jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (48 posts)

Obamacare realities rather than lies.

  1. Josak profile image60
    Josakposted 5 years ago

    As a private citizen unless you earn more than 200 000 yearly you will not be taxed more on your income, unless you own a health insurance plan that costs more than 27 000$ yearly there will be no extra excise tax and as long as you don't use tanning bed your costs will not rise in anything.

    The main sources of funding for Obamacare are taxes on 200 000+ earners and an annual fee on healthcare providers.

    1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
      tirelesstravelerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Did you read Wall Street Journal today?  The bulk of the taxes will be anyone who makes 125,000 or less according to that article.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        How exactly sonce there is no income tax until 200 000?

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No income tax until $200,000? You're joking right.

          Anyone over $10,000 per annual year is taxed. It's always been that way, ever since I was kid. I am presently 43 years old.

          Both Federal and State are taken from a person, whether they are self employed or employed by someone else.

          If you're talking about ACA just passed, then you should have said that instead of making a blanketed statement which is untrue.

        2. tirelesstraveler profile image87
          tirelesstravelerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          How come my husband pays 32 percent of his income a year when he doesn't make half that. He has about $700 a paycheck deducted before FICA and State taxes.

        3. habee profile image90
          habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          HUH?? We pay in every year, and we make under $200,000.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No income tax for the ACA unless you earn individually 200 000 or more or 250 000 as a married couple.

      2. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I read that, too.

  2. Reality Bytes profile image92
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    This is the first instance of an individual being taxed for an inaction.

  3. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    True Reality: The Federal Government shouldn't be involved at all.

    This is something each State can do for itself. And even if it happened on just the State level, it is still wrong to do. Why? Because there's a better way.

    Strip out religion and politics from the educational system of operations, add in the critical knowledge needed to ensure equality and equal rights.

    Children/kids who grow up honest, truly honest through honest education, while protecting equality and equal rights, have more powerful opportunities to help others, including themselves.

    This BS of government getting involved in the Economy and society in this manner is detrimental to any path toward equality and equal rights.

    1. oldhorse profile image81
      oldhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Do you really think there is nothing to be reformed about the American healthcare system?

      We pay more than any other country, and receive mediocre results.

      If you don't want to work for someone else, you are pretty much out of the healthcare market unless you are independently wealthly.  So, if you want to start your own business, or retire early, you better just hope you don't get sick.

      I think Obamacare is a start at changing this, and I think it will give me more freedom.  People who say otherwise have just bought into a giant misinformation campaign.

  4. Paul Wingert profile image80
    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago

    There are things that the private sector doesn’t need to be in. Can you imagine our military being ran by oil companies? There's a lot of backlash about portions of the private sector getting involved in the some state's prison system. Our government pays about 75% of the hospital bills in this country (one is Medicare). Tell Canada and Western European countries, like England, that government ran healthcare is disastrous. These are countries with a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality along with the simple fact that they out rank us in the world health care statistics (we rant #37 while France and Italy are #1 and #2). If that was the case they would of go back to the actual waste and ineffectiveness of privately ran system. Along with education and police and fire protection, healthcare needs to be added to the list of basic rights. For those who want less or no government, send your kids to a private school, pay the full cost of sending a letter or package with the USPS, pay the full price of having a cop or fire department come to your aid or even use a city bus, and have your own private library.

    1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
      tirelesstravelerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If oil companies ran the healthcare system it would be efficient and cost less.  Especially if they don't have to deal with OPEC, and the government. Do you realize you pay more per gallon for bottled water than you do for gas?

      1. Barnsey profile image83
        Barnseyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Nice!

      2. Friendlyword profile image60
        Friendlywordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Would ones response to that comment be:
        People make up statistic left and right without any regard for the truth. The claim that somebody in this world, would  pay 4 dollars for a 2 dollar gallon of water is an insult to intelligent people.  You don't even have to pay 4 dollars for gallon of milk.

        (trust the oil companies!)
        This is a trend with a particular group of people.(telling stupid lies or lying to stupid people) I don't understand this low ball intelligence pitch to the limited information voters of this Country. Do limited information people  even exist any more? Do misinformation pros still think somebody buys their crap? Do these people still have a audience?
        One might ask.

        1. 910chris profile image73
          910chrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "You don't even have to pay 4 dollars for gallon of milk."

          Maybe I should move to your state (or country). Here in North Carolina, I pay 4.25, and that is for the Wal-Mart brand! I buy 3 gallons per week for my family so it adds up quick! If you are paying less than 4 dollars I need to know where!

      3. Paul Wingert profile image80
        Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "If oil companies ran the healthcare system it would be efficient and cost less.  Especially if they don't have to deal with OPEC, and the government." But in reality the oil companies have to deal with OPEC, government and the world market. At one time companies ran without or with very little government regulation and did run very efficiently and were highly profitable. This was during the Industrial Revolution starting in the 1820's. What would workers back then would give for any kind of regulation.

  5. Friendlyword profile image60
    Friendlywordposted 5 years ago

    The reality is it's called ORomneycare.  No matter how much he tries to get away from it; this is MITT ROMNEYS' AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT. Tax penalty and all!

    1. Paul Wingert profile image80
      Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Now if a Republican passed the healthcare reform bill (highly unlikely. I mean the idea of a Republican helping out the working class?!!), Romney and the right wing nut cases would be all for it.

  6. ledefensetech profile image78
    ledefensetechposted 5 years ago

    Josak seems to be confused.  What he's talking about is the income tax increase Obama wants to levy on people who make more than 200,000 a year individually or 250,000 a year for couples, because he and his Democratic cronies broke the bank the first two years they were in office.  The sad fact is that they've spent so much money, even levying that tax would be a drop of water in the Pacific Ocean for all the good it will do in balancing the budget.  This is just another old, tired, class warfare schtick from the people who created this mess in the first place.  The only real thing the so called Affordable Health Care Act did was make more work for lawyers, the true winners in all this mess.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That tax increase was to pay for ACA it was one of the parts of the funding, the important thing this bill will do is save 45 000 American lives a year who under private care died because they did not have insurance.

      1. ledefensetech profile image78
        ledefensetechposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'd really like to see where you get this 45,000 number from.  It sound kind of like the same place the Obama administration got those millions of "shovel-ready" jobs they touted when they tried to make the "stimulus" failure look like a success.

        1. profile image0
          screamingposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ledefensetech...if it saves one life it's worth it. How can you put a monetary value on a childs or persons life?

          1. ledefensetech profile image78
            ledefensetechposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Simple, if the system you use in uneconomical and unjust, it will one day collapse.  How many people will die when the system collapses.  Look at Social Security.  It's pretty much beyond saving because our so-called leaders ignore the problem and kick the can to the future.  How can you possibly support people who would do such a thing?

          2. habee profile image90
            habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I agree. I think everyone should be covered. I do think, however, Obamacare is going to cost more than predicted, but if we all share the burden, won't it be worth it? Isn't preventive care and wellness care part of it? If so, maybe people will get healthier and they won't run up as many monumental hospital bills.

            1. ledefensetech profile image78
              ledefensetechposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Why do people need insurance in order to afford healthcare? Why don't doctors charge what people can pay, like every other industry out there? The only reason doctors care is so expensive, is because of insurance. Because they are charging an insurance pool, rather than individuals they can start increasing the amount they charge for services. If they had to charge what people could pay, you would see costs go down in a hurry. It's insane to think that insurance needs to pay for doctors visits anyway. Insurance should be for major medical things like surgery, or chemotherapy, or some other life threatening illness not basic medical care. What part of Obamacare even does this?

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                let me guess you have no idea what's in Obamacare do you? Healthcare is simply expensive, the costs are higher than can reasonably be dealt with by average Americans, just the cost of having a bad fall can be devastating, even if nothing is wrong having an MRI can cost upwards of two thousand dollars just to check if something is.

                Public healthcare has been tried all around the world and is in place in almost every developed country, the results have been excellent in terms of care and coverage of the population but the data also shows that it is much cheaper, for example the UK spends a bout a third of the money per person on healthcare that the US does and has a longer life expectancy, more potential years saved, lower infant mortality and more hospital beds per capita.

                1. ledefensetech profile image78
                  ledefensetechposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You're making baseless assumptions. Explain this to me, if socialized medicine is so great why do so many people from Canada and Europe go to third world countries like Costa Rica and Nicaragua in order to pay for care out of their own pocket, that they are on massive waiting lists for at home? 

                  http://www.slideshare.net/jagprem/medic … remjagyasi

                  Most interesting are the number of people in the United States 31% who think that they will have to engage in medical tourism once Obama care becomes law. The two biggest factors as to reasons why people travel abroad for medical care are affordability at number one and accessibility number two.

                  One of the really sad consequences of all of this is not only are we losing doctors who come from abroad to go work in their homeland, within a generation or two of those students aren't even going to come here for medical school they're going to go to the schools that present-day doctors are going to establish in their home country. So not only are we going to have brain drain, sewer or later their medical schools are going to be better than ours. Much like Europe medical advances are going to occur in countries that allow the free market to rain, rather than government bureaucracy. Currently our medical care may be expensive, but it is also the absolute best in the world.

              2. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Don't be ridiculous - no industry simply charges what people can pay.  If they did I would have a mercedes, lexus and lamborghini in the garage now.

                Companies charge as much as they can and still sell a product.  In the case of health care not only is the "product" far more expensive to "produce" than most people realize, but people either buy it or suffer/die.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  My god... I agree with you. I need a stiff drink.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Better have two.  I'll join you in both of them - it's a shock all right. lol

                2. ledefensetech profile image78
                  ledefensetechposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That's your argument, really?  While it's probably true that you're not the market Mercedes markets to, that does not mean you're priced out of the car market.  There are plenty of alternatives for people who cannot afford a Mercedes.  Healthcare is, or should, be the same way.  The reason it is not is because there is a limit on the supply of providers and give the socialized nature of Medicare, it has driven costs up.  Why do you think there is supplemental insurance for Medicare now?  Ever go to the doctor and tell them you don't have insurance?  I did for a chiropractor.  It was amazing, they immediately lowered the price to something I could afford.  You might want to try that sometime.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I did, with cataract surgery 2 months ago.  The price dropped from $7,000 to $5,250 for cash.

                    It's not so much a matter of what I could afford, though, (although I did feel that that played a part) - it was mostly a matter of getting his money right then and not paying someone to work with the insurance company for weeks or months.

                    As far as not being in the Mercedes market, you're right.  But if you need a heart transplant you're not in the market to get a broken bone set; you want a heart transplant and that's all.  Nothing else.  And you won't find a heart transplant anywhere for the cost of setting a broken arm regardless of what you can pay.  Somebody will have to pay for it, whether it be you, Uncle Sam, or the rest of the population via higher bills on the work they want.

        2. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/ … hs-a-year/

          It's a Harvard study and I recommend you read it.

          1. ledefensetech profile image78
            ledefensetechposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Why, because it's from Harvard?  It's an epidemiological study which uses data and not real world observation to predict what happens.  You might not know it but no scientific clam using models can be considered valid until and unless it is verified by observable data.  Since it's impossible to determine whether or not health insurance is a factor in someones death, that's a spurious argument.  What I found more interesting was the fact that the authors claimed that the closure of free clinics and hospitals had an impact on the ability of people to seek medical care.  Don't you think it might be a good idea to discover why those care facilities closed.  Don't you think if we know why they closed, we could then create a plan to reopen them or find funds for them some other way?   The problem with going to Obamacare route is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money to spend.  It's weird but when you start taking more and more money from people who make more money, sooner or later they start making less money.  You might want to read the story about the farmer who had the geese who laid the golden eggs.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Well first off yes the source does lend credibility as does the massive amount of research undertaken for the study conducted by the best in the field. Determining whether the lack of health insurance played a part in a persons death is far from impossible.

              You might want to read the Treasury report (backed by several independent reviews) which finds the bill will actually save the country money but it is by no means taxing people into oblivion, the tax hikes on individuals re small and only on very high earners, similar taxes on the sun bed industry on other countries have showed no negative effects as has "Cadillac" insurance excise tax.

              1. ledefensetech profile image78
                ledefensetechposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Tell you what, I'm tired of going around and around with people who don't know what they're talking about.  That includes people from the Treasury (remember the unemployment won't go much above 8% if we waste a trillion dollars fiasco) and Harvard as much as people who rely on them for data.  Since it seems this abortion is going forward, we'll just give it a couple of years, say till 2016 and see where we stand then.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So I have given you Harvard studies, international precedent, Treasury estimates and showed you that the costs are actually lower in public systems to which your reply is "I don't think so" so well done you pose an excellent argument.

                  1. Barnsey profile image83
                    Barnseyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    He should work for congress.

            2. Jane Bovary profile image88
              Jane Bovaryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You might want to read actual history. How come, in  the 3 decades after the WWII, when taxes were higher on top incomes than they've been since, the US economy grew rapidly?  During the 50s and 60s the top bracket income tax rate was over 90% and the economy boomed. The goose didn't die.

              How come Germany, which has much higher taxes on the wealthy and a more equal distribution of income has a faster annual growth than the US? When the middle and working classes have more disposable income, there is more widespread spending and thus more money percolating in the economy.

              1. ledefensetech profile image78
                ledefensetechposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I do read history.  The reason our economy grew was because the people who lived during the War had nowhere to spend their money.  You might want to read history.  You might find it funny that so-called government economists were predicting a return to the Great Depression after the War ended because government expenditures were going to fall.  We did go through about a years worth of trouble as demobilization temporarily flooded the job market with too many people, but one thing people found out was that they could invest their savings into new business.  Rather than the return to the Great Depression we entered the largest boom in the history of the US, despite the historically high taxes.

                I'd also remind you that prior to the War, we has something like 95% taxes on the highest earners, more money spent to fight the Depression than had ever been spent before and we still went through about 14 years of Depression.

                I'd also suggest you know nothing about business.  You don't increase the size of your economy by hobbling your winners.  The reason the standard of living gets higher for the lower and middle classes is because the upper classes are able to invest their money in productive enterprise, not have it wasted by parasitic politicians.

                1. Jane Bovary profile image88
                  Jane Bovaryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  My point was, you said higher taxes on those who earnt the most money would kill the goose. That didn't happen. No comment on modern Germany's increased productivity, despite having a higher tax on the the top income bracket? The goose hasn't died there either.

                  Your'e right about me not being a business expert...(are you?) but I know enough about politics to understand  that the catchcry of protecting  the uber-rich from tax increases because of the popularly cited trickle-down effect is just right-wing rhetoric. I also know enough to understand that your *tax is theft*  big L Libertarian view of the world is unrealistic.

 
working