Author Topic: "Obamacare"  (Read 313799 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: "Obamacare"
« Reply #100 on: September 27, 2012, 11:35:12 AM »
There are more than a dozen new taxes in the bill. You also need to consider that the young, healthy people that didn't really need or want insurance, are now forced to pay either insurance premiums or the penalty. That's a huge amount of money out of the economy and into the insurance company and IRS pockets.

Gonna be great when that young, healthy person gets in a car wreck, gets paralyzed and can't pay his $500,000 medical bills.  Guess we'll all just pay for that.

Insurance companies don't lose money, they raise rates. Now we just have an incredibly large bureaucracy to go along with the higher premiums and taxes. The only winner in this mess is the federal government.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: "Obamacare"
« Reply #101 on: September 27, 2012, 11:37:39 AM »
There are more than a dozen new taxes in the bill. You also need to consider that the young, healthy people that didn't really need or want insurance, are now forced to pay either insurance premiums or the penalty. That's a huge amount of money out of the economy and into the insurance company and IRS pockets.

Gonna be great when that young, healthy person gets in a car wreck, gets paralyzed and can't pay his $500,000 medical bills.  Guess we'll all just pay for that.

Insurance companies don't lose money, they raise rates. Now we just have an incredibly large bureaucracy to go along with the higher premiums and taxes. The only winner in this mess is the federal government.

I agree. We should just eliminated insurance companies altogether and let the government handle hospitals just like they do fire and police.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: "Obamacare"
« Reply #102 on: September 27, 2012, 12:05:41 PM »
There are more than a dozen new taxes in the bill. You also need to consider that the young, healthy people that didn't really need or want insurance, are now forced to pay either insurance premiums or the penalty. That's a huge amount of money out of the economy and into the insurance company and IRS pockets.

Gonna be great when that young, healthy person gets in a car wreck, gets paralyzed and can't pay his $500,000 medical bills.  Guess we'll all just pay for that.

Insurance companies don't lose money, they raise rates. Now we just have an incredibly large bureaucracy to go along with the higher premiums and taxes. The only winner in this mess is the federal government.

I agree. We should just eliminated insurance companies altogether and let the government handle hospitals just like they do fire and police.

Fire and police are handled at the local and state level. That I might agree with.  Federal level?  :flush:

Online Institutional Control

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 14933
    • View Profile
Re: "Obamacare"
« Reply #103 on: September 27, 2012, 12:19:57 PM »
Things really started going downhill when most of the BCBS's were allowed to switch from non-profit organizations to publicly traded for-profit corporations.

Offline Stevesie60

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 17072
    • View Profile
Re: "Obamacare"
« Reply #104 on: September 27, 2012, 08:06:17 PM »
There are more than a dozen new taxes in the bill. You also need to consider that the young, healthy people that didn't really need or want insurance, are now forced to pay either insurance premiums or the penalty. That's a huge amount of money out of the economy and into the insurance company and IRS pockets.

Gonna be great when that young, healthy person gets in a car wreck, gets paralyzed and can't pay his $500,000 medical bills.  Guess we'll all just pay for that.

Insurance companies don't lose money, they raise rates. Now we just have an incredibly large bureaucracy to go along with the higher premiums and taxes. The only winner in this mess is the federal government.

I agree. We should just eliminated insurance companies altogether and let the government handle hospitals just like they do fire and police.

Fire and police are handled at the local and state level. That I might agree with.  Federal level?  :flush:

I think the ACA is great, I just wish it were being handled on a local, or even moreso, state level.

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 51305
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: "Obamacare"
« Reply #105 on: September 27, 2012, 08:14:49 PM »
Why do young, healthy people not need insurance?

It's like gambling at that point.

Offline HeinBallz

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2868
    • View Profile
Re: "Obamacare"
« Reply #106 on: October 02, 2012, 04:14:56 PM »
I've kind of been avoiding this thread as I don't really know a ton about it; but as I see it, it's not really providing anything to anyone that they don't already have.  Anyone can go to a emergency room & get care - which increases cost - but ACA at it's heart is just distributing the burden of cost onto everyone.  I could be wrong; I don't care. 

I do have to ask though, if general health is the catalyst in this debate, why is diet & exercise not brought up?  We're still subsidizing corn to the point synthesizing it into a sweetener is cheaper than any other sweetener - and it's in everything.  Wouldn't there be more benefit in promoting organic/non-gmo foods that are clearly healthier? What about school lunches? Jesus Christ, is there any wonder kids are obese?

Good is better than Evil because it's nicer.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: "Obamacare"
« Reply #107 on: October 02, 2012, 04:20:24 PM »
I've kind of been avoiding this thread as I don't really know a ton about it; but as I see it, it's not really providing anything to anyone that they don't already have.  Anyone can go to a emergency room & get care - which increases cost - but ACA at it's heart is just distributing the burden of cost onto everyone.  I could be wrong; I don't care. 

I do have to ask though, if general health is the catalyst in this debate, why is diet & exercise not brought up?  We're still subsidizing corn to the point synthesizing it into a sweetener is cheaper than any other sweetener - and it's in everything.  Wouldn't there be more benefit in promoting organic/non-gmo foods that are clearly healthier? What about school lunches? Jesus Christ, is there any wonder kids are obese?

It comes down to cost. Food in America is dirt cheap because of corn subsidies and shifting those subsidies to organic farming would greatly increase the price of all non-organic meats, processed foods, and sweetened products. We would have to put more people on food stamps and increase the amount of food stamps received for current recipients to maintain status quo.

Offline HeinBallz

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2868
    • View Profile
"Obamacare"
« Reply #108 on: October 02, 2012, 04:59:39 PM »
I've kind of been avoiding this thread as I don't really know a ton about it; but as I see it, it's not really providing anything to anyone that they don't already have.  Anyone can go to a emergency room & get care - which increases cost - but ACA at it's heart is just distributing the burden of cost onto everyone.  I could be wrong; I don't care. 

I do have to ask though, if general health is the catalyst in this debate, why is diet & exercise not brought up?  We're still subsidizing corn to the point synthesizing it into a sweetener is cheaper than any other sweetener - and it's in everything.  Wouldn't there be more benefit in promoting organic/non-gmo foods that are clearly healthier? What about school lunches? Jesus Christ, is there any wonder kids are obese?

It comes down to cost. Food in America is dirt cheap because of corn subsidies and shifting those subsidies to organic farming would greatly increase the price of all non-organic meats, processed foods, and sweetened products. We would have to put more people on food stamps and increase the amount of food stamps received for current recipients to maintain status quo.

But if your concern is for health, wouldn't it make sense to make healthier foods cheaper than processed foods & sweetened foods?  Would we have to increase food stamps if welfare recipients bought more healthy food than processed food & GMO meats/etc.?  Does it make sense that our nations impoverished are poor financially AND have poor health because of the welfare and agricultural structure?  Not to mention organic could encourage smaller local food suppliers, creating more local demand & local agricultural job growth.   The only con I see is the impact you monsantos and other companies such as them would take large impacts.  Seems win/win to me.  Seems like if people's overall health was better it would have a larger impact on making health care more affordable for everyone.  Just spit balling here.

Good is better than Evil because it's nicer.

Offline p1k3

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2555
    • View Profile
Re: "Obamacare"
« Reply #109 on: October 02, 2012, 07:50:21 PM »
dont forget about the sugar tariff, although thats aside the point.

 organic/nom-gmo products will always cost more. The yields are significantly lower than their biotech counter parts (although Monsanto round up ready crops have been in the news lately for giving way to super weeds and insects, but Monsanto will respond). Its not just the growth of these foods but also the storage, transportation, processing, labeling, etc has to comply with NOP regulations. That all takes a lot of time, and therefore costs a lot of money. I know from experience processing organic food is a HUGE pain in the ass.

Offline HeinBallz

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2868
    • View Profile
"Obamacare"
« Reply #110 on: October 02, 2012, 07:55:07 PM »
NOP regulations?
Good is better than Evil because it's nicer.

Offline p1k3

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2555
    • View Profile
Re: "Obamacare"
« Reply #111 on: October 02, 2012, 07:56:40 PM »
NOP regulations?

National Organic Program - 7 CFR part 205 i think

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: "Obamacare"
« Reply #112 on: October 02, 2012, 07:58:37 PM »
dont forget about the sugar tariff, although thats aside the point.

 organic/nom-gmo products will always cost more. The yields are significantly lower than their biotech counter parts (although Monsanto round up ready crops have been in the news lately for giving way to super weeds and insects, but Monsanto will respond). Its not just the growth of these foods but also the storage, transportation, processing, labeling, etc has to comply with NOP regulations. That all takes a lot of time, and therefore costs a lot of money. I know from experience processing organic food is a HUGE pain in the ass.

Yes, and it's not really any healthier. I don't like the idea of the government subsidizing inefficient organic foods. If we want to improve the health of poor people, we should put limits on what food stamps can purchase (no soda or heavily processed foods). There really is no need to require an organic label.

Offline p1k3

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2555
    • View Profile
Re: "Obamacare"
« Reply #113 on: October 02, 2012, 08:03:32 PM »
dont forget about the sugar tariff, although thats aside the point.

 organic/nom-gmo products will always cost more. The yields are significantly lower than their biotech counter parts (although Monsanto round up ready crops have been in the news lately for giving way to super weeds and insects, but Monsanto will respond). Its not just the growth of these foods but also the storage, transportation, processing, labeling, etc has to comply with NOP regulations. That all takes a lot of time, and therefore costs a lot of money. I know from experience processing organic food is a HUGE pain in the ass.

Yes, and it's not really any healthier. I don't like the idea of the government subsidizing inefficient organic foods. If we want to improve the health of poor people, we should put limits on what food stamps can purchase (no soda or heavily processed foods). There really is no need to require an organic label.

Nutritionally this is true, although the jury is out on GMO affect on health.

Offline HeinBallz

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2868
    • View Profile
Re: "Obamacare"
« Reply #114 on: October 02, 2012, 08:50:49 PM »
Nutritionally, the main consensus is yes - but only for fruits & vegitables and studies are ongoing; there isn't much solid info I've ever been able to find on organic free range/grass fed meats;  It seems logical to conclude that the diet of the animal would affect the nutrition of the meat produced;  a free range cow that is grass fed over a pen raised cow eating vitamins with corn filler.  There have been some studies that suggest Omega fatty acid levels are increased in grass fed beef.  I'd like to see more study before it's thrown out as not beneficial. 

Back to fruits & vegetables though, pesticide contamination seem to be of some concern, especially in children.  With cancer seeming more rampant than ever - seems like it could be a problem.
Good is better than Evil because it's nicer.

Offline HeinBallz

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2868
    • View Profile
Re: "Obamacare"
« Reply #115 on: October 02, 2012, 08:51:29 PM »
honestly though - I'd rather nothing be subsidized.
Good is better than Evil because it's nicer.

Offline HeinBallz

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2868
    • View Profile
Re: "Obamacare"
« Reply #116 on: October 02, 2012, 08:55:27 PM »
I'm getting too far off topic here though; and to bring it back - this:
......    If we want to improve the health of poor people, we should put limits on what food stamps can purchase (no soda or heavily processed foods). There really is no need to require an organic label.

I can get fully behind and I agree totally.
Good is better than Evil because it's nicer.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: "Obamacare"
« Reply #117 on: October 02, 2012, 09:35:46 PM »
honestly though - I'd rather nothing be subsidized.

Agreed, but once you start subsidizing anything, it's almost impossible  to stop due to the unintended consequences, like dependency.


Offline HeinBallz

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2868
    • View Profile
"Obamacare"
« Reply #118 on: October 03, 2012, 06:51:38 AM »
Yep, Until complete economical and financial collapse that is.  Maybe we'll be able to do some of these things within the next five years. 
Good is better than Evil because it's nicer.

Offline Cartierfor3

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 27058
  • I just want us all to be buds.
    • View Profile

Offline kim carnes

  • chingon!
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 13549
    • View Profile
Re: "Obamacare"
« Reply #120 on: February 01, 2013, 10:15:15 PM »
Obamacare is going to be great.  Obama is so smart.

Offline p1k3

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2555
    • View Profile
Re: "Obamacare"
« Reply #121 on: February 01, 2013, 10:19:46 PM »
Barry will fix everything. He can do no wrong

Offline Panjandrum

  • 5 o'clock Shadow Enthusiast
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 11221
  • Amateur magician and certified locksmith.
    • View Profile
    • Bring on the Cats [An SB Nation Blog]

Offline Cartierfor3

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 27058
  • I just want us all to be buds.
    • View Profile

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: "Obamacare"
« Reply #124 on: February 02, 2013, 11:41:20 AM »
Here is where it came from. I don't think it's actually claiming that is what the premium will be, rather a random example number used to calculate penalties if you don't have coverage. Very confusing to be sure.

Page 70 here: http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf

Quote
Example 3. Family without minimum essential coverage. (i) In 2016, Taxpayers
H and J are married and file a joint return. H and J have three children: K, age 21, L,
age 15, and M, age 10. No member of the family has minimum essential coverage for
any month in 2016. H and J’s household income is $120,000. H and J’s applicable
filing threshold is $24,000. The annual national average bronze plan premium for a
family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000.

(ii) For each month in 2016, under paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(iii) of this
section, the applicable dollar amount is $2,780 (($695 x 3 adults) + (($695/2) x 2
children)). Under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the flat dollar amount is $2,085 (the
lesser of $2,780 and $2,085 ($695 x 3)). Under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the
excess income amount is $2,400 (($120,000 - $24,000) x 0.025). Therefore, under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the monthly penalty amount is $200 (the greater of
$173.75 ($2,085/12) or $200 ($2,400/12)).

(iii) The sum of the monthly penalty amounts is $2,400 ($200 x 12). The sum of
the monthly national average bronze plan premiums is $20,000 ($20,000/12 x 12).
Therefore, under paragraph (a) of this section, the shared responsibility payment
imposed on H and J for 2016 is $2,400 (the lesser of $2,400 or $20,000).