Fuck the Republican Party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomAz

See here's the thing about this kind of thinking. Other than it's fucking stupid. In your eagerness to demonstrate your righteous indignation --- THEY ARE MAKING US BUY INSURANCE!! --- you are (1) not addressing the reasons for the mandate (2) not suggesting an alternative to the mandate or (3) saying anything at all of substance. Anyone who understands the dynamics of the health insurance market -- and I am fairly confident in saying I am one of those people, I do it for a living -- knows that we have 3 choices:

1. Continue the system as it has been, and exclude 40+ million americans from having any health insurance at all.
2. Have a mandate
3. Have a single payer system funded through taxes rather than premiums.

There are no other choices. Any attempt to claim there are other choices is foolhardy claptrap and the mark of a blowhard who doesn't know what he's talking about.


Option 1 is no longer acceptable to the American people; the voters have spoken. Option 3 is favored by maybe half the Democratic party but none of the republicans. That leaves option 2. QED. Irrefutable.

---

I am still confused over how the hell Romneycare is going to work.

I haven't had health insurance or been to a doctor in my whole life and I have no idea what I am going to have to do here to not be in violation of the law or what the possible financial ramifications are going to be.

possible ramifications of 'romneycare': you might not be able to afford $250 Eddie Money tickets.

lol

what blows me away is that vigo thinks he can concurrently have obvious drug induced meltdowns while lecturing on the merits of conservatism in america.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobert

I have no idea how much capital gains will be raised when the tax cuts expire. But if it's currently 15% I think it should be double that. If I'm getting taxed at around 30% then so should Wall Street.

---

The trick is to track the source of the capital being invested, but the logistics of policing that is probably cost prohibitive.

In order for your "you pay what I pay" argument to work you have to be talking about investment capital that itself was generated by capital gains.
If you don't really have any traditional income, and are simply rolling your capital gains into new investments, then you should probably have to pay an income tax rate since that is your primary income. But doing a straight capital gains increase across the board to your standard income tax rate would be a horrible idea.

Basically, if you've already paid the income tax on the invested capital, you should enjoy a lower tax rate on the gain.
If you got a low tax rate on the invested capital, your gains should be taxed as traditional income.

That way us small folks are incentivized to invest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackstraw94086

The trick is to track the source of the capital being invested, but the logistics of policing that is probably cost prohibitive.

In order for your "you pay what I pay" argument to work you have to be talking about investment capital that itself was generated by capital gains.
If you don't really have any traditional income, and are simply rolling your capital gains into new investments, then you should probably have to pay an income tax rate since that is your primary income. But doing a straight capital gains increase across the board to your standard income tax rate would be a horrible idea.

Basically, if you've already paid the income tax on the invested capital, you should enjoy a lower tax rate on the gain.
If you got a low tax rate on the invested capital, your gains should be taxed as traditional income.

That way us small folks are incentivized to invest.

---

That makes sense. Couldn't each tax bracket have a corresponding capital gains rate? Or a rate that's based on the total percentage of your yearly income derived from capital gains?

It could, but that doesn't tie in to what Jack's saying at all. Source of capital. If it's already been fully taxed, give its earnings a break. If it hasn't, don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomAz

It could, but that doesn't tie in to what Jack's saying at all. Source of capital. If it's already been fully taxed, give its earnings a break. If it hasn't, don't.

---

I understand the concept fully. Is that something that's being proposed? How would that be tracked or regulated?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomAz

It could, but that doesn't tie in to what Jack's saying at all. Source of capital. If it's already been fully taxed, give its earnings a break. If it hasn't, don't.

---

Since you're in health care, please answer my question.

on 10/1/13 the various state 'exchanges' go live for 1/1/14 coverage. if you are low income (<400% FPL) you will have the opportunity for a premium subsidy that will cover part, or possibly all, of your cost. If you are very low income (<250% FPL) you will have some of your deductibles and coinsurance reduced as well. If you choose not to buy health insurance you will owe an additional tax to the IRS. In 2014 the additional tax will be the greater of $95 and 1% of income; by 2016 it will grade up to the greater of $695 and 2.5% of income. Very low income people (<$9300/yr) are exempt from the tax.

However, if you work for an employer with 50 or more employees, the onus is on them (the employer) to provide "affordable, comprehensive" health insurance to its employees.

i didn't realize the government definition of "low income (<400% FPL)" reached so high

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomAz

on 10/1/13 the various state 'exchanges' go live for 1/1/14 coverage. if you are low income (<400% FPL) you will have the opportunity for a premium subsidy that will cover part, or possibly all, of your cost. If you are very low income (<250% FPL) you will have some of your deductibles and coinsurance reduced as well. If you choose not to buy health insurance you will owe an additional tax to the IRS. In 2014 the additional tax will be the greater of $95 and 1% of income; by 2016 it will grade up to the greater of $695 and 2.5% of income. Very low income people (<$9300/yr) are exempt from the tax.

---

I am kinda poor for now, work part time. Is the government going to mandate I get another job too or just tax me if I decide not to participate? 30 hours is about the most I can handle before I start seriously freaking out which is why I am in this situation. $95 or 1% of my income is somewhat affordable but $695 isn't.

They should just also outlaw homelessness and "mandate" the landlord lower my rent so I don't have to worry as much about this shit.

I know accidents can happen but I am lucky to say I have been blessed with excellent health my whole life so far.

Quote:

---

However, if you work for an employer with 50 or more employees, the onus is on them (the employer) to provide "affordable, comprehensive" health insurance to its employees.

---

The company I work for employs about 20 people but I have a hard time seeing how this isn't going to be rough on many businesses.

The people have spoken but I suspect a lot of buyer's remorse when this kicks in for real next year.

I am starting to get worried about how this will affect my financial situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caeden

i didn't realize the government definition of "low income (<400% FPL)" reached so high

---

I know some families in So Cal that make $100,000 a year seem low income. We're not talking coke fiends either, just mortgage + cars + kids = expenses of several thousand a month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlowMotionApocalypse

I suspect a lot of buyer's remorse when this kicks in for real next year.

---

I am convinced -- well, optimistic at least -- that this will lead to a better system once everything shakes out. However, I suspect the shakeout period could last til 2020 or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomAz

I am convinced -- well, optimistic at least -- that this will lead to a better system once everything shakes out. However, I suspect the shakeout period could last til 2020 or so.

---

I wish I was as optimistic as you are. You're the professional, though, so I just may take your word for it. Just going by some of the things I've read, and what little (admittedly) I know about the act, it seems like demand could rise and supply could fall. That wouldn't be good for the people that it was designed to help. This is why I wasn't as enthused about Obamacare as other liberal-minded people.

Demand (assuming you're talking about demand for healthcare services) will certainly rise; that's sort of the point. Get people health insurance so they can then afford to get healthcare. The rise in demand, and its effect on health care costs and hence insurance premium rates, is something a lot of people are working very hard on right now; the best I can tell you is, 'we'll see'. This is the shakeout period I describe. It will be a shock to the market and will take time, and probably adjustments to the law, to level out. Not sure why supply would fall though. ACA helps hospitals a lot by reducing their bad debt, which is a significant cost element for many if not most hospitals.

also, at the risk of getting too wonky, I should mention there are provisions in the law now as written to help stabilize the markets from day 1. how well will they work -- 'we'll see'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomAz

Demand (assuming you're talking about demand for healthcare services) will certainly rise; that's sort of the point. Get people health insurance so they can then afford to get healthcare. The rise in demand, and its effect on health care costs and hence insurance premium rates, is something a lot of people are working very hard on right now; the best I can tell you is, 'we'll see'. This is the shakeout period I describe. It will be a shock to the market and will take time, and probably adjustments to the law, to level out. Not sure why supply would fall though. ACA helps hospitals a lot by reducing their bad debt, which is a significant cost element for many if not most hospitals.

---

I am trying to think if there is some way I can cash in too. Except I am not a people person and I crashed and burned out of junior college so becoming a doctor, nurse or receptionist is out of the question.

Sounds like you are perfectly qualified to become a government regulator. ba dum bum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomAz

Demand (assuming you're talking about demand for healthcare services) will certainly rise; that's sort of the point. Get people health insurance so they can then afford to get healthcare. The rise in demand, and its effect on health care costs and hence insurance premium rates, is something a lot of people are working very hard on right now; the best I can tell you is, 'we'll see'. This is the shakeout period I describe. It will be a shock to the market and will take time, and probably adjustments to the law, to level out. Not sure why supply would fall though. ACA helps hospitals a lot by reducing their bad debt, which is a significant cost element for many if not most hospitals.

also, at the risk of getting too wonky, I should mention there are provisions in the law now as written to help stabilize the markets from day 1. how well will they work -- 'we'll see'.

---

Yeah, you have it right, I meant demand for healthcare services. My amateur analysis was that the amount of people seeking primary care would increase, but the amount of doctors or compensation for the doctors would not increase. There doesn't seem to be an incentive for doctors to accept the government health insurance. It also seems like it could put a strain on businesses, giving them more overhead. With more overhead, they'll have to make up for it somehow. Cutting payroll is the easiest way to do that for most businesses.

I hope I'm wrong, and didn't think this all the way through, honestly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackstraw94086

I've fucking had it with this fucking idiot line of reasoning. You cannot win an election with nothing but minority votes. Why the fuck did roughly half of white people also vote for him?

---

i think he was referring to more than just racial minorities, but low-income folks as well. which would include caucasians yo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomAz

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2...3h8wo1_500.png

---

haha, no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xuclarockerx

i think he was referring to more than just racial minorities, but low-income folks as well. which would include caucasians yo..

---

The Last Romney Supporter

Growing up in a pseudo trailer park led me to believe poor white people don't see themselves as poor

Based on my experience that is very true.

they view themselves as lower middle class. at the very least they'd say they're the working poor. with vocal emphasis put on "working"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xuclarockerx

i think he was referring to more than just racial minorities, but low-income folks as well. which would include caucasians yo.

---

I don't think he would have been so dumb as to even accidentally imply that, but for argument's sake say he did. Then it doesn't explain the direct relationship between education level and Obama support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackstraw94086

I don't think he would have been so dumb as to even accidentally imply that, but for argument's sake say he did. Then it doesn't explain the direct relationship between education level and Obama support.

---

The fact that the idiots that pushed Obama over the top don't show up and vote in the mid-terms invalidates any claims that Obama voters are "smarter."

Gerrymandering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlowMotionApocalypse

The fact that the idiots that pushed Obama over the top don't show up and vote in the mid-terms invalidates any claims that Obama voters are "smarter."

---

As amazing as that sentence is, you've missed the point. Voters with college education were more likely to vote for Obama, and they're less likely to be poor. I'm not suggesting that a vote for Obama is in itself a demonstration of your intelligence.

You're clearly a Romney guy and you're wound up about it so I don't expect appeals to logic and scrutiny of these statistics is your thing right now.

the main point is that these categorical statements about how Obama won only because of ethnic minorities or the poor or are indefensibly retarded. It doesn't speak to the huge number of NOT those people what also voted for him. Unless you would like to claim that all those white people that voted for him are stupid and understand his diabolical scheme to ruin their lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackstraw94086

You're clearly someone who posts things primarily to generate attention and controversy and you're pretending to be wound up about it so I don't expect appeals to logic and scrutiny of these statistics is your thing right now.

---

Fixed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackstraw94086

As amazing as that sentence is, you've missed the point. Voters with college education were more likely to vote for Obama, and they're less likely to be poor. I'm not suggesting that a vote for Obama is in itself a demonstration of your intelligence.

---

You've completely missed the point of my post - people who vote for Obama aren't very likely to continue to support the agenda by voting for the appropriate congressional representatives in the mid-term

Quote:

---

You're clearly a Romney guy and you're wound up about it so I don't expect appeals to logic and scrutiny of these statistics is your thing right now.

---

You are an idiot. I've never made any post on this board even suggesting any sort of support whatsoever for Romney. Mainly because it doesn't exist. Dummy.

Quote:

---

the main point is that these categorical statements about how Obama won only because of ethnic minorities or the poor or are indefensibly retarded. It doesn't speak to the huge number of NOT those people what also voted for him. Unless you would like to claim that all those white people that voted for him are stupid and understand his diabolical scheme to ruin their lives.

---

WTF are you talking about?