Jump to content

Presidential Race (Respector Edition)


Recommended Posts

Substance? If by cutting and pasting a ton of links to blogs and opinions and writing a thousand word post is substance...then no.

You know what KevinG, just about the time I think you and I could banter a little bit and laugh at some of this you come in with your usual little snarky comment.

I honestly thought you were posting this poll as a joke.....because I think that's what it is. Not to mention the part where you could see my head explode. I thought that was humorous.

The poll and the liberal tilted magazine (which I enjoy reading from time to time) is the problem. There were 1000 people polled?....Sheez and to be honest, I can't remember a candidate I've "related" to in my lifetime.

So go ahead and keep doing what you've been doing and I'll try not to take it light hearted. ;)

 

I am sorry if my posts are too long winded, with to many links in it. I just like to be well thought out and reasoned and show where I got my information. In these days we often start spouting off half cocked theories or information that just isn't true. I think it is important to show your work. By showing where you got information can lend credence to your argument. Or end up discounting the argument if you do not agree with the source, or think the source is biased.

 

And now we are getting into a pissing match about how we should post in this thread. Not a useful way to discuss things. Well I am going to keep doing what I do. I will keep posting links to show my work. You keep doing what you do.

 

BTW do you know what the average sampling size of polls for Gallup is? It is 1,000. Also here is a handy chart on polling sizes and margin of error: http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/best-estimates-guide-sample-size-and-margin-error. And yes Esquire is a liberal mag, but they some top notch writers, and there reporting is often quite good. If it where Maxim that came out with the poll yes it would be a joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press – 14 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 6 million Americans — significantly more than first estimated— will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.

The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.

The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are 50 percent higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed. The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected in 2016, when the penalty is fully in effect.

That's still only a sliver of the population, given that more than 150 million people currently are covered by employer plans. Nonetheless, in his first campaign for the White House, Obama pledged not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000.

And the budget office analysis found that nearly 80 percent of those who'll face the penalty would be making up to or less than five times the federal poverty level. Currently that would work out to $55,850 or less for an individual and $115,250 or less for a family of four.

Average penalty: about $1,200 in 2016.

"The bad news and broken promises from Obamacare just keep piling up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who wants to repeal the law.

Starting in 2014, virtually every legal resident of the U.S. will be required to carry health insurance or face a tax penalty, with exemptions for financial hardship, religious objections and certain other circumstances. Most people will not have to worry about the requirement since they already have coverage through employers, government programs like Medicare or by buying their own policies.

A spokeswoman for the Obama administration said 98 percent of Americans will not be affected by the tax penalty — and suggested that those who will be should face up to their civic responsibilities.

"This (analysis) doesn't change the basic fact that the individual responsibility policy will only affect people who can afford health care but choose not to buy it," said Erin Shields Britt of the Health and Human Services Department. "We're no longer going to subsidize the care of those who can afford to buy insurance but make a choice not to buy it."

The budget office said most of the increase in its estimate is due to changes in underlying projections about the economy, incorporating the effects of new federal legislation, as well as higher unemployment and lower wages.

The Supreme Court upheld Obama's law as constitutional in a 5-4 decision this summer, finding that the insurance mandate and the tax penalty enforcing it fall within the power of Congress to impose taxes. The penalty will be collected by the IRS, just like taxes.

The budget office said the penalty will raise $6.9 billion in 2016.

The new law will also provide government aid to help middle-class and low-income households afford coverage, the financial carrot that balances out the penalty.

Nonetheless, some people might still decide to remain uninsured because they object to government mandates or because they feel they would come out ahead financially even if they have to pay the penalty. Health insurance is expensive, with employer-provided family coverage averaging nearly $15,800 a year for a family and $4,300 for a single plan. Indeed, insurance industry experts say the federal penalty may be too low.

The Supreme Court also allowed individual states to opt out of a major Medicaid expansion under the law. The Obama administration says it will exempt low-income people in states that opt out from having to comply with the insurance requirement.

Many Republicans still regard the insurance mandate as unconstitutional and rue the day the Supreme Court upheld it.

However, the idea for an individual insurance requirement comes from Republican health care plans in the 1990s.

It's also a central element of the 2006 Massachusetts health care law signed by then-GOP Gov. Mitt Romney, now running against Obama and promising to repeal the federal law.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said Wednesday the new report is more evidence that Obama's law is a "costly disaster."

"Even more of the middle-class families who President Obama promised would see no tax increase will in fact see a massive tax increase thanks to Obamacare," she said.

Romney says insurance mandates should be up to each state. The approach seems to have worked well in Massachusetts, with virtually all residents covered and dwindling numbers opting to pay the penalty instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not going to quote Jules article directly, cause of the length, but I would like to say something about it.

 

Obviously this is anti-public mandate. Which assuming would be done away with (or rather left up to the states) if Romney is elected prez. The mandate is there because of the no pre-exisiting conditions. You cannot have one without the other. Otherwise, I would only buy insurance when I am hurt or get sick. Insurance only works when there is a large pool of money to pay for costs. For example if you have insurance company X you pay a monthly premium. That money goes to pay for Joe Blow down the street who has had a heart attack. Insurance companies are essentially communism.

 

And if you do away with the pre-exisiting conditions, the insurance companies end up denying coverage to people who will more than likely have to either go without Health Care or seek government assistance. And do we really want to increase that 47%?

 

So then both are scrapped (Pre-exisiting and mandate) and healthily Jane Blow who decides she doesn't need insurance. She get's attacked by a raccoon and ends up in the emergency room and now can't pay for her treatments. Guess who ends up footing the bill, the Hospital. And to cover the Hospitals cost they raise their prices. So the insurance company in turn raises their premiums. Who get's screwed, you do.

 

I totally agree with Sparky's cartoon to an extent. We are screwed all the way around. ACA was a way to fix it, not perfect but a start. I always like to imagine what could have happened if both side where to sit down and work something out. Of course they did not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our company recently sat down and determined to stop offering health insurance as it ends up being far less expensive to pay the penalty than continue paying the premium portion of the employee coverage they currently offer. Our insurance plan (High Deductible) is garbage but due to our group size and experience rating is still quite expensive.

Personally I will just wait for the exchanges to be set up and purchase insurance when needed but I will most likely not carry continuous coverage. Luckily the mandate tax penalty provision doesn’t have an enforcement device so I will continue to make sure my Federal withholding just covers or is just short of my annual tax liability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is freaking hilarious. $200K per year is RICH? I can't even comment further on this statement because I find it so ludicrous.

 

http://www.usatoday....sing/53033322/1

 

Inflation-adjusted median household income - not individual, but household - is about 50K. If you make FOUR TIMES THAT MUCH, you are fucking rich by American standards. Don't even get me started on how rich that is compared to the overwhelming majority of people on this planet.

And by the way, probably part of the reason you are rich is because you aren't buying new cars all the time. Even Warren Buffet doesn't buy a new car every year.

The exceptions to this would be if you make $200K and live in Manhattan. Even then, you're not exactly poor.

Like lost highway said, you should travel more. May I recommend Southeast Asia?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And, to add perspective...comparing U.S. citizens to the world at large...try this on for size:

 

http://www.givingwha...ich-you-are.php

 

Compared to almost everyone else on planet earth, we are very rich indeed.

 

Another reality check:

 

http://www.dailymail...t-live-U-S.html

 

And another:

 

http://www.financial...s-make-percent/

 

According to that last one, the average income for the Top 10% is $113,799.

So there you go.

 

 

WHAT THE TOP 1%, 5%, 10%, 25% and 50% MAKE IN AMERICA

Based on the Internal Revenue Service’s 2010 database below, here’s how much the top Americans make:

Top 1%: $380,354

Top 5%: $159,619

Top 10%: $113,799

Top 25%: $67,280

Top 50%: >$33,048

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.usatoday....sing/53033322/1

 

Inflation-adjusted median household income - not individual, but household - is about 50K. If you make FOUR TIMES THAT MUCH, you are fucking rich by American standards. Don't even get me started on how rich that is compared to the overwhelming majority of people on this planet.

And by the way, probably part of the reason you are rich is because you aren't buying new cars all the time. Even Warren Buffet doesn't buy a new car every year.

The exceptions to this would be if you make $200K and live in Manhattan. Even then, you're not exactly poor.

Like lost highway said, you should travel more. May I recommend Southeast Asia?

Wrong. Being "rich" is about lifestyle. Sure, if I lived in buttfuck, Idaho where homes cost $

 

Not saying that I'm poor by any means, but to say that I'm rich is ridiculous.

 

And yes, it's called perspective and it works both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But there are a bunch of very expensive regions of this county where making $200K+ means you're just getting by if you're trying to raise a family and want to own your own home.

 

Not saying that I'm poor by any means, but to say that I'm rich is ridiculous.

 

And yes, it's called perspective and it works both ways.

You're right, I should have qualified it.

If you are making 200k per year, you are relatively rich...compared to almost everybody else in the world.

Better, no?

 

Here is some more perspective:

 

Average (Median) Household Income by Community

 

These numbers are per the 2010 U.S. Census.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, I should have qualified it.

If you are making 200k per year, you are relatively rich...compared to almost everybody else in the world.

Better, no?

 

Upper (barely, as in I can save for my kids' college and my retirement, woo hoo!) middle class.

 

Yes, compared to many places the world, I'm freaking wealthy. But I don't live there, nor could my wife and I make the same money there... so the comparison is invalid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know people don't like hearing how good they have it, but...most folks I know make between $30-60K. And these are "city folk." Paying for their kids' college or saving extra for retirement is simply not an option. And many of them are still paying off enormous student loans. The idea of making $200K a year is almost inconceivable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am truly sorry that the relatively well-off people on this thread do not feel that they are rich. That must really suck.

But if you're trying to make any of us feel sorry for you, you are doing a terrible job. :lol

Actually, being able to afford to live in a nice neighborhood in a relatively affluent county would likely be considered rich by the standards of most Americans today.

If anything, I thought you would feel better knowing how well-off you are. I was wrong. Not the first time, not likely to be the last.

 

Thanks, indy81, for trying to add more perspective, but it just won't work. You are talking to brick walls here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, being able to afford to live in a nice neighborhood in a relatively affluent county would likely be considered rich by the standards of most Americans today.

If anything, I thought you would feel better knowing how well-off you are.

 

I think, as mentioned before, people attain a certain measure of wealth, property etc. and are insulted that someone would view them as wealthy because they don't feel it. Again, I feel like a bit of a trip through South America, Europe, Africa, or Asia could be an eye opener for some as far as relative wealth is concerned.

 

another mind creaking as it closes...

 

That's a bit glib. I understand that 200K a year plays out a lot different depending on your circumstances. MC Hammer became very poor after he bought a mansion with a helicopter pad. He didn't feel like he had any money cause he didn't. He turned all of his money into stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...