Jump to content

Obamacare upheld


Jamie_B

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1341238281' post='1137533']
We both raise taxes and cut unnecessary spending. Now who we raise taxes on can what we cut spending on is the question. I would suggest [b]ending wars and equaling the tax percentage the rich pay compared to everyone[/b] else as the way to go.

But that's long term, in the short term I would suggest we start investing in infrastructure and education.
[/quote]

Let's do it. Which candidate will do that in the two parties we have now?

None. Ron Paul is about it as I see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1341239007' post='1137539']
Let's do it. Which candidate will do that in the two parties we have now?

None. Ron Paul is about it as I see it.
[/quote]

I could never vote for Paul due to his belief in Austrian Economics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1341241174' post='1137545']
Sadly nobody, thats how much all these guys suck.
[/quote]

Agreed. That is what I've said for about 6-7 years... Bush had SO MUCH opportunity after 9/11 with national pride and "togetherness, us against the world" mentality going if funneled the right way could have accomplished a lot. Instead, it was pissed away. And, it has gotten no better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1341269101' post='1137603']
Seriously? As in, you support what he stands for? Or as a reaction to the other candidates?
[/quote]

Mostly reactionary to the "status quo"... the problem we've got is we're locked into the two primary parties who are the "haves" and everyone else is the "have nots" and until the general public realizes it and you have a unified voting block that sends most all of the out on their ear we'll see little to no progress and just of the same crap.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1341314476' post='1137642']
[url="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jul/12/getting-away-it/?pagination=false"]Getting Away With It[/url]
[/quote]

Good read. Thanks Homer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[b] [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/02/no-obamacare-isnt-the-largest-tax-increase-in-the-history-of-the-world-in-one-chart/"]No, ‘Obamacare’ isn’t ‘the largest tax increase in the history of the world’[/url][/b]


Not that anyone here has repeated that lie yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1341281548' post='1137619']
Mostly reactionary to the "status quo"... the problem we've got is we're locked into the two primary parties who are the "haves" and everyone else is the "have nots" and until the general public realizes it and you have a unified voting block that sends most all of the out on their ear we'll see little to no progress and just of the same crap.
[/quote]

I mostly agree with you on that, but can't get behind Ron Paul.

My guess is that we won't see a 3rd party candidate with a real shot at winning until one of the two parties splits for some reason. The Republicans have really marginalized themselves by catering to the religious right & seem to have already started to splinter. I could see their more moderate base branching off before long, should they continue down the same road.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1341314476' post='1137642']
[url="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jul/12/getting-away-it/?pagination=false"]Getting Away With It[/url]
[/quote]

Entirely depressing, the neoliberal viewpoint needs to be called out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

The closest thread I could find without creating a new one:

 

http://wtop.com/267/3270856/Obamacare-credits-could-trigger-surprise-tax-bills

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Millions of people who take advantage of government subsidies to help buy health insurance next year could get stung by surprise tax bills if they don't accurately project their income.

 

President Barack Obama's new health care law will offer subsidies to help people buy private health insurance on state-based exchanges, if they don't already get coverage through their employers. The subsidies are based on income. The lower your income, the bigger the subsidy.

 

But the government doesn't know how much money you're going to make next year. And when you apply for the subsidy, this fall, it won't even know how much you're making this year. So, unless you tell the government otherwise, it will rely on the best information it has: your 2012 tax return, filed this spring.

 

What happens if you or your spouse gets a raise and your family income goes up in 2014? You could end up with a bigger subsidy than you are entitled to. If that happens, the law says you have to pay back at least part of the money when you file your tax return in the spring of 2015.

 

That could result in smaller tax refunds or surprise tax bills for millions of middle-income families.

 

"That's scary," says Joan Baird of Springfield, Va. "I had no idea, and I work in health care."

 

Baird, a health care information management worker, is far from alone. Health care providers, advocates and tax experts say the vast majority of Americans know very little about the new health care law, let alone the kind of detailed information many will need to navigate its system of subsidies and penalties.

"They know it's out there," said Mark Cummings, who manages the H&R Block office where Baird was getting her own taxes done. "But in general, they don't know anything about it."

 

A draft of the application for insurance asks people to project their 2014 income if their current income is not steady or if they expect it to change. The application runs 15 pages for a three-person family, but nowhere does it warn people that they may have to repay part of the subsidy if their income increases.

"I think this will be the hardest thing for members of the public to understand because it is a novel aspect of this tax credit," said Catherine Livingston, who recently served as health care counsel for the Internal Revenue Service. "I can't think of what else they do in the tax system currently that works that way." Livingston is now a partner in the Washington office of the law firm Jones Day.

 

There's another wrinkle: The vast majority of taxpayers won't actually receive the subsidies. Instead, the money will be paid directly to insurance companies and consumers will get the benefit in reduced premiums.

 

Health care providers and advocates for people who don't have insurance are planning public awareness campaigns to teach people about the health care law and its benefits.

 

Enroll America, a coalition of health care providers and advocates, is planning a multimillion-dollar campaign using social media, paid advertising and grass-roots organizing to encourage people who don't have insurance to sign up for it, said Anne Filipic, a former Obama White House official who is now president of the organization.

The Obama administration says it, too, is working to educate consumers.

 

"On Oct. 1, each state will have a marketplace up and running where consumers can choose a private health insurance plan that fits their health needs and budget," said Treasury spokeswoman Sabrina Siddiqui. "The premium tax credits will give middle-class Americans unprecedented tax benefits to make the purchase of health insurance affordable for everyone, and we will continue to work with consumers, community health organizations and other stakeholders to raise awareness and understanding of these tax benefits."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

I remember when CatScratchFever said he would kiss my ass on the steps of the Capitol if his rates went down, should be interesting when Ohio takes effect....

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/24/unexpected-health-insurance-rate-shock-california-obamacare-insurance-exchange-announces-premium-rates/2/

 

 

 

Unexpected Health Insurance Rate Shock-California Obamacare Insurance Exchange Announces Premium Rates

Every now and again, a political pundit is required to stand up and admit to the world that he or she got it wrong.

For me, this would be one of those moments.

 

For quite some time, I have been predicting that Obamacare would likely mean higher insurance rates in the individual market for the “young immortals” and others under the age of 40.  At the same time, my expectation was that those who fall into the older age ranges would benefit greatly as their premium charges would be lowered thanks to the Affordable Care Act.

 

It is increasingly clear that I had it wrong.

 

Yesterday, Covered California—the name given to the healthcare exchange created pursuant to the Affordable Care Act that will serve the largest population of insured citizens in the nation—released the premium rates submitted by participating health insurance companies for the four health insurance program categories (bronze, silver, gold and platinum) established by the Affordable Care Act, along with the catastrophic policy created for and available to those under the age of 30.

 

Upon reviewing the data, I was indeed shocked by the proposed premium rates—but not in the way you might expect.  The jolt that I was experiencing was not the result of the predicted out-of-control premium costs but the shock of rates far lower than what I expected—even at the lowest end of the age scale.

 

So, why the all too popular narrative that Obamacare would mean unaffordable healthcare premium costs for so many Americans?

 

Setting aside the never-ending nonsense peddled by the opponents of healthcare reform, everyone from the Congressional Budget Office to numerous private actuaries have warned that premium shock could be expected to set in once the public began to see the reality of what Obamacare would mean to their pocketbooks. And yet, the only real jolt to the system being felt by these public and private prognosticators today is utter amazement over just how reasonable the California prices have turned out to be.

 

How did the CBO and the actuaries get it so wrong?

 

As Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic correctly points out—

“One reason for the misplaced expectations may be that actuaries have been making worst-case assumptions, even as insurers—eyeing the prospects of so many new customers—have been calculating that it’s worth bidding low in order to gobble up market share. This would help explain why premium bids in several other states have proven similarly reasonable. “The premiums and participation in California, Oregon, Washington and other states show that insurers want to compete for the new enrollees in this market,” Gary Claxton, a vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said via e-mail. “The premiums have not skyrocketed and the insurers that serve this market now are continuing.  The rates look like what we would expect for decent coverage offered to a standard population.”

 

Cohn is saying that, despite the political naysayers, the healthcare exchange concept appears to be working very well indeed in states like California, Oregon and Washington—the first states to publish the expected health exchange prices for purchasing coverage. These are also states that are actually committed to seeing the program work as opposed to those states whose leaders have a vested political interest in seeing the Affordable Care Act fail.

 

Keep in mind that the entire idea of the exchanges is to require health insurance companies to compete openly with one another by offering identical coverage programs in the three created classes—each offering insurance coverage that actually delivers meaningful protection to customers—and then openly disclosing the price each insurance company will charge for that policy.  Thus, shoppers can clearly see which company has the best price on an apples-to-apples basis.

 

For all the negative chatter about how including older and sicker Americans in the health insurance pools would drive up the price for younger participants in the pool less likely to be ill, what we are now seeing in states like California is that the desire on the part of the health insurance companies to increase market share—thanks to the large influx of customers as a result of Obamacare—is driving prices downward.

 

That is precisely what the President said would happen.

Sarah Kliff at The Washington Post reveals just far off the prognosticators have been.

“The Congressional Budget Office predicted back in November 2009 that a medium-cost plan on the health exchange – known as a “silver plan” – would have an annual premium of  $5,200. A separate report from actuarial firm Milliman projected that, in California, the average silver plan would have a $450 monthly premium.”

The actual costs?

 

Kliff continues, “On average, the most affordable “silver plan” – which covers 70 percent of the average subscriber’s medical costs – comes with a $276 monthly premium. For the 2.6 million Californians who will receive federal subsidies, the price is a good deal less expensive…”

As you can see, the actuaries missed by a huge percentage.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do you know Obomacare can refuse to give CPR to a dying elderly and it is for assisted sucide.

 

Good, I like assisted suicide.  I like when people die, especially non-revenue generating people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...