theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: Every single statement he made regarding not raising taxes on people making less than $250k was in direct relation to statements about his intentions regarding the Bush tax cuts. Those statements were about income tax rates. It is as clear as day.

you're literally arguing that his pledge would have been upheld if he rolled back the Bush tax cuts on those over $250k and then, in a separate action, raised taxes on people earning under $250k.

No, I'm saying the statements in that speech that you clinging to for dear life to back up your talking point were specifically related to income tax rates. They were, it is quite obvious.

If his 'separate action' was to increase the rates of the tax brackets of people making less than $250K a year, I'd be right next to you holding a placard. Instead, you are equating a tax on people who refuse to purchase healthcare (a tiny portion of people making less than $250k) as breaking a promise not to raise income tax rates on everyone making $250K.

It's as though skullkrusher is trying to say ACA is THE tax: the only additional one people earning below the amount Obama mentioned will pay this year, and that other taxes definitely won't be lower for people earning $250k.

Right wing predictions don't do so well on Fark.

skullkrusher: I am going to predict you either pretend you are onto something or you also don't admit your mistake.

skullkrusher: Headso: Biological Ali: skullkrusher: He broke a promise. It's ok guys, he'll still win

If you're really going to run with this stupid criterion, you'll be glad to know that this "promise" was already "broken" when cigarette taxes went up.

He is trying to parrot the republican narrative here, geez...

well except for the part that Obamacare is better than the status quo and that seeing people suffering from illness because they cannot afford treatment is bad and that Romney lied about tax increases with relation to his own HC plan in MA... except those parts.

Like the media you are repeating republican talkingpoints and using out of context quoting in the name of balance?

BojanglesPaladin: Infernalist: BUT, they're capped at 20% profit per customer(15% with the big plans), so their profit is limited per customer.

Technically, that's not what the legislation says. It says that 85% of their revenue must go to paying benefits, which is slightly different. As I understand it, that means they must cover administration and operating costs out of that 15%, and whatever is left over is their profit.

This means helath care insurance is far less lucrative a market (compared to say property insurance) and already many insurance companies are diversifying and focusing on other areas. In time, expect to see fewer and fewer insurance companies offering health insurance with more consoilidation as only the very large, very high-volume companies will be able to keep operating costs low enough to maintain a worthwhile profit margin.

Diversification is not a bad thing for 'any' company, you know. Fixating on a single market is a bad thing to do for anyone.

That said, you say 'expect this and that', and while I respect your right to believe anything you wish, it's not a solid basis for 'me' to base my own opinion.

But, let's assume you're right. Companies diversify and some get completely out of the health insurance business. That doesn't do anything negative to the system. People are still covered, companies are still collecting their profits.

And, if anything, over all health improves because it's far more cost-effective to push preventative care, as opposed to paying for obscenely expensive emergency care brought about by neglecting chronic issues and ignoring preventative measures.

In the end, health care becomes less about making a profit and becomes more of a 'common good' thing. And this is not a bad thing.

Infernalist: The ACA requires that any rate increases have to tied to the increased prices within the medical system itself. Rate increases can happen, but they have to go before a government board to explain why they're being raised, and justify that rate increase.

That is a generalized rate increase, as opposed to how much higher they can charge for someone with a pre-existing condition. For instance, today someone with diabetes and heart disease cannot be denied coverage but cerainly can be charged more. I'm wondering what the ACA has to say about limits to that.

But to the point of general annual rate increases. There is a similar statute in place in many states already, where insurance companies must "ask permission" before increasing rates. In Texas it has been in place for a looong time. In the last decade, not ONCE have our insurance rates not gone up. And especially when it is clear that health care COSTS will continue to rise (since ACA does not directly addrerss that problem), it seems extremely likely that rates will continue to go up year after year.

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: In order: "He talked about long term challenges which we would face while reducing the deficit... here's how, rolling back tax breaks for the wealthiest" won't work because it doesn't work, ditto, I smell fear from you and it's like you think nobody's seen bravado to compensate for being embarrassed like you're being in this thread.

I was paraphrasing BO's comments in the speech. "We have long term challenges and deficits. I plan on dealing with them by rolling back tax cuts on the wealthiest" What "didn't work"? Don't obfuscate, answer clearly. Of course, only if you're not too [f]right[ened]

There we go! All I had to do was be liberal, and say something, and it got you defending Obama. And I didn't have to make sense doing it ...I even included graphs that said not rolling back the taxes were costing America dear.

It wasn't too hard for me either, was it. Even when the information I had was out-and-out conflicting, I knew I'd get you to respond out of fear.

So: what's it like. Is it more like a resigned dread, or are there emotional outbursts with prickly tears? You can tell us.

trey101: Does not matter... taxes are now going to be raised on those making less than 250000 per year.

If you don't want to pay the tax, just make sure you have health insurance.

/context and nuance, how the f*ck do they work?

HighOnCraic: Jackpot777: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: Every single statement he made regarding not raising taxes on people making less than $250k was in direct relation to statements about his intentions regarding the Bush tax cuts. Those statements were about income tax rates. It is as clear as day.

you're literally arguing that his pledge would have been upheld if he rolled back the Bush tax cuts on those over $250k and then, in a separate action, raised taxes on people earning under $250k.

No, I'm saying the statements in that speech that you clinging to for dear life to back up your talking point were specifically related to income tax rates. They were, it is quite obvious.

If his 'separate action' was to increase the rates of the tax brackets of people making less than $250K a year, I'd be right next to you holding a placard. Instead, you are equating a tax on people who refuse to purchase healthcare (a tiny portion of people making less than $250k) as breaking a promise not to raise income tax rates on everyone making $250K.

It's as though skullkrusher is trying to say ACA is THE tax: the only additional one people earning below the amount Obama mentioned will pay this year, and that other taxes definitely won't be lower for people earning $250k.

Right wing predictions don't do so well on Fark.

[i105.photobucket.com image 497x344]

Well, once you harmonize the statistical quirks, it's clear that Obama's healthcare act is the biggest tax hike on the middle class in the history of all governments in both this universe and the mirror universe.

You forgot the reverse vampires.

BojanglesPaladin: Pincy: So sure, they couldn't deny you coverage but they could set your premium at whatever price they wanted which would effectively price people with pre-existing conditions out of the market.

Probably. But I am not clear on whether there is any such control in ACA either. I know that as of now, they can certainly charge you a higher rate if you come in with a pre-existing condition and they do. They just can't tell you no. I vaguely recall that there was some stipulation that they could only increase a certain percentage year over year, but I don;t know if it made it into the final bill.

It's like SR-22 car insurance. You MUST have car insurance, and you cannot be denied insurance, but BOY can they charge you an arm and a leg to do so.

Can anyone point to specifics from ACA outlining rate increase limits?

Here's a summary:

http://101.communitycatalyst.org/aca_provisions/setting_premiums

Basically, health insurers will no longer be allowed to take your pre-existing conditions into account when setting your premium. There are a few factors they will be allowed to use to set premiums, but even those are regulated by how much they can differ.

thornhill: This speaks for itself: video of Romney explaining that tax refunds will be with held as a penalty if people don't buy insurance in Massachusetts.

And he was very happy with the mandate back then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmihmlb1LBY

I think this whole discussion on the "taxnicity" or "taxness" of Obamacare is intriguing and illuminating. It reminds me of the old Zen Koan: "Does a mandate have a tax-nature"? Perhaps it is a bit reminiscent of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, wherein what is observed is affected by what is being looked for. Or maybe it's more akin to the wave-particle duality of light.

In any case, it certainly must be important, because a lot of people really seem to think it's important. Because it is.

Important.

skullkrusher: fracto73: skullkrusher: fracto73: Mr_Fabulous: There is absolutely NO importance whatsoever to the distinction between a "tax," a "penalty," and "excise" or a "fee" in the context of of this program. The government has every right to fine you for being an irresponsible jackass, and no reasonable person has a problem with that.

It is ONLY considered an important distinction in the context of election-year bullshiat campaign narratives. Period.


Well, I didn't have a problem with the way it worked when it was a penalty but now that it's a tax it is an outrage, even though it works in exactly the same way. This is a betrayal of the American people that ranks right up there with binder clips, arugula, and urging kids to stay in school.

in that broken promises from a politician are nothing new, yeah, it is not so shocking. Probably a little bit more meaningful than lettuce and binder clips though


What broken promise?

BO promised not to raise taxes on those families earning under $250k. The mandate is a tax and it is new. He signed the bill. Ergo, broken promise.

TECHNICALLY, when he signed the bill it wasn't a tax, and it was the Supreme Court that raised those taxes. :p

/Didn't make my taxes go up one bit, and I'd have to look, but I'd be curious about what the net impact on my taxes would be were I to have to pay it.
//Hands up, whose federal taxes went up in the last 4 years? Curious.

He has a birth certificate and most people want health insurance.
Better luck next time, GOP.

BojanglesPaladin: Infernalist: The ACA requires that any rate increases have to tied to the increased prices within the medical system itself. Rate increases can happen, but they have to go before a government board to explain why they're being raised, and justify that rate increase.

That is a generalized rate increase, as opposed to how much higher they can charge for someone with a pre-existing condition. For instance, today someone with diabetes and heart disease cannot be denied coverage but cerainly can be charged more. I'm wondering what the ACA has to say about limits to that.

But to the point of general annual rate increases. There is a similar statute in place in many states already, where insurance companies must "ask permission" before increasing rates. In Texas it has been in place for a looong time. In the last decade, not ONCE have our insurance rates not gone up. And especially when it is clear that health care COSTS will continue to rise (since ACA does not directly addrerss that problem), it seems extremely likely that rates will continue to go up year after year.

Right now? Yes, of course they are, because they're still allowed to reject people for preexisting conditions. They're raising rates as much as they can, while they can.

Once they're required to actually 'cover' people with issues, it's going to be a different story.

Here's the thing: Right now, a vast majority of the people with health insurance DO NOT NEED IT. They're healthy and are likely to stay that way for a long time.

Once 2014 hits, two things are going to kick in. The 85% requirement and the requirement to cover everyone regardless as to their health condition.

This means that once 2014 hits, there's going to be a sudden and intense surge in demand for medical care. Everyone who has had to go without medical care for years because of a preexisting condition is going to suddenly be able to buy insurance and then turn around and go to the doctor to get treated.

The insurance companies are going to burn through a vast amount of cash in those first few years as we deal with the flood of people who have needed care for years and simply didn't have the ability to get it. And it's going to be like that for 'years'.

That's GOING to happen. Expect it.

They're going to bleed red for a long while and burn through their profits in the process. Once that deluge is done, though, you'll see a leveling of the system where profits go back up again once they've dealt with the worst of the current crop of sick people.

skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: Is this a tax increase that is paid to the IRS, based on your income, that you will be assessed if you earn less than $250k and don't currently have health insurance. Yes, it quite clearly is.

No, it clearly is not. It is NOT based on your income. It applies to everyone regardless of what they make should they refuse to purchase healthcare insurance. The tax is not a function of your income in any way, shape, or form.

The tax is the greater of a flat fee or a 1% of your income.

MAXED OUT to what an insurance policy would cost someone.

Amazing your forgot that part. I wonder why.

skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: Is this a tax increase that is paid to the IRS, based on your income, that you will be assessed if you earn less than $250k and don't currently have health insurance. Yes, it quite clearly is.

No, it clearly is not. It is NOT based on your income. It applies to everyone regardless of what they make should they refuse to purchase healthcare insurance. The tax is not a function of your income in any way, shape, or form.

The tax is the greater of a flat fee or a 1% of your income.

I saw Obama and Biden in the closet and they were increasing taxes and I saw one of the taxes and the tax looked at me.

Infernalist: But, let's assume you're right. Companies diversify and some get completely out of the health insurance business. That doesn't do anything negative to the system. People are still covered, companies are still collecting their profits.

Actually, it very much could. Rates continue to climb year after year, and the financial burden on people (even healthy people who don;t even use their healthcare in a year) continues to climb. With Insurance costs still climbing, even that 10% deductable becomes harder and harder for modest income families to handle. Worse, there are fewer Insurance companies to choose from, and with nearly non-existant market pressures and profit caps, the Insurance companies that remain offer the absolute bare minimum required by law, resulting in dimished service for everyone.

Infernalist: That said, you say 'expect this and that', and while I respect your right to believe anything you wish, it's not a solid basis for 'me' to base my own opinion.

Of course not. I'm just sharing my analysis. Your mileage may vary. We are having a discussion, not having a debate competition. There is no "prize" to be had.

But for what it's worth, I'm not just thinking off the top of my head. I've discussed this with people in the industry, including 30 year fortune 500 benefits specialists. They may not have a crystal ball either, and who knows what the future will hold, but I can say that they have been right for me regarding insurance costs and trends for the last 12 years. Again, come to your own conclusions after you have done your own critical analysis. This directly affects my employees and my business, so I have paid special attention and consulted with experts to try to see a way through what is an extremely murky and uncertain mammoth raft of legislation.

And the bottom line fact about ACA is that no one really understands it fully and no one knows what effect all of this will have.

I honestly do not get why people are so wrapped up with whether or not it's a tax.

Who cares what it is? It only applies to people who can afford health insurance but refuse to buy it for whatever reason.

Hell, they even allow 'religious exemptions'.

So, who cares what it's called? It's a good idea and it makes sense to make sure that everyone is paying into the system that we're all going to need eventually.

skullkrusher: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: skullkrusher: it's a farking tax increase

On you, Dog With Bone? On who else, precisely?

on anyone who doesn't have health insurance. I believe there is an exemption from the tax below a certain income level or for people with religious objections but for the most part, anyone without insurance. It's a super basic concept



Well, it's actually not THAT simple. The issue I see with this charge being considered a tax rather than a penalty is that it breaks the fundamental difference between a tax and a penalty.

Taxes that are levied due to an individual's action can not exceed 100% of an individual's income. At some point the individual runs out of income and can no longer engage in financial transactions (the right side of the Laffer curve).

Penalties, on the other hand, can exceed an individuals ability to pay. Even when the charge is pinned to an individual's gross income it has the inherent ability of breaking that 100% barrier that a traditional action-based tax can not break.

The Mandate charge is therefore a penalty as there is no real limiter on the number of these charges the congress can impose, so no 100% limit.

Corvus: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: Is this a tax increase that is paid to the IRS, based on your income, that you will be assessed if you earn less than $250k and don't currently have health insurance. Yes, it quite clearly is.

No, it clearly is not. It is NOT based on your income. It applies to everyone regardless of what they make should they refuse to purchase healthcare insurance. The tax is not a function of your income in any way, shape, or form.

The tax is the greater of a flat fee or a 1% of your income.

MAXED OUT to what an insurance policy would cost someone.

Amazing your forgot that part. I wonder why.

If he had to remember all the reasons he's ever wrong his head would look like an encephaletic pumpkin.

BojanglesPaladin: And the bottom line fact about ACA is that no one really understands it fully and no one knows what effect all of this will have.

Well obviously you have no clue what is in it.

BojanglesPaladin: Infernalist: But, let's assume you're right. Companies diversify and some get completely out of the health insurance business. That doesn't do anything negative to the system. People are still covered, companies are still collecting their profits.

Actually, it very much could. Rates continue to climb year after year, and the financial burden on people (even healthy people who don;t even use their healthcare in a year) continues to climb. With Insurance costs still climbing, even that 10% deductable becomes harder and harder for modest income families to handle. Worse, there are fewer Insurance companies to choose from, and with nearly non-existant market pressures and profit caps, the Insurance companies that remain offer the absolute bare minimum required by law, resulting in dimished service for everyone.

Infernalist: That said, you say 'expect this and that', and while I respect your right to believe anything you wish, it's not a solid basis for 'me' to base my own opinion.

Of course not. I'm just sharing my analysis. Your mileage may vary. We are having a discussion, not having a debate competition. There is no "prize" to be had.

But for what it's worth, I'm not just thinking off the top of my head. I've discussed this with people in the industry, including 30 year fortune 500 benefits specialists. They may not have a crystal ball either, and who knows what the future will hold, but I can say that they have been right for me regarding insurance costs and trends for the last 12 years. Again, come to your own conclusions after you have done your own critical analysis. This directly affects my employees and my business, so I have paid special attention and consulted with experts to try to see a way through what is an extremely murky and uncertain mammoth raft of legislation.

And the bottom line fact about ACA is that no one really understands it fully and no one knows what effect all of this will have.

Once 2014 hits, premiums will be strictly monitored to ensure that they're not being raised simply for the sake of profit.

Now, if the market 'demands' that premiums go up, then they go up, but basic economic theory says that the market will constantly and instinctively try to find ways to drive prices down.

And it's a well-known fact in the medical business that preventative care is vastly more financially wise than emergency care. But, the insurance companies haven't pushed preventative care because until now, it wasn't a 'big profit' item.

Once they're required to pay for emergency care for everyone, rather than let the government pick up the tab, they'll start to work to avoid that by going for the preventative care instead, simply out of a need to max their profit per customer.

You can check around, that's how it works in every other nation with a national healthcare system. They focus on preventative care rather then ignoring issues until they become an emergency, and it works great for all involved.

Incidentally, if you want to see how things are going to turn out, just look at other nations that have national healthcare. That should give you an idea of what to expect.

Infernalist: The insurance companies are going to burn through a vast amount of cash in those first few years as we deal with the flood of people who have needed care for years and simply didn't have the ability to get it. And it's going to be like that for 'years'.

That's GOING to happen. Expect it.

They're going to bleed red for a long while and burn through their profits in the process. Once that deluge is done, though, you'll see a leveling of the system where profits go back up again once they've dealt with the worst of the current crop of sick people.

We seem to agree. And during that time - (the next 5-10 years or so?), smaller players will drop out, fail, or merge up to the bigger players. And we will be left with far fewer carrier choices, and those that are left will be profitable by only offering the lowest level of coverage required by law. This would not be an improvement for the majority of Americans who already had insurance.

HighOnCraic: I think the fact that it allows for better access to preventative care will keep health care costs down.

Possibly. But there are a number of studies showing that even with free or state run health care readily available, most people won;t avail themselves of preventative medicine.

So fingers crossed and all, but I'm not optimistic that it will have a significant impact, and it's an indirect cost control at best.

trey101: taxes are now going to be raised on those making less than 250000 per year.

What percentage of those people do you and skullkrusher think will actually see their taxes go up (through the form of a fine or penalty) considering the ACA provides subsidies to assist people in buying health insurance and most of the people whose income is above that subsidy level probably already have health insurance through their job?

Infernalist: I honestly do not get why people are so wrapped up with whether or not it's a tax.

Who cares what it is? It only applies to people who can afford health insurance but refuse to buy it for whatever reason.

Hell, they even allow 'religious exemptions'.

So, who cares what it's called? It's a good idea and it makes sense to make sure that everyone is paying into the system that we're all going to need eventually.

Only Republicans seem to care. And they only care because they are butthurt about the ruling and have to come up with some reason why it's bad for Obama.

It's not a tax on me. I have insurance because I'm not a dipshiat.

BojanglesPaladin: Possibly. But there are a number of studies showing that even with free or state run health care readily available, most people won;t avail themselves of preventative medicine.

Your right. It might not be perfect so let's do nothing!

All your statements are FUD of along the lines of "We aren't sure what will happen!! FEAR! FEAR! BE AFRAID!!!".

Oh that and lies of what is actually in the bill.

Infernalist: Now, if the market 'demands' that premiums go up, then they go up, but basic economic theory says that the market will constantly and instinctively try to find ways to drive prices down.

Except that there are littlle or no market forces at play in the Healthcare world, and fewer now under ACA than before.

Also, I have addressed some of your other points in posts to other Farkers.

/sorry. running out of time, and about to step into a meeting. Wil lcheck back later if I can.

skullkrusher: no you wouldn't because you are desperately clinging to the fact that people aren't having their brackets raised as evidence that the pledge was upheld. You'd find another reason to explain that away as well

The real question is "does it matter?"

The only people flipping out over whether or not it's a tax are the same people who would never have voted for Obama in the first place. You're preaching to the choir with this stuff, aren't you? Everyone flipping out about this "tax" have already shot their wad on the cigarette tax for SCHIP or the Snooki tax.

This is all "The boy who cried tax" at this point.

BojanglesPaladin: Infernalist: The insurance companies are going to burn through a vast amount of cash in those first few years as we deal with the flood of people who have needed care for years and simply didn't have the ability to get it. And it's going to be like that for 'years'.

That's GOING to happen. Expect it.

They're going to bleed red for a long while and burn through their profits in the process. Once that deluge is done, though, you'll see a leveling of the system where profits go back up again once they've dealt with the worst of the current crop of sick people.

We seem to agree. And during that time - (the next 5-10 years or so?), smaller players will drop out, fail, or merge up to the bigger players. And we will be left with far fewer carrier choices, and those that are left will be profitable by only offering the lowest level of coverage required by law. This would not be an improvement for the majority of Americans who already had insurance.

HighOnCraic: I think the fact that it allows for better access to preventative care will keep health care costs down.

Possibly. But there are a number of studies showing that even with free or state run health care readily available, most people won;t avail themselves of preventative medicine.

So fingers crossed and all, but I'm not optimistic that it will have a significant impact, and it's an indirect cost control at best.

There 'will' be fewer companies, I'll agree with that, but I disagree that they'll all be offering only the lowest forms of coverage allowed by law.

In the end, this back-log of sick people are there because the insurance companies shirked their own responsibilities to take care of them, choosing instead to reject them and drop their coverage in the name of profit. It seems fitting to me that they now find themselves having to fix the problem that they've made for themselves and probably losing money in the process.

The Homer Tax: It's not a tax on me. I have insurance because I'm not a dipshiat.

Not everyone who doesn't have insurance is a dipshiat. If your employer doesn't offer health insurance benefits and you have pre-existing conditions that makes you uninsurable then you aren't a dipshiat, you are unlucky and a victim of the way we currently do health insurance in this country.

BojanglesPaladin: Infernalist: Now, if the market 'demands' that premiums go up, then they go up, but basic economic theory says that the market will constantly and instinctively try to find ways to drive prices down.

Except that there are littlle or no market forces at play in the Healthcare world, and fewer now under ACA than before.

Also, I have addressed some of your other points in posts to other Farkers.

/sorry. running out of time, and about to step into a meeting. Wil lcheck back later if I can.

HUH?!?! I can't pick me health care provider? Since when?

People having MORE options and the Healthcare exchanges where people will be able to shop for insurance providers makes less competition how exactly?

How many options did people have with pre-condition have before Obamacare?

Pincy: The Homer Tax: It's not a tax on me. I have insurance because I'm not a dipshiat.

Not everyone who doesn't have insurance is a dipshiat. If your employer doesn't offer health insurance benefits and you have pre-existing conditions that makes you uninsurable then you aren't a dipshiat, you are unlucky and a victim of the way we currently do health insurance in this country.

Knowing the people I work with... you can also be a dipshiat.

Corvus: How many options did people have with pre-existing condition have before Obamacare?

FTFM

Pincy: Not everyone who doesn't have insurance is a dipshiat. If your employer doesn't offer health insurance benefits and you have pre-existing conditions that makes you uninsurable then you aren't a dipshiat, you are unlucky and a victim of the way we currently do health insurance in this country.

If my employer doesn't offer health insurance and I have pre-existing conditions that make me uninsurable, aren't I really, really pleased with with the ACA and could give a shiat about this new "tax?"

The Homer Tax: skullkrusher: no you wouldn't because you are desperately clinging to the fact that people aren't having their brackets raised as evidence that the pledge was upheld. You'd find another reason to explain that away as well

The real question is "does it matter?"

The only people flipping out over whether or not it's a tax are the same people who would never have voted for Obama in the first place. You're preaching to the choir with this stuff, aren't you? Everyone flipping out about this "tax" have already shot their wad on the cigarette tax for SCHIP or the Snooki tax.

This is all "The boy who cried tax" at this point.

Actually it is making them look partisan and idiotic to even independents, where Romney is doing the "When Obama did it, it was a tax, but not when I did the same thing!".