Report: Obama administration knew millions wouldn't be able to keep insurance

tokeprep said:
Cigna: All time peak in July 2013.
Aetna: All time peak in September 2013.
UnitedHealth: All time peak in September 2013.
Humana: All time peak in September 2013.

By process of elimination, your wife's health insurance stock is Wellpoint, which hit an all time high in July of 2012. You're right that it was at the same level 5 years ago (not true of any of the other insurance companies I just listed, for the record), but you neglected to mention that it dropped to $30 and then tripled over the next 5 years. Obamacare's been a real bitch to Wellpoint, hasn't it?
Click to expand...

Yet you use these same positive figures to say that the stock market is not a reflection of how well the economy is doing. You would say the economy is doing terrible.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Something we learn by the time we are 10 years old.

[video=youtube;sCNrK-n68CM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCNrK-n68CM[/video]
 
beenthere said:
Millions of Americans are going to lose their current healthcare plan
Click to expand...

that happens every single year, you unadulterated douche.

insurance companies cancel plans and then offer you different ones during open enrollment every year.

are you retarded? do you not understand how reality works?

in the 20 years before the PPACA passed, insurers canceled tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of plans, replacing them with lesser coverage plans that cost more. premiums tripled in that time.

insurers cancel plans all the time and jack up the price. welcome to america and private, for-profit health insurance.
 
canndo said:
Oh, and the "worst ever president" bunk?


He has opposition that has blocked everything he has done, even things that they originaly proposed. He has opposition that has threatened to push our economy over the edge if he didn't do what ever insane thing they wanted but he is the worst president because he wouldn't give in?


It's like the old couple leaving the little cafe around the corner, the woman says "that was the worst meal I've ever eaten", and the man, agreeing says "yeah, and the portions were small"
Click to expand...

1. they still do..look at marco rubio et al; now with immigration..president wants to have something by the end of the year?
2. as i understand it..you never negotiate with those who hold you hostage..you are forcing an action on others which is direct contrast to voting and letting majority rule..
 
UncleBuck said:
no, retard, i said what i meant to say.

the increases have been in line with the growth in the economy, moron.

Health Care Costs Are Holding Relatively Steady -- For Now


http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/01/08/health-care-costs-are-holding-relatively-steady-for-now/

health care costs have composed the same percentage of our economy for three years in a row now. the same percentage.

are you dumb?

is this what a devryU certificate of completion gets you nowadays?
Click to expand...

You've been repeating the same claim in multiple threads, Buck: healthcare costs aren't increasing, insurance companies are just jacking premiums up. I didn't say it, you did, and it's not true.
 
see4 said:
Yet you use these same positive figures to say that the stock market is not a reflection of how well the economy is doing. You would say the economy is doing terrible.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Something we learn by the time we are 10 years old.
Click to expand...

You're confused. I never said the economy was terrible, I said a liberal using the stock market as a measure of economic health made no sense. Valuations in the stock market reflect actual and expected future corporate cash flows; if the market is at an all time high, all other things being equal, actual and expected cash flows should be higher than they ever have been. That's probably true right now. But you should be the first person to shout that corporate cash flows do not signal a thriving economy. Corporations have boosted their cash flows primarily by cutting expenses and by growing internationally, which means the valuations do not reflect robust domestic demand.

What's good for corporations is not good for everyone else, something liberals are otherwise very quick to point out. I would think you would be concerned about things like job growth, wage growth, how many Americans are living in poverty, how many Americans are receiving food stamps, etc. The fact that the top 10% are doing very well right now doesn't mean that the rest of the population is thriving.

I assure you if a Republican were president right now liberals would not be citing the fact that the stock market is at an all time high as evidence that the economy is doing well. Instead they would be pointing to some of the metrics I just listed and focusing on the fact that recent economic gains have accrued almost entirely to the top 10%.
 
UncleBuck said:
lol.

devryU is really failing its students.
Click to expand...

Chesus said they spent hundreds of millions. That implies more than $100 million, doesn't it Buck? Or does hundreds of millions mean $100 million to you? Since Chesus has posted exactly the same article in multiple threads making exactly the same claim about the level of spending, I'm not going to let him get away with inflating it to suggest that insurance companies spent more than they really did to supposedly defeat Obamacare.
 
Again, spouting talking points.

The POTUS is a liar, plain and simple. A complete and total liar. That is a fact. There is nothing you can produce to dispute that FACT.
 
Big corporations hide millions overseas in tax-havens... they've been doing it more and more over the years and paying less and less in taxes. Of course this is all "legal" because the corps. are able to influence politicians and change the tax code. All the mainstream politicians have a handful of big corporations behind them, funding their campaigns. People are so distant from politics or divided along party lines and have allowed this to happen. Government is still spending billions enforcing it's war on drugs at home and abroad; millions of people still locked up for petty drug crimes. How much of this would really be different if not for Obama being president?

Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act was modeled after "Romneycare": the health care reforms enacted in Massachusetts years ago. These people are more or less two sides of the same coin, but when it comes time to vote for them you go for the lesser of the perceived two evils. For instance, I just thought Romney was a total douche, still do. His wife seems like a pompous cunt, too.

I don't see any use in trying to attack the President just because of his position, or attacking other individuals based upon your perceived interpretation of their political perspectives. Individuals can have diverse or open opinions on all sorts of things. E.g. "Liberal", "Prog", wtf are those words even supposed to mean, specifically, and are they supposed to be insulting or something? How can somebody disagree with 'liberties'? You know, many people consider themselves fiscal conservatives and hold more "liberal" views on social issues.
 
Nullis said:
Big corporations hide millions overseas in tax-havens... they've been doing it more and more over the years and paying less and less in taxes. Of course this is all "legal" because the corps. are able to influence politicians and change the tax code.
Click to expand...

No, you just don't understand what you're talking about. The United States is the only industrialized country in the world that requires its citizens and corporations to pay tax on foreign-earned income. If Apple has a French subsidiary that sells products in France, it must pay the French corporate income tax on its profits in France. American law requires that Apple also pay tax to the United States on exactly the same profits, which means that if the tax rate in France is 30% and the tax rate in the United States is 30%, Apple must pay a 60% corporate tax rate on its profits. Do you see the problem?

To solve this problem, the law permits American companies to avoid paying American income tax on foreign earnings if they don't bring that money back to the United States. Consequently, American companies stash almost all of their international earnings overseas to avoid being taxed twice on exactly the same income.

American companies are paying less tax as a percentage of their sales or profits because they're earning more money in international markets and paying taxes in those markets, not because they're hiding it anywhere. The IRS knows exactly where the money is.
 
tokeprep said:
No, you just don't understand what you're talking about. The United States is the only industrialized country in the world that requires its citizens and corporations to pay tax on foreign-earned income.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt that.

tokeprep said:
If Apple has a French subsidiary that sells products in France, it must pay the French corporate income tax on its profits in France. American law requires that Apple also pay tax to the United States on exactly the same profits, which means that if the tax rate in France is 30% and the tax rate in the United States is 30%, Apple must pay a 60% corporate tax rate on its profits. Do you see the problem?

To solve this problem, the law permits American companies to avoid paying American income tax on foreign earnings if they don't bring that money back to the United States. Consequently, American companies stash almost all of their international earnings overseas to avoid being taxed twice on exactly the same income.
Click to expand...
How is that not hiding, obscuring it?
Oh are you giving me a hypothetical here? Actually Apple had an Irish subsidiary, because Ireland was a considered a tax haven up until recently, apparently. It was called out for moving income to Ireland to avoid paying taxes on it... not all foreign earnings, do you honestly believe that? America's largest pharmaceutical corps do this, GE, Ford, Microsoft, DuPont and many many more. They have become very good at this and have expert help. So if they [corporations] can shift their income, including their domestic income over to tax havens and then not pay any federal taxes on it... how is the government supposed to function as it has been?

Yup, they know where it is all right. It's bullshit. Then these companies say they want to "bring the money back" to the US but oh they don't want to pay the taxes on it, so they moan incessantly until they get special treatment and ultimately pay a significantly lower rate. As for the double taxation conundrum you brought up... this is the reason for bilateral tax agreements. If a corporation has headquarters in the U.S and utilizes the American work-force, infrastructure, consumer-base, etc. it should pay an appropriate tax rate.
 



  • The POTUS is a liar, plain and simple. A complete and total liar. That is a fact. There is nothing you can produce to dispute that FACT.​


    ​

 
Nullis said:
I seriously doubt that.
Click to expand...

When British or French companies earn money in the United States, they pay income tax in the United States on that income and none in their mother countries. Look it up. We are the backward country that insists on taxing foreign income.

How is that not hiding, obscuring it?
Click to expand...

If everyone knows what's going on it's not hidden or obscured.

Oh are you giving me a hypothetical here? Actually Apple had an Irish subsidiary, because Ireland was a considered a tax haven up until recently, apparently. It was called out for moving income to Ireland to avoid paying taxes on it... not all foreign earnings, do you honestly believe that? America's largest pharmaceutical corps do this, GE, Ford, Microsoft, DuPont and many many more. They have become very good at this and have expert help. So if they [corporations] can shift their income, including their domestic income over to tax havens and then not pay any federal taxes on it... how is the government supposed to function as it has been?
Click to expand...

Yes, it was hypothetical. Apple routes most of its international earnings to Ireland, where it holds the cash. That's money from the sale of products in foreign countries, not domestic income.

You're talking about the use of intellectual property to avoid paying domestic taxes. Apple assigns some patents to its Irish subsidiary and pays a royalty to that subsidiary on products sold in the United States, and that added expenses cuts money off the tax bill (this is not exactly technically correct but we need not detail the exact process). This is only possible when you have intellectual property, and you can't eliminate your entire tax bill with the strategy. Apple paid about $8 billion in federal income taxes last year; Microsoft paid about $3 billion. The taxes avoided using intellectual property licensing strategies are not nearly as significant as tax avoided by retaining foreign-earned income in foreign subsidiaries.

Is the licensing strategy wrong? Well, if the goal is to apportion R&D costs based on where your sales come from, perhaps not. There's no simple answer.

Yup, they know where it is all right. It's bullshit. Then these companies say they want to "bring the money back" to the US but oh they don't want to pay the taxes on it, so they moan incessantly until they get special treatment and ultimately pay a significantly lower rate. As for the double taxation conundrum you brought up... this is the reason for bilateral tax agreements. If a corporation has headquarters in the U.S and utilizes the American work-force, infrastructure, consumer-base, etc. it should pay an appropriate tax rate.
Click to expand...

Again, most of the money at issue isn't related to intellectual property licensing, it's straight up foreign-earned income. And on that front, why have hundreds of bilateral tax treaties when the American government could simply stop insisting that it's entitled to tax money earned in foreign countries? Then the corporations could just bring the money back and spend it in the United States.
 
Nullis said:
I seriously doubt that.


How is that not hiding, obscuring it?
Oh are you giving me a hypothetical here? Actually Apple had an Irish subsidiary, because Ireland was a considered a tax haven up until recently, apparently. It was called out for moving income to Ireland to avoid paying taxes on it... not all foreign earnings, do you honestly believe that? America's largest pharmaceutical corps do this, GE, Ford, Microsoft, DuPont and many many more. They have become very good at this and have expert help. So if they [corporations] can shift their income, including their domestic income over to tax havens and then not pay any federal taxes on it... how is the government supposed to function as it has been?

Yup, they know where it is all right. It's bullshit. Then these companies say they want to "bring the money back" to the US but oh they don't want to pay the taxes on it, so they moan incessantly until they get special treatment and ultimately pay a significantly lower rate. As for the double taxation conundrum you brought up... this is the reason for bilateral tax agreements. If a corporation has headquarters in the U.S and utilizes the American work-force, infrastructure, consumer-base, etc. it should pay an appropriate tax rate.
Click to expand...

That is how the US Tax system works, he is telling you the truth. Companies doing business overseas can hold the money there and not have to pay US income tax on it, but getting it back into the US means they will be taxed again. Which in turn leads to TRIPLE taxation once the employees get paid.
 
see4 said:
Yet you use these same positive figures to say that the stock market is not a reflection of how well the economy is doing. You would say the economy is doing terrible.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Something we learn by the time we are 10 years old.

[video=youtube;sCNrK-n68CM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCNrK-n68CM[/video]
Click to expand...

this mornings "coffee spit on my screen" award goes to see4:twisted::clap:*****
 
canndo said:
Let me see if I have this right.

A president orchestrates a lie that gets thousands of Americans killed, tens of thousands of them unconcionably wounded and hundreds of thousands of innocent others killed as well, he lies to the American people and costs the country well over a Trillion dollars that we can ill afford but not a peep from the right.

Another president tries to include as many people as possible in a pool that takes care of its own, that offers generaly affordable health insurance, and a minimum of care for the least of us and you folks again go screaming into the night over how horrible this fellow is, even though most of you know full well that you all have been lying about every portion of the president's plan while putting NOTHING at all forward as a superior or even equal substitute.

I honestly don't know how you people manage to sleep at night.

I read a letter from some woman - a lawyer, who is ranting on about how they have taken her 98 dollar a month policy away and is forcing her to purchase another one that cost $290 for herself and her husband. She is pissed because she isn't getting any government subsidy because they bring home $90,000 a year.

so here is the scenario. She gets colon cancer, her 98 dollar policy gives her pretty much nothing at all but a promise of "lowest negotiated rate", which she could have done herself. Her family files BK. The tax payers and other rate payers are on the hook for the half a million dollars she didn't pay and she is OUTRAGED. All the while she is paying that much to lease her Mercedes, half that much for her entertainment package, and the other half for that unlimited data plan for her phone and her monthly manipeti.

All this because of whiners "they can't MAKE us buy. . . . " I'll wager this same woman pays the minimum necessary for her car insurance and whines when she has to pay her $2000 deductable.
Click to expand...

So we agree that Bush shouldn't have used violence against innocent people to achieve his goals (if that douchebag had any). Why are you okay with Obama using government threats to achieve his goals?
 
Best quote I've heard so far.

It's like living in living in death valley and having my car taken away, but forcing me to buy another that costs more but I'm told it's better because it has heated seats and snow tires.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top