RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans

RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 4:25:04 PM)
quote: you along with Merc and a few others on these boards have lived up to what you desire... money grubbers. I AM PROUD! Nothing to be ashamed of, taxes paid, money in the bank, and HAPPY as hell! Same goes for my employees who due to our collected efforts made my company money and will be getting bonuses for their families - their fully insured families. ALL having an eye on my bottom line because it impacts theirs. Who also ALL have more tenure with the company than I do. You on the other had - must be as bitter as hell, because that's what you show. A money grubber is a person who take is without it being earned. A grub - hoping that something under a rock, or out of the light of day at least, finds a crumb they are worthy to digest. Does that describe you by any chance? BTW Tazzy - started the campaign against the current health care bill since it lacks a single payer option and also has a cap on benefits? Or are you a verified liar instead of a supposed liar? You have a MARVELOUS Holiday Season wallowing in your misery.

cadenas -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 4:29:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas You are aware that for most families, if their mortgage payment was as high as their health insurance premium, the bank would decline to give them a mortgage because they don't make enough money? The second statement is clearly false. What do you base that wild assertion on? Uhhhhh....math. Average to highside family individual insurance premium is around $1000 a month. Assuming a $350 a month car payment and a typical total debt payment to income ratio of 40% the monthly income to qualify is $40.5k /year. Median family income is $52k/year so 1/2 of the families would clearly qualify. Ah, that explains it. You are using outdated numbers. Stick in correct current numbers and use the front-end DTI ratio instead of the back-end one, and your calculation will confirm my statement. A 40% DTI may have been realistic 5 years ago. Today, it's 28% - and that is for mortgage, property tax and insurance combined (the back-end ratio also includes car payments, student loans, credit cards etc., so it's pretty useless in this context). Even on the back-end ratio, banks don't accept 40% any more. The median household income is also slightly lower, just a tad over $50k ($50,233 to be exact, in 2007 - the latest years I have numbers for). All that means is that today, a family making median income might just barely qualify for a mortgage that costs as much as their health insurance.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 4:42:35 PM)
2009 median is 52,000 and even if you use something lower than 40% DTI there was plenty of room in my numbers. 40% DTI is still in use depending on your down payment. Further this isnt the same as your intitial claim: "a family making median income might just barely qualify for a mortgage that costs as much as their health insurance." You said that "most people would be denied a mortgage" if their mortgage was that high. Even ignoring that many of those below median arent looking for a mortgage and arent paying for their own health care, the portion of the half of the people above median that would qualify for a mortgage equal to that health care premium makes your original claim clearly false.

Slavehandsome -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 4:44:07 PM)
Cheney's 2005 Analysis: Iraqi Resistance In Its Last Throes

cadenas -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 4:45:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Or the delusional that think that adding a potential 50 million people to medicare after the proposed medicare cuts wont lead to higher Federal taxes. Given that you just two posts earlier admitted that most Americans don't pay anywhere near as much taxes as health insurance premiums in the first place, it seems to me that this is not exactly a big deal. Your lack of ability to analyze astounds. If 1/2 the people dont pay taxes, and you add the cost of covering 50 million people under Medicare to the 1/2 that does pay taxes it is a huge deal. Fact check. The claim that half the people don't pay taxes came from you. Reality is that a median-income family does pay taxes, approximately $5000/year, depending of course on their individual circumstances. A median-income family (or their employer) also pays around $12000 in health insurance premiums annually. You are saying that the increase in tax would have a huge impact. In order to have any impact at all, the tax would have to more than triple - from $5000 to $17,000, before a median-income family would even see a change at all in their bank account. That is obviously absurd. In reality, if the taxes would go up at all (by no means a certainty), it would not likely affect anybody with less than about a million dollars income.

cadenas -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 4:54:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy 2009 median is 52,000 and even if you use something lower than 40% DTI there was plenty of room in my numbers. 40% DTI is still in use depending on your down payment. Further this isnt the same as your intitial claim: "a family making median income might just barely qualify for a mortgage that costs as much as their health insurance." You said that "most people would be denied a mortgage" if their mortgage was that high. Even ignoring that many of those below median arent looking for a mortgage and arent paying for their own health care, the portion of the half of the people above median that would qualify for a mortgage equal to that health care premium makes your original claim clearly false. Actually, my two statements are equivalent for practical purposes. A family making median income might barely qualify. Or they might not. Anybody making less than that - and that is, by definition, half the population - would clearly not qualify. And anybody making just above the median might still not qualify. So it's at least 50% who wouldn't qualify for that kind of mortgage payment. Thus my statement "most people would be denied a mortgage" still holds.

Mercnbeth -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 4:59:13 PM)
Speaking of facts and reality checks... U.S. healthcare spending would rise by about $234 billion over the next decade under the Senate Democrats' overhaul bill and some of the proposed savings might never be achieved, a U.S. agency said in a report released on Friday. It was the latest in a series of reports issued by the agency that oversees Medicare that cast doubt on some of the savings claims made by Democrats about one of President Barack Obama's top domestic priorities. The report, written by Richard Foster, the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the increase in healthcare spending reflected the impact of millions of newly covered people seeking medical care. "Although several provisions would help to reduce healthcare cost growth, their impact would be more than offset through 2019 by the higher health expenditures resulting from the coverage expansions," the report said. The report, similar to one issued by the agency on the healthcare bill passed by the House of Representatives in November, went on to say the added demand for health services at first may be difficult to meet and could lead to price increases and a reluctance by providers to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage. Medicare has significantly lower reimbursement rates than private insurers. Doctors, clinics and hospitals that rely heavily on Medicare patients for business "could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program," the report said. Point of Information: Unless you live on some remote self sustaining island, not needing to make any purchases, especially gasoline and/or oil; you pay taxes. You may not pay Federal taxes and/or SS; which seems to be pointed to in the great debate, but you pay taxes in some form/fashion.

cadenas -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 5:36:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Speaking of facts and reality checks... U.S. healthcare spending would rise by about $234 billion over the next decade under the Senate Democrats' overhaul bill and some of the proposed savings might never be achieved, a U.S. agency said in a report released on Friday. And without the bill, it would rise by that much EVERY year instead of in ten years. That's about the amount of health care inflation we have right now. Or to put it in different numbers: these $20 some billion per year would be about as much as two months of the Iraq war. Which was accompanied by tax cuts.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 5:39:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Or the delusional that think that adding a potential 50 million people to medicare after the proposed medicare cuts wont lead to higher Federal taxes. Given that you just two posts earlier admitted that most Americans don't pay anywhere near as much taxes as health insurance premiums in the first place, it seems to me that this is not exactly a big deal. Your lack of ability to analyze astounds. If 1/2 the people dont pay taxes, and you add the cost of covering 50 million people under Medicare to the 1/2 that does pay taxes it is a huge deal. Fact check. The claim that half the people don't pay taxes came from you. Reality is that a median-income family does pay taxes, approximately $5000/year, depending of course on their individual circumstances. A median-income family (or their employer) also pays around $12000 in health insurance premiums annually. You are saying that the increase in tax would have a huge impact. In order to have any impact at all, the tax would have to more than triple - from $5000 to $17,000, before a median-income family would even see a change at all in their bank account. That is obviously absurd. In reality, if the taxes would go up at all (by no means a certainty), it would not likely affect anybody with less than about a million dollars income. Fact check if youre quibbling between 47% and "half" go right ahead, but in 2010 it will be over half anyway "You are saying that the increase in tax would have a huge impact. In order to have any impact at all, the tax would have to more than triple - from $5000 to $17,000, before a median-income family would even see a change at all in their bank account." Yes...this statement is obviously absurd. $1 increase in taxes would affect their bank account (or their spending, if they so chose).

tazzygirl -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 8:01:15 PM)
quote: You on the other had - must be as bitter as hell, because that's what you show. A money grubber is a person who take is without it being earned. A grub - hoping that something under a rock, or out of the light of day at least, finds a crumb they are worthy to digest. Does that describe you by any chance? BTW Tazzy - started the campaign against the current health care bill since it lacks a single payer option and also has a cap on benefits? Or are you a verified liar instead of a supposed liar? You have a MARVELOUS Holiday Season wallowing in your misery. Misery? LOL... im quite happy during this holiday season... and it will continue into next year without a hitch! As far as the health care bill... i said i would not support it. I do NOT support the absence of public options. As i have also said, im waiting to see whats coming out to go before Obama. No where did i say i would "start a campaign".

willbeurdaddy -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 8:12:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl As far as the health care bill... i said i would not support it. I do NOT support the absence of public options. then you should support it. If it passes as is and Obama gets a second term, the public option will be there by the end of it. I'll lay 50:1 on that.

tazzygirl -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 8:14:59 PM)
I have a feeling it wont take that long. [:D]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 8:17:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I have a feeling it wont take that long. [:D] Then why arent you supporting it? Even under the bills when they had public options they wouldnt haven't have kicked in for 4-6 years.

tazzygirl -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 8:21:05 PM)
I am goign neither way at this point. Waiting to see what the idiot Senators who are hiding deep in the insurance industries pockets will do next.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 8:22:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I am goign neither way at this point. Waiting to see what the idiot Senators who are hiding deep in the insurance industries pockets will do next. What should be next is a fillibuster if Lieberman is good to his word and understands the bill.

tazzygirl -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 8:25:16 PM)
Ever thought that it could backfire?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 8:28:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Ever thought that it could backfire? In what way? He wouldnt fillibuster unless the vote is close, so defections in protest of the fillibuster would be worth the risk. Its unlikely to move anyone toward voting for it.

tazzygirl -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 8:34:55 PM)
~grins Think about it. There is a political risk even to the fillibuster. But i was not referring to only that one incident.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 9:19:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl ~grins Think about it. There is a political risk even to the fillibuster. But i was not referring to only that one incident. I cant think of any other risks comparable to the risk of passage.

cadenas -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/12/2009 1:37:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I am goign neither way at this point. Waiting to see what the idiot Senators who are hiding deep in the insurance industries pockets will do next. What should be next is a fillibuster if Lieberman is good to his word and understands the bill. If he does that, Lieberman is going to go away. He hasn't announced it, but if he does filibuster, I don't think he'll be able to survive politically. Even as it is, he is already damaged goods for the Dems after his campaign shenanigans in 2006.

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 [8] 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875