Quote: FinsRuleSo income taxes were raised today?
How else will the gov't collect a new tax? Thats why the IRS is
hiring 16,000 new agents. The Obamacare tax will come right
out of your paycheck every week. And if you're a college guy
who owes a ton of student loan debt and gets dropped from
your parents policy at 26, Obamacare is depending on your
good health to pay for all the others who are older and sick.
Thanks, kids.
In BC, Medical Service Payments are indirectly related to income and size of family, but it's not always paid for at income source.
Links please, otherwise you're just a crazy cat lady.Quote: EvenBobHow else will the gov't collect a new tax? Thats why the IRS is
hiring 16,000 new agents. The Obamacare tax will come right
out of your paycheck every week. And if you're a college guy
who owes a ton of student loan debt and gets dropped from
your parents policy at 26, Obamacare is depending on your
good health to pay for all the others who are older and sick.
Thanks, kids.
Quote: WupperI guess this means Obama can make me purchase a Chevy Volt. If I fail to comply, I must pay an extra tax.
That is my fear. This set a very dangerous precedent.
Quote: WupperI guess this means Obama can make me purchase a Chevy Volt. If I fail to comply, I must pay an extra tax.
Welll...assuming that the total amount of gas tax revenues needs to be fixed, the unit revenues would need to go up on the remaining non-volt drivers. But I assume that's not what you meant:-)
Quote: s2dbakerCommie News Network
There's your liberal bias at work :p
Well, that was the Chief Justice's fault. Here's what happened:
1. Chief Justice Roberts reads the decision, and starts off with, "The individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause."
2. Whoever is running CNN's Supreme Court blog hears this and posts that the mandate is unconstitutional.
3. Roberts then goes on to say, "The individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable," and then, "The individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause."
Had Roberts said (3) before (1), there would not have been any confusion.
Actually, the first thing Roberts said was, "If you call it a penalty instead of a tax, it is considered a tax for all purposes except for the law that says that you cannot sue to stop a tax before you actually pay it."
Quote: QuadDeuces
I would like the IRS to enforce the rules and collect taxes from everyone, even if it involves danger. I also have much less of an issue with federal agents carrying weapons than I do with private citizens carrying weapons. Additionally, $1.2MM worth of pistols and shotguns is about 2,500 weapons. The IRS has 17,500 field agents.
Quote: rdw4potusI would like the IRS to enforce the rules and collect taxes from everyone, even if it involves danger. I also have much less of an issue with federal agents carrying weapons than I do with private citizens carrying weapons. Additionally, $1.2MM worth of pistols and shotguns is about 2,500 weapons. The IRS has 17,500 field agents.
Good to know whose side you're on.
So one's choices are:
Door #1) Pay $x for a service which takes your money in return for telling you that none of your medical expenses are covered,
or
Door #2) Pay $y to the government for not having chosen door #1.
So it has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with extracting more money from the citizens, either indirectly (door #1) or directly (door #2), correct?
Am I the only one who views this policy as extortionate?
Quote: s2dbakerThere's always Somalia. Have a safe move.
You are the worst. This is not an argument.
Quote: s2dbakerThere's always Somalia. Have a safe move.
Quote: bigfoot66You are the worst. This is not an argument.
Somalia might be an improvement.
The law also makes Door #1 cover your medical expenses. So it actually has everything to do with healthcare.Quote: JBI don't follow news any more, so pardon my ignorance while I catch up. Am I correct in understanding that the country as a whole is going to follow Massachusetts' lead in requiring everyone to have health insurance or else pay higher taxes?
So one's choices are:
Door #1) Pay $x for a service which takes your money in return for telling you that none of your medical expenses are covered,
or
Door #2) Pay $y to the government for not having chosen door #1.
So it has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with extracting more money from the citizens, either indirectly (door #1) or directly (door #2), correct?
Am I the only one who views this policy as extortionate?
Quote: s2dbakerThe law also makes Door #1 cover your medical expenses. So it actually has everything to do with healthcare.
Like I said, I don't follow news and am trying to catch up, so I wasn't aware of that. That's very interesting, forcing health insurance companies to do what they promise to do. I suppose premiums will skyrocket as a result.
Quote: JBLike I said, I don't follow news and am trying to catch up, so I wasn't aware of that. That's very interesting, forcing health insurance companies to do what they promise to do. I suppose premiums will skyrocket as a result.
If a company's actual health care (as opposed to things like overhead) expenses are less than 80% (85% for plans that cover companies with more than 100 people), the company has to refund the difference to the policyholders.
Because of the OBAMATAX, people who are healthy will be obligated to buy health insurance. Thus more of the desired lower risk people will be paying into the system thus lowering costs.Quote: JBLike I said, I don't follow news and am trying to catch up, so I wasn't aware of that. That's very interesting, forcing health insurance companies to do what they promise to do. I suppose premiums will skyrocket as a result.
Quote: JBLike I said, I don't follow news and am trying to catch up, so I wasn't aware of that. That's very interesting, forcing health insurance companies to do what they promise to do. I suppose premiums will skyrocket as a result.
When premiums increase the big brains in DC will just cap rates, which will result in quality going down.
They'll spend future congressional terms trying to fix this mistake and they'll make it worse every time.
I also predict an insurance company meltdown and bailouts ultimately resulting in nationalization.
Quote: ThatDonGuyIf a company's actual health care (as opposed to things like overhead) expenses are less than 80% (85% for plans that cover companies with more than 100 people), the company has to refund the difference to the policyholders.
As it stands, they fight tooth and nail to get out of paying policyholders' medical expenses. The already-high premiums reflect them squirming their way out of paying whatever they can get away with not paying. (They are "low" premiums from the company's perspective.) If they suddenly start paying the majority of policyholder medical expenses as a result of being forced to, premiums will go up significantly as a result.
Quote: JBAs it stands, they fight tooth and nail to get out of paying policyholders' medical expenses. The already-high premiums reflect this. If they start paying for more policyholder medical expenses as a result of being forced to, then premiums will still go up (significantly) as a result.
I've never had an insurance company even hint at not covering a covered expenditure. Maybe I'm the lone lucky dude.
Quote: JB
Door #1) Pay $x for a service which takes your money in return for telling you that none of your medical expenses are covered,
Part of the law's intent is to make this change; preexisting conditions are already on the way out. Lifetime maximums will be out. Kids can be covered up to age 26. A great deal of the content of the bill is common sense stuff that no one in their right mind could argue against.
Quote: JB
Door #2) Pay $y to the government for not having chosen door #1.
A tax is levied on people who can afford health insurance but choose not to buy it. The only way a system like this will work is if everyone is participating (and again, I fail to see what's so bad about having people buy health insurance if they can afford it - is that a thing?).
Quote: JB
So it has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with extracting more money from the citizens, either indirectly (door #1) or directly (door #2), correct?
I'm fairly certain it has everything to do with covering those that don't have insurance, many of whom would very much like to be able to... you know... live.
In my opinion there is no question that the current system is broken; receiving life saving (or bettering) care should not be a right given only to those that are able to afford it. I for one would be happy to pay more in taxes/insurance rates/whatever to help out those that are less fortunate (and given the current law, I'm pretty sure I won't even have to). Never mind the fact that we're pretty much the last modern democracy that DOESN'T have all of its citizens covered.
With regard to the 80% rule, the insurers aren't "forced" to do anything except refund what they collect in premiums if they don't spend 80% of it on actual heathcare. As a result, premiums will go down, not up.Quote: JBAs it stands, they fight tooth and nail to get out of paying policyholders' medical expenses. The already-high premiums reflect them squirming their way out of paying whatever they can get away with not paying. (They are "low" premiums from the company's perspective.) If they suddenly start paying the majority of policyholder medical expenses as a result of being forced to, premiums will go up significantly as a result.
This is causing the conservatives to consider moving to Somalia because of .. less freedom or something.Quote: UWPeteOI for one would be happy to pay more in taxes/insurance rates/whatever to help out those that are less fortunate
Quote: s2dbakerWith regard to the 80% rule, the insurers aren't "forced" to do anything except refund what they collect in premiums if they don't spend 80% of it on actual heathcare. As a result, premiums will go down, not up.
Let's say they currently pay $x in claims per year, but as a result of not being able to exclude pre-existing conditions they will end up paying $3x in claims per year. Are you saying that premiums will go down as a result of having to pay 3 times as much in claims per year? I disagree.
You can disagree but you would be wrong because the insurers will be collecting $5x (hey, if you're going to make up stuff, so am I) from people who would otherwise go without insurance.Quote: JBLet's say they currently pay $x in claims per year, but as a result of not being able to exclude pre-existing conditions they will end up paying $3x in claims per year. Are you saying that when the dollar amount of claims they have to pay out each year is tripled, that premiums will go down? I disagree.
Quote: s2dbakerYou can disagree but you would be wrong because the insurers will be collecting $5x from people who would otherwise go without insurance.
Until they realize that it is far cheaper to pay the tax penalty than to pay for something you don't need, want, or use. And quite frankly, if I'm forced to pay the government for not having health insurance, the government should be providing me with health insurance. Otherwise, what am I paying for?
Quote: JBOtherwise, what am I paying for?
Guns for IRS agents. Break yo'self.
Quote: RogerKintGuns for IRS agents. Break yo'self.
"Get health insurance or we'll kill you."
Quote: JBUntil they realize that it is far cheaper to pay the tax penalty than to pay for something you don't need, want, or use.?
In that case, we should have the option of paying a tax penalty or buying car insurance if such a system is more economical.
Quote: UWPeteOPart of the law's intent is to make this change; preexisting conditions are already on the way out. Lifetime maximums will be out. Kids can be covered up to age 26. A great deal of the content of the bill is common sense stuff that no one in their right mind could argue against.
I could argue against (even though I know I won't change your mind):
Preexisting conditions/no lifetime maximum- obese smokers have many self inflicted health problems- these people are guaranteed coverage. The rest of us (healthy, average weight, non smokers) must pay more.
26 year olds are not kids- lets not treat them that way.
All these "good" things your mention are not free.
Quote: rxwineIn that case, we should have the option of paying a tax penalty or buying car insurance if such a system is more economical.
1) Driving is a privilege, not a right.
2) Compulsory liability limits for auto insurance are very affordable. If you can't afford the minimums required by the state, see #1.
Nothing changes with Obamacare. You are still going to buy insurance and subsidize obese smokers just like you did before.Quote: WupperI could argue against (even though I know I won't change your mind):
Preexisting conditions/no lifetime maximum- obese smokers have many self inflicted health problems- these people are guaranteed coverage. The rest of us (healthy, average weight, non smokers) must pay more.
26 year-olds are free to purchase their own policies, nothing has changedQuote: Wupper26 year olds are not kids- lets not treat them that way.
Actually, they lower health insurance costs so that healthcare will cost less which is better than free.Quote: WupperAll these "good" things your mention are not free.
Quote: JB1) Driving is a privilege, not a right.
2) Compulsory liability limits for auto insurance are very affordable. If you can't afford the minimums required by the state, see #1.
No, you said this alternate system of tax penalty vs buying insurance is cheaper. So, I said let's apply this to car insurance. I was making no arguments about rights one way or the other.
Quote: s2dbakerNothing changes with Obamacare.
Seriously, if nothing changes, then why do it?
Cheaper? C'mon, I'm sure your smarter than that!
Quote: Wupper
Cheaper? C'mon, I'm sure your smarter than that!
The GAO and CBO both say it's cheaper than the alternative. Lot of smart people there, and projecting the future cost of government programs is their whole job...
Quote: Gabes22I also find it criminal that to see my physician I NEED insurance. If I can write him a check or pay cash on the spot, why do I need insurance.
What do you mean??? Of course you don't "need" the insurance to see a doctor.
They just ask you for info, because that's how it works for most people. If you just tell them you want to pay yourself, they will be more than happy to accommodate you.
Quote:It seems like a waste of money to me.
Actually, paying by yourself is probably going to be a waste of money, because insurance companies usually have negotiated rates. It's like wholesale vs.retail prices.
Quote:it would be like if our auto insurance covered filling the tank, changing the oil and getting new tires, those are expenses that you need to cover for owning a car, just like you need to perform basic maintenence on your body.
Well, if changing oil is like having an annual physical, then replacing a transmission is, probably, akin to a heart attack ...
You said that you did need health insurance for the "serious" stuff ... So, should this be construed to mean that you think auto insurance should cover things like dead transmission, stalled engine or, perhaps, a burned clutch?
Quote: rxwineNo, you said this alternate system of tax penalty vs buying insurance is cheaper.
Of course the tax penalty is cheaper than health insurance, for healthy individuals, that is.
It is cheaper for me individually to pay the penalty (about $1750/year) rather than the health insurance I have been paying for (about $3240/year). I just dropped my health insurance because I got tired of paying for nothing. All they do is refuse to pay anything.
So if this new "health plan" takes effect, my choices are to pay a health insurance company $3240 a year for the luxury of paying my own medical expenses, or pay the IRS $1750 a year for the luxury of paying my own medical expenses.
Which would you choose?
In her opinion, this is far bigger of a problem than uninsured patients and since this does not deal with this major problem the whole system is flawed. A few Google searches certainly back up her opinion. The medical community seems certain this will doom healthcare as insurance will end up public in the end if it is not repealed. This means doctors will get paid lower so fewer people will want to take on the expense and time of medical school. This is serious stuff that the entitlement groups do not see.
Another issue is the group in their 20's and 30's. Many of these people are uninsured by choice. They do not use the system nor do they need it. That group will be in for a big surprise when the feds suddenly start deducting several hundred dollars a month for medical insurance they never use, especially since that age group likely leans more liberal than older age groups.
Another consideration is that now that everyone has insurance, people are going to start going to the doctor for any reason so they do not "waste" their insurance. This is proven in other countries that went down this road. With fewer doctors going into medicine because of less money in it, that means there will be much higher demand for fewer lower paid medical professionals. This will also raise the costs.
This does not even address the fact that people that make more money will be less motivated as they are now subsidizing health care for others.
The people jumping up and down about how wonderful this is fail to see the big picture. Future generations will look back and say "I hear they had good healthcare in the U.S. before 2013."
Here's the best part. You don't even have to pay the OBAMUNISTAX because there is a conscientious objector clause written into the law that says that if your deeply held belief tells you that you shouldn't have health insurance then you are exempt.Quote: JBSo if this new "health plan" takes effect, my choices are to pay a health insurance company $3240 a year for the luxury of paying my own medical expenses, or pay the IRS $1750 a year for the luxury of paying my own medical expenses.
Which would you choose?
Quote: JBOf course it is cheaper, for healthy individuals, that is.
It is cheaper for me individually to pay the penalty (about $1750/year) rather than the health insurance I have been paying for (about $3240/year). I just dropped my health insurance because I got tired of paying for nothing. All they do is refuse to pay anything.
So if this new "health plan" takes effect, my choices are to pay a health insurance company $3240 a year for the luxury of paying my own medical expenses, or pay the IRS $1750 a year for the luxury of paying my own medical expenses.
Which would you choose?
Welcome to Moral hazard (of sorts). Since Pre-existing conditions must now be covered, the young and healthy can opt to pay the tax until they get sick, then buy insurance (which must accept them as a customer).
Of course the majority of the rules and regs have not been written yet. Dept of HHS gets to do that.
"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it" -Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) 3/9/2010
Quote: JBI don't follow news any more, so pardon my ignorance while I catch up. Am I correct in understanding that the country as a whole is going to follow Massachusetts' lead in requiring everyone to have health insurance or else pay higher taxes?
So one's choices are:
Door #1) Pay $x for a service which takes your money in return for telling you that none of your medical expenses are covered,
or
Door #2) Pay $y to the government for not having chosen door #1.
So it has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with extracting more money from the citizens, either indirectly (door #1) or directly (door #2), correct?
Am I the only one who views this policy as extortionate?
+1
You are correct - it is cronyism at its finest. The underwriters are loving this - the government forcing citizens to purchase their product (if only I could get the government to force people to use my services). Charge people for health care based on their incomes (the tax increases for non-compliance as income increases). Also, how is this enforceable without a hearing/trial - this presumes guilt before any proof is introduced - YOU must prove that you have complied - they do not have to prove you have not complied.
Quote: Gabes22LOL! No. Auto insurance shouldn't cover a dead tranny. You missed my analogy. You only bust out things like auto insurance, life insurance, homeowners insurance when something goes terribly wrong, like an auto accident, a premature death, or something catostrophic to your home. We pull out health insurance cards for the most basic things.
No, I got your analogy. You don't want health insurance for "basic things", like changing oil.
But you still want it for something more serious, I assume, like a heart attack, perhaps, or appendicitis? What's wrong with comparing those serious conditions with a stalled engine, just like you are equating an annual physical to an oil change?
If you think a sudden paralysis (can't walk) attack should be covered by health insurance, then what is it that makes it different from a dead transmission (can't roll) in your view?
Quote:That $200 physical is probably $500 worth of premiums.
Yeah, probably ... But that's how insurance always works - auto, accident, life, whatever ... Some people are lucky to never need it (or, at least, not need it for a very long time), and end up paying more in premiums then they get back in claims, while others get a stroke hit by a truck, and receive a huge payout, many times larger than the total of premiums they will ever have paid.
Quote: Gabes22LOL! No. Auto insurance shouldn't cover a dead tranny. You missed my analogy. You only bust out things like auto insurance, life insurance, homeowners insurance when something goes terribly wrong, like an auto accident, a premature death, or something catostrophic to your home. We pull out health insurance cards for the most basic things. And quite frankly I am not interested in a policy that covers the most basice of health care costs. I use my health insurance for them because my policy through work covers them, but to me it is just throwing money down the toilet. That $200 physical is probably $500 worth of premiums.
There is no reason insurance should have to cover something like well-woman visits or even well-baby checkups. Those are normal and expected costs of being alive and having children.
This is why I *CHOOSE* to have a high-deductible policy. I get the rate reductions the insurance company has negotiated but pay for everything else out of pocket. I've only met the deductible one time since I've been doing it because we had a broken arm and an outpatient surgery in one year. I've saved THOUSANDS in premiums we'd pay otherwise and I'm still covered for big-ticket procedures or horrible luck.
I don't know if this will remain an available option under HusseinObamaCare.
Clearly we're missing something:
Healthcare Expenditure Per Capita
Healthcare Spending vs. GDP
You're likely just paying for the trainwreck that finally occurs when someone can't stay out of the hospital any longer because they didn't get insurance, or couldn't afford medical care..
Obamunistfascismatheistcare doesn't change anything for you with one notable exception. If you get cancer, your insurance company cannot cancel your policy.Quote: QuadDeucesI don't know if this will remain an available option under HusseinObamaCare.
Quote: s2dbakerObamunistfascismatheistcare doesn't change anything for you with one notable exception. If you get cancer, your insurance company cannot cancel your policy.
They can't cancel it now. It's a contract.
Oh, that's right, in the ObamaNation contract law is meaningless too.
Quote: UWPeteOSo I guess every other first world democracy has it wrong, and America has the right system? Surely the ACA is not the perfect bill, but it's a step in the right direction.
Clearly we're missing something:
Healthcare Expenditure Per Capita
Healthcare Spending vs. GDP
Nice Argumentum ad Populum.
If you want European democratic socialism so badly, move to a European democratic country.