What the health care reform means to you.

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ What the health care reform means to you.
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Mar 23, 2010 2:45 PM
I'm sure it's accurate too.
Mar 23, 2010 2:45pm
B

BCSbunk

Senior Member

972 posts
Mar 23, 2010 2:53 PM
Cleveland Buck wrote: I'm sure it's accurate too.
Hmm must of shown you will save money. Since that simply cannot be true you claim it is not accurate LMAO.
Mar 23, 2010 2:53pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Mar 23, 2010 2:57 PM
It omits the effect the additional inflation will have on everyone, so it's clearly not an accurate model.
Mar 23, 2010 2:57pm
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Mar 23, 2010 3:10 PM
BCSbunk wrote:
Cleveland Buck wrote: I'm sure it's accurate too.
Hmm must of shown you will save money. Since that simply cannot be true you claim it is not accurate LMAO.
I didn't click on it. Why would I? Anyone who claims to know how this will affect anyone is lying.
Mar 23, 2010 3:10pm
thePITman's avatar

thePITman

Senior Member

3,867 posts
Mar 23, 2010 3:12 PM
I ran it for a single (1) with insurance through my company, and then for a married couple (2) insured through my company; and as long as my combined income was $199,999 or less, I did not lose my insurance, and I did not get any tax increase.
Mar 23, 2010 3:12pm
RedBlackAttack's avatar

RedBlackAttack

The Paterfamilias

133 posts
Mar 23, 2010 3:13 PM
Cleveland Buck wrote:
BCSbunk wrote:
Cleveland Buck wrote: I'm sure it's accurate too.
Hmm must of shown you will save money. Since that simply cannot be true you claim it is not accurate LMAO.
I didn't click on it. Why would I? Anyone who claims to know how this will affect anyone is lying.
Interesting... But aren't you the same person that was arguing with me last night that you knew what the result of this bill would be? I can supply quotes if needed. I enjoyed our little back-and-forth and it is certainly nothing against you, but your statement here is inconsistent.
Mar 23, 2010 3:13pm
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Mar 23, 2010 3:31 PM
I told you what the ultimate effects of the bill would be on this country, not individual people. I also said that the ultimate consequences wouldn't be as a direct result of this bill, but of the government option that this bill will open the door for, so the effects of this bill on the people are irrelevant.
Mar 23, 2010 3:31pm
Little Danny's avatar

Little Danny

Senior Member

4,288 posts
Mar 23, 2010 3:33 PM
I ran it for my household and I got this back:

Mar 23, 2010 3:33pm
RedBlackAttack's avatar

RedBlackAttack

The Paterfamilias

133 posts
Mar 23, 2010 3:40 PM
Cleveland Buck wrote: I told you what the ultimate effects of the bill would be on this country, not individual people. I also said that the ultimate consequences wouldn't be as a direct result of this bill, but of the government option that this bill will open the door for, so the effects of this bill on the people are irrelevant.
So, you are able to accurately predict how the dominos will fall 10 years down the line for a myriad of institutions but it is impossible for anyone to prognosticate on how the legislation will impact individual people in the short run?

What I've heard from the right today is that the health insurers love this bill and it was a sweetheart deal for them as well as pharma. You took the exact opposite approach.
Mar 23, 2010 3:40pm
tk421's avatar

tk421

Senior Member

8,500 posts
Mar 23, 2010 3:49 PM
RedBlackAttack wrote:
Cleveland Buck wrote: I told you what the ultimate effects of the bill would be on this country, not individual people. I also said that the ultimate consequences wouldn't be as a direct result of this bill, but of the government option that this bill will open the door for, so the effects of this bill on the people are irrelevant.
So, you are able to accurately predict how the dominos will fall 10 years down the line for a myriad of institutions but it is impossible for anyone to prognosticate on how the legislation will impact individual people in the short run?

What I've heard from the right today is that the health insurers love this bill and it was a sweetheart deal for them as well as pharma. You took the exact opposite approach.
We can look back on the myriad of past government programs, seeing that a very significant majority cost way more than estimated, and rightly infer that this bill will cost the taxpayers a whole lot more than Obama and the CBO has said. Would that not be logical? Should we say that this bill will be any different from the others? Why? Because a black president signed it? Yes, I went there.
Mar 23, 2010 3:49pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Mar 23, 2010 3:50 PM
Well it said I would not pay taxes. BUT...

It says IF I pay more than 9.5% of my income for premiums (which I don't), my yearly cap is $4427 for premiums. I currently pay around $2400/yr for premiums. So, my premiums can rise until I meet the 9.5% and there is nothing I can do about it.

If I do the math, my premiums would have to be about $4800/yr (double what they are now) before I could get the credits, which would reduce it down to a max of 4427, which is still 2000 more than I pay now.

Sounds fun!
Mar 23, 2010 3:50pm
RedBlackAttack's avatar

RedBlackAttack

The Paterfamilias

133 posts
Mar 23, 2010 3:54 PM
tk421 wrote:
RedBlackAttack wrote:
Cleveland Buck wrote: I told you what the ultimate effects of the bill would be on this country, not individual people. I also said that the ultimate consequences wouldn't be as a direct result of this bill, but of the government option that this bill will open the door for, so the effects of this bill on the people are irrelevant.
So, you are able to accurately predict how the dominos will fall 10 years down the line for a myriad of institutions but it is impossible for anyone to prognosticate on how the legislation will impact individual people in the short run?

What I've heard from the right today is that the health insurers love this bill and it was a sweetheart deal for them as well as pharma. You took the exact opposite approach.
We can look back on the myriad of past government programs, seeing that a very significant majority cost way more than estimated, and rightly infer that this bill will cost the taxpayers a whole lot more than Obama and the CBO has said. Would that not be logical? Should we say that this bill will be any different from the others? Why? Because a black president signed it? Yes, I went there.
He didn't argue that this bill would simply cost taxpayers more money than what is estimated by the administration or the CBO. He predicted that this bill would force every insurance company to disband and that the legislation was designed so that, years down the line, universal healthcare would be a last resort for the country.

That is a far cry from simply arguing the predictors given by the CBO.
Mar 23, 2010 3:54pm
tk421's avatar

tk421

Senior Member

8,500 posts
Mar 23, 2010 3:55 PM
RedBlackAttack wrote:
tk421 wrote:
RedBlackAttack wrote:
Cleveland Buck wrote: I told you what the ultimate effects of the bill would be on this country, not individual people. I also said that the ultimate consequences wouldn't be as a direct result of this bill, but of the government option that this bill will open the door for, so the effects of this bill on the people are irrelevant.
So, you are able to accurately predict how the dominos will fall 10 years down the line for a myriad of institutions but it is impossible for anyone to prognosticate on how the legislation will impact individual people in the short run?

What I've heard from the right today is that the health insurers love this bill and it was a sweetheart deal for them as well as pharma. You took the exact opposite approach.
We can look back on the myriad of past government programs, seeing that a very significant majority cost way more than estimated, and rightly infer that this bill will cost the taxpayers a whole lot more than Obama and the CBO has said. Would that not be logical? Should we say that this bill will be any different from the others? Why? Because a black president signed it? Yes, I went there.
He didn't argue that this bill would simply cost taxpayers more money than what is estimated by the administration or the CBO. He predicted that this bill would force every insurance company to disband and that this bill was designed so that, years down the line, universal healthcare would be a last resort for the country.

That is a far cry from simply arguing the predictors given by the CBO.
If this bill costs way more than estimated, wouldn't it cost the insurance companies way more than estimated, also? I can see some of them going out of business. After all, it is now cheaper for businesses to pay a fine than provide insurance to their workers.
Mar 23, 2010 3:55pm
RedBlackAttack's avatar

RedBlackAttack

The Paterfamilias

133 posts
Mar 23, 2010 5:58 PM
tk421 wrote:
RedBlackAttack wrote:
tk421 wrote:
RedBlackAttack wrote:
Cleveland Buck wrote: I told you what the ultimate effects of the bill would be on this country, not individual people. I also said that the ultimate consequences wouldn't be as a direct result of this bill, but of the government option that this bill will open the door for, so the effects of this bill on the people are irrelevant.
So, you are able to accurately predict how the dominos will fall 10 years down the line for a myriad of institutions but it is impossible for anyone to prognosticate on how the legislation will impact individual people in the short run?

What I've heard from the right today is that the health insurers love this bill and it was a sweetheart deal for them as well as pharma. You took the exact opposite approach.
We can look back on the myriad of past government programs, seeing that a very significant majority cost way more than estimated, and rightly infer that this bill will cost the taxpayers a whole lot more than Obama and the CBO has said. Would that not be logical? Should we say that this bill will be any different from the others? Why? Because a black president signed it? Yes, I went there.
He didn't argue that this bill would simply cost taxpayers more money than what is estimated by the administration or the CBO. He predicted that this bill would force every insurance company to disband and that this bill was designed so that, years down the line, universal healthcare would be a last resort for the country.

That is a far cry from simply arguing the predictors given by the CBO.
If this bill costs way more than estimated, wouldn't it cost the insurance companies way more than estimated, also? I can see some of them going out of business. After all, it is now cheaper for businesses to pay a fine than provide insurance to their workers.
I'm not even saying that it is an impossibility. My point was that ClevelandBuck castigated someone for giving their opinion on what kind of impact the bill will have in the short term because he said that we can't know its outcome after he made some prognostications a few hours before that were far more bold.

That was the point.

I don't pretend to know the longterm impact of this bill. I haven't read the entire thing, only bits and pieces, and I refuse to rely on zealots from either side to frame the legislation for me.
Mar 23, 2010 5:58pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Mar 23, 2010 7:29 PM
RedBlackAttack wrote: I don't pretend to know the longterm impact of this bill. I haven't read the entire thing, only bits and pieces, and I refuse to rely on zealots from either side to frame the legislation for me.
Neither has most of congress.
Mar 23, 2010 7:29pm
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Mar 23, 2010 8:58 PM
This "calculator" seems to leave off the addes taxes for "cadillac" plans.

Not to mention the fact that companies with cadillac plans for their employees will probably end up dropping down to a cheaper plan due to the tax increases.

So no Mr. President, I won't be able to keep my health insurance like you promised.
Mar 23, 2010 8:58pm
S

superman

Senior Member

3,582 posts
Mar 23, 2010 9:06 PM
Does the calculator add in the 10% tax for going to a tanning bed?
Mar 23, 2010 9:06pm
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Mar 23, 2010 9:51 PM
jmog wrote: This "calculator" seems to leave off the addes taxes for "cadillac" plans.

Not to mention the fact that companies with cadillac plans for their employees will probably end up dropping down to a cheaper plan due to the tax increases.

So no Mr. President, I won't be able to keep my health insurance like you promised.
Nonsense. The calculator first predicted the behavior of business and insurance companies before predicting the effect the bill would have on individual people.
Mar 23, 2010 9:51pm
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Mar 23, 2010 10:00 PM
The "calculator" takes Obama's words at face value and doesn't give a shit about how the bill affects the industry. It just takes what the bill says and applies it to you. It isn't a prediction. It is how the bill will affect you in a vacuum where nothing else is affected by its passage.
Mar 23, 2010 10:00pm
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Mar 24, 2010 9:07 PM
A lot of you folks have claimed that our taxes would be rising dramatically ever since Obama won the election. Has this happened yet? Not a smart-assed question, I really want to know. I haven't really noticed anything different with my taxes, except that since I retired 3 years ago I have been able to claim the medical deduction because I pay over $14,000 per year in insurance premiums for me and my wife.
Mar 24, 2010 9:07pm
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Mar 24, 2010 9:28 PM
Has this happened yet? Rather than spout the "sky is falling' rhetoric, why not admit that nothing has happened yet to raise your taxes? Just because you say that he will "go tax apeshit" doesn't make it so. Show me specific plans that are in place which will raise my taxes and I might just believe you. Otherwise, it's just the same old fear-mongering the right is famous for.
Mar 24, 2010 9:28pm
O

ou1980

Senior Member

877 posts
Mar 24, 2010 9:32 PM
Mar 24, 2010 9:32pm
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Mar 24, 2010 9:36 PM
ccrunner609 wrote:
stlouiedipalma wrote: A lot of you folks have claimed that our taxes would be rising dramatically ever since Obama won the election. Has this happened yet? Not a smart-assed question, I really want to know. I haven't really noticed anything different with my taxes, except that since I retired 3 years ago I have been able to claim the medical deduction because I pay over $14,000 per year in insurance premiums for me and my wife.

He is going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, that will increase everyones taxes.


Just wait if he gets a second term. He will go tax apeshit.
That is relative. They will go back to the level of the 90s, which wasn't that bad in terms of overall levels.

I'm 50/50 on the future of the bill. Part of me thinks it will crash and burn, and the other half of me thinks it will trudge along, slowly, but will start to be "effective" in 2-3 years.
Mar 24, 2010 9:36pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Mar 24, 2010 10:30 PM
ccrunner609 wrote:
stlouiedipalma wrote: A lot of you folks have claimed that our taxes would be rising dramatically ever since Obama won the election. Has this happened yet? Not a smart-assed question, I really want to know. I haven't really noticed anything different with my taxes, except that since I retired 3 years ago I have been able to claim the medical deduction because I pay over $14,000 per year in insurance premiums for me and my wife.

He is going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, that will increase everyones taxes.


Just wait if he gets a second term. He will go tax apeshit.
The Bush tax cuts never should have happened so...
Mar 24, 2010 10:30pm