Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Indeed - perhaps I should have said the US healthcare system seems to have problems - individual levels of healthcare can still be exceptional. It's that the overall focus doesn't seem to be on giving the best levels of care to those who need it the most, but on giving the most profitable levels of care to those who can pay the most?
And I know Wikipedia isn't the only source of information, it was simply the handiest when I did an internet search, there is a lot more data to back this all up. The UK-based New Scientist magazine frequently looks at healthcare issues, and the US is the first-world country most often singled out as having a flawed system, although part of that may also be because of it's size.
Follow the White Scars Fifth Brotherhood as they fight in the Yarov sector - battle report #7 against Eldar here!
1. Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971.
2. Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113.
3. “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105.
4. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies ($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980.
5. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike ($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004.
6. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services ($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399.
Taxes that took effect in 2011:
7. Medicine Cabinet Tax ($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959.
8. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike ($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959.
Taxes that took effect in 2012:
9. Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Min$/Jan 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957.
Taxes that take effect in 2013:
10. Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93.
Capital Gains Dividends Other*
2012 15% 15% 35%
2013+ 23.8% 43.4% 43.4%
*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.
11. Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax ($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:
First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee
Current Law 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
Obamacare Tax Hike 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed 1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed
12. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers ($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986
13. Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI ($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995
14. Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” ($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389
15. Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D ($4.5 bil/Jan 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994
16. $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives ($0.6 bil/Jan 2013). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000
Taxes that take effect in 2014:
17. Individual Mandate Excise Tax (Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following
1 Adult 2 Adults 3+ Adults
2014 1% AGI/$95 1% AGI/$190 1% AGI/$285
2015 2% AGI/$325 2% AGI/$650 2% AGI/$975
2016 + 2.5% AGI/$695 2.5% AGI/$1390 2.5% AGI/$2085
Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS).Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337
18. Employer Mandate Tax (Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346
Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years
19. Tax on Health Insurers ($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993
Taxes that take effect in 2018:
20. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans ($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956
That's not including any regulatory changes...
Here's a nice summary:
Spoiler:
The Employer Mandate
ObamaCare’s employer mandate is among the new laws most anti-growth provisions. When implemented, it will force most American businesses to offer government-approved health insurance to their employees or else pay new federal taxes for not doing so. This costly new requirement will make it more expensive for firms to hire workers in the future. Consequently, it will destroy jobs, and many firms are likely to slow down on hiring in anticipation of its implementation.
“Free-Rider” Provision
ObamaCare does not impose a straight-forward requirement that employers offer health insurance to workers. Proponents of the new law wanted to avoid the charge that the new law was directly imposing new costs on American business. So, instead, they created a back-door mandate, what they call the “free-rider” provision.
If a firm with at least 50 workers has a full-time employee who is getting federally-subsided insurance through an ”exchange,” then that employer must pay a penalty for failing to offer that worker acceptable insurance on the job. (Workers that are offered qualified coverage by an employer are ineligible for the new insurance subsidies provided in the exchanges.)
The tax is scheduled to begin in 2014 and the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will bring in approximately $10 billion in annual revenue once it’s fully implemented.
Penalties For Failure To Insure
For firms which do not offer insurance any insurance, have more than 50 employees, and have at least one employee receiving insurance subsidies, they must pay a tax of $2000 per subsidized employee. The tax is applied to all of a firm’s employees (after excluding the first 30), not just those that are subsidized. For example a firm with 51 employees would pay $42,000 in new annual taxes, and an additional $2,000 tax for every new hire.
For firms that do offer insurance, the penalty is the lesser of $2,000 for every employee (after exempting the first 30) or $3,000) for every employee receiving a subsidy.
The National Federation of Independent Business has a clear and informative table which examines the taxes assessed under different scenarios here.
Disincentives to Hire
ObamaCare’s employer mandate will discourage business development and growth. Small firms with 50 or fewer workers will have very strong disincentives to expand. These businesses can avoid the new penalties by staying small; growth will simply add new costs and burdens. Many businesses with low profit margins are unable to pay the substantial cost of providing comprehensive insurance to all of their employees or the new taxes under ObamaCare’s employer mandate. Once companies reach 50 employees, they are likely to turn to contractors and outsource work to evade the new mandate, even if such arrangements are less efficient than directly hiring new workers.
Part-Time and Seasonal Employees
Fines to employers under the employer mandate also are imposed on workers who are not full-time employees, where a combination of employees working 120 hours per month (around 30 hours per week) count as one employee. This provision in the bill especially hurts seasonal businesses, where it is frequently not cost effective to provide insurance benefits to an employee who will only be with the firm for a short period of time.
Penalizing Low Income Households
ObamaCare provides strong incentives for firms to avoid hiring workers from low-income households. Eligibility for subsidized insurance in the exchanges is based on household income, and firms can be penalized if one of their workers gets subsidized coverage in an exchange. Thus, firms have a strong incentive to find workers who won’t qualify for subsidized coverage, which may also lead to invasions of privacy. For instance, a restaurant might find it better to hire young waiters from upper-income neighborhoods, as opposed to low-income areas, because they would be less likely to qualify for subsidized insurance in the exchanges. ObamaCare therefore is penalizing the very households it was supposedly passed to help.
While it does create a more challenging environment, we'll adapt. We always do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/14 16:29:24
Easy E wrote: I'm really glad to hear that conservatives like Whembly and AustinT are now in full support of Single-Payer systems.
what do you mean "now"? I've always been in support of a final solution to the health care problem. I've been pretty open about my desire to socialize medicine and power since ai started postig in the OT.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Easy E wrote: I'm really glad to hear that conservatives like Whembly and AustinT are now in full support of Single-Payer systems.
what do you mean "now"? I've always been in support of a final solution to the health care problem. I've been pretty open about my desire to socialize medicine and power since ai started postig in the OT.
Erm... me too...??
I have issues with the ACA bill (which is NOT the path to socialized medicine ).
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Smart people sometime say things that are stupid and then try to never talk about them again.
Stupid people say stupid gak and then bring them up again with a gak eating grin because they lack self awareness for when they're stupid.
Guess which one you are!
Automatically Appended Next Post: But, seriously, to reiterate:
Your crazy world view has Romney winning because polls are wrong, Hoover was a progressive because reasons, and you believe in universal healthcare so you backed Mitt Romney.
Is today opposite day?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/15 18:37:57
I'm more into "Is the IRS really going to fine people for not having health insurance" if not, then who pays for them
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Easy E wrote: I'm really glad to hear that conservatives like Whembly and AustinT are now in full support of Single-Payer systems.
what do you mean "now"? I've always been in support of a final solution to the health care problem. I've been pretty open about my desire to socialize medicine and power since ai started postig in the OT.
Same. I just want a real one not the Obamacare fiasco we have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheHammer wrote: Wait, you guys are in favor of universal healthcare so you supported Mitt Romney?
feth me, I can't even begin to understand you people.
Not me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/15 19:09:25
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Easy E wrote: I'm really glad to hear that conservatives like Whembly and AustinT are now in full support of Single-Payer systems.
what do you mean "now"? I've always been in support of a final solution to the health care problem. I've been pretty open about my desire to socialize medicine and power since ai started postig in the OT.
Erm... me too...??
I have issues with the ACA bill (which is NOT the path to socialized medicine ).
Theoretically, it could be. As posted before, the government gets to set up a non-profit healthcare provider, which is made available to all citizens of any state. Any state is allowed to come up with something better of course. With enough people in said non-profit system, you begin to see real actual competition (instead of collusion) between health care providers like Cigna, UHC and the like. Those companies that couldn't compete would be weeded out. It is technically possible (if extremely unlikey in America's current health care climate) that the non-profit, government administered health care provider is left.
So.. it's a very long, convoluted and insanely unlikely course, but it is technically possible. (technically right... the best kind of right!)
I absolutely 100% agree, but I think we can also 100% agree that a flat-out replacement won't work. Literally driving the for-profit model into the ground, to the point where there is no profit is vicious way to go about the transition, but I suspect it will prove an effective one. After all, we already have the 20% profit limit in place thanks to ACA.
It's not a great solution, I agree. It is, however, a possible solution.
Well, until we have the GOP fighting tooth and nail to the last breath to preserve your aforementioned insurance lobbying group.
Frankly, getting rid of lobbying would be a great step forward in fixing a lot of the US's problems, imo.
streamdragon wrote: I absolutely 100% agree, but I think we can also 100% agree that a flat-out replacement won't work. Literally driving the for-profit model into the ground, to the point where there is no profit is vicious way to go about the transition, but I suspect it will prove an effective one. After all, we already have the 20% profit limit in place thanks to ACA.
You wanna know the funny thing? Profit margins never get close to that 20%.
It's not a great solution, I agree. It is, however, a possible solution.
Agreed... as Azazel alluded to, the best thing ACA act may do is to "convince" the electorate that the single-payer may be the best path to solving this issue.
Well, until we have the GOP fighting tooth and nail to the last breath to preserve your aforementioned insurance lobbying group.
Not just GOP... all congressional critters use these groups.
Frankly, getting rid of lobbying would be a great step forward in fixing a lot of the US's problems, imo.
Pie in the sky thinking... never gonna happen. In fact, the current law (names escapes me a the moment) encourages all those PAC groups.
streamdragon wrote: I absolutely 100% agree, but I think we can also 100% agree that a flat-out replacement won't work. Literally driving the for-profit model into the ground, to the point where there is no profit is vicious way to go about the transition, but I suspect it will prove an effective one. After all, we already have the 20% profit limit in place thanks to ACA.
You wanna know the funny thing? Profit margins never get close to that 20%.
It's not a great solution, I agree. It is, however, a possible solution.
Agreed... as Azazel alluded to, the best thing ACA act may do is to "convince" the electorate that the single-payer may be the best path to solving this issue.
Well, until we have the GOP fighting tooth and nail to the last breath to preserve your aforementioned insurance lobbying group.
Not just GOP... all congressional critters use these groups.
Frankly, getting rid of lobbying would be a great step forward in fixing a lot of the US's problems, imo.
Pie in the sky thinking... never gonna happen. In fact, the current law (names escapes me a the moment) encourages all those PAC groups.
1. I'll readily admit I have no idea what profit margins are actually like for any health insurance company. I don't work in that field, but I do know for a fact that many of them collude to set their prices as high as possible. Hence why I look forward to a non-profit getting in on the action.
2. I sincerely hope so. Most people don't seem to understand that uninsured people who do go to a hospital cause the costs of health insurance to sky rocket (though they are obviously not the only cause). Getting everyone even a semblance of insurane would be an amazing step.
3. Oh absolutely everyone uses lobbying groups. I just was referring to the various groups fighting ACA, which I would suspect are almost entirely on the GOP side of the fence. Heck, I believe Wisconsin and Missouri were passing legislation to deny ACA from taking place in their state, and arrest anyone seeking to implement it. Lunacy.
4. Don't take my dreams from me. Seriously though, those groups are vultures and the politician<->lobbyist circle jerk needs to stop. Both sides do it, and all of them should be ashamed of themselves right before being taken out behind the shed...
streamdragon wrote: I absolutely 100% agree, but I think we can also 100% agree that a flat-out replacement won't work. Literally driving the for-profit model into the ground, to the point where there is no profit is vicious way to go about the transition, but I suspect it will prove an effective one. After all, we already have the 20% profit limit in place thanks to ACA.
You wanna know the funny thing? Profit margins never get close to that 20%.
It's not a great solution, I agree. It is, however, a possible solution.
Agreed... as Azazel alluded to, the best thing ACA act may do is to "convince" the electorate that the single-payer may be the best path to solving this issue.
Well, until we have the GOP fighting tooth and nail to the last breath to preserve your aforementioned insurance lobbying group.
Not just GOP... all congressional critters use these groups.
Frankly, getting rid of lobbying would be a great step forward in fixing a lot of the US's problems, imo.
Pie in the sky thinking... never gonna happen. In fact, the current law (names escapes me a the moment) encourages all those PAC groups.
1. I'll readily admit I have no idea what profit margins are actually like for any health insurance company. I don't work in that field, but I do know for a fact that many of them collude to set their prices as high as possible. Hence why I look forward to a non-profit getting in on the action.
You know who's the biggest driving force for the reimbursements rates that insurance negotiate with care providers?
Believe it or not, it's Medicare. Most of the time, private insurers will start their reimbursements rates at the same rate that Medicare pays. (yeah... stunning).
2. I sincerely hope so. Most people don't seem to understand that uninsured people who do go to a hospital cause the costs of health insurance to sky rocket (though they are obviously not the only cause). Getting everyone even a semblance of insurane would be an amazing step.
Agreed.
3. Oh absolutely everyone uses lobbying groups. I just was referring to the various groups fighting ACA, which I would suspect are almost entirely on the GOP side of the fence. Heck, I believe Wisconsin and Missouri were passing legislation to deny ACA from taking place in their state, and arrest anyone seeking to implement it. Lunacy.
Last I count 15 states amended their constitution to prevent public exchanges. This is done for two main reasons:
1) It allows the state's attorney general standing to bring a case to the Supreme Court.
2) It keeps the "status quo" at the state level... otherwise, the new regulation (I believe that's Medicaid) would need the state's to raise taxes in order to cover the new regulatory changes.
4. Don't take my dreams from me. Seriously though, those groups are vultures and the politician<->lobbyist circle jerk needs to stop. Both sides do it, and all of them should be ashamed of themselves right before being taken out behind the shed...
Testify wrote: Then they'd save the money on the wages too. Double bonus!
I hope some kind of equilibrium gets struck by the time the dust settles so these people don't find themselves having to work two jobs to support their families.
Testify wrote: Then they'd save the money on the wages too. Double bonus!
I hope some kind of equilibrium gets struck by the time the dust settles so these people don't find themselves having to work two jobs to support their families.
Unless all employers on the US work together to cut hours, the magic of the free market will make employers who offer full time jobs with benefits the preferred and competitive option and workers will choose them over crappy jobs who will continue to fight with the GOP to screw over workers in order to protect big business and rich people.
Offer crappy pay and no benefits, end up with crappy workers.
Testify wrote: Then they'd save the money on the wages too. Double bonus!
I hope some kind of equilibrium gets struck by the time the dust settles so these people don't find themselves having to work two jobs to support their families.
Unless all employers on the US work together to cut hours, the magic of the free market will make employers who offer full time jobs with benefits the preferred and competitive option and workers will choose them over crappy jobs who will continue to fight with the GOP to screw over workers in order to protect big business and rich people.
Offer crappy pay and no benefits, end up with crappy workers.
Just for the record, there are plenty of Democrats out there that screw their workers over also. But the spirit of your statement is something I hope turns out to be correct.
He got four more years and Obamacare getting implemented....and people jumping at shadows already which we all knew the business were going to avoid getting fines and what not by cutting hours and hiring part time. The "scare talk" back then is coming into reality.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha