Current Conditions
28°F - SNOW
Lancaster City Council is backing a 'public option' plan
Intelligencer Journal
Lancaster New Era
Nov 11, 2009 08:47 EST
Lancaster
By BERNARD HARRIS, Staff Writer

Correction Nov. 11, 2009 — The article below incorrectly characterized a pair of health care reform bills pending in the state General Assembly which are being supported by Lancaster City Council. House Bill 1660 and Senate Bill 400 would establish a government-run "single-payer" health care program in Pennsylvania.

•••

As federal and state legislators debate plans to reform health care, Lancaster City Council members weighed in on Tuesday.

Council members unanimously approved a resolution in support of a pair of state General Assembly bills that would extend health coverage to all — a so-called "public option" — in Pennsylvania.

Kendra Saunders, chairwoman of council's finance committee, said the adoption of such a health care plan would save the city government $6 million and School District of Lancaster $9 million annually in insurance premiums.

Lisa Armellino questioned at what cost those savings would come. Armellino, who rose from the audience, contended the 10 percent tax on gross payroll for businesses and the 3 percent individual taxes that would fund the program would drive small businesses from the state.

Council member Jose Urdaneta responded that "obviously the weight that would be taken off of employers is much greater than the added weight that would be put on with Chapter 9," referring to the funding provisions in bills.

Acting Council President Nelson Polite said the council resolution would be forwarded to the respective General Assembly committee debating the bills and that some parts of the bills would likely be changed if any action is taken on the proposals.

bharris@lnpnews.com


Recent Posts
Showing 5 most recent comments out of 145 total TalkBack comments about this article
View full comments | Comment on this article
QUOTE (Lisa Armellino @ Nov 17 2009, 01:04 PM)
I completely agree with you. However, I do not sense you are looking at the big picture.


I am looking at it from the perspective of the national economy. It would be hard to get much bigger than that...

QUOTE (Lisa Armellino @ Nov 17 2009, 01:04 PM)
Also, I should be a bit more elaborate on : I will not be forced to pay for anything else for anyone else. At this point, it's NOT a moral issue. It's a 'making ends meet issue'.


Let's just assume, even though it is unlikely, that you, Lisa, would pay higher taxes under a public option. But, your healthcare costs would drop *by more than that*. That's the point. So if you did actually care about "making ends meet", you would be better off; you'd pay $1000 more in taxes per year but not have to spend $2500 a year in healthcare. Net savings to you: $1500. Plus, your care would improve, people would be able to get care they need (which means less spreading of diseases, another benefit to all of us), and US firms would be able to compete globally.

I know what your issue is - I can see it strewn amongst all your other posting. You are committed to an ideology that says: government doesn't ever do anything well (except for all the things it does do well that you don't want to talk about). I don't know what else to say other than: I am sorry the world doesn't always work the way you wish it would work.
localyokel123
QUOTE (localyokel123 @ Nov 17 2009, 02:34 PM)
Let's just assume, even though it is unlikely, that you, Lisa, would pay higher taxes under a public option. But, your healthcare costs would drop *by more than that*. That's the point. So if you did actually care about "making ends meet", you would be better off; you'd pay $1000 more in taxes per year but not have to spend $2500 a year in healthcare. Net savings to you: $1500. Plus, your care would improve, people would be able to get care they need (which means less spreading of diseases, another benefit to all of us), and US firms would be able to compete globally.

I know what your issue is - I can see it strewn amongst all your other posting. You are committed to an ideology that says: government doesn't ever do anything well (except for all the things it does do well that you don't want to talk about). I don't know what else to say other than: I am sorry the world doesn't always work the way you wish it would work.


Actually, my employer pays $90 per month for me to have health insurance. I do not use it. So, I don't spend anything on healthcare as it is. Even when I do get taxed for this, I still won't use it. I spend my money on good food and natural health care, and that won't change. In my opinion most of the reason we even have a healthcare crisis and everyone seems to have a problem is because people are eating genetically modified food, so in essense my costs actually go up because I have to now foot the bill in addition to my own prevention.

Yeah, you are spot on with my "issue". Start a thread with something that the government does well, we can talk about it.
Lisa Armellino
QUOTE (localyokel123 @ Nov 17 2009, 03:34 PM)
I am looking at it from the perspective of the national economy. It would be hard to get much bigger than that...
Let's just assume, even though it is unlikely, that you, Lisa, would pay higher taxes under a public option. But, your healthcare costs would drop *by more than that*. That's the point. So if you did actually care about "making ends meet", you would be better off; you'd pay $1000 more in taxes per year but not have to spend $2500 a year in healthcare. Net savings to you: $1500. Plus, your care would improve, people would be able to get care they need (which means less spreading of diseases, another benefit to all of us), and US firms would be able to compete globally.

I know what your issue is - I can see it strewn amongst all your other posting. You are committed to an ideology that says: government doesn't ever do anything well (except for all the things it does do well that you don't want to talk about). I don't know what else to say other than: I am sorry the world doesn't always work the way you wish it would work.


What is it again the government does well? Of course any answer is going to be your opinion but hey, give it your best shot.
FDR06-10
QUOTE (Lisa Armellino @ Nov 17 2009, 01:45 PM)
Actually, my employer pays $90 per month for me to have health insurance. I do not use it. So, I don't spend anything on healthcare as it is. Even when I do get taxed for this, I still won't use it. I spend my money on good food and natural health care, and that won't change. In my opinion most of the reason we even have a healthcare crisis and everyone seems to have a problem is because people are eating genetically modified food, so in essense my costs actually go up because I have to now foot the bill in addition to my own prevention.


Lisa, it's easy to take this position when you're healthy, as it seems you currently are. Some day, however, you may have a health crisis and need to use your health benefits. Unfortunately, no one is guaranteed good health; it can change in a minute. That's just something I think you need to bear in mind in case your circumstances would change. Please understand that I'm not saying this to be disrespectful of your desire to use natural remedies but rather as a realist who understands that there are situations where even natural remedies might not address an emergency health situation quickly and effectively enough to save your life.
BeingReal
did you know that..

9-of the top-10 healthiest states voted for Barack Obama in 2008

9-of the 10 least healthy states backed John McCain in 2008

http://www.americashealthrankings.org/
mnepats52
Top Ads
Home | News | Sports | Business | Entertainment | Lifestyle | Opinion | Spanish | Classifieds | Jobs | Homes | Autos
Terms of Service | Contact Us | Ephrata Review | Lititz Record | Lancaster Farming
Copyright 2004-2010