Who pays for Obamacare - the young - the poor

[island911]

pretty sure he was kidding.

[island911]

Originally Posted by RWebb

where?

CBS news, iirc.

But that was apparently wrong ...according to this WSJ guy.

WSJ Chief Economist: 75% of Obamacare Costs Will Fall on Backs of Those Making Less Than $120K a Year | Conservative News, Views & Books

[911pcars]

Originally Posted by BeyGon

so right now I will thank all those young voters that voted for obama for my future health insurance. Thank you suckers.

Dean,
I suspect you're younger than me, in which case thank you for my future health coverage needs. BTW, I suggest you call your kids or younger relatives (if you have any) by their given names.

I'll not use the word, "sucker" as some wankers do to best express themselves.

Sherwood

[BeyGon]

My kids may make mistakes but they are smarter than to vote for obama.

[RWebb]

I'd like to see an analysis of who pays now -- you know, for the visits to get primary care at the ER, for the tests done that are not needed, stuff like that.

[911pcars]

Originally Posted by RWebb

I'd like to see an analysis of who pays now -- you know, for the visits to get primary care at the ER, for the tests done that are not needed, stuff like that.

Not sure about the uninsured, but a trip to the ER on an "emergency" (doctor's closed hrs.) subjects you to a full gamut of tests. About 14 years ago, I had a 4 day fever/migraine that wouldn't break and went to the ER. The tests and procedures included:

MRI
CT scan
Chest X-ray
Blood test
IV drip
Prescription for meds

Their initial diagnosis was malaria (Where is Dr. House when you need him?). At the end of the 4 hr. ordeal, it was just a flu/fever that was tailing off. I think the bill at that time was $6000. My guess for those same tests now.....? That amount charged to my insurance company helps offset the ER treatments for walk-ins with no insurance.

Anyone had a baby lately? What was the hospital/doctor bill?

Sherwood

[island911]

Forcing the young to buy insurance is not a cost cutting exercise.

We currently spend some crazy high percentage for medical -- 18% of GDP iirc. Obamacare is expected to quickly bring this to 23% ...5 percentage points on 18% for a cost increase of 28%

Looks like more medical device design in my future.

[johnsjmc]

Originally Posted by island911

Forcing the young to buy insurance is not a cost cutting exercise.

We currently spend some crazy high percentage for medical -- 18% of GDP iirc. Obamacare is expected to quickly bring this to 23% ...5 percentage points on 18% for a cost increase of 28%

Looks like more medical device design in my future.

Canada currently runs about 11% of GDP . Why would it cost 23% with everyone insured?

[BeyGon]

Originally Posted by johnsjmc

Canada currently runs about 11% of GDP . Why would it cost 23% with everyone insured?

we have more "uninsured" than Canada has people?

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by island911

there's this.. Seven new taxes, regardless of income level

New Taxes
Here is a list of new taxes associated with ObamaCare:

■New tax on individuals who do not purchase government‐approved health insurance
■New tax on employers who fail to fully comply with government health insurance mandates
■New 40% excise tax on certain high‐cost health plans
■New ban on the purchase of over‐the‐counter drugs using funds from
■FSAs, HSAs and HRAs
■Increase the Medicare tax on wages and self -employment income by 0.9% and impose a new 3.8% surtax on certain investment income (for individuals over $200,000 and couples over $250,000)
■Increase, from 7.5% to 10% of income, the threshold after which individuals can deduct out of pocket medical expenses
■Impose a new $2,500 annual cap on FSA contributions
■New annual tax on health insurance
■New annual tax on brand name pharmaceuticals
■New 2.3% excise tax on certain medical devices
■New 10% tax on indoor UV tanning services
■New tax on insured and self‐insured health plans
■Double the penalty for non‐qualified HSA distributions
■Eliminate the deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D subsidy
■Limit the deduction for compensation to officers, employees and directors of certain health insurance providers
■Require information reporting on payments to corporations
■Impose additional requirements for section 501(c)(3) hospitals
■Make “black liquor” ineligible for cellulosic biofuel producer credit
■Codify economic substance doctrine and impose penalties for Under-payments

[911pcars]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

New Taxes
Here is a list of new taxes associated with ObamaCare:

■New tax on individuals who do not purchase government‐approved health insurance
■New tax on employers who fail to fully comply with government health insurance mandates
■New 40% excise tax on certain high‐cost health plans
■New ban on the purchase of over‐the‐counter drugs using funds from
■FSAs, HSAs and HRAs
■Increase the Medicare tax on wages and self -employment income by 0.9% and impose a new 3.8% surtax on certain investment income (for individuals over $200,000 and couples over $250,000)
■Increase, from 7.5% to 10% of income, the threshold after which individuals can deduct out of pocket medical expenses
■Impose a new $2,500 annual cap on FSA contributions
■New annual tax on health insurance
■New annual tax on brand name pharmaceuticals
■New 2.3% excise tax on certain medical devices
■New 10% tax on indoor UV tanning services
■New tax on insured and self‐insured health plans
■Double the penalty for non‐qualified HSA distributions
■Eliminate the deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D subsidy
■Limit the deduction for compensation to officers, employees and directors of certain health insurance providers
■Require information reporting on payments to corporations
■Impose additional requirements for section 501(c)(3) hospitals
■Make “black liquor” ineligible for cellulosic biofuel producer credit
■Codify economic substance doctrine and impose penalties for Under-payments

Is this your list from your research? If so, then I doubt it's entirely factual. If there's another source, let's see it please. I get enough of these "informational" messages in my spam email every morning from such illuminaries like Bill Cosby, Dave Letterman and Jay Leno. You should know how it works (providing source links) by now, don't you?

Sherwood

[island911]

Originally Posted by johnsjmc

Canada currently runs about 11% of GDP . Why would it cost 23% with everyone insured?

Yeah, my point was that we already pay a lot towards HC. ...forcing a whole lot of 20-30_y/o's to buy insurance (among other means) will push more resources towards HC. ...that is the goal of Obamacare --Drive more resources to HC. (and take control, of it, of course.)

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by 911pcars

Is this your list from your research? If so, then I doubt it's entirely factual. If there's another source, let's see it please. I get enough of these "informational" messages in my spam email every morning from such illuminaries like Bill Cosby, Dave Letterman and Jay Leno. You should know how it works (providing source links) by now, don't you?

Sherwood

No, no - let's just pretend those are real, and argue about which ones are better than an income tax or not

[BeyGon]

It looks like the three prominent obama lovers here don't like what is posted and can't find anything to disprove it. The want more proof, seems to be a pattern.

[Tobra]

There is nothing in Obamacare that will reduce the cost of healthcare. Nothing that could be construed as intended to reduce the cost, to my knowledge.

[Noah930]

But if you say it enough times, Tobra, maybe people will start to believe you.

[911pcars]

Originally Posted by BeyGon

It looks like the three prominent obama lovers here don't like what is posted and can't find anything to disprove it. The want more proof, seems to be a pattern.

My answer: I don't know who wrote that list nor do I wish to take the time to disprove it. There was no indication SammyG wrote it which would be his opinion and perhaps a starting point for some discussion. OTOH, it could have been written by joe blow, thus I just ignored it. If someone wants to list so-called facts to bolster an argument, then I would expect some basic credible source to either (a) confirm or (b) to assume some degree of accuracy. FWIW, I might add an option (c) - pulled from someone's rear end.

Challenging the reader by requiring them to disprove each "fact" is both lazy and confrontational rather than informational. In either case, by not identifying the source, the list is just a mixture of random nouns, verbs, prepositions and adjectives. When babies do that, it's called "babbling". And why would anyone wish to respond to babbling?

Sammy, just provide a link where you C&P the list. There's a possibility discussion about it will follow.

Sherwood

[72doug2,2S]

The Obamadoesnotcare new tax and spend program will fail, so that means it will require much, much, much more taxing and spending to fix it. You have my guarantee.

[island911]

Originally Posted by Noah930

But if you say it enough times, Tobra, maybe people will start to believe you.

Are you thinking areas of net cost cutting, and not gross/over-all cost cutting? Because there is NO doubt that this obamination is going to be a costly beotch.


...but at least it is massive in it's complexity. (how many man-hours will this thing SUCK to figure it out? - Obama doesn't care)

[Tobra]

I think his point was that it is true, and nobody seems to believe it.

Sherwood, that list is taken from the "Affordable" Care Act, to use the name that is perhaps less offensive to you.