President Obama Re-Elected - Page 695

Prev 1 693 694 695 696 697 1504 Next

Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here.

The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301

aksfjh

United States4853 Posts

October 06 2012 23:11 GMT

#13881

Guess there's no way to watch that free...

kwizach

3658 Posts

October 06 2012 23:27 GMT

#13882

Whaaaaaaat I thought it was going to be free, damn it.

Deathmanbob

United States2356 Posts

October 06 2012 23:28 GMT

#13883

On October 07 2012 08:27 kwizach wrote:
Whaaaaaaat I thought it was going to be free, damn it.

its 5 bucks and it goes to charity, shell out for it good man!

JonnyBNoHo

United States6277 Posts

October 06 2012 23:44 GMT

#13884

On October 07 2012 07:57 NeMeSiS3 wrote:

Show nested quote +

On October 07 2012 07:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

On October 07 2012 07:32 NeMeSiS3 wrote:

On October 07 2012 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

On October 07 2012 07:05 NeMeSiS3 wrote:

On October 07 2012 06:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

On October 07 2012 06:24 NeMeSiS3 wrote:

On October 07 2012 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

On October 07 2012 05:49 NeMeSiS3 wrote:

On October 07 2012 03:36 rogzardo wrote:
[quote]

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]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_costs_in_the_United_States

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.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-is-the-obamacare-penalty-tax-2012-7
My data was off, I apologize. It's something like 95$ if you decide to go uninsured from 2014 and on.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/how-much-is-the-obamacare-tax/
leading into 2016 to the 695. It seems like the penalty/tax are interchangable and that if you pay either you are given access to the medical treatment. It goes on to explain the funds and how they raise each consecuative year.

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.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/06/obamacare-supreme-court-regular-americans
These are the things you get.

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 ^^

Well Obamacare is modeled after the healthcare reform in Mass (Romneycare). Here, if you pay the penalty you do not get insurance. The whole point of the penalty is to encourage you to buy insurance. With Obamacare, like in Mass, you can get subsidized insurance if your income is low enough. If you could get insurance by paying the penalty that would defeat the purpose of the subsidized insurance.

Also, if paying the penalty resulted in you receiving insurance the government would need to specify what that insurance was - which you would think would be pretty easy to look up at this point.

Saryph

United States1955 Posts

October 06 2012 23:53 GMT

#13885

Last month there was a guy in this thread who broke his arm and had to pay seven grand to repair it. He was mad because he had to/was going to have to pay the annual tax to not have insurance, which was taking away from his personal savings that went toward what insurance would otherwise pay for.

I'm pretty sure the tax for not having insurance does not give you the benefits of buying insurance from the government. It is just a penalty (tax) for not owning insurance when it is so easily available to you and required.

Kaitlin

United States2958 Posts

October 06 2012 23:56 GMT

#13886

The Supreme Court said it was a tax, not a premium payment. You pay the penalty each year if you don't purchase insurance. When the time comes for health coverage, you pay the premium and are covered for pre-existing conditions, those that occurred prompting your need for the actual health coverage.

BlueBird.

United States3889 Posts

October 07 2012 00:24 GMT

#13887

On October 07 2012 08:28 Deathmanbob wrote:

Show nested quote +

its 5 bucks and it goes to charity, shell out for it good man!

only half the proceeds go to charity, and not all charities are things that people agree with/are willing to donate too.

I would pay for it and was going too, however the sites been down since 5:00 so I don't know if it's going to happen, it hasn't let me pay for it, and if its already going I don't want to pay for something half over

Falling

Canada11264 Posts

October 07 2012 00:41 GMT

#13888

Way more fireworks and funny on this debate. Definitely worth watching it even after the fact.

oneofthem

Cayman Islands24199 Posts

October 07 2012 01:05 GMT

#13889

is bill oreilly really popular or something. hard to fathom

Falling

Canada11264 Posts

October 07 2012 01:07 GMT

#13890

Stewart and O'Reilly have had a friendly rivalry for some time now. They're quite fun together.

Grr. I don't like his attack on Canada's healthcare though

Government doesn't determine who get's healthcare- doctors do.

Souma

2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts

October 07 2012 01:08 GMT

#13891

Crap, I came home too late. Hope I can download it later or something.

kmillz

United States1548 Posts

October 07 2012 01:10 GMT

#13892

On October 07 2012 10:07 Falling wrote:
Stewart and O'Reilly have had a friendly rivalry for some time now. They're quite fun together.

Will we be able to see their debate free eventually?

HellRoxYa

Sweden1614 Posts

October 07 2012 01:33 GMT

#13893

On October 07 2012 10:10 kmillz wrote:

Show nested quote +

Will we be able to see their debate free eventually?

No, but I'm watching a restream on ustream. Laggs like hell and the official stream doesn't load at all so

On October 07 2012 10:07 Falling wrote:
Stewart and O'Reilly have had a friendly rivalry for some time now. They're quite fun together.

Grr. I don't like his attack on Canada's healthcare though

Government doesn't determine who get's healthcare- doctors do.

He's bought in to the fallacious argument that socialized healthcare sucks. It's just untrue.

xDaunt

United States17988 Posts

October 07 2012 04:09 GMT

#13894

On October 07 2012 10:33 HellRoxYa wrote:
He's bought in to the fallacious argument that socialized healthcare sucks. It's just untrue.

Socialized care generally does suck compared to what you can get in the US if you have good insurance.

HellRoxYa

Sweden1614 Posts

October 07 2012 04:19 GMT

#13895

On October 07 2012 13:09 xDaunt wrote:

Show nested quote +

Socialized care generally does suck compared to what you can get in the US if you have good insurance.

Yes, you also buy this fallacy, I know.

The real kicker, though, is that it'll be cheaper for everyone with Obamacare while the actual caregiving remains more or less the same.

BluePanther

United States2776 Posts

October 07 2012 04:25 GMT

#13896

On October 07 2012 13:19 HellRoxYa wrote:

Show nested quote +

Yes, you also buy this fallacy, I know.

The real kicker, though, is that it'll be cheaper for everyone with Obamacare while the actual caregiving remains more or less the same.

That's simply not true. Healthcare is a real mess in the US right now. It has more to do with the fact that it's tied to employment due to so many employer incentives. If you are unemployed, it's much more expensive for health insurance than if you have a job. I pay almost double what my mother does for individual coverage compared to job coverage. And mine is half as good.

There are some very serious underlying problems that Obamacare just doesn't touch. Is it an improvement over what we had? Absolutely. But it could be 10x better.

xDaunt

United States17988 Posts

October 07 2012 04:27 GMT

#13897

On October 07 2012 13:19 HellRoxYa wrote:

Show nested quote +

Yes, you also buy this fallacy, I know.

The real kicker, though, is that it'll be cheaper for everyone with Obamacare while the actual caregiving remains more or less the same.

No, this really isn't the case. It's not cheaper for anyone, and the reductions in the reimbursement rates to doctors is already taking its toll on access to care.

Besides, Obamacare isn't even socialized medicine. It's just worsening an already fucked up system.

As I have said before, I'd rather have government-provided baseline coverage for everyone with the option for individuals to buy better care. That way, minimal access is guaranteed and the quality of care of is preserved.

sam!zdat

United States5559 Posts

October 07 2012 04:29 GMT

#13898

On October 07 2012 13:27 xDaunt wrote:
As I have said before, I'd rather have government-provided baseline coverage for everyone with the option for individuals to buy better care. That way, minimal access is guaranteed and the quality of care of is preserved.

Best solution this side of the revolution

NeMeSiS3

Canada2972 Posts

October 07 2012 04:34 GMT

#13899

On October 07 2012 13:25 BluePanther wrote:

Show nested quote +

All that aside the "Socialized care generally does suck" argument is possibly the most uneducated opinion you can have. What do you get if you have good insurance? Medical attention? Well that's what you get in any other socialized system, France has been noted as having the best healthcare in the world and it's running on universal healthcare: O and paying less than America :O

You can argue that "freedoms" are being taken away etc, but statistically America has a pretty shit healthcare system all around and if the only thing about "good premium" is you get care that's pretty fucked up. I can't think of another bonus that socialized healthcare wouldn't have? Seems like a silly argument when most socialized healthcare systems rank above the United States by good measure.

On October 07 2012 13:29 sam!zdat wrote:

Show nested quote +

Best solution this side of the revolution

I can't understand this mentality, how do you define "minimal access" when it comes to your health? Just enough to get your ass out the door and die on the steps? Access should be universal, you get better.. What is "quality of care"? I always feel the quallity of care when I'm at the doctors office...

Either you allow everyone access or you only allow the people who can pay, you can't have this system that goes "we'll just let these two with cancer have a nice warm meal to feel better and leave on minimal care!"

ziggurat

Canada847 Posts

October 07 2012 04:43 GMT

#13900

On October 07 2012 10:07 Falling wrote:
Grr. I don't like his attack on Canada's healthcare though

Government doesn't determine who get's healthcare- doctors do.

I am not sure what you mean by this. In Canada the government decides what treatments are covered mand what treatments aren't. If the treatment you need is not on the list then you don't get it. Here is a pretty detailed example of how it works:

http://scc.lexum.org/en/2004/2004scc78/2004scc78.html

Prev 1 693 694 695 696 697 1504 Next

Please or register to reply.

President Obama Re-Elected - Page 695

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming