You need to check your facts...
Posted By: nm on 2008-11-12
In Reply to: It was BUSH and MCCAIN who wanted to - put Social Sec into Wall st, not dems
Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts
Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs
By Karen McMahan
November 04, 2008
RALEIGH — Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.
Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.
The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.
Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, in prepared remarks for the hearing on “The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers’ Retirement Security,” blamed Wall Street for the financial crisis and said his committee will “strengthen and protect Americans’ 401(k)s, pensions, and other retirement plans” and the “Democratic Congress will continue to conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf of the American people.
Currently, 401(k) plans allow Americans to invest pretax money and their employers match up to a defined percentage, which not only increases workers’ retirement savings but also reduces their annual income tax. The balances are fully inheritable, subject to income tax, meaning workers pass on their wealth to their heirs, unlike Social Security. Even when they leave an employer and go to one that doesn’t offer a 401(k) or pension, workers can transfer their balances to a qualified IRA.
Mandating Equality
Ghilarducci’s plan first appeared in a paper for the Economic Policy Institute: Agenda for Shared Prosperity on Nov. 20, 2007, in which she said GRAs will rescue the flawed American retirement income system (www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204/bp204.pdf).
The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, “exacerbates income and wealth inequalities” because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are “skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do.”
Lauding GRAs as a way to effectively increase retirement savings, Ghilarducci wrote that savings incentives are unequal for rich and poor families because tax deferrals “provide a much larger ‘carrot’ to wealthy families than to middle-class families — and none whatsoever for families too poor to owe taxes.”
GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return, although later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not “earn a 3% real return in perpetuity.” In place of tax breaks workers now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income workers whose annual contributions are less than $600, the government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600 for all participants.
In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesn’t eliminate the tax breaks, rather, “I’m just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading — spreading the wealth.” 
All workers would have 5 percent of their annual pay deducted from their paychecks and deposited to the GRA. They would still be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, as would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write off their contributions. Any capital gains would be taxable year-on-year.
Analysts point to another disturbing part of the plan. With a GRA, workers could bequeath only half of their account balances to their heirs, unlike full balances from existing 401(k) and IRA accounts. For workers who die after retiring, they could bequeath just their own contributions plus the interest but minus any benefits received and minus the employer contributions. 
Another justification for Ghilarducci’s plan is to eliminate investment risk. In her testimony, Ghilarducci said, “humans often lack the foresight, discipline, and investing skills required to sustain a savings plan.” She cited the 2004 HSBC global survey on the Future of Retirement, in which she claimed that “a third of Americans wanted the government to force them to save more for retirement.”
What the survey actually reported was that 33 percent of Americans wanted the government to “enforce additional private savings,” a vastly different meaning than mandatory government-run savings. Of the four potential sources of retirement support, which were government, employer, family, and self, the majority of Americans said “self” was the most important contributor, followed by “government.” When broken out by family income, low-income U.S. households said the “government” was the most important retirement support, whereas high-income families ranked “government” last and “self” first (www.hsbc.com/retirement).
On Oct. 22, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Argentinean government had seized all private pension and retirement accounts to fund government programs and to address a ballooning deficit. Fearing an economic collapse, foreign investors quickly pulled out, forcing the Argentinean stock market to shut down several times. More than 10 years ago, nationalization of private savings sent Argentina’s economy into a long-term downward spiral.
Income and Wealth Redistribution
The majority of witness testimony during recent hearings before the House Committee on Education and Labor showed that [u]congressional Democrats intend to address income and wealth inequality through redistribution.[/u]
On July 31, 2008, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections that “from the standpoint of equal treatment of people with different incomes, there is a fundamental flaw” in tax code incentives because they are “provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits.”
Even people who don’t pay taxes should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income Americans, he said. “There is no obvious reason why lower-income taxpayers or people who do not file income taxes should get smaller incentives (or no tax incentives at all),” Greenstein said.
“Moving to refundable tax credits for promoting socially worthwhile activities would be an important step toward enhancing progressivity in the tax code in a way that would improve economic efficiency and performance at the same time,” Greenstein said, and “reducing barriers to labor organizing, preserving the real value of the minimum wage, and the other workforce security concerns . . . would contribute to an economy with less glaring and sharply widening inequality.” !["](http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/images/smiles/puke.gif")
When asked whether committee members seriously were considering Ghilarducci’s proposal for GSAs, Aaron Albright, press secretary for the Committee on Education and Labor, said Miller and other members were listening to all ideas.
Miller’s biggest priority has been on legislation aimed at greater transparency in 401(k)s and other retirement plan administration, specifically regarding fees, Albright said, and he sent a link to a Fox News interview of Miller on Oct. 24, 2008, to show that the congressman had not made a decision.
After repeated questions asked by Neil Cavuto of Fox News, Miller said he would not be in favor of “killing the 401(k)” or of “killing the tax advantages for 401(k)s.”
Arguing against liberal prescriptions, William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, testified on Oct. 24 that the “roots of the current crisis are firmly planted in public policy mistakes” by the Federal Reserve and Congress. He cautioned Congress against raising taxes, increasing burdensome regulations, or withdrawing from international product or capital markets. “Congress can ill afford to repeat the awesome errors of its predecessor in the early days of the Great Depression,” Beach said.
Instead, Beach said, Congress could best address the financial crisis by making the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 permanent, stopping dependence on demand-side stimulus, lowering the corporate profits tax, and reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends.
Testifying before the same committee in early October, Jerry Bramlett, president and CEO of BenefitStreet, Inc., an independent 401(k) plan administrator, said one of the best ways to ensure retirement security would be to have the U.S. Department of Labor develop educational materials for workers so they could make better investment decisions, not exchange equity investments in retirement accounts for Treasury bills, as proposed in the GSAs.
Should Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, congressional Democrats might have stronger support for their “spreading the wealth” agenda. On Oct. 27, the American Thinker posted a video of an interview with Obama on public radio station WBEZ-FM from 2001.
In the interview, Obama said, “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.” The Constitution says only what “the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you,” and Obama added that the Warren Court wasn’t that radical.
Although in 2001 Obama said he was not “optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts,” as president, he would likely have the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices.
“The real tragedy of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused that I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change,” Obama said.
Karen McMahan is a contributing Editor of Carolina Journal.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Check your facts mam
It is interesting that more than half the "accomplishments" were in fact, engineered by a REPUBLICAN controlled legislature, most PROMINENLTY welfare reform. AND... "BJ Bill" just went along "for the ride."
Go check your own facts.
The most blaring oversight: The constitution sets out qualification requirements for presidential candidates. The first one on the list is "natural born citizen." He's running. He will be nominated this week. That would make him a natural born citizen.
Next. Obama was born August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. Hawaii became the 50th state in the union 2 years before that on August 21, 1959. I remember. I was there. That would make Obama a natural born citizen. Maybe in your mind somehow Hawaii doesn't count since it is not attached to the continental 48 or because its ethnic character is not white enough to suit you, being a majority-minority state with whites outnumbered by Asians, American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders and mixed races. Could it be because they do not share American colonial history, the fact that 27% of them do not speak English (the official language) or perhaps their vast religious diversity and failure to convert the entire population to Christianity that makes them not pass muster?
Christian (28.9%)
Buddhist (9%)
Jewish (0.8%)
Other* (61.1%)
Other includes: agnostic or atheist, unaffiliated, Bahá'í, Confucian, Daoist, Druid, Hawaiian, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Shinto, Scientologist, Unitarian, Wiccan, Zoroastrian, inc.
Every single one of the 1.2 million Hawaiian people as described above are American citizens. Whatever your reasons for not recognizing that, like it or not, Hawaii will be celebrating its 50th year of statehood next year. Obama just turned 47. That makes him natural born. Deal with it.
And BTW, most of us get enough of QA during our work hours. We like to think that when we log on here, we check the grammar police at the door. When the poliical parties start behaving worthy of a capital "R" or a capital "D", they just might have that status restored. In the meantime, like any other internet site, we exercise the option to use literary license to demote them to lower case if we choose to do so.
That's not really her. Check your facts. nm
x
Check you tax facts (etc.) here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rViRra7bHDc
Check your facts . . .
this is not voter fraud. It doesn't matter how many bogus votes are registered . . they still would not be able to actually vote. ACORN pays people to go out and register voters, and unfortunately sometimes the people they hire are less than honest and so make up names because they get paid based on volume. But these bogus voters don't actually vote. Not the most efficient system, but that's the way it goes . . . it's the way this country has been run for the last 8 years, and I don't hear you moaning about that!
Maybe you should check your facts...(sm)
Here's a hint:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KntmpoRXFX4
You should check your facts before...
you make a complete fool of yourself! Unless you enjoy playing the fool.
Check your facts, puh-leezer.
You're not going to find any Democrats who say they approve of what Bill Clinton did. Wherever do you get the notion that you would?
You *might* find a few who bring up the fact that it didn't make a spit's worth of difference to the security of the nation and for that reason, they (and the rest of the non-American planet)felt impeachment - hey, even the inquiry which led to the famous lie - were a ridiculous, partisan witch hunt if ever this nation has seen one. And in that they would be correct.
Now, let's hear you be so Democratic. Repeat after me: I do not support the lies my president told. It was wrong of him to tell them and for that he should be publicly punished.
Only one problem,right? - it is against your religion as it is against Bush's, to admit executive wrongdoing of any kind. Ever.
Now tell us again, who comes up looking like a faker?
No, it was about not believing everything that is said without check the facts! (nm)
xx
No, it was over 1,000. killed. Check YOUR facts.
I am not sure how reliable this source is, but here goes:
http://links.org.au/node/823
Occupied Ramallah, Palestine -- December 27, 2008 -- Today, the Israeli occupation army committed a new massacre in Gaza, causing the death and injury of hundreds of Palestinian civilians [latest reports place the death toll at more than 200].
They did not state the number of wounded, but that is a far cry from the "over 1,000 killed" that you quoted. And if you do any Google searching at all, the number varies by whatever web site you go to.
And why does Israel have to kow-tow to the world? Why does Israel get blamed for all the troubles in the middle east? Ask yourself what provoked Israel to do that? I just can't see Israel waking up and saying, "Oh boy, what a beautiful day, let's go kill ourselves some Palestinians." Everybody knows that Palestine is a Hamas stronghold and that any terrorist groups in the middle east get their money and weapons from Hamas by way of iran and other countries that hate the USA. And that is most of them.
Not true, check your facts and, in fact,
all I want to do is put them all in a bus and drive them back to where they came from.
False. Check out info for facts first.
x
You should check your facts before you post - see link
Anyone looking for Barack Obama's real sentiments about whites, blacks and Muslims won't find them in this scurrilous collection of falsified, doctored and context-free "quotations." The e-mail claims to feature words taken from Obama's books, "The Audacity of Hope" (2006) and "Dreams from My Father" (1995, republished in 2004). But we found that two of the quotes are false, and others have been manipulated or taken out of context.
We have received many inquiries about this from readers whose suspicions were aroused, with good reason. Aside from the fact that the e-mail incorrectly cites the title of Obama's book as "Dreams of My Father," rather than "Dreams from My Father," you may have noticed that none of the quotes in this e-mail contain page references. This should be a sign to any reader that the author is trying to pull a fast one, betting that you won't take the time to read through all 806 pages of Obama's books to get to the facts.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html
You need to check your facts, dear heart.
Abortion is not a Christian issue. It is a humanity issue. So...
If you have personal bitterness over being molested by a priest, or if (more likely) you just like to jeer and flap around in a desperate attempt to put people off of religion because you have personally chosen to reject it, GET OVER IT.
Were your foolish comments meant to hurt my iddie biddie feewings? You failed. Miserably. You obviously have not even a minescule glimmer of a glimps of an idea about what 'the idea of christianity' is.
Oh, and by the way, I was adopted at the age of 6 moths.
And I have 5 adopted children.
Your comments like 'a large majority grow up bouncing around ... yadda ... yadda' show your glaring ignorance of the true situation.
Are you living on Romania or Bangladesh or something? Or are you just living in the State of Delusion? The need/want for adoptable babies OVERWHELMINGLY OUTNUMBERS the availability.
As an adoption advocate at my church, I fly to Russia twice a year to help desperate AMERICAN couples find children because THEY CANNOT find them in America.
Because irresponsible, shallow-mined, self-serving women choose to DISMEMBER their infants rather than let someone else have them. It's selfish. It's abhorrent. And it's wrong.
Too bad if that makes you uncomfortable. I could care less if you are offended by the truth. Even Jesus called a fool a fool. He had righteous indignation when it was required of Him.
Please, please tell me where all these orphanges and halfway houses full of unwanted babies are. I have a 17-page list of adoptive families desperately searching for them.
Well? I'm waiting...
To all you Palin lovers, please check your facts...(inside)
It is scary that so many of you think this woman is so wonderful. How in the world can you think that when she is tromping on everyone to beat it to the White House when she is so unqualified. Plus the woman must be on welfare that she has to charge the state of Alaska for flights, hotel rooms (and not in the Days Inn either), for herself, children, etc., then go back into her expense chart and add things to get it to pass, wonder who advised her to do that?) She certainly did not disclose the wardrobe that was given to her out of campaign money, and she didn't shop at Walmart either, admidst the credit crunch she pretends to care about (I guess it doesn't apply to her personally), and where there is smoke there is fire, the woman is vindictive, look at Troopergate. This morning now it is being disclosed she leaned to special bids for the Alaskan pipeline that cannot possibly be built for years if even then and that is her platform. Anyone who cries foul about the press maligning her when they find out about sneaky things she does does not get my respect. Just listen to her interview with Katie Couric - how dumb can one get? I did not start out biased towards her, I just read about her and became alarmed.
You have to check and double check every single thing they say. They're not capable of telling t
truth about anything. It's getting very boring and tedious to read their crap. Why won't they stay on their own board like they tell us to do?
Facts are facts - sorry you don't like it cos it doesn't support your candidate
You can't change facts. That's what makes them facts. You may not like it but that's the way it is.
Facts are facts. No bash intended.
It will be this stellar record from which voters will be assessing her and her running mate.
If you're offended, too bad. Facts are facts...
I know Muslims in this country who have turned from the hateful evil beliefs that were forced down their throats. They did not have the freedom to learn anything else growing up. But after they gained their freedom and came here, they were able to receive the Word of God and they have told me that NEVER were they taught anything about loving others, just other Muslims, and that the God they learned about spoke of nothing but killing and hate... so if Obama is receiving large donations from those middle eastern countries, as you say, and he is grounded in Muslim culture, being taught this in school for years as a child, do you honestly think he doesn't carry some of those beliefs with him? He's never denounced it.
Here ya go.........
http://bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm
stating facts folks, just the facts....if it's getting
xx
Folks want facts, you give'm facts and still
xx
This poster wants facts, facts, facts...
xx
Poster wants facts, facts, facts.....
xx
When you can't fight facts for facts
then it's buh-bye....well buh-bye to you too....I'll have a dicussion with someone who will discuss and not blame.
When you can't fight facts for facts then it's buh-bye.
Facts, stick to the facts...sm
The subject here is the media and their treatment of Gov. Palin, which continues to this day, to this minute, by the liberal left.
Tthe media threw down their gauntlet as soon as she was picked on that Friday, and hounded her for almost a full week.
And you think she should have waved a white flag at them in her acceptance speech? She put them on notice, that she is above them. And continues to be, with grace and style.
She's not whining, and neither are we.
I just shake my head at your audacity.
The media is the one that started this with her, and you would do well to remember the facts in her case.
IN this case, the facts are the facts.........
--
LOL, yes, be sure to check with gt before you believe anything. She knows it all.
x
I will check
I honestly dont remember..I will check the history in my computer and see if I can find it..It could have been on Huffington or Crooks and Liars, one of the news sites I frequent..but it was from a newspaper, an article they had posted on their site..I will look this weekend. Dont jump at me..I do not want the president of the USA to be drinking again..I think if it is true it is sad and tragic for him both personally and professionally.
check this out
Check out http://groups.msn/home. They have lots of political groups, without censorship!
Check this out PK.sm
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PressRelease_2Jul2006.html
Thank you VERY much! I shall check it out.
I commend you for the volunteer work also. It might drive me nuts to know more about the dirt in politics than what is already obvious...
thanks again :-)
check out wnd.com
xxx
check your
facts instead of making things up. I do not mean the National Enquirer or Faux News. Karl Rove's people are advising McCain. That is why you see the silliness of celebrity ads and ads about people when Obama was 8 years old. At first, he tried to run on his own charisma and could get no attention -- all was focused on the charismatic young man from Chicago. Rove's people came in and started the negative ads. And McCain went right along with them. . ..
Thanks. I will check it out :) nm
nm
would you check it for me --
its seems to excite you. Me, not so much.
check this out
You can see plenty on michaesavage.com. I tried to copy/paste it, but this is all that transferred.
Piggy pols in hog heaven with pork-packed pact (New York Post) Congressional deal-brokers slopped a mess of pork into the $700 billion rescue bill passed by the Senate last night - including a tax break for makers of kids' wooden arrows ... Top 10 tax sweeteners in the bailout bill (Taxpayers for Common Sense) The "Transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters" allows employers to provide a benefit for costs associated with bicycle commuting ...
Check this out
Awhile back my husband and I were picking up rocks off our property. I said, "I'm so bone tired I can't hit another dick!" Of course I meant to say that "I can't hit another lick." My husband is still laughing. So..........was I bone tired or not? Certainly I knew what I meant to say but it didn't just come out just right.
You check it out..............sm
This same blog post can be found all over the internet, so it is not from just "some obscure web page." Look for yourself.
The only hole around here is going to be the one this whole nation finds itself in if Obama is elected.
you can check these, there are several others
http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=h57H_7i3GLE&feature=related
Check this out and see what you think...
This is a video of T. Boone Pickens on the daily show. If you don't like Jon Stewart, don't let that discourage you from checking this out. Pickens is talking about the energy plan he has been promoting.
go to: http://www.thedailyshow.com/
In the middle of the page is the video section. Go under that to the "coming up next" box and pick T. Boone Pickens.
Sorry about the round about directions, but I couldn't find the interview anywhere else.
Maybe you should check yours.
November 5, Israeal kills 6 in raid. Israel has continued its crippling blockade and never complied with the original condition of the truce that the blockade be lifted.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians
What I want to know is, how is this check
is supposed to be the tax cut he promised to 95% of the taxpayers. Now, that does not mean you have to pay INCOME taxes to get an income tax break, that would be if you pay any kind of taxes, sales tax, property tax, etc. If the government just sends me a check for $1000, this is my tax CUT, right? Now, I am supposed to take this money and spend it to stimulate the economy, right? Well, the check everyone got last year, mine and DHs went straight to the IRS, we never saw it. I expect the same thing to happen with this new one and I will still be paying the same tax rate as ever, until it is increased again. Where is my tax CUT? How many other *middle-income* folks do you think had this same situation?
BUT you won't get it in a check.
It's a payroll tax cut. It will show up in your pay. How much more can you do with $13 a week. That's what it comes out to for this year.
Check this out....(sm)
It's an older article, but the facts remain the same.
France's model healthcare system
By Paul V. Dutton | August 11, 2007
MANY advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.
Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.
The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.
An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.
That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.
Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.
Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.
It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.
Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?
National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.
Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.
French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.
The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?
Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.
American advocates of mandates on employers to provide health insurance should take note. The link between employment and health security is a historical artifact whose disadvantages now far outweigh its advantages. Economists estimate that between 25 and 45 percent of the US labor force is now job-locked. That is, employees make career decisions based on their need to maintain affordable health coverage or avoid exclusion based on a preexisting condition.
Perhaps it's time for us to take a closer look at French ideas about healthcare reform. They could become an import far less "foreign" and "unfriendly" than many here might initially imagine.
Paul V. Dutton is associate professor of history at Northern Arizona University and author of "Differential Diagnoses: A Comparative History of Health Care Problems and Solutions in the United States and France," which will be published in September. !["](http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif")
Check this out....(sm)
It's an older article, but the facts remain the same.
France's model healthcare system
By Paul V. Dutton | August 11, 2007
MANY advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.
Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.
The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.
An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.
That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.
Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.
Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.
It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.
Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?
National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.
Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.
French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.
The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?
Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.
American advocates of mandates on employers to provide health insurance should take note. The link between employment and health security is a historical artifact whose disadvantages now far outweigh its advantages. Economists estimate that between 25 and 45 percent of the US labor force is now job-locked. That is, employees make career decisions based on their need to maintain affordable health coverage or avoid exclusion based on a preexisting condition.
Perhaps it's time for us to take a closer look at French ideas about healthcare reform. They could become an import far less "foreign" and "unfriendly" than many here might initially imagine.
Paul V. Dutton is associate professor of history at Northern Arizona University and author of "Differential Diagnoses: A Comparative History of Health Care Problems and Solutions in the United States and France," which will be published in September.
Check this out....(sm)
Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4EWB0Wc4wQ
Then watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHHH3VBjSws&feature=related
And then watch this video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/29506332#29506332
Check this out.............. sm
Since when does the POTUS bow to a foreign potentate? This man really has no clue............... Or does he? Be sure to read the article as well. 
You might want to check again.
It might have been JTBB and me that you saw. 
tnx will have to check those out.
Pretty hooked right now on 590klbj.com out of austin 5:30 a.m. to 10, one man always the voice of reason standing between the retired ex-cop and the I would swear has a gray ponytail liberal, but I notice even in the last couple of years he coming over to the dark side more and more. Ed and Sgt. Sam can flat get into it sometimes. I am actually listening to radio much more than TV, like hearing what the guy on the street has to say and you just don't get much of that on TV.
check article above
Well, we might just get an investigation into the Downing Street Memos after all and then when it is proven that Bush contrived this war and lied for this war, you can post here that yes Bush is a liar. I refer you to the above post about the Downing Street Memos above. Interesting article. States finally a republican is wanting an investigation into the Downing Street Memos, as so far it has only been democrats asking for an investigation.
|
