5.4% Millionaire Tax For Health Care

[SnowSquirrel]

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSWEN055320090714

Reuters reports: "A sweeping overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system to be announced on Tuesday in the U.S. House of Representatives will include a surtax on millionaires of 5.4 percent..." This is besides the proposal to have a smaller additional tax on people making above that magic number of $250K, and besides the additional taxes and/or debt we'll get when it turns out that whoa, a government program cost more than initially predicted!

Millionaires: Get out while you can. Put your assets outside the country, and move as much of your operations as you can to another country. This isn't just a good idea, it's patriotic.

[VirusX999]

And once the rich are removed from society, the jobs will disappear.

Liberal agenda, full speed ahead.

[johnrocks]

I would move my liquid assets off shore as fast as possible or put in some kind of deferred investment.

[George Walton]

I wonder what Rush is going to do.

.

[TinCan]

Now you know damn well that it is definately un-patriotic for them to avoid paying their fair share for being successful! TSK.

[VirusX999]

I wonder what Rush is going to do.

.
Probably the smartest thing a person can do. Keep it away from the left.

[Tex Mex]

I'm not a millionaire so it's not my problem. :mrgreen:

[fava]

You can bet that this 'millionaire tax' will not affect those in Congress who are millionaires. It will get small businesses and working families as usual.
You can take that to the bank.

[Tex Mex]

House health plan would tax the rich, require employers and individuals to get health coverage


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/House-health-plan-to-boost-apf-1405031589.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=


The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don't provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers' wages with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan. This is only the beginning.

[SFconservative]

Imagine if this stuff gets passed and you happen to live in places like New York City. Your income taxes alone will be around 50%! Then you add on Cap and Trade and New York might start to look like Motown. As in , need more town 'cause this one is 'bout to disappear. :lol:


God help us, again.

SFconservative

[Creefer]

I'm wondering if they are going to index all of these hard caps for inflation. I'm guessing not. When rampant inflation hits, I bet a lot more people care.

Should hit New York and California folks first. That should be enjoyable for a little while.

[Darkblade]

and it won't stay the percentage it is now nor will the cap remain at the current income level limits. taxes never do.

[Tex Mex]

I wonder how the trickle down theory will apply.

[SFconservative]

I wonder how the trickle down theory will apply.


That's easy. The Federal Gov't skims of the top, then state skims off their fare share, then the city and local taxes get their cut. Then the wife takes her fare share, kids come next, then the pets. Eventually it trickles down into nothing.

I'm not married nor with kids, and I'm already very ticked off at all the skimming. I can only imagine your pain.


God help us, again.

SFconservative

[DRS]

This would be better if they started the coverage and then offered businesses a chance to be part of it at about 2-3% of the payroll

And then tax indivuals making a certain amount with a deduction allowed for those who already have private insurance.

[Spiked101]

Yeah and the part no one's talking about? It's adjusted gross income (AGI). Right? I bet the vast majority of American's don't get that. This is a huge tax on small business.

[TRIMS713]

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSWEN055320090714

Reuters reports: "A sweeping overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system to be announced on Tuesday in the U.S. House of Representatives will include a surtax on millionaires of 5.4 percent..." This is besides the proposal to have a smaller additional tax on people making above that magic number of $250K, and besides the additional taxes and/or debt we'll get when it turns out that whoa, a government program cost more than initially predicted!

Millionaires: Get out while you can. Put your assets outside the country, and move as much of your operations as you can to another country. This isn't just a good idea, it's patriotic.

Taxes on the rich are a total distraction--a 5.4% tax on millionaires won't pay a fraction of a fraction of what this administration is spending. WE'RE going to pay for this disaster and the poor who don't pay taxes will also pay for it in one way or another.

If you smoke,you're going to pay more,if you like to have a drink or two on the weekends, you're going to pay more,if you drive a car,you're going to pay more, when you go food shopping,you're going to pay more, etc.etc.etc. No matter what economic class you belong to,you're going to pay more for everything you buy----but at least we'll have the same health care they have in Cuba-----isn't that great?

[Rurudyne]

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSWEN055320090714

Reuters reports: "A sweeping overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system to be announced on Tuesday in the U.S. House of Representatives will include a surtax on millionaires of 5.4 percent..." This is besides the proposal to have a smaller additional tax on people making above that magic number of $250K, and besides the additional taxes and/or debt we'll get when it turns out that whoa, a government program cost more than initially predicted!

Millionaires: Get out while you can. Put your assets outside the country, and move as much of your operations as you can to another country. This isn't just a good idea, it's patriotic.
The inquiry is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states?" We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What these fundamental principles are, it would perhaps be more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads: Protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety; subject nevertheless to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole. The right of a citizen of one state to pass through, or to reside in any other state, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the state; may be mentioned as some of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens, which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental: to which may be added, the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the state in which it is to be exercised. These, and many others which might be mentioned, are, strictly speaking, privileges and immunities, and the enjoyment of them by the citizens of each state, in every other state, was manifestly calculated (to use the expressions of the preamble of the corresponding provision in the old articles of confederation) "the better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states of the Union."

— Justice Washington, Corfield v Coryell
I would point out that the federal should be liable to respect these common law Privileges and Immunities under the 9th Amendment. The one I highlighted is of particular interest in this case.

Of course, Obama don't need no stinkin'Constitution!

[notluzn]

Any Libs on the board want to defend this crap?

[SnowSquirrel]

and it won't stay the percentage it is now nor will the cap remain at the current income level limits. taxes never do.
What little faith you have! I bet you don't even believe that the mere $1,000,000,000,000 price tag is accurate.

Taxes on the rich are a total distraction--a 5.4% tax on millionaires won't pay a fraction of a fraction of what this administration is spending. WE'RE going to pay for this disaster and the poor who don't pay taxes will also pay for it in one way or another.
It's like the new energy tax: only the rich will suffer, and it won't hit you unless you use energy, or buy anything that was made or transported using energy.

[VirusX999]

Any Libs on the board want to defend this crap?
They won't, because it's what they want anyway, and they don't have to say anything. It's going to happen.

It's all just a matter of time, and they know it.

All of us had better wise up to that.

[old guy]

anyone that thing someone making 1M a year is going to leave the country over a 5.4% tax increase is fooling themselve

[Rurudyne]

anyone that thing someone making 1M a year is going to leave the country over a 5.4% tax increase is fooling themselve
You know, they sold the Income Tax itself on the basis that only millionaires would ever face it. A million a year back then was a BIG, BIG deal. Not so much these days by comparison.

Wanna bet THIS lot has no more intention of keeping the implied promise of this sales pitch than THAT bunch did?

[ArmyMAJretired]

Bohica!

[WildRose]

anyone that thing someone making 1M a year is going to leave the country over a 5.4% tax increase is fooling themselveCome on, nobody is this naive.

That 5.4% is on top of the other five percent, on top of the removal of the cap on FICA on earnings over 50k.

Not only that, but those small business owners who don't currently provide health insurance are going to be taxed at a rate equal to what it would cost them to provide health coverage for their employees, or they'll be forced to provide that coverage themselves and pay for it.

That makes the real tax burden of the so called rich (which covers about 90% of small business owners) puts them into an effective tax bracket of over 60% before state and local taxes.

If that's not a job killer I don't know what is.

[old guy]

Come on, nobody is this naive.

That 5.4% is on top of the other five percent, on top of the removal of the cap on FICA on earnings over 50k.

Not only that, but those small business owners who don't currently provide health insurance are going to be taxed at a rate equal to what it would cost them to provide health coverage for their employees, or they'll be forced to provide that coverage themselves and pay for it.

That makes the real tax burden of the so called rich (which covers about 90% of small business owners) puts them into an effective tax bracket of over 60% before state and local taxes.

If that's not a job killer I don't know what is.


what other 5 %? what fica cap removal (the fica cap is currently 106,000)

[Tex Mex]

anyone that thing someone making 1M a year is going to leave the country over a 5.4% tax increase is fooling themselve If they don't leave then they will find a way to pass the expense off to you and me. They didn't get to the point of making millions by absorbing our costs.

[1970Steve]

Somebody explain to me how punitive taxes on the very people that create jobs is good for the economy.

Why do we punish success in a capitalist nation when success drives prosperity?

[nunyadb]

Somebody explain to me how punitive taxes on the very people that create jobs is good for the economy.

Why do we punish success in a capitalist nation when success drives prosperity?

It's actually a great idea if you want to have over 50% unemployment and
have total government control over people's day to day lives.
That's what this is.

There will be tax revolts over the cost of this.
Maybe not now, but definitely later on.

Of course, I expect O's security forces to shoot down the protestors in order
to "keep the peace" or some such ****.
And the liberals will rejoice.
They like the idea of dead "rich people" who "stole that money"
from some poor undeserving pos that wouldn't work for it themselves.
Now THAT'S equality folks.

[dashvinny]

Any Libs on the board want to defend this crap?


sure they will. liberalism is all about hatred of success.

[animalnut]

I also heard that this tax would double in a few short years.

[nunyadb]

I also heard that this tax would double in a few short years.

Why do I not doubt that ?
These dirty bastards are going to take away everything I've spent my entire
life to try and accomplish for myself just because some lazy blood sucking
parasites want MORE.

****'em, there is no more.

[nunyadb]

Let me guess, this is part of the gay agenda, right ?
Gonna stick us all up the ass.
Damn I'm beginning to really really hate these bastards.

[msny]

I'm not a millionaire so it's not my problem. :mrgreen:

And with the way Obama is going to raise taxes, you never will be.
Nor will anyone, working hard & running a business, have a chance to be.

[msny]

House health plan would tax the rich, require employers and individuals to get health coverage


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/House-health-plan-to-boost-apf-1405031589.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=

This is only the beginning.

Yes, lets force everyone to get this insurance.

What else are we going to force people to do?

[Charlie A]

The millionaire tax and other taxes intended for health care will probably wind up going into a targeted fund. Which will be raided by congress the same way Social Security and Medicare were. And then we'll have another broke social program which will be another crisis and it will all be Bush's fault.

[msny]

anyone that thing someone making 1M a year is going to leave the country over a 5.4% tax increase is fooling themselve

What?

Add in all the OTHER taxes and this on top of that, where is the incentive
for these people to create jobs or spend money?

If they set aside 5.4% for job creation instead we'd be further ahead, and
leaving this downturn behind.

Were going to stiffle the very people that can make this economy go.

[spinach]

it's a sack of crap.

when you raise taxes on those who produce goods, all it does is raise the prices of the goods.
the "rich" don't pay those taxes, they pass them on to the consumer.
Which results in less money in the consumer's hands for practical things.

So when they slap this tax on, you can bet on goods prices to jump at least 6-7%.
liberals are very stupid people.

[coodaddy]

Let me guess, this is part of the gay agenda, right ?
Gonna stick us all up the ass.
Damn I'm beginning to really really hate these bastards.

Many of us are already at the 'HATE' stage.....

[msny]

If they don't leave then they will find a way to pass the expense off to you and me. They didn't get to the point of making millions by absorbing our costs.

Your in the liberal logic zone.
Use force to even the playing field and redistribute wealth.
Why shoulnt people keep the money they earn?

Isnt that how most got there, they worked hard to run
a small business?

You have a "Robin" Hood mentality.

[Gray]

I wonder how the trickle down theory will apply.

Obama standing on the White house roof as you pass underneath.

[Gray]

If they don't leave then they will find a way to pass the expense off to you and me. They didn't get to the point of making millions by absorbing our costs.

Bingo.

[RedWingLion]

I also heard that this tax would double in a few short years.

Let's be fair here--that's nowhere in any piece of this legislation. It's a set surtax--no variability.

[nunyadb]

Let's be fair here--that's nowhere in any piece of this legislation. It's a set surtax--no variability.

I've never seen a set tax go down, but I've never seen one that failed to
go up either. If you don't think it will, I've got a mountain for sale in
Louisiana that I'm willing to sell you cheap.

[ArmyMAJretired]

I also heard that this tax would double in a few short years.

Most likely since politicians usually use low ball estimates and best case scenarios.

What's next, free housing and food, those are important to live too right?

[nunyadb]

Most likely since politicians ususally use low ball estimates and best case scenarios.

What's next, free housing and food, those are important to live too right?

A great many liberals already have that,
courtesy of the tax paying citizens of course.

[spinach]

if this 5.4% crap passes, you can count on the markets taking a huge hit

[Dingo]

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSWEN055320090714

Reuters reports: "A sweeping overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system to be announced on Tuesday in the U.S. House of Representatives will include a surtax on millionaires of 5.4 percent..." This is besides the proposal to have a smaller additional tax on people making above that magic number of $250K, and besides the additional taxes and/or debt we'll get when it turns out that whoa, a government program cost more than initially predicted!

Millionaires: Get out while you can. Put your assets outside the country, and move as much of your operations as you can to another country. This isn't just a good idea, it's patriotic.

I am lmao over this.....lets stop playing around and just confiscate 100% of everything they make...why play around.

[spinach]

I am lmao over this.....lets stop playing around and just confiscate 100% of everything they make...why play around.


that post is like a naked 20 year old dancing on a pole, to the liberals.
it probably gave then a "forgasm"

forgasm= "financial orgasm"

[Kegler300]

This will definitely create even more of a crisis economically which is exactly what liberals need to achieve the chaos necessary to implement full-blown socialism, the likes of which the world's never seen. Castro, Chavez, and other Third World socialist dictators will be so proud of Obama's achievement...

[Canadian Jane]

I'm not a millionaire so it's not my problem. :mrgreen:



Actually - it WILL be your problem.

When Obama drives the wealthy to pull their money out of the country (because everyone has a breaking point - even millionaires) - then there will be no income left to tax for ANY government program.

Let alone income to pay back what you owe for debt.

Your position is very short-sighted, self-involved and inaccurate.

Sadly, it seems to be pretty common these days.

And it will lead to the ultimate demise of your current freedoms and privileges.


Because at some point - the wealthy are going to say "that's not my problem" too. And I see their point.

[RedWingLion]

I've never seen a set tax go down, but I've never seen one that failed to
go up either. If you don't think it will, I've got a mountain for sale in
Louisiana that I'm willing to sell you cheap.

So you've basically got no proof other than "It probably will?"

Is it a great idea? I don't think so. But be fair about it.

As I said, there is no indication in this legislation that the tax will go up. None.

[Dadda]

Let's be fair here--that's nowhere in any piece of this legislation. It's a set surtax--no variability.

Okay, they will add another set surtax in a couple years.

[AvgGuyIA]

Is this a tax if you make one million dollar income that year or a tax on the millions you already have?

[RedWingLion]

Is this a tax if you make one million dollar income that year or a tax on the millions you already have?

Yearly income.

[RedWingLion]

Okay, they will add another set surtax in a couple years.

You have a link to this speculation? Because it certainly is not present in the current plan.

[nunyadb]

Let's put it this way, do you have any historical data that shows a Federally
imposed tax going down ?
If not, then I'll stick with figuring it's only going to go up and the income level
that it hits will in turn also go down.

There is never "enough" for the wants of the mob.
And make no mistake, that's what this is all about.
Buying votes by fulfilling the "wants" of the mob
at the cost of those who worked all of their lives
to provide for themselves.

[RedWingLion]

Let's put it this way, do you have any historical data that shows a Federally
imposed tax going down ?
If not, then I'll stick with figuring it's only going to go up and the income level
that it hits will in turn also go down.

There is never "enough" for the wants of the mob.
And make no mistake, that's what this is all about.
Buying votes by fulfilling the "wants" of the mob
at the cost of those who worked all of their lives
to provide for themselves.

I never implicated that this tax would go down. NEVER. However, there is the same amount of evidence that Congress is planning on lowering this tax as there is that they plan on raising it--ZERO.

Someone in the thread indicated that they "heard" the tax would be raised. All I did was point out that there is no plan in this legislation for that to happen.

I've repeatedly asked for proof that Congress plans to raise this tax and nobody can come up with any because it isn't there.

[Nashville]

Don't miss Obama's latest infommercials today, something available on all three of Obama's networks.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/07/14/all-three-nets-interview-obama-about-healthcare-

[Ballygrl]

And why aren't I seeing ANY ADS AT ALL running on TV being sponsored by Republicans? Why aren't they out there telling average Americans what the cost will be to them? how many jobs will be lost? how many businesses will be forced out of business or out of the Country?

[Gengar]

So $250k+ is rich? lol

Tell that to the small business owners that make that much... and have employees... extra expenses... etc...

[JudasGoat]

House health plan would tax the rich, require employers and individuals to get health coverage


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/House-health-plan-to-boost-apf-1405031589.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=

This is only the beginning.

but a month ago I was hearing that if they did the health care thing it would be optional. Now you are penalized if you don't want to participate...? Am I misunderstanding this?

[deportalllibs]

Obama: Our healthcare plan is all about choice. You can choose to pay thousands and participate in our plan or you can choose to pay thousands in federal fines for not participating.

[E7ALR]

So $250k+ is rich? lol

Tell that to the small business owners that make that much... and have employees... extra expenses... etc...It gets even better, any employer with a total payroll of $250,000 or more will be required to either offer health care or pay an additional payroll tax of 8% of total payroll.

That means for this example

Owner/Operator: $100,000 Salary

Assistant manager: $40,000 Salary

9 minimum wage employees: $122,616 Salary

11 total employees = $262,616 = must provide health insurance or pay added tax.

8% = $21,009.28

Assuming an average monthly premium of $350 per individual (not family) with the employer paying 50% of premium, Annual cost = $23,100.


The only place the owner can take the money from is their and the assistant manager's pay, the minimum wage employees' salaries can not be cut. But the employer could fire one or two employees and keep under the limit.

[RedWingLion]

Nobody is getting fined for not participating in the plan itself.

Those that are getting fined are those who chose to have no insurance whatsoever. If you have private insurance now, you're fine.

I vehemently disagree with the fines, but I'm just pointing out the fact that if you already have insurance, you're not getting a fine.

[E7ALR]

but a month ago I was hearing that if they did the health care thing it would be optional. Now you are penalized if you don't want to participate...? Am I misunderstanding this?They need your money to help pay for the those other people they are adding to health care.

[RedWingLion]

It gets even better, any employer with a total payroll of $250,000 or more will be required to either offer health care or pay an additional payroll tax of 8% of total payroll.

That means for this example

Owner/Operator: $100,000 Salary

Assistant manager: $40,000 Salary

9 minimum wage employees: $122,616 Salary

11 total employees = $262,616 = must provide health insurance or pay added tax.

8% = $21,009.28

Assuming an average monthly premium of $350 per individual (not family) with the employer paying 50% of premium, Annual cost = $23,100.


The only place the owner can take the money from is their and the assistant manager's pay, the minimum wage employees' salaries can not be cut. But the employer could fire one or two employees and keep under the limit.

The $250,000 number is WAY too low for this to be effective. Admittedly, the democrats have already acknowledged that it's too low and I'm hoping they concede this in the Senate and put the number much, much higher.

[JudasGoat]

They need your money to help pay for the those other people they are adding to health care.

and aren't they also planning on taxing the recipients on these benefits too?
yeah, it's like the other poster said, why don't they just save some time and take it all without all the lies and bs....

[nunyadb]

And why aren't I seeing ANY ADS AT ALL running on TV being sponsored by Republicans? Why aren't they out there telling average Americans what the cost will be to them? how many jobs will be lost? how many businesses will be forced out of business or out of the Country?

Honestly ?
Because what they say or do at this point in time is totally irrelevant.
There's not enough of them to stop it or even slow it down.
All that they can even begin to hope for is enough conservative minded people
get elected in 2010 to attempt to repeal it.
Which, if what I'm reading on another thread is the way things are, won't happen.
We're going to be saddled with this nightmare like it or not.

[55SFSDefender]

I'm not a millionaire so it's not my problem. :mrgreen:

Employed by a millionaire? Fed by a millionarie? Provided health care by a millionaire?

In short a surcharge like this is EVERYONES problem.

[Rurudyne]

Nobody is getting fined for not participating in the plan itself.

Those that are getting fined are those who chose to have no insurance whatsoever. If you have private insurance now, you're fine.

I vehemently disagree with the fines, but I'm just pointing out the fact that if you already have insurance, you're not getting a fine.
And the delegated power to the federal which is not otherwise reserved to the several States or the people for this tyranny is ... ?

BTW ... insurance is a weasel hole. Even if you only purchase enough insurance to reduce you risk rather than eliminate it, which is how most people approach insurance, what you are "getting" must be by definition worth less on average than what you are paying to the insurance company. Insurance is by definition a bad deal, no ifs ands or buts. It must be if the insurance companies are to survive and prosper.

[RedWingLion]

And why aren't I seeing ANY ADS AT ALL running on TV being sponsored by Republicans? Why aren't they out there telling average Americans what the cost will be to them? how many jobs will be lost? how many businesses will be forced out of business or out of the Country?

I just saw an ad last night during the 11:00 local news. I live in Indiana, and it encouraged people to call Evan Bayh and tell him to vote against it.

[Mishiny]

It gets even better, any employer with a total payroll of $250,000 or more will be required to either offer health care or pay an additional payroll tax of 8% of total payroll.

That means for this example

Owner/Operator: $100,000 Salary

Assistant manager: $40,000 Salary

9 minimum wage employees: $122,616 Salary

11 total employees = $262,616 = must provide health insurance or pay added tax.

8% = $21,009.28

Assuming an average monthly premium of $350 per individual (not family) with the employer paying 50% of premium, Annual cost = $23,100.


The only place the owner can take the money from is their and the assistant manager's pay, the minimum wage employees' salaries can not be cut. But the employer could fire one or two employees and keep under the limit.
Another place they could and I bet some will take it is from, is the contribution. I don't know the specifics of this plan but heard it will be modeled after MA. Currently in MA, offering the insurance isn't enough. Employers with 50 employees for example still have to pay the Fair Share Contribution (penalty) if their contribution isn't at least 33%. With all the requirements they are adding to the employers, we may see many who currently cover 50% to 75% of the premium lower it to the minimum requirement to save costs. This would in turn affect those currently receiving great coverage and low prices.

[Rurudyne]

I hope this bill means the end of employer based insurance. THAT has been the biggest scam the insurance companies could have pulled.
If it weren't for an even bigger scam waiting in the wings....

[Camp]

Thus the birth of the 987,000aire (with bonus added of course.)

This will get dodged quicker than Barak talking about his first baby picture and Kenyan or Indonesian birth certificate.

[Rurudyne]

Which is?
Government looking after individual welfare.

[Rurudyne]

They're not doing that. If you want to use the word welfare, then the government is looking after collective welfare. But I would not categorize health insurance as welfare.
I would not qualify government providing benefits to individuals, even as part of a large program, as "general".

[tnt]

It gets even better, any employer with a total payroll of $250,000 or more will be required to either offer health care or pay an additional payroll tax of 8% of total payroll.

That means for this example

Owner/Operator: $100,000 Salary

Assistant manager: $40,000 Salary

9 minimum wage employees: $122,616 Salary

11 total employees = $262,616 = must provide health insurance or pay added tax.

8% = $21,009.28

Assuming an average monthly premium of $350 per individual (not family) with the employer paying 50% of premium, Annual cost = $23,100.


The only place the owner can take the money from is their and the assistant manager's pay, the minimum wage employees' salaries can not be cut. But the employer could fire one or two employees and keep under the limit.

I think there is an exemption for small business.

not saying I agree with this plan, just saying, I think the goal here is to keep large businesses providing plans rather than wiping their slates clean and having large work forces hit up the fed plan.



I think this tax in unworkable and unpassable.

Single pay is the only way to make UHC affordable, and the insurance cos are too deep in Washington's pockets for that to ever happen.

[Rurudyne]

"Second best" on a list with only two generalized entries ("private" and "public") is not that good of a deal.

[E7ALR]

Another place they could and I bet some will take it is from, is the contribution. I don't know the specifics of this plan but heard it will be modeled after MA. Currently in MA, offering the insurance isn't enough. Employers with 50 employees for example still have to pay the Fair Share Contribution (penalty) if their contribution isn't at least 33%. With all the requirements they are adding to the employers, we may see many who currently cover 50% to 75% of the premium lower it to the minimum requirement to save costs. This would in turn affect those currently receiving great coverage and low prices.I'm pretty sure that Federal tax laws require the employer to pay at least 50% of the employee's premium for the company to include it under a cafeteria benefit plan. It doesn't require the employer to pay any of a family members coverage.

This thing is going to be very attractive to large employers with middle aged employees. Average US salary is somewhere around $50,000. 8% of $50,000 is around $4,000 annually. If the majority of a companies employees are making less than $50,000 it will financially benefit the company to drop its insurance and just pay the 8%. Then not only will the company not have to pay the higher average insurance premium per employee, plu being able to cut costs in HR staff and man hours spent on benefits meetings each year.

This plan will absolutely drive employers to discontinue coverage in favor of the 8% cost.

Sure you can keep your old insurance, unless your employer drops it.:frown:

[E7ALR]

I think there is an exemption for small business.

not saying I agree with this plan, just saying, I think the goal here is to keep large businesses providing plans rather than wiping their slates clean and having large work forces hit up the fed plan.



I think this tax in unworkable and unpassable.

Single pay is the only way to make UHC affordable, and the insurance cos are too deep in Washington's pockets for that to ever happen.No, the defination of a small business under this plan is one with a total payroll of under $250,000. It's not the profits, or the number of employees, its all about total payroll. And it's not hard for a company with 10-15 employees to hit that total payroll number of $250,000. But you wouldn't call a business with that few employees anything but small.

[nunyadb]

They pass this, the Insurance Companies will simply terminate all policies as
regards health insurance, move to life insurance if they have that in their deck
of cards, and let the government have the health care bit all to themselves.

That means more massive layoffs coming up.

[Rurudyne]

Do you agree that the current health insurance (not health care) system is broken?
It is broken because people want something they cannot have: elimination of risk.

Any government program which will only further that sort of folly will and can only make things worse.

[nobamayomama]

nice how this was slid under the radar during the sotomayor hearings.

[old guy]

They pass this, the Insurance Companies will simply terminate all policies as
regards health insurance, move to life insurance if they have that in their deck
of cards, and let the government have the health care bit all to themselves.

That means more massive layoffs coming up.

I doubt that

[RedWingLion]

They pass this, the Insurance Companies will simply terminate all policies as
regards health insurance, move to life insurance if they have that in their deck
of cards, and let the government have the health care bit all to themselves.

That means more massive layoffs coming up.

And lose most of their income? Highly, highly doubtful.

[E7ALR]

This would be the best thing that could happen imo. Drive the insurance companies to offer plans to individuals and families regardless of where they work. This will create true competition between insurance companies.That would be fine, but you can't have the government undercutting the actual cost of their plan while expecting the insurance companies to have to at least break even to survive.

I can see mutual health insurance companies being formed and required to compete in an all inclusive market, outside of employers. But even mutual insurance companies won't work if government is running a public option at an intentional loss, subsidized with tax dollars and printed money.

If the government want's to compete, its program needs to be payed for by premiums charged to participants (not tax dollars), just like any private plan. And it shouldn't be supported by forced payroll taxes on any employer.

As long as tax dollars are part of a government plan it will be nothing but a tool to drive people into socialized medicine.

[tnt]

No, the defination of a small business under this plan is one with a total payroll of under $250,000. It's not the profits, or the number of employees, its all about total payroll. And it's not hard for a company with 10-15 employees to hit that total payroll number of $250,000. But you wouldn't call a business with that few employees anything but small.

Hm.

yeah, you even during the campaign, I thought this plan was a half a step in the right direction.

And sometimes a hald a step is worse than no step at all.

I am for UHC.

But I'm concerned this public option plan is a waste and won't truly effect refrom afforadably.

[E7ALR]

They pass this, the Insurance Companies will simply terminate all policies as
regards health insurance, move to life insurance if they have that in their deck
of cards, and let the government have the health care bit all to themselves.

That means more massive layoffs coming up.It will start with their largest clients dropping their coverage in favor of simply paying the 8% payroll cost. At some point there will not be enough covered individuals paying premiums to cover costs and pay benefits and the companies fold, either in an orderly fashion by deciding to leave the industry or in bankruptcy. Either way there will be layoffs in HR staff and Insurance Industry workers. For some agents, their whole business is health insurance.

[JudasGoat]

healthcare is not a right

[E7ALR]

Hm.

yeah, you even during the campaign, I thought this plan was a half a step in the right direction.

And sometimes a hald a step is worse than no step at all.

I am for UHC.

But I'm concerned this public option plan is a waste and won't truly effect refrom afforadably.The issues are availability, cost and participation. Availability is a regulatory issue, cost is a market issue and participation is a personal issue.

[Mishiny]

I'm pretty sure that Federal tax laws require the employer to pay at least 50% of the employee's premium for the company to include it under a cafeteria benefit plan. It doesn't require the employer to pay any of a family members coverage.

This thing is going to be very attractive to large employers with middle aged employees. Average US salary is somewhere around $50,000. 8% of $50,000 is around $4,000 annually. If the majority of a companies employees are making less than $50,000 it will financially benefit the company to drop its insurance and just pay the 8%. Then not only will the company not have to pay the higher average insurance premium per employee, plu being able to cut costs in HR staff and man hours spent on benefits meetings each year.

This plan will absolutely drive employers to discontinue coverage in favor of the 8% cost.

Sure you can keep your old insurance, unless your employer drops it.:frown:
I could be wrong but I don't believe there are requirements for a certain amount of contribution, only that they be comparable and pass non-discrimination rules. (they can't favor highly compensated employees).

And I agree with you. It will force employers to give it up and drive people to their government plan. I think that's their goal. :rolleyes:

[E7ALR]

Which is why we need republicans in congress to just stop saying no to everything, acknowledge that our current system is broken, and recommend some free market solutions. Make sure the gov isn't running insurance at a loss and I see this working quite well.

I thought that there would be premiums that needed to be paid by the individuals covered in the plan, is this not correct?Those details are all fuzzy, and just like income taxes, a huge number of people would be under the impression that the government option was basically free to them after tax rebates and other redistributive actions. For many others, the premium would not nearly cover the actual cost, but they wouldn't care because redistributive acts and tax dollars from the wealthy and businesses would subsidize the governments program. So the premium would be lower than private insurance, but not actually cover the costs.

Another big issue is what exactly is the definition of "high quality health care" under this government plan. As quality is a comparitive thing, just how will the public option's actual 'quality" stack up to the quality of coverage (which includes the conditions of service) lost when employers begin canceling their plans?

[Ballygrl]

I hope this bill means the end of employer based insurance. THAT has been the biggest scam the insurance companies could have pulled.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and it's obvious you haven't heard the horrors of socialized medicine.

Also, where's AARP in all of this? basically seniors are going to be told "you lived long enough so no need for you to have your hip replaced" etc.

[E7ALR]

Hm.

yeah, you even during the campaign, I thought this plan was a half a step in the right direction.

And sometimes a hald a step is worse than no step at all.

I am for UHC.

But I'm concerned this public option plan is a waste and won't truly effect refrom afforadably.Here is the part that shows that the Democrats know their plan is going to drive people from private to the public plan.

One Democratic aide said the bill would add up to $1.5 trillion over the next decade. But the CBO estimate showed that even if the price tag holds to $1 trillion, more than 80 percent of the costs will hit in the last five years. This indicates that after 2019, taxpayers could be hit with a rising tidal wave of health care expenses resulting from the shift in health care coverage from the private to public sector. This is about destroying the private system, not reforming it.

[bioya1]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and it's obvious you haven't heard the horrors of socialized medicine.


LOL. That's a funny charge.

This doesn't even come close to socialized medicine.


Also, where's AARP in all of this? basically seniors are going to be told "you lived long enough so no need for you to have your hip replaced" etc.


OK, enough with the criticizing from the bleachers. Its time to step behind the plate and make a real call.

Here are the only choices available with respect to Medicare's imbalances: (a) increase taxes and fees; (b) reduce coverage (e.g. what you are whining and sniffling about); or (c) reduce reimbursement rates even further (which will lead to (b) over time anyway).

What are you going to do?

[bioya1]

It will start with their largest clients dropping their coverage in favor of simply paying the 8% payroll cost. At some point there will not be enough covered individuals paying premiums to cover costs and pay benefits and the companies fold, either in an orderly fashion by deciding to leave the industry or in bankruptcy. Either way there will be layoffs in HR staff and Insurance Industry workers. For some agents, their whole business is health insurance.

All of the bereaucratic bloat you are worried about protecting does not provide one bit of actual health care to anyone though. Its basically unproductive dead weight being removed from the system.

[Creefer]

Of course it's not. But having affordable hc will only make our country better in the long run.

Absolutely. So let's attack the root causes of run-away health care costs: Medicare, Liability Insurance, Over-regulation, too much litigation, deadbeats getting free care, just to name a few.

Why must we add an inefficienct, over-bearing, government beauracracy to the whole mess? Why not fix the problems and let a free market system work?

[bloods vs crips]

I would point out that the federal should be liable to respect these common law Privileges and Immunities under the 9th Amendment. The one I highlighted is of particular interest in this case.

Of course, Obama don't need no stinkin'Constitution!

that is only applicable to state taxes.

[Rurudyne]

that is only applicable to state taxes.
Untrue.

The federal should be responsible to honor these P&I under the 9th Amendment.

I mean, WHAT OTHER "rights retained" by the people could that article even refer to given that the Framers only enjoined common law Privileges and Immunities at all?

[E7ALR]

All of the bereaucratic bloat you are worried about protecting does not provide one bit of actual health care to anyone though. Its basically unproductive dead weight being removed from the system.No entity practices the art of bureaucratic bloat like the federal government.

As you well know a monopoly always provides a substandard product or service, delivering less inovation as time passes.

The issue here is not the health care, but how to pay for it. I am all for getting both employers and government out of picking the level of service and paying the cost. If insurers had to compete in the general population for every policy, then service, options and cost would all become more favorable for the individual as they competed for market share.

Government won't do that, they will dictate one size fits all treatments and ration service in a vain attempt to create equality of outcome across 300 million individuals. All it will create is either an openly two tiered health care system, one for elites and the other for everyone else, or a black market health care system for elites.

[old guy]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and it's obvious you haven't heard the horrors of socialized medicine.

Also, where's AARP in all of this? basically seniors are going to be told "you lived long enough so no need for you to have your hip replaced" etc.


The AARP doesnt buy into your argument. here is their statement


“This bill would make great strides for all of our members and their families.”

WASHINGTON—AARP CEO Barry Rand released the following statement following the introduction of health care reform legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives from Chairmen Charles Rangel, Henry Waxman and George Miller.

“We are pleased by the House TriCommittee’s health care reform bill, which makes important strides towards making sure that every American has access to affordable, quality health care choices.

“Those without access to employer sponsored plans face serious roadblocks that block affordable insurance choices based on their age and health status. Those of our members in Medicare pay close to 30% of their incomes on out-of-pocket expenses and they deserve relief, especially in the prescription drug doughnut hole, where they get no benefit while paying premiums.

“This bill would make great strides for all of our members and their families.

“It would help abolish those insurance market practices that keep people on the outside looking in based only on their age and health status. It recognizes that expanding coverage means little if a person can’t afford it, providing meaningful relief to those with modest incomes and capping out-of-pocket expenses for plans in the Exchange.

“The House TriCommittee bill would also close over time the Medicare prescription drug ‘doughnut hole’—a major concern for our members.

“We look forward to working with Chairmen Rangel, Waxman and Miller, as well as their colleagues in both parties and both chambers of Congress to build on current momentum and enact comprehensive health care reform in 2009.”

[ArmyMAJretired]

The AARP doesnt buy into your argument. here is their statement


“This bill would make great strides for all of our members and their families.”

WASHINGTON—AARP CEO Barry Rand released the following statement following the introduction of health care reform legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives from Chairmen Charles Rangel, Henry Waxman and George Miller.

“We are pleased by the House TriCommittee’s health care reform bill, which makes important strides towards making sure that every American has access to affordable, quality health care choices.

“Those without access to employer sponsored plans face serious roadblocks that block affordable insurance choices based on their age and health status. Those of our members in Medicare pay close to 30% of their incomes on out-of-pocket expenses and they deserve relief, especially in the prescription drug doughnut hole, where they get no benefit while paying premiums.

“This bill would make great strides for all of our members and their families.

“It would help abolish those insurance market practices that keep people on the outside looking in based only on their age and health status. It recognizes that expanding coverage means little if a person can’t afford it, providing meaningful relief to those with modest incomes and capping out-of-pocket expenses for plans in the Exchange.

“The House TriCommittee bill would also close over time the Medicare prescription drug ‘doughnut hole’—a major concern for our members.

“We look forward to working with Chairmen Rangel, Waxman and Miller, as well as their colleagues in both parties and both chambers of Congress to build on current momentum and enact comprehensive health care reform in 2009.”


Translation:

Screw the rich seniors and the young, redistribute the wealth!

[ArmyMAJretired]

If insurers had to compete in the general population for every policy, then service, options and cost would all become more favorable for the individual as they competed for market share.



Exactly,

Growing up my dad covered us with "Hospitalization" or Major Medical".

Any routine trip to a doctor was paid with cash.

The cost is inflated by mandates for:

Pregnancy
Drug addiction
Mental health
etc., et., etc.

If we paid for it out of pocket a medical WalMart would get in the market to undercut and gain market share, like the auto insurance industry!

[E7ALR]

Also, where's AARP in all of this? basically seniors are going to be told "you lived long enough so no need for you to have your hip replaced" etc.Since AARP views and represents seniors in just about the same manner as the UAW views and represents its members (as nothing but a source of dues) what do you expect.

[DRS]

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSWEN055320090714

Reuters reports: "A sweeping overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system to be announced on Tuesday in the U.S. House of Representatives will include a surtax on millionaires of 5.4 percent..." This is besides the proposal to have a smaller additional tax on people making above that magic number of $250K, and besides the additional taxes and/or debt we'll get when it turns out that whoa, a government program cost more than initially predicted!

Millionaires: Get out while you can. Put your assets outside the country, and move as much of your operations as you can to another country. This isn't just a good idea, it's patriotic.

Okay I make a million dollars a year owning my own company with 100 employess whom I pay a lets say and average of 40,000 dolloars to for a payroll of 4,000,000.00 plus my million makes 5 million. Now if the government runs the system like Canada 4 percent of my payroll in paid in taxes for healthcare on top of 5.4.

54,000 plus 200,00 makes 254,000 out my poscket for healthcare costs.

So what I do is opt into the government plan because like the average employer I am paying 350,000 in copays with my employess for group health care.

I just put another 100,000 in my pocket per year so why would I be upset?

[E7ALR]

Exactly,

Growing up my dad covered us with "Hospitalization" or Major Medical".

Any routine trip to a doctor was paid with cash.

The cost is inflated by mandates for:

Pregnancy
Drug addiction
Mental health
etc., et., etc.

If we paid for it out of pocket a medical WalMart would get in the market to undercut and gain market share, like the auto insurance industry!Products would range from basic coverage high deductible no frills policies to high priced low deductible comprehensive coverage.

Regulation would set the minimums of a legal policy to deter deceptive sales practices and people would shop coverages.

Government would not be responsible for providing coverage except for those truely unable to provide for themselves (foster children, orphans, the severely mentally disabled). And the government could contract for it with the carriers thus managing the cost.

[nunyadb]

Okay I make a million dollars a year owning my own company with 100 employess whom I pay a lets say and average of 40,000 dolloars to for a payroll of 4,000,000.00 plus my million makes 5 million. Now if the government runs the system like Canada 4 percent of my payroll in paid in taxes for healthcare on top of 5.4.

54,000 plus 200,00 makes 254,000 out my poscket for healthcare costs.

So what I do is opt into the government plan because like the average employer I am paying 350,000 in copays with my employess for group health care.

I just put another 100,000 in my pocket per year so why would I be upset?


The net effect of this is going to be putting the insurance companies totally out
of business. That adds fuel to the unemployment fire and more people that the
government will cover , which will in turn raise your costs even more.
This fee is just the start. Taxes never go down, always go up.

[DRS]

The net effect of this is going to be putting the insurance companies totally out
of business. That adds fuel to the unemployment fire and more people that the
government will cover , which will in turn raise your costs even more.
This fee is just the start. Taxes never go down, always go up.

In Canada we still have insurance comapnies and they still make money. I have insurance to for dental, eye glasses, wage replacement while I am off work due to an injury. car insurance home insurance

[E7ALR]

Okay I make a million dollars a year owning my own company with 100 employess whom I pay a lets say and average of 40,000 dolloars to for a payroll of 4,000,000.00 plus my million makes 5 million. Now if the government runs the system like Canada 4 percent of my payroll in paid in taxes for healthcare on top of 5.4.

54,000 plus 200,00 makes 254,000 out my poscket for healthcare costs.

So what I do is opt into the government plan because like the average employer I am paying 350,000 in copays with my employess for group health care.

I just put another 100,000 in my pocket per year so why would I be upset?The employer tax in the plan is 8%, which is $400,000 on a $5 million dollar payroll. Now if your HR staff can be reduced by $50,000+ in savings by no having to deal with all of the paperwork and time to manage the plan, then it will same you money. But it sounds like your employees average too much money.

[E7ALR]

In Canada we still have insurance comapnies and they still make money. I have insurance to for dental, eye glasses, wage replacement while I am off work due to an injury. car insurance home insurance
Of course you still have insurance companies, just not health insurance companies. This plan in the US will not just eleminate the health insurance jobs, but also a good chunk of the administrative staff at the provider's office. These people will need to get new jobs, probably with the bureaucracy running the public option, at GS pay grades..

[bioya1]

No entity practices the art of bureaucratic bloat like the federal government.


Make your case then. Compare Medicare relative overhead and administrative costs to those of a private health insurance plan. Compare relative overhead and adminstrative costs of social security with a private pension plan. I think you are in for a surprise.


As you well know a monopoly always provides a substandard product or service, delivering less inovation as time passes.


The only innovation we see from the health insurance company bureacracy is more arcane ways to deny health care.


The issue here is not the health care, but how to pay for it. I am all for getting both employers and government out of picking the level of service and paying the cost. If insurers had to compete in the general population for every policy, then service, options and cost would all become more favorable for the individual as they competed for market share.


Hey, I can live with that too. Unfortunately, neither political party has put that on the table. In the meantime, doing nothing is simply not an option.


Government won't do that, they will dictate one size fits all treatments and ration service in a vain attempt to create equality of outcome across 300 million individuals. All it will create is either an openly two tiered health care system, one for elites and the other for everyone else, or a black market health care system for elites.


Only if we allow them to do that.

[DRS]

The employer tax in the plan is 8%, which is $400,000 on a $5 million dollar payroll. Now if your HR staff can be reduced by $50,000+ in savings by no having to deal with all of the paperwork and time to manage the plan, then it will same you money. But it sounds like your employees average too much money.

I was using an average of all sorts of employees

8 percent is pretty high but the start up cost for setting up the system will be huge but the savings to most businesses will outweight the tax, my estiomate was also based on a 50/50 split on insurance paid by employee and employer. The last thing I read was the average cost of halthcare per employee in a group coverage was 7000 dollars.

So if you as the employee no longer have to pay that, you now have your 50 percent in wages hopefully.

[E7ALR]

Make your case then. Compare Medicare relative overhead and administrative costs to those of a private health insurance plan. Compare relative overhead and adminstrative costs of social security with a private pension plan. I think you are in for a surprise.Lets see....
Social Security Administration Bureaurocracy (supportsd Medicare administration through their offices)
Dept of HHS Bureaurocracy (they actually own medicare and medicaid)
Department of Treasury and IRS Bureaurocracy supportsd both SSA and Medicare/Medicaid)
Congressional Committee Bureaurocracy dealing with Social Security Issues and Medicare/Medicaid Issues
Countless minor tasks farmed out to various other government departments relating to each of these programs.

You don't really mean to argue that an insurance company is anywhere near as bloated and convoluted as this hodgepodge of government agencies?
The only innovation we see from the health insurance company bureacracy is more arcane ways to deny health care.Which is exactly what the President's health care advisors are arguing for the government to do through so called "standards of care." So are tyou saying you want a government program, with no actual incentive to be inovative or effecient, with the worst habits for denial of service found in exiasting insurance companies? Or maybe we should just be implementing proper disciplinary incentives against insurance companies, and their officers, for improperly denying claims? Say $1,000 fine per incident to the employee, an additional $10,000 per incident to the firm and $1 million dollar fine for each board member if a pattern of conduct id discovered at the firm. Personally I find hitting companies in the bottom line usually gets their attention. Allow them to appeal, but make them liable for all court costs and government legal expenses if they lose the appeal of a fine, in addition to the fine. Hey, I can live with that too. Unfortunately, neither political party has put that on the table. In the meantime, doing nothing is simply not an option.Then the answer is to get the proper plan on the table instead of going with the garbage option just to do something.Only if we allow them to do that.If we can't even get them to put a good plan on the table, just how would we prevent them from putting rationed cookie cutter medicine in place.

[E7ALR]

I was using an average of all sorts of employees

8 percent is pretty high but the start up cost for setting up the system will be huge but the savings to most businesses will outweight the tax, my estiomate was also based on a 50/50 split on insurance paid by employee and employer. The last thing I read was the average cost of halthcare per employee in a group coverage was 7000 dollars.

So if you as the employee no longer have to pay that, you now have your 50 percent in wages hopefully.No, you will only have a fraction of it, because once received as income, instead of as a benefit under a cafateria plan, it is subject to income and FICA tax. Oh, and your employer is now paying employer FICA matching taxes on this money which wasn't paid before. And you will be required to use what is left of this money, after tax, to pay your portion of the public options premium per family member in the plan. Oh, and you will no longer have your old plan, which you may have liked, and your doctor just might not participate in the government plan.

[cj234]

I'm not a millionaire so it's not my problem. :mrgreen:


You're kidding, right???

I don't recall to many people being employed by a poor person!

It will effect you in time!!

Wake up and smell the coffee!!:rolleyes:

[DRS]

No, you will only have a fraction of it, because once received as income, instead of as a benefit under a cafateria plan, it is subject to income and FICA tax. Oh, and your employer is now paying employer FICA matching taxes on this money which wasn't paid before. And you will be required to use what is left of this money, after tax, to pay your portion of the public options premium per family member in the plan. Oh, and you will no longer have your old plan, which you may have liked, and your doctor just might not participate in the government plan.

portion of the public options premium per family member in the plan

Where is this in the bill

[bioya1]

...

You don't really mean to argue that an insurance company is anywhere near as bloated and convoluted as this hodgepodge of government agencies?

...



The only real compaison would be the percentage of dollars spent on actual health care as a percentage of the dollars allocated in each case. I think the private sector will come out on the losing end of those comparisons and that it wouldn't even be close.

Again, I did give two different numerical situations that could be compared. Medicare versus private insurers seem like a good place to start.

[simssk]

Two interesting quotes from this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090715/pl_bloomberg/a6fujb5nwlde_1

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said lawmakers targeted high earners because it “causes the least amount of pain on the least amount of people.”

So we admit there will be "pain" but it is ok because heck, they are rich people so lets go after them. We must attack and make them pay because they are successful, dam it. There is no room for success in this nation. If you succeed, you will pay.

and then this goodie:

The Senate has so far failed to reach a bipartisan compromise, and top advisers to Obama are discussing the possibility of relying only on Democrats to ram the legislation through Congress. “Ultimately, this is not about a process,” said David Axelrod, Obama’s senior political strategist, in an interview yesterday. “It’s about results.”

Yes siree bob, it will happen, even if we democrats have to ram it down your throats if you like it or not. We don't care how it gets done, but we have issued a holy order that it will be done. So there...

Arrogance is just rabid in Washington these days.

And you thought you elected representatives to represent you.

[simssk]

portion of the public options premium per family member in the plan

Where is this in the bill

I don't think anyone knows what is in this bill yet. It's another one of those 1,018 pages (at this point) bill that is sure to NOT be read once again.

[DRS]

I am not sure why you are upset if the majority of Americans voted for Dems then the majority must agree with what they stand for.

[F_Rat-46]

Looking at this chart, (if it is a true depiction of the actual plan)it looks to me the 5.4% tax is going to have to be a little higher to accomodate all of this...

http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf

[E7ALR]

The only real compaison would be the percentage of dollars spent on actual health care as a percentage of the dollars allocated in each case. I think the private sector will come out on the losing end of those comparisons and that it wouldn't even be close.

Again, I did give two different numerical situations that could be compared. Medicare versus private insurers seem like a good place to start.Those agencies and departments all perform functions in the operations and oversight of the Medicare and the Social Security Administration, yet the expense of the services provided in salaries and other costs are off of the Medicare and Social Security Programs accounting, instead comiong from the budgets of these agencies. In fact, in the case of Social Security, the expenses of these agencies was probably actually paid with some portion of excess social security collections placed in the general fund of the treasury on the Governments bar tab to the Social Security Administration. An private company can't just farm out the tasks, and their costs, off budget. Its not an apples to apples comparison.

[E7ALR]

portion of the public options premium per family member in the plan

Where is this in the billThe public option isn't free, it will have a premium. Now there is talk of households making up to $88,000 getting tax credits and other special benefits (redistributed..er, I mean paid for with other peoples money) to offset the cost, but the program will have a premium cost. Exactly how much that premium will actually be is yet to be determined.

[E7ALR]

I am not sure why you are upset if the majority of Americans voted for Dems then the majority must agree with what they stand for.Are you really that niave about electorial politics? People vote for one politition, sometimes just as a vote against the other party, rather than because they truely believe in what the politician they voted for advocates. Other times, especially in 2008, people vote because they lied the way the politician looked and sounded, even if their were few actual details and even less substance to what was said.

its called emotion based selling. Get the buyer to become emotional about the choice and hope that will override their logic when time comes to make the choice.

[Mishiny]

I've been reading through (skimming) through the bill HR3200 posted in another thread and if I am understanding correctly, in order to avoid the 8% tax on gross payroll, an employer would have to contribute 72.5% of the individual premium and 65% of the family premium. Again this is if I am reading it right and it looks like this is not just towards an employers plan but also if the employee elects coverage through The Exchange. So, I hope my math is right. I just penciled together a real world comparison of one company.

1000 employees of which 70% participate in the plan and of those 80% chose individual. This company currently contributes 50% towards individual coverage and 30% towards family. Let's say $350 premiums for individual and $900 for family. And they have a $35 million gross payroll.

Under the current plan paying $175 per mo on 560 individuals and $270 per mo on 140 family plans, the total annual cost for the employer is $1,629,600. Take away the FICA savings on the employee portion (7.65% of 2,234,400 = 170931) to get a net annual cost of $1,458,669.

Under the new plan cost is going down for the employee so I'm assuming participation reaches 85%. Family cost is going down so some will jump to family coverage. So for fun lets assume 60% indivdual and 40% family.

At the new rate of 72.5% ($253.75) for 510 employees indiv and 65% ($585) for 340 employees family plan the new annual cost is $3,939,756. I haven't gotten that far through the bill yet but I heard rumor there is no more FICA savings.

Employers price to cover employees just went up $2,481,087.

Pay $3,939,756 or 8% of $35 million payroll $2,800,000

850 to 1000 employees get to enroll in Obamacare!

This is assuming my hurriedly penciled math is correct. Even if this burden on the employer were right, who in the world gets to determine how much an employer pays towards family coverage??? How many people will lose coverage if this passes or how many will have to lose their jobs instead? And all the leading stories on news sites like CNN and MSM on TV say don't worry if you have coverage this bill wont affect you!:liar:

[F_Rat-46]

I've been reading through (skimming) through the bill HR3200 posted in another thread and if I am understanding correctly, in order to avoid the 8% tax on gross payroll, an employer would have to contribute 72.5% of the individual premium and 65% of the family premium. Again this is if I am reading it right and it looks like this is not just towards an employers plan but also if the employee elects coverage through The Exchange. So, I hope my math is right. I just penciled together a real world comparison of one company.

1000 employees of which 70% participate in the plan and of those 80% chose individual. This company currently contributes 50% towards individual coverage and 30% towards family. Let's say $350 premiums for individual and $900 for family. And they have a $35 million gross payroll.

Under the current plan paying $175 per mo on 560 individuals and $270 per mo on 140 family plans, the total annual cost for the employer is $1,629,600. Take away the FICA savings on the employee portion (7.65% of 2,234,400 = 170931) to get a net annual cost of $1,458,669.

Under the new plan cost is going down for the employee so I'm assuming participation reaches 85%. Family cost is going down so some will jump to family coverage. So for fun lets assume 60% indivdual and 40% family.

At the new rate of 72.5% ($253.75) for 510 employees indiv and 65% ($585) for 340 employees family plan the new annual cost is $3,939,756. I haven't gotten that far through the bill yet but I heard rumor there is no more FICA savings.

Employers price to cover employees just went up $2,481,087.

Pay $3,939,756 or 8% of $35 million payroll $2,800,000

850 to 1000 employees get to enroll in Obamacare!

This is assuming my hurriedly penciled math is correct. Even if this burden on the employer were right, who in the world gets to determine how much an employer pays towards family coverage??? How many people will lose coverage if this passes or how many will have to lose their jobs instead? And all the leading stories on news sites like CNN and MSM on TV say don't worry if you have coverage this bill wont affect you!:liar:

I am sure "cash strapped" states will also begin to drop state employees, thinking the US Gov't will pick them up also...

[darknessesedge]

last night, pelosi said hc would cost 1 trill
this a.m the cost was at 1.2 trill
while I was listening to Rush, the cost was reported at 1.5 trill
the cost is going up just like the unemploy rate.

[Rurudyne]

I think it is broken because insurance companies deny coverage for pre existing conditions, and will simply refuse to pay for certain procedures that doctors recommend. Also, 1 in 2 bk's in this country are due to health care costs.

I'm not saying obamacare is the best thing possible, but it is better then our current system, imho.
Then you would be for the elimination of risk?

Insurance companies are businesses whose main task is to deliver a good return on the investments made by the investors.

Their function is not to make right what is wrong with people's lives.

Consider what insurance actually is for a moment: when you "buy" insurance you are actually selling your risk that you might be exposed to to someone else and to entice them you are giving them money to make it worth their while. By definition that means they want the money you give them will, on average, be worth less than any cost associated with your risk they are also assuming.

Essentially, they are acting the part of a bookie. They bet that you are going to pay them more money than they will ever pay to you for things that actually go wrong. Like bookies they shield themselves from ruin if one gambler somehow 'wins big' — with winning like this who needs loosing? — by taking lots of bets from lots of people.

The key to the whole thing is that this pool of insured people are, at the end of the day, going to shell out much more money than they will ever receive in return.

This is why insurance salesmen must work, strive, struggle to sell people MORE insurance than they actually need.

What follows may seem counterintuitive but please bear with me.

When you sell your risk for situations that you will almost certainly face, when you try to eliminate your risk, you are putting the insurer in what seems like an unfortunate position because you are demanding that he essentially loose money — and this is true even IF you are perfectly healthy with no problems.

But we know that the insurer is in business to make money so what they do is ask you for even more money. Not only that are they as bookies, for want of a more accurate term, going to ask you for more money but they will increase what they demand from you for buying your risk to account for what are now predicable cost on their part.

The goal of those who figure out these rates is not just to make sure their own cost are met (which includes operating cost) but also that investors will get a good return on their investments as is their rightful expectation ... so if you get the impression by now that insurance is the weasel hole for the one wanting to buy it as I've previously said then you are catching on.

Insurance companies depend on selling people insurance they don't need to make up for the insurance they demand they want that they may actually need and all of that cost.

You may be familiar with those cost in fact.

When you and others demand that insurance companies cover preexisting conditions, many of which are very expensive, you also place them in an unusual position. I cannot imagine many people who make such a demand would agree to ever allow them to honestly charge those poor folks enough to make it factually worth their while as businessmen because that would mean charging them an honest valuation for risk that would likely have ruined them in the first place. In other words: charge them so much that the insurance premiums ruin them before their medical bills would have. What then are insurance companies to do? Well, they charge others even more money and penalize people who may be healthy simply because of demands like those you are making.

And before you start to tout the benefits of the public option I would ask you to honestly appraise the sheer cowardice of the American political class. These are the very people whose only real concern is reelection and the very same people who have predictably applied political muscle against government officials just to keep constituents content and quiet even though they have already received everything that federal charity laws allow them to get (as was often the case in NOLA Katrina, for example, when people got far more help than these laws ever authorized).

Unless you somehow believe that politicians will grow some balls (to tell constituents complaining about rationed health care off) you must admit that right here the economies sometimes said to be associated with the public route are factually impossible. personal work ethic aside, every bureaucrat has one goal in common with every other bureaucrat and that is career advancement. One angry politician carrying the water for one angry and loud constituent is all it takes to ruin a career.

As for the touted economies of the public route that the left sometimes makes, chiefly formed on the basis that the government isn't out to make a profit as near as I can figure it, I would point out that every basic cost associated with insurance and the selling/purchase of risk also is present when a government is running the show. Take that as a starting point and assume the predictable rant about the sheer mendacity common to large bureaucratic organizations with all the enormous cost associated with them ... simply, the public route will always tend to be more expensive than uncaring private insurance, especially when you take political cowardice of elected officials into account.

We aren't a parliamentary system whose bureaucrats, like a proverbial Sir Humphries, see their mission as foiling the irrational demands of our political class after all.

[E7ALR]

Aftyer reading what is in the bill about employer responsibilities, it seems they plan to fund this just like cap and trade. Mandate an expensive employer cost which must be passed onto the customers for the employer's products. The money goes to the insurance provider, which in the end, because of tax subsidies, is the public option (government). The government ends up receiving all of the taxes and premiums for health care, just as it receives the artificial fees for cap and trade, but tells the public that they didn't get taxed to pay for it.

This plan won't just kill private insurance, it will also drive employers off shore as it raises the price for goods and services.

[Mishiny]

Aftyer reading what is in the bill about employer responsibilities, it seems they plan to fund this just like cap and trade. Mandate an expensive employer cost which must be passed onto the customers for the employer's products. The money goes to the insurance provider, which in the end, because of tax subsidies, is the public option (government). The government ends up receiving all of the taxes and premiums for health care, just as it receives the artificial fees for cap and trade, but tells the public that they didn't get taxed to pay for it.

This plan won't just kill private insurance, it will also drive employers off shore as it raises the price for goods and services.
Very possible. At least for those able to go off shore. My real example was a family run business that does not have that option. And that doesn't include individual health care tax increases the owners will incur.

At the very least both health care and cap & trade will kill millions of jobs across America. All we heard today from the MSM is that no one has to worry about this bill if they have coverage. Using the $50k avg mentioned earlier in this thread, 60 would have to lose their job to cover the new tax if this company dropped their health care. Take the lower paying jobs, and its even more devastating. I guess those who get to keep their job can be thankful they only lost their insurance.

[in4sit]

One thing I would like to know from the liberals is this...

If it comes down to a person living his same life style, one who has lots of money and owns a business.. what do you think he is going to do to make up for this 5.4% tax??

A. Pay for it and just say.. "I am being a great guy."
B. Lay employee's off because he now must pay higher taxes,.. not even counting the health care taxes...
C. Bring up prices on his goods??...

One of them 3 will need to happen... you guess what it will be.

[ScarlettOhara]

Of course it's not. But having affordable hc will only make our country better in the long run.
I agree and Government will only make it more expensive or of lower quality as it did in my native Europe.

[historynut]

Has anyone heard of the Beatles. One big reason they moved to the states was the high taxes in England.

If you check history you may notice how happy the people in Ireland were with the high taxes in England.

Why were they happy?

Because the companies that could moved from high tax England to low tax Ireland.

Your a millionaire with a nice company. You can stay in the U.S. and pay high taxes or you can move to outside the U.S. and pay low taxes. What would you do?

What can the government do build fences to keep millionaires in?

Also overlooked is the fact that if the millionaire pays more taxes the money needs to come from someplace. He can raise the price of his product or he can lay off some workers. Both will hurt the business and the employee's.

Look at California every time taxes go up companies leave (my high paying job went to New Mexico).

[Rurudyne]

Very possible. At least for those able to go off shore. My real example was a family run business that does not have that option. And that doesn't include individual health care tax increases the owners will incur.

At the very least both health care and cap & trade will kill millions of jobs across America. All we heard today from the MSM is that no one has to worry about this bill if they have coverage. Using the $50k avg mentioned earlier in this thread, 60 would have to lose their job to cover the new tax if this company dropped their health care. Take the lower paying jobs, and its even more devastating. I guess those who get to keep their job can be thankful they only lost their insurance.
I believe it was the current Secretary of State who once said that she and her husband couldn't be held responsible for every "undercapitalized" business that would have gone under had their health care scheme become reality.

My, but how these people care so much more than us mean conservatives!!!

[E7ALR]

Very possible. At least for those able to go off shore. My real example was a family run business that does not have that option. And that doesn't include individual health care tax increases the owners will incur.

At the very least both health care and cap & trade will kill millions of jobs across America. All we heard today from the MSM is that no one has to worry about this bill if they have coverage. Using the $50k avg mentioned earlier in this thread, 60 would have to lose their job to cover the new tax if this company dropped their health care. Take the lower paying jobs, and its even more devastating. I guess those who get to keep their job can be thankful they only lost their insurance.It is obvious that we won't be making anything for export pretty soon. The added costs will justify the expense of starting a competing industry in other countries. Just like cap and trade is supposed to make green energy economically viable, it and this medical bill will make start up costs to compete with US hiogh tech economically viable overseas.

[Mishiny]

I believe it was the current Secretary of State who once said that she and her husband couldn't be held responsible for every "undercapitalized" business that would have gone under had their health care scheme become reality.

My, but how these people care so much more than us mean conservatives!!!
I honestly don't know how some of them sleep at night.

Btw, where abouts in North Texas? <using my old Tx slang lol> I grew up about halfway between Amarillo and Lubbock.:)

[Rurudyne]

I honestly don't know how some of them sleep at night.

Btw, where abouts in North Texas? <using my old Tx slang lol> I grew up about halfway between Amarillo and Lubbock.:)
DFW area.

And I agree, they shouldn't sleep well.

But I suspect that what C.S.Lewis wrote is true of them: their consciences approve of their deeds which is why they have no need to ever rest from their lawlessness and tyranny.

[Mishiny]

DFW area.

And I agree, they shouldn't sleep well.

But I suspect that what C.S.Lewis wrote is true of them: their consciences approve of their deeds which is why they have no need to ever rest from their lawlessness and tyranny.
That would explain it. C.S. Lewis is brilliant!

[bioya1]

Very possible. At least for those able to go off shore. My real example was a family run business that does not have that option. And that doesn't include individual health care tax increases the owners will incur.

At the very least both health care and cap & trade will kill millions of jobs across America. All we heard today from the MSM is that no one has to worry about this bill if they have coverage. Using the $50k avg mentioned earlier in this thread, 60 would have to lose their job to cover the new tax if this company dropped their health care. Take the lower paying jobs, and its even more devastating. I guess those who get to keep their job can be thankful they only lost their insurance.

The best step would be to remove businesses from the health care provision busines altogether. That nonsensical system has already cost us enough jobs.

[bioya1]

I agree and Government will only make it more expensive or of lower quality as it did in my native Europe.

Our system is already the most expensive in the world by a very wide margin. It is one thing that makes our businesses les competitive. It is also highly debatable that our outcomes are even on a par with European outcomes let alone better.

[Tex Mex]

You're kidding, right???

I don't recall to many people being employed by a poor person!

It will effect you in time!!

Wake up and smell the coffee!!:rolleyes: In a way I am not kidding. I am not going to try to protect the rich. They are big boys and should be able to take care of themselves. The problem I see is that they will take care of themselves from your wallet and mine. You are right it will affect us in time but by then the blame for the cost will be hidden and shifted.

[rodlang]

Our system is already the most expensive in the world by a very wide margin. It is one thing that makes our businesses les competitive. It is also highly debatable that our outcomes are even on a par with European outcomes let alone better.

You really like Europe, don't you. Now who has had the better economy and standard of living over the past forty years....the US or Europe. I say the US and we have done it while protecting the world from communism and now radical fundamentalism. Our European friends have not always been real helpful in this endeavor.