Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/23/2010 9:46:37 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius
Hiya Domi,

I think there is no doubt that the taxes are constitutional. However, I am not sure that the commerce clause allows for forcing or penalizing individuals who choose not to participate (not taking part in something that involves interstate commerce). If it is found that the commerce clause does in fact allow for that type of mandate, what is to stop the fed from mandating we all buy or lease a new GM car every 4 years or be penalized?

But it isn't actually set up as a fine. It is set up as a tax break. Everyone's tax liability will go up based on the maximum amount of the fine minus the tax break figured for how much of the preceeding year they had a qualifying health plan. Perfectly constitutional.

(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/23/2010 10:21:23 PM   
Thadius


Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
If they had worded it in such a way. Perhaps, it could be seen as a tax. However, the language reads differently.

quote:

(emphasis of color and bolding is mine)
SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE

(a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—


An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.

(b) SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c).


(2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN.—Any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayer’s return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month.

(3) PAYMENT OF PENALTY.—If an individual with respect to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month—

(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of another taxpayer for the other taxpayer’s taxable year including such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable for such penalty, or

(B) files a joint return for the taxable year including such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual shall be jointly liable for such penalty.

(c) AMOUNT OF PENALTY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The penalty determined under this subsection for any month with respect to any individual is an amount equal to 1⁄12 of the applicable dollar amount for the calendar year.

(2) DOLLAR LIMITATION.—The amount of the penalty imposed by this section on any taxpayer for any taxable year with respect to all individuals for whom the taxpayer is liable under subsection (b)(3) shall not exceed an amount equal to 300 percent the applicable dollar amount (determined without regard to paragraph (3)(C)) for the calendar year with or within which the taxable year ends.

(3) APPLICABLE DOLLAR AMOUNT.—For purposes of paragraph (1)—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C), the applicable dollar amount is $750.

(B) PHASE IN.—The applicable dollar amount is $95 for 2014 and $350 for 2015.

(C) SPECIAL RULE FOR INDIVIDUALS UNDER AGE 18.—If an applicable individual has not attained the age of 18 as of the beginning of a month, the applicable dollar amount with respect to such individual for the month shall be equal to one-half of the applicable dollar amount for the calendar year in which the month occurs.

(D) INDEXING OF AMOUNT.—In the case of any calendar year beginning after 2016, the applicable dollar amount shall be equal to $750, increased by an amount equal to—

(i) $750, multiplied by

(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by substituting ‘calendar year 2015’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof. If the amount of any increase under clause (i) is not a multiple of $50, such increase shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50.




It is clearly worded as a penalty for not meeting a requirement (purchasing an acceptable insurance policy) that congress does not constitutionally have to set, at least in my opinion and apparantly at least 13 AGs from various states share that same position.

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 12:39:49 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
Something like this?

http://www.nsclc.org/areas/medicare-part-d/part-d-library/Litigation/article.2006-10-16.0761984626

Supreme Court Rejects States’ Challenge to Medicare Part D “Clawback”
July decision came without opinion on the request for injunctive relief

The Supreme Court last month denied without opinion a request for injunctive relief, brought by five states, to suspend the so-called “clawback” provision under which the states provide a portion of the funding for the costs of dual eligibles under the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. Texas v. Leavitt, ___U.S. ___ (2006), 2006 WL 1666871 (June 19, 2006). See NSCLC Washington Weekly, Feb. 3, 2006. The “clawback” was designed to offset the savings that states accrued when dual eligibles transferred from Medicaid to Medicare coverage under Part D.

The action was filed earlier this year by Texas, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri and New Jersey with the support of ten other states in an amicus brief. The states alleged that they will spend more money on prescription drugs for dual eligibles under the Medicare Part D program than they would have if they were to continue coverage under Medicaid. The states objected to the formula used to calculate the amount owed to the federal government because it failed to consider actions taken by the states under Medicaid to minimize drug costs. They asserted that this increase in costs resulted in a direct tax and an infringement on states’ autonomy.




_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 3:31:03 AM   
cadenas


Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas
Actually, it might have been a shrewd move. By delaying the major parts of the reform until 2014,....

To me, the major parts of the reform are that insurers can no longer deny or drop coverage, which will be immediate.


As far as I understand it, only the "drop coverage" part is immediate. And it really is pretty meaningless because I believe it has a clause "exception in cases of fraud" - and pretty much all recissions in the past have been based on allegations of fraud (i.e., failure to disclose that you had a preexisting condition. Such as a sore throat when you were 14).

As far as I understand it, the part about not being able to deny coverage isn't going into effect until 2014. And even if I'm wrong about that, until 2014, there really is nothing that prevents an insurance company from saying "sure we'll cover you with your preexisting condition. Your premium will be $12,712 per month.


(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 3:33:31 AM   
cadenas


Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
In fact, the Europeans think of the European Union as the "United States of Europe". At least that's how they promoted Europe when I lived there in the 1970s and 1980s.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ossature
Thanks for the explanation. Rather like the European Union then - an association of Sovereign States for certain purposes only.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ossature

So the Federal Government passes a law by the approved democratic process, and then the next thing that happens is that individual states try to find a way out of complying with it. Makes me wonder whether it is really 1 country or 50 different countries just pretending to be 1.
Presumably the individual states joined the Union of States voluntarily, so if any state does not like the way the Federal system of Government operates, then presumably they are free to cede from the Union as well.


As part of the forming of the Union, the states specifically stated that the centralized government would have limited powers and explicitly laid out what those powers were. Today, and for many years the central government has been attempting to grab more and more power and test the boundaries of what those limits are. For example, the use of the commerce clause has been the main tool for grabbing more and more of this power. The lawsuits filed today are part of that process and will define whether this bill falls into the field of play or if it is a foul ball.


(in reply to Ossature)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 3:42:57 AM   
cadenas


Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
I hope it does pass Constitutional muster, but I'm not sure it will. For one, right now we have several right-wing activist judges on the Supreme Court. For another, it's really not a tax but a fine. You can't tax "nothing" - when somebody refuses to buy insurance, there is no transaction, and thus nothing you could attach a tax to.

The real legal Constitutional problem I see here is that the Federal government requires everyone to purchase a product from private companies. With car liability insurance, this is not an issue because driving is not a right but a privilege. It is OK to attach a condition to exercising a privilege. But here, the government mandates purchasing a product for the simple act of living, which clearly is a fundamental right.

I also see a practical problem: insurance mandates utterly failed in Massachusetts. There really is little reason to assume that it will suddenly magically work well on the nationwide scale.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Those lawsuits are just so much hot air...the bill is fashioned as a tax....and it is legal for the Fed to levy taxes.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 3:57:35 AM   
subrob1967


Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
Don't any of you realize that health insurance is NOT health care? Insurance is bought to minimize risk, it's not bought to "pay for your health care".

I can't wait to see the whining here when you Obama supporters realize that...
1) Your taxes went up. way up, and...
2) You still have deductibles, co-payments & bills from Doctors/Hospitals, and you can't just walk into your local clinic, flash your insurance card, and walk out without paying a penny.

(in reply to cadenas)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 5:00:17 AM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
Where is the whole text of this bill at, I'm reading news stories.

And I have some questions.
Like what if I outsource work to someone in India, is that considered an employee or does the total only come from domestic workers?

Or what about temp employees.. are those counted in the tally?

What if for christmas, I hired a couple temporary workers and it bumped me to 11, is it based on the average employed for the year?

I'm assuming independent contractors are not included, either in this tally. As many companies hire that way, and it would be more attractive doing things that way when possible to keep employee totals to a minimum.

My curiousity stems from this snippet.... from the article...

HELP FOR SMALL BUSINESSES: Businesses with 25 or fewer employees that offer health coverage to their work force will get tax credits. The credits will start this year and rise in 2014 to a maximum of 50 percent of the cost of premiums offered by the smallest businesses, those with 10 or fewer workers.

As it appears if I can keep employees to less than 10 forever, either via outsourcing, and or independent contractor arrangements, or just not hiring, I suppose, I could garner a 50 percent subsidy...

I should clarify that I'd prefer none of this was happening, but if they are forcing this on me, well, I'm certainly going to try to structure for my benefit.




< Message edited by NeedToUseYou -- 3/24/2010 5:09:12 AM >

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 5:06:42 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
WASHINGTON -- When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicare law in 1965, seniors got their health insurance cards less than a year later.

When President Barack Obama finally gets to hold a signing ceremony for his health care overhaul, the major expansion of coverage for uninsured workers and their families won't come until 2014 -- after the next presidential election.

Parts of the plan won't be fully phased in for a decade, but ultimately 94 percent of eligible Americans would have coverage.

Here's a timeline of some changes:

This Year
•Sets up a high-risk health insurance pool to provide affordable coverage for uninsured people with medical problems.
•Starting six months after enactment, requires all health insurance plans to maintain dependent coverage for children until they turn 26; prohibits insurers from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing health problems.
•Bars insurance companies from putting lifetime dollar limits on coverage, and canceling policies except for fraud.
•Provides tax credits to help small businesses with up to 25 employees get and keep coverage for their employees.
•Begins narrowing the Medicare prescription coverage gap by providing a $250 rebate to seniors in the gap, which starts this year once they have spent $2,830. It would be fully closed by 2020.
•Reduces projected Medicare payments to hospitals, home health agencies, nursing homes, hospices and other providers.
•Imposes 10 percent sales tax on indoor tanning.
2011
•Creates a voluntary long-term care insurance program to provide a modest cash benefit helping disabled people stay in their homes, or cover nursing home costs. Benefits can begin five years after people start paying a fee for the coverage.
•Provides Medicare recipients in the prescription coverage gap with a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs; begins phasing in additional drug discounts to close the gap by 2020.
•Provides 10 percent Medicare bonus to primary care doctors and general surgeons practicing in underserved areas, such as inner cities and rural communities; improves preventive coverage.
•Freezes payments to Medicare Advantage plans, the first step in reducing payments to the private insurers who serve about one-fourth of seniors. The reductions would be phased in over three to seven years.
•Boosts funding for community health centers, which provide basic care for many low-income and uninsured people.
•Requires employers to report the value of health care benefits on employees' W-2 tax statements.
•Imposes $2.3 billion annual fee on drugmakers, increasing over time.
2012
•Sets up program to create nonprofit insurance co-ops that would compete with commercial insurers.
•Initiates Medicare payment reforms by encouraging hospitals and doctors to band together in quality-driven "accountable care organizations" along the lines of the Mayo Clinic. Sets up a pilot program to test more efficient ways of paying hospitals, doctors, nursing homes and other providers who care for Medicare patients from admission through discharge. Successful experiments would be widely adopted.
•Penalizes hospitals with high rates of preventable readmissions by reducing Medicare payments.
2013
•Standardizes insurance company paperwork, first in a series of steps to reduce administrative costs.
•Limits medical expense contributions to tax-sheltered flexible spending accounts (FSAs) to $2,500 a year, indexed for inflation. Raises threshold for claiming itemized tax deduction for medical expenses from 7.5 percent of income to 10 percent. People over 65 can still deduct medical expenses above 7.5 percent of income through 2016.
•Increases Medicare payroll tax on couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000. The tax rate on wages above those thresholds would rise to 2.35 percent from the current 1.45 percent. Also adds a new tax of 3.8 percent on income from investments.
•Imposes a 2.3 percent sales tax on medical devices. Eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids and many everyday items bought at the drug store are exempt.
2014
•Prohibits insurers from denying coverage to people with medical problems, or refusing to renew their policy. Health plans cannot limit coverage based on pre-existing conditions, or charge higher rates to those in poor health. Premiums can only vary by age (no more than 3-to-1), place of residence, family size and tobacco use.
•Coverage expansion goes into high gear as states create new health insurance exchanges -- supermarkets for individuals and small businesses to buy coverage. People who already have employer coverage won't see any changes.
•Provides income-based tax credits for most consumers in the exchanges, substantially reducing costs for many. Sliding scale credits phase out completely for households above four times the federal poverty level, about $88,000 for a family of four.
•Medicaid expanded to cover low-income people up to 133 percent of the federal poverty line, about $28,300 for a family of four. Low-income childless adults covered for the first time.
•Requires citizens and legal residents to have health insurance, except in cases of financial hardship, or pay a fine to the IRS. Penalty starts at $95 per person in 2014, rising to $695 in 2016. Family penalty capped at $2,250. Penalties indexed for inflation after 2016.
•Penalizes employers with more than 50 workers if any of their workers get coverage through the exchange and receive a tax credit. The penalty is $2,000 times the total number of workers employed at the company. However, employers get to deduct the first 30 workers.
2018
•Imposes a tax on employer-sponsored health insurance worth more than $10,200 for individual coverage, $27,500 for a family plan. The tax is 40 percent of the value of the plan above the thresholds, indexed for inflation.
2020
•Doughnut hole coverage gap in Medicare prescription benefit is phased out. Seniors continue to pay the standard 25 percent of their drug costs until they reach the threshold for Medicare catastrophic coverage, when their copayments drop to 5 percent.

http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12183312

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 5:08:11 AM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Don't any of you realize that health insurance is NOT health care? Insurance is bought to minimize risk, it's not bought to "pay for your health care".

I can't wait to see the whining here when you Obama supporters realize that...
1) Your taxes went up. way up, and...
2) You still have deductibles, co-payments & bills from Doctors/Hospitals, and you can't just walk into your local clinic, flash your insurance card, and walk out without paying a penny.

Damm it ,you mean its not free?
What makes you think any of us were under the illusions you illustrated?

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 8:17:21 AM   
Thadius


Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Something like this?

http://www.nsclc.org/areas/medicare-part-d/part-d-library/Litigation/article.2006-10-16.0761984626

Supreme Court Rejects States’ Challenge to Medicare Part D “Clawback”
July decision came without opinion on the request for injunctive relief

The Supreme Court last month denied without opinion a request for injunctive relief, brought by five states, to suspend the so-called “clawback” provision under which the states provide a portion of the funding for the costs of dual eligibles under the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. Texas v. Leavitt, ___U.S. ___ (2006), 2006 WL 1666871 (June 19, 2006). See NSCLC Washington Weekly, Feb. 3, 2006. The “clawback” was designed to offset the savings that states accrued when dual eligibles transferred from Medicaid to Medicare coverage under Part D.

The action was filed earlier this year by Texas, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri and New Jersey with the support of ten other states in an amicus brief. The states alleged that they will spend more money on prescription drugs for dual eligibles under the Medicare Part D program than they would have if they were to continue coverage under Medicaid. The states objected to the formula used to calculate the amount owed to the federal government because it failed to consider actions taken by the states under Medicaid to minimize drug costs. They asserted that this increase in costs resulted in a direct tax and an infringement on states’ autonomy.




Interesting case, but it doesn't touch on the underlying issue. The penalization of individuals by the fed for non participation (not purchasing something). Again, if the fed can use the commerce clause to force individuals to purchase something, they can force us to by anything. Further, as of now health insurance is not purchasable over state lines, therefore it could even be questioned how such purchases would fall under interstate commerce in the first place for those that do choose to follow the mandate.

The court has also had a couple of change to it since that time. With no opinion one could argue that it was a simple finding that the states didn't present standing properly or the court found that they didn't have standing to raise the issue in that case.

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 8:49:59 AM   
cadenas


Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius
Further, as of now health insurance is not purchasable over state lines, therefore it could even be questioned how such purchases would fall under interstate commerce in the first place for those that do choose to follow the mandate.


Actually, that's not true at all. In fact, most insurances are multistate entities. This claim that you can't buy insurance over state lines is pure political hype. The origin of this myth is that you cannot buy insurance that does not comply with your state's laws.


(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 8:58:37 AM   
cadenas


Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967
Don't any of you realize that health insurance is NOT health care? Insurance is bought to minimize risk, it's not bought to "pay for your health care".

Given that health care costs for major events are financially out of reach for all but a small minority of patients, it's really one and the same.
quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967
I can't wait to see the whining here when you Obama supporters realize that...
1) Your taxes went up. way up, and...
2) You still have deductibles, co-payments & bills from Doctors/Hospitals, and you can't just walk into your local clinic, flash your insurance card, and walk out without paying a penny.


Quite honestly, I'm not concerned about 1) - a median-income family today already pays three times as much in health insurance premiums as they pay in taxes.

2) is the same as it is today. It's one of the problems this reform hasn't tackled yet.

There also is an item 3: your health insurance premiums also went up. Just as the credit card companies have been gouging us for the last couple of months until the new rules kicked in, health insurance companies will keep raising premiums until 2014.

That's a good thing, though. It will increase the political pressure for more reform quickly, and the next time there will have to be a public option if not a single-payer system. At that point, 1), 2) and 3) will all be addressed.


(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 9:11:32 AM   
subrob1967


Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Damm it ,you mean its not free?
What makes you think any of us were under the illusions you illustrated?


Oh, I don't know, maybe this, or was it this one?
Or maybe it's these well informed folks.

MMM MMM MMM

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 9:19:26 AM   
subrob1967


Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967
Don't any of you realize that health insurance is NOT health care? Insurance is bought to minimize risk, it's not bought to "pay for your health care".

Given that health care costs for major events are financially out of reach for all but a small minority of patients, it's really one and the same.
quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967
I can't wait to see the whining here when you Obama supporters realize that...
1) Your taxes went up. way up, and...
2) You still have deductibles, co-payments & bills from Doctors/Hospitals, and you can't just walk into your local clinic, flash your insurance card, and walk out without paying a penny.


Quite honestly, I'm not concerned about 1) - a median-income family today already pays three times as much in health insurance premiums as they pay in taxes.

2) is the same as it is today. It's one of the problems this reform hasn't tackled yet.

There also is an item 3: your health insurance premiums also went up. Just as the credit card companies have been gouging us for the last couple of months until the new rules kicked in, health insurance companies will keep raising premiums until 2014.

That's a good thing, though. It will increase the political pressure for more reform quickly, and the next time there will have to be a public option if not a single-payer system. At that point, 1), 2) and 3) will all be addressed.


OK, so this bill gives you up to $2500 in tax credits for insurance, and in return your tax burden will rise, your premiums will rise, and unless you're a child, or have a medical problem that prevents you from getting regular coverage, this bill hasn't done squat for you, health care wise. And you're happy about this?

If the Repubs win in Nov, there won't be a public option, let alone a single payer system, so all this bill has done is fuck us all in the ass.

(in reply to cadenas)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 9:25:10 AM   
LaTigresse


Posts: 26123
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100324/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_fact_check_3

some little factoids to help the masses......


_____________________________

My twisted, self deprecating, sense of humour, finds alot to laugh about, in your lack of one!

Just because you are well educated, articulate, and can use big, fancy words, properly........does not mean you are right!

(in reply to DarkSteven)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 9:26:40 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

OK, so this bill gives you up to $2500 in tax credits for insurance, and in return your tax burden will rise, your premiums will rise, and unless you're a child, or have a medical problem that prevents you from getting regular coverage, this bill hasn't done squat for you, health care wise.


Whether the tax burden would rise depends on the income bracket. If someone's getting $2500 in credits, presumably they're in a low bracket, and would not see any increase.

Why would premiums rise? Many more people will be in the pool, especially younger and overall healthy people paying in longer over time. If anything, premiums should fall. Health care stocks rose this week...

This bill already, immediately, stops companies from canceling your coverage when you get sick over a pre-existing condition claim while keeping all the money you paid them. It also also people who want insurance but are prevented from doing so to now purchase that insurance.

It also eliminates the taxpayer expense of treating uninsured people in the emergency rooms, especially for conditions preventable with regular care.


(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 11:25:55 AM   
cadenas


Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:

OK, so this bill gives you up to $2500 in tax credits for insurance, and in return your tax burden will rise, your premiums will rise, and unless you're a child, or have a medical problem that prevents you from getting regular coverage, this bill hasn't done squat for you, health care wise.


Whether the tax burden would rise depends on the income bracket. If someone's getting $2500 in credits, presumably they're in a low bracket, and would not see any increase.

Why would premiums rise? Many more people will be in the pool, especially younger and overall healthy people paying in longer over time. If anything, premiums should fall. Health care stocks rose this week...


You are forgetting the way supply and demand works. Premiums are prices, and they follow that law. When you increase the demand for a product or service, the price rises. When you make the demand inelastic, the price rises. When you increase the purchasing power of the buyers, the price rises. This bill does all three. On top of that, I wouldn't be surprised if the supply was reduced when some insurance companies decide to stop offering policies altogether rather than comply.

It increases the demand because everybody will be required to buy insurance.

It makes the demand inelastic because you are taking away the current main alternative (inelastic demand means, the buyers will pay almost any price).

And it increases the purchasing power of the buyers through subsidies. My guess is that the insurance premiums will rise by at least as much as the amount of the subsidies.

quote:

This bill already, immediately, stops companies from canceling your coverage when you get sick over a pre-existing condition claim while keeping all the money you paid them. It also also people who want insurance but are prevented from doing so to now purchase that insurance.


Actually, neither of these things are immediate. There is an important loophole in the "can't cancel coverage" rule: "except in case of fraud." Pretty much all recessions today are based on the claim of fraud, so this provision is nothing but a feel-good provision.

And people with preexisting conditions won't be able to buy until 2014.

quote:

It also eliminates the taxpayer expense of treating uninsured people in the emergency rooms, especially for conditions preventable with regular care.


Well, it would. I'm not optimistic that it will accomplish that.


(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 11:36:19 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Premiums are prices, and they follow that law. When you increase the demand for a product or service, the price rises. When you make the demand inelastic, the price rises. When you increase the purchasing power of the buyers, the price rises. This bill does all three. On top of that, I wouldn't be surprised if the supply was reduced when some insurance companies decide to stop offering policies altogether rather than comply.


Premiums are complex prices. The demand for health care is inelastic, while the funds to pay for it increase. Larger supply, lower prices, if you want to follow simple market models.

If some insurance companies leave, fine. Why they would, just when they all get larger shares, makes no sense. Their stocks are up too.

Some states will see higher rates, some states will see lower rates, depending on whether they are now offering increased services or whether overall good services are now enjoying larger pools.

Of course, many will choose the speculative conclusion first and construct whatever theoretical path needed to justify it.



< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 3/24/2010 11:42:30 AM >

(in reply to cadenas)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. - 3/24/2010 11:46:50 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The action was filed earlier this year by Texas, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri and New Jersey with the support of ten other states in an amicus brief. The states alleged that they will spend more money on prescription drugs for dual eligibles under the Medicare Part D program than they would have if they were to continue coverage under Medicaid. The states objected to the formula used to calculate the amount owed to the federal government because it failed to consider actions taken by the states under Medicaid to minimize drug costs. They asserted that this increase in costs resulted in a direct tax and an infringement on states’ autonomy.



We can only wonder how those bi-partisan Teabaggers missed protesting this.

I wonder if it could be because it was Bush's legislation?

Nah! 

I'm must just be being partisan. 



(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Thanks a whole lot, Republicans. Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109