ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[AndyDufresne]

It is high time that we rise up and take back our country planet. Also, things that end with indeed, I can rarely take seriously.



Indeed.


--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

#1. That ANY job, even the most menial if worthy of being done is worthy of paying a wage that allows someone to eat, have a safe house over their head and reasonable clothes.

No job should be mandated to provide those things. People get paid based on the value they bring to the company.

Not really, they get paid the minimum a company can get by with paying at the bottom, near the top they get paid commenserate with the dividends and value they can generate for stockholders. Often this has nothing or little to do with real productivity.

Companies are NOT charities. It's not a company's job to pay you for everything you want. You get paid based on the company's needs, not your own. That means you either align your needs to get by (or thrive) on that pay, or you find a second/a different. Or you negotiate with your employer for a raise.

Nice try. The thing is that the ONLY reason many people can afford to work for these low wage jobs is that the government does subsidize them, sometimes even despite working multiple jobs. The companies are allowed to enjoy a false sense of profit, based on their ability to NOT have to provide for their worker's needs.

This was not the case in the past.
When we did have something very close to a free market -- pre Depression. Back then, you had workers who starved, worked themselves literally to death, while owners gained millions... and complained about having to pay more.

Then unions forced companies to pay reasonable, decent wages for decent work. And, jobs were no longer set by the "free" market.. but our country prospered. We had fewer millionaires, perhaps, but prosperity overall.

Today, its all about using the government to support themselves... and pretending it is self value and self work and that those getting help from other taxpayers are the users, not the ones forcing the system.

People start companies to make money, not to make sure everyone around them gets paychecks (although many small business owners still make sure to pay their employees even if it means they don't get a paycheck themselves). Companies hire workers in order to be more productive and make more money, and those employees get paid based on that added/necessary value.

Nice try, but no. Workers get paid the minimum companies can pay workers. That is why a McDonald's worker in Marine County will make more than a skilled laborer or even a teacher in my area.

The problem with your rhetoric is that McDonald's thrives in both areas.

#3. The topic at hand was insurance and health care. You seem to equate thinking that insurance should pay for things means that the care is free. Its not. Insurance is something we buy, either directly and fully or in part, with the remainder coming as compensation for work.. part of our wages. NOTE that this system was set up to benefit employers because they got tax benefits from offering insurance instead of just higher wages. It is also required.

Employers started offering health insurance to their employees in order to attract new/better workers because the federal government froze wages during WWII. Again, it was the government manipulating the free market that has caused the massive problems we have today (health insurance being the only non-personal choice market). More and bigger government problems won't fix the system.

Not really. War time economics are not a free market system, and pretending that the government could have just stood back and let things roll naturally is ludicrous.

Beyond that, the limit was temporary, but companies KEPT paying through insurance instead of just giving more wages because they got tax breaks. Companies were more than happy to do this. Employees found it convenient. So, it was the PEOPLE... and corporations who wanted the system perpetuated and had their legislators continue it. I agree that it is a bad system, but your insistance that there is some remote government entity with a mind that has nothing to do with the populace or company demands is nonsense.

I agree it was a bad system, but companies could have stopped it at any point. They took full and complete advantage.. and even further, many business leaders have, as we see now, used this as a tool to further manipulate people into things they want. You want to decry birth control coverage, but have no problem with insurers covering for damage caused by smoking or other dangerous activities and lifestyles. That, you have claimed, is "freedom".

Apparently, only men, in your world, get health freedom. Women's needs in your mind and that of a good many conservatives just don't matter...and STOP with this "she wants free care" garbage as well. Insurance is paid for, insurance is not free. Just because an employer pays something toward insurance, becuase they have historically gotten more of a a nice tax benefit from offering insurance instead of higher wages.. doesn' t magically mean that the policy is the companies' property.

[PLAYER57832]

Students across the country are cringing as the new medical insurance law’s mandates eliminate the affordable policies they previously enjoyed, imposing a new financial burden.

And on other fronts, millions of young people are extremely happy to still be covered by their parents iinsurance.

In fact, that thinking is much more prevalent among students than your quote NIghtstrike.

“If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free. ” –P.J. O’Rourke, 1993

1903. Is that a year? No, that’s 1,903%, which is how much medical premiums for students have increased at Louisiana’s Nicholls State University this year, thanks to a partial implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

And on other fronts, down the road, they will reap benefits from not having to pay for the care of so many uninsured people, as they now must.

In fact, many of these benefits are already being enjoyed. Things like preventing insurance companies from just dumping first kids and now adults from insurance. Remember.. ALL of those people still got/get care, its just care that taxpayers have to pay for. Now, it comes out of insurance.

In March of 2010, President Obama signed what is now popularly termed “Obamacare” into law. Much of the new health law depends on making younger, healthy people who don’t use medical care pay for older, sicker populations who do.

College and university students are now feeling the bite.

Up until last semester, basic medical coverage at Nicholls State cost students just $75.05 for two semesters plus the summer session. However, these basic, inexpensive, limited policies don’t meet the Affordable Care Act’s expansive requirements; they’re no longer permitted. Students are just one of many groups who cannot keep their old policies under the new law. Cost of a new policy? $1,503, a 1,903% increase.

If Nichols basic coverage doesn't meet the affordable Care act standards, then its a pretty piss poor policy that doesn't cover much.

in fact, a lot of these "insurance" policies are just a pretense to make the young and inexperienced or those without any choice think they are getting coverage, when any real major illness or injury will put them into the care of taxpayers.

“The cost of this insurance policy for Nicholls State University Students is $576.00 for the fall 2012 semester, $576.00 for the spring 2013 semester, and $351.00 for the summer 2013 session. The reason for the increase in price is due to federal changes made to the minimum coverage amounts for health insurance.“1

As illustrated in the table below, Nicholls’ situation is by no means unique—prices are going up at universities around the country, with more to come as Obamacare phases in. The current price hikes result from a new $100,000 minimum coverage requirement, but that cap increases again next year, then quickly rises to a requirement for unlimited coverage. Expect further premium increases.

Table 1 – Sample Price Hikes At Other Universities
Institution old premium new premium increase
Bethany CollegeLindsborg, Kan. 12 months, $445 over $2,000 [2] 349%
The State University of New York at Plattsburgh $440.00 $1,300 to $1,600 [2] 340%
North Carolina public universities $920, two semesters $1,418, two semesters [3] 54%
Lenoir-Rhyne University Hickory, N.C. $245 per year $2,507 per year [4] 923%
University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Wash. $165 a year $1,500 to $2,000 [4] 809-1,112%
Nicholls State University, Louisiana $75.05 per year $1,503 per year [1] 1,903%
Ave Maria University, Florida 65-82% [5]
Clearwater Christian College, Florida $600 per year $1,330 122% [5]
Franciscan University, Ohio Dropped (cost doubled) [6]

NIce scattering of places. Without details on the policies, these figures mean nothing. Having done a fair bit of investigating on this, for myself, though, I can say that most of these policies were not worth the money they cost, never mind something that would keep these people from becoming yet more taxpayer burdens if they did get seriously ill or injured.

You talk responsibiilty, but really this is about gambling. Gambling that you will stay well until you get older... at which time, your insurance cost would be significantly higher, since the well folks won't be pooled to keep your costs down.

Points to Ponder
o The President said you could keep your policy. Students can’t.

If they were actually getting decent insurance that met some pretty basic standards, there would be no problem. Its no cooincidence that its students buying these.. the same folks who pay way too much to private for profit schools in the hopes of getting certificates and degrees that actually are worthless. Students are, as a rule, pretty naive.

o The President said it would cost less. It costs more.

Intentional misquote. It WILL cost less, overall, in time. A few groups were always going to pay more. Taxpayers will, in the long run pay much less.

o This increase more than cancels President Obama’s Pell grant increases, making it harder to afford school. So, what the president has given with one hand, he more than retakes with the other.

NOt really, most of those students are eligible for their parent's policies. Those that are not can generally get various state and private policies.

But... things cost money. That a few students got away with not paying what insurance really does cost and now have to pay more doesn't mean the system is broken.

o Obamacare is designed to get money from people who won’t use it, to pay for those who will. This burden falls heavily on young healthy people.

Welcome to the world of ALL insurance.

“But I don’t think we know yet what the impact will be until the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented.”
—UNC President Tom Ross3

[/quote]
The act is not yet fully implemented, so your data is very much incomplete.

[PLAYER57832]

i just get tired of them bitching about it all the time like it's someone elses fault they bought a 200k house and now johnny needs to have major surgery. .

Except, that is not the real story in most of the country. it is what a few conservative pundits like to pretend is the story because it fits into their "let's support he wealthy" rhetoric.

Also, even when it was the story, bankers used to be held accountable themselves when they loaned money to people who could not afford it. It was one reason why they did not make out 200K mortgages to people making $9 an hour. Now, its the rest of us who are left holding the bag.

And, yes, many people could do with a lot less. HOWEVER, the funny part of your rhetoric is that its not the minimum wage workers or those making $8 an hour, for the most part doing that. They simply cannot afford it, cannot get the loans if they wanted... etc. Its the people making more like 50-80K, even 100K who get caught up in the "lifestyle" and wind up getting too easily in over their head because they THINK they "have something".. and forget about putting aside for tommorrow. Those at the bottom don't have a choice.

NO ONE MAKES MINIMUM WAGE!!! YARGH!

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm

I tend to speak of "low wage earners", because anyone making just a penny over is technically not making the minimum wage any more.. but everything I have said about it applies.

Still, did you read the website you quoted?

How about his part:

About 6 percent of women paid hourly rates had wages at or below the prevailing Federal minimum, compared with about 4 percent of men

Ten percent of hourly wage workers make minimum wages... not quite "nobody".

If you expand that to just $8.00, never mind the $9.00 that it really takes to live in most places, even in depressed areas like mine....
Well, couldn't find that,but did find figures showing he Median household income to be under $27,000 a year. Being slightly familiar with tax law and reporting, I am sure you are well aware that this figure is slanted. Even so, it shows that a LOT of people are not making much money.
http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of- ... nt-2011-10

According to this site, about 28% of people make less than $20,000. http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many ... s-per-year

I usually try to verify and track down source material for data I post, but I don'tahve time right now.

Also, since stahrgazer is not answering my questions, perhaps you can?

Which questions?

I admit I am tired right now and likely am just missing it, but which questions?

[stahrgazer]

While this is true, it's also true that in the past 4 decades, CEO salaries have risen until they make like 100x of what their lowest worker makes, whereas before that, they made only about 10X what their lowest worker made.

It started around the same time Congress voted themselves a 100x raise. Coincidence? Maybe not.

Anyway, that's why groups like "Occupy Wall Street" are protesting, and that's why liberals and some otherwise-conservatives (like me) think there's something wrong with the US economic portrait.

Each ceo that makes 100x his lowest worker is taking up the funds that could provide for 25 or more jobs, and in many cases, they have laid off workers in order to meet their "profit" quota to get their bonuses.

I guess I have a few questions for you:

(1) Do you think if CEO salaries now were more in line with CEO salaries 40 years ago, there would be a recognizable difference in the incomes of the large majority of people in the United States?
(2) If companies did not pay their CEOs such exorbitant salaries, where do you think the money would go? Do you think companies would spend on infrastructure or more employees or better employees salaries? See question (4).
(3) How do you propose to get companies to pay their CEOs less money?
(4) How do you propose to get companies that pay their CEOs less money to pay more money to employees? Could companies pay shareholders more? Could companies keep more cash on hand?
(5) How many CEOs make too much money?
(6) How much money is too much money?
(7) Multiply (5) by (6) and we have the amount of available money for spending by companies on something other than CEOs. How much do you think that is?
(8) How do you think CEO salaries got so high?

First I'll answer question 8. CEO salaries got so high because they could, the same reason Congress's salaries got so high: because they could, because they make the rules. Specifically, in many cases, CEOs would get an excessive bonus promised by the Board of Directors and their contracts, if they brought costs down, and in many of those cases, they brought costs down by laying off people, and frequently reducing benefits - which means, they got their salary increased by the salaries of many of those they laid off. Interestingly enough, the CEO of one company is frequently on the board of directors of other companies, which means, they're washing each other's backs - just like Congress. They get to make their own rules, rules that are good for them and rarely good for others.

Answers to the rest of your questions are: a revision to less narcissistic ethics. But to "force" that is called "Socialism."

Hmm. One of the benefits companies often reduced was "medical insurance." The Affordable Care Act sort of forces them to reconsider that; and sure 'nuff, many folks call it "Socialism."

Big hooplah in the news this week about the agreement to "not go over the fiscal cliff" requiring companies to pay more taxes. Well, they'd pay less taxes if they chose to employ more folks, reducing their individual and corporate profits by the conglomerate costs of salaries and benefits for those they add to their ranks. In fact, Obama had wanted a plan where companies would only get tax "breaks" if they added more workers.. we'll see if he manages to pass that.

Our economy worked very well in the 50s when the average exec made no more than 10-20 x the salary of his lowest worker. So, if someone in the company made about 15k, 150-300k in salary, benefits, and bonuses, seems reasonable for a CEO, rather than a starting salary of about that or twice that plus platinum bennies plus excessive bonuses and stock options that exponentiate the overall monies gained by the CEO.

I'm confused by your answer to 8. What prevented CEO salaries from being so high prior to the last 20 years or so? To my knowledge there were no laws, regulations, professional guidelines, or ethics manuals preventing CEOs from having salaries 100 times that of the company's employees.

Right. It was patriotic ethics and common sense.

As to the rest, it doesn't answer my questions, clearly. I asked some fairly clear questions, but I can restate them if you want. It appears to be a lot more of the same thing you posted before, which I've already read and digested. And two of your points are wrong actually.

The Affordable Care Act is not socialism; it's actually a case of "washing each other's backs," in this case as between insurance companies and Democrats in Congress. The rhetoric around the Affordable Care Act from Republican pundits screams "socialism," but that's mostly because Republicans are loathe to admit that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are much the same in that they are tools of companies, special interest groups, and the rich.

True. But the ACA isn't the act Obama first proposed; what he wanted did not pass the tools. Remember? Obama wanted a single payer option, i.e. a socialized plan like medicaid and medicare.

The fiscal cliff law did not raise taxes on corporations. It actually continued to give corporations major tax breaks they enjoyed under other laws signed by this president. There were three corporate taxpayer-friendly provisions that were extended: the research and development tax credit, a foreign tax "loophole," and 50% bonus depreciation deduction. Further, the law gave some new corporate tax breaks, including tax benefits specifically geared to film production companies. So, all-in-all, corporations made out great with the fiscal cliff legislation! Rich people got dinged, but so did the middle class and the working class.

Partially true.

Yes, some of the corporations changed but basically true that corporations still get major tax breaks.

I disagree that the middle class and working class got dinged. The increased payroll taxes that happened at the same time had nothing to do with fiscal cliff legislation, that was a temporary payroll tax relief that was due to expire when it did. "Fiscal cliff" legislation merely didn't extend that separate relief that expired at the same time.

EDIT - Also, quick point of reference. The average CEO salary was $12 million in 2011 (I think, I may be getting my years wrong). There's a lot of data out there. Just want to get your thoughts on my questions. I assume that since you feel strongly about this, you would have some thoughts on those items.

You're just restating my main points here, greek, especially when you quote the avg CEO salary at 12m now when back in the 50's it was maybe a few hundred k.

What I feel strongly about is this: we took away watch dogs at the same time society forgot about basic decency, morals, patriotism. Narcissism is king now - has been for a while.

If the average CEO were willing to accept 1m for what he did, and employed x people at 15k/year with the difference, then even with taxes, insurance and etc. (estimate that an employer's cost is 3x the employee salary as was once the case) then the average CEO could employ an additional 244 workers.

If you work that back, then you can see that the reason we have such high unemployment is that CEOs got big salaries for making a company "more profitable" by laying off workers. A little here, a nibble there, a nudge there, and only occasionally something that was "big enough" for unions to balk at - not that it made much difference in the end - and now we have these masses of unemployed and "the rich" don't want to pay for them or for the services that all those unemployed used to be able to help afford for our country when they were employed, through their taxes.

They were narcissistic enough to do this, and our government tools were narcissistic enough to let them. Further, our tools took away some of the watchdogs that would've prevented at least some of what happened.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm confused by your answer to 8. What prevented CEO salaries from being so high prior to the last 20 years or so? To my knowledge there were no laws, regulations, professional guidelines, or ethics manuals preventing CEOs from having salaries 100 times that of the company's employees.

Owners and unions, primarily.

to get back to the questions..( believe these are the ones you asked me to address?)

While this is true, it's also true that in the past 4 decades, CEO salaries have risen until they make like 100x of what their lowest worker makes, whereas before that, they made only about 10X what their lowest worker made.

It started around the same time Congress voted themselves a 100x raise. Coincidence? Maybe not.

Anyway, that's why groups like "Occupy Wall Street" are protesting, and that's why liberals and some otherwise-conservatives (like me) think there's something wrong with the US economic portrait.

Each ceo that makes 100x his lowest worker is taking up the funds that could provide for 25 or more jobs, and in many cases, they have laid off workers in order to meet their "profit" quota to get their bonuses.

I guess I have a few questions for you:

(1) Do you think if CEO salaries now were more in line with CEO salaries 40 years ago, there would be a recognizable difference in the incomes of the large majority of people in the United States?

You might need to go back a bit further than that.. before the tech boom "blip" skewed a lot of things, but absolutely.

However, to really get lasting prosperity means ALSO getting a handle on debt.. personal and otherwise. However, regardless of that, more money in the pockets of average people absolutely means general prosperity.

(2) If companies did not pay their CEOs such exorbitant salaries, where do you think the money would go? Do you think companies would spend on infrastructure or more employees or better employees salaries? See question (4).
(3) How do you propose to get companies to pay their CEOs less money?
(4) How do you propose to get companies that pay their CEOs less money to pay more money to employees? Could companies pay shareholders more? Could companies keep more cash on hand?
(5) How many CEOs make too much money?
(6) How much money is too much money?
(7) Multiply (5) by (6) and we have the amount of available money for spending by companies on something other than CEOs. How much do you think that is?

These are the wrong questions.

Or rather, Stargazer answered with the only answer there is. CEOs will take whatever they can. Simplistically (yeah, there are corporate donations, some research, etc..) the goal of a corporation is to make as much money as it can. Anything else is, almost by definition, external, an impediment given traditional business models.

I don't argue it HAS to be that way, I say it is that way.

The only way to limit this, right now, would be through law. That is almost impossible because the large corporations, they system that supports them is so powerful.. and most people are already so vested (whether they want to admit it or not) that major change is simply not something people will consider.

Similarly, the only way to ensure where the money went would also be through law.

BUT, you are also focusing on the wrong issue. You are focusing on what is actually symptom, not the root cause.

The root cause is that we have a system that is almost solely controlled and dictated by profit. Profit is not evil, money is not evil, but when pursuit of money and profit are your primary or sole focus, a lot of good gets pushed aside and a lot of damage is ignored.
Some would call that evil.

(8) How do you think CEO salaries got so high?

Because they could. People are inherently greedy. People value things other than money, of course, but people who reach CEO status tend to be highly motivated by money and power and tend to be adept at aquiring both.

PS the longer answer to your first few questions is that people were more and more encouraged to think that their prosperity, their future is vested in the stock market. Average people began to invest through mutual funds, IRAs, etc. You may forget, but these are relatively new inventions. Reagan -- some say intentionally, some say in what he thought would be a temporary measure and some say just without fully thinking out long term consequences (myself..Reagan was no dummy), did away with the SS trust fund, effectively (yeah, I know technically he didn't) and thus put what up until then had been, with pensions what most people relied upon to reture. Allt his was replaced with a dream of stock-based retirement, early 401Ks, etc. Pensions, too almost all went out the way as companies folded, people lived longer... etc.

Anyway, average people began to feel that they depended on the success of corporations. Corporations were no longer a remote entity, but something that would net them their retirement... so they were willing to overlook a lot. A high paid CEO was deemed OK, if that CEO generated stockholders profit. Note that many of these CEOs are very adept at convincing people they are correct, at gaining both money and power. As one CEO took a bit more, then others began to feel they had the right to do the same.. so the race to the top began.

Fast forward to today and we still have many CEOs making millions while the unemployement rate rises and gross wages for average people, those NOT making 250K, erode. Not cooincidentally, we also have Enron, Murdock, etc. etc. We have drug companies that cut corners, car and other companies that ignore warnings....etc,etc, etc. (no industry is immune and all have some decent players involved)

Some of that has always happened. But what has changed is the impact this has on average americans and the world.

[thegreekdog]

No offense intended Player, but you didn't answer any of my questions. You merely restated your positions on issues. I think it would be more helpful for a discussion if you actually answered the questions. They will at least make you think about your position. I'm not coming at this from the idea that officer salaries are where they should be, I'm wondering what the benefits would be if officer salaries were more in line with where they were 50 years ago.

[PLAYER57832]

greekdog.. am moving my answer to another thread.

[Nobunaga]

$20,000 for the cheapest Obamacare Plan. Lovely. This figure comes from the IRS.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-che ... 000-family

From the article:

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

[AndyDufresne]

It's time we start shooting, Nobu.


--Andy

[john9blue]

It's time we start shooting, Nobu.


--Andy

did he say anything about gun control? how do you even know he's against gun control? god you guys are the fucking worst. get your straw man bullshit out of here.

and no, i'm not overreacting. andy gets away with this shit constantly because he's not explicit about it.

or maybe implying that your debate opponent is a violent gun freak is considered good debate around here?

[BigBallinStalin]

$20,000 for the cheapest Obamacare Plan. Lovely. This figure comes from the IRS.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-che ... 000-family

From the article:

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

What's the problem? If others are paying for it, then who cares?

(amirite?)

[PLAYER57832]

$20,000 for the cheapest Obamacare Plan. Lovely. This figure comes from the IRS.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-che ... 000-family

From the article:

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

You DO realize that this is actually cheap.

I remember getting bomblasted by you, Nightstrike and quite a few others for saying that the full price for our family of 4 was $1300. Also, when you all brought up what seemed to be cheaper policies, they had deductables of a couple of thousand each.

This is yet one more reason why allowing companies to pretend they are helping society when they are only paying people "wages" for under $9.00 is travesty.

[PLAYER57832]

It's time we start shooting, Nobu.


--Andy

did he say anything about gun control? how do you even know he's against gun control? god you guys are the fucking worst. get your straw man bullshit out of here.

and no, i'm not overreacting. andy gets away with this shit constantly because he's not explicit about it.

or maybe implying that your debate opponent is a violent gun freak is considered good debate around here?

In all seriousness, that does sound a LOT like a threat.... something that is not supposed to be permitted here in CC??? How about rephrasing that?

[spurgistan]

$20,000 for the cheapest Obamacare Plan. Lovely. This figure comes from the IRS.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-che ... 000-family

From the article:

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

What's the problem? If others are paying for it, then who cares?

(amirite?)

Based on my read, that's what the IRS expects families with incomes over $120,000 to pay for a family insurance plan. Is this any different than what it costs a two adult three child household for full health coverage now? Legit question, I had a cadillac health care plan (go higher education!)

[PLAYER57832]

$20,000 for the cheapest Obamacare Plan. Lovely. This figure comes from the IRS.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-che ... 000-family

From the article:

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

What's the problem? If others are paying for it, then who cares?

(amirite?)

Based on my read, that's what the IRS expects families with incomes over $120,000 to pay for a family insurance plan. Is this any different than what it costs a two adult three child household for full health coverage now? Legit question, I had a cadillac health care plan (go higher education!)

Actually, the full price of your insurance is almost certainly much, much more than that, if you do have a "cadilac" plan, as you say.

insurance for a family of 4 starts at around $900 -- and that with very high deductables.

[BigBallinStalin]

$20,000 for the cheapest Obamacare Plan. Lovely. This figure comes from the IRS.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-che ... 000-family

From the article:

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

What's the problem? If others are paying for it, then who cares?

(amirite?)

Based on my read, that's what the IRS expects families with incomes over $120,000 to pay for a family insurance plan. Is this any different than what it costs a two adult three child household for full health coverage now? Legit question, I had a cadillac health care plan (go higher education!)

No idea, but regardless, those earning more income will pay more not only for their own insurance but also more for other people's insurance. Yay!

TAX THOSE 'WEALTHY' FUCKS CUZ COMMON GOOD!!!

[stahrgazer]

No idea, but regardless, those earning more income will pay more not only for their own insurance but also more for other people's insurance. Yay!

They already do pay for other people's healthcare. Hospitals can't turn away emergencies, docs don't get paid for services...and government already subsidizes a lot of those costs that aren't getting paid. In addition to those subsidies, doctors providing care but not getting paid are thus not able to claim income on those services, thus aren't paying taxes on that income, thus driving up the percentage needed from what they and others are earning to get the same dollars.

What the Affordable Care Act does in this regard is
1) make the health care cost situation more obvious to everyone
2) attempt to reduce the costs by providing care before things become "emergencies" since most healthcare providers claim that costs would be less if care were provided sooner
3) attempt to ensure health care providers WILL get paid for their services

I think the, "every plan must offer birth control for free," part of ACA is a bit ridiculous, but I can see how that's an attempt to reduce those with "no money" or who won't spend the money for it, from having far too many children (and going on the dole) or having far too many abortions (and causing national grief over the deaths of unwanted embryos.)

[PLAYER57832]

$20,000 for the cheapest Obamacare Plan. Lovely. This figure comes from the IRS.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-che ... 000-family

From the article:

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

What's the problem? If others are paying for it, then who cares?

(amirite?)

Based on my read, that's what the IRS expects families with incomes over $120,000 to pay for a family insurance plan. Is this any different than what it costs a two adult three child household for full health coverage now? Legit question, I had a cadillac health care plan (go higher education!)

No idea, but regardless, those earning more income will pay more not only for their own insurance but also more for other people's insurance. Yay!

TAX THOSE 'WEALTHY' FUCKS CUZ COMMON GOOD!!!

Classic BBS -- no idea of the real costs, but you are quite sure folks with money will pay more

[thegreekdog]

$20,000 for the cheapest Obamacare Plan. Lovely. This figure comes from the IRS.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-che ... 000-family

From the article:

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

What's the problem? If others are paying for it, then who cares?

(amirite?)

Based on my read, that's what the IRS expects families with incomes over $120,000 to pay for a family insurance plan. Is this any different than what it costs a two adult three child household for full health coverage now? Legit question, I had a cadillac health care plan (go higher education!)

In the context of a free market health insurance system, families with incomes over $120,000 could have purchased health insurance for less. Not anymore though.

No idea, but regardless, those earning more income will pay more not only for their own insurance but also more for other people's insurance. Yay!

That really is not a new thing with the Affordable Care Act. It's just more expensive now.

doctors providing care but not getting paid are thus not able to claim income on those services, thus aren't paying taxes on that income,

Whazzat? Whozzit? I've never heard of this. Do you have more details? Perhaps a link of some kind?

[Timminz]

doctors providing care but not getting paid are thus not able to claim income on those services, thus aren't paying taxes on that income,

Whazzat? Whozzit? I've never heard of this. Do you have more details? Perhaps a link of some kind?

I think she's saying that if doctors were paid for the emergency "can't say no" procedures, that more tax revenue would be collected from them (because they'd be "claiming" more income), thus decreasing the amount needed from other taxes on other people.

I have no idea what point that is supposed to be making. I mean, who would be paying? The people who don't have the money in the first place can't do it, or they would be already, and if the government pays, it will actually be a net loss since they'd be paying out more than the gain in tax revenue. Maybe the insurance companies? But why should they be responsible for the costs of someone who wasn't even their customer? And which company would have to pay?

[thegreekdog]

doctors providing care but not getting paid are thus not able to claim income on those services, thus aren't paying taxes on that income,

Whazzat? Whozzit? I've never heard of this. Do you have more details? Perhaps a link of some kind?

I think she's saying that if doctors were paid for the emergency "can't say no" procedures, that more tax revenue would be collected from them (because they'd be "claiming" more income), thus decreasing the amount needed from other taxes on other people.

That makes sense. I thought she was saying Medicare/Medicaid income wasn't subject to tax. I don't know if it is or not.

I have no idea what point that is supposed to be making. I mean, who would be paying? The people who don't have the money in the first place can't do it, or they would be already, and if the government pays, it will actually be a net loss since they'd be paying out more than the gain in tax revenue. Maybe the insurance companies? But why should they be responsible for the costs of someone who wasn't even their customer? And which company would have to pay?

In the past, doctors would pay out of their own time. Apparently that's no longer viable. I'm comfortable with the government paying for the care itself, although they need to figure out a better way to do it than Medicare or Medicaid, which seem to be managed to encourage higher prices and less services (and less quality services).

[PLAYER57832]

$20,000 for the cheapest Obamacare Plan. Lovely. This figure comes from the IRS.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-che ... 000-family

From the article:

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

What's the problem? If others are paying for it, then who cares?

(amirite?)

Based on my read, that's what the IRS expects families with incomes over $120,000 to pay for a family insurance plan. Is this any different than what it costs a two adult three child household for full health coverage now? Legit question, I had a cadillac health care plan (go higher education!)

In the context of a free market health insurance system, families with incomes over $120,000 could have purchased health insurance for less. Not anymore though.

Show examples. Part of the point is that just because you buy something called "insurance" doesn't mean it actually provides real protection. Young, very healthy individuals (very few families, if any) could have bought insurance for cheaper.... but once they got sick, their costs woud skyrocket or they would wind up with no insurance at all because insurers were free to set lifetime limits and dump sick clients.

In other words, they might be able to get something cheaper for a time, but not in the long run. This has never been about the immediate. It has always been about long term costs and for everyone, not just a few people.

No idea, but regardless, those earning more income will pay more not only for their own insurance but also more for other people's insurance. Yay!

That really is not a new thing with the Affordable Care Act. It's just more expensive now.

doctors providing care but not getting paid are thus not able to claim income on those services, thus aren't paying taxes on that income,

Whazzat? Whozzit? I've never heard of this. Do you have more details? Perhaps a link of some kind?

I am interested as well. Is this a reference to the way some HMOs are structured, perhaps?


PS... aah, went back and read stargazer's full quote. I think I get it now.

(colorized for ease of reading)

No idea, but regardless, those earning more income will pay more not only for their own insurance but also more for other people's insurance. Yay!

They already do pay for other people's healthcare. Hospitals can't turn away emergencies, docs don't get paid for services...and government already subsidizes a lot of those costs that aren't getting paid. In addition to those subsidies, doctors providing care but not getting paid are thus not able to claim income on those services, thus aren't paying taxes on that income, thus driving up the percentage needed from what they and others are earning to get the same dollars.

Right now, a lot of doctors basically offer charity care to their patients who cannot afford it. While the government is pretty strict about doctors not underreporting billings and both the government and insurers naturally get a bit touchy about being billed when services are not performed, neither particularly minds if a doctor decides to deal with a sick child for free. I know doctors in our area find ways to stretch things -- not as in changing codes or anything illegal, but maybe saving sample drugs and giving them out to patients who really cannot afford the medication, or maybe agreeing to see 2 healthy kids, but only billing for one visit. There are also many clinics (not in my area, but in bigger cities and some other areas) with free or almost free clinics where people without insurance can go for help. In a town not too far from here there is a group that will offer physicals and some other care to working people without insurance. Anyway, if these services were paid for instead of being provided for free, then the doctors would have more income to report and would be paying more taxes. Having that income to tax could potentially offset some of everyone else's tax bills. Given what doctors tend to make and the number of free visits nationwide... that might actually be a significant sum of money.

[stahrgazer]

Anyway, if these services were paid for instead of being provided for free, then the doctors would have more income to report and would be paying more taxes. Having that income to tax could potentially offset some of everyone else's tax bills. Given what doctors tend to make and the number of free visits nationwide... that might actually be a significant sum of money.

Yes. and as I said, because they aren't able to report income, others are having to pay higher tax percentages to make up the differences.

PLUS they are able to report non-payments as losses of income or the typical cost of the services as a charitable gift, reducing the amount of income they did receive that they have to pay on; and finally, the government does give out money to some charitable hospitals, etc. (Planned Parenthood is NOT the only medical institution that receives government funding) which means tax dollars are paying for it already.

But remember, not every community has such compassionate docs, either, to agree to treat a patient for free.

A big driver for the rise in cost of insurance isn't for the "poor," it's for covering those with "pre-existing conditions." Yet, most who detest "Obamacare" agree to the part of "Cover pre-existing conditions" - the very part of the plan that's driving insurance costs up.

Cost rises for "everyone" just in case someone later-on develops one of those pre-existing conditions and the insurance company is forced to keep insuring you rather than cancel your coverage; and because so many with pre-existing conditions who could not get any insurance coverage, now can.

But in the long run, covering everyone before a disease progresses to cataclysmic proportions can save the nation money by reducing emergency room care and reducing the need for surgeries before they happen.

[PLAYER57832]

Anyway, if these services were paid for instead of being provided for free, then the doctors would have more income to report and would be paying more taxes. Having that income to tax could potentially offset some of everyone else's tax bills. Given what doctors tend to make and the number of free visits nationwide... that might actually be a significant sum of money.

Yes. and as I said, because they aren't able to report income, others are having to pay higher tax percentages to make up the differences.

PLUS they are able to report non-payments as losses of income or the typical cost of the services as a charitable gift, reducing the amount of income they did receive that they have to pay on; and finally, the government does give out money to some charitable hospitals, etc. (Planned Parenthood is NOT the only medical institution that receives government funding) which means tax dollars are paying for it already.

But remember, not every community has such compassionate docs, either, to agree to treat a patient for free.

A big driver for the rise in cost of insurance isn't for the "poor," it's for covering those with "pre-existing conditions." Yet, most who detest "Obamacare" agree to the part of "Cover pre-existing conditions" - the very part of the plan that's driving insurance costs up.

Cost rises for "everyone" just in case someone later-on develops one of those pre-existing conditions and the insurance company is forced to keep insuring you rather than cancel your coverage; and because so many with pre-existing conditions who could not get any insurance coverage, now can.

But in the long run, covering everyone before a disease progresses to cataclysmic proportions can save the nation money by reducing emergency room care and reducing the need for surgeries before they happen.

Its never been about covering the poor.. they get Medicaid. That is the irony. The people getting pinched are working people, and that means working people of all incomes. In PA, kids with disabilities get full coverage by Medicaid, as long as the parents income is under 250K. If you make over 250K, then your kids don't get covered even if they have disabilities... and in some cases that can mean over a hundred thousand a year in care.

All the arguments about "could have gotten cheaper coverage", etc, etc miss the biggest point of all. Its INSURANCE. Insurance is not about being cost effective for everyone, all the time. Insurers would not be in business if there were no profit involved. Insurance is about making sure that everyone has coverage, in case they are the unlucky ones who wind up with huge bills. The real problem today is that more and more people are winding up with those high bills, and not because of abuses (though, yes, abuses do happen, its just that is not the major reason for medical cost increases), but because the care available and needed is increasing so significantly.

Just take cancer, or organ transplants.. never mind bone and joint replacement surgeries, never mind long term therapy for truly sick children. ALL of that is very, very expensive.

Folks like the idea of blaming insurance companies, because then they don't have to accept responsibility for saying that its OK to just let kids or working people die from lack of care, if they just don't happen to have a good enough job to pay for it.