PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Hypothetical situation with Health Care


notorious
03-22-2010, 01:44 PM
Under reformed healthcare, one can not be turned down for a pre-existing condition.

If a person chooses against paying the premiums, they will be forced to pay a 2.5% penalty.


What is stopping someone from paying the penalty, then buying health care when a health issue surfaces?

bobbymitch
03-22-2010, 01:48 PM
Not a freakin thing. Ya wunna bet that there be a ton of people goin to figure this out?

notorious
03-22-2010, 02:00 PM
Not a freakin thing. Ya wunna bet that there be a ton of people goin to figure this out?

I thought so, but I am still going to do a little more research to find out if my statement above is true (Not just Rush and Beck true).


On a side note, my wife works solely because she has the healthcare coverage for our family (I'm self-employed). When/if this thing starts in 2014, there is no reason for her to keep working. If she did work it would just increase our income, thus increasing our tax percentage into the upper range. In other words, IT IS BETTER THAT SHE DOESN"T CONTRIBUTE TO THE COUNTRY.


This is progress?

bkkcoh
03-22-2010, 02:04 PM
One of the main questions I have is:

If the insurance isn't attached to a job, does the company have to kick in some so the employee can pay for the insurance.

But isn't the company fined if they don't offer insurance to the employee?

To me, it would seem as if they are mutually exclusive.

bobbymitch
03-22-2010, 02:09 PM
Another issue yet to be raised, is that if you get your own health insurance, the companies could demand all of the yearly premium up front.

King_Chief_Fan
03-22-2010, 02:11 PM
One of the main questions I have is:

If the insurance isn't attached to a job, does the company have to kick in some so the employee can pay for the insurance.

But isn't the company fined if they don't offer insurance to the employee?

To me, it would seem as if they are mutually exclusive.

As your employer, I would prefer to pay the $750 fine for the year than spend a couple/few thousand to insure you. You can go buy it from the government.

CoMoChief
03-22-2010, 02:32 PM
One of the main questions I have is:

If the insurance isn't attached to a job, does the company have to kick in some so the employee can pay for the insurance.

But isn't the company fined if they don't offer insurance to the employee?

To me, it would seem as if they are mutually exclusive.

Yes, but the fine is going to be cheaper for the company than your employer putting you/your family on their plan, so they drop you from their covg and have you get on the govt plan, if you don't get on the govt plan, then you pay the fine.

This HC bill is about control more than anything else.

RaiderH8r
03-22-2010, 02:35 PM
Under reformed healthcare, one can not be turned down for a pre-existing condition.

If a person chooses against paying the premiums, they will be forced to pay a 2.5% penalty.


What is stopping someone from paying the penalty, then buying health care when a health issue surfaces?

I've been planning on this approach for quite some time. Pretty sweet deal really.

jjjayb
03-22-2010, 02:36 PM
Maybe they'll do this with Life insurance companies next. Then I can stop paying for life insurance and wait until I get cancer.

RaiderH8r
03-22-2010, 02:47 PM
Maybe they'll do this with Life insurance companies next. Then I can stop paying for life insurance and wait until I get cancer.

It would certainly be easier on me if that happened. However, I'd rather they did it with home owner's insurance. That way I can insure my house after the fire. That would REALLY help with the burden and all that shit.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-22-2010, 02:51 PM
I thought so, but I am still going to do a little more research to find out if my statement above is true (Not just Rush and Beck true).


On a side note, my wife works solely because she has the healthcare coverage for our family (I'm self-employed). When/if this thing starts in 2014, there is no reason for her to keep working. If she did work it would just increase our income, thus increasing our tax percentage into the upper range. In other words, IT IS BETTER THAT SHE DOESN"T CONTRIBUTE TO THE COUNTRY.


This is progress?

You don't know how a progressive taxation system works.

Here's a hint:

Say your wife knocks you up into the highest tax bracket. Only that income which is above that precipice is taxed at the highest amount.

You pay the same amount of tax on the first $5,000 you make as a McDonald's employee, and in fact, if you make 100k a year or more, you pay less in payroll taxes than he does.

notorious
03-22-2010, 03:03 PM
You don't know how a progressive taxation system works.

Here's a hint:

Say your wife knocks you up into the highest tax bracket. Only that income which is above that precipice is taxed at the highest amount.

You pay the same amount of tax on the first $5,000 you make as a McDonald's employee, and in fact, if you make 100k a year or more, you pay less in payroll taxes than he does.


Unlike almost everyone on this board, I admit when I am wrong/right/not fully educated on the subject.


In other words Hamas, you are correct on the possibility that I am ignorant on the progressive tax system. You have helped me out in that respect.

Just to clear it up in an example form:


First 25K Tax = x %
Next 50K Tax = y % only on the 50,000 over $25,000.

Instead of a higher tax on all $75K, the higher rate would only apply to the 50K.

Thanks

bobbymitch
03-22-2010, 03:14 PM
You may not be turned down for a pre-existing condition, however the insurance companies are real good for having complicated coverage clauses.

There is nothing in the bill from keeping insurance companies from denying coverage for a chronic condition. See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21kristof.html

“Chronic means a medical condition which has at least one of the following characteristics: has no known cure; is likely to recur; requires palliative treatment; needs prolonged monitoring/ treatment; is permanent; requires specialist training/rehabilitation; is caused by changes to the body that cannot be reversed.”

notorious
03-22-2010, 03:16 PM
You may not be turned down for a pre-existing condition, however the insurance companies are real good for having complicated coverage clauses.

There is nothing in the bill from keeping insurance companies from denying coverage for a chronic condition. See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21kristof.html

“Chronic means a medical condition which has at least one of the following characteristics: has no known cure; is likely to recur; requires palliative treatment; needs prolonged monitoring/ treatment; is permanent; requires specialist training/rehabilitation; is caused by changes to the body that cannot be reversed.”

So pretty much everything that anyone can get.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-22-2010, 03:18 PM
Unlike almost everyone on this board, I admit when I am wrong/right/not fully educated on the subject.


In other words Hamas, you are correct on the possibility that I am ignorant on the progressive tax system. You have helped me out in that respect.

Just to clear it up in an example form:


First 25K Tax = x %
Next 50K Tax = y % only on the 50,000 over $25,000.

Instead of a higher tax on all $75K, the higher rate would only apply to the 50K.

Thanks

Correct.

So, let's say you make $50,001 a year and the levels increase at 25, 50, and 100.

All income from 0-25 is theoretically taxed at 5%
All income from 25,001-50,000 is taxed at 15%
All income from 50,001-100K is taxed at 25%

You would pay 5% of $25,000, 15% of $25,000 and 25% of $1

That makes your total tax burden

1250+3750+25 cents

For a total tax burden of $5,000.25.


A lot of people are under the false impression that your burden would be 25% of the entire $50,0001, which would be 12,500.25, over 2.5 times as large. That perpetuation of misinformation has allowed many, IMO, to vote for tax reductions for income brackets they will never be in while their taxes remain the same.


Meanwhile, say you make 200,000 a year and I make 80,000. All salary, no dividends, capital gains, etc.

For that income we are taxed on our payroll, but SS tax caps out around 95,000.

So for payroll taxes, I pay a higher percentage of my income than you do, even though I only make 40% of the money that you do (80k vs. 200).

From 95K (approximate) to 200, you pay no SS tax on your income.

What most people don't know is that 80% of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes, and yet the only tax cuts that are ever talked about are income taxes.

Why?

Because it benefits those with the most money.

notorious
03-22-2010, 03:21 PM
Notorious was under the false impression that his burden would be 25% of the entire $50,0001, which would be 12,500.25, over 2.5 times as large.



FYP



Got it. Thanks for the education.

Saul Good
03-22-2010, 06:59 PM
Maybe they'll do this with Life insurance companies next. Then I can stop paying for life insurance and wait until I get cancer.

Forget that. Cancer can drag on for years. Just wait until your wife dies and then get life insurance on her.