|
On October 16 2013 10:24 LuckyFool wrote:
267/month seems like alot for an individual plan. Do you know what your 2014 plan will look like yet?
and sorry- I meant I will now have a higher deductible, I'll have to pay more out of pocket in the case of some insane medical emergency. All I did doctor wise last year was get a physical which was free...lol! In order to have a lower deductible than I had for 2013 I would have to pay more monthly for the premium plan.
Anyway I really didn't mean to hijack this thread with my personal healthcare situation!
You might want to check your deductible again. It's not just in the case of insane medical emergencies.
|
On October 16 2013 12:06 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 10:24 LuckyFool wrote:
267/month seems like alot for an individual plan. Do you know what your 2014 plan will look like yet?
and sorry- I meant I will now have a higher deductible, I'll have to pay more out of pocket in the case of some insane medical emergency. All I did doctor wise last year was get a physical which was free...lol! In order to have a lower deductible than I had for 2013 I would have to pay more monthly for the premium plan.
Anyway I really didn't mean to hijack this thread with my personal healthcare situation! You might want to check your deductible again. It's not just in the case of insane medical emergencies.
It could be if all he has is catastrophic insurance.
|
On October 16 2013 11:42 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 10:06 LuckyFool wrote:
Without going into specifics on my salary in a public forum we'll just say it's nothing that's going to change or really affect my daily lifestyle, I work for a huge company (nearly 70k employees) and it's basically going from $40 to $80 a month. I'm not up for any tax credits since I'm single with no dependents.
This is of course for the cheapest plan which is basic coverage, the premium plans were more and if I was covering a partner and or/family I would have had to pay more and but also would then qualify for tax credits. So under your new plan you pay less than $1,000/year ($80 * 12 = $960) for health insurance? How do you translate that into the middle class 'getting raped?' You could literally triple that number (and increase your coverage/decrease your out of pocket costs) and I'd still call you insane for thinking that's 'getting raped.'
the premium plans/coverage for families IS triple...$80 a month is literally the basic plan for a single employee which is what I'm going with and is the absolute cheapest option. I'm not complaining about myself, I'm going to be fine, I'll hardly even feel the difference personally, I already said that.
Family coverage for the equivalent is $250. now granted you get some tax credit off that I'm sure but still...pretty sure that's almost double what the family coverage was last year. I could go back and check but I don't know if I still have that paperwork, the family plans don't affect me so I haven't really paid attention to them.
When I'm talking about middle class getting raped I'm speaking about households who bring in something in the 30-50k range who will need to purchase these premium plans or stuff to cover their families or spouses. I wonder if employees will forgo covering their families in order to save money? What a messy situation that might be if Mom or Dad risks it and sneaks through with the single employee coverage because it's $200+ a month less. Or will you be forced to buy the family plans if you have any dependents listed on your W-4? questions that we don't know the answers to yet.
2,000 pages of ACA documentation...I can't wait to keep learning about this new law. 
|
On October 16 2013 14:29 LuckyFool wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 11:42 Bigtony wrote:On October 16 2013 10:06 LuckyFool wrote:
Without going into specifics on my salary in a public forum we'll just say it's nothing that's going to change or really affect my daily lifestyle, I work for a huge company (nearly 70k employees) and it's basically going from $40 to $80 a month. I'm not up for any tax credits since I'm single with no dependents.
This is of course for the cheapest plan which is basic coverage, the premium plans were more and if I was covering a partner and or/family I would have had to pay more and but also would then qualify for tax credits. So under your new plan you pay less than $1,000/year ($80 * 12 = $960) for health insurance? How do you translate that into the middle class 'getting raped?' You could literally triple that number (and increase your coverage/decrease your out of pocket costs) and I'd still call you insane for thinking that's 'getting raped.' the premium plans/coverage for families IS triple...$80 a month is literally the basic plan for a single employee which is what I'm going with and is the absolute cheapest option. I'm not complaining about myself, I'm going to be fine, I'll hardly even feel the difference personally, I already said that. Family coverage for the equivalent is $250. now granted you get some tax credit off that I'm sure but still...pretty sure that's almost double what the family coverage was last year. I could go back and check but I don't know if I still have that paperwork, the family plans don't affect me so I haven't really paid attention to them. When I'm talking about middle class getting raped I'm speaking about households who bring in something in the 30-50k range who will need to purchase these premium plans or stuff to cover their families or spouses. I wonder if employees will forgo covering their families in order to save money? What a messy situation that might be if Mom or Dad risks it and sneaks through with the single employee coverage because it's $200+ a month less. Or will you be forced to buy the family plans if you have any dependents listed on your W-4? questions that we don't know the answers to yet. 2,000 pages of ACA documentation...I can't wait to keep learning about this new law.
No no no you just have to thumb through to all the deductions the government is giving you in tax breaks and subsidies! Then you'll turn that frown upside down as you learn to stop worrying and love the government subsidies that make it all affordable!
|
Canada11607 Posts
The U.S. must “shoulder its responsibility” as the world’s biggest economy and holder of the main reserve currency and “take concrete measures before Oct. 17 to avoid a default,” Deputy Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao said at a briefing with reporters yesterday in Beijing in which he referred to “the attitude of the Tea Party.”
They need to stay out of our politics,” Representative Blake Farenthold, a Tea Party-backed Texas Republican, said in an interview.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-15/china-presses-u-s-to-lift-debt-limit-as-tea-party-says-butt-out.html
That's pretty rich. As China owns 1.3 trillion in US debt, isn't it actually China's business? One of your bankers is talking about your loan. Interesting to combine it with the other claim that the world will thank the US for defaulting on their loans because at least they are finally tackling the debt. It certainly isn't China that is hoping for that and they would seem to be one of the ones that matters. Who are these mysterious countries that would thank US for defaulting? (Short of North Korea that is.)
|
US is honestly in deep shit. I dont know how much the world is going to take of it.
First, we police the world and war like crazy
Second, we spy on every country under the sun, even our own, in ridiculous amounts
Third, our government is so screwed up they cant get anything done and are borderline saying "fuck you world, we arent paying you shit"
Are we TRYING to see how far we can push the world before they turn COMPLETELY against us? What if they just turn us into a gigantic north korea? No more trade, no more support, just "have fun there yanks".
|
On October 16 2013 14:57 TheRabidDeer wrote:
US is honestly in deep shit. I dont know how much the world is going to take of it.
First, we police the world and war like crazy
Second, we spy on every country under the sun, even our own, in ridiculous amounts
Third, our government is so screwed up they cant get anything done and are borderline saying "fuck you world, we arent paying you shit"
Are we TRYING to see how far we can push the world before they turn COMPLETELY against us? What if they just turn us into a gigantic north korea? No more trade, no more support, just "have fun there yanks".
Didn't realize the world worked like my parents.
On October 16 2013 14:43 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +The U.S. must “shoulder its responsibility” as the world’s biggest economy and holder of the main reserve currency and “take concrete measures before Oct. 17 to avoid a default,” Deputy Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao said at a briefing with reporters yesterday in Beijing in which he referred to “the attitude of the Tea Party.” Show nested quote +They need to stay out of our politics,” Representative Blake Farenthold, a Tea Party-backed Texas Republican, said in an interview. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-15/china-presses-u-s-to-lift-debt-limit-as-tea-party-says-butt-out.htmlThat's pretty rich. As China owns 1.3 trillion in US debt, isn't it actually China's business? One of your bankers is talking about your loan. Interesting to combine it with the other claim that the world will thank the US for defaulting on their loans because at least they are finally tackling the debt. It certainly isn't China that is hoping for that and they would seem to be one of the ones that matters. Who are these mysterious countries that would thank US for defaulting? (Short of North Korea that is.)
Largest portion of US debt is owned by US companies pretty sure the US companies don't want this whole debt limit crap in-fact they said they don't like it plenty of times every time it's brought up, what business like? long term deals so they know what they have going into every year. This whole shutting down the government hurts all businesses in two sizable ways with loans and with official filings they need to be compliant with the law.
The tea party is in large part why the GOP has problems it's their extremist esp social policies that turns off the general population even looking past the anti-intellectualism crap. This debt ceiling stunt; for hopes of weakening the ACA is down right delusional at this point. Considering that a large part of the 2012 election revolved around that and the economy; with politicians and pundits claiming that the US citizens will decide what they want with this election.
|
United States7483 Posts
|
On October 16 2013 16:32 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 14:57 TheRabidDeer wrote:
US is honestly in deep shit. I dont know how much the world is going to take of it.
First, we police the world and war like crazy
Second, we spy on every country under the sun, even our own, in ridiculous amounts
Third, our government is so screwed up they cant get anything done and are borderline saying "fuck you world, we arent paying you shit"
Are we TRYING to see how far we can push the world before they turn COMPLETELY against us? What if they just turn us into a gigantic north korea? No more trade, no more support, just "have fun there yanks". Didn't realize the world worked like my parents. Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 14:43 Falling wrote:The U.S. must “shoulder its responsibility” as the world’s biggest economy and holder of the main reserve currency and “take concrete measures before Oct. 17 to avoid a default,” Deputy Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao said at a briefing with reporters yesterday in Beijing in which he referred to “the attitude of the Tea Party.” They need to stay out of our politics,” Representative Blake Farenthold, a Tea Party-backed Texas Republican, said in an interview. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-15/china-presses-u-s-to-lift-debt-limit-as-tea-party-says-butt-out.htmlThat's pretty rich. As China owns 1.3 trillion in US debt, isn't it actually China's business? One of your bankers is talking about your loan. Interesting to combine it with the other claim that the world will thank the US for defaulting on their loans because at least they are finally tackling the debt. It certainly isn't China that is hoping for that and they would seem to be one of the ones that matters. Who are these mysterious countries that would thank US for defaulting? (Short of North Korea that is.) Largest portion of US debt is owned by US companies pretty sure the US companies don't want this whole debt limit crap in-fact they said they don't like it plenty of times every time it's brought up, what business like? long term deals so they know what they have going into every year. This whole shutting down the government hurts all businesses in two sizable ways with loans and with official filings they need to be compliant with the law. The tea party is in large part why the GOP has problems it's their extremist esp social policies that turns off the general population even looking past the anti-intellectualism crap. This debt ceiling stunt; for hopes of weakening the ACA is down right delusional at this point. Considering that a large part of the 2012 election revolved around that and the economy; with politicians and pundits claiming that the US citizens will decide what they want with this election.
Well said, until the gop snaps off the tea party and breaks the back of ted cruz, it will always taint the gop among moderate voters (like the ones who voted for mitt romney but will not switch to democrat)
|
On October 16 2013 14:29 LuckyFool wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 11:42 Bigtony wrote:On October 16 2013 10:06 LuckyFool wrote:
Without going into specifics on my salary in a public forum we'll just say it's nothing that's going to change or really affect my daily lifestyle, I work for a huge company (nearly 70k employees) and it's basically going from $40 to $80 a month. I'm not up for any tax credits since I'm single with no dependents.
This is of course for the cheapest plan which is basic coverage, the premium plans were more and if I was covering a partner and or/family I would have had to pay more and but also would then qualify for tax credits. So under your new plan you pay less than $1,000/year ($80 * 12 = $960) for health insurance? How do you translate that into the middle class 'getting raped?' You could literally triple that number (and increase your coverage/decrease your out of pocket costs) and I'd still call you insane for thinking that's 'getting raped.' the premium plans/coverage for families IS triple...$80 a month is literally the basic plan for a single employee which is what I'm going with and is the absolute cheapest option. I'm not complaining about myself, I'm going to be fine, I'll hardly even feel the difference personally, I already said that. Family coverage for the equivalent is $250. now granted you get some tax credit off that I'm sure but still...pretty sure that's almost double what the family coverage was last year. I could go back and check but I don't know if I still have that paperwork, the family plans don't affect me so I haven't really paid attention to them. When I'm talking about middle class getting raped I'm speaking about households who bring in something in the 30-50k range who will need to purchase these premium plans or stuff to cover their families or spouses. I wonder if employees will forgo covering their families in order to save money? What a messy situation that might be if Mom or Dad risks it and sneaks through with the single employee coverage because it's $200+ a month less. Or will you be forced to buy the family plans if you have any dependents listed on your W-4? questions that we don't know the answers to yet. 2,000 pages of ACA documentation...I can't wait to keep learning about this new law.
This is just right wing talking points. If you deduct all the subsidies a person is eligible for, the costs come down to less than what people were paying 2-3 years ago.
Source: http://www.nooga.com/163633/report-affordable-care-act-means-more-choices-for-consumers/
Next time try quoting a real news story rather than Glenn Beck or Rand Paul!
|
I think that if the Republican party doesn't rein itself in, it could be a long, bumpy road back for them, and the US will suffer as a result.
Specifically I'm thinking about the Labour Party in the UK. A while back the hardliners and unionists got the bit in their teeth and put forward one unelectable fire-breathing socialist party leader after another. Consequently they got trounced in election upon election, while the Conservative party was allowed to become more and more outrageously self-serving and out of touch. It was decades before the Conservatives were able to piss people off enough for them to give a moderate Labour leader a shot.
|
On October 16 2013 17:52 Umpteen wrote:
I think that if the Republican party doesn't rein itself in, it could be a long, bumpy road back for them, and the US will suffer as a result.
Specifically I'm thinking about the Labour Party in the UK. A while back the hardliners and unionists got the bit in their teeth and put forward one unelectable fire-breathing socialist party leader after another. Consequently they got trounced in election upon election, while the Conservative party was allowed to become more and more outrageously self-serving and out of touch. It was decades before the Conservatives were able to piss people off enough for them to give a moderate Labour leader a shot.
You mean tony blaire, right?
|
On October 16 2013 17:52 Umpteen wrote:
I think that if the Republican party doesn't rein itself in, it could be a long, bumpy road back for them, and the US will suffer as a result.
Specifically I'm thinking about the Labour Party in the UK. A while back the hardliners and unionists got the bit in their teeth and put forward one unelectable fire-breathing socialist party leader after another. Consequently they got trounced in election upon election, while the Conservative party was allowed to become more and more outrageously self-serving and out of touch. It was decades before the Conservatives were able to piss people off enough for them to give a moderate Labour leader a shot.
Except gerrymandering ensured that most if not all of these Tea Party congressmen are totally safe in there re-election. They don't care how powerless there party becomes when there job is ensured for the next couple of elections.
|
On October 16 2013 18:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 17:52 Umpteen wrote:
I think that if the Republican party doesn't rein itself in, it could be a long, bumpy road back for them, and the US will suffer as a result.
Specifically I'm thinking about the Labour Party in the UK. A while back the hardliners and unionists got the bit in their teeth and put forward one unelectable fire-breathing socialist party leader after another. Consequently they got trounced in election upon election, while the Conservative party was allowed to become more and more outrageously self-serving and out of touch. It was decades before the Conservatives were able to piss people off enough for them to give a moderate Labour leader a shot. Except gerrymandering ensured that most if not all of these Tea Party congressmen are totally safe in there re-election. They don't care how powerless there party becomes when there job is ensured for the next couple of elections.
If the American people are actually not doing anything about that - like actively and not just cursing and clenching their fists in their pockets - they actually deserve this whole ordeal. Democracy won't work on its own.
|
Why does Gerrymandering still exist? I mean, why do these distric lines need to be redrawn regularly? Seems completely bonkers to me.
|
On October 16 2013 18:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 17:52 Umpteen wrote:
I think that if the Republican party doesn't rein itself in, it could be a long, bumpy road back for them, and the US will suffer as a result.
Specifically I'm thinking about the Labour Party in the UK. A while back the hardliners and unionists got the bit in their teeth and put forward one unelectable fire-breathing socialist party leader after another. Consequently they got trounced in election upon election, while the Conservative party was allowed to become more and more outrageously self-serving and out of touch. It was decades before the Conservatives were able to piss people off enough for them to give a moderate Labour leader a shot. Except gerrymandering ensured that most if not all of these Tea Party congressmen are totally safe in there re-election. They don't care how powerless there party becomes when there job is ensured for the next couple of elections.
Totally cannot be more false. By gerrymandering their district so far to the right that a moderate republican will lose in the primary, it all but ensures a "right of center democrat" (i.e. blue dog democrat, e.g. blanche lincoln) will beat a extremist, tea-party psycho.
|
On October 16 2013 18:16 OrchidThief wrote:
Why does Gerrymandering still exist? I mean, why do these distric lines need to be redrawn regularly? Seems completely bonkers to me.
Because politicians write their own laws--I always sided with the argument of letting the judiciary branch dictate the process of drawing districts rather than allowing a scumbag conflict of interest as presently effective.
|
I just hope that Obama laughs at the end of this the same way Bill Clinton PWNED Newt Gingrich back in 95
|
On October 16 2013 14:57 TheRabidDeer wrote:
US is honestly in deep shit. I dont know how much the world is going to take of it.
First, we police the world and war like crazy
Second, we spy on every country under the sun, even our own, in ridiculous amounts
Third, our government is so screwed up they cant get anything done and are borderline saying "fuck you world, we arent paying you shit"
Are we TRYING to see how far we can push the world before they turn COMPLETELY against us? What if they just turn us into a gigantic north korea? No more trade, no more support, just "have fun there yanks".
Nobody will go that far. The world won't let USA default and USA has many ways to reduce its debt (low taxes, huge spending on non essential things like US army).
The world economy can't survive if USA defaults, that's why everybody will pressure US government to pay back its debts. I can't imagine any country (even north korea who survive with US food aid) who will let this giant economy fall. Not a chance.
Trade and support with US will continue because the world have no alternative, except suicide.
|
On October 16 2013 18:16 cenk_unger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 18:00 Gorsameth wrote:On October 16 2013 17:52 Umpteen wrote:
I think that if the Republican party doesn't rein itself in, it could be a long, bumpy road back for them, and the US will suffer as a result.
Specifically I'm thinking about the Labour Party in the UK. A while back the hardliners and unionists got the bit in their teeth and put forward one unelectable fire-breathing socialist party leader after another. Consequently they got trounced in election upon election, while the Conservative party was allowed to become more and more outrageously self-serving and out of touch. It was decades before the Conservatives were able to piss people off enough for them to give a moderate Labour leader a shot. Except gerrymandering ensured that most if not all of these Tea Party congressmen are totally safe in there re-election. They don't care how powerless there party becomes when there job is ensured for the next couple of elections. Totally cannot be more false. By gerrymandering their district so far to the right that a moderate republican will lose in the primary, it all but ensures a "right of center democrat" (i.e. blue dog democrat, e.g. blanche lincoln) will beat a extremist, tea-party psycho.
The point is not that you can gerrymander an "extreme" district so much as a partisan one in general. The reason this benefits extremists when it comes to the Republicans is that moderate Republicans are safe from being unseated by Democrats in these solid red districts, but are still vulnerable to primary challenges from Tea Party types. Normally the GOP would discourage such challenges precisely because a moderate Democrat would pose too much of a threat, but again, in cases where there is no viable Democratic threat to keep the far right in line, the race becomes one of moderate vs. far right Republicans. Of course, this still leaves the GOP as a whole in a bit of a mess, as I'm sure Boehner is all too aware every waking moment of his life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
