What the hell is wrong with 'sounding wise'? Seems better than 'sounding stupid.'
Oh, well, to each his own.
So are Republicans now openly terrorists?
by Simon 369 Replies latest social current
-
-
AuntConnie
"Keep Government Out Of My Medicare" "Keep Government Out Of My Social Security"
Simon those are actually Tea-Party Slogans and bumperstickers on Tea-Bagging citizens, did Social medicine destroy Canada with it's robust economy?
I like the new Ads being shown, some size 50 underwear my Pumpkin might be able to fit into! Hoorah!
-
slimboyfat
This joke reminded me of Republicans. A man walks into the the doctor's surgery wearing see through trousers and see through underwear. The doctor says, "I can clearly see your nuts."
-
designs
Certain elected Republicans and wealthy private donors have tried everything to thwart the US economy in its recovery and this government shut-down is one more tool in their bag of tricks. I hope voters remember all of this in next year's elections.
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“I would also like to see some supporting information for Marvin's claims”
Berengaria,
Okay. Let’s start with my first item:
- "Affordable" under the ACA is defined so that what many companies have historically offered employees as a benefit is, by comparison, very generous. The exchanges set up by the Federal government is a place employers can send employees to show how generous previous plans have been. But that was then. Now we have the ACA. Based on "affordable" under the ACA I predict a lot of companies will change the benefit they offer employees so that more of the cost is shifted to the employee and away from the employer.
Under ACA “affordable” means no more than 9-1/2% of monthly net income (essentially, take home pay).
Let’s assume the worst, that an employee is earning $10.50 per hour and has 18% percent of earnings withheld for local, state and federal taxes. For an average month of 170 hours the net income is $1,464. 9-1/2% of $1,464 is $139.
What does this mean? It means that under ACA individual coverage for this employee is deemed “affordable” if cost to the employee is no more than $139 per month.
Competitive geographic areas of my companies the typical benefit offered by employers is to pay the full premium for individual coverage. Some companies impose a monthly administrative fee for participation with a net effect that some of the premium cost is shifted to the employee. In my competitive geographic areas the range of this fee runs from $0 to $50. In real terms this means employees are paying between $0 and $50 for premiums that average about $250.
But under ACA “affordable” would mean these companies can have their lowest wage earners (in my CGA that’s $10.50 per hour) pay as much as $139 per month for their coverage (rather than $0 to $50 per month) and comply with “affordable”. Because this insurance meets “affordable” the healthcare exchanges steer employees shopping at these marketplaces back to their employer’s plan.
Does that answer your question?
Marvin Shilmer
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“How much can you currently deduct for the medical insurance the corp. pays for.”
Designs,
What a company pays toward health insurance premiums for employees is typically treated as a pre-tax expense. Hence there is no corporate tax because the corporation is not making money with this movement of capital.
Consumers pay for corporate expense, just like they pay for corporate taxes.
In the end, anything that affects a corporation’s financial wherewithal is paid for by consumers.
Does that answer your question?
Marvin Shilmer
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“So, even if a monthly premium rises, have your healthcare costs really risen if you get better coverage? Hard to judge ... once you get beyond the fear mongering and FUD there will be some winners and some losers and then some less obvious winners and losers away from the headlines.”
Politics aside, I think the biggest gripes that will emerge from this whole episode in US society is that 1) the middle class will end up paying higher insurance premiums for the same care they were already receiving and 2) young people will be coerced into paying for insurance they don’t want, and in each of these cases the reason for increased cost will be the same: to subsidize insurance for other people that previously they were not required to subsidize.
The overall cost of healthcare is not going down. It’s just a matter of who pays for it and when.
“It will take time to perfect any new, large system. What is not going to help anyone is trying to repeal reform before it's even had a chance to change anything and trying to shoot the economy in the knee caps as a form of retribution because people thought the umpa-lumpa wouldn't make a good president.”
I’m all for healthcare reform. Whether the ACA is a success is yet to be determined. But I see strong headwinds that have nothing to do with Democratic or Republican noise and everything to do with plain ole fashioned human nature.
As for the current stalemate in DC, I think all of them are losers. We need doctors, policemen, carpenters and plumbers in congress rather than having it packed full of lawyers. Any time you have a profession writing their own rules you end up with trouble. In our case we have lawyers passing laws the citizenry will have to turn around and hire lawyers to explain and help them navigate. On legal matters there is only one lawyer I trust implicitly, and that’s the one that’s paid by me to be on my side at any given time. Even then I question their expertise.
Marvin Shilmer
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
Marvin: "2) young people will be coerced into paying for insurance they don’t want, and in each of these cases the reason for increased cost will be the same: to subsidize insurance for other people that previously they were not required to subsidize."
"The Success of Obamacare Hinges on Only One Factor
Behind all the white noise -- the political bickering, the technical glitches, the delays, the better-than-expected premium figures, and so on -- only one thing really seems to matter: Will young adults sign up for health insurance?
Without question, Obamacare's success hinges on young adults willingly going onto health exchanges and purchasing health insurance to help offset the high costs of terminally sick and elderly patients who comprise the vast majority of health care spending in the United States. A report from the U.S. government just last year pointed to the stark fact that in 2009 1% of people accounted for 22% of all health care costs. Expanding that out a bit, just 5% of people accounted for 50% of all health care costs. Without young, healthier adults paying into the system, there's nothing to stop premiums from going sky high."
-
LisaRose
Politics aside, I think the biggest gripes that will emerge from this whole episode in US society is that 1) the middle class will end up paying higher insurance premiums for the same care they were already receiving and 2) young people will be coerced into paying for insurance they don’t want, and in each of these cases the reason for increased cost will be the same: to subsidize insurance for other people that previously they were not required to subsidize .
One of the complaints about the ACA is that to be successful, it depends on young people buying insurance, and the thought was that they won't - being young and healthy, they will pay the fine rather than pay for insurance they don't think they need. This is actually not true, per one report I read. Young people do want insurance and are willing to pay my for it if offered, at rates similar to older people.
-
Simon
It doesn't care if you 'want' it or not ... you are in the pot with everyone else and should contribute because you may need it.
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.
Rich people already have an advantage (diet etc...) when it comes to health-care and are the only ones who can afford whetever treatment they may need. For everyone else it is simply practical to pool resources and have everyone pay a contribution as a form of insurance against them needing something.
Now, the inevitable future with individual insurance is that companies pick and chose low risk, high reward people. That is, if you are likely to have a condition then you won't be insurable for it and so won't be able to get it. This negates the point of healthcare. More money and effort is spent on figuring out how to not provide cover than to pay for the care. It would get to the point of genetic testing which is a much worse future with real evil / big brother overtones and an eventual healthy vs underclass.
Of course, if you do risky things like smoke then you should pay more but mostly it's everyone pays a share so that the few people who need really serious treatment can get it even if they cannot afford it.
You know what? However much you brag that you are a fiscal conservative or whatever and pay your own way the truth is you cannot see the future and may need treatment that you cannot afford and which your insurer doesn't want to pay for long term.
Socialized medicine is what the rest of the world calls civilisation ... you should try it, it really isn't so bad. You live longer, have a healthier reduced stress life and have more money in your pocket or get to enjoy more vacation.
Stop thinking McDonald RayGun had the answers. His mind was already on the way out while he was still at the wheel.