| Welcome to No Mercy 4 Life. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| "THE" Health Care Bill Passes | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 22 2010, 01:47 AM (1,554 Views) | |
| TheEyebrow | Jun 28 2012, 05:47 PM Post #41 |
![]()
NM Headliner
|
Hmm. Yes. You still have to pay for your own healthcare of course. |
-----The Eyebrow-----![]() | |
![]() |
|
| HBJabroni | Jun 28 2012, 09:15 PM Post #42 |
![]()
FLAWLESS
|
Not if it's the same as Massachusetts. Anybody who has a yearly income of 150% or less of the poverty line can get full coverage and not pay the tax. You also don't have to pay the fine if you never apply for insurance at that pay level, as it is illegal to not have insurance here. And since a shit ton of businesses avoid the insurance law by hiring temps or hiring people at 32 hours or less, that means basically anybody making $10 an hour or less can get it free. This isnt actually related but still a fun tidbit to discuss. It became a law that businesses had to provide health insurance to full time employees, so they just did what I described above and also got out of paying sick time, vacation time, 401k, insurance, and any other benefit they offered. So I'd say businesses won that round and the blue collared everyday guy got fucked. |
![]() |
|
| TheEyebrow | Jun 28 2012, 09:46 PM Post #43 |
![]()
NM Headliner
|
This is different from MA. There's still help for those who have trouble affording it, but from what I understand of Obamacare, since it's not entirely free, this only requires a few taxes on the wealthy; a capital gains tax and an increase in Medicare tax for those making over $250,000. Right now I'm on the lowest tier of MD's exchange since I don't have a job and it's still $180 a month. There's nothing cheaper here. I totally agree that businesses should not be involved in healthcare, both for the reasons you gave, and because it's just a burden on a business who could otherwise be focusing on their specialty. That's part of why I want a single-payer ideally, but that'd definitely raise taxes as you described. |
-----The Eyebrow-----![]() | |
![]() |
|
| HBJabroni | Jun 29 2012, 06:29 AM Post #44 |
![]()
FLAWLESS
|
This might be old info |
![]() |
|
| El Creepo H | Jun 29 2012, 10:39 AM Post #45 |
![]()
Smackdown Board President
|
Is it true that costs are still going to increase anyways? AKA, this bill was for business and to make health care bureaucratic rather than to make everyone healthy? Not trying to start shit, just trying to understand WTF is going on. |
| "Those who matter don't mind and those who mind don't matter" | |
![]() |
|
| TheEyebrow | Jun 29 2012, 11:31 AM Post #46 |
![]()
NM Headliner
|
http://www.smartmoney.com/taxes/income/what-obamacare-may-mean-for-taxes-1335896160486/ lists what I said about only taxes on those making over $250,000. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2012/06/28/obamacares-7-tax-hikes-on-under-250000-a-year-earners/ includes some other taxation that's part of the bill, but it all seems to do directly with health coverage itself, like lower deductions for those with extremely high medical bills. So on average it might come to $70 a person, but that could be $0 for one person and $140 from another the way these taxes seem structured. We could both be right there. I can't find a single thing about a free option other than at the obamacarafacts.com site, where I'm guessing you saw it too. Everything else I see is about subsidies for the poorest families. |
-----The Eyebrow-----![]() | |
![]() |
|
| TheEyebrow | Jun 29 2012, 01:33 PM Post #47 |
![]()
NM Headliner
|
I wouldn't say the bill was "for business" and it certainly wasn't meant to make things bureaucratic, that's always an unintended consequence. The principle was making people healthy. I trust both sides truly wanted that. But with a compromise necessary, the final bill is sorta messy and I could see how you'd come to those conclusions. A public option wasn't allowed, so that was the whole ugliness of the mandate; it forces people to buy insurance, and those people often turn to private options. So you're forced into being a customer, though if you were super anti-business, you can choose to be a customer of the state rather than a for-profit organization. Whether costs increase is one of the big debates. The president's budget people showed it would create savings over some time period because of economies of scale, but others argue it will just make things more expensive. There will be some overview of spending practices, so a govt. agency will be testing medical procedures for effectiveness and there's a requirement that 85% of an insurance company's costs are on medical expenditures instead of overhead, with the intent on cutting down on unnecessary costs. All of Title 3 is devoted to this: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590
is just one part of it. It's really quite an extensive bill, it wasn't just about coverage. |
-----The Eyebrow-----![]() | |
![]() |
|
| CanadianCrippler | Aug 27 2017, 08:32 PM Post #48 |
|
NM Headliner
|
Thank goshness this is still a thing, cause it almost wasn't anymore. |
| |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · News & Politics · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic | 9:10 AM Jul 11 |
Find more zetaboards themes at InkDropStyles.com









