NLIC.org

Billy Said:

Would It Be True to Say that W. Bush Does Not Care About the Health of Poor Children in the U.S.?

We Answered:

Of course any answer to this question basically revolves around which side of the political spectrum you're on- I shouldn't be amazed at the overly simplistic ranting answers your question has received (or really the overly simplistic question you propose, though, in general, I support your thesis).
Your question is supported by one piece of evidence, which you supply carefully & thoughtfully. This piece of legislation was, as you indicated, "bipartisan" which means it had support of both parties. So it can't be simply described as "liberal" or "conservative," "Republican," or "Democrat". Based on Bush's record though and his unwavering support for the private insurance industry, I would say Bush is opposed to ANY government sponsored health care initiative. The basic mantra of the economic conservatives is "let the people take care of themselves w/ whatever means they have" except when it comes to defense spending. The war in Iraq is a disaster and has no basis for support. The SCHIP program has a reliable track record & broad support. Now make your OWN educated opinion, not some idiotic "bleeding heart" rant from EITHER side.

Ricardo Said:

Support the Affordable Health Care for America Act?

We Answered:

Considering that they are funded by (un)insurance companies and ignore the facts, then no.

FACT - Insurance companies in the USA admit to pushing up prices, buying politicians and not paying out claims when they should [1]
FACT - PER PERSON the USA spends more on healthcare than any other nation on the planet [2]
FACT - Obama debated his plans before the election for healthcare [3]
FACT - the chance of a child under five of dying in the USA is greater than industrialised nations with universal health coverage [4]
FACT - Obama was elected by the American people to bring in change [5]
FACT - Obama wants to stop insurance companies from screwing American [6]
FACT - The reforms Obama wants work in the Netherlands and Switzerland [7]

Let me know if my facts are wrong, but please provide proof.

Kathryn Said:

NHS is 60 today Progress so far? What future for it? Compare NHS/private med insurance pros & cons? Euthanase?

We Answered:

I worked in the NHS and it was always a good organisation to work for. All they need do is bring in leeches, and spiritual healing.

Helen Said:

Are you able to keep private health care if you don't want government ran health care?

We Answered:

there is no public option.. just private ones...
we are forced to choose between for-profits (unless you are super duper cant afford food type of poor.. then they can get federally assisted types or opt out all together (the penalties wont apply to them))
not what the dems originally wanted..
it was a compromise bill

along the car analogy: closest thing would be choosing not to live (no living body is like not driving car).. not a good option!

Nicholas Said:

Help with this problem for my insurance class?

We Answered:

In real life (not necessarily in your homework) this is a trick question. It is not costing the employer $15,000 more to give Angie benefits than not to do so. The total amount that the employer spends on health benefits is $15,000 times the number of employees, so it seems like $15,000 per employee. However, if the employer did not give Angie health benefits, then the employer would have to spend more on health benefits for the other employees (more than $15,000 times the number of other employees), so the net savings in health insurance costs to the employer would not be $15,000. It might even cost the employer more to insure only the other employees, without Angie, than to insure both Angie and the other employees.

If the employer gave Angie $15,000 more in salary and no health benefits, then Angie would have $15,000, but would have to spend:
1. 7.65% of $15,000 on social security, FICA and medicare taxes
2. 25% of $15,000 on income taxes
3. $300 per month ($3600 per year) on health insurance
4. $2000 per year on medical expenses not covered by the insurance.

The employer would have to spend:
1. More (not sure on much) on insurance for the other employees, because the cost per employee would be more
2. The amount you calculated on FICA taxes
3. More on unemployment taxes (rate varies by state).

Doing it the way that it is done now, the employer saves the amount that you calculated, plus the unemployment taxes, plus however much the employer saves by getting a better price on health insurance for the other employees.