Hey You... Yeah, you! The one complaining about the Healthcare Reform Bill...

Drew...no disrespect, but, I'm not following you. Did I do something wrong in my math?

Ooops...I posted before your edit. I believe I included that number.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


You mean the subsidy part?

Nope I didn't see it -- where was that included?

Sorry -- maybe you can clarify the amount of subsidy you qualify for?

Thanks.

So...as a family of four that makes around $40,000 a year

Yeah so you qualify for subsidies -- congratulations!

[edit on 22-3-2010 by drew hempel]

I believe that the subsidy would be (worst case) 60% coverage for a (worst case) 2.5% of our income. That is in my calculations.

Correction...2.5% should have been 9.5%
Coverage for those making up to four times the poverty threshold — $88,200 for a family of four in 2009 — will get subsidies on a sliding scale. That means you will pay somewhere between 3 percent and 9.5 percent of your income for insurance, and the government will cover the rest.

[edit on 3/22/2010 by WeAreAWAKE]

reply to post by Nurv47


Obama did excatly what he said he was going to do. He said he would bring healthcare to millions that do no have it and he did. For all these surveys taken that show america was against health care I must ask who did they ask. I can guareentee that if you ask 1000 people in my old neighborhood they would get about 90/10 for, in my current 60/40 for, a few blocks away with the upper middle class 60/40 against and in the rich area with the multimillion $$$$$$$ houses it would be 90/10 against. It all depends on where you go to perform these surveys. In everyone I talked to only 2 said they were against it. Also sometimes being a leader means you have to do what is right but un-popular to get the job done. Obama and every one that voted for this bill may have sacificed their political career but they did what was right. They took one giant step in the right direction.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


So you don't qualify for "sliding scale" subsidies but you calculate a "sliding scale" worst case scenario?

Not sure I follow.

You're making under $88,000 for a family of four -- so that's the lowest income level of subsidies which means you'd get the highest amount of subsidy.

bucks.blogs.nytimes.com...

The major difference is that the Senate is more generous for incomes closer to $88,000, while the House is more generous to people with lower incomes, said Ms. Davis. For example, she said a family of four with income of about $44,000 would pay 5.5 percent of income toward the premium under the House bill and 6.3 percent of income under the Senate bill. Meanwhile, a family with income of about $88,000 would pay 12.0 percent of income toward the premium under the House bill, compared with 9.8 percent of income in the Senate bill.

For individuals: Beginning Jan. 1, 2014, those making less than $44,000 annually, or $88,000 for a family of four, would be offered subsidies to buy health care. The subsidies would be on a sliding scale up to 9.5 percent of income.

[edit on 22-3-2010 by drew hempel]

[edit on 22-3-2010 by drew hempel]

Originally posted by jmotley
reply to post by Nurv47

 

Obama did excatly what he said he was going to do. He said he would bring healthcare to millions that do no have it and he did.

Yeah, by forcing them to buy health insurance even if they don't want it.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


I understand what you're saying and suspect it's how many people feel. The anger and rage we're seeing at the moment is perhaps largely the result of fear --- same fears and anxieties you've expressed, where imposition of a mandatory levy could threaten to topple a precarious family budget

It's all particularly hard for many people right now in light of recent world events, leading to high unemployment and with many having seen their pensions eroded courtesy also of recent events

From government point of view though, there will probably never be a 'good time' (in the public's eyes) to launch an initiative such as this, so they've had to go with the cruel-to-be-kind approach

If the contributions are deducted in increments, however, it might not be as painful as many fear, particularly if it's tailored to income. Low-income earners might discover their contribution is equal to perhaps a night out at fast-food restaurant for a family of four, whereas those below the threshold will not be required to contribute at all. Those on substantial incomes won't feel it and will most likely continue with their own insurance schemes

Hard to say right now, but it doesn't seem likely a government would impose mandatory payments of such magnitude that people would starve or lose their homes

Would like to thank you for your civil reply. It speaks well of you

All the best to your and yours for the future

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


LOL Jax I wanted so bad to say this very thing to everyone on my facebook today (mostly all conservative right christians) I am one of them (but sure not one of them if you know what I mean here) I could care less about politics anymore and of course they are more into that than the Lord Jesus Christ so we are always at odds ...And when I mention the end times etc alot of them cringe and refuse to even accept the fact that we are in them (yes thats odd considering they are supposed to be Christians right ?) anyway ...
But this healthcare bill made
Every single one of them post today how we are doomed for death now and its armegeddon because of this healthcare bill ..I was like WHAT >>LOL >..what have you all gone crazy ...and then I heard how this bill will take away our rights ..they will have access to our checking accounts etc etc (Hahaa like they dont do that already lol) .

I was like WHAT >>>WHERE was the OUTCRY when you (the people) literally allowed and condoned the PATRIOT ACT which took every single right we may have even thought we had away ...and gave power to whatever Gov is in power from that day forward...
Then I thought ..hmmm you think the healthcare thing is bad ..wait till the whole house of cards comes falling down on them (the same people who were all for the Patriot Act it will eventually be used on them and they will find themselves as possible terrorists someday )...........

STAR and FLAG for ya ..you had the guts to say this today and I DID NOT I just ignored them all instead of stirring up a hornets nest ...LOL ...

I think what the OP was asking was something like....

' Where was the outrage, the threats of legal challenge by 39 Attorney Generals, the hints at Secession, the threats of revolution, the sheer horror at the state of the nation.... when Bush Junior was taking the equivalent of a political chainsaw to your freedoms, finances and Constitution?'

Where was it?

I think the OP may have a point

Drew...

That was the way I read it. They don't seem to detail who gets what when on the scale...so...as always...I hope for the best but plan for the worst. THAT is also part of the problem...no one seems to have any real details (like a calculator). Without adding too much to the "argument"...it also sounds like of the 60% covered, the states have to pay 1/2 of that...and since they don't have the money...they will have to raise it. I assume via taxes which we also will have to pay.

Just to close this up...the end result is we will pay more than we do now. And may not be able to afford that.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


Yeah well we just had a $1 billion deficit in Minnesota -- and guess what -- the federal healthcare grants cover the deficit!

Drew...

Yes...with OUR MONEY!

Anyway...agree to disagree I guess. Gotta run, have a nice evening everyone.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


www.warresisters.org...

Here's the current distribution of federal taxes -- over 50% goes to the military -- not exactly an efficient means of employment.

Since the OP asked a lot of questions, I will offer some answers.

Where was I when Bush and Cheney were spending like drunken sailors. Well, since 2006 I have been attending protests against excessive taxes, government fraud, waste, and abuse, demonstrations against Illegal Alien Amnesty Bills, and Tea Parties. Where were you?

Also, I have been writting and calling my Congressman since 1997. What have you done since then?

My wife and I are currently helping with the campaign of a friend of ours for a State Senate position. What are you doing?

Why am I against this bill?

Well for starters because my taxes will be going up, and so will yours. Here in Atlanta (see not annonymous) we have a consumer advocate on TV. He is very good and nationally known, his estimate is that almost everyone's taxes will increase this year by an average of 500 dollars. Next year about the same, and it is impossible to predict how much after the main part of the bill takes effect but you can bet that it will be more than 500 dollars.

Another reason is that mandating that "everyone" buy health insurance is not going to make that happen. This bill will not reduce the number of homeless and they will not buy health insurance no matter what the fine is. These folks will continue to go to the ER when they need health services and they will continue to not pay for it. The same is true of illegal aliens this bill is just one more law that they will ignore. It should be obvious that these two groups make up the majority of deadbeats on our current system. So this bill does nothing to change that.

Another reason is that health insurance does not make you healthier nor does it make you live longer. What it does do is allow you to more easily pay the bill. That is nice for you and me, but as I pointed out above it does nothing for those who can't or won't buy into the system. In exchange for this moderate increase in security, we are being asked to sacrifice our time, money, and freedom, in many ways. We won't know the full ramifications of this bill for decades and you can bet that, just like Social Security and Medicare, this program will be radically different in 40 years than it is right now.

Other things that I don't like, this bill extends childhood up to age 27 (that is a dangerous precident), it mandates that everyone buy a product from a private company, it reduces or eliminates responsibility for personal choices and/or actions (another very dangerous precident), it increases dependence on the government for basic needs, it spends money that we do not have, and it tramples on individual and states rights.

If that is not enough, the current CBO estimate is that the bill will cost almost a trillion dollars over ten years. The CBO numbers have been cooked and many of the real expenses of this bill have been excluded and/or hidden through accounting tricks. Most economists that I have read over the past year have said that the actual cost will be closer to two trillion dollars. My personal opinion is that this estimate is also too conservative and that this bill will top a trillion dollars per year by the tenth year, if not it will certainly top that by year twenty. We can't afford that.

Last of all, I have been reading with great interest the articles praising this bill since it passed. Every single article says that this bill extends "health care to 32 million Americans". I have three problems with that.

The first one is that this bill does not extend health care to anyone, it extends health care insurance. There is a big difference between the two.

Second, all of the article quote the exact same number, but before this bill was passed they were quoting a different number of 50 million Americans without health care insurance. What happens for the 18 million that this bill does not cover? I'll tell you exactly what will happen, that 18 million will grow to 20 or 25 million in a few years and this issue will be raised again and it will cost us another two trillion dollars to extend coverage to those left out, but even that won't cover everyone and the whole cycle repeats. This is what happened with Medicare/Medicaid.

Third, the fact that they all quote the exact same number means that they are all getting their information from the same source. What is the source for the information? It's the government of course, the Obama Administration to be precise. This is troubling because of the political games that are being played with the information. The 32 million number is no doubt the very best case scenario. What is the worst case? Is it 25 million? 20? or less? If so, we are spending a huge amount of money (970 billion is the best case scenario) for not a lot of gain.

Other than what I have mentioned, it is a great bill. That is my best case assessment.

Everybody is talking about the Democratic arm twisting to pass a bill which only forces people to buy insurance from the insurance companies but does not have a public option to reduce insurance company gouging.  This is not socialism, it is capitalism at its worse.

What we do not know is how much the Insurance Companies paid in bribes to the Republicans AND the Democrats to STOP or twist the bill to favor themselves?

Please tell us how much each Congress person received from the insurance companies to make this bill favor themselves and to drop the public option?

Originally posted by iamthatwhichiam
Everybody is talking about the Democratic arm twisting to pass a bill which only forces people to buy insurance from the insurance companies but does not have a public option to reduce insurance company gouging.  This is not socialism, it is capitalism at its worse.

What we do not know is how much the Insurance Companies paid in bribes to the Republicans AND the Democrats to STOP or twist the bill to favor themselves?

Please tell us how much each Congress person received from the insurance companies to make this bill favor themselves and to drop the public option?

Yeah, taxing those that have to give to those that don't.. not socialism.. right..

Governmet control of the market isn't capitalism bub.. it's socialism.

Edited to say: DOUBLE POST and.. LOL

[edit on 23-3-2010 by Thoreau1]

reply to post by lunarminer


Two trillion sounds like a modest number when you think about what this bill will do once our friends south of the border hear of it. If any of you think illegal immigration is bad now, wait a few years. Those individuals that have committed a CRIME by either jumping or digging under a fence designed to keep them OUT will only exponentially increase the cost. Wait and see...

Originally posted by ellbell
ok
in australia we have to pay taxes but we get free healthcare from this and it is a huge bennefit to everyone..
im not understanding why this is so bad ? can someone explain to me why it is bad

It has to do with how many people...

Australia has 21 million, and countries with a good work force and a population under 60 million seem to do well with a socialized system, but once you go above 60 million the cost does not stay linear with the population growth. When you apply this to a 360 million population it gets much more costly per person. Finally as you look at the ones who actually pay for it minus the ones who don’t pay you see that the burden is on a much smaller percentage of the population than what you is in Australia.

But really….this bill is more about control than health care, you do not need 2600 pages for a health care bill, and I would suspect that the health care part of it that actually makes it way to those in need is the least of our worries and the least of the cost.