General Political Thread

[lost highway]

N Basically if you want a more constructive conversation start one, and don't belittle the thoughts of others because you don't find it interesting.

 

I'm not sure if anyone on here has been belittled.....

[KevinG]

I'm not sure if anyone on here has been belittled.....

 

You likened the discussion of 2016 to honey boo boo.  

 

But again if you don't like the discussion try to change it.  That is all, I welcome the change.  I tried to talk about 2014 which is far more pressing and interesting in my mind than 2016, but no one cared.  I don't expect a grand discussion from this thread but at times I am surprised.  This is the internet not the rostrum in the Roman Senate.  

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I'm not sure if anyone on here has been belittled.....

 

I guess if you want to talk about the importance of particular current events, or broad topics like gun control, the discussion of the still-distant 2016 race can seem pretty trivial. Having participated in a couple of presidential campaigns as a volunteer, and being a bit of a political junkie, I find the discussion of presidential politics to be so multifaceted and fascinating, I am always interested and/or horrified by what happens.

 

 I tried to talk about 2014 which is far more pressing and interesting in my mind than 2016, but no one cared.  I don't expect a grand discussion from this thread but at times I am surprised.  This is the internet not the rostrum in the Roman Senate.  

I would be interested in hearing people's thoughts, predictions, etc. In a way, I'm really more worried about 2014 than 2016, and not just because it's so far away. To my way of thinking, it would be great if the Dems routed the Repubs in 2014 and gave Obama an opportunity to finally accomplish something substantive; in fact, it seems likely that one side or the other will lose a handful of seats, and the gridlock, obstructionism and bickering will continue unabated, rendering the President's agenda into more of a footnote than a reality.

[lost highway]

One thing that will change in spite of congressional gridlock is the public perception of the Affordable Care Act.  The rubber really hits the road this fall.  If it works the way it's supposed to it should save money, and cover more people.  If that happens I think the conversation will change considerably. 

[KevinG]

One thing that will change in spite of congressional gridlock is the public perception of the Affordable Care Act.  The rubber really hits the road this fall.  If it works the way it's supposed to it should save money, and cover more people.  If that happens I think the conversation will change considerably. 

 

It will all be about how it is spun, not how it is actually hurting/helping people.  Unfortunately we are beyond public perception but more on what does the right/left media tell us what to think about it.  

[lamradio]

I heard the other day that they are delaying Obama care for another year, yet they are still going to charge the $1,400 fee for folks that don't have insurance.  Someone more knowledgable than myself please tell me that I have been misinformed and this isn't true.  

[KevinG]

I heard the other day that they are delaying Obama care for another year, yet they are still going to charge the $1,400 fee for folks that don't have insurance.  Someone more knowledgable than myself please tell me that I have been misinformed and this isn't true.  

 

No offense to you lamrod, but this is the kind of stupidity and misinformation that is spread about ACA.  

 

So the requirement that employers with more than 50 people have to provide health insurance has been delayed until 2015.  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/02/white-house-delays-employer-mandate-requirement-until-2015/

 

Also the fee for not having health insurance is $95, not $1,400.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/01/readers-have-questions-about-obamacares-penalties-we-have-answers/

 

But it does appear that they will still charge a tax if you don't have health insurance.  

 

IMHO the tax is too low.  The whole point of ACA is to get people without health insurance on health insurance to ultimately lower the cost of health insurance.  It makes sense.  But the penalty is not going to get more people to buy health insurance.  More than likely the penalty will just come off of a tax refund.  I wish the penalty was $1400 or more.  

 

Right now in the current pre-ACA healthcare world we are participating in socialism.  We have a group of people paying for the healthcare of the uninsured, thus spreading the wealth of the haves to the have nots.  ACA with its mandates is the ultimate form of capitalism.  Insurance is made available to all with people being able to shop around for the best price.  Thus making it cheaper for everyone.  But it only works if everyone gets into the system.  

[lamradio]

Ok, I had assumed I was misinformed.  Thanks for clearing that up.  

 

 

 

IMHO the tax is too low.  The whole point of ACA is to get people without health insurance on health insurance to ultimately lower the cost of health insurance.  It makes sense.  But the penalty is not going to get more people to buy health insurance.  More than likely the penalty will just come off of a tax refund.  I wish the penalty was $1400 or more. 

 

 

So the people that work for a company that doesn't offer insurance or the insurance is unaffordable are supposed to get shit on even more?  

[bjorn_skurj]

I have to say, I have never fully bought the concept of "Oh, all these people don't have health insurance? Let's solve this by making a law saying they have to have health insurance!" Or put another way, I didn't think the bad guys in the story were the devil-may-care 20-somethings who could afford insurance, but didn't feel like paying for it. But I am speaking from the perspective of someone who makes not a lot of money working for a small company that can't pay even half of the insurance premium and hasn't given anybody a raise since 2006. So, I am waiting until next spring and when we find out what our insurance costs will be before I pass any kind of judgment on the "new way."

[KevinG]

 

So the people that work for a company that doesn't offer insurance or the insurance is unaffordable are supposed to get shit on even more?  

 

But again you make it sound like the only place to get insurance is through your employer.  Which is not true.  ACA has set up health insurance exchanges for you to buy private health insurance.  https://www.healthcare.gov/what-is-the-health-insurance-marketplace/.  

 

I am not sure what you mean by "unaffordable."  But there is a calculator out there if you want to give it a try.  http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/  Which can figure out the costs of your premiums per year and then any tax credits you would get.  Basically a single person making 30K a year would pay about 300 bucks a month for insurance through the exchanges (not including the rebate they would get).  

 

Again this whole system only works if more people buy insurance.  At this time the penalties are not going to force anyone to buy insurance.  I think the penalties should be the minimum premium for the lowest plan, and you don't get a tax cut.  So no one is shitting on anyone here.   

[Winston Legthigh]

Basically a single person making 30K a year would pay about 300 bucks a month for insurance

 

Holy smokes that's expensive. I'm hoping that person would have the option of paying for the insurance before taxes are taken out of his paycheck?

[bjorn_skurj]

Yeah, that's killer if you have to pay things like rent, a car loan, etc.

[Atticus]

ACA with its mandates is the ultimate form of capitalism.

I don't really think it is, but I also think I'm probably one of the stupid people who doesn't post right.

[Dick Ctionary]

cap·i·tal·ism

 

\ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\

 

noun

 

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

 

First use: 1877

[KevinG]

I don't really think it is, but I also think I'm probably one of the stupid people who doesn't post right.

 

Well ultimate form of capitalism is probably a bit of a stretch.  But it is using the free market of insurance in order to decrease the overall costs to everyone who pays into the system. 

 

It is not the government take over that the Right seems to want you to believe it is.

[Hixter]

Also the fee for not having health insurance is $95, not $1,400.

That's a bit of misinformation as well. The minimum is $95 (per adult) but the penalty is actually 1% of family income for most people, so it'll likely cost a few hundred bucks. And the penalties increase over the next few years.

[bjorn_skurj]

Well, it's a form of state-compelled participation in a capitalistic enterprise.

[KevinG]

That's a bit of misinformation as well. The minimum is $95 (per adult) but the penalty is actually 1% of family income for most people, so it'll likely cost a few hundred bucks. And the penalties increase over the next few years.

 

Still not nearly enough IMHO (and not the close to the 1400 that was originally quoted.  Here is the link to the article for more information:  http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/13/news/economy/obamacare-penalty/

 

 

 

Well, it's a form of state-compelled participation in a capitalistic enterprise.

 

Good way to put it.  

 

Personally I don't like the mandates.  It is stupid.  I would just rather have single payer healthcare.  But the ACA system will only work, thus the mandate.  It really is a pro-insurance company law.  

[ih8music]

One thing is certain about the ACA... the truth about how it ends up improving or worsening (or neither) healthcare costs in the US will be under much debate and political spin for years to come. 

[Hixter]

Still not nearly enough IMHO (and not the close to the 1400 that was originally quoted

Not in 2014, but a family with 2 adults who each earn $35,000 per year will hit $1400 in penalties in 2015. In 2016 every couple will hit $1400 (+ $350 per child)

[KevinG]

Not in 2014, but a family with 2 adults who each earn $35,000 per year will hit $1400 in penalties in 2015. In 2016 every couple will hit $1400 (+ $350 per child)

 

From lamrod's original post:

 

I heard the other day that they are delaying Obama care for another year, yet they are still going to charge the $1,400 fee for folks that don't have insurance.  Someone more knowledgable than myself please tell me that I have been misinformed and this isn't true.  

 

It talks about now and the fees now and the delay that is happening now.  I think his thought was that there would be no provisions for the ACA but yet the government would be charging them this fee anyways, which is untrue.  Yes in the future it will reach 1400, and like I said good and it is not enough if you want to make this thing work.  

[Hixter]

One thing is certain about the ACA... the truth about how it ends up improving or worsening (or neither) healthcare costs in the US will be under much debate and political spin for years to come. 

Yep. One thing that hasn't gotten much coverage is that the AHA does not require employers to offer insurance to the spouse of an employee. It remains to be seen whether companies will decide to drop spouses. (Or drop all coverage and pay a penalty, reduce employees to fewer than 30 hours per week, etc.)

[bjorn_skurj]

There was actually some talk in our office about them actually NOT offering us insurance if it turns out we could get it cheaper as free agents on an exchange. Many unknowns.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I have seriously considered getting insurance on my own to see if I could find a better deal than the shitty plan my employers offer. I had to have my appendix out last year, and even with insurance coverage, I still got stuck with a bill for over $8,000. A couple weeks ago, I found out our plan is raising rates 16%. 

That is why we need single-payer. This ACA law is an experiment that will, I hope, ultimately fail and prove the needed bridge to single payer. It's time for major corporations to stop making millions of off people's misery.

[KevinG]

Yep. One thing that hasn't gotten much coverage is that the AHA does not require employers to offer insurance to the spouse of an employee. It remains to be seen whether companies will decide to drop spouses. (Or drop all coverage and pay a penalty, reduce employees to fewer than 30 hours per week, etc.)

 

I actually think that has been happening for many years now.  In the company I work for if a spouse can get insurance where they work and chose to be on the companies plan there is an extra charge per month (I don't know what it is cause I use my wife's insurance).  The same is for the company my mother works for as well.  

 

Yeah it remains to be seen what affect ACA will have on businesses, especially if they reduce employment etc.  I agree with Mr. Heartbreak and feel single payer is the way to go.