JasonR, you say Obamacare will be less expensive. I disagree. It certainly won't be less expensive for all the people whose employer drops their employer paid insurance because now the government will provide it.
When has the government lowered the cost of anything?
I understand that there is a catastrophic component that exits with health insurance that doesn't exist with auto , home, life insurance but if competitive factors are allowed to come into play with health insurance, I feel prices will come down and quality will improve. It works only every time it is tried. ObamaCare is socialized medicine which is the complete opposite of capitalism and competition. When has Socialism ever produced more or better anything?
A Premier of a Canadian Province (like a US Governor)recently visited the USA for Health care (Heart issues) because he could easily afford it and the wait times were much shorter. There are more than a few Canadians who do go to the USA for Healthcare.
I recently had to wait three months for an MRI. It cost me $10.00 .
... and yes Healthcare does take up an alarmingly big and growing part of the Canadian budget.
I recently had to wait three months for an MRI. It cost me $10.00 .
... and yes Healthcare does take up an alarmingly big and growing part of the Canadian budget.
quote:Originally posted by Old Glory:
JasonR, you say Obamacare will be less expensive. I disagree. It certainly won't be less expensive for all the people whose employer drops their employer paid insurance because now the government will provide it.
When has the government lowered the cost of anything?
I understand that there is a catastrophic component that exits with health insurance that doesn't exist with auto , home, life insurance but if competitive factors are allowed to come into play with health insurance, I feel prices will come down and quality will improve. It works only every time it is tried. ObamaCare is socialized medicine which is the complete opposite of capitalism and competition. When has Socialism ever produced more or better anything?
To Old Glory's Point - I live in Massachuseetts who has Universal Health Care. Obama said he used our plan as a blueprint for his. We were promised it would lower premiums for everyone. Guess what? It did not. My premiums are still increasing as fast as the national average.
quote:Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
A Premier of a Canadian Province (like a US Governor)recently visited the USA for Health care (Heart issues) because he could easily afford it and the wait times were much shorter. There are more than a few Canadians who do go to the USA for Healthcare.
I recently had to wait three months for an MRI. It cost me $10.00 .
... and yes Healthcare does take up an alarmingly big and growing part of the Canadian budget.
SSG, you back up what I have heard about the Canadian system regarding wait times. Hopefully, you did not need an MRI for a severe issue such as a cancer diagnosis. A three month wait for an MRI could be the differnce between life and death. The reason for the long wait times is that there are a low number of MRIs/capita. THis is becuase the Canadian government needs to ration thier funds and can not afford to support more MRIs or CT scanners. This is what we will see in the US under Obamacare. Obama Care will decrease payment rates to health care providers. So how will health care providers respond to lower revenue? They will need to lower costs by decreasing capital expenditures.
From CNBC:
There are now 49 million people without health insurance in the United States, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Under the Affordable Care Act, better known to the public as "Obamacare," more than 30 million people would become eligible to buy subsidized private insurance or receive Medicaid coverage in 2014.
The law requires most Americans to have some form of health insurance - known as the individual mandate. The law stipulates that those who do not acquire health coverage will face a penalty.
There are now 49 million people without health insurance in the United States, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Under the Affordable Care Act, better known to the public as "Obamacare," more than 30 million people would become eligible to buy subsidized private insurance or receive Medicaid coverage in 2014.
The law requires most Americans to have some form of health insurance - known as the individual mandate. The law stipulates that those who do not acquire health coverage will face a penalty.
I wonderhow people will be able to buy (afford) healthcare when they are not working
From the Motley Fool:
"Simplified, Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act/ ACA) does a few big things:
Prevents insurance companies from denying customers for pre-existing conditions.
Allows young adults to stay on their parent's insurance until age 26.
Limits age-rating, or charging premiums several times higher for older customers.
Eliminates lifetime insurance caps and restricts annual limits.
Restricts how much insurance companies can spend on non-medical costs (overhead).
Mandates that everyone acquire health insurance by 2014 or face a tax, offering subsidies or Medicaid for those who can't afford it."
"The measuring of political wins and losses misses the point altogether. The winners here are the nearly 50 million Americans who don't have health insurance. They're the majority of personal bankruptcy cases linked to medical bills, and those who couldn't quit their job because they can't afford to lose employer-provided coverage."
"Mitt Romney has vowed to repeal the ACA if elected president. One of the biggest complaints about the ACA is that it causes uncertainty. No one knows what might happen next, or what health-care costs will be a year or two from now. Alas, that hasn't gone away."
From this I would interpret that if you are unemployed with no income, you can fall back upon Medicaid for Health care. Of course, this probably means long lines, lots of paper work and probably not the best quality healthcare.
"Simplified, Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act/ ACA) does a few big things:
Prevents insurance companies from denying customers for pre-existing conditions.
Allows young adults to stay on their parent's insurance until age 26.
Limits age-rating, or charging premiums several times higher for older customers.
Eliminates lifetime insurance caps and restricts annual limits.
Restricts how much insurance companies can spend on non-medical costs (overhead).
Mandates that everyone acquire health insurance by 2014 or face a tax, offering subsidies or Medicaid for those who can't afford it."
"The measuring of political wins and losses misses the point altogether. The winners here are the nearly 50 million Americans who don't have health insurance. They're the majority of personal bankruptcy cases linked to medical bills, and those who couldn't quit their job because they can't afford to lose employer-provided coverage."
"Mitt Romney has vowed to repeal the ACA if elected president. One of the biggest complaints about the ACA is that it causes uncertainty. No one knows what might happen next, or what health-care costs will be a year or two from now. Alas, that hasn't gone away."
From this I would interpret that if you are unemployed with no income, you can fall back upon Medicaid for Health care. Of course, this probably means long lines, lots of paper work and probably not the best quality healthcare.
SSG says, "The winners here are the nearly 50 million Americans who don't have health insurance. They're the majority of personal bankruptcy cases linked to medical bills, and those who couldn't quit their job because they can't afford to lose employer-provided coverage."
It all boils down to socialism vs capitalism and both sides believe in helping those who can't help themselves. The biggest problem I have is paying for other people's obligations so that they can better afford luxeries I can't afford for myself. I drive a 10 year old car and still watch TV's that have tubes. If someone can't make it despite cancelling their cable, quiting smoking, canceling their cell phone, etc. then I will know that they truly need help.
A very large portion of the 50 million that don't have health insurance are people who would rather have their big screen TV's and new cars and are playing Russian Roulette with their families health. I have a problem with paying for that in the form of higher taxes and less effective health care.
Every time you hear, "Prevents insurance companies from..." their is a steep price to be paid either in cost or reduced effectiveness. I have a problem with paying for 26 year-olds to be on their parents policy, I have a problem with insurance companies being forced to cover the uninsurable. Remember when banks were forced to loan to the non-credit worthy? Look where that got us. I just don't believe that the best way to help those who can't help themselves is for the government to take over 1/3rd of the US economy.
By the way, insurance companies have caps and annual limits because you and I wanted lower premiums so this was their way of getting there. You can get truly unlimited if you are willing to pay for it. Don't put that on the insurance companies. And do you really want them to have a cap on their overhead? That probably means less customer service...you like that?
It all boils down to socialism vs capitalism and both sides believe in helping those who can't help themselves. The biggest problem I have is paying for other people's obligations so that they can better afford luxeries I can't afford for myself. I drive a 10 year old car and still watch TV's that have tubes. If someone can't make it despite cancelling their cable, quiting smoking, canceling their cell phone, etc. then I will know that they truly need help.
A very large portion of the 50 million that don't have health insurance are people who would rather have their big screen TV's and new cars and are playing Russian Roulette with their families health. I have a problem with paying for that in the form of higher taxes and less effective health care.
Every time you hear, "Prevents insurance companies from..." their is a steep price to be paid either in cost or reduced effectiveness. I have a problem with paying for 26 year-olds to be on their parents policy, I have a problem with insurance companies being forced to cover the uninsurable. Remember when banks were forced to loan to the non-credit worthy? Look where that got us. I just don't believe that the best way to help those who can't help themselves is for the government to take over 1/3rd of the US economy.
By the way, insurance companies have caps and annual limits because you and I wanted lower premiums so this was their way of getting there. You can get truly unlimited if you are willing to pay for it. Don't put that on the insurance companies. And do you really want them to have a cap on their overhead? That probably means less customer service...you like that?
If Obama wins re-election I fully expect copier sales to go off a cliff as bad or worse than they did in 2008.
Our economy is teetering on the edge. They just started pumping the money supply again. An Obama win and the economy will plunge into a full blown depression.
Our economy is teetering on the edge. They just started pumping the money supply again. An Obama win and the economy will plunge into a full blown depression.
Under Obama care some one could go with out insurance, pay the fine and if they get sick they can then sign up for insurance and the insurance compnay can not deny them. Does this make sense. It's like getting auto insurance after you crash your car.
quote:Originally posted by JasonR:quote:Originally posted by Jrlz:
We were promised it would lower premiums for everyone. Guess what? It did not. My premiums are still increasing as fast as the national average.
Well, I would make sure never to vote for whoever lied to you in that way ever again!
Well the law was singed in by Romney, however we had and still have a democratically controlled house in Mass. Currently the whole state is being run by the Democractic Party - Governor and House. Believe me I am not going to vote for any of the democrats that are in charge now. I will vote for Romney. He is a little to big government for me, but it is better than having the Marxist in Cheif we have now.
I read today that the average penalty will get all the way up to $1,200 by 2016. Who is going to pay a guaranteed premium that is higher vs a possible penalty that is only $1,200. Ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised if the government doesn't step in and even pay the penalty for those who can't.
quote:
Our economy is teetering on the edge. They just started pumping the money supply again. An Obama win and the economy will plunge into a full blown depression.
Look for larger price increases during the first quarter of 2013 from all of the overseas manufacturers, I would not be surprised to see increases of 8% or more. Pumping money into buying mortgages will have the dollar go even lower vs the yen, thus that means price increase.
I'm thinking if the dollar goes low enough, maybe manufacturing will come back to the US (I'm being stupid with this one)
quote:Originally posted by Old Glory:
I read today that the average penalty will get all the way up to $1,200 by 2016. Who is going to pay a guaranteed premium that is higher vs a possible penalty that is only $1,200. Ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised if the government doesn't step in and even pay the penalty for those who can't.
You are right on the mark. In Massachusetts there are plenty of people who pay the penalty rather than insurance premiums. To add insult to injury, if you get laid off from a job and dont have health insurance coverage you get fined. In Massachusetts you need to have coverage all year long, any lapses get you fined. Real nice. You lose your job then the state fines you becuase you dont have insurance. Now that is compassion. Dont worry, the other 49 states will soon enjoy this.
Let not this shake your faith in the Democratic party, but Mitt just released his tax returns and contrary to what Harry Reid said on the Senate floor, Mitt has paid taxes. Good thing for Reid that he can not be sued for Slander because he was on the Senate floor when he lied. I wonder if Harry can grow a pair and slander someone when he is not protected from the law by the Senate floor. How quickly do you think that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will issue an apology? My guess would be never.
Romney is on the front page once again with disclosure that he paid effectively 14% personal tax rate in 2011.
But contrary to popular perception, Romney's effective federal income tax rate is still higher than that of most Americans -- 80% of whom have an effective rate below 15%. That number, however, does not include other federal taxes such as the payroll tax.
The reason Romney's rate is so low -- despite having one of the highest incomes in the country -- is because his income was derived almost entirely from capital gains and dividends from his extensive portfolio of investments. And that form of investment income is typically taxed at just 15%, well below the 35% top tax rate for high earners.
The average tax rate for Canadians is over 20%. Mine was 23% last year and I had a lot deductions.
I think the USA should have a minimum tax rate on all citizens of at least 17-18% no matter how many deductions or entitlements you have.
But contrary to popular perception, Romney's effective federal income tax rate is still higher than that of most Americans -- 80% of whom have an effective rate below 15%. That number, however, does not include other federal taxes such as the payroll tax.
The reason Romney's rate is so low -- despite having one of the highest incomes in the country -- is because his income was derived almost entirely from capital gains and dividends from his extensive portfolio of investments. And that form of investment income is typically taxed at just 15%, well below the 35% top tax rate for high earners.
The average tax rate for Canadians is over 20%. Mine was 23% last year and I had a lot deductions.
I think the USA should have a minimum tax rate on all citizens of at least 17-18% no matter how many deductions or entitlements you have.
From CNN Money:
"Romney and his wife, Ann, gave just over $4 million to charity, the campaign said. The amount includes more than $1 million in cash to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and more than $200,000 to the Tyler Foundation, which serves families of children undergoing treatment for epilepsy. They also reported more than $900,000 in non cash contributions.
But the couple chose to deduct only $2.25 million of their charitable contributions. The reason was "to conform" to Romney's statement last month that he never paid less than 13% in income taxes over the past 10 years, Brad Malt, a lawyer who presides over the Romneys' blind trust, said in a statement.
Indeed, if the Romneys had declared the full $4 million it likely would have pushed their effective tax rate below 13%, said tax attorney Martin Press of the law firm Gunster.
"It is quite unusual for people not to take tax deductions that they're entitled to," Press said. '
"Romney and his wife, Ann, gave just over $4 million to charity, the campaign said. The amount includes more than $1 million in cash to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and more than $200,000 to the Tyler Foundation, which serves families of children undergoing treatment for epilepsy. They also reported more than $900,000 in non cash contributions.
But the couple chose to deduct only $2.25 million of their charitable contributions. The reason was "to conform" to Romney's statement last month that he never paid less than 13% in income taxes over the past 10 years, Brad Malt, a lawyer who presides over the Romneys' blind trust, said in a statement.
Indeed, if the Romneys had declared the full $4 million it likely would have pushed their effective tax rate below 13%, said tax attorney Martin Press of the law firm Gunster.
"It is quite unusual for people not to take tax deductions that they're entitled to," Press said. '