PDA

View Full Version : Here's How Much The Obamacare Penalty Tax Will Cost You...



Dolphins9954
07-03-2012, 09:40 AM
Many Americans are furious that Obamacare will require them to buy health insurance.Most of these folks seem to hate the idea that Obama is forcing them to do something more than they hate the idea of shelling out money (http://www.finheaven.com/forums/#).
But for those who also care about the money, here are the details.

The good news is that, for most people, the "penalty tax" for those who choose not to buy health insurance will cost (http://www.finheaven.com/forums/#) a lot less than health insurance.
As with everything tax-related, there's no simple answer to "How much is the Obamacare penalty tax?" But here are some key points, from FactCheck.org (http://factcheck.org/2012/06/how-much-is-the-obamacare-tax/):



The penalty/tax will be phased in from 2014 to 2016.
The minimum penalty/tax in 2016 will be $695 per person and up to 3-times that per family. After 2016, these amounts will increase at the rate of inflation.
The minimum penalty/tax per person will start at $95 in 2014 (and then increase through 2016)
No family will ever pay more than 3X the per-person penalty, regardless of how many people are in the family.
The $695 per-person penalty is only for those who make between $9,500 and ~$37,000 per year. If you make less than ~$9.500, you're exempt. If you make more than ~$37,000, your penalty is calculated by the following formula...
The penalty is 2.5% of any household income above the level at which you are required to file a tax return. That level is currently $9,500 per person and $19,000 per couple. The penalty on any income above that is 2.5%. So the penalty can get expensive quickly if you make a lot of money.
However, the penalty can never be more than the cost of a "Bronze" heath insurance plan purchased through one of the state "exchanges" that will be created as part of Obamacare. The CBO estimates that these policies will cost $4,500-$5,000 per person and $12,000-$12,500 per family in 2016, with the costs (http://www.finheaven.com/forums/#) rising thereafter.


So, basically, you're looking at penalties of approximately the following at the following income levels:


Less than $9,500 income = $0
$9,500 - $37,000 income = $695
$50,000 income = $1,000
$75,000 income = $1,600
$100,000 income = $2,250
$125,000 income = $2,900
$150,000 income = $3,500
$175,000 income = $4,100
$200,000 income = $4,700
Over $200,000 = The cost of a "bronze" health-insurance plan


The IRS will collect the penalty-tax, a fact that will no doubt further enrage those who hate Obamacare.
But here's some more good news for those folks:

The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2X the amount you owe. So if you want to thumb your nose at the penalty-tax, the IRS won't be able to do as much to you as they could if you refused to pay, say, income tax.
By the way, the following folks will be exempt from the penalty-tax:



Those who make less than $9,500
Employees whose employers only offer plans that cost more than 8% of the employee's income
Those with "hardships"
Members of Indian tribes
Members of certain religions that don't pay Social Security tax, such as Amish, Hutterites, or Mennonites


And, of course, Obamacare isn't free. So, whether you pay the penalty or not, you're going to have to pay a lot of other taxes to pay for it. Here they are > (http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-new-obamacare-taxes-2012-7)


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-is-the-obamacare-penalty-tax-2012-7#ixzz1zZBb53Y8



It's a lot cheaper to just pay the fine. I don't see how this helps the uninsured problem. Looks like a clever way to steal people's tax refunds.

DisturbedShifty
07-03-2012, 10:56 AM
If we would have just installed a universal health care and after World War II like the rest of the world we wouldn't be in this situation.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

Gonzo
07-03-2012, 11:36 AM
If we would have just installed a universal health care and after World War II like the rest of the world we wouldn't be in this situation.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.
But how would we pay to be the oil industry's security force and oil field obtainers?

phins_4_ever
07-03-2012, 06:31 PM
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-is-the-obamacare-penalty-tax-2012-7#ixzz1zZBb53Y8



It's a lot cheaper to just pay the fine. I don't see how this helps the uninsured problem. Looks like a clever way to steal people's tax refunds.

hahahaha. Grover Norquist at its best. :3w:

Now you can start listing all the tax credits for small business, individuals and families. Or did you not find them?

Dolphins9954
07-03-2012, 07:32 PM
hahahaha. Grover Norquist at its best. :3w:

Now you can start listing all the tax credits for small business, individuals and families. Or did you not find them?


Last time I checked it's the IRS that will enforce the tax. So it's simple to figure out how they plan on collecting it. Since most people who can't afford health insurance will probably get tax refunds.

LANGER72
07-03-2012, 10:15 PM
I heard the illegal residents do not have to pay...

phins_4_ever
07-03-2012, 10:30 PM
Last time I checked it's the IRS that will enforce the tax. So it's simple to figure out how they plan on collecting it. Since most people who can't afford health insurance will probably get tax refunds.

:crazy:

My question was: why aren't you listing all the tax deductions and credits related to the ACA?
Fascinating is also that you are using an 'online magazine' which relies heavy on information from 'Americans for Tax Reform' (good ol' Grover) and whose CEO is convicted of security fraud.
My point is: if you are using 'taxes' as an ACA killer you should also list all tax advantages. That way a reader can form an educated opinion.

I don't even think you really know what the ACA is all about.

phins_4_ever
07-03-2012, 10:40 PM
I heard the illegal residents do not have to pay...

Shouldn't listen to Rush and co...

Here is some reading material



Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Subtitle D—Available Coverage Choices for All Americans
PART II--Consumer Choices and Insurance Competition Through Health Benefit Exchanges

Section 1312 (f)(3) makes clear that undocumented immigrants are ineligible to participate in the health insurance exchanges: “ACCESS LIMITED TO LAWFUL RESIDENTS- If an individual is not, or is not reasonably expected to be for the entire period for which enrollment is sought, a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States, the individual shall not be treated as a qualified individual and may not be covered under a qualified health plan in the individual market that is offered through an Exchange.”


Subtitle E—Affordable Coverage Choices for All Americans
PART I—PREMIUM TAX CREDITS AND COST SHARING REDUCTIONS
Subpart B—Eligibility Determinations

Section 1412(d) unambiguously states “NO FEDERAL PAYMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT.—Nothing in this subtitle or the amendments made by this subtitle allows Federal payments, credits, or cost-sharing reductions for individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”



Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Subtitle E—Affordable Coverage Choices for All Americans
PART I—PREMIUM TAX CREDITS AND COST SHARING REDUCTIONS
Subpart B—Eligibility Determinations

Section 1411(a) required that the Secretary of Health and Human Services “shall establish a program . . . for determining . . . whether an individual who is to be covered in the individual market by a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange, or who is claiming a premium tax credit or reduced cost-sharing [is] a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States.”
Section 1411(b) requires applicants for enrollment in a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange in the individual market to provide “name, address, and date of birth.” For those individuals claiming eligibility based on an attestation of citizenship, they must provide their social security number. For those individuals whose eligibility is based on an attestation of their immigration status, they must provide “the enrollee's social security number (if applicable) and such identifying information with respect to the enrollee's immigration status as the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, determines appropriate.”

Dolphins9954
07-03-2012, 11:33 PM
:crazy:

My question was: why aren't you listing all the tax deductions and credits related to the ACA?
Fascinating is also that you are using an 'online magazine' which relies heavy on information from 'Americans for Tax Reform' (good ol' Grover) and whose CEO is convicted of security fraud.
My point is: if you are using 'taxes' as an ACA killer you should also list all tax advantages. That way a reader can form an educated opinion.

I don't even think you really know what the ACA is all about.

So the tax "advantages" wipe out the fines???

JTC111
07-04-2012, 09:43 AM
So the tax "advantages" wipe out the fines???

The CBO estimates that only 1.2% of people will have to pay the fine. Judging from what happened in Mass., that number sounds about right.

LANGER72
07-04-2012, 09:58 AM
Shouldn't listen to Rush and co...

Here is some reading material


For the purposes of the law, you are correct.
But, they will still go to the emergency room and get all the free care they want...right?
You shouldn't blindly believe this administration either..

Dolphins9954
07-04-2012, 10:27 AM
The CBO estimates that only 1.2% of people will have to pay the fine. Judging from what happened in Mass., that number sounds about right.

According to this link (liberal source)

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/

24 million will still be left uninsured. Those 24 million will be better off paying the fines.

phins_4_ever
07-04-2012, 11:15 AM
For the purposes of the law, you are correct.
But, they will still go to the emergency room and get all the free care they want...right?
You shouldn't blindly believe this administration either..

They are doing this now. And have done this for decades. ERs can not reject patients. If you have a problem with that - fine. But don't make it a biased political issue. You are blinded by hatred.

JTC111
07-04-2012, 11:39 AM
According to this link (liberal source)

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/

24 million will still be left uninsured. Those 24 million will be better off paying the fines.

FYI, FDL isn't the liberal site it was before the '08 election season. They were all in on Hillary and lost their minds when Obama won the nomination. Some of the writers on the blog have been critical of Obama from day one for that reason. So yeah, it's a liberal site, but it's a liberal site with an anti-Obama slant. Also, you have to remember that in 2010 when that article was written, the liberal left as a whole, myself included, was less than enthusiastic about the PPAFA. For many of us, the bill didn't go far enough so the anti-PPAFA material wasn't just coming from the right at that point. I'm still not in love with the bill and would have preferred going to a national healthcare system, but I'm not going to deny that there are some very good things in that bill ...things that are going to save lives.

But in response to 24 million number, it didn't happen that way in Massachusetts despite a lot of talking heads predicting a similar outcome. CBO is non-partisan and I'm going to trust their numbers over a FDL blogger.

Just to give an example of how some Hillary supporters lost it back in '08, have a look at this. This was the mindset of FDL back then. I used to read it but I gave it up by the end of '08.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeGPzk8Oca8

Dogbone34
07-04-2012, 11:43 AM
They are doing this now. And have done this for decades. ERs can not reject patients. If you have a problem with that - fine. But don't make it a biased political issue. You are blinded by hatred.

there we go. get it out of your system. of course anyone not supporting the democrats socialized health care power grab is evil.

and they hate puppies too.

phins_4_ever
07-04-2012, 12:08 PM
According to this link (liberal source)

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/

24 million will still be left uninsured. Those 24 million will be better off paying the fines.

If you have after an income of 66k only 13k left in discretionary funds then there is something definitely wrong. Bear in mind that your article added clothing costs, education and cc bills etc afterwards. Essential the assumption is that food and housing for a family of 4 cost about $53k. Let's assume the average of $1,000 to $1,500 in housing cost/month than the family of 4 eats away roughly $2000/month in food?
What the writer also not considers is that the $5k for a family of 4 is a bargain. I would gather that the annual medical cost for a family of 4 is much higher than just $5000. A broken arm paid directly to the hospital is over $5k. Forget about medications etc.

I pay for my employees for a family of 2 $1,500 in insurance premium - A MONTH!!!! For a family of 3 it is $2,200/month. In addition to that there is a $1,500 deductible per year per insured. I pay almost 90% of that knowing that my employees don't have the funds to cover $1500 in deductible.
Salaries in my company range from $30k/year (entry level) to $125k. For Florida standards it is good.

Over the years I always wanted to hire additional people especially in the entry level positions. But next to the salary (and other cost) the health benefits was a killer. Each employee would cost me an additional $10k. That is 1/3 of an entry level position. Now if that new employee comes with a wife and a child I literally pay twice the entry level position salary for a family of 3.

What does the ACA do for me? The tax credits I get will reduce my cost of health benefits. It will slash my cost by nearly 75% which will enable me to hire 4 new people. 4 families off well fare programs, unemployment and other government assistance will save the government thousands of dollars a month per family far outweighing the cost. But most importantly I will increase the purchasing power of 4 families pouring additional dollars into the community through purchases which in effect will increase income for other small business and increase the tax base (sales tax, income tax etc).

Now you can increase this philosophy a thousand fold across the country.

The mistake made, and I really don't know if it is a mistake or purposely spread misinformation, that the cost of the ACA equals an increase in debt is simply wrong.

Personally I am upset with the ACA because it was not as far reaching as it should be. Too many democrats let Obama hang out to dry. I expected at least a public option.

phins_4_ever
07-04-2012, 12:11 PM
there we go. get it out of your system. of course anyone not supping the democrats socialized health care power grab is evil.

and they hate puppies too.

Socialized health care power grab? :lol2:

Funny stuff....

JTC111
07-04-2012, 12:40 PM
"socialized health care power grab"
I wish we'd gotten socialized healthcare but we didn't. Our healthcare is still rooted in a system whereby we pay money to private insurance companies whose primary interest is making money thereby creating a conflict of interest since the way they make the most money is by denying us coverage.



and they hate puppies too.
I love puppies. I have four of them.

phinfan3411
07-04-2012, 12:53 PM
If you have after an income of 66k only 13k left in discretionary funds then there is something definitely wrong. Bear in mind that your article added clothing costs, education and cc bills etc afterwards. Essential the assumption is that food and housing for a family of 4 cost about $53k. Let's assume the average of $1,000 to $1,500 in housing cost/month than the family of 4 eats away roughly $2000/month in food?
What the writer also not considers is that the $5k for a family of 4 is a bargain. I would gather that the annual medical cost for a family of 4 is much higher than just $5000. A broken arm paid directly to the hospital is over $5k. Forget about medications etc.

I pay for my employees for a family of 2 $1,500 in insurance premium - A MONTH!!!! For a family of 3 it is $2,200/month. In addition to that there is a $1,500 deductible per year per insured. I pay almost 90% of that knowing that my employees don't have the funds to cover $1500 in deductible.
Salaries in my company range from $30k/year (entry level) to $125k. For Florida standards it is good.

Over the years I always wanted to hire additional people especially in the entry level positions. But next to the salary (and other cost) the health benefits was a killer. Each employee would cost me an additional $10k. That is 1/3 of an entry level position. Now if that new employee comes with a wife and a child I literally pay twice the entry level position salary for a family of 3.

What does the ACA do for me? The tax credits I get will reduce my cost of health benefits. It will slash my cost by nearly 75% which will enable me to hire 4 new people. 4 families off well fare programs, unemployment and other government assistance will save the government thousands of dollars a month per family far outweighing the cost. But most importantly I will increase the purchasing power of 4 families pouring additional dollars into the community through purchases which in effect will increase income for other small business and increase the tax base (sales tax, income tax etc).

Now you can increase this philosophy a thousand fold across the country.

The mistake made, and I really don't know if it is a mistake or purposely spread misinformation, that the cost of the ACA equals an increase in debt is simply wrong.

Personally I am upset with the ACA because it was not as far reaching as it should be. Too many democrats let Obama hang out to dry. I expected at least a public option.


Could i please see a link to a reputable source that shows this reform will or could slash employers insurance costs by 75%?

I am not saying you are lying, i just do not believe ANYBODY, and frankly that sounds way out of line, the numbers do not make any sense, and when the numbers do not make any sense, it is usually BS, so please, a link.

As long as we are on this topic, i would like to ask you another thing, the real estate tax, that if i have heard things correctly, will cost home sellers 3.8% of the selling price. Is this correct, or some republican BS?

If it is right, as far as I see it, that will slow down our housing market, would it not?

You see, what Friedman said , there is NO FREE LUNCH, is one of the most blatantly true things you will ever hear.

The things you are saying do not add up, the extra revenue collected from the new group of people will never be enough to offset a ~75% savings for anyone, the money does not just magically appear, so where does it come from, I am all ears.

phinfan3411
07-04-2012, 01:08 PM
If you have after an income of 66k only 13k left in discretionary funds then there is something definitely wrong. Bear in mind that your article added clothing costs, education and cc bills etc afterwards. Essential the assumption is that food and housing for a family of 4 cost about $53k. Let's assume the average of $1,000 to $1,500 in housing cost/month than the family of 4 eats away roughly $2000/month in food?
What the writer also not considers is that the $5k for a family of 4 is a bargain. I would gather that the annual medical cost for a family of 4 is much higher than just $5000. A broken arm paid directly to the hospital is over $5k. Forget about medications etc.

I pay for my employees for a family of 2 $1,500 in insurance premium - A MONTH!!!! For a family of 3 it is $2,200/month. In addition to that there is a $1,500 deductible per year per insured. I pay almost 90% of that knowing that my employees don't have the funds to cover $1500 in deductible.
Salaries in my company range from $30k/year (entry level) to $125k. For Florida standards it is good.

Over the years I always wanted to hire additional people especially in the entry level positions. But next to the salary (and other cost) the health benefits was a killer. Each employee would cost me an additional $10k. That is 1/3 of an entry level position. Now if that new employee comes with a wife and a child I literally pay twice the entry level position salary for a family of 3.

What does the ACA do for me? The tax credits I get will reduce my cost of health benefits. It will slash my cost by nearly 75% which will enable me to hire 4 new people. 4 families off well fare programs, unemployment and other government assistance will save the government thousands of dollars a month per family far outweighing the cost. But most importantly I will increase the purchasing power of 4 families pouring additional dollars into the community through purchases which in effect will increase income for other small business and increase the tax base (sales tax, income tax etc).

Now you can increase this philosophy a thousand fold across the country.

The mistake made, and I really don't know if it is a mistake or purposely spread misinformation, that the cost of the ACA equals an increase in debt is simply wrong.

Personally I am upset with the ACA because it was not as far reaching as it should be. Too many democrats let Obama hang out to dry. I expected at least a public option.


OMG, i just noticed the last sentence, too many democrats let Obama hang out to dry?

Are you being serious?

What the heck do you call what he did before the ball even got rolling?

Are you trying to make it seem like poor old Obama, wanted to do the right thing, but just couldn't push the good reform through?

Why don't you recant that statement, and maybe i won't throw your whole argument out the window as just another Obama campaign worker busy on the boards trying to turn the publics view on Obamacare around for the election.

irish fin fan
07-04-2012, 03:42 PM
OMG, i just noticed the last sentence, too many democrats let Obama hang out to dry?

Are you being serious?

What the heck do you call what he did before the ball even got rolling?

Are you trying to make it seem like poor old Obama, wanted to do the right thing, but just couldn't push the good reform through?

Why don't you recant that statement, and maybe i won't throw your whole argument out the window as just another Obama campaign worker busy on the boards trying to turn the publics view on Obamacare around for the election.

If you think a public option would have got through you are delusional. The health care companies would have killed it before it got off the ground. This is a first step in my opinion. Obama got his foot in the door and down the road health care companies will be tackled.

phinfan3411
07-04-2012, 04:00 PM
If you think a public option would have got through you are delusional. The health care companies would have killed it before it got off the ground. This is a first step in my opinion. Obama got his foot in the door and down the road health care companies will be tackled.

What, is this the Twilight Zone?

Obama took single payer off the table, along with Baucus. Obama appointed a former health insurance lobbyist to be his director of health.

Obama did all the negotiating behind closed doors, and locked in the non competion clause for the pharmaceuticals that OWN him.

He locked in a low percentage of give backs the industry would have to put up with, but gave them millions more paying customers to make up for it.

Again, this was all covered, at length, in this forum before, and in fact, a liberal, brought it to our attention.

It was covered in the Huffington Post, under internal white house memo.

If you are asking me if I think either of the parties would let anything happen for the betterment of the country, but to the detriment of their owners (special interest), i would ask if YOU are delusional.

Thinking Obama is ANY different than any of the others is just as DELUSIONAL, what are we pretending he really wanted single payer or a public option now? That's what all the partisan cheerleaders think, a thought that has been proven false over, and over.

phins_4_ever
07-04-2012, 04:12 PM
Could i please see a link to a reputable source that shows this reform will or could slash employers insurance costs by 75%?

I am not saying you are lying, i just do not believe ANYBODY, and frankly that sounds way out of line, the numbers do not make any sense, and when the numbers do not make any sense, it is usually BS, so please, a link.

As long as we are on this topic, i would like to ask you another thing, the real estate tax, that if i have heard things correctly, will cost home sellers 3.8% of the selling price. Is this correct, or some republican BS?

If it is right, as far as I see it, that will slow down our housing market, would it not?

You see, what Friedman said , there is NO FREE LUNCH, is one of the most blatantly true things you will ever hear.

The things you are saying do not add up, the extra revenue collected from the new group of people will never be enough to offset a ~75% savings for anyone, the money does not just magically appear, so where does it come from, I am all ears.

If you can read correctly it will slash my cost by 75%. The cost savings are based on numbers of employees, current cost of health insurance, taxable income, and applicable tax credits in the future. We can definitely one day sit together for a beer and we can go through this stuff with my accountant but I doubt that I put up any kind of financial corporate info online. I would assume that most small business will have savings of some kind thus my statement about 'the philosophy'.

In a way you can follow along though if you combine individual insurance in combination with a company benefit plan under the ACA. It is basically individual insurance plans turned corporate benefits.

Some employees will carry there own insurance under the affordable health care act. Let me give you an example:
One of my employees is married with two kids. Wife ain't working. He makes about $45000/year. My current cost are: $2000/month (750 per adult insured/$250 per child - based on age) plus $5000/year in deductible (I cover about 85% of deductibles which is about $1500 per insured per year). My total for the year is $29000.

Under the ACA he would pay roughly $3000 per year (http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx). Everything else is subsidized. As a benefit package I would cover the $3000. My insurance company also offers smaller deductibles under the ACA individual care plan. Instead of $1500 per insured per year it will be $1000 per insured per year. If I keep the 85% level I would pay $3400 per year. My total cost before small business tax credit: $6400. I am paying essentially 22% of my original cost. Savings of 78%. Since I will keep higher paid employees on a group insurance plan and I add all savings up I am saving an average of 75%. Now these numbers can easily be followed through by calling Blue Cross and Blue Shield, using a ACA calculator etc. It requires more work than just using the blogosphere but if you are going into any company and do a little research you will see that most have savings. I am not saying all have 75% savings. It requires some legal tax maneuvering but it is definitely possible. And in my case that means 4 more employees.

phins_4_ever
07-04-2012, 04:16 PM
OMG, i just noticed the last sentence, too many democrats let Obama hang out to dry?

Are you being serious?

What the heck do you call what he did before the ball even got rolling?

Are you trying to make it seem like poor old Obama, wanted to do the right thing, but just couldn't push the good reform through?

Why don't you recant that statement, and maybe i won't throw your whole argument out the window as just another Obama campaign worker busy on the boards trying to turn the publics view on Obamacare around for the election.

I don't recant crap. The public option was there. It was taken out because he couldn't even get the majority of democrats onboardfor that. Has any of you actually followed this piece of legislation? Or is everything based on blog crap and false information a la Limbaugh and gang. The ACA is not even close to what the health care bill was initially. But it is a start.

phinfan3411
07-04-2012, 04:29 PM
I don't recant crap. The public option was there. It was taken out because he couldn't even get the majority of democrats onboardfor that. Has any of you actually followed this piece of legislation? Or is everything based on blog crap and false information a la Limbaugh and gang. The ACA is not even close to what the health care bill was initially. But it is a start.

Give me a good link that states Obama pushed a public option, but was rebuffed, and even if you can do it, it was just grandstanding anyways, i do not listen to Limbaugh, am THOROUGHLY an independent, Obama is OWNED by pharmaceuticals and the health care industry in general, he had NO INTEREST in a public option, as the health care industry did not want it. He may have said it, but again, just grandstanding, would you like me to give you the list of all the things he said he stood for, but it is very clear he does not?

phins_4_ever
07-04-2012, 04:36 PM
Give me a good link that states Obama pushed a public option, but was rebuffed, and even if you can do it, it was just grandstanding anyways, i do not listen to Limbaugh, am THOROUGHLY an independent, Obama is OWNED by pharmaceuticals and the health care industry in general, he had NO INTEREST in a public option, as the health care industry did not want it. He may have said it, but again, just grandstanding, would you like me to give you the list of all the things he said he stood for, but it is very clear he does not?

Why even asked for a link if you are discounting any link contradicting your opinion prior to any link being posted? I am saving my breath and time Mr Independent. :chuckle:

Dogbone34
07-04-2012, 05:30 PM
even the god particle thinks we f&$@ed this one up.

nobody has a clue how this is going to play out.
the IRS has a bigger role in your life now. that should work out well.

phinfan3411
07-04-2012, 05:49 PM
Why even asked for a link if you are discounting any link contradicting your opinion prior to any link being posted? I am saving my breath and time Mr Independent. :chuckle:
I just googled it, the huffington post seems to agree with me mr democrat.

JTC111
07-04-2012, 06:18 PM
the IRS has a bigger role in your life now. that should work out well.

Eh... it might be one additional line on your form. I'd imagine that the insurance companies will report to the government who is insured and those folks won't have to pay the penalty (so it may not even be the one line since it would be redundant). The bigger question, and I don't know the answer to this although I'd be surprised if it wasn't anticipated, is what happens if you're insured for only part of the year?

Dolphins9954
07-05-2012, 11:47 AM
ZsKS4s1nblg


It's funny watching Dems singing GOP talking points. Authoritarian nonsense. The whole premise of the bill is wrong. Which makes the solution DOA. It's disgusting. Making scapegoats of people who can't afford expensive insurance.

JTC111
07-05-2012, 01:32 PM
It's funny watching Dems singing GOP talking points.
Well, they're not GOP talking points anymore, are they? The GOP thought it was a great idea until the Democrats decided to get on board with it; then it became the deathknell of freedom, and the devil personified, and a trashing of the Contitution, and something Hitler would have done, and it's socialism, and communism, and all kinds of really really bad things. But it was none of those things when it was a Republican idea.
Funny that.


Authoritarian nonsense.
Hardly. It protects me from the irresponsibility of those who can afford healthcare insurance and decide not to carry it.


Making scapegoats of people who can't afford expensive insurance.
There's a simple solution to that, isn't there? Universal National Healthcare.
We'd all be paying it through our taxes and we'd all be covered. And personally, I'd rather have a government agency controlling the cost of healthcare than an insurance company. The insurance company's goal is to make piles of money and they do that by denying treatment (those are your death panels). The government doesn't have a profit-motive involved and that would make me feel a whole lot better about my chances should I get some very serious ailment.

But regarding the bill, it hasn't been discussed much but there has been some mention of tax credits to put toward purchase for those that cannot afford the full cost of healthcare insurance, so some provision has been made for that group.

Dolphins9954
07-05-2012, 09:54 PM
Well, they're not GOP talking points anymore, are they? The GOP thought it was a great idea until the Democrats decided to get on board with it; then it became the deathknell of freedom, and the devil personified, and a trashing of the Contitution, and something Hitler would have done, and it's socialism, and communism, and all kinds of really really bad things. But it was none of those things when it was a Republican idea.
Funny that.


Hardly. It protects me from the irresponsibility of those who can afford healthcare insurance and decide not to carry it.


There's a simple solution to that, isn't there? Universal National Healthcare.
We'd all be paying it through our taxes and we'd all be covered. And personally, I'd rather have a government agency controlling the cost of healthcare than an insurance company. The insurance company's goal is to make piles of money and they do that by denying treatment (those are your death panels). The government doesn't have a profit-motive involved and that would make me feel a whole lot better about my chances should I get some very serious ailment.

But regarding the bill, it hasn't been discussed much but there has been some mention of tax credits to put toward purchase for those that cannot afford the full cost of healthcare insurance, so some provision has been made for that group.

It proves that Dems are no different than the GOP. From wars, liberties, corporatist handouts and power graps. Both these guys don't represent us at all and only represent those that give them the most money. As for Universal National Healthcare run by the government this bill is far from that. It was literally written by the profit-based insurance companies you rail against. Not to mention the sweet heart deal Obama gave the drug companies. This bill like all other corporatist bills that come out of Washington will favor the corporations that write the bills. Make no mistake about that.

People who can't afford expensive insurance aren't to blame for the rising cost of healthcare. Making scapegoats out of them ignores many other factors involved in the rising high costs. Which is why Romneycare and the state of MASS. still has some of the highest costs of healthcare in the country.


Which states rank highest in health care costs? (http://jan.ocregister.com/2011/01/31/which-states-rank-highest-in-health-care-costs/53810/)

http://jan.ocregister.com/2011/01/31/which-states-rank-highest-in-health-care-costs/53810/

Dolphins9954
07-05-2012, 10:38 PM
Here's a good interview....


Supreme Court Sides with Corporatization of Medicine


mzfcOFc5xjY

JTC111
07-06-2012, 01:15 AM
It proves that Dems are no different than the GOP. From wars, liberties, corporatist handouts and power graps.
There are corporatists in both parties, I won't argue that. There are some Democrats who aren't, but Obama is certainly not one of them. The Geithner pick confirmed that for me. However, I do think that problem is more prevalent in the Repubican party. But the corporatists are always going to be there as long as the rules allow the corporations to buy and sell candidates. There's a solution: public financing of campaigns (no private or personal money at all) followed by strict regulations of what Congresspeople can and cannot do once they leave office (no lobbying, for instance).


Both these guys don't represent us at all and only represent those that give them the most money.
I don't disagree. I wish Obama was really the socialist the crazies keep saying he is.


As for Universal National Healthcare run by the government this bill is far from that.
And that's why Obama's support from the left is a bit shaky. He walked into the WH a bit naive and spent way too long trying to come up with ways to get the Republicans to support some part of his agenda. And it took him way too long to realize that even if he gave them everything they wanted, they'd still vote 'no' on everything he pushed because their agenda was not about improving the lives of Americans; it was always about limiting Obama to one term.


It was literally written by the profit-based insurance companies you rail against. Not to mention the sweet heart deal Obama gave the drug companies. This bill like all other corporatist bills that come out of Washington will favor the corporations that write the bills. Make no mistake about that.
If you knew me better, you'd know that I've often offered the same criticism but, as I'm new here, it hasn't come up until now. I don't know that it was the insurance companies actually writing the bill, but I agree they had too much influence, and I'm still pissed that the WH's first move was to negotiate a sweet deal with BigPharma. But I'll also add the starting point in political negotiations to my list of disappointments. Naively, the WH chose a starting point that offered concessions that they knew the GOP would ask for. I suspect the thinking was that if they gave the Republicans a bill that included many of the ideas they had been voicing up until that point, they'd reward the effort by getting on board and becoming constructive members of the process, eventually voting for a bi-partisan bill. Well, we all know what happened.


People who can't afford expensive insurance aren't to blame for the rising cost of healthcare. Making scapegoats out of them ignores many other factors involved in the rising high costs. Which is why Romneycare and the state of MASS. still has some of the highest costs of healthcare in the country.

Which states rank highest in health care costs? (http://jan.ocregister.com/2011/01/31/which-states-rank-highest-in-health-care-costs/53810/)
http://jan.ocregister.com/2011/01/31/which-states-rank-highest-in-health-care-costs/53810/

And here's where you lose me because your logic is faulty. The list in that link is meaningless since you're comparing the costs of healthcare in states where there's actually an effort going on to make some level of healthcare available to all against states where there is an ongoing effort to limit healthcare availability, especially to the poor. If the states don't have the same goals regarding healthcare, comparing the costs in those states has little meaning.

Also, I think you're way off base on the penalty/tax. First, I don't see anyone making a scapegoat out of anyone. Uninsured people are a part of the reason healthcare costs are high. They're not the only reason but it's not as if this bill only addresses that problem in our current healthcare system. The bill provides tax credits to help defray the costs for those who can't afford the full cost of health insurance. But more importantly, it addresses those people who actually can afford health insurance but choose not to have it. People who can afford insurance but don't have it are being irresponsible. If the effect of that irresponsibility was limited to themselves, I'd take issue with the mandate. But the truth is those people cost the rest of us a lot of money. Are you one of those people? I noticed in another thread that you said, "We just got a big tax increase with Obamacare." Who's "we"? I didn't get a tax increase, nor did anyone else who has insurance. And in actuality, no one is subject to the penalty this year or next year. It doesn't kick in until 2014 and that was done on purpose to give people time to plan for it. Also, I'll remind you again, your criticisms are not new. The same things were said when RomneyCare got passed in Mass. Today, only 2% of Mass. residents pay the penalty. I'd prefer universal healthcare and 100% coverage but if we can achieve 98% coverage, it would be good interim point.

Here's something else you said in that other thread, "We have to cut government and spending to the point that we can have a balanced budget or pretty close to one."

If you cut gov't spending as much as you're suggesting, you're going to have to lay-off hundreds of thousands of workers at all levels of gov't. That massive and widespread unemployment would bury our economy for decades. And that massive public sector lay-off would lead to massive private sector lay-offs as the spending power of the middle class is deflated. Remember, jobs aren't created because some rich person has a bunch of cash hanging around; jobs are created when their is a demand for goods or services. You lay off all those people and the money they used to have that supported the various businesses they gave business to disappears. When demand goes down due to those folks you laid off not having money to spend, those businesses that depended on those consumers are going to either downsize or close up shop.

So now you're going to have less tax revenue coming into governments at all levels. We'll probably be okay militarily because we overspend so much in that area that if we cut the dollars in half we'd still be spending more than any other nation but our schools would fall even further behind the rest of the industrialized world. We'd see reductions in FBI staffing, CIA staffing, our courts would be even more overrun than they are now as cases will back up for years due to reductions in judgeships and the number of prosecutors. You like potholes? I hope so because local gov'ts will not be able to provide the same of maintenance. Get ready for once a week, or perhaps once every two weeks garbage pickup. That should make the neighborhood smell great. Home values would sink much further than they have in recent years due to a lack of buying power and limited potential buyers. Oh, and when that happens, we'll see another huge wave of foreclosures. More banks will close and further deplete US tax revenues when the gov't pays out FDIC guarantees to those who lost their money in those failed banks. I could list hundreds, if not thousands, of similar effects of drastic reductions in gov't spending but I think you can see my point. And if you don't think those things will happen, take a look at the European countries that have adopted austerity models.

But here's where I really take issue with you... you claim to be very worried that people who can't afford insurance will have to pay a penalty. But at the same time, you're supporting budget cuts that would have a much more dramatic impact upon the lives of lower income citizens. Reductions in food stamps, reductions in access to medical care, reductions in child care, reductions in before and after school programs, reductions in heating oil assistance programs, reductions in health and social services for seniors, ...as before, I could go on and on with this list. But my point is that it's hard NOT to see your criticism of the penalty/tax as disingenuous.


Here's a good interview....
Supreme Court Sides with Corporatization of Medicine
I completely agree with her. Just to be clear, I don't like the PPAFA because I don't want for-profit insurance companies making health decisions for me or anyone else. There's a conflict of interest in that set-up that can literally kill me.



I just found this article which contains a lot of information you might find interesting...
Is the Obama health-care law a huge tax increase? (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0629/Is-the-Obama-health-care-law-a-huge-tax-increase/%28page%29/2)

phins_4_ever
07-06-2012, 12:10 PM
There are corporatists in both parties, I won't argue that. There are some Democrats who aren't, but Obama is certainly not one of them. The Geithner pick confirmed that for me. However, I do think that problem is more prevalent in the Repubican party. But the corporatists are always going to be there as long as the rules allow the corporations to buy and sell candidates. There's a solution: public financing of campaigns (no private or personal money at all) followed by strict regulations of what Congresspeople can and cannot do once they leave office (no lobbying, for instance).


I don't disagree. I wish Obama was really the socialist the crazies keep saying he is.


And that's why Obama's support from the left is a bit shaky. He walked into the WH a bit naive and spent way too long trying to come up with ways to get the Republicans to support some part of his agenda. And it took him way too long to realize that even if he gave them everything they wanted, they'd still vote 'no' on everything he pushed because their agenda was not about improving the lives of Americans; it was always about limiting Obama to one term.


If you knew me better, you'd know that I've often offered the same criticism but, as I'm new here, it hasn't come up until now. I don't know that it was the insurance companies actually writing the bill, but I agree they had too much influence, and I'm still pissed that the WH's first move was to negotiate a sweet deal with BigPharma. But I'll also add the starting point in political negotiations to my list of disappointments. Naively, the WH chose a starting point that offered concessions that they knew the GOP would ask for. I suspect the thinking was that if they gave the Republicans a bill that included many of the ideas they had been voicing up until that point, they'd reward the effort by getting on board and becoming constructive members of the process, eventually voting for a bi-partisan bill. Well, we all know what happened.



And here's where you lose me because your logic is faulty. The list in that link is meaningless since you're comparing the costs of healthcare in states where there's actually an effort going on to make some level of healthcare available to all against states where there is an ongoing effort to limit healthcare availability, especially to the poor. If the states don't have the same goals regarding healthcare, comparing the costs in those states has little meaning.

Also, I think you're way off base on the penalty/tax. First, I don't see anyone making a scapegoat out of anyone. Uninsured people are a part of the reason healthcare costs are high. They're not the only reason but it's not as if this bill only addresses that problem in our current healthcare system. The bill provides tax credits to help defray the costs for those who can't afford the full cost of health insurance. But more importantly, it addresses those people who actually can afford health insurance but choose not to have it. People who can afford insurance but don't have it are being irresponsible. If the effect of that irresponsibility was limited to themselves, I'd take issue with the mandate. But the truth is those people cost the rest of us a lot of money. Are you one of those people? I noticed in another thread that you said, "We just got a big tax increase with Obamacare." Who's "we"? I didn't get a tax increase, nor did anyone else who has insurance. And in actuality, no one is subject to the penalty this year or next year. It doesn't kick in until 2014 and that was done on purpose to give people time to plan for it. Also, I'll remind you again, your criticisms are not new. The same things were said when RomneyCare got passed in Mass. Today, only 2% of Mass. residents pay the penalty. I'd prefer universal healthcare and 100% coverage but if we can achieve 98% coverage, it would be good interim point.

Here's something else you said in that other thread, "We have to cut government and spending to the point that we can have a balanced budget or pretty close to one."

If you cut gov't spending as much as you're suggesting, you're going to have to lay-off hundreds of thousands of workers at all levels of gov't. That massive and widespread unemployment would bury our economy for decades. And that massive public sector lay-off would lead to massive private sector lay-offs as the spending power of the middle class is deflated. Remember, jobs aren't created because some rich person has a bunch of cash hanging around; jobs are created when their is a demand for goods or services. You lay off all those people and the money they used to have that supported the various businesses they gave business to disappears. When demand goes down due to those folks you laid off not having money to spend, those businesses that depended on those consumers are going to either downsize or close up shop.

So now you're going to have less tax revenue coming into governments at all levels. We'll probably be okay militarily because we overspend so much in that area that if we cut the dollars in half we'd still be spending more than any other nation but our schools would fall even further behind the rest of the industrialized world. We'd see reductions in FBI staffing, CIA staffing, our courts would be even more overrun than they are now as cases will back up for years due to reductions in judgeships and the number of prosecutors. You like potholes? I hope so because local gov'ts will not be able to provide the same of maintenance. Get ready for once a week, or perhaps once every two weeks garbage pickup. That should make the neighborhood smell great. Home values would sink much further than they have in recent years due to a lack of buying power and limited potential buyers. Oh, and when that happens, we'll see another huge wave of foreclosures. More banks will close and further deplete US tax revenues when the gov't pays out FDIC guarantees to those who lost their money in those failed banks. I could list hundreds, if not thousands, of similar effects of drastic reductions in gov't spending but I think you can see my point. And if you don't think those things will happen, take a look at the European countries that have adopted austerity models.

But here's where I really take issue with you... you claim to be very worried that people who can't afford insurance will have to pay a penalty. But at the same time, you're supporting budget cuts that would have a much more dramatic impact upon the lives of lower income citizens. Reductions in food stamps, reductions in access to medical care, reductions in child care, reductions in before and after school programs, reductions in heating oil assistance programs, reductions in health and social services for seniors, ...as before, I could go on and on with this list. But my point is that it's hard NOT to see your criticism of the penalty/tax as disingenuous.


I completely agree with her. Just to be clear, I don't like the PPAFA because I don't want for-profit insurance companies making health decisions for me or anyone else. There's a conflict of interest in that set-up that can literally kill me.



I just found this article which contains a lot of information you might find interesting...
Is the Obama health-care law a huge tax increase? (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0629/Is-the-Obama-health-care-law-a-huge-tax-increase/%28page%29/2)



Awesome post.
But I tried that 'cuts will be followed by massive layoffs' with him a long time ago. 9954 can't even say where and how he would cut the government budget. It is the same philosophy with GM. Giving a bail out (which will be paid back with interest) was the lesser of the two evils (closure, massive layoffs, domino effect = less tax revenue, more government spending).

But it won't take any hold. People are just using talking points and snippets to make their case without thinking the process through. That's why 'heroes' like Ron Paul will never be President or come close to be a President because all they are doing is using 'talking points' and 'snippets' to appease their base.

JTC111
07-06-2012, 12:50 PM
Awesome post.
Thank you.


It is the same philosophy with GM. Giving a bail out (which will be paid back with interest) was the lesser of the two evils (closure, massive layoffs, domino effect = less tax revenue, more government spending).
I liked that the GM bailout came with some caveats. It was a sharp contrast to the financial industry bailout which allowed that industry to pretty much carry on with business as usual. Dodd-Frank is a weak bill that doesn't go anywhere near as far as it should to create firewalls and binding regulations to protect money being held in institutions that we, the people through FDIC, insure.


That's why 'heroes' like Ron Paul....
Umm... don't mistakenly lump me into that group. I'm no Ron Paul fan, not even a little. Now if you had said Bernie Sanders....

Dolphins9954
07-06-2012, 01:02 PM
Awesome post.
But I tried that 'cuts will be followed by massive layoffs' with him a long time ago. 9954 can't even say where and how he would cut the government budget. It is the same philosophy with GM. Giving a bail out (which will be paid back with interest) was the lesser of the two evils (closure, massive layoffs, domino effect = less tax revenue, more government spending).

But it won't take any hold. People are just using talking points and snippets to make their case without thinking the process through. That's why 'heroes' like Ron Paul will never be President or come close to be a President because all they are doing is using 'talking points' and 'snippets' to appease their base.


Really????

I love how you always make the debate about me. There is plenty to cut and something we must do in order to survive. We can't go on much longer with these deficits and debt. "Heros" like Paul won't get to be president because they don't sell-out like your hero Obama. Guess who's the 2 biggest sell-outs of all time in politics??? Romney and Obama. Excuse me if I don't like both these guys. Go ahead and vote for your favorite war-mongering corporatist. I'm sure after the election things will change for the better.

It's funny

phins_4_ever
07-06-2012, 01:13 PM
Umm... don't mistakenly lump me into that group. I'm no Ron Paul fan, not even a little. Now if you had said Bernie Sanders....

That wasn't directed at you. More like at the fans of Ron Paul.

phins_4_ever
07-06-2012, 01:22 PM
Really????

I love how you always make the debate about me. There is plenty to cut and something we must do in order to survive. We can't go on much longer with these deficits and debt. "Heros" like Paul won't get to be president because they don't sell-out like your hero Obama. Guess who's the 2 biggest sell-outs of all time in politics??? Romney and Obama. Excuse me if I don't like both these guys. Go ahead and vote for your favorite war-mongering corporatist. I'm sure after the election things will change for the better.

It's funny

I didn't make it about you. Don't give yourself too much credit or put yourself on a throne. I mentioned you because I responded to a post which responded to you. If it would have been Jared or Langer the JTC111 responded to I would have mentioned them.

There is so much to cut? Sure. But can you can't tell how and where and what you would cut and how you would be dealing with the immediate fall-outs (unemployment, decreased purchasing power, domino effect).

Paul will not become President because he is in the safe corner of talking points. He has never made any suggestions and solutions to his cutting the budget. It's only "i cut here and there and there....'
He can say that though because he never would run into the danger of actually becoming President and then keeping his word. Then he would have to deal with a Congress who makes the decisions about budget and budget cuts etc. Or do you believe in a dictatorship?

Dolphins9954
07-06-2012, 03:41 PM
I didn't make it about you. Don't give yourself too much credit or put yourself on a throne. I mentioned you because I responded to a post which responded to you. If it would have been Jared or Langer the JTC111 responded to I would have mentioned them.

There is so much to cut? Sure. But can you can't tell how and where and what you would cut and how you would be dealing with the immediate fall-outs (unemployment, decreased purchasing power, domino effect).

Paul will not become President because he is in the safe corner of talking points. He has never made any suggestions and solutions to his cutting the budget. It's only "i cut here and there and there....'
He can say that though because he never would run into the danger of actually becoming President and then keeping his word. Then he would have to deal with a Congress who makes the decisions about budget and budget cuts etc. Or do you believe in a dictatorship?

I don't know where you've been. But Paul has said many different times what he would cut. It's pretty easy to find. Just google it. Same with me. I've said on many occassions what needs to be cut. I've even had this same debate with you. Why you can't remember is beyond me. As for talking points.....Am I really listening to you attack Paul for talking points when your guy is the talking point teleprompter king of the world???

JTC111
07-06-2012, 03:54 PM
But Paul has said many different times what he would cut.
...while all the time avoiding any talk about the negative consequences of the drastic cuts he supports and how those cuts would further cripple this already weak economy. The nations of Europe adopting austerity models are creating economic messes that future historians will refer to as "generational" and, given his way, RP would take us down the same path. The only prominent people I've read that understand what is happening and have proposed solutions that would work are Paul Krugman and Robert Reich.

Dogbone34
07-06-2012, 03:59 PM
...while all the time avoiding any talk about the negative consequences of the drastic cuts he supports and how those cuts would further cripple this already weak economy. The nations of Europe adopting austerity models are creating economic messes that future historians will refer to as "generational" and, given his way, RP would take us down the same path. The only prominent people I've read that understand what is happening and have proposed solutions that would work are Paul Krugman and Robert Reich.

slugman is a clown. getting rid of public employees/obligations will benefit the economy. business does it all the time. Take the hit now, gain the benefit later.

Dolphins9954
07-06-2012, 04:14 PM
...while all the time avoiding any talk about the negative consequences of the drastic cuts he supports and how those cuts would further cripple this already weak economy. The nations of Europe adopting austerity models are creating economic messes that future historians will refer to as "generational" and, given his way, RP would take us down the same path. The only prominent people I've read that understand what is happening and have proposed solutions that would work are Paul Krugman and Robert Reich.


Why are those countries cutting back again????


As for Krugman. That man is a joke and total partisan that was a huge supporter and advocate of the housing bubble and cheap Federal Reserve credit.

JTC111
07-07-2012, 11:09 AM
slugman is a clown. getting rid of public employees/obligations will benefit the economy. business does it all the time. Take the hit now, gain the benefit later.


Why are those countries cutting back again????
As for Krugman. That man is a joke and total partisan that was a huge supporter and advocate of the housing bubble and cheap Federal Reserve credit.

Krugman has a Nobel Prize in economics, and you two have...?