Is it true the United States is the only developed country where not all citizens have health cover? I heard that on Radio 4 this morning.
Do Americans just not care about weak members of society or what? It's pretty weird.
So are Republicans now openly terrorists?
by Simon 369 Replies latest social current
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“This is the problem with 'mercans ... you just don't get that medicine needs to be socialized and you object to it simply because you've been indictrinated that "socialism is evil". For healthcare though, it's different and needs to be so.”
Simon,
That remark above directed toward my statement is inappropriate, not to mention rude and ignorant.
I am not against socializing medicine. One way or another everything ends up being socialized because we are humans and humans are social creatures that like to socialize things. So top presuming and get off your high horse and stop speaking abusively to those of us who are looking for solutions and not who to blame!
Right now I’m attempting to navigate the ACA for sake of my employees, and I’m sharing my experience for the benefit of others. Apparently this is something you dislike.
I don’t know if the ACA is a better or worse way to socialize healthcare compared to other means. I’m only pointing out pitfalls that I’ve learned myself at tremendous expense. I think you live someone in Canada. I do business with a lot of individuals and companies in Canada. The near universal thing I’m told is “Don’t let the US do what we are forced to do.” Right or wrong, I hear this over and over again. I don’t know if this anecdotal information is worthwhile or worthless, and don’t really care.
What I am being forced to care about is how to abide by the ACA. To that end, I’ve share what I’ve learned.
Now please stop being rude and presumptive. For a change, how about productively engaging what's been shared.
Marvin Shilmer
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“Normally the amount you pay should be based on income…”
That’s just what we need in the United States. One more reason to reward lower income earners to stay where they are.
Has it occurred to anyone that those with higher incomes have EARNED that income?
Johnny: Hey Jimmy! How much did you EARN mowing lawns today?
Jimmy: 20 dollars!
Johnny: I only EARNED 2 dollars. You should give me 9 of your dollars so we’re even!
Marvin Shilmer
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
SBF: "Is it true the United States is the only developed country where not all citizens have health cover? I heard that on Radio 4 this morning.
Do Americans just not care about weak members of society or what? It's pretty weird."
This is truly an ignorant statement. The USA consistently ranks at the top of the list for charitable giving. The flaws in the corporate/governmental approach to the healthcare issue has nothing to do with the charitable attitude of most Americans.
-
skeeter1
Someone asked above how Obamacare will change corporate taxes.
Companies with enough workers either buy health insurance for their employees (or a large part of it) or pay a fine.
From what I understand, today, employers get a deduction for healthcare insurance premiums it pays. If the deduction is so large that it causes a loss for the year, the company can carry its losses to other years while it gets back on its feet.
Obamacare is a fine. Fines are due regardless of whether the company is profitable or not. Fines are not deductible against income. If the tax rate equivalized fine is lower then the cash outlay, then companies are going to be incentized to pay the fine.
How these mandates expands IRS’ power—and your employers’
Now that you know the details of the individual and employer mandates, you can see why the IRS needs to hire thousands of additional agents in order to enforce them.
To enforce the individual mandate, the IRS needs to know whether or not you have purchased insurance this year. It will also need to know the specific insurance policy you have, in order to ensure that it meets Obamacare’s “minimum essential coverage” requirement.
To enforce the employer mandate, the IRS needs the same information from employers in terms of the specific policies employers purchase for their workers, and also the hours worked by every part-time employee. In addition, your employer will need to know what your household income is, in order to ensure that the coverage it offers you is “affordable” to you by the law’s definition.
Some conservatives are raising the alarm: can a politicized IRS handle these duties in a non-partisan way? Or will your health records get leaked by the agency? Indeed, the IRS is subject to a class-action lawsuit in California, alleging that the IRS has improperly obtained personal medical records for 10 million individuals in that state, without a warrant.
Others are suggesting that the duty to enforce the individual and employer mandates be taken out of IRS’ hands and moved into another agency. But, to me, this doesn’t make much sense. Do we really want another government agency to have sensitive information about our incomes and our insurance policies?
The only viable solution to this problem is to repeal the employer mandate altogether, and to replace the individual mandate with something else, like alimited open enrollment period, that does not require expanding the power and the authority of the IRS.
Repealing the employer mandate will give employers additional incentive to dump workers onto Obamacare’s exchanges. But, in my view, this is on balance a good thing, because it will mean that individuals can shop for insurance themselves, something that economists of all stripes support.
I continue to believe that it is unlikely at this stage that Republicans will be able to repeal Obamacare as a whole. But they could do much to improve our health-care system, and much to contain the power of the IRS, by repealing two of its most offensive mandates.
-
Simon
That’s just what we need in the United States. One more reason to reward lower income earners to stay where they are.
Has it occurred to anyone that those with higher incomes have EARNED that income?
Johnny: Hey Jimmy! How much did you EARN mowing lawns today?
Jimmy: 20 dollars!
Johnny: I only EARNED 2 dollars. You should give me 9 of your dollars so we’re even!
And you accuse me of being ignorant?
I mean really? you actually believe that people 'chose to earn less' so they don't have to pay tax? and that money is taken directly off one person and given directly to others to even things up like that?
Unless tax is over 100% of earnings then you always get more if you earn more and no one tops up your earnings to be the same as someone else.
Many would like the opportunity to earn more, they work hard - damn hard, but the system and unethical levels of CEO pay and reward (often for outright failure) takes so much out of the system that there doesn't appear enough money to go around. But there is plenty.
Stop thinking of taxation as a means for reward or punishment of where people are in their lives. Taxation is about making people pay a fair share and there aren't many better ways to do that than as a percentage of income.
-
Simon
This is truly an ignorant statement. The USA consistently ranks at the top of the list for charitable giving. The flaws in the corporate/governmental approach to the healthcare issue has nothing to do with the charitable attitude of most Americans
I agree. Americans are generous (well, some segments of them are).
America (the country) is less so. So much 'aid' is really subsidised arms sales.
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
Maybe this is what Skeeter was trying to say:
"Mr [Warren] Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation."
http://tusb.stanford.edu/2007/07/warren_buffet_has_a_lower_tax.html
-
skeeter1
Simon,
Yes, in this country there are "cliffs" over which it may do someone better to not work. My family is one of these because one of us is a top earner. We go a few thousand higher, and we lose the ability to take all deductions off our income taxes. This combined with the extra gas, clothes, food, and increased taxes is an incentive. There are those at the lower end of earning power who also face cliffs. Now, with Obamacare subsidies, it's going to heighten that decision.
Julia’s mother: Why a single mom is better off with a $29,000 job and welfare than taking a $69,000 job
James Pethokoukis | July 12, 2012, 11:09 am
The U.S. welfare system sure creates some crazy disincentives to working your way up the ladder. Benefits stacked upon benefits can mean it is financially better, at least in the short term, to stay at a lower-paying jobs rather than taking a higher paying job and losing those benefits. This is called the “welfare cliff.”
Let’s take the example of a single mom with two kids, 1 and 4. She has a $29,000 a year job, putting the kids in daycare during the day while she works.
As the above chart – via Gary Alexander, Pennsylvania’s secretary of Public Welfare — shows, the single mom is better off earning gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income and benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income & benefits of $57,045.
It would sure be tempting for that mom to keep the status quo rather than take the new job, even though the new position might lead to further career advancement and a higher standard of living. I guess this is something the Obama White House forgot to mention in its “Life of Julia” cartoons extolling government assistance.
-
skeeter1
"Is it true the United States is the only developed country where not all citizens have health cover,"
Before Obamacare if someone was poor and had a big emergency, they'd get 100% coverage through "Emergency Medicaid." I understand from talking with ER doctors, that they routinely offered it in serious situations. If you are in this situation, go into the ER asking to apply for Emergency Medicaid.
If the situation wasn't big enough for EM, then the emergency rooms still have to treat the patient. No one is turned away. There is a bill that is sent afterwards and hospitals work out payment plans and/or write off alot of the balance for poor people. When hospitals hounded those who couldn't pay on large amounts, then they claimed bankruptcy to get out of it. Then, the hospital gets paid zilch. Of course, those "written off" costs made all of our costs higher. Hence, the need to increase premiums and Obama's push to get everyone covered.
To keep our local hospital ER's from being used as a doctor's office by the poor, they set up urgent care centers. They treat flus, colds, broken bones, infections, bee stings, labs, and normal visits, etc. Their prices are posted for the top 25 or so procedures for all to see in the waiting room, and are extremely reasonable. You can even get a payment plan there.
If you can't afford urgent care, then the county health office gives absolutely free treatment to the poor. They offer physicals, tests, pediatrician work, and even give out stop smoking stuff. You do have to wait a few hours to get in.
As far as pets, the Humane Society here gives very reduced price physicals, procedures, and even operations. If you can't pay, they pick up the tab.
