by Guest » Tue Aug 31, 2010 08:53 am
I've heard that a huge chunk of our population hasn't been able to qualify for health insurance due to our health reform law. Is it true? How does it actually affect the ones who have pre-existing conditions? Please also inform me regarding it's effects on HSAs.
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 11:57 pm Post Subject:
You've heard wrong. Healthcare reform has not yet taken effect -- according to the current law, that won't fully occur for another three years (1/1/2014).
There has never been a "huge chunk" of the American population that is unable to qualify for health insurance, either.
Estimates for a number of years have described somewhere in the neighborhood of 40,000,000-50,000,000 persons are uninsured for healthcare in America -- today that would be about 15% of the population -- not a "huge chunk" by any stretch of the imagination. Of that number, most are unemployed or underemployed and may not have the financial resources to pay for insurance. Only a small number, relatively speaking, cannot obtain insurance in the current marketplace due to preexisting conditions. And the question is, why should they?
Well, come 1/1/2014, Obamacare still does not solve the problem for up to 25,000,000 or more of the 40,000,000+ uninsured. The whole program is ill-conceived and a fraud perpetrated on the American public.
If the government really wanted to do this right, they would have come up with a program for the 40,000,000+, not overturn the system that already covers 270,000,000+ others. They could easily have covered all 40,000,000 by 1/1/2014 in a variety of ways they deliberately chose to ignore.
As for HSAs . . . well, those aren't going to be as valuable going forward. A large part of the financing of Obamacare is built on hidden taxation rather than overt taxation. Remember, Obama campaigned on "I will not raise taxes on people earning less than $200,000."
In addition to allowing marginal income tax rates to return to 2001 levels at the end of 2010, thanks to the Republicans and EGTRRA in 2001, part of the funding mechanism in the Obamacare legislation forces the amount of pre-tax contributions to HSA to be reduced by 50% between now and 2014, thereby imposing a hidden tax on up to $2500 of income per year on many persons earning less than $200,000. That could mean additional taxes of more than $800/year for those people who voted for "no new taxes" courtesy of Obama -- on top of the extra $6000 a $200,000 earner might have to pay in 2011, courtesy of the Republicans who, while in control of Congress in the early 2000s, failed to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. And add to that the $billions in estate taxes the government will begin collecting in 2011, as that part of EGTRRA also expires. You got what you paid for.
Take away deductions, allow former tax rates to return "naturally", it's still taxation. But Obama will be able to say with a straight face, "I did not raise taxes." It's doubletalk, and hopefully the American people are not as stupid as Obama believes us to be.
Do I hear any votes for "fraud"? Cast them for anyone who is not an incumbent in the November 2 elections. The only way for things to change is to change the people responsible for making the changes. It's not a matter of Democrat or Republican -- they're all rotten and drunk on power and privilege. Send as many to the unemployment lines as possible.
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 09:29 am Post Subject:
The whole program is ill-conceived and a fraud perpetrated on the American public.
Isn't there a way out of such frauds committed on us?A large part of the financing of Obamacare is built on hidden taxation rather than overt taxation.
Hidden taxes? How do you explain such hidden taxation?
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 05:00 am Post Subject:
Isn't there a way out of such frauds committed on us?
Yes, voting for non-incumbents who are committed to derailing Obamacare. They are probably not Democrats. And may not be Republicans.
Hidden taxes? How do you explain such hidden taxation?
Simple . . . first, the Bush-era tax cuts courtesy of EGTRRA and subsequent legislation are going to EXPIRE on December 31, 2010. All marginal income tax rates will return to their pre-2001 levels -- the 10% rate will be automatically restored to the 15% level -- a 50% increase on the lowest earning Americans -- and the 33% and 35% rates will return to 39.6% -- increases of 20% and 13.1% respectively for the wealthiest taxpayers in America. But for those in the middle, the 15% rate increases to 28%, the 25% rate increases to 31%, and the 28% rate bumps up to 36% -- increases of 87%, 24%, and 28.6%.
So, right off the bat, who gets hit hardest? The middle class that Obama swore he would not raise taxes on.
But that's not all, taxes on dividends/ordinary interest and capital gains are also going to return to their 2001 levels -- causing at least 100% increases in the taxes on capital gains for the poorest in America (from 0% to 10% for those in today's 10% bracket, and 0% to 20% for those in today's 15% bracket (the tax rates on dividends and interest will be the same as the marginal tax rates).
Congress has nothing to do but ignore the sunset provision built into EGTRRA. Obama gets to blame George W. Bush and the Republicans, when the truth is they are all to blame -- Democrats and Republicans alike.
In addition, estate taxes are returning from ZERO today to a rate of up to 55% on 1/1/2011. All because Congress needs to do nothing more than they already have.
What more would you like to know about hidden taxation?
Obama will face the American people in January when he gives his State of the Union address and say to us all, with a straight face, "I know what some of you are thinking, but I did not raise taxes on Americans."
It will be almost the same as Clinton facing the American people nearly 20 years ago, wagging his left index finger at the camera, and saying, "I did not have sex with that woman."
Both are liars, and neither did anything to prevent what did/will occur. And people will find themselves screwed.
Plain and simple.
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:51 am Post Subject:
Max, I'd agree with most of all you said. At the same time, I'd like to stress upon the fact that the health care issue is a serious concern that they shouldn't be playing with. What our politicians are doing have put a question mark on our health care system and added more risks to our lives.
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:42 pm Post Subject:
Health insurance costs are rising for all of us. I can't image what will happen within the next 3-4 years. I'm even more scared to think of the ones who're either disabled or bear some form of pre-existing condition.
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2010 06:35 pm Post Subject:
What our politicians are doing have put a question mark on our health care system and added more risks to our lives.
Not only that, but consider the stuff about allowing dependents to remain on a policy to age 26.
First, the number of persons that would currently obtain a benefit is small. But we already have a growing problem in America with children graduating from high school, trotting off to college/party-time, and then returning home because the rent is cheap, the food is free, and no utility bills to pay.
If we allow/encourage the next generation of American children to come back to the nest just so they don't have to get their own health insurance, that is going to have a serious and adverse effect of the cost of "dependent" coverage.
Several of the health insurers I represent have already extended their dependent coverage to age 26, years ahead of the deadline. They remark in their letters to me, "that it's the right thing to do." I can read between the lines, and see "it's going to be good for profits". Which is fine with me, because I don't want to see our commercial health insurance industry collapse due to unprofitability under Obamacare. I would much rather see Obamacare collapse due to the lack of funding Congress built into the program.
I have said, for many years, that it is a shame that the largest industrial economy in the world doesn't have a national system of health care. But I have never said that it should be free, underfunded, or exclude the commercial insurance companies.
When I look at the only example of the government's attempt to create a national health care plan, Medicare, I see failure -- not in the delivery of services -- but in the actuarial reality that 1.45% of a person's pay, matched by their employer, is insufficient to provide the services the program allows, and at the same time disallows services persons need. Don't even get me started on the red-headed stepchild known as Medicaid.
How will Obamacare be different? It will be worse. That's all I can expect based on the portions of the legislation as I've read them. The biggest single flaw is the lack of funding, and an unrealistic expectation that it can be made up with more taxes on businesses and "the wealthy".
But when you review my post above about the hidden taxes that are already factored into the funding scheme -- plus ones I forgot to mention: reduced pre-tax contributions to HSAs and FSAs, which will take hundreds or thousands of added taxes out of people's pockets instead of allowing them to be used to pay for health care and other services -- you will clearly see that "the wealthy" are getting no breaks as it is, and the middle and low income earners are being hit the hardest.
Please! Wake up and learn this stuff for yourselves. Then speak up -- no, shout it from the rooftops -- and vote every incumbent out of office as quickly as possible. The newbies who replace them will understand what their mandate is -- to do the will of the people, not what some socialist elitist twists their arms to do.
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2010 06:38 pm Post Subject:
I'd like to stress upon the fact that the health care issue is a serious concern that they shouldn't be playing with.
The problem is that they have already played, and the wheels are in motion. Only a new piece of legislation which would put the brakes on or derail the entire train will solve what will otherwise be the undoing of the American economy.
If it doesn't happen, start learning to speak Chinese and enjoy a daily bowl of rice and some fish or chicken broth. Because that's what our new master will allow us to have.
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2010 06:51 pm Post Subject:
I'm even more scared to think of the ones who're either disabled or bear some form of pre-existing condition.
If you believe the Democrats and Obama, for these folks it's NO PROBLEM. Disabilities and preexisting conditions will not impair one's ability to get health coverage. The only thing that has never been mentioned is the actual cost. Commercial insurers cannot cover these persons at standard rates, unless standard rates are jacked up for all the rest who truly deserve them.
In the socialist mind, everyone pays the same rate, gets the same benefits, and the government writes the check. Where plans built on this kind of a model exist, people pay 50% or more of their income to support all of the various taxes the government collects. In Germany, in addition to taxes to pay for health care, people pay taxes to watch TV/Cable/Satellite, listen to the radio, access the Internet, and even a tax on the rain. Yes, a rain tax.
Leave it up to the politicians we have in office today, and we'd be paying more taxes to exhale, inhale, pee, poop, and who knows what else. That's all these fools in Washington, and most state legislatures know how to do . . . spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax.
If we could just get the spending under control, better yet, reverse course, the taxes to support that waste would evaporate. With more money in one's pocket, a person can afford to do things he or she says they don't have the money to do.
People pay $300 for a one day admission to Disneyland here in So Cal for a family of 4. They'll pay another $300-$1000 to get out by the end of the day. That money could be better spent on a month's premium for health insurance. If it weren't for the taxes, that money would be there today.
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 02:22 am Post Subject:
That is true the cost will be distributed across the board. Rates will go up for all. That is why where they already have this young healthy opt out, why would they pay 400$ a month? They will go without insurance along with many who cannot pay and are somewhat healthy. This will leave the sick and burdened left to slosh around in the mess.
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 05:49 am Post Subject:
If it weren't for the taxes, that money would be there today.
That's the problem with our policy makers. They don't have the time to plan their budgets and it seems they don't believe that we have brains too!
Add your comment