Work More get Less in ObamaCare

Panacea Financial Contract Review
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
BLADEMDA

BLADEMDA

Full Member
Lifetime Donor
Verified Member
15+ Year Member
Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
22,664
Reaction score
9,754
Members don't see this ad.
Look out below! Work more, get less in Obamacare 'cliff'


Text Size
Published: Tuesday, 30 Jul 2013 | 1:51 PM ET
By: Dan Mangan | Writer


Be careful you don't fall off the Obamacare "cliff" when the boss asks you to put in some overtime.

Working more could ultimately mean thousands of dollars less for you under a quirk in the new health-care law going into effect this fall. This could prompt some people to cut back on their hours to avoid losing money.

"Working more can actually leave you worse off," the price-comparison site ValuePenguin.com notes in a new analysis.

"It's sort of an absurd scenario," said Jonathan Wu, ValuePenguin.com's co-founder. "It's something for people to be aware of."

In that scenario, an individual or family whose annual income surpasses maximums set by the federal government—if only by $1—will totally lose subsidies available to buy health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

(Read more: Obamacare fraud?)


The loss of those subsidies in some cases will mean that people potentially would have been better off financially if they had worked less during the year, Wu said. And they then would have to work significantly more to make up for the lost sub



CKE CEO on Obamacare and jobs

CKE Restaurants CEO Andrew Puzder explains why he thinks the employer mandate of Obamacare should be "permanently waived."


"I think they'd be surprised to see how drastic it is," said Wu. "I'd be kind of shocked to see if I make $100 less (in total income each year), I get all these benefits, but if I make $100 more, I get nothing."

"You basically don't want to fall in that hole," said Wu, adding that he believed contractors and others with more control over their incomes would be apt to adjust their hours worked to avoid the subsidy cliff.

He also said that because of lower insurance premiums often offered younger people, the effect will more likely be seen by older people. But "you will see it across all age groups" in the seven states including New York and Vermont where insurance premiums are either barred from being affected by age, or restricted from being dramatically affected, he said.

Under the ACA, federal subsidies in the form of tax credits to buy insurance on new state health insurance exchanges will be available to millions of people who can start enrolling on those exchanges Oct. 1. The subsidies are available to people or families whose incomes total 400 percent above the federal poverty level or less, and are designed to cap their insurance premiums at 9.5 percent of their total income.

Doing the math

For a single person, that FPL income maximum is $45,960 per year. The maximums are adjusted upward for couples and families until maxing out at $94,200 for a family of four.

(Read more: Doctors skeptical, confused about Obamacare)


Under a scenario that ValuePenguin.com identified, a couple in Ohio, both age 50, would be eligible for subsidies worth $3,452 to purchase a so-called silver insurance plan—a moderately priced level of benefits under the ACA's scheme—that costs $9,346 annually if they made up to $62,040 per year.

But if they made just $1 more than that, they would lose the subsidy. Wu noted that the couple then would have to earn at least $65,492 to make up for the lost subsidy.



Maximum income levels for Obamacare insurance subsidies, and premium maximums


Household Size

400% FPL

Premium Cap


1 (Single) $45,960 $4,366
2 (Couple) $62,040 $5,893
3 $78,120 $7,421
4 $94,200 $8,949

Source: ValuePenguin.com


In New York, a family of three whose annual income totals $78,120, would pay $12,784 for the second-lower-priced silver plan on that state's insurance exchange. After getting a $5,363 tax credit, the family's net cost for the insurance would be $7,421.

But if the family earned even slightly more than $78,120, they would have to pay the entire $12,784 for the insurance because they then wouldn't qualify for the subsidy.

To make up for that, the family's annual income would have to reach $83,483, Wu said.

The age effect

The stark effect of peoples' age in determining their risk from the subsidy cliff is seen in two examples from Connecticut.

(Read more: This could put Obamacare in the ER)


There, Wu said, a 27-year-old single man would pay $3,636 annually for the second-cheapest silver plan—less than the $4,366 cap on insurance premiums for individuals earning $45,960 or less annually. That person would not be eligible for subsidies, and thus would see no disincentive in working more hours.

But the annual premiums for a 50-year-old Connecticut couple buying that plan would be $12,468. If their combined incomes were $62,040 or less, they would receive $6,575 in subsidies to offset the cost.

However, if their income was more than that, they would lose the subsidies, leaving them out of pocket $6,575. They then would have to earn at least $68,615 to make up for that lost subsidy, Wu said.

—By CNBC's Dan Mangan. Follow him on Twitter @_DanMangan
 
The real reason Obama delayed the "employer mandate" was because of this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/h...fordable-or-not-administration-says.html?_r=0

Basically Obama and the Dems are trying to rig and stay ahead of the 2014 mid term elections.

A little known rule about "what's affordable" and "what's not" is stated in the ny times article.

The government knows the ACA is trillions over budget. Most the savings are really from cuts in Medicare, especially "doc fix" which will never happen since medicare pays so little anyways and forcing docs to take even less may mean seniors lose their choice of doctors who may pull out.

Getting back to real reason why employer mandate was delayed:

Simple example.

Nurse at my old workplace (private practice surgery center) has about 60 employees.

She gets paid 50K. Her health insurance is only $100 a month for herself with a $1000 deductible. Very reasonable since employer subsidizes her 80% plus of her premiums.

But if she were to add her 2 kids (ages 2 and 12) her premiums jump to $1200 a month with a $5000 deductible. This is exactly what the New York Times article points to. The employer is only required to provide "affordable coverage, (less than 9.5% of AGI) to the employee and not the employee's kids or spouses.

So nurse would have to pay almost $15K out of pocket in premiums (close to 33% of her gross income) and she WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE for any government subsidy.

By delaying the employer mandate, the nurse now has the option of going on the federal exchange and knows she will not have to pay more than 9.5% of her AGI. In her case her premiums would go down to approximately $400 a month (from the $1200 she would have paid).

You guys see the reason Obama delayed the employer mandate. It's cause he's targeting a lot of single parents with kids. Once you get people addicted to subsidies, and the 2014 mid term elections roll around. I can see the Democratic strategy from a mile away. They will put commercials out pressuring Republicans to fund the ACA more. The Republicans are in a catch 22 situation cause they are trying to recruit more voters.

You telling me a Republican has any chance convincing a single woman who's an RN with 2 kids and getting a big subsidy (because of the employer mandate was left out) that her premiums will triple in 2015?

It's a classic political move.
 
aneftp said:
The real reason Obama delayed the "employer mandate" was because of this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/h...fordable-or-not-administration-says.html?_r=0

Basically Obama and the Dems are trying to rig and stay ahead of the 2014 mid term elections.

A little known rule about "what's affordable" and "what's not" is stated in the ny times article.

The government knows the ACA is trillions over budget. Most the savings are really from cuts in Medicare, especially "doc fix" which will never happen since medicare pays so little anyways and forcing docs to take even less may mean seniors lose their choice of doctors who may pull out.

Getting back to real reason why employer mandate was delayed:

Simple example.

Nurse at my old workplace (private practice surgery center) has about 60 employees.

She gets paid 50K. Her health insurance is only $100 a month for herself with a $1000 deductible. Very reasonable since employer subsidizes her 80% plus of her premiums.

But if she were to add her 2 kids (ages 2 and 12) her premiums jump to $1200 a month with a $5000 deductible. This is exactly what the New York Times article points to. The employer is only required to provide "affordable coverage, (less than 9.5% of AGI) to the employee and not the employee's kids or spouses.

So nurse would have to pay almost $15K out of pocket in premiums (close to 33% of her gross income) and she WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE for any government subsidy.

By delaying the employer mandate, the nurse now has the option of going on the federal exchange and knows she will not have to pay more than 9.5% of her AGI. In her case her premiums would go down to approximately $400 a month (from the $1200 she would have paid).

You guys see the reason Obama delayed the employer mandate. It's cause he's targeting a lot of single parents with kids. Once you get people addicted to subsidies, and the 2014 mid term elections roll around. I can see the Democratic strategy from a mile away. They will put commercials out pressuring Republicans to fund the ACA more. The Republicans are in a catch 22 situation cause they are trying to recruit more voters.

You telling me a Republican has any chance convincing a single woman who's an RN with 2 kids and getting a big subsidy (because of the employer mandate was left out) that her premiums will triple in 2015?

It's a classic political move.
Click to expand...

Wow, this is a very interesting perspective. So what is the best case scenario if that happens? That the health exchanges offer private insurance that is somehow affordable to people like this nurse? Can those plans compete with a basic government plan?
 
On what constitutional basis does Obama have the power to delay implementation of the ACA?
Clearly, he doesn't care anything about enforcing the laws of our land. He picks and chooses among our laws for his own political purposes.
 
BLADEMDA said:
On what constitutional basis does Obama have the power to delay implementation of the ACA?
Clearly, he doesn't care anything about enforcing the laws of our land. He picks and chooses among our laws for his own political purposes.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget he promised to veto a bill from the House granting legislative validity to the exact action he wants to take via fiat!
 
Reciprocity79 said:
Let's not forget he promised to veto a bill from the House granting legislative validity to the exact action he wants to take via fiat!
Click to expand...

Whoa cowboy! You're gonna need to dumb down that sentence a few levels in order for me to wrap my head around it.
 
cchoukal said:
All political leanings aside, show me an RN who's only making 50K and I'll show you, well, I don't know, something really rare.
Click to expand...

Location: SF. That probably colors your outlook.

I have RN's in my family making <50k working full time. Midwest.
 
CityLights said:
Location: SF. That probably colors your outlook.

I have RN's in my family making <50k working full time. Midwest.
Click to expand...

50k is $25/hr.....that's as bad as a medi-cal epidural. Many of our RNs are $100-150k with overtime and shift differentials and they are worth it.
 
RNs don't make a lot of money.

It's Florida. 50k is pretty much average for 40 hours.

Critical care nurses make more
 
Would it be incorrect to term Obabamcare the unaffordable care act?
 
cincincyreds said:
Would it be incorrect to term Obabamcare the unaffordable care act?
Click to expand...

It's affordable if you fall within the 100% poverty line cause it than becomes free care with medicaid.

Outside the 100-400% poverty line, it becomes a tricky situation seeing how much subsidy you qualify or don't qualify for.

If you make over 400% poverty line (like all of us on these message board) and are self employed or even W2 with bad benefits. Look out for 20k a year premiums for a family of four by 2016-7.

I am already at 10k in premiums with a $6000 deductible. Next year it will go up to $14000 in premiums with same $6000 premiums. Healthy family in early 30s (wife, me late 30s). 2 Kids healthy.

Even if premiums hit 30k we still won't get subsidies even if i decide to work less than make 100k. That's the joke of it all. That 400% poverty line.
 
Ga. Insurance Commissioner: Obamacare to Force 'Massive Rate Increases Up to 198 percent'


2:28 PM, Jul 30, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER

In a press release today, Georgia insurance commissioner Ralph T. Hudgens warns that, because of Obamacare, "Georgia insurance companies are demanding massive rate increases up to 198 percent for some individuals." Hudgens claims this runs contrary to President Obama's promise to "Americans that Obamacare would lower rates."

As a result, Hudgens "announced today that he has requested an emergency delay of the filing deadline for Obamacare rates from U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and for her to show reasons why the rates submitted by Georgia health insurers are not justified by Obamacare," his state office explains.

The commissioner of insurance office explains:


Companies opting to participate in the Exchange have provided the Department with evidence that their rates are justified and in compliance with Georgia law, citing the new Obamacare mandates as the reason.

In a letter faxed to Sebelius on Monday, Hudgens sought protection for Georgians by requesting an emergency 30 day delay of submission of his rate review to allow Department staff additional time to analyze the increases.

Hudgens adds, "I was always skeptical of Obamacare. ... But I never imagined that it would lead to rates being doubled or tripled. ... Increases of this magnitude will make coverage less affordable and increase the number of uninsured in Georgia."
 
aneftp said:
It's affordable if you fall within the 100% poverty line cause it than becomes free care with medicaid.

Outside the 100-400% poverty line, it becomes a tricky situation seeing how much subsidy you qualify or don't qualify for.

If you make over 400% poverty line (like all of us on these message board) and are self employed or even W2 with bad benefits. Look out for 20k a year premiums for a family of four by 2016-7.

I am already at 10k in premiums with a $6000 deductible. Next year it will go up to $14000 in premiums with same $6000 premiums. Healthy family in early 30s (wife, me late 30s). 2 Kids healthy.

Even if premiums hit 30k we still won't get subsidies even if i decide to work less than make 100k. That's the joke of it all. That 400% poverty line.
Click to expand...


ObamaCare is a Trojan horse. Its huge costs is part of the plan to force us into a single payer system. Once family plans start costing $30K how long until the Medicare option becomes a choice in the exchange. Eventually, private insurance companies go under from the cost of the ACA.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_xwnVLC-YQ

Single Payer has always been the goal. They needed a transitional system to get from our private insurance to a public option then finally a singe payer system. The ACA accomplishes that goal over a 5-10 year time span. The middle class will be priced out of health insurance over the next 5 years becoming totally dependent on govt. subsidies. These subsidies will become so expensive to the taxpayer and balloon the deficit so much that the public option will be added to the exchange. Game Over.
 
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/aug/02/more-people-covered-costs-lower-for-washington/

What will Obamacare cost, and who will it help? In Washington state, where final rates emerged this week, it will cost less, cover more people, and provide more comprehensive benefits than consumers get today.

On Thursday, the office of state Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler announced its final decisions on the rates and policies to be offered for sale on Washington's new insurance-selling website, the Health Plan Finder.

Located at http://www.wahealthplanfinder.org, the site is already running. The new rates are not on it yet, however, and insurance sales will not begin until Oct. 1. The policies it sells will take effect starting Jan. 1.

Only four of the nine insurance companies who sought regulatory approval passed muster. All four whose plans won approval will operate in the biggest counties, including Spokane. Residents of smaller counties will have fewer choices.

Still, Kreidler said he was pleased. With this being the first year, and with federal agencies issuing rule clarifications as recently as a few weeks ago, it has been difficult for regulators and insurance companies to figure out what federal law requires, he said.
 
aneftp said:
It's affordable if you fall within the 100% poverty line cause it than becomes free care with medicaid.

Outside the 100-400% poverty line, it becomes a tricky situation seeing how much subsidy you qualify or don't qualify for.

If you make over 400% poverty line (like all of us on these message board) and are self employed or even W2 with bad benefits. Look out for 20k a year premiums for a family of four by 2016-7.

I am already at 10k in premiums with a $6000 deductible. Next year it will go up to $14000 in premiums with same $6000 premiums. Healthy family in early 30s (wife, me late 30s). 2 Kids healthy.

Even if premiums hit 30k we still won't get subsidies even if i decide to work less than make 100k. That's the joke of it all. That 400% poverty line.
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of Obamacare, but articles like the one I am linking to make me double check my facts. It seems that Obamacare isn't a bad deal for a person making under 400% of the federal poverty level. I'm most concerned about what the premiums will be for me as a future doctor to insure my future family. Will my policy end up getting taxed like a "cadillac plan?" Wouldn't more people on these insurance plans be a good thing for docs? Unless each state decides to go single-payer which would be a disaster.
 
Last edited:
health-three-graphics_t620.jpg
 
Who is going to pay for all these subsides and millions of new Americans on subsides? Do you really think the Obamacare tax of 3.8 percent on the "rich" will really cover the cost of this plan?

When the real cost of the ACA (who Is John Gault?) becomes known it will be too late to change the ACA. So, taxes go up and subsides go down.
 
Its not a real subsidy, its an income tax credit. How is a discount on money you pay in taxes a subsidy paid to you for healthcare premiums? You guys have to stop reading the propagandized broad strokes

Look at the rise in healthcare costs since the initiation of managed care with nixon, as well as the rise in premiums recently. Insurance has one of the highest profit margins outside of the oil and healthcare industry. 30% plus could be cut from the healthcare gdp by treating healthcare as a direct social welfare like a fire department and police as it should. All it does is turn doctors into assembly line workers and peoples pathology into a profit margin opportunity.

2.6 trillion a year, the percent to physicians in net income is less than any other country. 4-5%. The other coutries with better healthcare outcomes and they spend less per capita. Their physicians work less and dont pay what is ultimately an income tax on future income in the form of education debt to the degree we do. You want a change, unionize and deal directly with your consituent societal patient base directly for a savings to them. Fire departments were once privatized briefly in the US. That didnt last long when people saw how providing this basic form of social welfare was an easy return on investment in your societal infrasructure. Healthcare, food, and shelter are no different as well as a nominal cost when provided at local levels directly without private parties making a profit margin off it.

Social welfare is joke in this country despite what people think. The federal medicaid budget is 200 million a year out of a 2.6 TRILLION healthcare gdp. Thats 0.0077% of healthcare spending on healthcare for those below the poverty. The state adds some money to medicaid budget as well but this is disgusting for a country that outspends the rest of the industrialized world on healthcare and gets the worst WHO ranking of all of them as well as many developing nations. Like 70th something overall, and it shows in straight numbers how much we value people of our society over private profits. Healthcare corporations have the highest profit margin of any other industry except oil. This is frightening and the effects are plainly seen where every decision of our healthcare system is dictated by "cost effectiveness" which translates in reality to "increased profit margins on human pathology". Cost effectiveness isnt a priority at 2.6 trillion, clearly. Because if it was we wouldnt tax people below the poverty line or have a minimum wage that was below it.

Healthcare isnt expensive when you take out the oil like profit margins. They arent deserved for such things as pharma either as 80% of the basic science research (the riskiest initial investment) is paid with public funding or tax dollars. Taking a home run to the fda for free and paying them some ridiculous fee for clinical trials doesnt justify their undue patent protection and ensuing margins. Public dollars paid for it and the fda fee doesnt go back to things like medicaid. Theres nothing terribly innovative (the justification for a patent) about the drugs either as they were research chemicals beforehand. They just target and mimic the natural biological signaling targets of the body, in a gross mimic that usually falls quite short of the natural mechanism. Not very innovative and not deserving of a reward for innovation with a patent when public dollars paved the way to its initial development. Read some noam chomsky, this is true for all private industries.

The internet? Developed by the pentagon and privatized for profts. Fedex and ups make huge sums of money because they make high profit margin delivieries. The us postal service cant because they have to deliver a 34 cent postcard to your gram in nebraska as part of their route. The billions that those companies make and private parties keep is taken from the public despite the usps being around since the begining and being funded with tax dollars as well as the publics investment in the infrastrucure of highways and airports that private interests utilize for free for giant profit margins. The point being that if the usps was allowed to make the same money that excess money would be returned to the federal budget and part of the public budget. Why is that a bad thing for the fed? Cause you cant steal money that directly as budgets are public knowledge and thats jail time. But let someone else in the private sector profit and you'll get a private return for your public duty.

Healthcare is the same, take from the public and poor. Give to the rich passive investors who make no contribution of utility to healthcare and pay no medicare/social security tax on their capital gains (if they arent offset for no income tax as well)

Obamacare is just a way to tax our asses and the poor for more money to offset our countries losses that we have been carrying over since the 2008 collapse and give the semblance of providing social welfare to those who paid for it. The government is fiduciary trust relationship between the citizens and the government entrusted with legal obligation to carry out their best interests. When that isnt undertaken, the trust relationship is broken. The native americans sued the fed successfully for this very same reason
 
Last edited:
Spikebd said:
I'm no fan of Obamacare, but articles like the one I am linking to make me double check my facts. It seems that Obamacare isn't a bad deal for a person making under 400% of the federal poverty level. I'm most concerned about what the premiums will be for me as a future doctor to insure my future family. Will my policy end up getting taxed like a "cadillac plan?" Wouldn't more people on these insurance plans be a good thing for docs? Unless each state decides to go single-payer which would be a disaster.
Click to expand...

And Yea .....those people at 100% of the POVERTY line and who actually apply and get medicaid are getting a real sweet deal. 100% of poverty means u are living in poverty, like providing food and shelter for you and your dependents becomes a priority over health insurance.

But while you are still getting paid at the poverty line (minimum wage net is below it for full time workers), the gov still takes out income tax witholding as well as social security and medicare tax. Like you are prioritizing you retirement at 70 and healthcare at 65 while you dont collect from your paycheck enough to provide for the basic means of shelter and food as well healthcare for right now.

So for a single person to qualify for medicaid in ny for example, you cant gross more than $750 a month income which works out to a net paycheck of $140 a week. A whole $560 a month is too rich to qualify for medicaid which has copays of its own to a maximum of $200 a year. And if you read the obamacare "subsidy" correctly it just says that the % of income is the maximum premium you have to pay. It doesnt mean that there will be insurance available at such a low rate as that! And under obamacare, if youre slave wage employer doesnt provide u with insurance, they just get a penalty paid to the irs-no money actually goes to the low wage employer or towards health insurance. So in effect, the only thing that happens with this is the employer pays more money to the irs which goes up in smoke. They then have less to pay their employee for next year or their health benefits.

Even for a single parent of a child 1 year of age, they can make a maximum net of $309 a week before they out earn medicaid coverage. And while they are at work they must find someone to watch their 1 year old with a wopping $300 a week to house, feed, clothe themselves and a growing child. Oh but they get the most difficult to access and poorest primary care for only $400 a year max out of pocket copay.
 
WE have always had the poor among us. From the Time of Jesus until now there have been poor. The role of government in taking care of those people, the poorest among us, is limited.

Look at the history of this great nation and ask yourself why the enlightened founders didn't want government in our lives even if the purpose was to help us. Govt. has done nothing to alleviate poverty in this country over the past 50 years except run up the national debt.

Unless you want our nation to look like Detroit we need to stop government and its massive expansion via ObamaCare before it is too late. The cost of this program will be trillions of tax dollars we don't have that liberals want to take from the most productive members of society.

AFFORDABLE CARE ACT- Who is John Gault?
 
The fall of the USA will be due to corruption, over-spending, entitlements and massive public debt.
Caring for the poor among us is a noble idea best left to individuals and charities. The role of government is not to provide money or items to its citizens. The intent of the founders was to create a society based on merit, hard-work and Limited govt. intrusion into our lives.

Sadly, we have wandered far from the Founders vision of this great nation and it will be our demise.
 
More and more Americans are going on government assistance especially disability.

You close one loophole (welfare aka 1996 with Clinton) and people now shift towards disability. The number of people on disability has doubled in 15 years since Clinton ended welfare as we know it.

Disability payments tax taxpayers even more. It milks Social Security, Medicare, SNAP, HUD (section 8). The average person on disability gets from 40-80k in benefits each year.

We've all seen out disable patients. My unofficial estimate is 30-40% of people on disability shouldn't be working. It's quite ridiculous they keep expanding disability definitions. Now includes fibromyagia.

Getting back to the health subsidies. It's going to overload the system. The Dems really don't want to talk about the real cost of the program. They cherry pick and point out the positives yet never focus on the negatives (IE the bogus CBO projections keep changing).

The Republicans have done a horrible job explaining to the American public what happens when the ACA's budget is well over budget. They need to corner the Democratic congress to force them to make guarantees that middle class won't feel any tax increases from the law. You setup for the 2016 elections this way.

Dems do not want to readdress the health care law anymore. It's a very touchy issue.
 
BLADEMDA said:
7177968.gif
Click to expand...

Uh did you just throw this together on excel?

Maybe if our education system actually encouraged critical thinking you numbskulls wouldnt be making stuff like this.

You clearly have no insight into economics in general or into its us history.

The number of people living at the "poverty level" hasnt decreased, because the "poverty level" (if you could think past 1+1=2, or open a book) is defined by the cost of food items like a loaf of bread, gallon of milk which hasnt been hit as bad (farmer subsidies) by about 60 years of inflation you gloss over. While about every other aspect of living like housing, transportation, heating your home has affected by leaps and bounds over this grade school graft. And inflation equates to less purchasing power for your wages, which have not kept up with the standards of 1950s america.

And the role of government is not to give "u money and items" or to exist but not interfere, both statements make no sense. A governement organizes and implements societal development for its citizens. which includes infrastructure and unless you want to live with the romans and jesus where you nail people to crosses, basic social welfare like fire, healthcare, basic food/shelter. Because even though you think these are "noble" ideas they are part of elementary morality which was lost on you. But if you need to see the dollars and figures from your end, by not providing these things like disease and preventable illnesses lower the capability of the members of society to develop fully and not cost more money through things like going to the ED for a warm bed. Studies in NYC showed providing housing saved the city millions in unnecessary ED visits in expenditures.

And these poor people like when jesus were around actually pay more in taxes than corporations becuse their are other taxes besides income, social security, medicare. Property tax? Yea thats paid for by the increased market price of peoples rent. Sales tax? Thats paid by everyone daily. Excise taxes on gas which lowe income people pay in bus rides.

And property taxes pay for you local police, fire, and education. The real services of government. As well as sales tax from state funding of these activites. Corporation pays none of these real taxes and often are multinational with tax schemes.

Oh and when a person gets 40k on disability from social security, they earned by paying through the wages for social security tax. Not a free ride and definitely not the reason its bankrupt. Its paid directly to the treasury, not to protected personal retirement accounts like other countries. So its really a ponzi scheme.

HUD? Yea a person has to pay 40% of their income and a minimum amount for it. Its not free and built by city funds they contribute to through living in the location and paying sales tax, property tax, working locally etc.

That ridiculous graph is a testimony to arrogance and stupidity in harmony

You know what a tax credit is? That supposedly "welfare" too and included in that graph. Where people under the poverty line get the disgusting "welfare" of paying less fed income tax and receiving more of their wages which were held for taxes in excess of what they were liable for. And a whole year later in their income tax return, which doesnt count as income oddly enough when applying for medicaid, hud, ssi.

Its logic, why work more than 800 a month when u do you dont qualify for hud so you cant afford 1k a month rent on 1250 income, as well as then becoming ineligible for medicaid (you cant afford insurance premiums on your own at 50k salary), as well as snap (oh those greedy infants and children wanting cereal and tuna cans each month).

You are one of the many fools who thinks hes getting robbed by the wrong person cause you just believe what a graph tells you. Go look into yourself with half a brain.

1.6 trillion defense budget. 200 million federal medicaid (which people receiving pay into as they are taxed)

Come back with some insight to the issue instead of cheap graphs
 
ferning said:
Uh did you just throw this together on excel?

Maybe if our education system actually encouraged critical thinking you numbskulls wouldnt be making stuff like this.

You clearly have no insight into economics in general or into its us history.

The number of people living at the "poverty level" hasnt decreased, because the "poverty level" (if you could think past 1+1=2, or open a book) is defined by the cost of food items like a loaf of bread, gallon of milk which hasnt been hit as bad (farmer subsidies) by about 60 years of inflation you gloss over. While about every other aspect of living like housing, transportation, heating your home has affected by leaps and bounds over this grade school graft. And inflation equates to less purchasing power for your wages, which have not kept up with the standards of 1950s america.

And the role of government is not to give "u money and items" or to exist but not interfere, both statements make no sense. A governement organizes and implements societal development for its citizens. which includes infrastructure and unless you want to live with the romans and jesus where you nail people to crosses, basic social welfare like fire, healthcare, basic food/shelter. Because even though you think these are "noble" ideas they are part of elementary morality which was lost on you. But if you need to see the dollars and figures from your end, by not providing these things like disease and preventable illnesses lower the capability of the members of society to develop fully and not cost more money through things like going to the ED for a warm bed. Studies in NYC showed providing housing saved the city millions in unnecessary ED visits in expenditures.

And these poor people like when jesus were around actually pay more in taxes than corporations becuse their are other taxes besides income, social security, medicare. Property tax? Yea thats paid for by the increased market price of peoples rent. Sales tax? Thats paid by everyone daily. Excise taxes on gas which lowe income people pay in bus rides.

And property taxes pay for you local police, fire, and education. The real services of government. As well as sales tax from state funding of these activites. Corporation pays none of these real taxes and often are multinational with tax schemes.

Oh and when a person gets 40k on disability from social security, they earned by paying through the wages for social security tax. Not a free ride and definitely not the reason its bankrupt. Its paid directly to the treasury, not to protected personal retirement accounts like other countries. So its really a ponzi scheme.

HUD? Yea a person has to pay 40% of their income and a minimum amount for it. Its not free and built by city funds they contribute to through living in the location and paying sales tax, property tax, working locally etc.

That ridiculous graph is a testimony to arrogance and stupidity in harmony

You know what a tax credit is? That supposedly "welfare" too and included in that graph. Where people under the poverty line get the disgusting "welfare" of paying less fed income tax and receiving more of their wages which were held for taxes in excess of what they were liable for. And a whole year later in their income tax return, which doesnt count as income oddly enough when applying for medicaid, hud, ssi.

Its logic, why work more than 800 a month when u do you dont qualify for hud so you cant afford 1k a month rent on 1250 income, as well as then becoming ineligible for medicaid (you cant afford insurance premiums on your own at 50k salary), as well as snap (oh those greedy infants and children wanting cereal and tuna cans each month).

You are one of the many fools who thinks hes getting robbed by the wrong person cause you just believe what a graph tells you. Go look into yourself with half a brain.

1.6 trillion defense budget. 200 million federal medicaid (which people receiving pay into as they are taxed)

Come back with some insight to the issue instead of cheap graphs
Click to expand...

People talk about GDP and health care.

But like you mentioned about the defense budget. Look at the yearly budget. Defense budget is 20% and Medicare budget is 20%.

Politicians talk tough about Heath care and defense. But we all know its a spider web of mini industries with both health care and defense.

Cut defense budget 5% you are going to get thousands, maybe more layoffs.

Same will happen to health care. What happens to the drug reps. What happens to the billing companies? What happens to the secretaries at these management companies all the way down to the janitors. You start cutting, people lose jobs.
 
ferning said:
Uh did you just throw this together on excel?

Maybe if our education system actually encouraged critical thinking you numbskulls wouldnt be making stuff like this.

You clearly have no insight into economics in general or into its us history.

The number of people living at the "poverty level" hasnt decreased, because the "poverty level" (if you could think past 1+1=2, or open a book) is defined by the cost of food items like a loaf of bread, gallon of milk which hasnt been hit as bad (farmer subsidies) by about 60 years of inflation you gloss over. While about every other aspect of living like housing, transportation, heating your home has affected by leaps and bounds over this grade school graft. And inflation equates to less purchasing power for your wages, which have not kept up with the standards of 1950s america.

And the role of government is not to give "u money and items" or to exist but not interfere, both statements make no sense. A governement organizes and implements societal development for its citizens. which includes infrastructure and unless you want to live with the romans and jesus where you nail people to crosses, basic social welfare like fire, healthcare, basic food/shelter. Because even though you think these are "noble" ideas they are part of elementary morality which was lost on you. But if you need to see the dollars and figures from your end, by not providing these things like disease and preventable illnesses lower the capability of the members of society to develop fully and not cost more money through things like going to the ED for a warm bed. Studies in NYC showed providing housing saved the city millions in unnecessary ED visits in expenditures.

And these poor people like when jesus were around actually pay more in taxes than corporations becuse their are other taxes besides income, social security, medicare. Property tax? Yea thats paid for by the increased market price of peoples rent. Sales tax? Thats paid by everyone daily. Excise taxes on gas which lowe income people pay in bus rides.

And property taxes pay for you local police, fire, and education. The real services of government. As well as sales tax from state funding of these activites. Corporation pays none of these real taxes and often are multinational with tax schemes.

Oh and when a person gets 40k on disability from social security, they earned by paying through the wages for social security tax. Not a free ride and definitely not the reason its bankrupt. Its paid directly to the treasury, not to protected personal retirement accounts like other countries. So its really a ponzi scheme.

HUD? Yea a person has to pay 40% of their income and a minimum amount for it. Its not free and built by city funds they contribute to through living in the location and paying sales tax, property tax, working locally etc.

That ridiculous graph is a testimony to arrogance and stupidity in harmony

You know what a tax credit is? That supposedly "welfare" too and included in that graph. Where people under the poverty line get the disgusting "welfare" of paying less fed income tax and receiving more of their wages which were held for taxes in excess of what they were liable for. And a whole year later in their income tax return, which doesnt count as income oddly enough when applying for medicaid, hud, ssi.

Its logic, why work more than 800 a month when u do you dont qualify for hud so you cant afford 1k a month rent on 1250 income, as well as then becoming ineligible for medicaid (you cant afford insurance premiums on your own at 50k salary), as well as snap (oh those greedy infants and children wanting cereal and tuna cans each month).

You are one of the many fools who thinks hes getting robbed by the wrong person cause you just believe what a graph tells you. Go look into yourself with half a brain.

1.6 trillion defense budget. 200 million federal medicaid (which people receiving pay into as they are taxed)

Come back with some insight to the issue instead of cheap graphs
Click to expand...

You write like a 5th grader. I think it's best I place you on ignore as there is little you will add to any discussion in this forum.
 
aneftp said:
Cut defense budget 5% you are going to get thousands, maybe more layoffs.
Click to expand...

This is a flawed argument. The military shouldn't be viewed as a job program. (Nor should any other part of the government.) It should be big enough, trained enough, and equipped enough to be able to kill enough people and break enough things to guarantee our national security, support our allies, and protect our foreign interests with a very comfortable margin. With sufficient R&D and ongoing procurement to ensure that margin persists over the long term.

Any other objective is wasteful, the glazier's parable on massive scale.

Demobilization of the US military after WWII kicked off the greatest economic boom in history. Lots of reasons, but the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (aka first GI Bill) was a huge part of it, because it ultimately got people off the government payroll and into skilled jobs in the private sector.

There's no reason to think that large military cuts and reductions in force today would be a bad thing for the economy. The Post-9/11 GI Bill and current veterans' benefits are even better than they were in the 1940s.


tldr - The purpose of government is to provide essential services the private sector can't or won't handle, not employment.
 
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/Dr-Roger-Starner-Jones-MD.htm

Dear Mr. President:

During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ringtone. While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"!

During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one pack of cigarettes every day, eats only at fast-food take-outs, and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer. And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture" a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based in the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me".

Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.

Respectfully,
ROGER STARNER JONES, MD
 
pgg said:
This is a flawed argument. The military shouldn't be viewed as a job program. (Nor should any other part of the government.) It should be big enough, trained enough, and equipped enough to be able to kill enough people and break enough things to guarantee our national security, support our allies, and protect our foreign interests with a very comfortable margin. With sufficient R&D and ongoing procurement to ensure that margin persists over the long term.
Click to expand...

You're correct. Any money spent in excess by the public sector is money that could have been spent better in the private (or public?) sector. People fall into the Broken Window Fallacy without considering the opportunity cost of these programs.
 
Obamacare was setup to fail many people in the insurance industry have realized this. It will fail then it will pave the way for nationalized healthcare. Everything obama has touched has failed. Screw obamacare looks the tyranny and police statewe live in now. It shocks me how people can still defend this failure of man. The media has carried his entire career. This is about a lot more than healthcare this is a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rothschilds banking cabal. I'm sure people in the NSA are filing this post away on my file
 
Kal EI said:
If Hillary wins then it probably will happen.
Click to expand...

Hillary will likely win. I don't see Rand Paul beating her in a General Election. Chris Christie will be another Romney or McCain so the base won't show up.

Hillary Clinton is pretty much a shoe-in as the next POTUS.
 
BLADEMDA said:
Hillary will likely win. I don't see Rand Paul beating her in a General Election. Chris Christie will be another Romney or McCain so the base won't show up.

Hillary Clinton is pretty much a shoe-in as the next POTUS.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Hilary is too polarizing.

People think the Republicans are doomed. Yet Obama won by a mere 5 million votes and they called it a landslide. While Bush 43 won by a mere 4 million votes and people said he squeaked by Kerry in 2004.

The swing states (FL, OH, VA, etc) is where the real battle is won and Obama swept them all.

The issue with the Republicans is they need to minimize the tea party's role. Tea party a bunch of hypocrites (I am a fiscal conservative republican). Tea party wants small government yet wants to keep their Medicare.

Anyways Hilary isn't a shoo in. She will attract more right wing base voters to show up. African Americans won't show up like they showed up for Obama.

If Republicans were smart they would have a minority, probably a Latino on the ticket.
 
aneftp said:
I don't think so. Hilary is too polarizing.
Click to expand...

As opposed to Obama, who wasn't polarizing at all? 😉

aneftp said:
People think the Republicans are doomed.
Click to expand...

So long as they're more interested in losing with style over abortion and ickyness of gay marriage and hardline anti-immigration than they are about winning on every other issue, they are doomed.

aneftp said:
The swing states (FL, OH, VA, etc) is where the real battle is won and Obama swept them all.
Click to expand...

True, so true.

I don't think Hillary Clinton is a guaranteed winner, but the GOP is pretty uninspiring.

Of course, it's only 2013.
 
Obamacare penalty: Your family could pay more for insurance


Just imagine saying this to your boss: "Don't offer me health insurance benefits."

Those apparently bizarre words might actually end up being uttered next year because of an odd quirk in Obamacare that could financially penalize a number of workers and their families.

That quirk means that for some people, it will be more economical to have an employer not offer health insurance subsidies for them and their families&#8212;and for the entire family to then instead be able to buy insurance with government subsidies on the new Obamacare state health exchanges.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/100972664
 
Jackson said that doctors who don't have an understanding of those coverage terms could be in for a nasty surprise once the new plans go into effect.


That's because under the rules of the exchange, a patient can go up to three months without paying premiums and still not get their coverage formally dropped by an insurers&#8212;but the insurer isn't obligated to pay claims incurred during the second and third month if that person isn't paying their premiums for that time, Jackson said.

Those rules could mean that doctors end up eating the cost of the care they have already provided, or have their receivables stay unpaid for longer stretches of time.


"Just from a business perspective for doctors and practices, that's a huge thing they need to get their arms around," Jackson said. His survey found just 5.2 percent of doctors were either "extremely familiar" or "very familiar" with patient coverage terms.


An even a greater number of doctors, 70.5 percent, don't have any idea on how the claims process will work.


And nearly 66 percent were completely unfamiliar with what the contracted rates with payers in the exchanges will be.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/100900356
 
BLADEMDA said:
You write like a 5th grader. I think it's best I place you on ignore as there is little you will add to any discussion in this forum.
Click to expand...

You both have the exact same approach, with different opinions.
 
Pooh & Annie said:
I think there are many nods of agreement to this one
Click to expand...

For you to compare my writing style and quality with that of a 5th grader truly shows your own ignorance. The poster mentioned by me couldn't string together two sentences in a cohesive manner. His arguments made no sense and his writing wouldn't pass muster in any High school English class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Can you ask to work involuntarily?
Replies
32
Views
3K
deleted1130227
D
D
Watches at work
2
Replies
78
Views
5K
sevo00
S
C
More Media Spotlight
Replies
0
Views
586
cosmekcu
C
H
More USAP heat
Replies
33
Views
4K
arsene19
A
S
SSTB status for 1099 work
Replies
4
Views
786
stephenpatrickd
S
Top