probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Obama taxed it all away when he raised taxes by 675? Unless that's 675 a month I'm pretty sure you just can't count.
Err I apologise for the exeration, no it's annual.
Though my fustration remains.
675$ is over 2 months of my current set aside savings. It's hard enough to put 300/month away in this economy. 300 is the bare minimum, now I have to find somewhere in my budget to pull another 675$ out of.
So, if I understand the situation correctly, you've got basic coverage now from the Obama reforms and still have $248 a month to put in your rainy day health care fund and because of this Obama is trying to kill you.
I don't know if I got basic coverage from Obama, I can't read (nor can any one I've ever met) the 10,000 page bill) He said I do, but he already lied once, so I can't believe him.
248? How you getting your math?
300x12= 3600 3600-675(that's the minimum by the way)=2925 2925/12=243$
Just to be clear - the ACA is mandating the fee to be $95 or 1% until 2016, when it will become $675 or 2.5% income. However, it is a penalty for you not purchasing health insurance - I didn't see where it says you are covered. Hopefully someone who has more knowledge can help out here.
The goal - it seems, of the ACA's mandate, is to have the general population to purchase insurance to reduce the cost of uninsured medical operations. They provide tax credits for people who do have insurance to offset the cost.
The penalty of the ACA mandate is not to exceed the national average for the lowest insurance coverage. Thus - if you don't want to get insurance, you pay the fee. It's forcing you to get insurance.
I don't know what happens if you don't get insurance, pay the fee, and get hurt and go to the hospital. My assumption is that because the Mandate fee is to be no more than the national insurance average - you get covered anyways.
Yes there is, now instead of private business the government is in charge. One has to compete to offer the best product. One just raises taxes if it falls short of the bottom line one month.
which one is more likly to be optomized?
No, health insurance is still mediated by private business, the government has simply remedied what was a market failure by controlling (some of) the market conditions.
I'm intrested in hearing about this *no sarcasm* Can you eleborate. What is the government controlling. What have they stopped/added.
The free market will charge whatever it can get away with to provide (possibly excellent) healthcare to those who can afford it. The free market will deny health insurance to those in need if it projects a loss. In fact, the free market would happily deny medical services to those it believes can't pay (in fact that's illegal, which is an important preexisting marketplace regulation per healthcare).
Mandated health insurance as it stands isn't likely the fully realized vision of American health care, but it's an excellent start. Healthcare (that is society's ability/willingness to care for it's sick/dying/injured), will no longer be guided by shareholders and their pursuit of the almighty dollar. Moral imperative should never be dicated by someone's vision of ecnomic necessity. The market can no longer deny health insurance to those in need. People in need will no longer mortgage their future to get the treatment they require. You must have medical coverage (frankly, this is especially beneficial for those short-sighted enough to believe they will never need it). This system allows the nation to cheaply provide medical services to everyone. Aren't you legally required to buy car insurance? How do you think that works?
In other words, what was before a failure on the part of the free market to speak to the medical needs of Americans has now been remedied by market regulation. The free market can't deny services if it projects a loss.
The free market also happily accepts govt. subsidies and tax writeoffs. Yes, taxes have always helped finance medicine generally. People already pay taxes to finance hospitals etc. But I guess those facilities are only there to help the rich?
Finally, senate democrats accepted 161 Republican amendments to the healthcare reform bill. How do you know you aren't really just complaining about one of those?
Great post, I do some a few quams. Allow me to explain. You said HC will deny someone with a preexisting condition. I have heard of this many times, and it makes sense. Why insure someone who won't be able to put in what they take out. I see nothing wrong with this. A society who accepts people who drain more than they add, never prosper in the long run. I realize the idea of "More taxes" is a great solution when you see it as someone elses money- but really the fact is, it will run out. (see nationdebtclock.org) Should we cut funding to research centers, and libs? Should we cut more from education to pay for HC? If you add drains to society we all suffer. We all pay. We pay with a less educated population. We pay in more taxes (in my case 675$ more). I only want people to carry their weight best they can. Those that fall and struggle should tap into a rainy day fund like I did when I broke my arm. Also there is charity, people give MILLIONS away (look at Bill Gates who has GIVEN BILLIONS). I'm not saying I want people to roll over and die, of course that's cruel. But we should be expected to give of ourselves before asking others for help. I thought until recently that was a universial belief. Forcing a tax hike htat massive on the American people during a recession is a BAD idea. (I can source numerious economist if you'd like)
Also you brought up car insurance. I'm glad you did. In fact you just made my point for me, thanks for bringing that up. Can you choose to drive? Yes. Can you choose to by UHC? No. Thanks for that one.
As for your final point, I wish I could know but again 10,000 pages of legal-speak isn't something the vast majority of Americans can read. (myself included)
What state do you live in that lets you drive with insurance, you cant drive the car off the lot if you buy it from the dealer. You wont be able to get you tags without insurance. And if you get pulled over without it you get finned and jailed and will most likely get you car towed tell you get insurance. So of you are trying to use driving with insurance to help you i dont think that is the best example since you kinda do need it to drive.
You don't pay a tax for not having car insurance. You pay a fine for driving without car insurance. You do not have to purchase car insurance just because you are alive. See living in New York, Chicago, Europe, or other areas with mass transit systems. Comparing the two is apples to oranges.
The ACA mandates that because you are alive you must buy insurance and worst of all you have to buy specific types of insurance. Up until 2014 you could easily get by as a younger person that has a rainy day fund, eats well, exercises, and lives a healthy lifestyle and just have carried catastrophic health insurance.
Under the ACA even catastrophic health insurance will have to carry many things that it didn't in the past that essentially means the death of catastrophic insurance.
The Democrats should have gone for single-payer then defended it, then at least it wouldn't have been a gift to the insurance companies as it is now. Either way, the ACA does nothing to address the things that really cause the cost of health care to rise in this country. Mainly too much consumption, too much regulation that stifles innovation, and not letting citizens do things that encourage competition like buy insurance across state lines.
In other ACA news apparently the 80/20 rule may be changed:
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Obama taxed it all away when he raised taxes by 675? Unless that's 675 a month I'm pretty sure you just can't count.
Err I apologise for the exeration, no it's annual.
Though my fustration remains.
675$ is over 2 months of my current set aside savings. It's hard enough to put 300/month away in this economy. 300 is the bare minimum, now I have to find somewhere in my budget to pull another 675$ out of.
So, if I understand the situation correctly, you've got basic coverage now from the Obama reforms and still have $248 a month to put in your rainy day health care fund and because of this Obama is trying to kill you.
I don't know if I got basic coverage from Obama, I can't read (nor can any one I've ever met) the 10,000 page bill) He said I do, but he already lied once, so I can't believe him.
248? How you getting your math?
300x12= 3600 3600-675(that's the minimum by the way)=2925 2925/12=243$
My bad. That $5/month will devastate your healthcare fund. Maybe you should speak to someone who has read the bill, there are professionals who do that kind of thing. That's probably a safer bet for planning your healthcare than posting online over and over about how little understanding of the situation you have. I'm not sure why you feel your ignorance is an asset here.
I'm not worried about the 5$ I was just asking a question to see if I missed something. No need to take it so offensively. I'm not upset about the conversation- this thread is about politicans- they get judged on their policies. I don't like the policies that are being put into effect. I don't like free choice being less free. I don't like adding middlemen (AKA growing the bureaucracy). We should be trying to find solutions to make things better and more effecient like my proposed ideas of a new HC law. I did it in 3 lines, and I'm not a subject matter expert- surly people who are 'professionals' can execute a policy that doesn't take 10,000 pages of legal-speak or hide it.
(Oh Dear God, I just linked a vid from Fox News I must be a GOP/Republican dispite trash talking Romney)
Why can't we have a runner who wants to lower American expenses, bring our troops home, and get less involved in world affairs.
If my opinion appears as ignorance so be it. I like to think that 'freedom' is a good thing. Big government may be the norm in UK but it isn't here, and I'm not alone when I say I don't trust a bunch of millionaires running my country. Unlike most I've actually served, 5 years and counting- including deployments to Kandahar, Afg. If I care, i'm sorry. But I love my country and I want what is best for it, and its people.
I respect others who disagree and don't recall calling them ignorant.
Edit: for 4 words that were Cap'd
If you'd like me not to call you ignorant then don't list things that you don't know. I described you as ignorant about the bill because you said "I don't know if I got basic coverage from Obama, I can't read (nor can any one I've ever met) the 10,000 page bill)". It's not an insult, it's an adjective. You are ignorant about it.
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Dude, without insurance you won't be able to pay for treatment of the gaping gunshot wound, let alone the removal of the bullet.
Sigh.
This is not true. ER care is always taken care of regardless of insurance. If you don't have it, the hospital eats the costs. This gets priced into other services, which is the reason more complete coverage would actually lower the cost for an average american.
If you're insured, does the insurance company reimburse the hospital, so they don't have to gouge other patients?
BTW, I don't think we're actually disagreeing on anything ...
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Dude, without insurance you won't be able to pay for treatment of the gaping gunshot wound, let alone the removal of the bullet.
Sigh.
This is not true. ER care is always taken care of regardless of insurance. If you don't have it, the hospital eats the costs. This gets priced into other services, which is the reason more complete coverage would actually lower the cost for an average american.
If you're insured, does the insurance company reimburse the hospital, so they don't have to gouge other patients?
BTW, I don't think we're actually disagreeing on anything ...
Well, i should clarify. If you don't have insurance, the hospital charges you personally. If you can't pay or are insolvent, then they eat the cost. If you have money, they just ask you to pay it.
My point was that if you are shot, you WILL be cared for first, and who pays is a post-thought. So lack of insurance doesn't mean they just let you die from a gunshot wound. Unless I misunderstood what you were saying. Then this would all be irrelevant.
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Dude, without insurance you won't be able to pay for treatment of the gaping gunshot wound, let alone the removal of the bullet.
Sigh.
I paid for a broken arm with change to spare. now if I get shot tomorrow, yes i'd have to get a loan- but I can get a loan cause I work for a living.
What people still don't seem to understand, I'll try this one last time then i'm giving up on you. HC is a business What does business 101 say is the 1st job of a business: To make a profit. So why would I go to a middleman(HC insurance) who is in it to make money when I can go straight to the hospital and avoid the INSURANCE COMPANIES mark up?
Healthcare is a business in the US. That is exactly the problem. Health care should be an essential service, not a business.
Essential services are businesses. Hospitals are out there to make a profit, and they aren't managed by government, not yet. They pay their doctors, their staff, their administrators, and the engineers, maintenance staff, and everybody else out of them. Owning a car for me in my business is very important, and the ability to drive easily to a place dedicated to filling up my fuel tank is an essential service, the gasoline an essential product.
I have in the past, and may again in the future, go without insurance for a time. I paid for my hospital visits. I balk at the notion that a young, healthy person may be compelled to buy insurance and levied fines or taxes for his non purchase. I'd do the same if I paid fees or taxes for non purchase of adequate vegetables every week conforming to healthy eating habits. So these "shoulds" formed by Englightened Ones are nothing but an attack on personal freedom in the guise of helping the masses. You should buy health insurance for youself, therefore you will do so under penalty of our fees.
Not only that, but we also know how to better manage health care companies than the companies themselves, so we're going to heap regulation upon regulation about what you can and cannot do in business. This service must be included whether your customer wants it or not, you're gonna charge him for it and not let him opt out. I'm not against provisions to prevent fraud in insurance plans, for example, saying what catastrophic health insurance means beyond just terms. The minimum of regulations and let the market do the rest. I'm against these community ratings, preventing realistic costs to be assigned to how much the insurer will likely pay for for the insured across the life of the plan term.
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Dude, without insurance you won't be able to pay for treatment of the gaping gunshot wound, let alone the removal of the bullet.
Sigh.
This is not true. ER care is always taken care of regardless of insurance. If you don't have it, the hospital eats the costs. This gets priced into other services, which is the reason more complete coverage would actually lower the cost for an average american.
If you're insured, does the insurance company reimburse the hospital, so they don't have to gouge other patients?
BTW, I don't think we're actually disagreeing on anything ...
Well, i should clarify. If you don't have insurance, the hospital charges you personally. If you can't pay or are insolvent, then they eat the cost. If you have money, they just ask you to pay it.
My point was that if you are shot, you WILL be cared for first, and who pays is a post-thought. So lack of insurance doesn't mean they just let you die from a gunshot wound. Unless I misunderstood what you were saying. Then this would all be irrelevant.
I guess I just don't see how forcing people to pay for services (through penalty or mandated insurance) that hospitals are obligated to provide anyway is not a conservative idea.
I think you've outlined other alternatives and your preferences, I just don't get people that criticize a mandate as being unfair or socialist ... Wasn't the mandate offered as a counter proposal by Bob Dole to the Clinton administration?
So what's your healthcare plan? For everyone to become millionaires and buy immortality?
You're confusing healthcare tourism for healthcare coverage and effectiveness. I can point to the endless amount of anecdotes from Americans that were flat-out denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, or delayed or avoided healthcare they desperately needed because they couldn't afford it.
Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's.
You should take that $300 you've been saving every month and consider moving to Canada. It would save that life of yours that Obama has destroyed.
Truth be told. I have to say ur right about ur little rant. Canada does NOW have a better HC system than America.
But HC pre Obama in America > X100000 Canada HC
I love the thought behind it UHC but it doens't work in the real world. Hard working people like me just got the shaft. I will no longer be able to fund my own HC. If I get an Illness that isn't covered under OBAMACARE, I'm dead. Least I can say I tried. I stood in oposition proudly.
Always funny when an American comments on Canadian health care with such authority when in fact they dont have a clue what theyre talking about.
: P He complains about minimal savings but if he was one of the multiple millions of people who got diagnosed with cancer and is being helped by this bill he wouldn't be bitching. "Yo I had to pay 7k for my arm, and then a couple hundred grand a year on cancer care. Can't believe this 675 a year fucking was spent!"
These are times I actually wish dire illness on someone so they can understand the anguish.
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Dude, without insurance you won't be able to pay for treatment of the gaping gunshot wound, let alone the removal of the bullet.
Sigh.
I paid for a broken arm with change to spare. now if I get shot tomorrow, yes i'd have to get a loan- but I can get a loan cause I work for a living.
What people still don't seem to understand, I'll try this one last time then i'm giving up on you. HC is a business What does business 101 say is the 1st job of a business: To make a profit. So why would I go to a middleman(HC insurance) who is in it to make money when I can go straight to the hospital and avoid the INSURANCE COMPANIES mark up?
Healthcare is a business in the US. That is exactly the problem. Health care should be an essential service, not a business.
Essential services are businesses. Hospitals are out there to make a profit, and they aren't managed by government, not yet. They pay their doctors, their staff, their administrators, and the engineers, maintenance staff, and everybody else out of them. Owning a car for me in my business is very important, and the ability to drive easily to a place dedicated to filling up my fuel tank is an essential service, the gasoline an essential product.
I have in the past, and may again in the future, go without insurance for a time. I paid for my hospital visits. I balk at the notion that a young, healthy person may be compelled to buy insurance and levied fines or taxes for his non purchase. I'd do the same if I paid fees or taxes for non purchase of adequate vegetables every week conforming to healthy eating habits. So these "shoulds" formed by Englightened Ones are nothing but an attack on personal freedom in the guise of helping the masses. You should buy health insurance for youself, therefore you will do so under penalty of our fees.
Not only that, but we also know how to better manage health care companies than the companies themselves, so we're going to heap regulation upon regulation about what you can and cannot do in business. This service must be included whether your customer wants it or not, you're gonna charge him for it and not let him opt out. I'm not against provisions to prevent fraud in insurance plans, for example, saying what catastrophic health insurance means beyond just terms. The minimum of regulations and let the market do the rest. I'm against these community ratings, preventing realistic costs to be assigned to how much the insurer will likely pay for for the insured across the life of the plan term.
Watch out for the Rubik's cube of regulations though. The problem with allowing young healthy people to get away with not paying is that you don't have the stick of threatening to turn them away or offering substandard care for non-payment. If anything, the stick goes the other way that someone could get an expensive treatment, never pay it, and then get more by suing the doctor for malpractice. This makes health care distinct from most other businesses in the market.
But I will agree that we should be wary about legislative creep, that we may develop tyranny of the healthy. Health care might become Prohibition by proxy, where behaviors that cause obesity face the same wrath as anti-smoking campaigns, all in the name of reducing health care costs.
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Dude, without insurance you won't be able to pay for treatment of the gaping gunshot wound, let alone the removal of the bullet.
Sigh.
This is not true. ER care is always taken care of regardless of insurance. If you don't have it, the hospital eats the costs. This gets priced into other services, which is the reason more complete coverage would actually lower the cost for an average american.
If you're insured, does the insurance company reimburse the hospital, so they don't have to gouge other patients?
BTW, I don't think we're actually disagreeing on anything ...
Well, i should clarify. If you don't have insurance, the hospital charges you personally. If you can't pay or are insolvent, then they eat the cost. If you have money, they just ask you to pay it.
My point was that if you are shot, you WILL be cared for first, and who pays is a post-thought. So lack of insurance doesn't mean they just let you die from a gunshot wound. Unless I misunderstood what you were saying. Then this would all be irrelevant.
I guess I just don't see how forcing people to pay for services (through penalty or mandated insurance) that hospitals are obligated to provide anyway is not a conservative idea.
I think you've outlined other alternatives and your preferences, I just don't get people that criticize a mandate as being unfair or socialist ... Wasn't the mandate offered as a counter proposal by Bob Dole to the Clinton administration?
Yes, but the fact that an insurance mandate is a Republican-originated & promoted health care reform is conveniently ignored by current Republicans.
It's not the only issue where they have disavowed their party's previous positions. The Republican core of today is radically at odds with a whole host of Republican policies from even 15 years ago.
So what's your healthcare plan? For everyone to become millionaires and buy immortality?
You're confusing healthcare tourism for healthcare coverage and effectiveness. I can point to the endless amount of anecdotes from Americans that were flat-out denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, or delayed or avoided healthcare they desperately needed because they couldn't afford it.
Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's.
You should take that $300 you've been saving every month and consider moving to Canada. It would save that life of yours that Obama has destroyed.
Truth be told. I have to say ur right about ur little rant. Canada does NOW have a better HC system than America.
But HC pre Obama in America > X100000 Canada HC
I love the thought behind it UHC but it doens't work in the real world. Hard working people like me just got the shaft. I will no longer be able to fund my own HC. If I get an Illness that isn't covered under OBAMACARE, I'm dead. Least I can say I tried. I stood in oposition proudly.
Always funny when an American comments on Canadian health care with such authority when in fact they dont have a clue what theyre talking about.
: P He complains about minimal savings but if he was one of the multiple millions of people who got diagnosed with cancer and is being helped by this bill he wouldn't be bitching. "Yo I had to pay 7k for my arm, and then a couple hundred grand a year on cancer care. Can't believe this 675 a year fucking was spent!"
These are times I actually wish dire illness on someone so they can understand the anguish.
Many people who have used the Canadian healthcare system are not very happy with it. It is pretty good at providing semi-decent or "adequate" care to everybody, but it's well known that if you want to get the best care you have to travel to the US -- the article quoted abote if just one of countless examples.
The American healthcare system has major issues but I don't see it improving by moving towards a Canadian-style system.
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Dude, without insurance you won't be able to pay for treatment of the gaping gunshot wound, let alone the removal of the bullet.
Sigh.
This is not true. ER care is always taken care of regardless of insurance. If you don't have it, the hospital eats the costs. This gets priced into other services, which is the reason more complete coverage would actually lower the cost for an average american.
If you're insured, does the insurance company reimburse the hospital, so they don't have to gouge other patients?
BTW, I don't think we're actually disagreeing on anything ...
Well, i should clarify. If you don't have insurance, the hospital charges you personally. If you can't pay or are insolvent, then they eat the cost. If you have money, they just ask you to pay it.
My point was that if you are shot, you WILL be cared for first, and who pays is a post-thought. So lack of insurance doesn't mean they just let you die from a gunshot wound. Unless I misunderstood what you were saying. Then this would all be irrelevant.
I guess I just don't see how forcing people to pay for services (through penalty or mandated insurance) that hospitals are obligated to provide anyway is not a conservative idea.
I think you've outlined other alternatives and your preferences, I just don't get people that criticize a mandate as being unfair or socialist ... Wasn't the mandate offered as a counter proposal by Bob Dole to the Clinton administration?
It has more to do with republicanism and the commerce clause than much else.
opposition to obamacare != opposition to healthcare reform
It is there to incentize the purchasing of health insurance by all parties starting from this year onwards.This is alongside the general tax credits provided by the government if you are insured.
Several scenarios are below: 1) User does not want to purchase insurance at all, pays $675 a year as a fee (which is collected from the tax return, so if you have no tax returns... you don't need to pay anyways). User does not save for health insurance, and hopes not to get sick. 2) User (SayGen) does not want to get insurance because they keep a rainy day fund. Unfortunately this means they lose money out of their rainy day fund - or get insurance.
However, the IRS cannot go after you for the money. They can only take it out of your tax refund. If you get your tax refund to be 0 (or owe them tax payments anyways), you will never pay the Mandate fee.
Yes there is, now instead of private business the government is in charge. One has to compete to offer the best product. One just raises taxes if it falls short of the bottom line one month.
which one is more likly to be optomized?
No, health insurance is still mediated by private business, the government has simply remedied what was a market failure by controlling (some of) the market conditions.
I'm intrested in hearing about this *no sarcasm* Can you eleborate. What is the government controlling. What have they stopped/added.
The free market will charge whatever it can get away with to provide (possibly excellent) healthcare to those who can afford it. The free market will deny health insurance to those in need if it projects a loss. In fact, the free market would happily deny medical services to those it believes can't pay (in fact that's illegal, which is an important preexisting marketplace regulation per healthcare).
Mandated health insurance as it stands isn't likely the fully realized vision of American health care, but it's an excellent start. Healthcare (that is society's ability/willingness to care for it's sick/dying/injured), will no longer be guided by shareholders and their pursuit of the almighty dollar. Moral imperative should never be dicated by someone's vision of ecnomic necessity. The market can no longer deny health insurance to those in need. People in need will no longer mortgage their future to get the treatment they require. You must have medical coverage (frankly, this is especially beneficial for those short-sighted enough to believe they will never need it). This system allows the nation to cheaply provide medical services to everyone. Aren't you legally required to buy car insurance? How do you think that works?
In other words, what was before a failure on the part of the free market to speak to the medical needs of Americans has now been remedied by market regulation. The free market can't deny services if it projects a loss.
The free market also happily accepts govt. subsidies and tax writeoffs. Yes, taxes have always helped finance medicine generally. People already pay taxes to finance hospitals etc. But I guess those facilities are only there to help the rich?
Finally, senate democrats accepted 161 Republican amendments to the healthcare reform bill. How do you know you aren't really just complaining about one of those?
Great post, I do some a few quams. Allow me to explain. You said HC will deny someone with a preexisting condition. I have heard of this many times, and it makes sense. Why insure someone who won't be able to put in what they take out. I see nothing wrong with this. A society who accepts people who drain more than they add, never prosper in the long run. I realize the idea of "More taxes" is a great solution when you see it as someone elses money- but really the fact is, it will run out. (see nationdebtclock.org) Should we cut funding to research centers, and libs? Should we cut more from education to pay for HC? If you add drains to society we all suffer. We all pay. We pay with a less educated population. We pay in more taxes (in my case 675$ more). I only want people to carry their weight best they can. Those that fall and struggle should tap into a rainy day fund like I did when I broke my arm. Also there is charity, people give MILLIONS away (look at Bill Gates who has GIVEN BILLIONS). I'm not saying I want people to roll over and die, of course that's cruel. But we should be expected to give of ourselves before asking others for help. I thought until recently that was a universial belief. Forcing a tax hike htat massive on the American people during a recession is a BAD idea. (I can source numerious economist if you'd like)
Also you brought up car insurance. I'm glad you did. In fact you just made my point for me, thanks for bringing that up. Can you choose to drive? Yes. Can you choose to by UHC? No. Thanks for that one.
As for your final point, I wish I could know but again 10,000 pages of legal-speak isn't something the vast majority of Americans can read. (myself included)
What state do you live in that lets you drive with insurance, you cant drive the car off the lot if you buy it from the dealer. You wont be able to get you tags without insurance. And if you get pulled over without it you get finned and jailed and will most likely get you car towed tell you get insurance. So of you are trying to use driving with insurance to help you i dont think that is the best example since you kinda do need it to drive.
You don't pay a tax for not having car insurance. You pay a fine for driving without car insurance. You do not have to purchase car insurance just because you are alive. See living in New York, Chicago, Europe, or other areas with mass transit systems. Comparing the two is apples to oranges.
The ACA mandates that because you are alive you must buy insurance and worst of all you have to buy specific types of insurance. Up until 2014 you could easily get by as a younger person that has a rainy day fund, eats well, exercises, and lives a healthy lifestyle and just have carried catastrophic health insurance.
Under the ACA even catastrophic health insurance will have to carry many things that it didn't in the past that essentially means the death of catastrophic insurance.
The Democrats should have gone for single-payer then defended it, then at least it wouldn't have been a gift to the insurance companies as it is now. Either way, the ACA does nothing to address the things that really cause the cost of health care to rise in this country. Mainly too much consumption, too much regulation that stifles innovation, and not letting citizens do things that encourage competition like buy insurance across state lines.
In other ACA news apparently the 80/20 rule may be changed:
Yeah, I really wish Obamacare was modified to only mandate catastrophic care. That's the thing you really need insurance for. The rest is largely fluff.
However, the IRS cannot go after you for the money. They can only take it out of your tax refund. If you get your tax refund to be 0 (or owe them tax payments anyways), you will never pay the Mandate fee.
However, the IRS cannot go after you for the money. They can only take it out of your tax refund. If you get your tax refund to be 0 (or owe them tax payments anyways), you will never pay the Mandate fee.
Wow. Good to know.
Not really any better.
Most people get tax refunds, and they are usually over the "tax" cap. It's more responsible to withhold extra to ensure you don't end up short come tax day. This basically encourages you to under-withhold and requires you to be more financially prudent -- something many lower class individuals in the USA struggle with.
What should Mitt Romney do now? He should peer deep into the abyss. He should look straight into the heart of darkness where lies a Republican defeat in a year the Republican presidential candidate almost couldn’t lose. He should imagine what it will mean for the country, for a great political philosophy, conservatism, for his party and, last, for himself. He must look down unblinkingly.
And then he needs to snap out of it, and move.
He has got seven weeks. He’s just had two big flubs. On the Mideast he seemed like a political opportunist, not big and wise but small and tinny. It mattered because the crisis was one of those moments when people look at you and imagine you as president.
Then his comments released last night and made months ago at the private fundraiser in Boca Raton, Fla. Mr. Romney has relearned what four years ago Sen. Barack Obama learned: There’s no such thing as private when you’re a candidate with a mic. There’s someone who doesn’t like you in that audience. There’s someone with a cellphone. Mr. Obama’s clinger comments became famous in 2008 because when people heard what he’d said, they thought, “That’s the real him, that’s him when he’s talking to his friends.”
* * * And so a quick denunciation of what Mr. Romney said, followed by some ideas.
The central problem revealed by the tape is Romney’s theory of the 2012 election. It is that a high percentage of the electorate receives government checks and therefore won’t vote for him, another high percentage is supplying the tax revenues and will vote for him, and almost half the people don’t pay taxes and presumably won’t vote for him.
My goodness, that’s a lot of people who won’t vote for you. You wonder how he gets up in the morning.
This is not how big leaders talk, it’s how shallow campaign operatives talk: They slice and dice the electorate like that, they see everything as determined by this interest or that. They’re usually young enough and dumb enough that nobody holds it against them, but they don’t know anything. They don’t know much about America.
We are a big, complicated nation. And we are human beings. We are people. We have souls. We are complex. We are not data points. Many things go into our decisions and our political affiliations.
You have to be sophisticated to know that. And if you’re operating at the top of national politics, you’re supposed to be sophisticated.
I wrote recently of an imagined rural Ohio woman sitting on her porch, watching the campaign go by. She’s 60, she identifies as conservative, she likes guns, she thinks the culture has gone crazy. She doesn’t like Obama. Romney looks OK. She’s worried about the national debt and what it will mean to her children. But she’s having a hard time, things are tight for her right now, she’s on partial disability, and her husband is a vet and he gets help, and her mother receives Social Security.
She’s worked hard and paid into the system for years. Her husband fought for his country.
And she’s watching this whole election and thinking.You can win her vote if you give her faith in your fairness and wisdom. But not if you label her and dismiss her.
As for those workers who don’t pay any income taxes, they pay payroll taxes—Social Security and Medicare. They want to rise in the world and make more money. They’d like to file a 1040 because that will mean they got a raise or a better job.
They too are potential Romney voters, because they’re suffering under the no-growth economy.
So: Romney’s theory of the case is all wrong. His understanding of the political topography is wrong.
And his tone is fatalistic. I can’t win these guys who will only vote their economic interests, but I can win these guys who will vote their economic interests, plus some guys in the middle, whoever they are.
That’s too small and pinched and narrow. That’s not how Republicans emerge victorious—”I can’t win these guys.” You have to have more respect than that, and more affection, you don’t write anyone off, you invite everyone in. Reagan in 1984 used to put out his hand: “Come too, come walk with me.” Come join, come help, whatever is happening in your life.
You know what Romney sounded like? Like a kid new to politics who thinks he got the inside lowdown on how it works from some operative. But those old operatives, they never know how it works. They knew how it worked for one cycle back in the day.
They’re jockeys who rode Seabiscuit and thought they won a race.
* * * The big issue—how we view government, what we want from it, what we need, what it rightly asks of us, what it wrongly demands of us—is a good and big and right and serious subject. It has to be dealt with seriously, at some length. And it is in part a cultural conversation. There’s a lot of grievance out there, and a sense of entitlement in many spheres. A lot of people don’t feel confident enough or capable enough to be taking part in the big national drama of Work in America. Why? What’s going on? That’s a conversation worth having.
I think there is a broad and growing feeling now, among Republicans, that this thing is slipping out of Romney’s hands. Today at a speech in New York with what seemed like many conservatives and Republicans in the audience, I said more or less the above. I wondered if anyone would say, in the Q&A, “I think you’ve got it wrong, you’re too pessimistic.” No one did. A woman asked me to talk about why in a year the Republicans couldn’t lose, the Republican candidate seems to be losing.
I said pre-mortems won’t help, if you want to help the more conservative candidate, it’s a better use of your time to pitch in with ideas. There’s seven weeks to go. This isn’t over, it’s possible to make things better.
Republicans are going to have to right this thing. They have to stabilize it.
It’s time to admit the Romney campaign is an incompetent one. It’s not big, it’s not brave, it’s not thoughtfully tackling great issues. It’s always been too small for the moment. All the activists, party supporters and big donors should be pushing for change. People want to focus on who at the top is least constructive and most responsible. Fine, but Mitt Romney is no puppet: He chooses who to listen to. An intervention is in order. “Mitt, this isn’t working.”
Romney is known to be loyal. He sticks with you when you’re going through a hard time, he rides it down with you. That’s a real personal quality, a virtue. My old boss Reagan was a little colder. The night before he won the crucial 1980 New Hampshire primary—the night before he wonit—he fired his campaign manager, John Sears. Reagan thought he wasn’t cutting it, so he was gone. The economist Martin Anderson once called Reagan genially ruthless, and he was. But then it wasn’t about John Sears’s feelings or Ronald Reagan’s feelings, it was about America. You can be pretty tough when it’s about America.
Romney doesn’t seem to be out there campaigning enough. He seems—in this he is exactly like the president—to always be disappearing into fund-raisers, and not having enough big public events.
But the logic of Romney’s fundraising has seemed, for some time, slightly crazy. He’s raising money so he can pile it in at the end, with ads. But at the end will they make much difference? Obama is said to have used a lot of his money early on, to paint a portrait of Romney as Thurston Howell III, as David Brooks put it. That was a gamble on Obama’s part: spend it now, pull ahead in the battlegrounds, once we pull ahead more money will come in because money follows winners, not losers.
If I’m seeing things right, that strategy is paying off.
Romney’s staff used to brag they had a lower burn rate, they were saving it up. For what? For the moment when Americans would rather poke out their eyeballs and stomp on the goo than listen to another ad?
Also, Mr. Romney’s ads are mostly boring. It’s kind of an achievement to be boring at a moment in history like this, so credit where it’s due: That musta taken effort!
* * * When big, serious, thoughtful things must be said then big, serious, thoughtful speeches must be given. Mr. Romney is not good at press conferences. Maybe because he doesn’t give enough, and so hasn’t grown used to them, and confident.
He should stick to speeches, and they have to be big—where America is now, what we must do, how we can do it. He needs to address the Mideast too, because it isn’t going to go away as an issue and is adding a new layer of unease to the entire election. Luckily, Romney has access to some of the best writers and thinkers in the business. I say it that way because to write is to think, and Romney needs fresh writing andfresh thinking.
Romney needs to get serious here.Or, he can keep typing out his stray thoughts with Stuart Stevens, who’s sold himself as a kind of mad genius. I get the mad part.
Wake this election up. Wade into the crowd, wade into the fray, hold a hell of a rally in an American city—don’t they count anymore? A big, dense city with skyscrapers like canyons, crowds and placards, and yelling. All of our campaigning now is in bland suburbs and tired hustings. How about: New York, New York, the city so nice they named it twice? You say the state’s not in play? It’s New York. Our media lives here, they’ll make it big. How about downtown Brooklyn, full of new Americans? Guys—make it look like there’s an election going on. Because there is.
Be serious and fight.
If you’re gonna lose, lose honorably. If you’re gonna win do it with meaning.
* * * Romney always seems alone out there, a guy with a mic pacing an empty stage. All by himself, removed from the other humans. It’s sad-looking. It’s not working.
Time for the party to step up. Romney should go out there every day surrounded with the most persuasive, interesting and articulate members of his party, the old ones, and I say this with pain as they’re my age, like Mitch Daniels and Jeb Bush, and the young ones, like Susana Martinez and Chris Christie and Marco Rubio—and even Paul Ryan. I don’t mean one of them should travel with him next Thursday, I mean he should be surrounded by a posse of them every day. Their presence will say, “This isn’t about one man, this is about a whole world of meaning, this is about a conservative political philosophy that can turn things around and make our country better.”
Some of them won’t want to do it because they’re starting to think Romney’s a loser and they don’t want to get loser on them. Too bad. They should be embarrassed if they don’t go, and try, and work, and show support for the conservative candidate at a crucial moment. Do they stand for something or not? Is it bigger than them or not?
Party elders, to the extent you exist this is why you exist:
Right this ship.
* * * So, these are some ideas. Others will have more, and they’ll be better.
But an intervention is needed.
Thank you very much, a great read. And an absurdly intelligent and eloquent woman - no wonder Reagan was that popular with this amazing person of a speech writer.
I refuse to vote for Obama because of the war in Afghanistan. He's throwing away innocent lives in a completely pointless war just because he wants to look good for the reelection. He has the power to pull out whenever he wants. And Romney, he doesn't want to pull out either AND on top of that he's constantly talking of war with Iran...
Yes there is, now instead of private business the government is in charge. One has to compete to offer the best product. One just raises taxes if it falls short of the bottom line one month.
which one is more likly to be optomized?
No, health insurance is still mediated by private business, the government has simply remedied what was a market failure by controlling (some of) the market conditions.
I'm intrested in hearing about this *no sarcasm* Can you eleborate. What is the government controlling. What have they stopped/added.
The free market will charge whatever it can get away with to provide (possibly excellent) healthcare to those who can afford it. The free market will deny health insurance to those in need if it projects a loss. In fact, the free market would happily deny medical services to those it believes can't pay (in fact that's illegal, which is an important preexisting marketplace regulation per healthcare).
Mandated health insurance as it stands isn't likely the fully realized vision of American health care, but it's an excellent start. Healthcare (that is society's ability/willingness to care for it's sick/dying/injured), will no longer be guided by shareholders and their pursuit of the almighty dollar. Moral imperative should never be dicated by someone's vision of ecnomic necessity. The market can no longer deny health insurance to those in need. People in need will no longer mortgage their future to get the treatment they require. You must have medical coverage (frankly, this is especially beneficial for those short-sighted enough to believe they will never need it). This system allows the nation to cheaply provide medical services to everyone. Aren't you legally required to buy car insurance? How do you think that works?
In other words, what was before a failure on the part of the free market to speak to the medical needs of Americans has now been remedied by market regulation. The free market can't deny services if it projects a loss.
The free market also happily accepts govt. subsidies and tax writeoffs. Yes, taxes have always helped finance medicine generally. People already pay taxes to finance hospitals etc. But I guess those facilities are only there to help the rich?
Finally, senate democrats accepted 161 Republican amendments to the healthcare reform bill. How do you know you aren't really just complaining about one of those?
Great post, I do some a few quams. Allow me to explain. You said HC will deny someone with a preexisting condition. I have heard of this many times, and it makes sense. Why insure someone who won't be able to put in what they take out. I see nothing wrong with this. A society who accepts people who drain more than they add, never prosper in the long run. I realize the idea of "More taxes" is a great solution when you see it as someone elses money- but really the fact is, it will run out. (see nationdebtclock.org) Should we cut funding to research centers, and libs? Should we cut more from education to pay for HC? If you add drains to society we all suffer. We all pay. We pay with a less educated population. We pay in more taxes (in my case 675$ more). I only want people to carry their weight best they can. Those that fall and struggle should tap into a rainy day fund like I did when I broke my arm. Also there is charity, people give MILLIONS away (look at Bill Gates who has GIVEN BILLIONS). I'm not saying I want people to roll over and die, of course that's cruel. But we should be expected to give of ourselves before asking others for help. I thought until recently that was a universial belief. Forcing a tax hike htat massive on the American people during a recession is a BAD idea. (I can source numerious economist if you'd like)
Also you brought up car insurance. I'm glad you did. In fact you just made my point for me, thanks for bringing that up. Can you choose to drive? Yes. Can you choose to by UHC? No. Thanks for that one.
As for your final point, I wish I could know but again 10,000 pages of legal-speak isn't something the vast majority of Americans can read. (myself included)
What state do you live in that lets you drive with insurance, you cant drive the car off the lot if you buy it from the dealer. You wont be able to get you tags without insurance. And if you get pulled over without it you get finned and jailed and will most likely get you car towed tell you get insurance. So of you are trying to use driving with insurance to help you i dont think that is the best example since you kinda do need it to drive.
You don't pay a tax for not having car insurance. You pay a fine for driving without car insurance. You do not have to purchase car insurance just because you are alive. See living in New York, Chicago, Europe, or other areas with mass transit systems. Comparing the two is apples to oranges.
The ACA mandates that because you are alive you must buy insurance and worst of all you have to buy specific types of insurance. Up until 2014 you could easily get by as a younger person that has a rainy day fund, eats well, exercises, and lives a healthy lifestyle and just have carried catastrophic health insurance.
Under the ACA even catastrophic health insurance will have to carry many things that it didn't in the past that essentially means the death of catastrophic insurance.
The Democrats should have gone for single-payer then defended it, then at least it wouldn't have been a gift to the insurance companies as it is now. Either way, the ACA does nothing to address the things that really cause the cost of health care to rise in this country. Mainly too much consumption, too much regulation that stifles innovation, and not letting citizens do things that encourage competition like buy insurance across state lines.
In other ACA news apparently the 80/20 rule may be changed:
Yeah, I really wish Obamacare was modified to only mandate catastrophic care. That's the thing you really need insurance for. The rest is largely fluff.
Glad to see the 80/20 on its way out.
The thing is the mandate is the reason insurance wont go up because otherwise you are requiring them to do a bunch of things with no added revenue so they will just raise prices a lot.
EPT
