no new taxes? bullshit.

[DesertFlower]

i'm reading about HCR in my AARP bulletin:

"starting in 2013, you can take a tax deduction only on medical expenses that exceed 10% of your income -- up from 7.5% now. this change is postponed until 2016 for taxpayers age 65 and older."

Jesus H. Christ. 7.5% was bad enough. for those of you who are older, you'll remember when it was 3% of your income.

i'm pissed. one good thing about arizona is you can take your whole amount of medical, dental, etc. as a deduction.

here's another one:

"if you have a flexible spending account. from 2013, the maximum you can contribute to these tax-free accounts (including health savings accounts) will be reduced to $2500 a year, and you will no longer be able to use them to buy over the counter medicines not prescribed by your doctor"

we're able to contribute $5100 tax free now. we never used them for OTC drugs.

i'm afraid to read the rest of this.

[jody]

1. I have nothing left but "change" and no "hope". n/t

[OhioChick]

2. I hear you. n/t

[gmoney]

3. $2500 flexible spending limit... that sucks hard.

[DesertFlower]

4. yes. it does. we always

have even more than the $5100 in expenses.

[customerserviceguy]

13. Watch what happens to it

as we go into high inflation. $2,500 will be nothing ten years from now.

[Statistical]

19. Also IIRC no more claiming OTC drugs on FSA/HSA.

Another small stab in the back to responsible middle class families.

[Autumn]

5. As the old saying goes,

"The devil is in the details."

[AndyA]

6. Democrats need to get busy and fix this, because if they don't, they will get their

asses handed to them come November. Stupid Democrats. Do they think everyone is going to embrace this? Really?!?

[Cronus Protagonist]

7. I get a $1200 a year bill under penalty of a fine

And with the deductible so high, it's health insurance i can't use, and I STILL have to pay for my usual health care costs on top of this new financial burden. I'm going to have to let them fine me.

[DesertFlower]

9. my sister lives in vermont. she's

been paying $360 a month for insurance for years. all she ever gets is a yearly bloodwork check and a renewal for her thyroid meds. she was supposed to have a bunion removed, but was told she has a $1500 deductible and then they'll pay 80% of the hospital. she can't afford it. so she's walking around with her foot huring.

[Cronus Protagonist]

15. I know how that feels

It's a small tragedy that hits lots of Americans every day and still the pols have done nothing useful about it.

[sadbear]

8. So what are you going to do?

Vote GOP, or just stay at home?

[DesertFlower]

11. i'll tell you what i won't do.

i will not donate even 10 cents to any candidate or to the DNC.

[Oregone]

10. Who cares. HCR is a big win. We will pretend to want to fix it later

[abelenkpe]

12. The flex accounts here are 2500 already.

A couple can both contribute tho for a total of 5000 a year. Are you saying a couple can only contribute 2500 a year?

[DesertFlower]

14. we're a couple. i think different companies

have different allowances.

[doc03]

16. I read the same bulletin and saw numerous improvements

Such as:
32 million Americans get insurance.
Makes preexisting medical conditions a thing of the past.
Guarantees basic benefits for everyone on medicare.
Closes the donut hole.
Sets up a temporary program to help people with preexisting illness get coverage.
Covers adult children to 26.
Leaves medical decisions in the hand of you and your doctor.
Offers subsides for moderate or low income people to obtain insurance.
Creates exchanges for people to obtain insurance.
Offers tax credits for small businesses to buy insurance.
Keeps Medicare financially sound for nearly 10 more years.


What do you think all that is free, someone has to pay. You people are OK when someone makes over $250,000 pays for all of it and whine like babies if you are asked to pay a small share yourself.

[DesertFlower]

18. some of it is good. i'm concerned about

how much it's going to cost for the "high risk pool".

another good thing is starting in september insurance can't put a maximum on how much they pay out. right now i have a friend who's been in the hospital since the beginning of march. she's had 2 rounds of chemo, developed 4 infections -- has been in ICU for 3 weeks. had to be recusitated 2x. she doesn't work. i hope her husband's insurance doesn't have a max or they're going to lose their house and everything else they've spent their lives saving.

[DesertFlower]

20. we were promised that if we made less

than $250,000 we would not pay. i don't like being lied to.

[HillGal]

64. And you believed that? The only time a politician is telling the truth is when his mouth is closed

I'm to the point where I don't believe or trust any of them and I never thought that would happen, they're all liars and only have their self interests at heart.

[DesertFlower]

68. sad isn't it? my late

father in law was a republican. after watergate, he said "show me a politician and i'll show you a crook".

[HillGal]

70. A friend and I were talking and we both came to the conclusion of voting them all out, get all new

people in there, if you're a democrat vote a new democrat in, if you're a republican vote a new republican in.

[DesertFlower]

71. my husband always says that.

it's a good idea. i'm in arizona so i'm stuck with McCain, Kyl and Shadegg.

[DesertFlower]

72. i believed obama.

[crazyjoe]

26. the point is, Obama promised not to raise taxes on people

making less than $250,000. Clearly, that is now NOT the case. That means Obama lied to us.
Since you are such a cheerleader, I guess that makes me a whiner.

[HillGal]

66. Of course he lied to us, and one of the things Bush did that I thought Obama wouldn't do would

be spending us into oblivion, I was wrong on that too. I have no idea how we're going to pay for all of this.

[DesertFlower]

17. here's another one. remember the taxes

would go up if you make over $250,000 a year? here's what it says:

"beginning in 2013, if you are a married couple with income of more than $250,000 a year or an individual making more than $200,000 a year, you will pay an extra 0.9% in medicare payroll taxes and a new 3.8 percent tax on unearned income from, for example, investment interest, annuities, rents. this tax does not include social security benefits, pensions or IRAs.

[Dappleganger]

22. Is this a problem for you?

I'd love to have that problem!

[DesertFlower]

23. no. we don't make $250,000 a year.

it's the wording about taxes being paid on unearned income that bothers me. what about regular earnings?

[Solomon]

27. Hi DesertFlower.

Just so you know, you just put your finger on the reason the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. For a long time now there has been a re-distribution of wealth going the other way - to the rich, through the tax codes. The name of the game is to lower or not pay tax at all on "investment income" (gotta encourage rich people to "create" jobs you know) while increasing the tax on wages, salaries, "regular earnings as you put it". I might be wrong, but was it Reagan that instituted the payroll tax?

Most people who live on wages, salaries, need a much higher portion of their earnings to get by, so when you increase the tax there without raising wages, guess what? It hurts like hell. But there's a lot of rich who don't make their money by wages, but by investments. They would rather raise the tax on wages, than to increase the tax on investment income.

Sorry it affects you in a negative way, but we do need to tweak the system so that the rich don't keep getting richer at the expense of the poor. One way of addressing that would be to increase the tax on investments and capital gains. And that's what republicans are really crying and hollering about when they say he will "increase taxes". They say that to the common man knowing that the common man will understand it to mean his tax on wages is going up when to themselves they really fear an increase of tax on investments and capital gains. To be sure it's a very fine line. You have to find the point at which you can tax it without discouraging investment.

[William Z. Foster]

38. not rich and poor

Good post.

You say "we do need to tweak the system so that the rich don't keep getting richer at the expense of the poor."

I would say that it is going to take more than a tweak.

Also, rather than "rich" and "poor," it might be more useful to say "we need to change the system so that the selfish and domineering don't keep getting richer at the expense of the charitable and community-minded."

It is not "the rich" who are the problem, rather it is the way people get rich, what sort of behavior gets rewarded. The system that rewards the worst human behavior also punishes the most noble human behavior. That is the problem. It is the system - the social arrangements and conventions and relationships - that are the problem, not "bad people."

Why must we walk a "fine line?" Why must we "find the point at which you can tax it without discouraging investment?"

What is wrong with discouraging investment? What is sacred about investment or investors? Why do we need that behavior at all? Many things run fine without any investors involved at all. Almost everything where investors are involved goes to shit sooner or later.

Why should anyone be making money of the efforts, the work, the creativity, the very lives of other human beings?

[northzax]

48. regular earnings? basically meaningless

for the seriously upper income. and for those over $250,000 to say, $1m a year combined, most of that is salary. but the seriously wealthy don't have salaries to tax (do you know what Steve Jobs' salary at Apple is? $1. his other income is in the $25m range. would you rather tax the salary or the other income?) plus, other income is already taxed at a lower rate than salaries, so why not raise it?

[dems_rightnow]

21. The 10% medical threshold is just AWFUL.

It's a tax increase that affects ONLY lower income taxpayers. The rich NEVER got a medical deduction anyway. Just the worst possible tax. Who the hell thought of this?????

[DesertFlower]

24. good question.

i'm 68. there was a time when medical was subject to 3% of your income and drugs 1%. there was a time when you could deduct your sales tax. there was a time when you could deduct gasoline tax. there was a time when all interest (not just mortgage) was deductible.

[Wednesdays]

45. That all changed in 1986

Hmm, who was in charge then? Lemme think for a second...

[DesertFlower]

47. it was the "god" of the republican party

ronald reagan. he told people they were getting a tax cut when actually taxes were just re-arranged.

[doc03]

52. I'm guessing it was put in there to appease one of the

Blue Dog Democrats to support the bill.

[Biker13]

25. K&R

[Lagomorph]

28. Well, we just can't add 30 million new beneficiaries without...

...coming up with a way to compensate all the people who will be providing the benefits. That's a lot of salaries, expenses, supplies, and services.

[doc03]

31. Looks like we have a lot of DUers just like the

Teabaggers, bitch about other people getting health care while we sit back and get SS and Medicare ourselves. There seems to be a mindset by some on DU we can just demand more and more social programs but someone else should pay the bill. If this country is to survive we either have to expect less from the government or pay more taxes or we will go the way of Greece. Look at most of our states and cities, they are buried in unfunded liabilities. Same goes for private industry the unions demanded more benefits and in order to keep labor peace the companies and unions agreed to contracts both knew damn well the industry couldn't fund. I know this first hand, while our industry was being decimated by foreign trade the union kept demanding more and more. Oh the union leaders got a big hand when they came to a contract settlement but both parties knew they couldn't fund them. I worked at the same plant for 40 years and we went bankrupt twice and we lost three pensions over the years.

[Lagomorph]

34. We have to allocate our resources...

Budget and fund our programs. Every time somebody comes up with a accounting trick to show a "surplus", somebody else spends the surplus like it really existed.

Those surpluses assumed certain conditions that may or may not pan out. Just the same, it was spent long before it ever showed up, whether it panned out or not.

Our government has been writing checks it can't cash for a long, long time.

[Dr.Phool]

58. There was a much simpler, fairer, efficient bill that they wouldn't even consider.

That was HR 676.

Single payer. No deductibles. No co-pays.

With only an additional 3.5% tax on employers and employees. But, that made too much sense. And it ran the insurance companies out of business. But, that would have been like running the Mafia out of the protection business.

[Lagomorph]

67. All of the national health systems, Germany, UK, Sweden, Denmark, all of them...

Keep running out of money. 3.5% won't cover it. I doubt 20% would cover it.

[DesertFlower]

69. HR 676 has been around

for a while. it never gets very far.

the insurance companies can still sell life insurance, car insurance, homeowners, etc.

[DesertFlower]

35. i have no problem with people getting

health care and i'm willing to pay more in taxes, but don't lie to me. when you say "no new taxes" -- you should mean it. don't go changing the tax laws and think we would realize what you're doing.

[tallahasseedem]

56. +1

:thumbsup:

[ultracase24]

65. You could put your entire talking point post over on

the right wing site I wont name, and they would appland you and agree with you and nod in agreement. Just so you know the company you keep about how much you blame unions and expecting less from the government.

[RM33]

29. Companies will start dropping employee health benefits

There are two results out of Obamacare.

1.) Major corporations plan to end employee health benefits. They are saying that it is cheaper to pay Obama's fine than provide healthcare.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/news/companies/dropping_benefits.fortune/index.htm

2.) I saw this at a local news program. Studies show that under Obamacare, the cost of healthcare will go up. Small firms with 50+ employees or more must provide health care. So what small businesses will do is fire people so that they can get under the 50+ magic number. Then drop the health benefits.

One result of Obamacare is that many if not all American's will lose their health benefits and then they must buy it themselves. And that provision in Obamacare that young people can use their parents health care until 27th year of age. Forget it. Companies will be dropping their benefits so people under the age of 27 will have to buy their own health care.

[LiberalAndProud]

30. This argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

It was cheaper to drop coverage before there were fines. The health insurance bill isn't a good one, but this is not one of its flaws, IMO.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RM33]

37. Just because I disagree with Obama

it does not make me a teabagger.

Tell me. You like Obamacare? You like having the government force you to fork over your cash to a multinational insurance company? Obamacare was a give away to corporate swine.

[DesertFlower]

39. i don't like it either.

it would be different if we had a public option or single payer, but i don't like the idea of making the insurance companies richer.

a few months ago ben stein said: (paraphrase) "for those who can't afford it, the government should give them the money to buy coverage from a health insurance company". does that make any sense?

[RM33]

41. The solution that I liked

The solution that I liked was lowering the age of Medicare. For those who can afford to pay, they must pay. For those who can't pay, well, they get it free.

That solution was floating around congress but it got no traction. The Medicare solution was cost effective. Pennies on the dollar. Medicare has the staff, buildings and computers. It's just a matter of retraining the Medicare staff to implement universal coverage.

Instead Obamacare will create several new government agencies, create a complex byzantine rules and in the end, according to some, millions will still not be covered.

In my opinion, Obamacare was a total lemon.

[DesertFlower]

46. exactly.

but why not let everyone buy into medicare if they want to? it could be done on a sliding scale. those who want to keep their regular insurance could.

[doc03]

51. All of the above was politically impossible

the only way the bill was passed was by using a loophole in the rules. Until you get 60 plus Senators
that will vote for any of those things you ain't getting them.

[DesertFlower]

53. it's impossible because most senators

and congressman get large contributions from the health care industry.

[doc03]

55. Agree, but that can't be changed either. We have the best

government money can buy.

[DesertFlower]

57. kinky friedman was on larry king live

a few weeks ago. he said "we should just put the lobbyists in office".

[RM33]

62. YOUR RIGHT !!!

I totally DesertFlower. I forgot about American corporation donating money to politicians.

No wonder we are being forced to buy insurance!

[Dr.Phool]

59. In other words we need better politicians. On both sides of the aisle.

[HughMoran]

40. "Obamacare" is a teabagger word

Nobody who doesn't want to be despised here would use such a word.

:mad:

[RM33]

42. Obamacare came from teabaggers?

I must have picked it up from my Conservatives friends.

I am okay with the word because frankly, I hate it.

[HughMoran]

44. Our small business likes it

Go ahead with the "I, me, me my right-wing arguments, you'll always find someone to agree with you - even here. :eyes:

[RM33]

36. Your arguement sounds logical but . . .

According to several business news outlets, I see this more and more. The logic goes something like this.

Healthcare costs will rise. So instead of paying the higher cost, they will just pay the fine.

That's why Congressman Waxman did not hold hearings on this issues. Waxman read the internal information of businesses and decided that there was no need to hold hearings.

[northzax]

49. bullshit

seriously. do you have employer health coverage now? if so, why is your employer doing it? because they have to? or because it's a benefit that is expected by employees, and it makes them more competitive? does my employer provide health insurance out of the goodness of their hearts? of course not. they do it because if they didn't, I, and others like me who they value, would move to a competitor who did, unless they paid me enough to make up the difference. that's how employer-provided coverage started in the first place. it's the same reason they contribute to my 401K, and give me stock options and bonuses. because if they didn't, someone else would, and I (and my more valuable colleagues) would be there, making someone else money, instead.

[RM33]

61. Bullshit? Really?

There was a time in this country when companies provided pensions. How come they are not doing it now?

Because it is to expensive. That's why. The same will happen to employer health benefits. All you need is a major company to be the first. Like JP Morgan. Once one company does it, the rest will follow. Companies need to stay competitive. They'll say well JP Morgan is doing it, we'll do it too.

Frankly, outsourcing is going to go thru the roof. The rule of thumb is companies don't outsource if they only save a 4 to 1 ratio. When the government raises the cost of doing business in the US that means off shoring and outsourcing. Which means higher unemployment.

[DesertFlower]

73. my husband works for a large international

company. he's been with them for almost 41 years. he will get a pension, but the new hires won't. i think they changed it about 10 years ago.

now people have to depend on their 401ks for a pension. they do contribute 10% to that. i don't think most companies contribute that much.

it's not just the outsourcing. it's the h-1B visas. they pay these people half of what they pay regular employees.

[northzax]

75. so name the company

I keep hearing about companies that are dropping health insurance because of the new law. and when I ask what the name of that company is, there is never a response. so tell me, who's dropping health insurance because of this law? who? anyone? I want the name of the company, so I never patronize them. did JP Morgan Chase actually do this? no? it's just an example you made up?

guess what? government isn't raising the price of health care, the insurance companies are. for most employers, and more employees, this bill LOWERS the cost of covering people.

so again, please to name a company that is dropping health insurance 'because of' this bill. I bet everyone wants to know.

[RM33]

76. AT & T, Version

I did qualify my post. They are thinking about it.

I have been reading business publication since business school in college 10 years ago. In all the years I have read these publications never have I seen the drum beat about dropping coverage like it is today.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/news/companies/dropping_benefits.fortune/index.htm

And there is evidence that to suggest that premiums will go up not down. The people who said that premiums will go down were politicians trying to push health care. It's only logical.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/16/obamacare-health-reform-lifestyle-health-health-care-insurance-premiums.html

If it's true the corporations are run by corporate swine who's only concern is to line their pockets and damn the people. Well guess what, they will drop health care like they dropped company sponsored pension plans.

[LiberalAndProud]

50. Small business have been falling out of the group insurance pool for years.

This is not a new phenomenon. Insurers have been encouraging this trend for quite a while now. It appears to be more profitable to shrink the risk pool by raising premiums. If large companies are following suit, insurance companies will soon become extinct.

I am weighing whether to buy back into the health insurance game. I got a mailer from the government explaining that they will help me pay for my employee policies this year (35% tax credit). I could be wrong, but I think that by taking advantage of this credit now, I'll disqualify my company from joining the promised insurance pool, so we'll probably wait.

I don't think you will find a single person who thinks we've fixed the health care crisis, but we have a starting place. Those things that are most broken will be fixed first. And it won't happen this year or next, but 30 years from now, we won't be having the same old tired argument that government has no place in health care. That is the victory -- tiny as it is, even so it is monumental.

[NNN0LHI]

63. Obamacare? Well that made this one easy

[leftstreet]

33. K&R

[ultracase24]

43. K & R

healthcare reform my ass.

[truedelphi]

54. Very good post. I cannot yet afford the tiny bit of

Change to become an AARP member.

Did you read anything about the Congressional and Presidential decision to "Save" the government 500 billion dollars of expenditure by chopping off 500 billion from MediCare?

Jeez. Even fifteen years ago, doctors were not taking on any new MediCare patients as they were being re-imbursed so poorly. Yet Obama administration and Democratic controlled legislators believe there is 500 billion worth of WASTE?

The entire 2010 Health Care "Reform" and Insurance Executives Bonus Bolstering Act was nothing but a rip off, an illegal mandate, and a game of smoke and mirrors.

[DesertFlower]

60. i think the savings will come

from medicare advantage plans. the insurance company doctors in those plans are paid more than the medicare doctors. i think that's one of the reasons medicare is in trouble. wonder who came up with that idea.

[dflprincess]

74. $2500 a year into the HSA?

That's less than my current annual out of pocket maximum ($3,400 - $1,200 deductible then a 90/10 split up to the $3,500)

In the long wrong this insurance scam is going to put us right back where we are now - maybe even in worse shape as the number of American without insurance will still continue to grow.