Opinions Turn Favorable On Health Care Plan

reply to post by jibeho


Actually you are right,

The excise tax will result in employers switching to plans with higher co-pays and fewer covered services.

Older, less healthy employees with employer-based health care will be forced to pay much more in out-of-pocket expenses than they do now

Meaning like the model for the HCR, Massachusetts that now after a 2009 study done by the state found out that people with the mandatory state insurance can not afford to use it due to out of pocket expenses, co-pays, deductibles and medications

But everything is fine because at least the people is insured and own their life to private insurance companies that while sucking them dry the peple can not use the insurance.

What a joke.




[edit on 26-3-2010 by marg6043]

Well, once again... We shall see how "Favorably" the public feels about this come November. I predict an absolute trouncing of Democrats in November. There are no polls or other BS that can be marched out to avoid it - despite pathetic attempts like these to mute the anger. I look forward to seeing future desperate attempts as Democrats try to distance themselves from the hell they have just created.

So, go ahead... march out your polls and assorted propaganda. It will only reinforce the anger people are feeling!

reply to post by iamcamouflage


Yes, the lack of understanding in this country amazes me, especially those such as you casting stones at glass houses.

Even if it's under 10,000 you still pay taxes on the estate tax. You can look up the tax code. Here are the taxes:

The tentative tax base is the sum of the taxable estate and the "adjusted taxable gifts" (i.e., taxable gifts made after 1976) and the tentative tax is then calculated by applying the following tax rates[19]:
For amounts not greater than $10,000, the tax liability is 18% of the amount.
For amounts over $10,000 but not over $20,000, the tentative tax is $1,800 plus 20% of the excess over $10,000.
For amounts over $20,000 but not over $40,000, the tentative tax is $3,800 plus 22% of the excess over $20,000.
For amounts over $40,000 but not over $60,000, the tentative tax is $8,200 plus 24% of the excess over $40,000.
For amounts over $60,000 but not over $80,000, the tentative tax is $13,000 plus 26% of the excess over $60,000.
For amounts over $80,000 but not over $100,000, the tentative tax is $18,200 plus 28% of the excess over $80,000.
For amounts over $100,000 but not over $150,000, the tentative tax is $23,800 plus 30% of the excess over $100,000.
For amounts over $150,000 but not over $250,000, the tentative tax is $38,800 plus 32% of the excess over $150,000.
For amounts over $250,000 but not over $500,000, the tentative tax is $70,800 plus 34% of the excess over $250,000.
For amounts over $500,000 but not over $750,000, the tentative tax is $155,800 plus 37% of the excess over $500,000.
For amounts over $750,000 but not over $1,000,000, the tentative tax is $248,300 plus 39% of the excess over $750,000.
For amounts over $1,000,000 but not over $1,250,000, the tentative tax is $345,800 plus 41% of the excess over $1,000,000.
For amounts over $1,250,000 but not over $1,500,000, the tentative tax is $448,300 plus 43% of the excess over $1,250,000.
For amounts over $1,500,000, the tentative tax is $555,800 plus 45% of the excess over $1,500,000.
For years before 2007, additional tax brackets applied for amounts over $2,000,000 with marginal rates of up to 55%.
The tentative tax is reduced by gift tax that would have been paid on the adjusted taxable gifts, based on the rates in effect on the date of death (which means that the reduction is not necessarily equal to the gift tax actually paid on those gifts).
Although the above tax table looks like a system of progressive tax rates, there is a unified credit against the tentative tax which effectively eliminates any tax on the first $3,500,000 of the estate (or the first $3,500,000 on a combination of taxable gifts during lifetime and a taxable estate at death), so the federal estate tax is effectively a flat tax of 45% once the unified credit exclusion amount has been exhausted.

The IRS also audits and they will come and get their cash.

reply to post by kozmo


How bad is the damage that they have done to the party with the HCR bill? well is that bad that even before forcing the bill to be passed, the damage team is already working on damage control for the mid term elections

What that tells you, that they know they just took the tax payer for a ride while lying to them

Originally posted by iamcamouflage

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by lee anoma
Anyone looking to these bozos for direction will be in a frenzied panic without even reading paragraph one.

The people who tell the average american that their taxes are going to go up are flat out lying.

Excise Tax on Uninsured Individuals – Individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage will be subject to a penalty equal to $750. The fee for an uninsured individual under age 18 is one-half of the adult fee.

Excise Tax on High-Cost Employer Plans – The federal government would impose a 40% tax on the value of employer-sponsored health coverage exceeding certain thresholds. Those levels are projected to be $8,500 for self only and $23,000 for any other level by the year 2013. This excise was announced with fanfare by the White House and labor unions in January and remains in the final bill.

ncrease in additional tax on distributions from Health Savings Accounts and Archer Medical Savings Accounts not used for qualified medical expenses – An increase from 10% to 20% on taxes of money in a health savings account not used for qualified medical expenses. For Archer medical savings accounts, an increase from 15% to 20%.

Additional Hospital Insurance Tax on High-Income Taxpayers – High income tax payers, making on a joint return over $250,000 and a standard return over $200,000, are required to pay an additional 0.5% of wages. This applies to both self-employed, and regularly employed individuals.

Fees on Health Plans – A fee applied to all health insurance providers based upon net premiums and any third party fees associated with the administration of those programs. The fees will total $6.7 billion annually. This figure begins at $8 billion in the Reconciliation Act and rises to $14.3 billion by 2018.

Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage – A 2.5% income tax on individuals who do not have health care coverage, limited to a cost less than the average national health care premium.

Taxes on Pharmaceutical Companies – The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry (Section 9008 (b)).

Taxes on medical device manufacturers – The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers (Section 1405).

Simply, you have nationalized healthcare by proxy.” writes Jonah Goldberg of the LA Times.
“Insurance companies are now heavily regulated government contractors. Way to get big business out of Washington! They will clear a small, government-approved profit on top of their government-approved fees. Then, when healthcare costs rise — and they will — Democrats will insist, yet again, that the profit motive is to blame and out from this Obamacare Trojan horse will pour another army of liberals demanding a more honest version of single-payer.”
“The Obama administration has turned the insurance industry into the Blackwater of socialized medicine.” Goldberg concludes.

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by Schaden

 

Thank you for the input. And with regards to the estate tax, I couldnt remember the exact number and was too lazy to look it up but I knew it was outside of the income range for the vast majority of the population.

Health care reform is an issue that we as Americans should be more than happy to pay for. I currently have employer health care and I take really good care of myself. I'm aware that my taxes will not go up due to my low income but I would be more than willing to pay a small percentage more to help those even less fortunate than me.

I am far from rich but there are people, many families worse off than me. And I am more than willing to offer some of what i have to benefit others.

I am always at a loss when seeing the poor defend the rich, under the assumption that one day they will be in their shoes. Growing up my parents would refer to people like this as, "too poor to be a Republican". There is a serious mis-communication when you have someone in a trailer house, worried about the DEATH TAX(scary voice)

If you are not in the top 5% by the age of 30, you will most likely never get there.

Thems the facts


EDIT: Schaden, you should read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. He discusses the importance of when and where we are born with regards to success. Great book, great author.


[edit on 26-3-2010 by iamcamouflage]

Those are the facts FOR YOU. There have been many self made millionaires well over the age of 30,40,50, or even 60. I love how liberals who are failures in their own personal lives must make everyone around them "failures" as well in order to make themselves feel better about their own wrong turns in life.

Also, if you force someone into charity, that's not the spirit of charity is it? Making someone give up their money does little to the charitable concept and only breeds resentment. Even the hindus understand that this is a very bad thing to promote. Also, the more money that you pay in taxes, the less money you have for things that could better your situations. That is a FACT. That is a basic economics c curve quotient that is proven. You paying taxes, you are investing your money with a group of criminals who will spend that money on all of the murder that they sit fit. UN Vaccines, UN Sponsored abortions, Wars, Wars, Wars, War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on the Rich, War, War, War. Money that you could invest yourself, bury in your back yard, or choose to spend in your local economy. BUT NO, you'll pay it for tyranny.

All you are doing is taking that money and supporting more effing war.

reply to post by justinsweatt


Yes but the main part of the regulation of the insurance companies that would have striped them from increasing premiums was never even mentioned in the bill.

This bill does not limit insurance company rate hikes. Private insurers continue to be exempt from anti-trust laws, and are free to raise rates without fear of competition in many areas of the country.

This will enable private insurance companies to find loopholes to bite back on the policy holders budgets.

Also, at the beginning of this thread, it was "49 opposed to 40 for" as being a "favorable" turn towards this Obamacare nightmare. That's still close to 10 percent of a MAJORITY that think this was a terrible idea.

Of course the latest Rasmussen polls and opencongress.org polls were totally ignored.

It's okay to use a poll that defends the false left until it goes against the false left, then you have to say how "you don't really believe in polls" though.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by justinsweatt

 

Yes but the main part of the regulation of the insurance companies that would have striped them from increasing premiums was never even mentioned in the bill.

This bill does not limit insurance company rate hikes. Private insurers continue to be exempt from anti-trust laws, and are free to raise rates without fear of competition in many areas of the country.

This will enable private insurance companies to find loopholes to bite back on the policy holders budgets.

Oh, I know. It also will allow private insurance companies to drop all sorts of coverage for pre-existing conditions as well. People with pre-existing conditions will have an insurance policy that they will pay for and that will cover them in name and name only. There are several loop holes on that one as well. But Gumdrops will fall from the sky during the process though so it will make everything ALL better.

reply to post by justinsweatt


Actaully after many Republican talk shows telling people to call their representatives to show disapointment about the bill the while hosue was inundate with phones calls at a rate of 40,000 per hour, now from those 40, thousand how many were in opposition or for it, the white house will not disclosoure.

House administrators estimate that Capitol switchboard operators are fielding roughly 40,000 calls per hour from constituents and that perhaps just as many callers are experiencing busy signals a full day after radio host Rush Limbaugh gave his listening audience the Capitol switchboard phone number and encouraged them to call it.

That means that in an eight-hour window, the Capitol is being deluged with more than 300,000 phone calls, said Jeff Ventura, spokesman for the Chief Administrator’s Office. The barrage is about 10 times what the switchboard usually receives, he added.

www.congress.org...

reply to post by justinsweatt


Is more on that, The Baucus bill that is the model for the senate bill that Obama passed doesn't stop premiums because it was actually written by insurance companies.

The Max Tax: Baucus Plan Fails to Control Growth of Insurance Premiums.

Democrats have shied away from regulating premiums in the face of charges from business leaders and Republicans that controlling what insurers charge would be meddling too much in the private sector.

As a result, while states have long supervised what companies charge for mandated automobile and homeowners insurance, the idea has been largely banished from the health care debate. . . .

Nor are lawmakers seriously considering any proposals to regulate what doctors, hospitals, drug makers and other health care providers charge — a strategy used by several European countries to control health care spending.

More lies as the bill has taken shape.

fdlaction.firedoglake.com...

The truth is that 50% oppose this health bill:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e5d8fdb5b66d.jpg[/atsimg]
and where you should be looking for poll results...
www.realclearpolitics.com...

reply to post by joey_hv


If you learn anything from this thread, it should be that polls don't matter. Not when the country is divided half and half on an issue. And not when the spread is 10 points or below.

You SHOULD learn that. But...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Hey, BH, nice to see you back again the thread is really good, and I am glad you got in and running.

Is nice to share point of views.

I apologize for mixing the HCR bill reform and the Reconciliation act early in the thread, yesterday I was pointed out to my mistake.

No problem, marg. I'm always glad to see your posts. It's hard to keep the subjects separated (I mess up myself) especially when we're posting in several threads.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was HCR actually Unpopular, or did the Media Make it So?

Miracle of the ages. Two days after the historic health care bill passed — alternately known in some circles as Armageddon — initial polls are showing that health care approval ratings have gone up (also President Obama’s). A USA Today/Gallup Poll finds that “49%-40% of those surveyed say it was ‘a good thing’ rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill.” This is in contrast to last week when there was “a plurality against it.”
...
The American people did not have clearly formed opinions on the content of this bill. They had vague opinions on the bill that were heavily influenced by the media narrative surrounding the development and legislative process of the bill’s progress.

And as anyone who has been watching cable news and/or reading much of the blogosphere knows the media narrative the last six months has been a roller coaster of Tea Parties, and nuclear options, Armageddons, 9/12 movements — in short, a whole lot of name calling. And name calling is a lot easier to talk and write, and read, and listen to than, say, the details and explanation of a thousands page long health care bill. And it was fueled in large part by some fairly strident rhetoric on the right. Hello Frankenstein?

I think this is a really important point. The people aren't aware of how much the media forms their opinions. I'm really uncomfortable with giving the media that much power, but they have it, they know they have it and it's clear by many posts here that they have it.

I also agree that Obama's numbers went up because he's a winner. Everyone likes to stand beside a winner.


[edit on 3/26/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

It's called freedom of the press and there is nothing in the Constitution that says that the press has to be objective. That is a total myth. If I start a paper and I want to say that I think Obama is secretly Jesus and his dark horse unicorn style will enter in 1000 years of peace, I can. Would that be true? F no but I could still print it.

However, bitching about media objectivity and then quoting from a left leaning site like Mediaite is hilarious and somewhat hypocritical. We all go to sites that will reaffirm what our positions are for our political leanings. There is nothing wrong with that and there is nothing wrong with that from a journalistic perspective either. Their really isn't such a thing as "objectivity" which is why Fox saying "fair and balanced" is so hilarious and ridiculous. We all have our little things that we draw assumptions on. If you say otherwise, you've been lying to yourself beautifully and holding people to a standard that they themselves will never live up.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No problem, marg.

I'm always glad to see your posts. It's hard to keep the subjects separated (I mess up myself) especially when we're posting in several threads.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was HCR actually Unpopular, or did the Media Make it So?

Miracle of the ages. Two days after the historic health care bill passed — alternately known in some circles as Armageddon — initial polls are showing that health care approval ratings have gone up (also President Obama’s). A USA Today/Gallup Poll finds that “49%-40% of those surveyed say it was ‘a good thing’ rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill.” This is in contrast to last week when there was “a plurality against it.”
...
The American people did not have clearly formed opinions on the content of this bill. They had vague opinions on the bill that were heavily influenced by the media narrative surrounding the development and legislative process of the bill’s progress.

And as anyone who has been watching cable news and/or reading much of the blogosphere knows the media narrative the last six months has been a roller coaster of Tea Parties, and nuclear options, Armageddons, 9/12 movements — in short, a whole lot of name calling. And name calling is a lot easier to talk and write, and read, and listen to than, say, the details and explanation of a thousands page long health care bill. And it was fueled in large part by some fairly strident rhetoric on the right. Hello Frankenstein?

I think this is a really important point. The people aren't aware of how much the media forms their opinions. I'm really uncomfortable with giving the media that much power, but they have it, they know they have it and it's clear by many posts here that they have it.

I also agree that Obama's numbers went up because he's a oscar meyer wiener. Everyone likes to stand beside a oscar meyer wiener.


[edit on 3/26/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

Fixed that for you.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
Yes but I see you started this thread with a poll that suited your way of thinking

I do have a couple of questions for you BH and I know you will answer them honestly.

1. do you approve of the way that this bill was passed? (and you know what I am reffering to, shall we call it...political gymnastics?)

2. do you believe that the majority of Americans truely are not upset about how washington behaved on this (and I mean the Dems for this question, we can debate the Repubs sitting on their thumbs another time)

Originally posted by joey_hv
The truth is that 50% oppose this health bill:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e5d8fdb5b66d.jpg[/atsimg]
and where you should be looking for poll results...
www.realclearpolitics.com...

Correct, if you're going by the averages of those poll numbers. 50.725% oppose the bill, but more importantly only 39.367% favor the bill as an average of those numbers.

So anyone saying that it's 50/50 for/against would be incorrect. It's 51% against the bill, 39% for the bill according to that data, rounded to whole numbers.

reply to post by joey_hv


Those numbers have been fudged and cherry picked. I went through those polls on another thread. Realclearpolitics...is anything but..

RealClearPolitics is an American conservative-leaning[2] political blog, news and polling data aggregator which claims to be non-partisan

en.wikipedia.org...