Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm glad to see that in spite of your gubernatorial and most of your Congressional selections, Indiana still has citizens who are thoughtful, informed, and actually do some research, instead of just relying on the fear and pablum fed by Faux news and the right wing puppets.
I am not an Indiana resident yet, but I hope to be in a few years, so hopefully my opinions will not be laughed at (much). Firstly, I haven't read anything about Obamacare, so I have neither a negative or positive opinion on that. Nor will I rely on talking heads on cable news. CNN and FOX proved my point with their hastiness on reporting the ruling yesterday. I am not really sure if it will effect me yet. My family is in a transition period. Due to both my husband and I attending college full time for our bachelor's, we won't be renewing our lease so we are moving in with his parents (YIKES!) until we make The Big Move to Indianapolis. We don't have insurance through our work because his employer has less than 50 employees (2 to be specific) and I do not work enough hours to qualify for coverage, so our son is on Medicaid for now. We are both aspiring teachers (he, high school; I, elementary). I will take a guess at our starting salary to be a combined total of 50k, so we may be taxed if we don't get any healthcare, but that should not be a problem since it will probably be in a benefit package anyway.
BRG, love the info you give on Indy, but it seems you need to to do some research before you answer questions, sweetie. I can sit here and easily bash Romney and the GOP for all sorts of things, but I choose not to because if I don't know enough about a subject, I refrain to give an opinion on it. If you take that the wrong way, my apologies, just being honest.
Speaking of knowing about subjects, I do know that Canada is on a single payer plan as far as healthcare; if I'm not mistaken, that is very similar to what just got upheld here. So why in the world am I seeing so many people say they are up and moving to Canada? It's gonna be the same thing, basically, as far as healthcare services right? Proving the OP's point of people not researching for themselves and instead listening to the talking heads of cable TV.
It will go something like this: Employers will do the math. If it is cheaper to pay the tax, they will offer no insurance at all. Employees will also do the math. They will likely go to these "exchanges" and see that healthcare is just too much, so they be taxed, but furiously demand government "DO SOMETHING!" The result will be single payer, national healthcare. We will either have a Canadian style system, or a total government ran juggernaut, where doctors and nurses and others are actually government employees.
Our taxes will go to that of Canada at a minimum. I ran my numbers and that would be an additional $10K/year out of my current take-home pay. Now this could be lower, because I don't know if Canada offers any sort of standard deduction. I have no idea if our level of care is better or worse, but it is clear Canada has some issues because many border hospitals advertise services to Canadians. In addition, private healthcare has popped up in Canada, because of whatever issues they are having (court rulings have upheld these private plans/places of care last I've read).
What will basically happen is a massive shift in government funding. If we keep the same level of care, and you don't want healthcare professionals bailing, taxes will have to be raised, and other revenue shifted. Say good-bye to higher ed funding, I can see that going away. K-12 will be told "what you have is what you have, you had best take care of it." No more new schools, and anything that must be built will likely not be brick and stone, but stick buildings wrapped in vinyl siding just like the homes that millions live in. There will be no way to keep the status quo for everything and fund healthcare as it is now....millions will have no disposable income and our device based economy will pretty much collapse quickly. No one will be able to afford $100+ cable TV bills, $100+ smart phone cell bills, $800 HDTVs, etc..
The losers will be many folks who will likely end up on Medicaid, until the national system gets up and running. Those who have serious illness will be in serious trouble. See, when private companies tell people "No" and refuse to cover certain things due to costs, they are quickly labeled as "uncaring" and "greedy." When government does the exact same thing, the big-government types say it is "for the common good" and "life should be allowed to take its natural course." This is the hypocrisy we will see. There will be death committees. These laws/regulations will dictate how much folks get for end-of-life care, and what happens to younger people with certain ailments.
The worse thing I fear is a system like Canada, where the care is dolled out via private companies or something. The last thing this country needs is another Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, where the entire company is basically backed/ran off government money, and the administrators make tens of millions. A true national system should have no hospital administrator, no doctor, no big pharma type, etc. making more than the President of the US. Under a true national system, which we should go to, folks working in medicine would be government employees. No more private companies bringing in billions with half their revenue coming from taxpayers, and paying people well into the six figure range, or more.
The outcomes of what will happen depend on many things. We could see the hundreds (thousands) of WellPoint employees out of job...great for our local economy. We could see limits on end-of-life care, and some previously treatable ailments no longer treatable due to sheer costs. We could see doctors and nurses, which run into the thousands, see pay cuts of 10%, 20%, maybe even 30%....less income tax revenue. Will companies that save millions pass that on to their employees to help cover the coming massive tax spikes for the coming single payer system?
For savers like me, this is a win-win. This system will be mostly funded by income. The less one makes, the less one pays (if anything). I will be able to finally leave my decent paying job for something I want to do. No more working all weekends, overnights, holidays away from family. That stuff can be left for some sucker who wants to take home thousands less than what I did to subsidize my healthcare while I scan bar codes over a laser at Walmart, sell guns at a mom and pop gun store, stocking shelves at Meijer, washing cars at a car wash, or pushing a mop and broom somewhere. Those who are asset rich will do well in this system. They can quit the job they need due to benefits, and instead work the job they want, making just enough money they need for food, monthly bills, and trips here and there. If nurses take a massive pay cut, or see their taxes spike because many working nights in hospitals make anywhere from $65K+/year, watch many turn to teaching. Less money, no night shift, no holidays, minimal if any weekends, summers off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyadic
Thus far the job losses have been demonstrably less than during the Great Depression. Obama is employied Keynesian economic solutions to combat the problems.
During the Great Depression FDR employed the use to Keynesian economics which were working until 1937 when he caved in to the budget hawks and pulling back on the stimulus before the private-sector economy was really strong enough to be self-sustaining, and we dovetailed right back into recession.
But it helped stave off another Great Depression. I don't think there is really much question about that. That's where things were headed, and we're still in danger of a double-dip recession, even now.
Keynesian economics are usually what will destroy a country. If it really worked then all the government would have to do is give every working adult in this country somewhere between $25,000 and $100,000 depending on what they pay in taxes. Actually, just give everyone $250,000. Print $77,750,000,000,000 and send out the checks. There is no reason that only a select few should reap large rewards. What's funny is Keynesian economics ends up being nothing more than the liberal/progressive "trickle down economics." They figure if they hire enough government workers, dole out big money to private-public partnerships, build things for a couple of years, that magically everything will be OK. It never works. A few at the top win big, a good % just push off personal economic collapse for couple of years or so, and some get scraps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyBound75
Speaking of knowing about subjects, I do know that Canada is on a single payer plan as far as healthcare; if I'm not mistaken, that is very similar to what just got upheld here. So why in the world am I seeing so many people say they are up and moving to Canada? It's gonna be the same thing, basically, as far as healthcare services right?
If I lived in Alberta, my wife and I would pay an additional $10,000/year in taxes. Now if Canada has standard deductions, it might be less. The bulk of that extra money is pretty much due to their system. From my understanding, Canada isn't single payer. Single payer is what the UK has, government runs everything, government is the "single payer" to the providers. Canada has what sounds like a corporate Fascism system, where government pays a middle man, who then pays the providers. Maybe Canadian law caps the wages of those who run those go-between entities?
Here are Canadian taxes if you would like to compare. Have no idea what, if any, deductions they offer:
Canada also doesn't have the ghettos and welfare class that the US has. If we went to a Canadian system, our taxes would likely be double that. People in Canada are just different than people in the US. Plus, you don't have as many lower income types hoping to get on SSDI and claiming aliment after aliment, doctor shopping every quarter because they are nuts or lazy or have mental issues.
It will go something like this: Employers will do the math. If it is cheaper to pay the tax, they will offer no insurance at all. Employees will also do the math. They will likely go to these "exchanges" and see that healthcare is just too much, so they be taxed, but furiously demand government "DO SOMETHING!" The result will be single payer, national healthcare. We will either have a Canadian style system, or a total government ran juggernaut, where doctors and nurses and others are actually government employees.
Our taxes will go to that of Canada at a minimum. I ran my numbers and that would be an additional $10K/year out of my current take-home pay. Now this could be lower, because I don't know if Canada offers any sort of standard deduction. I have no idea if our level of care is better or worse, but it is clear Canada has some issues because many border hospitals advertise services to Canadians. In addition, private healthcare has popped up in Canada, because of whatever issues they are having (court rulings have upheld these private plans/places of care last I've read).
What will basically happen is a massive shift in government funding. If we keep the same level of care, and you don't want healthcare professionals bailing, taxes will have to be raised, and other revenue shifted. Say good-bye to higher ed funding, I can see that going away. K-12 will be told "what you have is what you have, you had best take care of it." No more new schools, and anything that must be built will likely not be brick and stone, but stick buildings wrapped in vinyl siding just like the homes that millions live in. There will be no way to keep the status quo for everything and fund healthcare as it is now....millions will have no disposable income and our device based economy will pretty much collapse quickly. No one will be able to afford $100+ cable TV bills, $100+ smart phone cell bills, $800 HDTVs, etc..
The losers will be many folks who will likely end up on Medicaid, until the national system gets up and running. Those who have serious illness will be in serious trouble. See, when private companies tell people "No" and refuse to cover certain things due to costs, they are quickly labeled as "uncaring" and "greedy." When government does the exact same thing, the big-government types say it is "for the common good" and "life should be allowed to take its natural course." This is the hypocrisy we will see. There will be death committees. These laws/regulations will dictate how much folks get for end-of-life care, and what happens to younger people with certain ailments.
The worse thing I fear is a system like Canada, where the care is dolled out via private companies or something. The last thing this country needs is another Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, where the entire company is basically backed/ran off government money, and the administrators make tens of millions. A true national system should have no hospital administrator, no doctor, no big pharma type, etc. making more than the President of the US. Under a true national system, which we should go to, folks working in medicine would be government employees. No more private companies bringing in billions with half their revenue coming from taxpayers, and paying people well into the six figure range, or more.
The outcomes of what will happen depend on many things. We could see the hundreds (thousands) of WellPoint employees out of job...great for our local economy. We could see limits on end-of-life care, and some previously treatable ailments no longer treatable due to sheer costs. We could see doctors and nurses, which run into the thousands, see pay cuts of 10%, 20%, maybe even 30%....less income tax revenue. Will companies that save millions pass that on to their employees to help cover the coming massive tax spikes for the coming single payer system?
For savers like me, this is a win-win. This system will be mostly funded by income. The less one makes, the less one pays (if anything). I will be able to finally leave my decent paying job for something I want to do. No more working all weekends, overnights, holidays away from family. That stuff can be left for some sucker who wants to take home thousands less than what I did to subsidize my healthcare while I scan bar codes over a laser at Walmart, sell guns at a mom and pop gun store, stocking shelves at Meijer, washing cars at a car wash, or pushing a mop and broom somewhere. Those who are asset rich will do well in this system. They can quit the job they need due to benefits, and instead work the job they want, making just enough money they need for food, monthly bills, and trips here and there. If nurses take a massive pay cut, or see their taxes spike because many working nights in hospitals make anywhere from $65K+/year, watch many turn to teaching. Less money, no night shift, no holidays, minimal if any weekends, summers off.
Keynesian economics are usually what will destroy a country. If it really worked then all the government would have to do is give every working adult in this country somewhere between $25,000 and $100,000 depending on what they pay in taxes. Actually, just give everyone $250,000. Print $77,750,000,000,000 and send out the checks. There is no reason that only a select few should reap large rewards. What's funny is Keynesian economics ends up being nothing more than the liberal/progressive "trickle down economics." They figure if they hire enough government workers, dole out big money to private-public partnerships, build things for a couple of years, that magically everything will be OK. It never works. A few at the top win big, a good % just push off personal economic collapse for couple of years or so, and some get scraps.
If I lived in Alberta, my wife and I would pay an additional $10,000/year in taxes. Now if Canada has standard deductions, it might be less. The bulk of that extra money is pretty much due to their system. From my understanding, Canada isn't single payer. Single payer is what the UK has, government runs everything, government is the "single payer" to the providers. Canada has what sounds like a corporate Fascism system, where government pays a middle man, who then pays the providers. Maybe Canadian law caps the wages of those who run those go-between entities?
Here are Canadian taxes if you would like to compare. Have no idea what, if any, deductions they offer:
Canada also doesn't have the ghettos and welfare class that the US has. If we went to a Canadian system, our taxes would likely be double that. People in Canada are just different than people in the US. Plus, you don't have as many lower income types hoping to get on SSDI and claiming aliment after aliment, doctor shopping every quarter because they are nuts or lazy or have mental issues.
That's pretty doomsday for something that hasn't even happened yet isn't it? As it stands right now, we already have FOUR avenues for healthcare. 1. Employer sponsored (usually most expensive), 2. Individual policies (many people don't even know these exist and generally end up being cheaper in the long run), 3. Medicaid which of course is age/income restricted and 4th is state level (think hoosier healthwise, MDWise or whatever its called now) which is income restricted. Under the new AHA, the 1st two do not go away. Employer and Individual plans stay. The third gets modified to allow more people and no one knows about the 4th which in theory could be eliminated by a modified #3. Just as one can come up with a doomsday scenario, you can just as likely come up with a scenario of increased competition which usually drives down costs. Right now the carriers have no competition other than each other. The same carriers that provide employee group health are the same ones providing individual policies. It's a win/win for them right now, esp. the large carriers like Wellpoint and Aetna. Adding a third component of competition (guvment) can in theory force the carriers to drastically change tactics by either A lowering costs, or B offering a slightly higher cost with more amenities all while marketing base level costs for the same price as the government.
In the long run, that question would probably be best suited for a MA person who has already utilized real world practice since Obamacare is staunchly modeled after RomneyCare .
That's pretty doomsday for something that hasn't even happened yet isn't it? As it stands right now, we already have FOUR avenues for healthcare. 1. Employer sponsored (usually most expensive), 2. Individual policies (many people don't even know these exist and generally end up being cheaper in the long run), 3. Medicaid which of course is age/income restricted and 4th is state level (think hoosier healthwise, MDWise or whatever its called now) which is income restricted. Under the new AHA, the 1st two do not go away. Employer and Individual plans stay. The third gets modified to allow more people and no one knows about the 4th which in theory could be eliminated by a modified #3. Just as one can come up with a doomsday scenario, you can just as likely come up with a scenario of increased competition which usually drives down costs. Right now the carriers have no competition other than each other. The same carriers that provide employee group health are the same ones providing individual policies. It's a win/win for them right now, esp. the large carriers like Wellpoint and Aetna. Adding a third component of competition (guvment) can in theory force the carriers to drastically change tactics by either A lowering costs, or B offering a slightly higher cost with more amenities all while marketing base level costs for the same price as the government.
In the long run, that question would probably be best suited for a MA person who has already utilized real world practice since Obamacare is staunchly modeled after RomneyCare .
I'm wondering how employee sponsored health care could be the most expensive when the employee pays a portion of it. I have an individual policy and I can assure you it is more expensive than employy sposored insurance. I'm sure you realize they are taking money out of medicaid to bolster the medicare that will be greatly expanded.
As far as competion, because this is a TAX it will still not allow for competion across state lines due to the Commerce Clause. All it does is forces insurance companies to pay 85% of their premiums to health care. Considering they were only making 5% profit to bigin with, I'm not seeing that that is going to make much difference.
I keep hearing how much this is like Romney care, but logic begs the question of why it took 2700 pages to write if that were true. I've never heard that there were parts of Romney care that directed a portion of the sale of your house to the gov't if you sold it at a profit. Also, the state of MA has a much different dynamic than the country at large.
I agree with the poster that said he is now allowed the freedom to take a lower paying job and kick back a little. It's one thing to work your butt off to make things easier for your family but why kill yourself to take care of those that won't do their part? The Democrats have killed the middle class with this. There is no longer the incentive to work hard to better yourself when all the extra will go to taxes? That is, of course, why the Unions got an exemption. Why would so many people want an exemption if it was such a great deal?
I also wonder what will happen when this program goes broke just like Social Security, medicaid, medicare, the Post Office and the numerous other programs the gov't runs. Drs are refusing to take medicaid and medicare now in many places, so where will these people go for their care? Those with pre existing conditions are allowed to purchase insurance, but the price is prohibitive so now they are forced to self pay AND pay the tax.
It's going to be an interesting game. Too bad our lives are what is at stake. Ask people on tri-care, the military insurance program, how long they have to wait for treatment. And think about all the expose's on the conditions in military hospitals. The gov't does a GREAT job dictating health care. Ask a politician...they created it.
I'm wondering how employee sponsored health care could be the most expensive when the employee pays a portion of it. I have an individual policy and I can assure you it is more expensive than employy sposored insurance. I'm sure you realize they are taking money out of medicaid to bolster the medicare that will be greatly expanded.
Employer sponsored is the most expensive. What the average employee pays is but a fraction of what it actually costs. A decent individual policy can be obtained to the individual single for about $150 a month through any of the carriers as prices are fixed and baseline coverage for just under $100. There is a big difference between MedicAID and MediCARE.
Quote:
As far as competion, because this is a TAX it will still not allow for competion across state lines due to the Commerce Clause. All it does is forces insurance companies to pay 85% of their premiums to health care. Considering they were only making 5% profit to bigin with, I'm not seeing that that is going to make much difference.
Wrong, if you have insurance either Government, Employer or Individual you do NOT pay a tax (1st paragraph, SCOTUS ruling). If a person chooses to forego or can not obtain insurance due to financial means, they are subject to a TAX. That is only those who do not obtain insurance. Since you have insurance, you are not subject to the tax. It's that simple. Once government subsidies kick in as it will be income based, while there still will more than likely be a portion that cannot financially obtain it or maintain it due to varied reasons but the average citizen should be able to obtain it.
Quote:
I keep hearing how much this is like Romney care, but logic begs the question of why it took 2700 pages to write if that were true. I've never heard that there were parts of Romney care that directed a portion of the sale of your house to the gov't if you sold it at a profit. Also, the state of MA has a much different dynamic than the country at large.
For starters, Medicare doesn't have a spend down. That's MedicAID and again, difference between MediCARE and MedicAID. Now whatever the end result to MedicAID will be is still left to be seen. I imagine, yes it would suffer especially if the Government is going to subsidize its new program to make health insurance more affordable.
Quote:
I agree with the poster that said he is now allowed the freedom to take a lower paying job and kick back a little. It's one thing to work your butt off to make things easier for your family but why kill yourself to take care of those that won't do their part? The Democrats have killed the middle class with this. There is no longer the incentive to work hard to better yourself when all the extra will go to taxes? That is, of course, why the Unions got an exemption. Why would so many people want an exemption if it was such a great deal?
Indy talks like that but no where would actually do that. No one will purposefully take less money if they do not have to. That and of itself is would be putting oneself in financial risk in a capitalistic society. It's just mere common sense and a sad talking point to use to be honest.
Quote:
I also wonder what will happen when this program goes broke just like Social Security, medicaid, medicare, the Post Office and the numerous other programs the gov't runs. Drs are refusing to take medicaid and medicare now in many places, so where will these people go for their care? Those with pre existing conditions are allowed to purchase insurance, but the price is prohibitive so now they are forced to self pay AND pay the tax.
Well, you should really learn about SS. It's not actually broke, far from it. That part is actually a ruse. One of the biggest complaints is congress over the years has consistently "borrowed" from Social Security without ever paying it back. Even with borrowed money, there's still funds in the account. USPS is quasi-government, not full blown. USPS woes came at the cost of its 5.5 billion upfront retirement payments instead of staggered like everyone else. That's a lot of money to kick out. While you can blame congress for forcing the upfront annual payments, it still doesn't negate unions refusing to take less for jobs they no longer perform. Medicaid is just as much fault of the state than it is the feds since it is a joint venture. As far as pre-existing conditions, is basically saying life has a dollar value and a low value at that. So Isitmeorarethingsnuts, how much is your life personally worth? A few hundred, a thousand? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Keynesian economics are usually what will destroy a country. If it really worked then all the government would have to do is give every working adult in this country somewhere between $25,000 and $100,000 depending on what they pay in taxes. Actually, just give everyone $250,000. Print $77,750,000,000,000 and send out the checks. There is no reason that only a select few should reap large rewards. What's funny is Keynesian economics ends up being nothing more than the liberal/progressive "trickle down economics." They figure if they hire enough government workers, dole out big money to private-public partnerships, build things for a couple of years, that magically everything will be OK. It never works. A few at the top win big, a good % just push off personal economic collapse for couple of years or so, and some get scraps.
That's a nice story, tell it to Sweden, Denmark and Germany because they're some of the highest practitioners of Keynesian economics, and they're all in better shape than the United States of America. Austerity is the wrong path during a severe recession. We saw how austerity worked under Herbert Hoover. As bad as the debt problem is, and it is really bad, the real solution is growth. And, yes, that means more government investment to create jobs, not less. The U.S. government was spending 125 percent of GDP at the close of World War II. Massive federal programs such as the G.I. Bill and the FHA helped repatriate millions of veterans into productive civilian life. Did that lead to hopeless debt for succeeding generations? No, actually, it led to perhaps the two most prosperous decades in our history, the 1950s and 1960s. Yes TWO decades of the most prosperous period in our history and guess what the distractors called it ... WELFARE.
I realize for anti-Keynesians you'd really like the story to be a failure of Keynesian Economics, but it's just a classic run of the mill misrun state. There are plenty of Keynesian heavy countries that are doing better than the U.S.A right now. Their quality of life is MUCH MUCH higher because the mindset (esp in Germany) is that people work together for the social good. What have you done for the social good of this great nation of ours?
Today domestic discretionary government spending is at its lowest percentage of GDP in 60 years, and most of that goes to the military and our out-of-control health care system. Tax rates in this country are at the lowest levels in 60 years. And when somebody such as Obama has the temerity to suggest that those who have benefited most from our system and its economy start paying taxes at the same rate they paid during the Reagan years, to enhance revenue streams a bit and help ease the debt a little, the right wing starts screaming "Socialism!"
Speaking of the Reagan years, when the current form of conservative economic orthodoxy was put into practice, check out what the federal debt was when he started and where it was when he finished. And where it was when George H.W. Bush was done. And when George W. Bush was done, after Clinton took us into a few brief years of surplus. And then check on how much of the current debt was created by on-going George W. Bush tax policies and programs (including two major wars and a major drug-cost benefit to seniors and Big Pharma, all placed on our national credit card and never even acknowledged in a Bush budget) and then get back to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's gonna be the same thing, basically, as far as healthcare services right? Proving the OP's point of people not researching for themselves and instead listening to the talking heads of cable TV.
.
