your cable bill, and your booze bill, and your cigarette bill. If you cant pay your bill, you apply for relief as a penniless debtor, just like you do now.

And maybe the prospect of having to pay an actual bill, and maybe give up your cable and booze, just might cut the incidence of obesity and diabetis, that are ultimately going to bankrupt this country if 30% of our population continues down the road to daily insulin injections and losing their feet.

"all of the doctors in my family are in private practice. They don't work for any hospitals."

a) What does that have to do with anything; and b) most doctors who work in hospitals are in private practice.

"Individual tax credits will stabilize risk pools"

How?

"competition would also reduce costs"

I agree - get rid of the insurance companies' antitrust exemption. That's the first place to start. Cross-border insurance does nothing that insurance companies can't already do, and it's about as useful as cross-border credit cards are, where all the credit card companies move to South Dakota because they have no usury laws.

A lot of good that did credit card consumers.

Actually, all of the credit card compnaies moved to Delaware.

My house is on fire and I'm stuck inside. Can I have a tax credit so that I can put the fire out?

Re: Individual tax credits will stabilize risk pools

Nonsense. go talk to a health care actuary. The only thing that can "stabilize a risk pool" (whatever that means) is to make the pool REALLY REALLY BIG -- i.e. it includes EVERYONE.

If ANYONE can opt out then you have risk selection and the program will not remain viable over time.

Thus: By law -- everyone is IN. Tough and too bad.

And the liberal's answer to everthing is massive spending and huge government programs, which history has shown to be disasterous.

steve- get rid of the insurance companies' antitrust exemption. We finally agree.

Re: And the liberal's answer to everthing is massive spending and huge government programs, which history has shown to be disasterous.

And the conservatives used to treat Medicare like it was Satan incarnate... and now they worship at its feet like it's the virgin mother....

"The only thing that can "stabilize a risk pool" (whatever that means) is to make the pool REALLY REALLY BIG -- i.e. it includes EVERYONE."

And the only way that can be accomlished is through (and say it with me): SINGLE PAYER. The only way to require everyoen to have insurance is taking away their ability to decide not to buy it. The individual mandate is a joke and will be ineffective. The onyl effective mandate is single payer in which everyoen is automatically insured upon birth.

Waah Wahhh I make over $500K per year and am so clueless that I cant hire a good accountant to make sure I take advantage of the multitude of tax advantages geared toward the rich..Waah Waah I am going to bitch about how much I pay in taxes of my million plus a year.

Waah Waah I want to live in the greatest country in the world, take advantage of the benefits it offers but don't pay my fair share.....Waah Waah my conservative pussy hurts...

Jack Welch: Republicans In For 'Awful Shock' In November (VIDEO)

Don't really like this fat cat but maybe he is right this time

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/jack-welch-republicans-in-for-awful-shock-in-november-video.php?ref=fpb

"Actually, all of the credit card compnaies moved to Delaware."

No, actually, they're incorporated in Delaware, but if you read the history they all moved their operations to South Dakota, when it repealed the usury laws.

"the liberal's answer to everthing is massive spending and huge government programs, which history has shown to be disasterous"

You mean like the Defense Department?

Single payor systems, LICC, reduce spending, as is shown by all of the data from all industrialized countries in the world.

"the liberal's answer to everthing is massive spending and huge government programs, which history has shown to be disasterous"

Didn't Reagan and George W. Bush also dramatically increase spending? Oh my, you just called RONALD REAGAN a liberal! Oh man, you are going to get kicked out of the Republican party for that!!!

http://presidentialdebt.org/

Alpie -- you're on the right track -- but ultimately it doesnt matter if Uncle Sam is signing the check or your employer is signing the check -- the key is -- everybody has to play.

And the OTHER key is -- everybody as consumers has to have skin in the game -- i.e. cost sensitive purchasing. The hospital/medical/drug complex is pushing for 100% coverage of just about everything -- chiropractic, all "preventive care", massage therapy, wheelchairs for everyone, the $1000 toilet seat, etc etc. And THAT is the road to a bloated entitlement that sucks up GNP.

So -- everybody plays AND everybody pays. That's the answer. If the incompetents on both sides of the aisle can get anywhere near that, this thing just might work.

well, back to the OT.... NOT good for Manhattan RE.

I'm starting to actually do the math here. This is HUGE. I think my taxes are going up by about 10%. I have to figure a huge amount of the buyer pool is in the same boat.

This is a huge blow to Manhattan RE imho.

The only thing HUGE somewhereelse is your party's loss! The Republicans look like little whining babies. Even Jack Welch is saying there will be no victory for Republicans in 2010.

GOP is dead. A bunch of loony racist losers....Palin 2012!

Perfitz, you're still broke and still assigning me to parties I'm not in.
Whatever lets you get over your pathetic life, I guess.

Though the democrats are about to get skewered... but, of course, we know you don't know anything about elections or anything like that. You still think Republicans control the house! (of course, you might be right soon...)

sorry, toots.

I guess you like the tax raise because you have no income and need someone to help you with your insurance payments.

You can try to tax high income people all you want, it wouldn't be near enough to pay for all this.

Quadruple whammy, I guess.

Not a good day for Manhattan.

And, of course, Obama made sure to include giveaways for the unions! Got to take care of them!

but here's what i don't understand. obama ran on a platform that clearly included as its centerpiece health care insurance for everyone. why are people surprised that this has come to pass?

Obama never ran on an individual mandate, and he sure obfuscated all the tax increases he is signing.

mktmaker and west34 have some great points. I don't know if a plan with a 5k or 10k deductible would work. Many americans would forgo preventative treatments that might cost the system more in future.

"but here's what i don't understand. obama ran on a platform that clearly included as its centerpiece health care insurance for everyone. why are people surprised that this has come to pass?"

Actually, I think he ran on "reforming health care", which is what EVERYBODY runs on, on both sides of the aisle. Though doesn't seem like it got reformed at all, just expanded.

In fact, I'm pretty sure I remember him talking about fixing the growing cost of healthcare. He didn't do that, it just got (MUCH) more expensive.

Preventative treatments do not save the system money. That is another mistaken belief.

"mktmaker and west34 have some great points. I don't know if a plan with a 5k or 10k deductible would work. Many americans would forgo preventative treatments that might cost the system more in future."

The evidence doesn't support this, especially since many high deductible include basic care... AND folks get that they might have to spend $5k or $10k if they don't do it.

Not to mention, the biggest benefit of them all is that people see the costs of all the stuff they get, so they're likely to actually... get this... LOOK AT THE BILL! (and consider maybe that they were overcharged).

We currently have a system where nobody is making sure unnecessary charges are there...