[MP0WER]

Just playing a little devil's advocate below....

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

'Okay, explained like you're a five year-old (well, okay, maybe a bit older), without too much oversimplification, and (hopefully) without sounding too biased:
What people call "Obamacare" is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it "Obamacare" before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It's a term mostly used by people who don't like the PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.

Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to.

So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):

Already in effect:

It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices) Newer drugs, less rigorous testing = more class action lawsuits and higher drug costs.

It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)How does something like this work? Who gets the discount, who suffers from or pays for the discount? Drugs cost $200, you get a $50 rebate through medicare, does the drug manufacture give the rebate, the pharmacy, medicare? Can't get a rebate unless there was more profit to begin with.

It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, [1] PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( [2] Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 )Who funds the "non-profit group"? My guess will be the government (read tax dollars)because most non-profit groups who are privately established receive some type of government funds to function. If the gov is going to establish one you know we are going to fund it.

It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( [3] Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )Good Call.

It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them. So here is a bill to establish the same health care for everyone. But because i have health condition that may limit my ability to hold a job i'll have to pay more than others for the same health care?

It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions. WTF does this mean?

It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( [4] Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )So, indoor tanning will cost 10% more now. People figure out that the sun is free and thousands of tanning salons are out of business and tens of thousands are out of work. Even though the free SUN tanning comes with the same or more health risk than indoor tanning.

It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( [5] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 ) While i agree that by signing on and giving the insurance company what they wanted to insure me they should insure me no matter what because that was the deal; I'm amazed that people haven't figured out how insurance companies work. If everyone has claims for more than they paid in they have no more money for you.

Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26. Makes no difference because they will just raise the rate. They can be on there but as a parent you won't want those bitches on there.

No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19.

Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans. How does this work without regulating how much profit they can make?

People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.Again, where does the rebate come from? Can't rebate something that wasn't there already, someone is losing out.

Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( [6] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )good call.

Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific). Why do i give a shit about what the insurance company does with the profit they make?

Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down. If there is a detailed explanation of benefits drawn up at the start of the policy why would they have to turn down a claim? It's covered or it's not.

New ways to stop fraud are created. Can there be a more ambiguous explanation statement about one of the largest problems with our current health care system and nearly all government programs?


Medicare extends to smaller hospitals. Sounds reasonable.

Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly. Sounds good but the logistics of doing this could be astronomical.

Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.What kind of costs can the government reduce? Are they going to lower the price of their office supplies, phone bills, etc...?

A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: [7] http://www.healthcare.gov/ ). All government websites are awesome and helpful.

A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness. A credit is rebates ugly brother, can't have a credit without a debit. All the CPAs say "oh yeah"

A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers. By and large i've been having fun with this, but this truly scares me, as a business owner.

A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.good call.

Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms. seems easy enough until they start dictating what benefits i have to provide. Which would be the next step.

8/1/2012
Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.So no co-pay or charge. Translated means increase in premium.

1/1/2013
If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners. Earners is the key word in this statement. Now i not one to feel bad for anyone who banks $1m a year but that's $10k that person could use to set up a trust for his family or $10k they could give to a real non-profit group. The problem most top earners have with this is that only 0.9% of that $10k will be used as it's intended. Waste, fraud & abuse; government specialty.

1/1/2014
This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.

No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history. So this means everyone who qualified for insurance prior to this date will now be paying more for it to include those who didn't previously qualify. Depending on the ratios, there could be a majority group of people getting the shaft here.

If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it.This is where people get pissed because if you work your ass off and decide to self insure by stocking away your earned money since you joined the work force you still have to pay a non compliance fee. While someone who doesn't work their ass off, free loads from the government doesn't have to pay while getting the same health care.


Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( [8] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )Assuming the funds are there to allow this....

Make it so more poor people can get Medicaid by making the low-income cut-off higher. So where does the extra money come from. We already established that someone reporting as much as $1mil in income will only pay an additional $10k in taxes.

Small businesses get some tax credits for two years. Only for 2 years. Small business are busting their ass everyday to stay in business. This is like placating a beast with tasty morsels until you get them locked in a cage. Give them a break for 2 years and then lay it on them.

Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty. Gonna be a lot of part-time employees soon

Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers. Gov running business. As much as i despise insurance companies, i don't want the government running them.

Cut some Medicare spending. Ambiguous statements again with regards to one of the larger issues.

Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them. Nice penalty for self insuring...

Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage. Since the exchanges and rebates are only for the lower and middle class, the upper class will be providing those rebates?

Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen. Don't be so gullible.

A new tax on pharmaceutical companies. = higher drug prices

A new tax on the purchase of medical devices. = higher cost of using those devises.

A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed. So the cheaper their rates and the more customers they have the more tax they'll pay. Seems legit.

The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.Why play this shell game? Raise taxes to cover health care, if you use health care you get to pay less taxes. WTF?

1/1/2015

Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in [9] this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read. Seems reasonable.

1/1/2017

If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).Geez, you mean this is a union of states after all? like this is special treatment put in there just to be nice?

2018

All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones).Makes sense. But isn't free.

A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage). So if i choose to spend more money on a better plan i'll be taxed for it. WTF?

2020

The elimination of the "Medicare gap" Ambiguous again.... big surprise.
.

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Uh, a homeless person can't buy a soda without paying taxes. I don't think anyone wakes up in the morning looking for ways to make their lives worse. People are in circumstances and it is up to us all to insure we don't simply ignore these people. No one is getting a free check. Lol. I love that misconception. If any of you think depending on our beloved gov't is a desirable experience, remind yourself of how well your local DMV operates. You judge a nation by how well it treats it's children and animals. If a parent has no insurance , common sense says neither does their child. Moreover, there are plenty of people who contribute to society but need assistance. How many veterans are currently on welfare???? Get off your high horse, you're circumstances can change in an instant. Everything in life is temporary.

It's not a desirable existence. However it is becoming a viable class in America. In the very near future there will be generations that don't know any different. While we view it as undesirable, those that don't know much different may just start to desire that very existence. Especially when programs like this, like it or not, are effectively making a government supported lifestyle much easier to cope with.

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

It's not a desirable existence. However it is becoming a viable class in America. In the very near future there will be generations that don't know any different. While we view it as undesirable, those that don't know much different may just start to desire that very existence. Especially when programs like this, like it or not, are effectively making a government supported lifestyle much easier to cope with.

You see more entrepreneurs today than in history. What the heck are you guys talking about? Welfare is no longer that attractive to the lazy person because one cannot stay on it indefinitely like the old days. Don't you guys read and update your knowledge?

[TMNT]

Originally Posted by Bmoney2K4

My question is if Romney is President, can he reverse this law?

He can not reverse the law by himself. Congress has to do it first (a majority vote in the House & Senate) then and only then can a president approve it.

So in reality, unless the republicans get a majority in both houses, it aint happening.

[benzy89]

Originally Posted by Bmoney2K4

My question is if Romney is President, can he reverse this law?

He individually cannot, it's up to Congress now, or if any of the following Supreme Courts choose to reevaluate the case -- Look up Dred Scott (which legalized slavery) or Plessy v Ferguson (which upheld racial segregation under the "separate but equal" clause in the US Constitution).

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Uh, a homeless person can't buy a soda without paying taxes. I don't think anyone wakes up in the morning looking for ways to make their lives worse. People are in circumstances and it is up to us all to insure we don't simply ignore these people. No one is getting a free check. Lol. I love that misconception. If any of you think depending on our beloved gov't is a desirable experience, remind yourself of how well your local DMV operates. You judge a nation by how well it treats it's children and animals. If a parent has no insurance , common sense says neither does their child. Moreover, there are plenty of people who contribute to society but need assistance. How many veterans are currently on welfare???? Get off your high horse, you're circumstances can change in an instant. Everything in life is temporary.

You know what the ironic thing is about this? ~15 yrs ago, if you were homeless or couldn't afford healthcare, the response was "get a job" or "do something to improve your living situation". Now, in sue-happy/over-protective 2012, we need to take care of everyone, love each other & protect the unicorns. I need to get off my high horse?? How about all these people draining from society? They need to get off their high horse, and if that means working at a gas station or McDonalds so they can pay their bills and do "their part" (because under the Liberal mentality, we're all in this together and should share the burdens together) and contribute to society by getting a job, paying their income & property taxes, any debts they have accrued & make something of themselves.

Maybe it's just me, but I have way too much pride to ever allow myself to be dependent on food stamps or welfare checks. I don't care if that means I need to be knee deep in shit while working for Roto Rooter, I will do whatever the fuck it takes to legitimately be able to afford a decent, non-government dependent, life for me + my family.

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by benzy89

You know what the ironic thing is about this? ~15 yrs ago, if you were homeless or couldn't afford healthcare, the response was "get a job" or "do something to improve your living situation". Now, in sue-happy/over-protective 2012, we need to take care of everyone, love each other & protect the unicorns. I need to get off my high horse?? How about all these people draining from society? They need to get off their high horse, and if that means working at a gas station or McDonalds so they can pay their bills and do "their part" (because under the Liberal mentality, we're all in this together and should share the burdens together) and contribute to society by getting a job, paying their income & property taxes, any debts they have accrued & make something of themselves.

I love the idealistic approach you have for people who, ironically, are already working at McDonalds and gas stations trying to secure the American dream, or in non-dreamy terms...trying to survive. YOU CAN'T. You're funny. You erroneously equate getting a job, yes simple a job, with being enough in today's society to actually make headway. Hahah. Boy, are you a funny guy. The fact of the matter is, this country has been helping people for centuries (even under the guise of indentured servitude and slavery but, that's another discussion) since immigrants came over on a boat. The US Gov't has always extended her hand to those less fortunate and I bet you too, or someone in your family, has gotten assistance at some point. If you're doing ok in your life, why are you so bitter when others get help? Taxes? LOL. That cannot be the crux of your argument because taxes will not go anywhere, so I suggest you move.

Maybe it's just me, but I have way too much pride to ever allow myself to be dependent on food stamps or welfare checks. I don't care if that means I need to be knee deep in shit while working for Roto Rooter, I will do whatever the fuck it takes to legitimately be able to afford a decent, non-government dependent, life for me + my family.

Pride doesn't put food on the table and god forbid you lose your health, your hungry belly will forget what pride is and you'll take whatever help you can get. Pray you'll never need it.

[Templar]

"Wah I don't know what I'm gonna do when I grow up! Join the fucking Army or something Jesus!"

[CollinsE90]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

Just playing a little devil's advocate below....

Not my words, hence the quotation marks. Some of what you said can be debated, though. From what I've gathered, the intent is to get people that only decide to get insurance when they need it, to acquire it under mandate, subsequently decreasing premiums across the board. 0.9% increase if you make over 200k, but if you get a decrease in healthcare cost, it makes it seem logical. I'm sure there will be bugs and loopholes, but as of now it seems to be better than what we have at the moment. Very few people can afford to self insure, but I believe if you look into it closely enough, there's a way you can still do it without getting hit with a fee (i.e. invest in something you know will not decrease in worth, like a rare piece of art or history, and sell it when the time comes). I see it targeting hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies more than business owners.

Edit: investing in art or the likes was a dumb idea, the tax on an item like that would be way too high. But, you get what I'm saying.

[benzy89]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

I love the idealistic approach you have for people who, ironically, are already working at McDonalds and gas stations trying to secure the American dream, or in non-dreamy terms...trying to survive. YOU CAN'T. You're funny. You erroneously equate getting a job, yes simple a job, with being enough in today's society to actually make headway. Hahah. Boy, are you a funny guy. The fact of the matter is, this country has been helping people for centuries (even under the guise of indentured servitude and slavery but, that's another discussion) since immigrants came over on a boat. The US Gov't has always extended her hand to those less fortunate and I bet you too, or someone in your family, has gotten assistance at some point. If you're doing ok in your life, why are you so bitter when others get help? Taxes? LOL. That cannot be the crux of your argument because taxes will not go anywhere, so I suggest you move.

Pride doesn't put food on the table and god forbid you lose your health, your hungry belly will forget what pride is and you'll take whatever help you can get. Pray you'll never need it.

Pride doesn't put food on the table or keep a roof over my head, amd it also doesn't pay the $200k in student loans I'm paying right now (or my car payments, or my car insurance, or my credit car, or anything else). BUT I decided to take on student loans at a 12% interest rate from the Fed Govt. so I could set myself up for "life after college". And now, after deferring my loans for 4 months while they accrued interest, I have a job and am paying off all my debts/expenses without living outside my means. This usually means sacrificing a night out, new mods for my car or going to a Yankee game, but I suck it up b/c I realize the importance of paying off my student loans ASAP + not running my credit cards into the ground.
Yea, my life is pretty cushy & I got a decent education which helped me get a decent first job. But what actually got here is taking some fucking responsibility in my life, which is something society refuses to do. When shit gets tough, the new "natural response" is "OHH life is soo tough, the government & rich people should bail me out because they have so much & I have so little. Poor me"

Here's a novel idea, budget your finances responsibly. Regardless of where you work (McDonalds, Gas Station, Public Service Position), you'll be getting a paycheck. If people live beyond their means & don't budget their finances in a responsible way, they've brought that on themselves -- There are plenty of affordable living options, regardless of your income level.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by BMWinNorthdakota

Romney is adamantly apposed to the new healthcare law, so it is a possibility that he will repeal if elected.

His actions as gov of Mass say otherwise though (He basically set the groundwork for the healthcare "tax" that was just upheld).

Only congress can repeal a law. The president doesn't have the power.

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by benzy89

Pride doesn't put food on the table or keep a roof over my head, amd it also doesn't pay the $200k in student loans I'm paying right now (or my car payments, or my car insurance, or my credit car, or anything else). BUT I decided to take on student loans at a 12% interest rate from the Fed Govt. so I could set myself up for "life after college". And now, after deferring my loans for 4 months while they accrued interest, I have a job and am paying off all my debts/expenses without living outside my means. This usually means sacrificing a night out, new mods for my car or going to a Yankee game, but I suck it up b/c I realize the importance of paying off my student loans ASAP + not running my credit cards into the ground.
Yea, my life is pretty cushy & I got a decent education which helped me get a decent first job. But what actually got here is taking some fucking responsibility in my life, which is something society refuses to do. When shit gets tough, the new "natural response" is "OHH life is soo tough, the government & rich people should bail me out because they have so much & I have so little. Poor me"

Here's a novel idea, budget your finances responsibly. Regardless of where you work (McDonalds, Gas Station, Public Service Position), you'll be getting a paycheck. If people live beyond their means & don't budget their finances in a responsible way, they've brought that on themselves -- There are plenty of affordable living options, regardless of your income level.

The hilarity in your post is that you think you deserve an award for doing that. New flash: your story isn't novel. Many people fall into your category, yet life happens and they find themselves in need. But, your ranting doesn't really address the issue at hand, does it? You sound like an uninformed, bitter man upset Obama just got another victory. The health of a nation determines our strength or can define out weakness.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by benzy89

Maybe it's just me, but I have way too much pride to ever allow myself to be dependent on food stamps or welfare checks. I don't care if that means I need to be knee deep in shit while working for Roto Rooter, I will do whatever the fuck it takes to legitimately be able to afford a decent, non-government dependent, life for me + my family.

For your sake I hope you never have the misfortune of being stricken with a debilitating illness or injury and lose the capacity to work and care for yourself and your family. But if God forbid that ever does happen, you better hope you find yourself living in a country of laws and people more charitable than you are today.

[Echo M3]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

Just playing a little devil's advocate below....

My biggest complaints:

1.) Pegging physician salaries to healthcare outcomes is notoriously tricky. How do you do this without making physicians select their patients? If you pay physicians based on how their patients do, you will provide an incentive for them to treat the healthiest individuals, or the individuals with the best prognosis. The current reimbursement system is crap ($1500 for a 30 minute PCI, while $1500-$2k for a 4-5 hour CABG/bypass procedure), but we have to be careful how we organize the new compensation system. Prevention MUST be emphasized. It is ridiculous that a 30 minute health counseling session is billed the same as a 30 second procedure. One of the reasons our country sucks in terms of life expectancy is that we have terrible preventive services. We are great at fixing the problem once it occurs (arguably the best specialist services in the western world), but we are useless at preventing these illnesses in the first place. And yes, they ARE preventable, for the most part.

2.) I don't like the idea of mandating healthcare through employers. We need to break this cycle. It's horrible that if someone is laid off, they lose insurance coverage for them AND their family. We need to move away from employer provided health insurance to a social insurance model, where everyone has to buy their insurance separately.

3.) Cuts to medicare spending. This is very disturbing, as medicare already compensates may doctors at cost or below cost. If this trend continues, you will see more doctors dumping their medicare patients, leading to a real shortage of physicians for the underprivileged.

4.) I think they struck down the provision that would have allowed medicare to expand coverage? This , in my view, is a good thing. I am all for insurance coverage for those who cannot afford it, but I am adamantly against a single-payer system.

[firstkill]

as a doctor, i plan to quit seeing medcaid patients in my office.
It is no longer worth my time.

A lot of private physicians will do the same. That will leave the majority of the folks with the new required insurance to go Federally Funded/non profit clinics.

Our tax dollars at work!

Originally Posted by Echo M3

My biggest complaints:

1.) Pegging physician salaries to healthcare outcomes is notoriously tricky. How do you do this without making physicians select their patients? If you pay physicians based on how their patients do, you will provide an incentive for them to treat the healthiest individuals, or the individuals with the best prognosis. The current reimbursement system is crap ($1500 for a 30 minute PCI, while $1500-$2k for a 4-5 hour CABG/bypass procedure), but we have to be careful how we organize the new compensation system. Prevention MUST be emphasized. It is ridiculous that a 30 minute health counseling session is billed the same as a 30 second procedure. One of the reasons our country sucks in terms of life expectancy is that we have terrible preventive services. We are great at fixing the problem once it occurs (arguably the best specialist services in the western world), but we are useless at preventing these illnesses in the first place. And yes, they ARE preventable, for the most part.

2.) I don't like the idea of mandating healthcare through employers. We need to break this cycle. It's horrible that if someone is laid off, they lose insurance coverage for them AND their family. We need to move away from employer provided health insurance to a social insurance model, where everyone has to buy their insurance separately.

3.) Cuts to medicare spending. This is very disturbing, as medicare already compensates may doctors at cost or below cost. If this trend continues, you will see more doctors dumping their medicare patients, leading to a real shortage of physicians for the underprivileged.

4.) I think they struck down the provision that would have allowed medicare to expand coverage? This , in my view, is a good thing. I am all for insurance coverage for those who cannot afford it, but I am adamantly against a single-payer system.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Here are my thoughts on this whole matter:
- Thanks CollinsE90 for actually laying out the facts. My wife works for one of the big provider companies, so I know the facts, but most people don't, and it's become so completely politicized.
- It seems clear to me that the idea of a mandate (pay-in or you're on your own) would normally be supported by republicans, whereas the idea that the uninsured should receive free emergency room care would normally be supported by democrats, right? The fact that it's the other way around proves that it's completely anti-Obama. After all, republican governer Romney passed it in Massachusetts with backlash from healthcare companies, but little backlash from citizens.
- People need to realize this is not single-payer universal healthcare, which is unlikely to ever happen here. So it's more about eliminating the $100,000 costs of uninsured ER patients, than it is about providing full coverage for all.
- I took-on the role of hiring manager for my engineering dept during the recession (we were actually hiring during 2008-2010). The number of highly skilled career professionals in their 50's who were first-time unemployed was unreal. And these people were doing dozens and dozens of interviews. And yes, many of them stepped down to jobs at half the pay, but even those jobs were far and few between. Then there's all those who got cancer, got injured in an accident, had to pay for a special needs child, or were suddenly faced with the cost of a managed facility for their elderly parents. I can guarantee that most of you "self-sufficient" types will be faced with one or more of these situations in your lifetime, so get off your high horses.

[Templar]

My horse is higher than all of your horses!

[CamelBiscuit]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Here are my thoughts on this whole matter:
- Thanks CollinsE90 for actually laying out the facts. My wife works for one of the big provider companies, so I know the facts, but most people don't, and it's become so completely politicized.
- It seems clear to me that the idea of a mandate (pay-in or you're on your own) would normally be supported by republicans, whereas the idea that the uninsured should receive free emergency room care would normally be supported by democrats, right? The fact that it's the other way around proves that it's completely anti-Obama. After all, republican governer Romney passed it in Massachusetts with backlash from healthcare companies, but little backlash from citizens.
- People need to realize this is not single-payer universal healthcare, which is unlikely to ever happen here. So it's more about eliminating the $100,000 costs of uninsured ER patients, than it is about providing full coverage for all.
- I took-on the role of hiring manager for my engineering dept during the recession (we were actually hiring during 2008-2010). The number of highly skilled career professionals in their 50's who were first-time unemployed was unreal. And these people were doing dozens and dozens of interviews. And yes, many of them stepped down to jobs at half the pay, but even those jobs were far and few between. Then there's all those who got cancer, got injured in an accident, had to pay for a special needs child, or were suddenly faced with the cost of a managed facility for their elderly parents. I can guarantee that most of you "self-sufficient" types will be faced with one or more of these situations in your lifetime, so get off your high horses.

So firstkill is a doctor and he is already talking about not seeing medcaid patents at his office and many more could follow. What would be the federally funded non-profit clinics and I'm sure they don't specialize in everything so what then?

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

Not my words, hence the quotation marks. Some of what you said can be debated, though. From what I've gathered, the intent is to get people that only decide to get insurance when they need it, to acquire it under mandate, subsequently decreasing premiums across the board. 0.9% increase if you make over 200k, but if you get a decrease in healthcare cost, it makes it seem logical. I'm sure there will be bugs and loopholes, but as of now it seems to be better than what we have at the moment. Very few people can afford to self insure, but I believe if you look into it closely enough, there's a way you can still do it without getting hit with a fee (i.e. invest in something you know will not decrease in worth, like a rare piece of art or history, and sell it when the time comes). I see it targeting hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies more than business owners.

Edit: investing in art or the likes was a dumb idea, the tax on an item like that would be way too high. But, you get what I'm saying.

Yeah, i know they were't your words. Just pointing out the tip of the iceberg.

Invest in art!?!?! You know what i'm investing in!

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

For your sake I hope you never have the misfortune of being stricken with a debilitating illness or injury and lose the capacity to work and care for yourself and your family. But if God forbid that ever does happen, you better hope you find yourself living in a country of laws and people more charitable than you are today.

I wish i could have a way to convey things on the internet so that people know i'm not trying to insult them or something like that.

But i believe you'll be hard pressed to find someone who says the things Benzy is saying that won't also be one of the first to help those truly in need.

But i also believe that the 50 or so percent of americans who are only collectively paying 3 percent of the collected taxes are not ALL stricken with a debilitating illness or injury. Those that are deserve a life time of assistance to lead a comfortable life. Those that aren't deserve an education and an opportunity, make of it what you will.

As undesirable of an existence as it may be to most, there are people who choose to live a government subsidized lifestyle. I see it in my work all the time, my wife audits non for profits for her work and sees it, as well as hears it from her clients. She also serves on a board of directors for a NFP. It's not something we're making up and at least in our neck of the woods the amount of people who are becoming complacent enough to live that way is increasing exponentially.

[BMWinNorthdakota]

but of fuckin pussies in my thread yo

who even cares about poor people? Tell them to quit being poor and sick and stuff

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

But i also believe that the 50 or so percent of americans who are only collectively paying 3 percent of the collected taxes are not ALL stricken with a debilitating illness or injury.

Complete and utter bullshit.

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Complete and utter bullshit.

Feeling overtaxed? Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department.
According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year.

In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.
The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.
Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.
The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.
The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.
The White House has announced it will lobby Congress to pass legislation making most of President Bush's tax cutting measures permanent.

Source: U.S. Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis

Tax Year 2009

Percentiles Ranked by AGI

AGI Threshold on Percentiles

Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1% $343,927 36.73%

Top 5% $154,643 58.66%

Top 10% $112,124 70.47%

Top 25% $66,193 87.30%

Top 50% $32,396 97.75%

Bottom 50% <$32,396 2.25%

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service