What the infamous Health Care bill IS and ISN'T
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
health insurance is just about money
Do you really believe HCR is just about money? Do you think there could have been a minor power grab in making it more OK to regulate those damn insurance companies? I will let you figure out if a single payer health care system was about the money.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Of course, I'm betting there'll be some kind of loophole
You and me, both. I see you are coming over to the Dark Side, little by little.:suss: Lord Cheney will have you under his power. It is just a matter of time. ;P .
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you really believe HCR is just about money? Do you think there could have been a minor power grab in making it more OK to regulate those damn insurance companies? I will let you figure out if a single payer health care system was about the money.
Now you're just taking my statements out of context. I'm talking about the legality of requiring ID, and you're applying it to the ethics of regulation. This is a forum discussion, not a political campaign.
RichardM1 wrote:
You and me, both. I see you are coming over to the Dark Side, little by little. Lord Cheney will have you under his power. It is just a matter of time.
Heh... Everything has loopholes. Tax shelters, offshore banking, bailouts... People are always gaming the system, no matter which system and no matter which political party, company, or group is behind it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
No, CSS is technically right. It forces MOST people to buy insurance, and it raises taxes on the wealthy (And on tanning salons). Of course, I said all of this in the original post on this thread, so I dunno what he's arguing about.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
and it raises taxes on the wealthy
Riiight... :rolleyes: it imposes fees and fines lower income people instead. Garnishing your wages if you do not buy insurance.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
I was including it as a factual component of the bill. Fact, not opinion. I wasn't intending to take a side on whether this is good or bad. I was trying to educate people.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
and it raises taxes on the wealthy
Riiight... :rolleyes: it imposes fees and fines lower income people instead. Garnishing your wages if you do not buy insurance.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Riiight... Roll eyes it imposes fees and fines lower income people instead. Garnishing your wages if you do not buy insurance.
No, if you're making less than $80k a year, and aren't covered by your employer (Businesses with more than 50 employees will be required to offer a coverage plan), they give you credits to help you afford insurance. If you still don't get insurance, THEN you get fined. Of course, there are exceptions to the fine. American Indians living on reservations are exempt... You can raise a religious objection and be exempt... And I forget the exact numbers, but if the cheapest available insurance would be more than some percentage of your income (I think it was 8%), I think it exempts you. For someone who lectured me for finding summaries instead of reading the entire text, you don't seem to have read much at all.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Riiight... Roll eyes it imposes fees and fines lower income people instead. Garnishing your wages if you do not buy insurance.
No, if you're making less than $80k a year, and aren't covered by your employer (Businesses with more than 50 employees will be required to offer a coverage plan), they give you credits to help you afford insurance. If you still don't get insurance, THEN you get fined. Of course, there are exceptions to the fine. American Indians living on reservations are exempt... You can raise a religious objection and be exempt... And I forget the exact numbers, but if the cheapest available insurance would be more than some percentage of your income (I think it was 8%), I think it exempts you. For someone who lectured me for finding summaries instead of reading the entire text, you don't seem to have read much at all.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Fuck that, I will work under the table.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
Fuck that, I will work under the table.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
Don't forget to mention that when you fill out your tax return.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Don't forget to mention that when you fill out your tax return.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)They can come and brutally slaughter me with their black ski-mask thugs with sawed off shotguns.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
They can come and brutally slaughter me with their black ski-mask thugs with sawed off shotguns.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
Oh, that mental image just cheered me up... Thanks :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I know that it forces everyone to buy insurance and raises taxes.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
So Ian doesn't know anything because he hasn't read all 2700 pages and you know enough having read none of it? I hope your sphincter is more watertight than your logic, Captain Wet Pants. :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
They can come and brutally slaughter me with their black ski-mask thugs with sawed off shotguns.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
So Ian doesn't know anything because he hasn't read all 2700 pages and you know enough having read none of it? I hope your sphincter is more watertight than your logic, Captain Wet Pants. :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Tim Craig wrote:
Captain Wet Pants.
I almost spat my lunch out in stifling a laugh. :laugh:
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Captain Wet Pants.
I almost spat my lunch out in stifling a laugh. :laugh:
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
I still think Pillowpants is funnier :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I still think Pillowpants is funnier :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Don't get me wrong, that one is too, but I wasn't expecting it. :laugh:
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
They can come and brutally slaughter me with their black ski-mask thugs with sawed off shotguns.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
Ok, since this is the big topic lately... A semi-quick summary, particularly to those of you non-USians who may have gotten the wrong impression from all of the mindless rhetoric. (Paraphrased from: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html[^]) * It is NOT government-run insurance. It adds more regulation to private insurers, but the so-called "public option" is NOT included. * Most people will NOT see a tax increase. The extra money not provided by medicare/medicaid changes will come from applying the medicare tax to investment income (Currently it only applies to normal income) for people making in excess of $200k/year ($250k for families), and starting in 2018, the high-end insurance plans will gain a significant tax... They're also adding a 10% tax on tanning salons, which seems kind of odd. * Premiums are supposed to be reduced... They're adding "exchanges" where small businesses and individuals can more easily purchase insurance... I guess it'll increase competition among insurers, by easing comparison. Note that these will be managed by each state, not centralized federally. This is the free market at work, folks. * Subsidies will be provided to people/families below 400% of the poverty level who do not have access to an employer's health plan and are not already eligible for Medicare/Medicaid. * Illegal immigrants will NOT be included in any of this. They won't even be allowed to buy insurance in the exchanges. * Insurance companies get more regulation... First and foremost, they won't be able to deny people for existing conditions. * Starting in 2014, everyone who doesn't have health insurance (With some exceptions for low-income families) will be subject to an annual fine. * This won't be putting us further into debt. It will actually REDUCE the deficit by ~$140 billion over the next decade.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)So it isn't a New World Order Top Secret Conspiracy to depopulate the planet, microchip those who remain, create a new caste of slaves and make the world a bit more suitable for our new alien overlords? Disappointing.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Captain Wet Pants.
I almost spat my lunch out in stifling a laugh. :laugh:
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Sometimes I just can't resist swinging at the piñata. :rolleyes: [modified] Sweet talked Vanna into giving me a tilda. :cool:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
modified on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 8:15 PM
-
What was gas back in 1975? For as much driving as they have to do I'd figure that'd be a major component on them more so than most businesses. Taking base line statistics which are generally irrelevant to the question at hand and assuming they actually mean anything is not terribly productive. It helps when you bother to check what may have increased their costs and/or decreased their profits. Things like volume of mail delivered daily, mileage covered by postal vehicles and price per mile traveled would actually be useful in making these comparisons.
I didn't see that you had responded to me (unless you sent this to Ian, I can't tell from the thread layout).
Distind wrote:
Taking base line statistics which are generally irrelevant to the question at hand and assuming they actually mean anything is not terribly productive. It helps when you bother to check what may have increased their costs and/or decreased their profits.
Complaining about the statistics I provide, without providing anything better is not terribly productive, either. :rolleyes: I tried to find data on deliveries per year, income, costs, profits, number of workers, etc, but have not found them. Would YOU happen to have found a link to statistics that are more relevant than the ones I provided? If I didn't know better, I might think you didn't like them because they did not support your position.
Distind wrote:
What was gas back in 1975?
According to this link[^] average 1975 prices (in constant 2009 dollars) was just about $2.25, and average 2009 prices (in constant 2009 dollars) was below $2.50 and falling. Gas does not seem to be the issue. Congress requires them to fully fund their pension fund. Something it does not make other companies do. Something it does not make the government do. I'm not sure when they started doing that.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
It will put us over 360 billion further in debt, just from the dems' numbers. The 500 bil they are using to finance it is spending the money that comes in to fund future payments for medicaid/medicare, which will still have to be made.
It looks like the money they're using to finance it will be coming from the extra taxes I've stated, and the closing of whatever that "doughnut hole" thing is supposed to be (I admit I didn't look into that part). In other words, they spend money now, and as the program comes into effect, it makes that money back... Unless I'm completely missing something here.
RichardM1 wrote:
Per CNN, in 2009, 47% of households paid no income tax. So if 4% of households see no tax increase, this is technically true. So, if 49% of households see a tax increase, most people will not see a tax increase. So that is just a talking point.
The actual numbers are right there... The tax increases come on individuals making more than $200k, and families making more than $250k. That and the tanning salon thing, and a rather large tax increase (40%) on the high-end insurance plans (People spending over something like $25k a year on premiums, not including dental and vision).
RichardM1 wrote:
Insurance companies had a 2-10% profit margin[^] last year, when they were not taking on preexisting conditions (others say the industry average was 2.2%, which falls in this range). So their costs per person will go up (they now have to amortize the preexisting conditions), they will have to start spending more on advertising to compete with the others, and they will be lowering prices. How do you see that working?
Keep in mind that everyone will be forced to buy insurance, including healthy people who haven't had a need for it in the past. I don't know how many of each category are out there, but that will determine whether the "health pool" gets better or worse. And don't forget, there are more factors than that. Their costs are tied to the actual cost of doctor/hospital care, to the number and variety of tests they require, to prescription drug costs, malpractice insurance, etc... I know the bill is doing something to affect that, but as I didn't know the details, I didn't include it. Hence the phrase "Premiums are supposed to be reduced" instead of "will be reduced."
Multi-part response.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It looks like the money they're using to finance it will be coming from the extra taxes I've stated, and the closing of whatever that "doughnut hole" thing is supposed to be (I admit I didn't look into that part). In other words, they spend money now, and as the program comes into effect, it makes that money back... Unless I'm completely missing something here.
The financing you have mentioned does not account for the 500 gigadollars that have to be paid back. You are completely missing something. Full costs do not arrive until 2014. Full funding starts sooner. In other words, they collect money over a longer period than they spend it, to try and make it 'even'. In other, other words, the funding from 2014 to 2020 does not cover the costs from 2014 to 2020. You should check out what they are calling loopholes in medicaid. I have heard that they are not loopholes.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
It will put us over 360 billion further in debt, just from the dems' numbers. The 500 bil they are using to finance it is spending the money that comes in to fund future payments for medicaid/medicare, which will still have to be made.
It looks like the money they're using to finance it will be coming from the extra taxes I've stated, and the closing of whatever that "doughnut hole" thing is supposed to be (I admit I didn't look into that part). In other words, they spend money now, and as the program comes into effect, it makes that money back... Unless I'm completely missing something here.
RichardM1 wrote:
Per CNN, in 2009, 47% of households paid no income tax. So if 4% of households see no tax increase, this is technically true. So, if 49% of households see a tax increase, most people will not see a tax increase. So that is just a talking point.
The actual numbers are right there... The tax increases come on individuals making more than $200k, and families making more than $250k. That and the tanning salon thing, and a rather large tax increase (40%) on the high-end insurance plans (People spending over something like $25k a year on premiums, not including dental and vision).
RichardM1 wrote:
Insurance companies had a 2-10% profit margin[^] last year, when they were not taking on preexisting conditions (others say the industry average was 2.2%, which falls in this range). So their costs per person will go up (they now have to amortize the preexisting conditions), they will have to start spending more on advertising to compete with the others, and they will be lowering prices. How do you see that working?
Keep in mind that everyone will be forced to buy insurance, including healthy people who haven't had a need for it in the past. I don't know how many of each category are out there, but that will determine whether the "health pool" gets better or worse. And don't forget, there are more factors than that. Their costs are tied to the actual cost of doctor/hospital care, to the number and variety of tests they require, to prescription drug costs, malpractice insurance, etc... I know the bill is doing something to affect that, but as I didn't know the details, I didn't include it. Hence the phrase "Premiums are supposed to be reduced" instead of "will be reduced."
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The actual numbers are right there... The tax increases come on individuals making more than $200k, and families making more than $250k. That and the tanning salon thing, and a rather large tax increase (40%) on the high-end insurance plans (People spending over something like $25k a year on premiums, not including dental and vision).
Do you think driving the price of tanning saloons up might drive down the sales and get less than projected revenue? The 200k/250k threshold hits about 4% of tax payers.(based on 07 stats at NTU[^]). Talk about disenfranchising a minority. :laugh: Do we know the percent of high end insurance payers there are, or their tax contribution? I have seen estimates that the average household insurance bill will be > 15k by 2019. Did the CBO get asked to estimate the loss in taxes based on that reduction in income?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
It will put us over 360 billion further in debt, just from the dems' numbers. The 500 bil they are using to finance it is spending the money that comes in to fund future payments for medicaid/medicare, which will still have to be made.
It looks like the money they're using to finance it will be coming from the extra taxes I've stated, and the closing of whatever that "doughnut hole" thing is supposed to be (I admit I didn't look into that part). In other words, they spend money now, and as the program comes into effect, it makes that money back... Unless I'm completely missing something here.
RichardM1 wrote:
Per CNN, in 2009, 47% of households paid no income tax. So if 4% of households see no tax increase, this is technically true. So, if 49% of households see a tax increase, most people will not see a tax increase. So that is just a talking point.
The actual numbers are right there... The tax increases come on individuals making more than $200k, and families making more than $250k. That and the tanning salon thing, and a rather large tax increase (40%) on the high-end insurance plans (People spending over something like $25k a year on premiums, not including dental and vision).
RichardM1 wrote:
Insurance companies had a 2-10% profit margin[^] last year, when they were not taking on preexisting conditions (others say the industry average was 2.2%, which falls in this range). So their costs per person will go up (they now have to amortize the preexisting conditions), they will have to start spending more on advertising to compete with the others, and they will be lowering prices. How do you see that working?
Keep in mind that everyone will be forced to buy insurance, including healthy people who haven't had a need for it in the past. I don't know how many of each category are out there, but that will determine whether the "health pool" gets better or worse. And don't forget, there are more factors than that. Their costs are tied to the actual cost of doctor/hospital care, to the number and variety of tests they require, to prescription drug costs, malpractice insurance, etc... I know the bill is doing something to affect that, but as I didn't know the details, I didn't include it. Hence the phrase "Premiums are supposed to be reduced" instead of "will be reduced."
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And don't forget, there are more factors than that. Their costs are tied to the actual cost of doctor/hospital care, to the number and variety of tests they require, to prescription drug costs, malpractice insurance, etc... I know the bill is doing something to affect that, but as I didn't know the details, I didn't include it. Hence the phrase "Premiums are supposed to be reduced" instead of "will be reduced."
The costs are not tied to actual costs. Medicare/caid will be forcing reduced payments to doctors averaging over 2%/year through 19, IIRC. While inflation goes up, payment (not cost) for a service is forced down. Is that sustainable?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Keep in mind that everyone will be forced to buy insurance, including healthy people who haven't had a need for it in the past. I don't know how many of each category are out there, but that will determine whether the "health pool" gets better or worse.
Do you think that forced purchase is going to be deemed Constitutional? And are they forced, like I am forced to follow the speed limit? Pay if I am caught? The fine is less than projected payments, so why would anyone who is healthy bother? Also, don't forget that the ins cos will have to start covering all those people with preexisting conditions, and they can't cheat out of it.
Opacity, the new Transparency.