On October 06 2012 15:20 xDaunt wrote: Just because this is so awesome, here's the cover of next week's New Yorker:
This is the happiest you've been in months ... did you watch the opening of Colbert last night of him dancing in the audience?
I'm just happy that a republican presidential candidate did well at a debate. A lot of republicans are tired of watching debates where we are represented either by the borderline retarded (Bush) or the impotent (McCain).
I'm also happy that I don't have to change my election prediction. If Romney had bombed, I'd have had to write him off.
I wasn't as surprised by Romney's performance as much as I was surprised by Obama's lack of. He just didn't seem all that fired up for someone being accused of a shit ton of failures, some of them not entirely true. He also never really went on the offense very much. Alot of people, me included, were surprised he never mentioned the 47% clip.
I expected Romney to do well and beat Obama, but I did not expect Obama to be as bad as he was. He better put down the golf clubs.
On October 07 2012 02:02 BluePanther wrote: [quote]
I think he made it quite clear that he wants the states to control their own health care rules. I'm not sure what is so confusing about this. It's a pretty straightforward idea.
Except he didn't make that clear at all going by his debate rhetoric. Obama laid out the effects of a repeal of Obamacare, one of which is a hanging out to dry of those with pre-existing conditions. Romney flat out lied and repeatedly said his "plan" would not affect those with pre-existing conditions. Go ahead and keep trying to make his rhetoric make sense though, it's fun to watch.
Eh, I just assume if given control, every state would enact that rule (as I would bet Romney himself would agree with). So while his plan doesn't "say" it, it still ends up happening.
Except that this assumption totally ignores the startling problem faced by this loose "trust" of state governments; the states which consume the most safety net revenue (medicare, medicaid, food stamps etc.) also happen to be the states least willing to locally budget these provisions via state legislation. I'm talking Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Florida, among others. If you're just assuming that a state like Texas is going to cover those with pre-existing conditions, well, precedent and reality are laughing at you. Furthermore, with so many states running massive deficits and showing obvious lack of financial savvy, it seems silly to assume so much efficacy coming from them.
But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem.
the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi
he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job.
If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one.
It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare.
I didn't realize that the government would be replacing the private health care system.
...because they're not.
EDIT: But, since this must be the 10th time the health care argument has come up in this thread, and we aren't changing our minds. I'll drop it.
It's funny that almost everyone (probably everyone) in this thread would benefit from obamacare.
In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States Now American's are bitching because they'll have to pay rates at 2.5% of their income (as long as it remains above 2085 and then it sticks to 2085 unless it becomes more than 8% of their yearly income, for families that is. An individual pays approximately 685 I believe? I don't ahve the percent on me per year of yearly income but it's drastically less. Hell you'd have to make over 250,000 dollars to have a negative effect from Obamacare than you would normally at that 6,700 number. Seeing as insurance costs have only sky rocketed it's most likely more. Will there be less doctors though? Well no statistical proof shows this, most countries have more doctors per capita than the United States.
Will there be less care? Well seeing as the United States was ranked 72nd out of 191 countries in the health of the populace and 37th overall for treatment I can't see it getting any worse. (although contested because many argues infant mortality rates should be exempt which are extremely high for a nation bolstering such an "impressive" healthcare system). The government gets to choose! No not really, actually this makes it completely the doctors choice on whether you get healthcare or not which is exactly how it should be since the doctor can sued for negating needed treatment and an insurance company can't because it's in their policy to deny funding. So you'll get healthcare when you need it!
Right now your health is dictated by insurance companies, if you need healh coverage they simply can say "you've been paying premiums, good, we'll cover a few thousand dollars on your heart transplant" and leave you with insurmountable debt. If you have conditions that were pre-existing and you're trying to get insurance? That's fine, they just won't cover you and you'll just happen to die by that, no big deal... Who needs it?
Sometimes I feel like Americans are like, "No... No no no, don't give us shit we need and save us money, what about the rich people, how can we save THEM money!!? They won't be able to afford the upgrade on their private jets! Common that's ridiculous, I'll starve to let them get richer!"
On October 07 2012 02:04 farvacola wrote: [quote] Except he didn't make that clear at all going by his debate rhetoric. Obama laid out the effects of a repeal of Obamacare, one of which is a hanging out to dry of those with pre-existing conditions. Romney flat out lied and repeatedly said his "plan" would not affect those with pre-existing conditions. Go ahead and keep trying to make his rhetoric make sense though, it's fun to watch.
Eh, I just assume if given control, every state would enact that rule (as I would bet Romney himself would agree with). So while his plan doesn't "say" it, it still ends up happening.
Except that this assumption totally ignores the startling problem faced by this loose "trust" of state governments; the states which consume the most safety net revenue (medicare, medicaid, food stamps etc.) also happen to be the states least willing to locally budget these provisions via state legislation. I'm talking Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Florida, among others. If you're just assuming that a state like Texas is going to cover those with pre-existing conditions, well, precedent and reality are laughing at you. Furthermore, with so many states running massive deficits and showing obvious lack of financial savvy, it seems silly to assume so much efficacy coming from them.
But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem.
the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi
he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job.
If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one.
It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare.
I didn't realize that the government would be replacing the private health care system.
...because they're not.
EDIT: But, since this must be the 10th time the health care argument has come up in this thread, and we aren't changing our minds. I'll drop it.
It's funny that almost everyone (probably everyone) in this thread would benefit from obamacare.
In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States Now American's are bitching because they'll have to pay rates at 2.5% of their income (as long as it remains above 2085 and then it sticks to 2085 unless it becomes more than 8% of their yearly income, for families that is. An individual pays approximately 685 I believe? I don't ahve the percent on me per year of yearly income but it's drastically less. Hell you'd have to make over 250,000 dollars to have a negative effect from Obamacare than you would normally at that 6,700 number. Seeing as insurance costs have only sky rocketed it's most likely more. Will there be less doctors though? Well no statistical proof shows this, most countries have more doctors per capita than the United States.
Will there be less care? Well seeing as the United States was ranked 72nd out of 191 countries in the health of the populace and 37th overall for treatment I can't see it getting any worse. (although contested because many argues infant mortality rates should be exempt which are extremely high for a nation bolstering such an "impressive" healthcare system). The government gets to choose! No not really, actually this makes it completely the doctors choice on whether you get healthcare or not which is exactly how it should be since the doctor can sued for negating needed treatment and an insurance company can't because it's in their policy to deny funding. So you'll get healthcare when you need it!
Right now your health is dictated by insurance companies, if you need healh coverage they simply can say "you've been paying premiums, good, we'll cover a few thousand dollars on your heart transplant" and leave you with insurmountable debt. If you have conditions that were pre-existing and you're trying to get insurance? That's fine, they just won't cover you and you'll just happen to die by that, no big deal... Who needs it?
Sometimes I feel like Americans are like, "No... No no no, don't give us shit we need and save us money, what about the rich people, how can we save THEM money!!? They won't be able to afford the upgrade on their private jets! Common that's ridiculous, I'll starve to let them get richer!"
On October 07 2012 02:07 BluePanther wrote: [quote]
Eh, I just assume if given control, every state would enact that rule (as I would bet Romney himself would agree with). So while his plan doesn't "say" it, it still ends up happening.
Except that this assumption totally ignores the startling problem faced by this loose "trust" of state governments; the states which consume the most safety net revenue (medicare, medicaid, food stamps etc.) also happen to be the states least willing to locally budget these provisions via state legislation. I'm talking Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Florida, among others. If you're just assuming that a state like Texas is going to cover those with pre-existing conditions, well, precedent and reality are laughing at you. Furthermore, with so many states running massive deficits and showing obvious lack of financial savvy, it seems silly to assume so much efficacy coming from them.
But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem.
the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi
he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job.
If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one.
It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare.
I didn't realize that the government would be replacing the private health care system.
...because they're not.
EDIT: But, since this must be the 10th time the health care argument has come up in this thread, and we aren't changing our minds. I'll drop it.
It's funny that almost everyone (probably everyone) in this thread would benefit from obamacare.
In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States Now American's are bitching because they'll have to pay rates at 2.5% of their income (as long as it remains above 2085 and then it sticks to 2085 unless it becomes more than 8% of their yearly income, for families that is. An individual pays approximately 685 I believe? I don't ahve the percent on me per year of yearly income but it's drastically less. Hell you'd have to make over 250,000 dollars to have a negative effect from Obamacare than you would normally at that 6,700 number. Seeing as insurance costs have only sky rocketed it's most likely more. Will there be less doctors though? Well no statistical proof shows this, most countries have more doctors per capita than the United States.
Will there be less care? Well seeing as the United States was ranked 72nd out of 191 countries in the health of the populace and 37th overall for treatment I can't see it getting any worse. (although contested because many argues infant mortality rates should be exempt which are extremely high for a nation bolstering such an "impressive" healthcare system). The government gets to choose! No not really, actually this makes it completely the doctors choice on whether you get healthcare or not which is exactly how it should be since the doctor can sued for negating needed treatment and an insurance company can't because it's in their policy to deny funding. So you'll get healthcare when you need it!
Right now your health is dictated by insurance companies, if you need healh coverage they simply can say "you've been paying premiums, good, we'll cover a few thousand dollars on your heart transplant" and leave you with insurmountable debt. If you have conditions that were pre-existing and you're trying to get insurance? That's fine, they just won't cover you and you'll just happen to die by that, no big deal... Who needs it?
Sometimes I feel like Americans are like, "No... No no no, don't give us shit we need and save us money, what about the rich people, how can we save THEM money!!? They won't be able to afford the upgrade on their private jets! Common that's ridiculous, I'll starve to let them get richer!"
I benefited immensely from it.
I still think it's a terrible idea.
Good logic. Helps the middle class/poor, allows you to get treated for any illness that most insurance companies would disallow, terrible idea.
On October 07 2012 02:18 farvacola wrote: [quote] Except that this assumption totally ignores the startling problem faced by this loose "trust" of state governments; the states which consume the most safety net revenue (medicare, medicaid, food stamps etc.) also happen to be the states least willing to locally budget these provisions via state legislation. I'm talking Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Florida, among others. If you're just assuming that a state like Texas is going to cover those with pre-existing conditions, well, precedent and reality are laughing at you. Furthermore, with so many states running massive deficits and showing obvious lack of financial savvy, it seems silly to assume so much efficacy coming from them.
But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem.
the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi
he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job.
If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one.
It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare.
I didn't realize that the government would be replacing the private health care system.
...because they're not.
EDIT: But, since this must be the 10th time the health care argument has come up in this thread, and we aren't changing our minds. I'll drop it.
It's funny that almost everyone (probably everyone) in this thread would benefit from obamacare.
In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States Now American's are bitching because they'll have to pay rates at 2.5% of their income (as long as it remains above 2085 and then it sticks to 2085 unless it becomes more than 8% of their yearly income, for families that is. An individual pays approximately 685 I believe? I don't ahve the percent on me per year of yearly income but it's drastically less. Hell you'd have to make over 250,000 dollars to have a negative effect from Obamacare than you would normally at that 6,700 number. Seeing as insurance costs have only sky rocketed it's most likely more. Will there be less doctors though? Well no statistical proof shows this, most countries have more doctors per capita than the United States.
Will there be less care? Well seeing as the United States was ranked 72nd out of 191 countries in the health of the populace and 37th overall for treatment I can't see it getting any worse. (although contested because many argues infant mortality rates should be exempt which are extremely high for a nation bolstering such an "impressive" healthcare system). The government gets to choose! No not really, actually this makes it completely the doctors choice on whether you get healthcare or not which is exactly how it should be since the doctor can sued for negating needed treatment and an insurance company can't because it's in their policy to deny funding. So you'll get healthcare when you need it!
Right now your health is dictated by insurance companies, if you need healh coverage they simply can say "you've been paying premiums, good, we'll cover a few thousand dollars on your heart transplant" and leave you with insurmountable debt. If you have conditions that were pre-existing and you're trying to get insurance? That's fine, they just won't cover you and you'll just happen to die by that, no big deal... Who needs it?
Sometimes I feel like Americans are like, "No... No no no, don't give us shit we need and save us money, what about the rich people, how can we save THEM money!!? They won't be able to afford the upgrade on their private jets! Common that's ridiculous, I'll starve to let them get richer!"
I benefited immensely from it.
I still think it's a terrible idea.
Good logic. Helps the middle class/poor, allows you to get treated for any illness that most insurance companies would disallow, terrible idea.
The intrusion of the federal government into the practice of medicine. 18 million of the uninsured will be forced to go under Medicaid, while the rest will have to accept another government program. Even so, millions will remain uninsured. By 2019, an estimated 4.8 million seniors will be forced out of Medicare Advantage. Medicare will be cut by $528 billion dollars. Taxes will be increased (especially on high-income individuals). By forcing States to accept federally-mandated health insurance, the Act violates States’ rights. Some speculate that you can be thrown in jail for failure to pay your health insurance taxes. Sounds like a good idea to me.
On October 07 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote: [quote]
But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem.
the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi
he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job.
If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one.
It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare.
I didn't realize that the government would be replacing the private health care system.
...because they're not.
EDIT: But, since this must be the 10th time the health care argument has come up in this thread, and we aren't changing our minds. I'll drop it.
It's funny that almost everyone (probably everyone) in this thread would benefit from obamacare.
In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States Now American's are bitching because they'll have to pay rates at 2.5% of their income (as long as it remains above 2085 and then it sticks to 2085 unless it becomes more than 8% of their yearly income, for families that is. An individual pays approximately 685 I believe? I don't ahve the percent on me per year of yearly income but it's drastically less. Hell you'd have to make over 250,000 dollars to have a negative effect from Obamacare than you would normally at that 6,700 number. Seeing as insurance costs have only sky rocketed it's most likely more. Will there be less doctors though? Well no statistical proof shows this, most countries have more doctors per capita than the United States.
Will there be less care? Well seeing as the United States was ranked 72nd out of 191 countries in the health of the populace and 37th overall for treatment I can't see it getting any worse. (although contested because many argues infant mortality rates should be exempt which are extremely high for a nation bolstering such an "impressive" healthcare system). The government gets to choose! No not really, actually this makes it completely the doctors choice on whether you get healthcare or not which is exactly how it should be since the doctor can sued for negating needed treatment and an insurance company can't because it's in their policy to deny funding. So you'll get healthcare when you need it!
Right now your health is dictated by insurance companies, if you need healh coverage they simply can say "you've been paying premiums, good, we'll cover a few thousand dollars on your heart transplant" and leave you with insurmountable debt. If you have conditions that were pre-existing and you're trying to get insurance? That's fine, they just won't cover you and you'll just happen to die by that, no big deal... Who needs it?
Sometimes I feel like Americans are like, "No... No no no, don't give us shit we need and save us money, what about the rich people, how can we save THEM money!!? They won't be able to afford the upgrade on their private jets! Common that's ridiculous, I'll starve to let them get richer!"
I benefited immensely from it.
I still think it's a terrible idea.
Good logic. Helps the middle class/poor, allows you to get treated for any illness that most insurance companies would disallow, terrible idea.
The intrusion of the federal government into the practice of medicine. 18 million of the uninsured will be forced to go under Medicaid, while the rest will have to accept another government program. Even so, millions will remain uninsured. By 2019, an estimated 4.8 million seniors will be forced out of Medicare Advantage. Medicare will be cut by $528 billion dollars. Taxes will be increased (especially on high-income individuals). By forcing States to accept federally-mandated health insurance, the Act violates States’ rights. Some speculate that you can be thrown in jail for failure to pay your health insurance taxes. Sounds like a good idea to me.
18 million will be forced? Are you fucking kidding? Those 18million are on their knees thanking god that they can get sick and not fucking die like the medieval ages now. How can you straight face say "forced" when talking about the broke motherfuckers who can't get any healthcare because insurance companies are either charging WAY to much because of preexisting conditions or simply they can't afford it because of their social economic situation.
The rest can buy whatever insurance they want to buy, you are only subject if you choose to NOT buy insurance and thus you are given a cheaper alternative as I've shown... A cheaper alternative that... covers more... does more... and can't be denied...
Holy shit Americans are strange people.... The ONLY place taxes will be increased is if you make over 250,000 per year and it can only range up to 2.5% of your total income. That means that everyone below 250,000 will either pay EXACTLY the same as before or pay less than before every year... That's you, that's the other guy in this thread, that's probably 80-90% of the entire population....
Sorry EDITED the 8% I meant 2.5% but it'll be above the 6k. The 8% is if you are below a certain amount and the 2085 is costing you 8%, then it can't pass that.
On October 07 2012 02:04 farvacola wrote: [quote] Except he didn't make that clear at all going by his debate rhetoric. Obama laid out the effects of a repeal of Obamacare, one of which is a hanging out to dry of those with pre-existing conditions. Romney flat out lied and repeatedly said his "plan" would not affect those with pre-existing conditions. Go ahead and keep trying to make his rhetoric make sense though, it's fun to watch.
Eh, I just assume if given control, every state would enact that rule (as I would bet Romney himself would agree with). So while his plan doesn't "say" it, it still ends up happening.
Except that this assumption totally ignores the startling problem faced by this loose "trust" of state governments; the states which consume the most safety net revenue (medicare, medicaid, food stamps etc.) also happen to be the states least willing to locally budget these provisions via state legislation. I'm talking Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Florida, among others. If you're just assuming that a state like Texas is going to cover those with pre-existing conditions, well, precedent and reality are laughing at you. Furthermore, with so many states running massive deficits and showing obvious lack of financial savvy, it seems silly to assume so much efficacy coming from them.
But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem.
the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi
he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job.
If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one.
It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare.
I didn't realize that the government would be replacing the private health care system.
...because they're not.
EDIT: But, since this must be the 10th time the health care argument has come up in this thread, and we aren't changing our minds. I'll drop it.
It's funny that almost everyone (probably everyone) in this thread would benefit from obamacare.
In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States Now American's are bitching because they'll have to pay rates at 2.5% of their income (as long as it remains above 2085 and then it sticks to 2085 unless it becomes more than 8% of their yearly income, for families that is. An individual pays approximately 685 I believe? I don't ahve the percent on me per year of yearly income but it's drastically less. Hell you'd have to make over 250,000 dollars to have a negative effect from Obamacare than you would normally at that 6,700 number. Seeing as insurance costs have only sky rocketed it's most likely more.
Can you explain your numbers? You completely lost me as to what you are getting at...
On October 07 2012 02:39 oneofthem wrote: [quote] the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi
he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job.
If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one.
It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare.
I didn't realize that the government would be replacing the private health care system.
...because they're not.
EDIT: But, since this must be the 10th time the health care argument has come up in this thread, and we aren't changing our minds. I'll drop it.
It's funny that almost everyone (probably everyone) in this thread would benefit from obamacare.
In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States Now American's are bitching because they'll have to pay rates at 2.5% of their income (as long as it remains above 2085 and then it sticks to 2085 unless it becomes more than 8% of their yearly income, for families that is. An individual pays approximately 685 I believe? I don't ahve the percent on me per year of yearly income but it's drastically less. Hell you'd have to make over 250,000 dollars to have a negative effect from Obamacare than you would normally at that 6,700 number. Seeing as insurance costs have only sky rocketed it's most likely more. Will there be less doctors though? Well no statistical proof shows this, most countries have more doctors per capita than the United States.
Will there be less care? Well seeing as the United States was ranked 72nd out of 191 countries in the health of the populace and 37th overall for treatment I can't see it getting any worse. (although contested because many argues infant mortality rates should be exempt which are extremely high for a nation bolstering such an "impressive" healthcare system). The government gets to choose! No not really, actually this makes it completely the doctors choice on whether you get healthcare or not which is exactly how it should be since the doctor can sued for negating needed treatment and an insurance company can't because it's in their policy to deny funding. So you'll get healthcare when you need it!
Right now your health is dictated by insurance companies, if you need healh coverage they simply can say "you've been paying premiums, good, we'll cover a few thousand dollars on your heart transplant" and leave you with insurmountable debt. If you have conditions that were pre-existing and you're trying to get insurance? That's fine, they just won't cover you and you'll just happen to die by that, no big deal... Who needs it?
Sometimes I feel like Americans are like, "No... No no no, don't give us shit we need and save us money, what about the rich people, how can we save THEM money!!? They won't be able to afford the upgrade on their private jets! Common that's ridiculous, I'll starve to let them get richer!"
I benefited immensely from it.
I still think it's a terrible idea.
Good logic. Helps the middle class/poor, allows you to get treated for any illness that most insurance companies would disallow, terrible idea.
The intrusion of the federal government into the practice of medicine. 18 million of the uninsured will be forced to go under Medicaid, while the rest will have to accept another government program. Even so, millions will remain uninsured. By 2019, an estimated 4.8 million seniors will be forced out of Medicare Advantage. Medicare will be cut by $528 billion dollars. Taxes will be increased (especially on high-income individuals). By forcing States to accept federally-mandated health insurance, the Act violates States’ rights. Some speculate that you can be thrown in jail for failure to pay your health insurance taxes. Sounds like a good idea to me.
18 million will be forced? Are you fucking kidding? Those 18million are on their knees thanking god that they can get sick and not fucking die like the medieval ages now. How can you straight face say "forced" when talking about the broke motherfuckers who can't get any healthcare because insurance companies are either charging WAY to much because of preexisting conditions or simply they can't afford it because of their social economic situation.
The rest can buy whatever insurance they want to buy, you are only subject if you choose to NOT buy insurance and thus you are given a cheaper alternative as I've shown... A cheaper alternative that... covers more... does more... and can't be denied...
Holy shit Americans are strange people.... The ONLY place taxes will be increased is if you make over 250,000 per year and it can only range up to 2.5% of your total income. That means that everyone below 250,000 will either pay EXACTLY the same as before or pay less than before every year... That's you, that's the other guy in this thread, that's probably 80-90% of the entire population....
Sorry EDITED the 8% I meant 2.5% but it'll be above the 6k. The 8% is if you are below a certain amount and the 2085 is costing you 8%, then it can't pass that.
That's weird, I was of the understanding that everybody get's taxed more, not just the rich, and these taxes will be alot harder for the lower-middle income people to pay.
Despite promises that the president’s health reforms would lower health care costs, “Obamacare” is saddled with new taxes, mandates and regulations that will increase the cost of care for families and job creators.
New requirements force Americans to purchase a health plan deemed “essential” by Congress and bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services. Price controls are to be imposed nationally — despite the fact that identical requirements enacted in several states dramatically increased premiums and eliminated consumer choice. Despite President Barack Obama’s recent insistence that “Obamacare” punishes only those who can afford coverage but refuse to buy it, the health care law contains a hidden tax on Americans and small businesses that do purchase coverage.
Here’s how it works: “Obamacare” can impose a new tax on Americans through a “fee” on health care premiums, including Medicare Advantage, Part D and private Medicaid plans — making insurance companies the de facto tax collector. The law imposes this new tax on all commercially purchased health plans, with the exception of some nonprofits that earn 80 percent or more of their revenue from certain government programs.
It will hit 50 million Americans every year. The ripple effects will very likely increase premiums by billions of dollars a year for families and small businesses across the country.
The $8 billion “Obamacare” fee on insurers will increase Americans’ premiums by $10.6 billion in its first year, estimates Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office .
That tax will be particularly hard on the poor and middle class — the very people that were supposed to benefit from the law.
In 2014, people earning between $10,000 and $30,000 will pay almost $2.8 billion in higher health insurance premiums. People earning between $30,000 and $50,000 will pay $2.2 billion. (This does not include the proposed government subsidy.) People earning from $75,000 to $100,000 will pay less than $1.5 billion, and the numbers only go down from there.
While insurers will be forced to collect the tax, the bottom line is that all Americans will ultimately pay the tab — the people already struggling to pay their grocery bills, car payments and mortgages during one of the worst periods of economic growth in recent memory.
In addition to higher premiums, patients could see higher medical bills elsewhere.
Under “Obamacare,” insurers won’t even pay a predictable percentage in taxes — they’ll pay a share of an arbitrary fee. Every year, the secretary of health and human services will set a deadline for insurance companies to report how much revenue they earned the year before. Then the secretary will tell them what to pay.
Similar to speeding tickets, every insurer will be responsible for paying the penalty on time, even if the government takes months to figure out how much it owes.
When “Obamacare” starts taxing health care premiums, Americans will pay the price — in dollars and cents, lower quality insurance and ease of access to the care that keeps you alive and well.
On October 07 2012 02:07 BluePanther wrote: [quote]
Eh, I just assume if given control, every state would enact that rule (as I would bet Romney himself would agree with). So while his plan doesn't "say" it, it still ends up happening.
Except that this assumption totally ignores the startling problem faced by this loose "trust" of state governments; the states which consume the most safety net revenue (medicare, medicaid, food stamps etc.) also happen to be the states least willing to locally budget these provisions via state legislation. I'm talking Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Florida, among others. If you're just assuming that a state like Texas is going to cover those with pre-existing conditions, well, precedent and reality are laughing at you. Furthermore, with so many states running massive deficits and showing obvious lack of financial savvy, it seems silly to assume so much efficacy coming from them.
But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem.
the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi
he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job.
If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one.
It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare.
I didn't realize that the government would be replacing the private health care system.
...because they're not.
EDIT: But, since this must be the 10th time the health care argument has come up in this thread, and we aren't changing our minds. I'll drop it.
It's funny that almost everyone (probably everyone) in this thread would benefit from obamacare.
In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States Now American's are bitching because they'll have to pay rates at 2.5% of their income (as long as it remains above 2085 and then it sticks to 2085 unless it becomes more than 8% of their yearly income, for families that is. An individual pays approximately 685 I believe? I don't ahve the percent on me per year of yearly income but it's drastically less. Hell you'd have to make over 250,000 dollars to have a negative effect from Obamacare than you would normally at that 6,700 number. Seeing as insurance costs have only sky rocketed it's most likely more.
Can you explain your numbers? You completely lost me as to what you are getting at...
Does a better job of explaining it.
Basically you pay 2.5% of your income using 100k as an example, that means you pay 2500, if you though have an income that is less than 2085$ per year you pay that as a flat rate up until it becomes 8% of your income. An example blow is presented.
FAMILY 2.5% from 2085 onward, you pay approximately the same premiums at around 200,000 to 250,000 you normally would. under 2.5% is a flat rate of 2085 up until it becomes 8% of your income and then it flatlines (so someone making 20,000 a year isn't paying 2085, they'd instead pay 1600 because that is 8% of their yearly income.
What does this mean? Well you're getting all the benefits of healthcare without any preexisting conditions being a concern for less than you would have originally paid for insurance for a family.
I believe it's 695 for an individual.
PS: Also shameless Khan Academy namedrop, love this guy.
Also here's what you pay for premiums
Five years later, Kaiser’s 2009 survey found that employer health insurance premiums were $13,375 for a family and $4824 for a single person. About 60% of workers were receiving employer sponsored health insurance. Less than half (46%) of employees at small firms with 3 to 9 workers received coverage. As of 2008, the percentage of Americans receiving employer sponsored health insurance had declined for the eighth consecutive year, says the Kaiser Family Foundation.[4]
With this edit the number changes drastically, if you're making 500,000 a year that would knock at 12,500 a year which is STILL less than 13,375 that the average american family has to pay. It shows the individual at 4824... 685 or 4824, which seems better? Also the 685 gives you the ability to get healthcare when you need it and NOT when your insurance company decides you need it.
From 1999 to 2009, Kaiser found that the insurance premiums had climbed 131% or 13.1% per year, and workers’ contribution toward paying that premium jumped 128% or 12.8% per year. In 1999, workers’ average contribution to the premium was $1543, and in 2009 it was $3515. For employers, their contribution was $4247 in 1999 and $9860 in 2009. [5]
On October 06 2012 09:31 kmillz wrote: I have to ask...what has Obama done to move us "Forward" so far? This is a serious question, I am not trolling, but the numbers just show unemployment and the debt worse since he has been in office. No "Romney's plan is worse" comments, I just want to hear what Obama has done positively for this country so far and why he deserves a second term.
Well as an outsider I can say that he's returned to good international diplomacy, both among so-called allies and among indifferent or somewhat hostile nations. Admittedly there are people in the US who see this as a weekness but frankly I would concider them daft and oblivious to the world.
considering the controversy that has come from his bungling of both the attack on the Ambassador and of the aftermath of the attack, I would say that his foreign-policy and "diplomacy" is actually one of his weak points.
Then you'd be wrong. The US has, under Obama, regained a lot of the clout it had lost under George Bush, especially within international organizations.
this is a very empty statement. "regained a lot of clout". how exactly do i measure this supposed achievement? and where exactly do i find it's real-time benefit to me?
On October 07 2012 03:19 farvacola wrote: Thank God people with actual foreign policy experience and knowledge don't think like you do, or else it would be 2001 all over again. Forgoing relations with the bulk of the world in favor of some inane sabre-rattling temper tantrum is not a felicitous foreign policy.
exactly how do I think? i'm not saying what i would have done different than Obama, I'm just saying that his foreign policy has obviously not been the wild success that a lot of people in this thread seem to think it has been. in fact, by any objective standard, there has been very little in the way of real improvement. if there has been some real, tangible improvement, than why don't you list those improvements so that we can discuss them?
the pass that Obama is given for his mistakes and lack of results is astounding. i mean, is it really too much to ask that we see some actual results before he goes around gloating about being some foreign policy hero? and no, i don't consider giving the order to assassinate Osama as a very tangible victory for the US. for one, that was a very easy order to give, for another, it hasn't really translated into anything except sating the thirst for vengeance that the US seemed to have.
Here's a very good example I provided xDaunt with several pages ago:
Ok, the 2010 IMF quota and governance reform. The Obama administration very clearly managed to reach its objectives through the reform despite considerable risk of losing a degree of influence in the IMF, notably by getting emerging powers to agree to its proposals. Read the paper of Dries Lesage et al. on the topic if you're interested. I was at a conference last year where they explained their findings, and they clearly explained how much more consistent, solid and persuasive the Obama administration has been in its relations with other states in international organizations compared to the Bush administration.
The Obama administration has been much more apt at dealing with other states and getting them to agree with them inside (and often outside) international organizations than the Bush administration. Of course, there have been setbacks, as there always are. Regarding your claim that the death of Stevens is a direct major failure of Obama's foreign policy - that's nonsense. It may be a failure of some dispositions taken by the State Department regarding some American consulates in Lybia, but that's it.
On October 07 2012 03:21 BluePanther wrote: [quote]
he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job.
If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one.
It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare.
I didn't realize that the government would be replacing the private health care system.
...because they're not.
EDIT: But, since this must be the 10th time the health care argument has come up in this thread, and we aren't changing our minds. I'll drop it.
It's funny that almost everyone (probably everyone) in this thread would benefit from obamacare.
In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States Now American's are bitching because they'll have to pay rates at 2.5% of their income (as long as it remains above 2085 and then it sticks to 2085 unless it becomes more than 8% of their yearly income, for families that is. An individual pays approximately 685 I believe? I don't ahve the percent on me per year of yearly income but it's drastically less. Hell you'd have to make over 250,000 dollars to have a negative effect from Obamacare than you would normally at that 6,700 number. Seeing as insurance costs have only sky rocketed it's most likely more. Will there be less doctors though? Well no statistical proof shows this, most countries have more doctors per capita than the United States.
Will there be less care? Well seeing as the United States was ranked 72nd out of 191 countries in the health of the populace and 37th overall for treatment I can't see it getting any worse. (although contested because many argues infant mortality rates should be exempt which are extremely high for a nation bolstering such an "impressive" healthcare system). The government gets to choose! No not really, actually this makes it completely the doctors choice on whether you get healthcare or not which is exactly how it should be since the doctor can sued for negating needed treatment and an insurance company can't because it's in their policy to deny funding. So you'll get healthcare when you need it!
Right now your health is dictated by insurance companies, if you need healh coverage they simply can say "you've been paying premiums, good, we'll cover a few thousand dollars on your heart transplant" and leave you with insurmountable debt. If you have conditions that were pre-existing and you're trying to get insurance? That's fine, they just won't cover you and you'll just happen to die by that, no big deal... Who needs it?
Sometimes I feel like Americans are like, "No... No no no, don't give us shit we need and save us money, what about the rich people, how can we save THEM money!!? They won't be able to afford the upgrade on their private jets! Common that's ridiculous, I'll starve to let them get richer!"
I benefited immensely from it.
I still think it's a terrible idea.
Good logic. Helps the middle class/poor, allows you to get treated for any illness that most insurance companies would disallow, terrible idea.
The intrusion of the federal government into the practice of medicine. 18 million of the uninsured will be forced to go under Medicaid, while the rest will have to accept another government program. Even so, millions will remain uninsured. By 2019, an estimated 4.8 million seniors will be forced out of Medicare Advantage. Medicare will be cut by $528 billion dollars. Taxes will be increased (especially on high-income individuals). By forcing States to accept federally-mandated health insurance, the Act violates States’ rights. Some speculate that you can be thrown in jail for failure to pay your health insurance taxes. Sounds like a good idea to me.
18 million will be forced? Are you fucking kidding? Those 18million are on their knees thanking god that they can get sick and not fucking die like the medieval ages now. How can you straight face say "forced" when talking about the broke motherfuckers who can't get any healthcare because insurance companies are either charging WAY to much because of preexisting conditions or simply they can't afford it because of their social economic situation.
The rest can buy whatever insurance they want to buy, you are only subject if you choose to NOT buy insurance and thus you are given a cheaper alternative as I've shown... A cheaper alternative that... covers more... does more... and can't be denied...
Holy shit Americans are strange people.... The ONLY place taxes will be increased is if you make over 250,000 per year and it can only range up to 2.5% of your total income. That means that everyone below 250,000 will either pay EXACTLY the same as before or pay less than before every year... That's you, that's the other guy in this thread, that's probably 80-90% of the entire population....
Sorry EDITED the 8% I meant 2.5% but it'll be above the 6k. The 8% is if you are below a certain amount and the 2085 is costing you 8%, then it can't pass that.
That's weird, I was of the understanding that everybody get's taxed more, not just the rich, and these taxes will be alot harder for the lower-middle income people to pay.
Despite promises that the president’s health reforms would lower health care costs, “Obamacare” is saddled with new taxes, mandates and regulations that will increase the cost of care for families and job creators.
New requirements force Americans to purchase a health plan deemed “essential” by Congress and bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services. Price controls are to be imposed nationally — despite the fact that identical requirements enacted in several states dramatically increased premiums and eliminated consumer choice. Despite President Barack Obama’s recent insistence that “Obamacare” punishes only those who can afford coverage but refuse to buy it, the health care law contains a hidden tax on Americans and small businesses that do purchase coverage.
Here’s how it works: “Obamacare” can impose a new tax on Americans through a “fee” on health care premiums, including Medicare Advantage, Part D and private Medicaid plans — making insurance companies the de facto tax collector. The law imposes this new tax on all commercially purchased health plans, with the exception of some nonprofits that earn 80 percent or more of their revenue from certain government programs.
It will hit 50 million Americans every year. The ripple effects will very likely increase premiums by billions of dollars a year for families and small businesses across the country.
The $8 billion “Obamacare” fee on insurers will increase Americans’ premiums by $10.6 billion in its first year, estimates Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office .
That tax will be particularly hard on the poor and middle class — the very people that were supposed to benefit from the law.
In 2014, people earning between $10,000 and $30,000 will pay almost $2.8 billion in higher health insurance premiums. People earning between $30,000 and $50,000 will pay $2.2 billion. (This does not include the proposed government subsidy.) People earning from $75,000 to $100,000 will pay less than $1.5 billion, and the numbers only go down from there.
While insurers will be forced to collect the tax, the bottom line is that all Americans will ultimately pay the tab — the people already struggling to pay their grocery bills, car payments and mortgages during one of the worst periods of economic growth in recent memory.
In addition to higher premiums, patients could see higher medical bills elsewhere.
Under “Obamacare,” insurers won’t even pay a predictable percentage in taxes — they’ll pay a share of an arbitrary fee. Every year, the secretary of health and human services will set a deadline for insurance companies to report how much revenue they earned the year before. Then the secretary will tell them what to pay.
Similar to speeding tickets, every insurer will be responsible for paying the penalty on time, even if the government takes months to figure out how much it owes.
When “Obamacare” starts taxing health care premiums, Americans will pay the price — in dollars and cents, lower quality insurance and ease of access to the care that keeps you alive and well.
If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one.
It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare.
I didn't realize that the government would be replacing the private health care system.
...because they're not.
EDIT: But, since this must be the 10th time the health care argument has come up in this thread, and we aren't changing our minds. I'll drop it.
It's funny that almost everyone (probably everyone) in this thread would benefit from obamacare.
In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States Now American's are bitching because they'll have to pay rates at 2.5% of their income (as long as it remains above 2085 and then it sticks to 2085 unless it becomes more than 8% of their yearly income, for families that is. An individual pays approximately 685 I believe? I don't ahve the percent on me per year of yearly income but it's drastically less. Hell you'd have to make over 250,000 dollars to have a negative effect from Obamacare than you would normally at that 6,700 number. Seeing as insurance costs have only sky rocketed it's most likely more. Will there be less doctors though? Well no statistical proof shows this, most countries have more doctors per capita than the United States.
Will there be less care? Well seeing as the United States was ranked 72nd out of 191 countries in the health of the populace and 37th overall for treatment I can't see it getting any worse. (although contested because many argues infant mortality rates should be exempt which are extremely high for a nation bolstering such an "impressive" healthcare system). The government gets to choose! No not really, actually this makes it completely the doctors choice on whether you get healthcare or not which is exactly how it should be since the doctor can sued for negating needed treatment and an insurance company can't because it's in their policy to deny funding. So you'll get healthcare when you need it!
Right now your health is dictated by insurance companies, if you need healh coverage they simply can say "you've been paying premiums, good, we'll cover a few thousand dollars on your heart transplant" and leave you with insurmountable debt. If you have conditions that were pre-existing and you're trying to get insurance? That's fine, they just won't cover you and you'll just happen to die by that, no big deal... Who needs it?
Sometimes I feel like Americans are like, "No... No no no, don't give us shit we need and save us money, what about the rich people, how can we save THEM money!!? They won't be able to afford the upgrade on their private jets! Common that's ridiculous, I'll starve to let them get richer!"
I benefited immensely from it.
I still think it's a terrible idea.
Good logic. Helps the middle class/poor, allows you to get treated for any illness that most insurance companies would disallow, terrible idea.
The intrusion of the federal government into the practice of medicine. 18 million of the uninsured will be forced to go under Medicaid, while the rest will have to accept another government program. Even so, millions will remain uninsured. By 2019, an estimated 4.8 million seniors will be forced out of Medicare Advantage. Medicare will be cut by $528 billion dollars. Taxes will be increased (especially on high-income individuals). By forcing States to accept federally-mandated health insurance, the Act violates States’ rights. Some speculate that you can be thrown in jail for failure to pay your health insurance taxes. Sounds like a good idea to me.
18 million will be forced? Are you fucking kidding? Those 18million are on their knees thanking god that they can get sick and not fucking die like the medieval ages now. How can you straight face say "forced" when talking about the broke motherfuckers who can't get any healthcare because insurance companies are either charging WAY to much because of preexisting conditions or simply they can't afford it because of their social economic situation.
The rest can buy whatever insurance they want to buy, you are only subject if you choose to NOT buy insurance and thus you are given a cheaper alternative as I've shown... A cheaper alternative that... covers more... does more... and can't be denied...
Holy shit Americans are strange people.... The ONLY place taxes will be increased is if you make over 250,000 per year and it can only range up to 2.5% of your total income. That means that everyone below 250,000 will either pay EXACTLY the same as before or pay less than before every year... That's you, that's the other guy in this thread, that's probably 80-90% of the entire population....
Sorry EDITED the 8% I meant 2.5% but it'll be above the 6k. The 8% is if you are below a certain amount and the 2085 is costing you 8%, then it can't pass that.
That's weird, I was of the understanding that everybody get's taxed more, not just the rich, and these taxes will be alot harder for the lower-middle income people to pay.
Despite promises that the president’s health reforms would lower health care costs, “Obamacare” is saddled with new taxes, mandates and regulations that will increase the cost of care for families and job creators.
New requirements force Americans to purchase a health plan deemed “essential” by Congress and bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services. Price controls are to be imposed nationally — despite the fact that identical requirements enacted in several states dramatically increased premiums and eliminated consumer choice. Despite President Barack Obama’s recent insistence that “Obamacare” punishes only those who can afford coverage but refuse to buy it, the health care law contains a hidden tax on Americans and small businesses that do purchase coverage.
Here’s how it works: “Obamacare” can impose a new tax on Americans through a “fee” on health care premiums, including Medicare Advantage, Part D and private Medicaid plans — making insurance companies the de facto tax collector. The law imposes this new tax on all commercially purchased health plans, with the exception of some nonprofits that earn 80 percent or more of their revenue from certain government programs.
It will hit 50 million Americans every year. The ripple effects will very likely increase premiums by billions of dollars a year for families and small businesses across the country.
The $8 billion “Obamacare” fee on insurers will increase Americans’ premiums by $10.6 billion in its first year, estimates Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office .
That tax will be particularly hard on the poor and middle class — the very people that were supposed to benefit from the law.
In 2014, people earning between $10,000 and $30,000 will pay almost $2.8 billion in higher health insurance premiums. People earning between $30,000 and $50,000 will pay $2.2 billion. (This does not include the proposed government subsidy.) People earning from $75,000 to $100,000 will pay less than $1.5 billion, and the numbers only go down from there.
While insurers will be forced to collect the tax, the bottom line is that all Americans will ultimately pay the tab — the people already struggling to pay their grocery bills, car payments and mortgages during one of the worst periods of economic growth in recent memory.
In addition to higher premiums, patients could see higher medical bills elsewhere.
Under “Obamacare,” insurers won’t even pay a predictable percentage in taxes — they’ll pay a share of an arbitrary fee. Every year, the secretary of health and human services will set a deadline for insurance companies to report how much revenue they earned the year before. Then the secretary will tell them what to pay.
Similar to speeding tickets, every insurer will be responsible for paying the penalty on time, even if the government takes months to figure out how much it owes.
When “Obamacare” starts taxing health care premiums, Americans will pay the price — in dollars and cents, lower quality insurance and ease of access to the care that keeps you alive and well.
On October 07 2012 02:18 farvacola wrote: [quote] Except that this assumption totally ignores the startling problem faced by this loose "trust" of state governments; the states which consume the most safety net revenue (medicare, medicaid, food stamps etc.) also happen to be the states least willing to locally budget these provisions via state legislation. I'm talking Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Florida, among others. If you're just assuming that a state like Texas is going to cover those with pre-existing conditions, well, precedent and reality are laughing at you. Furthermore, with so many states running massive deficits and showing obvious lack of financial savvy, it seems silly to assume so much efficacy coming from them.
But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem.
the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi
he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job.
If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one.
It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare.
I didn't realize that the government would be replacing the private health care system.
...because they're not.
EDIT: But, since this must be the 10th time the health care argument has come up in this thread, and we aren't changing our minds. I'll drop it.
It's funny that almost everyone (probably everyone) in this thread would benefit from obamacare.
In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States Now American's are bitching because they'll have to pay rates at 2.5% of their income (as long as it remains above 2085 and then it sticks to 2085 unless it becomes more than 8% of their yearly income, for families that is. An individual pays approximately 685 I believe? I don't ahve the percent on me per year of yearly income but it's drastically less. Hell you'd have to make over 250,000 dollars to have a negative effect from Obamacare than you would normally at that 6,700 number. Seeing as insurance costs have only sky rocketed it's most likely more.
Can you explain your numbers? You completely lost me as to what you are getting at...
Basically you pay 2.5% of your income using 100k as an example, that means you pay 2500, if you though have an income that is less than 2085$ per year you pay that as a flat rate up until it becomes 8% of your income. An example blow is presented.
FAMILY 2.5% from 2085 onward, you pay approximately the same premiums at around 200,000 to 250,000 you normally would. under 2.5% is a flat rate of 2085 up until it becomes 8% of your income and then it flatlines (so someone making 20,000 a year isn't paying 2085, they'd instead pay 1600 because that is 8% of their yearly income.
What does this mean? Well you're getting all the benefits of healthcare without any preexisting conditions being a concern for less than you would have originally paid for insurance for a family.
I believe it's 695 for an individual.
PS: Also shameless Khan Academy namedrop, love this guy.
Five years later, Kaiser’s 2009 survey found that employer health insurance premiums were $13,375 for a family and $4824 for a single person. About 60% of workers were receiving employer sponsored health insurance. Less than half (46%) of employees at small firms with 3 to 9 workers received coverage. As of 2008, the percentage of Americans receiving employer sponsored health insurance had declined for the eighth consecutive year, says the Kaiser Family Foundation.[4]
With this edit the number changes drastically, if you're making 500,000 a year that would knock at 12,500 a year which is STILL less than 13,375 that the average american family has to pay. It shows the individual at 4824... 685 or 4824, which seems better? Also the 685 gives you the ability to get healthcare when you need it and NOT when your insurance company decides you need it.
From 1999 to 2009, Kaiser found that the insurance premiums had climbed 131% or 13.1% per year, and workers’ contribution toward paying that premium jumped 128% or 12.8% per year. In 1999, workers’ average contribution to the premium was $1543, and in 2009 it was $3515. For employers, their contribution was $4247 in 1999 and $9860 in 2009. [5]
The $695 / $2085 is the cost of the penalty... after which you still do not have insurance, correct?
However, Romney's strong showing in Denver did little to convince more voters he understands them or is a "good person," according to a Reuters/Ipsos survey released on Saturday.
The Democratic president is ahead of his challenger on character attributes that can win over undecided voters who have not been swayed on tangible policy points, according to the online poll.
On the broad question of who they will vote for in November, Obama kept his 2 percentage point lead among likely voters - 47 percent to 45 percent - in the online survey.
The gap was unchanged from Friday, when Obama led 46 percent to 44 percent in the tracking poll. His lead was 6 percentage points before the two men first went head-to-head in Denver.
On October 07 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote: [quote]
But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem.
the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi
he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job.
If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one.
It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare.
I didn't realize that the government would be replacing the private health care system.
...because they're not.
EDIT: But, since this must be the 10th time the health care argument has come up in this thread, and we aren't changing our minds. I'll drop it.
It's funny that almost everyone (probably everyone) in this thread would benefit from obamacare.
In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States Now American's are bitching because they'll have to pay rates at 2.5% of their income (as long as it remains above 2085 and then it sticks to 2085 unless it becomes more than 8% of their yearly income, for families that is. An individual pays approximately 685 I believe? I don't ahve the percent on me per year of yearly income but it's drastically less. Hell you'd have to make over 250,000 dollars to have a negative effect from Obamacare than you would normally at that 6,700 number. Seeing as insurance costs have only sky rocketed it's most likely more.
Can you explain your numbers? You completely lost me as to what you are getting at...
Basically you pay 2.5% of your income using 100k as an example, that means you pay 2500, if you though have an income that is less than 2085$ per year you pay that as a flat rate up until it becomes 8% of your income. An example blow is presented.
FAMILY 2.5% from 2085 onward, you pay approximately the same premiums at around 200,000 to 250,000 you normally would. under 2.5% is a flat rate of 2085 up until it becomes 8% of your income and then it flatlines (so someone making 20,000 a year isn't paying 2085, they'd instead pay 1600 because that is 8% of their yearly income.
What does this mean? Well you're getting all the benefits of healthcare without any preexisting conditions being a concern for less than you would have originally paid for insurance for a family.
I believe it's 695 for an individual.
PS: Also shameless Khan Academy namedrop, love this guy.
Also here's what you pay for premiums
Five years later, Kaiser’s 2009 survey found that employer health insurance premiums were $13,375 for a family and $4824 for a single person. About 60% of workers were receiving employer sponsored health insurance. Less than half (46%) of employees at small firms with 3 to 9 workers received coverage. As of 2008, the percentage of Americans receiving employer sponsored health insurance had declined for the eighth consecutive year, says the Kaiser Family Foundation.[4]
With this edit the number changes drastically, if you're making 500,000 a year that would knock at 12,500 a year which is STILL less than 13,375 that the average american family has to pay. It shows the individual at 4824... 685 or 4824, which seems better? Also the 685 gives you the ability to get healthcare when you need it and NOT when your insurance company decides you need it.
From 1999 to 2009, Kaiser found that the insurance premiums had climbed 131% or 13.1% per year, and workers’ contribution toward paying that premium jumped 128% or 12.8% per year. In 1999, workers’ average contribution to the premium was $1543, and in 2009 it was $3515. For employers, their contribution was $4247 in 1999 and $9860 in 2009. [5]
The $695 / $2085 is the cost of the penalty... after which you still do not have insurance, correct?
Haha no, they're not charging people and then not giving them health insurance. If you have to pay those premiums as a penalty you are insured by the government to all medical needs. That is the standard cost if 2.5% is below 2085 and less than 8% of total income. Individual I didn't really get into mjuch but as I showed in my links on premiums the 685 (could be 750 for some, don't know the finalization) is a lot less than the thousands most people pay.
The government definitly is going "lets charge everyone who isn't getting ripped off by insurance companies". You are insured if you pay. Hell this is a more finanically applicable thing than Canada has.
On October 07 2012 02:39 oneofthem wrote: [quote] the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi
he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job.
If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one.
It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare.
I didn't realize that the government would be replacing the private health care system.
...because they're not.
EDIT: But, since this must be the 10th time the health care argument has come up in this thread, and we aren't changing our minds. I'll drop it.
It's funny that almost everyone (probably everyone) in this thread would benefit from obamacare.
In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States Now American's are bitching because they'll have to pay rates at 2.5% of their income (as long as it remains above 2085 and then it sticks to 2085 unless it becomes more than 8% of their yearly income, for families that is. An individual pays approximately 685 I believe? I don't ahve the percent on me per year of yearly income but it's drastically less. Hell you'd have to make over 250,000 dollars to have a negative effect from Obamacare than you would normally at that 6,700 number. Seeing as insurance costs have only sky rocketed it's most likely more.
Can you explain your numbers? You completely lost me as to what you are getting at...
Basically you pay 2.5% of your income using 100k as an example, that means you pay 2500, if you though have an income that is less than 2085$ per year you pay that as a flat rate up until it becomes 8% of your income. An example blow is presented.
FAMILY 2.5% from 2085 onward, you pay approximately the same premiums at around 200,000 to 250,000 you normally would. under 2.5% is a flat rate of 2085 up until it becomes 8% of your income and then it flatlines (so someone making 20,000 a year isn't paying 2085, they'd instead pay 1600 because that is 8% of their yearly income.
What does this mean? Well you're getting all the benefits of healthcare without any preexisting conditions being a concern for less than you would have originally paid for insurance for a family.
I believe it's 695 for an individual.
PS: Also shameless Khan Academy namedrop, love this guy.
Also here's what you pay for premiums
Five years later, Kaiser’s 2009 survey found that employer health insurance premiums were $13,375 for a family and $4824 for a single person. About 60% of workers were receiving employer sponsored health insurance. Less than half (46%) of employees at small firms with 3 to 9 workers received coverage. As of 2008, the percentage of Americans receiving employer sponsored health insurance had declined for the eighth consecutive year, says the Kaiser Family Foundation.[4]
With this edit the number changes drastically, if you're making 500,000 a year that would knock at 12,500 a year which is STILL less than 13,375 that the average american family has to pay. It shows the individual at 4824... 685 or 4824, which seems better? Also the 685 gives you the ability to get healthcare when you need it and NOT when your insurance company decides you need it.
From 1999 to 2009, Kaiser found that the insurance premiums had climbed 131% or 13.1% per year, and workers’ contribution toward paying that premium jumped 128% or 12.8% per year. In 1999, workers’ average contribution to the premium was $1543, and in 2009 it was $3515. For employers, their contribution was $4247 in 1999 and $9860 in 2009. [5]
The $695 / $2085 is the cost of the penalty... after which you still do not have insurance, correct?
Haha no, they're not charging people and then not giving them health insurance. If you have to pay those premiums as a penalty you are insured by the government to all medical needs. That is the standard cost if 2.5% is below 2085 and less than 8% of total income. Individual I didn't really get into mjuch but as I showed in my links on premiums the 685 (could be 750 for some, don't know the finalization) is a lot less than the thousands most people pay.
The government definitly is going "lets charge everyone who isn't getting ripped off by insurance companies". You are insured if you pay. Hell this is a more finanically applicable thing than Canada has.
Can you site a source? I was pretty sure that paying the penalty does not give you insurance.
On October 07 2012 03:21 BluePanther wrote: [quote]
he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job.
If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one.
It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare.
I didn't realize that the government would be replacing the private health care system.
...because they're not.
EDIT: But, since this must be the 10th time the health care argument has come up in this thread, and we aren't changing our minds. I'll drop it.
It's funny that almost everyone (probably everyone) in this thread would benefit from obamacare.
In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States Now American's are bitching because they'll have to pay rates at 2.5% of their income (as long as it remains above 2085 and then it sticks to 2085 unless it becomes more than 8% of their yearly income, for families that is. An individual pays approximately 685 I believe? I don't ahve the percent on me per year of yearly income but it's drastically less. Hell you'd have to make over 250,000 dollars to have a negative effect from Obamacare than you would normally at that 6,700 number. Seeing as insurance costs have only sky rocketed it's most likely more.
Can you explain your numbers? You completely lost me as to what you are getting at...
Basically you pay 2.5% of your income using 100k as an example, that means you pay 2500, if you though have an income that is less than 2085$ per year you pay that as a flat rate up until it becomes 8% of your income. An example blow is presented.
FAMILY 2.5% from 2085 onward, you pay approximately the same premiums at around 200,000 to 250,000 you normally would. under 2.5% is a flat rate of 2085 up until it becomes 8% of your income and then it flatlines (so someone making 20,000 a year isn't paying 2085, they'd instead pay 1600 because that is 8% of their yearly income.
What does this mean? Well you're getting all the benefits of healthcare without any preexisting conditions being a concern for less than you would have originally paid for insurance for a family.
I believe it's 695 for an individual.
PS: Also shameless Khan Academy namedrop, love this guy.
Also here's what you pay for premiums
Five years later, Kaiser’s 2009 survey found that employer health insurance premiums were $13,375 for a family and $4824 for a single person. About 60% of workers were receiving employer sponsored health insurance. Less than half (46%) of employees at small firms with 3 to 9 workers received coverage. As of 2008, the percentage of Americans receiving employer sponsored health insurance had declined for the eighth consecutive year, says the Kaiser Family Foundation.[4]
With this edit the number changes drastically, if you're making 500,000 a year that would knock at 12,500 a year which is STILL less than 13,375 that the average american family has to pay. It shows the individual at 4824... 685 or 4824, which seems better? Also the 685 gives you the ability to get healthcare when you need it and NOT when your insurance company decides you need it.
From 1999 to 2009, Kaiser found that the insurance premiums had climbed 131% or 13.1% per year, and workers’ contribution toward paying that premium jumped 128% or 12.8% per year. In 1999, workers’ average contribution to the premium was $1543, and in 2009 it was $3515. For employers, their contribution was $4247 in 1999 and $9860 in 2009. [5]
The $695 / $2085 is the cost of the penalty... after which you still do not have insurance, correct?
Haha no, they're not charging people and then not giving them health insurance. If you have to pay those premiums as a penalty you are insured by the government to all medical needs. That is the standard cost if 2.5% is below 2085 and less than 8% of total income. Individual I didn't really get into mjuch but as I showed in my links on premiums the 685 (could be 750 for some, don't know the finalization) is a lot less than the thousands most people pay.
The government definitly is going "lets charge everyone who isn't getting ripped off by insurance companies". You are insured if you pay. Hell this is a more finanically applicable thing than Canada has.
Can you site a source? I was pretty sure that paying the penalty does not give you insurance.
It is approximated that 4-5 million people will pay the actual tax if 95 leading up but it also shows that the government can't command you to pay the tax and that the IRS has "limited" powers in actually trying to search you out for tax evasion. It goes on to say no criminal punishment will be presented for evading this specific tax and explains why. I hope that clears it up a bit, I was a bit off but not entirely.
If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one.
It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare.
I didn't realize that the government would be replacing the private health care system.
...because they're not.
EDIT: But, since this must be the 10th time the health care argument has come up in this thread, and we aren't changing our minds. I'll drop it.
It's funny that almost everyone (probably everyone) in this thread would benefit from obamacare.
In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States Now American's are bitching because they'll have to pay rates at 2.5% of their income (as long as it remains above 2085 and then it sticks to 2085 unless it becomes more than 8% of their yearly income, for families that is. An individual pays approximately 685 I believe? I don't ahve the percent on me per year of yearly income but it's drastically less. Hell you'd have to make over 250,000 dollars to have a negative effect from Obamacare than you would normally at that 6,700 number. Seeing as insurance costs have only sky rocketed it's most likely more.
Can you explain your numbers? You completely lost me as to what you are getting at...
Basically you pay 2.5% of your income using 100k as an example, that means you pay 2500, if you though have an income that is less than 2085$ per year you pay that as a flat rate up until it becomes 8% of your income. An example blow is presented.
FAMILY 2.5% from 2085 onward, you pay approximately the same premiums at around 200,000 to 250,000 you normally would. under 2.5% is a flat rate of 2085 up until it becomes 8% of your income and then it flatlines (so someone making 20,000 a year isn't paying 2085, they'd instead pay 1600 because that is 8% of their yearly income.
What does this mean? Well you're getting all the benefits of healthcare without any preexisting conditions being a concern for less than you would have originally paid for insurance for a family.
I believe it's 695 for an individual.
PS: Also shameless Khan Academy namedrop, love this guy.
Also here's what you pay for premiums
Five years later, Kaiser’s 2009 survey found that employer health insurance premiums were $13,375 for a family and $4824 for a single person. About 60% of workers were receiving employer sponsored health insurance. Less than half (46%) of employees at small firms with 3 to 9 workers received coverage. As of 2008, the percentage of Americans receiving employer sponsored health insurance had declined for the eighth consecutive year, says the Kaiser Family Foundation.[4]
With this edit the number changes drastically, if you're making 500,000 a year that would knock at 12,500 a year which is STILL less than 13,375 that the average american family has to pay. It shows the individual at 4824... 685 or 4824, which seems better? Also the 685 gives you the ability to get healthcare when you need it and NOT when your insurance company decides you need it.
From 1999 to 2009, Kaiser found that the insurance premiums had climbed 131% or 13.1% per year, and workers’ contribution toward paying that premium jumped 128% or 12.8% per year. In 1999, workers’ average contribution to the premium was $1543, and in 2009 it was $3515. For employers, their contribution was $4247 in 1999 and $9860 in 2009. [5]
The $695 / $2085 is the cost of the penalty... after which you still do not have insurance, correct?
Haha no, they're not charging people and then not giving them health insurance. If you have to pay those premiums as a penalty you are insured by the government to all medical needs. That is the standard cost if 2.5% is below 2085 and less than 8% of total income. Individual I didn't really get into mjuch but as I showed in my links on premiums the 685 (could be 750 for some, don't know the finalization) is a lot less than the thousands most people pay.
The government definitly is going "lets charge everyone who isn't getting ripped off by insurance companies". You are insured if you pay. Hell this is a more finanically applicable thing than Canada has.
Can you site a source? I was pretty sure that paying the penalty does not give you insurance.
It is approximated that 4-5 million people will pay the actual tax if 95 leading up but it also shows that the government can't command you to pay the tax and that the IRS has "limited" powers in actually trying to search you out for tax evasion. It goes on to say no criminal punishment will be presented for evading this specific tax and explains why. I hope that clears it up a bit, I was a bit off but not entirely.
I'm still not seeing where you are getting the idea that if you pay it, you are covered for treatment.
On October 07 2012 03:32 BluePanther wrote: [quote]
It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare.
I didn't realize that the government would be replacing the private health care system.
...because they're not.
EDIT: But, since this must be the 10th time the health care argument has come up in this thread, and we aren't changing our minds. I'll drop it.
It's funny that almost everyone (probably everyone) in this thread would benefit from obamacare.
In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States Now American's are bitching because they'll have to pay rates at 2.5% of their income (as long as it remains above 2085 and then it sticks to 2085 unless it becomes more than 8% of their yearly income, for families that is. An individual pays approximately 685 I believe? I don't ahve the percent on me per year of yearly income but it's drastically less. Hell you'd have to make over 250,000 dollars to have a negative effect from Obamacare than you would normally at that 6,700 number. Seeing as insurance costs have only sky rocketed it's most likely more.
Can you explain your numbers? You completely lost me as to what you are getting at...
Basically you pay 2.5% of your income using 100k as an example, that means you pay 2500, if you though have an income that is less than 2085$ per year you pay that as a flat rate up until it becomes 8% of your income. An example blow is presented.
FAMILY 2.5% from 2085 onward, you pay approximately the same premiums at around 200,000 to 250,000 you normally would. under 2.5% is a flat rate of 2085 up until it becomes 8% of your income and then it flatlines (so someone making 20,000 a year isn't paying 2085, they'd instead pay 1600 because that is 8% of their yearly income.
What does this mean? Well you're getting all the benefits of healthcare without any preexisting conditions being a concern for less than you would have originally paid for insurance for a family.
I believe it's 695 for an individual.
PS: Also shameless Khan Academy namedrop, love this guy.
Also here's what you pay for premiums
Five years later, Kaiser’s 2009 survey found that employer health insurance premiums were $13,375 for a family and $4824 for a single person. About 60% of workers were receiving employer sponsored health insurance. Less than half (46%) of employees at small firms with 3 to 9 workers received coverage. As of 2008, the percentage of Americans receiving employer sponsored health insurance had declined for the eighth consecutive year, says the Kaiser Family Foundation.[4]
With this edit the number changes drastically, if you're making 500,000 a year that would knock at 12,500 a year which is STILL less than 13,375 that the average american family has to pay. It shows the individual at 4824... 685 or 4824, which seems better? Also the 685 gives you the ability to get healthcare when you need it and NOT when your insurance company decides you need it.
From 1999 to 2009, Kaiser found that the insurance premiums had climbed 131% or 13.1% per year, and workers’ contribution toward paying that premium jumped 128% or 12.8% per year. In 1999, workers’ average contribution to the premium was $1543, and in 2009 it was $3515. For employers, their contribution was $4247 in 1999 and $9860 in 2009. [5]
The $695 / $2085 is the cost of the penalty... after which you still do not have insurance, correct?
Haha no, they're not charging people and then not giving them health insurance. If you have to pay those premiums as a penalty you are insured by the government to all medical needs. That is the standard cost if 2.5% is below 2085 and less than 8% of total income. Individual I didn't really get into mjuch but as I showed in my links on premiums the 685 (could be 750 for some, don't know the finalization) is a lot less than the thousands most people pay.
The government definitly is going "lets charge everyone who isn't getting ripped off by insurance companies". You are insured if you pay. Hell this is a more finanically applicable thing than Canada has.
Can you site a source? I was pretty sure that paying the penalty does not give you insurance.
It is approximated that 4-5 million people will pay the actual tax if 95 leading up but it also shows that the government can't command you to pay the tax and that the IRS has "limited" powers in actually trying to search you out for tax evasion. It goes on to say no criminal punishment will be presented for evading this specific tax and explains why. I hope that clears it up a bit, I was a bit off but not entirely.
I'm still not seeing where you are getting the idea that if you pay it, you are covered for treatment.
Sorry I have yet to find anyone say you don't get healthcare or you do get healthcare. I've seen ":You have to pay the tax " but nothing saying "The tax doesn't cover you" . Maybe can you try and provide a source countering it? I just assumed that was the case, pay to play, but perhaps not? Anyway I still only see it as a positive thing, sry for the confusion. I'll keep looking, I just google like "Are you covered under obamacare while paying penalty tax" or other keywords like that and nothing comes up saying "covered or not". I'll keep looking ^^
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/121015_2012_p465.jpg)
