Its called GOOGLE. Try using it...You might actually find out how extensive AIG's involvement in the health insurance industry is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthem_(insurance)

Its called GOOGLE. Try using it...You might actually find out how extensive AIG's involvement in the health insurance industry is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthem_(insurance)

I'll ignore that chip on your shoulder, Smoothseas, but wikipedia doesn't quite qualify as authoritative in my book.  Hence my 'failure' to stumble on that link.  I'll just kiss your smug ass goodnight now.

I feel bad for you if you take any thing on face value and don't do at least a little cross referencing. Thats one of the reasons wiki has source article links, so you can judge how much to believe in the information.

Thanks for your help, there, Jack.

Its diffuicult to find corporate info from the 80's except in a library or from a paid archive service on the web which others don't have access to. Especially when both entities involved have had several M&A activities over the years. In nay case The AIG story is very complex however if you do some research you will may see exactly why this company is so important and exactly why its fall triggered the current credit crunch. You should research these names: CV Starr, Starr International, Hank Greenburg, Eliott Spitzer, Coral RE,etc. and you will see exactly why the US Government HAD TO take controlling interest in it.

Then food should be a right. Clothing should be a right. Shelter should be a right.

There was a country that had these as rights and more. It was called the Soviet Union. How'd that work out?

Of course what they're really saying is for some people by some other people.

30% of Americans don't pay a cent of federal income tax.  Needless to say, polls show that most of them support free health care.  The remaining 70% of Americans who actually pay taxes do not support universal health care (in terms of %'s who support it in polls).

That's why our system is so messed up. People who don't pay taxes get to have a say on how those taxes are spent. It's madness.

Incidentally, I reject the premise that we want to lower health care costs.

There are lots of third world countries who spend virtually nothing on healthcare.

Most Americans have health insurance.  In fact, nearly 90% of American citizens have health insurance.  It works pretty well.

The question that never seems to get asked is, what is the reason a given person doesn't have insurance. 

Which won't change until a lot of people in congress get flushed out of the system.

You might change that statement since many/most don't think anyone is proposing "free" health care.

In any case I know a lot of people who pay taxes that think some kind of universal health care is necessary.

Where'd you get your poll numbers from?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87783148

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/poll-shows-many-republicans-favor-universal-healthcare-gays-in-military-2007-06-28.html

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/15715

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html?ex=1330405200&en=45c0a4cf48ed21a1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Should health care be a right? First we need to ask if we really want the government trying to handle it. Look how they handle everything else. They're the Anti-Midas--everything they touch turns into a substance that doesn't even remotely resemble gold (actually, that's not true--when my son was first born, his diaper was often filled with vaguely gold-colored amounts of the substance in question).

I had healthcare it nearly bankrupted me just to get a simply shot to help with a painful infection. Nevermind the fact my part time job wouldn't afford me the luxury to get another job. Thats the corporate world screw the little guy.

Also Smothseas. I was trying to agree with you and critize Daiwa for not taking the responcibilty to check facts himself.

The number who are or not insured is only part of the story.

In two years as the boomers start to retire medicare costs will skyrocket because it covers the largest segement of the population in which the insurers REFUSE to cover. Then we have the vets who are covered under the Veterans Admin plans which once again many have high medical costs and once again insurance companies REFUSE to cover those with preconditions. Lets add in the fact that most of the working class do not keep the same job for 20 or more years like they used to. So once they have to change jobs, if you have a family member with a pre-existing condition you may very well have the insurance compaines REFUSE to cover you and your family. I have seen insurance companies pressure small business owners to get rid of employees with threats to raise premiums because of a specific employee's history of claims.

McCain's plan would save me about 5k annually, however I do not beilieve it will in any way help solve the problems we know are coming down the pike. It doesn't help very many that really need the help, and since Fed economists are forecasting  50% of households will be insolvent in two years it will be helping even fewer people by the time he could even get something like that in place. I dont believe it is the governments duty or the right of the people however I do believe it is the governments responsibility to try to solve the problem, and I do believe that McCain saying it is a responsibility does not make his idea valid. His plan sucks. It does nothing to solve or even address the problems that we as a country are facing or going to face in the near future. That said I think Obama's sucks as well. It only addresses the current situation and maybe other problems that will crop up in the near future, however once again it does nothing to address the problems that will start to surface in about two years.

A joke? I'd consider it inhumane to deny people necessary medical treatment, and hence view essential healthcare as a right people should have. I also think that the vast majority of people would share this viewpoint. It's therefore not too much of a streatch to then extend that principle and say you think people should have a right to health insurance. As to the actual implications of it, it wouldn't have to be forced health insurance - the state could simply ensure that everyone could, if they wished, obtain health insurance - if the private sector refused to provide it to certain people, the state could then look to provide it to them (if they believe it to be a right) for a fee. There is a massive difference therefore between believing people should have a right to something (i.e. can choose to have it), and being forced to have it. Of course Obama may believe in the latter anyway, but he's not saying that from the quotes provided.

It would depend on how it's implimented. The horrible method which would result in the situation you might be alluding to would be to have a set rate of tax for those below 250k, and a different one for those above (meaning you'd then have no incentive for a company to earn more money up to a certain point if it was at  or just below the threshold). The better way would be to have a gradual process for those earning above 250k where their tax slowly goes up until it reaches the desired average; i.e. in terms of marginal rates of tax, if we say you want to tax co's below 250k at 30% of profits, and those above at 40%, what you would do is maybe have a marginal rate of 30% up to 250k, then have a marginal rate of 42.5% after that, up to 1mil, then after 1mil have a marginal rate of 40% apply. The end result is the incentive distortion is no longer so massive (you won't for example have co' facing a huge penalty for earning a few pounds more), and you still have an incentive to make more profits, it's just not quite as strong (the firm would gain 57.5% profits initially, instead of 70%). It would then of course have some negative impacts on investments with some not being undertaken due to no longer being profitable enough, but the likely impact of that by itself probably wouldn't be huge. Assuming you're referring to companies rather than individuals (businesses covers both) the biggest danger would more likely be that a tax hike on companies would
cause some to relocate to a different country with a more favourable tax regime.

For individuals, you could have similar effects, but depending on whether you view some individuals supply of labour as being backward sloping, a rise in tax could lead to an increase in the amount worked for by those people, which would help offset some of the effect. Also it's arguable that companies are probably more likely to relocate due to tax reasons than individuals (companies aren't going to care much about concepts such as patriotism+loyalty to your country, or other sentimental issues, while an individual would be likely to, for example).

Thanks again for your help, Jack.  I'll go now & work on my 'responcibilities'.

People with health insurance are already paying for those that don't have it. As was previously pointed out everyone that walks into an ER gets treated, but not everyone pays. The insurance companies pass that cost right on to the people that have insurance, plain and simple (and just what the corporations will do when their taxes go up under an Obama administration, middle class tax break indeed). There's your rights for you.

Most people who make money do not lose any incentive to make more simply because some of that money will be taxed at a higher rate.

I suspect that depends on the rate and how easy it is to dodge it, not to mention that our effective tax rate (inclusive of local, state and federal taxes) is sky-high already.  That magic number will simply create a new industry based on creative ways to avoid exceeding it ('for tax purposes only' of course), populated by people who contribute nothing to the economy.

Why do you put up links that have nothing to do with my statement?  When 30% of the population doesn't pay taxes (and no, I don't have a link handy) it's not surprising that they would want "free" health care.

At the end of the day, as long as a tiny % of the population is stuck footing the bill for the latest invented "right" I say pass on universal health care.

The government loots enough of my earnings as is to give to people who can't be bothered to work. I'd rather not have to pay more to make sure the idle class can lay around in greater comfort on my dime.

...and you know this...how?

Speaking as someone whose taxes are 7 figures a year, I can tell you from experience that what higher taxes do do, once they reach a certain threshold is decrease the incentive to take financial risks with ones own money.  Risk is how new businesses are created or how successful business are expanded.

Right now, I pay 35% in federal taxes, 4% state, and 6% sales tax.  That's 45% before we get into things like property tax and various hidden taxes.

If I take a risk, the government will take half of what I earn if my venture is successful.

If I take a risk and I lose it, I'm simply screwed.

The government is the ultimate parasite. 

Even now, because Obama is likely to win, the accountants and I are lowering the budget to hire new people for next year because there won't be as much capital available to pay salaries.

Maybe you mean statutory? The effective rate differs widely amongst individuals and industries depending on many variables including credits, exemptions,shelters and subsidies.

Its difficult if you are paying the statutory rate. But that just shows the unfairness of the system because many businesses' effective rate is much lower than 35%.

You might want to actually blame the laissez faire policies of Bush on that one. Paulson is just now figuring out that the first step is to recapitalize the banks, and there is no telling how long it will take to get the confidence of foreign investors back. After all it has been the foreign banks who have supplied the needed capital to our banking system FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS OR SO.

One solution to that problem which would allow higher taxes without such a negative impact on investment (as a result of risky decisions rewards being reduced, but the penalties remaining unchanged) could be to allow businesses to claim loss relief at their rate of tax, and get an immediate refund. It wouldn't be without flaws of course, but it would mean you could then increase taxes and have little if any negative impact on the incentives.

For companies it'd be easier to impliment I expect - I'm guessing that at the moment loss relief works by allowing you to carry forward any losses in the current year to offset against income in future years, so it would just mean abolishing those rules and having loss relief in the form of an immediate tax refund (even if such tax hadn't been paid, although you could modify it to only allow a refund up to the total amount of net tax paid by that co. in it's lifetime, with the tradeoffs that would then present). For individuals it'd be a bit less clear (would you relieve trading losses immediately, or require them to be offset against all other income made by the person in that year first, for example), but could still work similarly.

"laissez faire policies" aren't going to demand I pay the government more money.

I don't need capital from banks. We get our capital by producing products and services that individuals voluntarily purchase. We take that capital to hire more people to produce more products and services.  However, with Obama, the government is going to be taking more of that capital while providing nothing in addition in return.  Therefore, I have less money to spend on hiring more people.