Affordable Health Care for America Act

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
Bill Summary: Affordable Health Care for America Act

House Democrats on Thursday unveiled the Affordable Health Care for America Act. The 1,990-page legislation is a combination of bills passed by three House committees earlier this year. Key tenets include:
New insurance industry regulations would prohibit insurers from rejecting customers based on pre-existing conditions.

How this will work is a mystery - clearly, we can't have people not buying insurance until the get cancer. That would bankrupt the insurance companies.

The regulations would also prohibit annual or lifetime caps on benefits.
· Insurance exchange | The bill would set up a new national health insurance exchange, a marketplace where individuals who do not have employer-sponsored insurance would be able to shop for plans. The exchange would also be open to small businesses, and more would be able to join each year. Companies with 25 or fewer employees would be able to join in 2013, companies with 50 or fewer employees could join in 2014, and companies with fewer than 100 employees could join by 2015.

Now this I agree with. All that group vs individual rate stuff is a scam.

· Public insurance option | The health insurance exchange would include a government-run public plan. Federal officials would negotiate payment rates with doctors and hospitals that accept the plan.
· Employer mandate | Employers with annual payrolls greater than $500,000 would be required to either provide health insurance for their employees, or contribute 8 percent of their payroll to a federal fund to help subsidize employees who purchase coverage through the exchange.

WTF! So teeny tiny business' with a $500k (gross?) annual payroll would either have to offer insurance or pay an additional $40k in taxes. Guess who's paycheck that is coming out of - not mine!

Time to kick some people off the payroll!


Employers with payrolls less than $500,000 would be exempt from the mandate.

Well that's nice.

· Individual mandate | Individuals will be required to purchase health insurance, or pay a penalty fee.

I doubt the courts will allow this.

Some people would be eligible to apply for a hardship waiver.

What, no debtor's prisons?

· Medicaid expansion | Medicaid would be expanded to cover everyone whose income is below 150 percent of the poverty line, or about $33,000 per year for a family of four.

Everyone who makes under $16,245 will be covered courtesy of the tax payer.


· Affordability subsidies | People who earn between 150 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level would be eligible for subsidies on a sliding scale to purchase insurance through the exchange. Those subsidies would ensure that people who make 150 percent of the poverty level would not have to pay more than 3 percent of their income in premiums, while those who make 400 percent of the poverty level could pay up to 12 percent of their income in premiums.

The poverty line for a single person is $10,830. 400% of that is $43k. 12% is just under $5,200 per year or around $99 a week.

The guy who makes $16,245 pays a maximum of $9.37 per week. But if he makes $1 less he is covered by Medicade.

· Out-of-pocket expenses caps | New regulations would cap yearly out-of-pocket medical expenses for individuals at $5,000 and families at $10,000. Those who earn less than 400 percent of the poverty level would have lower caps, on a sliding scale.

A $5k out of pocket exposure is crap insurance.

· Tax surcharge | The bill would help pay for itself by imposing a 5.4 percent tax surcharge on individuals earning more than $500,000 per year and families earning more than $1 million.

That comes to $27k per year stolen from a guy who makes $500K in addition to the $35% they already pay. That comes to over $200K in taxes. Wow!

Shouldn't a guy who pays $200,000 in taxes get special privileges like special parking spaces and have a VIP card that puts him to the front of the line everywhere he goes? Maybe we all ought to wear badges so we know who is who. If I pay for your health care, shouldn't you carry my groceries or something?

Now there is a plan. We can have a rank like in the military - it's only fair. Call it the symbiotic tax plan.

· End-of-life counseling | The bill retains a controversial provision that allows Medicare to pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling.
</SPAN>
 

Dragline

Well-Known Member
That appears to be an older version of the bill. I know the mandate for employers to purchase insurance for employees is only if you have 50 or more.
 

upnorth2505

New Member
Most of what is being said here is just recycled crap from the republican lie machine. The sky is NOT falling, and America will not only be okay, but better off.
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
Most of what is being said here is just recycled crap from the republican lie machine. The sky is NOT falling, and America will not only be okay, but better off.
You're right. It's already fallen.....most of us just haven't figured it out yet. :dunce: We'll see what happens next. bongsmilie
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Most of what is being said here is just recycled crap from the republican lie machine. The sky is NOT falling, and America will not only be okay, but better off.
Some people thought America was better off with slavery. With putting Native Americans on reservations. With interning it's own Japanese- American citizens during WWII. With Jim Crow laws. With punishing people because of their sexual orientation. With incarcerating people for growing a plant. Need I go on?

What do all of these theft of natural rights have to do with the healthcare plan? They were all done under the auspices of "law". Careful when you delight in forcing your "good idea" on somebody else.
 

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
Bill Summary: Affordable Health Care for America Act



· Tax surcharge | The bill would help pay for itself by imposing a 5.4 percent tax surcharge on individuals earning more than $500,000 per year and families earning more than $1 million.

That comes to $27k per year stolen from a guy who makes $500K in addition to the $35% they already pay. That comes to over $200K in taxes. Wow!
there is a lot of mis-information in that post. the most blatant are the bogus tax computations. the medicare tax. A single person making $250,000 would pay an additional $450 a year into Medicare relative to what he pays today.

and a person making $500,000 doesn't even come close to paying 173k in income tax. no way, no how.
 

medicineman

New Member
Typical right wing lying bullshit. I don't get it why the dems don't call them out on these lies. It's time for the facts to roll out.
 

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
Americans will experience the truth of health-care reform and we won't forget the tricks, lies and misguided motivations of the political right when election time arrives. the Republicans are a party in demise by their own willful disregard of what is good for the country.
 

Dragline

Well-Known Member
Also want to point out anyone raising hell about the individuale mandate can thank REPUBLICANS for the idea! This will also be the nail in the coffin I think for Mitt Romney getting the GOP nomination for President as the Massachusetts plan he approved (and Scott Brown voted for) has an individuale mandate.
 

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
there is a lot of mis-information in that post. the most blatant are the bogus tax computations. the medicare tax. A single person making $250,000 would pay an additional $450 a year into Medicare relative to what he pays today.

and a person making $500,000 doesn't even come close to paying 173k in income tax. no way, no how.
So, you think the numbers I got from the Government and the IRS are wrong? Last I checked, 35% of $500,000 is $175K.

35% begins around $300K / year by the way. The bill would tax those making over $500K an additional 4.5% which comes to $20k per year.

This info might be old - I thought I had the most recent version. Where are you getting your numbers from?
 

abe23

Active Member
It starts at 375k or something like that. And most likely you're going to be moving stuff around and deducting taxes, so realistically you're only paying taxes at that rate unless you have a shitty accountant or make a considerable amount more than 375k, which is still ten times the average household income. Probably something like 2% of households pay the 35% rate. I don't really think it's unfair considering that those are the richest of the rich and that many have done well enough thanks to government bailouts, no-bid contract and other forms of corporate welfare to be pitching in a larger share than the middle class, which has been getting squeezed for a decade....
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
It starts at 375k or something like that. And most likely you're going to be moving stuff around and deducting taxes, so realistically you're only paying taxes at that rate unless you have a shitty accountant or make a considerable amount more than 375k, which is still ten times the average household income. Probably something like 2% of households pay the 35% rate. I don't really think it's unfair considering that those are the richest of the rich and that many have done well enough thanks to government bailouts, no-bid contract and other forms of corporate welfare to be pitching in a larger share than the middle class, which has been getting squeezed for a decade....
Abe, to boil down what you said, "it's okay to forcibly take from them because they have more than me".

That's wrong friend and a rationalization.
 

abe23

Active Member
Not quite....

More like: "Those who benefit the most from the system should pay more to preserve it"

Do you think a lot of people would be taking home 500k if they had to provide their own security and infrastructure. Not to mention currency, laws, capital markets and god knows what else. If you make more than half a million dollars, you're getting pretty good bang for your buck...
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Not quite....

More like: "Those who benefit the most from the system should pay more to preserve it"

Do you think a lot of people would be taking home 500k if they had to provide their own security and infrastructure. Not to mention currency, laws, capital markets and god knows what else. If you make more than half a million dollars, you're getting pretty good bang for your buck...

You assume chaos ensues when government shrinks. What happens is productivity is increased when government shrinks. Besides, who starts and forcibly funds wars? Governments. Who incarcerates people for victimless crimes? Governments. That isn't providing security, that is a jobs prgram for enforcing the welfare / warfare state.

Roads are built by private contractors, they would exist with or without an all encompassing government. Security is one thing...policing the world is quite another.

Do you have any idea what the cost of our empire is?

Those who benefit most should pay the most? That makes sense sort of...how about "those who produce the most should reap the benefits of their production"?
It's called incentive. To not produce and reap a benefit...is rewarding parasitic behavior and stifles incentive.

When my able bodied kids didn't pick up their room, was I wrong to withhold their allowance? Did they "deserve" it, simply because I had the money and could afford to give it to them? Well I can tell you, if they didn't perform their chores, they were not rewarded. They learned from that experience.

The value of Currency is DESTROYED by the government, not provided.

If you make more than 500K and you didn't make it through deceit, you have EVERY RIGHT to do what you wish with it.
 

iivan740

Well-Known Member
there is a lot of mis-information in that post. the most blatant are the bogus tax computations. the medicare tax. A single person making $250,000 would pay an additional $450 a year into Medicare relative to what he pays today.

and a person making $500,000 doesn't even come close to paying 173k in income tax. no way, no how.
I think you should check again. The tax rate for unearned (ex. interest, dividends, investments <1yr., rental property, daytrading, etc...) income over 373000.00 for 2010 is 35%. That puts the taxes on 500000 at 175000, and that is just federal taxes.

A lot of us make our money in the so called "unearned" bracket. :wall:

http://www.smbiz.com/sbrl001.html#pis10
 

iivan740

Well-Known Member
. I don't really think it's unfair considering that those are the richest of the rich and that many have done well enough thanks to government bailouts, no-bid contract and other forms of corporate welfare to be pitching in a larger share than the middle class, which has been getting squeezed for a decade....
Abe, what you are saying is not accurate. A lot of hard working smart Americans make money that is not tied to the goverment in any way. It is not right to take from the wealthy to subsidize the existence of others.

I have built my fortune almost entirely in the so called unearned income area. I have never been given goverment assistance. In fact i've been unfairly penalized by our goverment in the form of taxes and other fees. Is it right that my dedication and hard work are taken from me and given to someone else simple because I make more money?

I can tell you as a statement of fact that it is not uncommon for a person to pay over 28% in federal taxes. This is after every deduction avaliable. That means that I haven't even started earning money for myself yet this year. That's right I work for over three months a year for the federal goverment, and that doesn't include state, city, sales, and any other taxes levied against me.
 

iivan740

Well-Known Member
Check this out; a Married couple Filing Joint federal income taxes, that earns over 68000 is expected to pay a tax rate of 25%. That means that the married couple is expected to work for the federal goverment for 3 months this year.

I have a friend that is married he works at Lowes and his wife works at a local bank. Together they made just over 70000 in 2009. They paid over 20% in federal taxes last year after deductions. They pay just over 275 a week in taxes, that's over 14000 in taxes to the federal goverment. But hey since their employer took more than 14000 out of their check in 2009 they got a tax return of a couple thousand, so nice of the goverment to return the money that they over paid due to their inflated employee tax deductions. 72000 became less than 58000 for the two of them before they spent a dime of their hard earned money.
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
You assume chaos ensues when government shrinks. What happens is productivity is increased when government shrinks. Besides, who starts and forcibly funds wars? Governments. Who incarcerates people for victimless crimes? Governments. That isn't providing security, that is a jobs prgram for enforcing the welfare / warfare state.

Roads are built by private contractors, they would exist with or without an all encompassing government. Security is one thing...policing the world is quite another.

Do you have any idea what the cost of our empire is?

Those who benefit most should pay the most? That makes sense sort of...how about "those who produce the most should reap the benefits of their production"?
It's called incentive. To not produce and reap a benefit...is rewarding parasitic behavior and stifles incentive.

When my able bodied kids didn't pick up their room, was I wrong to withhold their allowance? Did they "deserve" it, simply because I had the money and could afford to give it to them? Well I can tell you, if they didn't perform their chores, they were not rewarded. They learned from that experience.

The value of Currency is DESTROYED by the government, not provided.

If you make more than 500K and you didn't make it through deceit, you have EVERY RIGHT to do what you wish with it.
This is a concept that most of our libbie friends here don't seem to understand. :dunce:
 
Top