new taxes under the new h/care bill

[Butthead]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ake7tOWwUT6E

:crying:

[DecepticonDon]

We need to go "Fight Club" on the IRS building

[allen]

Yep, if you make over $200k a year, it'll probably cost you more. However for an old self employed person with pre existing conditions (like me) the rate would be lower than now.

Talking to an MD buddy of mine who is cheif of a local truma unit,,,,,He says they recover 30% of billed services. I say how do you stay solvent with a 30% recovery rate? Govt. subsudies cover the rest. Our tax dollars.

I'm bull'ish on mandating all americans to have insurance.

This bill, is a sour pill to swollow. But it beats the alternate of continueing escalation of healthcare prices.

Let the flaming begin!

[wbeck257]

Yep, if you make over $200k a year, it'll probably cost you more. However for an old self employed person with pre existing conditions (like me) the rate would be lower than now.

Talking to an MD buddy of mine who is cheif of a local truma unit,,,,,He says they recover 30% of billed services. I say how do you stay solvent with a 30% recovery rate? Govt. subsudies cover the rest. Our tax dollars.

I'm bull'ish on mandating all americans to have insurance.

This bill, is a sour pill to swollow. But it beats the alternate of continueing escalation of healthcare prices.

Let the flaming begin!

Your a commie -- and you are going to hell.
Thanks for ruining my country.

Oh, baby killer too!


(Is that what your looking for?)

[Back Marker]

sux to be rich...

-a|ex

[MrBlah]

I think it's gonna suck for low wage workers

if I had to give people that take the trash out health care, I would simply tell all my employee's to learn how to do it and clean the carpet etc etc, and fire the part time workers the cost of hiring low wage & part time workers just went way way up

[impalanar]

the cost of hiring low wage & part time workers just went way way up

This.

[Snafu484]

Soooo... what does this mean for those of us who have medical coverage provided by our employer (I pay like 20cents a week) ?

P.S. I hate politics.. >.>

[Trey]

Like I said when BO took office.. "Welcome to the American way: Strive for mediocrity, cuz if you're rich, you won't be for long.."

[patracy]

Soooo... what does this mean for those of us who have medical coverage provided by our employer (I pay like 20cents a week) ?

P.S. I hate politics.. >.>

The law states your bennies will now be listed on your W2 as well.

[Snafu484]

The law states your bennies will now be listed on your W2 as well.

I'll just smile and pretend I understand... i'm ignorant when it comes to these types of things lol :D

[Hughduffel]

Talking to an MD buddy of mine who is cheif of a local truma unit,,,,,He says they recover 30% of billed services. I say how do you stay solvent with a 30% recovery rate? Govt. subsudies cover the rest. Our tax dollars.

Yeah that, or they just charge more for their services to everyone else. Hmm I wonder who the 70% of people who don't pay their medical bills could be....

[02ep3]

The law states your bennies will now be listed on your W2 as well.

Huh? Do you mean to say that they'll be taxable? That's not true. Let's take a look at what the bill really means from a tax standpoint:

2011 - Drug makers must pay an annual fee $2.5B

2013 - medicare taxes on those making 200K/year (individual) and 250K/year joint. Rate rises to 2.35% from 1.45%. New 3.8% tax on unearned income.
2013 - 2.9% excise tax on sale of medical devices

2014 - employers with more than 50 employees must provide affordable coverage or pay a fine up to 3K/employee excluding the first 30 employees.
2014 -insurance industry must pay an annual fee of $8B

2016 - Penalty for those who don't carry coverage 2.5% or $695 whichever is greater. (this is where things might start to hit the average joe most directly)

2018 - excise tax of 40% on those cadillac plans we've heard about.


So, unless you make more than 200K a year or fail to buy coverage after 2016, the healthcare bill won't cause you any increased costs directly. You could argue that the fees placed on industry will be passed along to the end customer. But at the same time, 30+ million more people will be participating in the system to bear those increased costs. The increased volume of users spreads out risk and allows providers to deliver more volume of product at a lower price. The hope is that there is a net gain in price driven by the increase in volume.

Write up in the WSJ. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704117304575137370275522704.html?K EYWORDS=whats+in+the+bill)

[patracy]

Huh? Do you mean to say that they'll be taxable? That's not true. Let's take a look at what the bill really means from a tax standpoint:

2011 - Drug makers must pay an annual fee $2.5B

2013 - medicare taxes on those making 200K/year (individual) and 250K/year joint. Rate rises to 2.35% from 1.45%. New 3.8% tax on unearned income.
2013 - 2.9% excise tax on sale of medical devices

2014 - employers with more than 50 employees must provide affordable coverage or pay a fine up to 3K/employee excluding the first 30 employees.
2014 -insurance industry must pay an annual fee of $8B

2016 - Penalty for those who don't carry coverage 2.5% or $695 whichever is greater. (this is where things might start to hit the average joe most directly)

2018 - excise tax of 40% on those cadillac plans we've heard about.


So, unless you make more than 200K a year or fail to buy coverage after 2016, the healthcare bill won't cause you any increased costs directly. You could argue that the fees placed on industry will be passed along to the end customer. But at the same time, 30+ million more people will be participating in the system to bear those increased costs. The increased volume of users spreads out risk and allows providers to deliver more volume of product at a lower price. The hope is that there is a net gain in price driven by the increase in volume.

Write up in the WSJ. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704117304575137370275522704.html?K EYWORDS=whats+in+the+bill)


* Employers are required to disclose the value of health benefits on employees' W-2 IRS forms.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7495825/US-health-care-reform-bill-the-facts.html
http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/courier_times/courier_times_news_details/article/2463/2010/march/22/the-health-care-overhaul-timeline.html

[Butthead]

you are pretty quick to jump on the barry plan -- you should actually read what was posted.\

and so in your opinion, it is OK to mandate those who make over $200K to pay for the 30 million who refuse to do so?


Huh? Do you mean to say that they'll be taxable? That's not true. Let's take a look at what the bill really means from a tax standpoint:

2011 - Drug makers must pay an annual fee $2.5B

2013 - medicare taxes on those making 200K/year (individual) and 250K/year joint. Rate rises to 2.35% from 1.45%. New 3.8% tax on unearned income.
2013 - 2.9% excise tax on sale of medical devices

2014 - employers with more than 50 employees must provide affordable coverage or pay a fine up to 3K/employee excluding the first 30 employees.
2014 -insurance industry must pay an annual fee of $8B

2016 - Penalty for those who don't carry coverage 2.5% or $695 whichever is greater. (this is where things might start to hit the average joe most directly)

2018 - excise tax of 40% on those cadillac plans we've heard about.


So, unless you make more than 200K a year or fail to buy coverage after 2016, the healthcare bill won't cause you any increased costs directly. You could argue that the fees placed on industry will be passed along to the end customer. But at the same time, 30+ million more people will be participating in the system to bear those increased costs. The increased volume of users spreads out risk and allows providers to deliver more volume of product at a lower price. The hope is that there is a net gain in price driven by the increase in volume.

Write up in the WSJ. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704117304575137370275522704.html?K EYWORDS=whats+in+the+bill)

[wallypiper]

That doesn't mean they're taxable though. It just means the government wants documentation of how much businesses are paying for heath insurance on each worker. A staunch libertarian would certainly say this is none of the government's business, but they might also say that your wage is none of the government's business. I tend to agree with them but then I'm a fair tax proponent. One of the benefits of the fair tax is that is disconnects payer from government. Under fair tax, the government no longer knows how much money you make or how much tax you pay. That's a good thing.


2016 - Penalty for those who don't carry coverage 2.5% or $695 whichever is greater.
Are there really that many people out there with taxable income that don't have health insurance? How are they going to collect this "penalty" from people that don't owe any tax in the first place? Are IRS agents going to come to your house and seize assets or take money from the rent jar on the counter?

[MrBlah]

2014 - employers with more than 50 employees must provide affordable coverage or pay a fine up to 3K/employee excluding the first 30 employees.

this is not really true, they also tag in a line that requires employers with 401k's that dont provide insurance will now have to or pay a fine, this catches LOTS of small companies under 50 employees

[Spicoli]

Krauthammer predicts that Obama and Co. will be pitching a VAT tax because the simple math tells any idiot that we cannot possibly pay for this...

[Lazarus]

Subscribing because I dont know wth is going on.

[Butthead]

had not thought of that, but would not shock me. the whole world is in a recession. what these f'n morons should be doing is
drastically cutting business taxes to draw business to the USA and not away from here.


Krauthammer predicts that Obama and Co. will be pitching a VAT tax because the simple math tells any idiot that we cannot possibly pay for this...

[patracy]

this is not really true, they also tag in a line that requires employers with 401k's that dont provide insurance will now have to or pay a fine, this catches LOTS of small companies under 50 employees

You still want me to send you these announcements?

[MrBlah]

You still want me to send you these announcements?

I already answered you, twice, but here's a 3rd just in case you missed the first two

when they quit coming in to work, because they no longer want to earn money, then please update the thread

announcement dont mean crap, I've seen way too many over the years that never actually do it, because they like earning money

[patracy]

I already answered you, twice, but here's a 3rd just in case you missed the first two

when they quit coming in to work, because they no longer want to earn money, then please update the thread

announcement dont mean crap, I've seen way too many over the years that never actually do it, because they like earning money

Sorry I don't keep tabs on the forums like I used to. Answered you in the other thread. I've made a reminder on my calendar to bump this thread back up with the first result then.

[02ep3]

you are pretty quick to jump on the barry plan -- you should actually read what was posted.\

and so in your opinion, it is OK to mandate those who make over $200K to pay for the 30 million who refuse to do so?

I read what was posted and was confused. Your healthcare benefits will not be taxed, which is true. Patracy posted some articles which do state that healthcare benefits will be listed on W2's, I did not know that. But what is the big deal if they won't be taxed? I won't suggest that you speculate that they will someday be taxed, because i'm certain you've already done that in the wee hours of the morning while you toss and turn agonizing about W2 disclosures.

Yes, it sucks that some need to be taxed in order to pay for the subsidies for those who cannot afford health insurance. But, it means that 30M people won't be without health insurance. You'll probably disagree, but a more stable, effective health care system will be better, in the long run, for productivity and the country. Even if it just means that we can reduce the number of healthcare related bankruptcies and home foreclosures. But, there are other benefits as well.

[MrBlah]

many of these that "cant afford health care" can afford it and choose to not buy it

all they are doing is forcing those people to buy it, and expanding medicaid to some more poor people, those people still have to pay too, but get subsidies to help

a whole bunch of people are gonna be surprised when they find out it's really not free

[Dan43]

Yes, it sucks that some need to be taxed in order to pay for the subsidies for those who cannot afford health insurance. But, it means that 30M people won't be without health insurance. You'll probably disagree, but a more stable, effective health care system will be better, in the long run, for productivity and the country. Even if it just means that we can reduce the number of healthcare related bankruptcies and home foreclosures. But, there are other benefits as well.I agree that something needed to be done about health care in the US. I agree that a more stable, effective system would be better for the country.

I do not agree that what the politicians just voted on will result in a more stable, effective system. I believe that what was just signed will result in a worse situation than we currently face.

[02ep3]

I agree that something needed to be done about health care in the US. I agree that a more stable, effective system would be better for the country.

I do not agree that what the politicians just voted on will result in a more stable, effective system. I believe that what was just signed will result in a worse situation than we currently face.

It aint perfect. I hope the'll keep working on it for years to come, refining and making it better.

[Hammerhead]

I hope the'll keep working on it for years to come, refining and making it better.

SRSLY? It's a government program.....you think it's gonna get refined & more efficient (better)? Ask a veteran how refined government run VA hospitals are.

P.S. The US Postal Service (government run) may stop Sat. delivery to cut costs.

[jkhonea]

It aint perfect. I hope the'll keep working on it for years to come, refining and making it better.

I must have missed the last government program that they accomplished this. But hey, I guess there's always a first. Course, I won't be holding my breath on that one.

[MX Tuner]

The ones who will "refine" their procedure are the ones who will find a way to abuse the system, just like welfare.

[MX Tuner]

Are there really that many people out there with taxable income that don't have health insurance?

I think you'd be very surprised how many people fit into that category, especially with businesses cutting back on benefits and how much (and IF) they contribute to an employees (and their families) health plans.

[impalanar]

I think you'd be very surprised how many people fit into that category, especially with businesses cutting back on benefits and how much (and IF) they contribute to an employees (and their families) health plans.

Actually you would be surprised at how many of them don't get health insurance because they think they are too young or invincible or whatever other reason they can think of.

[Spicoli]

It aint perfect. I hope the'll keep working on it for years to come, refining and making it better.

Dude how old are you? Please tell me one thing the government does that's gotten better?

USPS? broke
Medicade/Medicare? broke
SS? broke
TSA? A joke

The list can go on forever.

[Hughduffel]

Yes, it sucks that some need to be taxed in order to pay for the subsidies for those who cannot afford health insurance. But, it means that 30M people won't be without health insurance. You'll probably disagree, but a more stable, effective health care system will be better, in the long run, for productivity and the country. Even if it just means that we can reduce the number of healthcare related bankruptcies and home foreclosures. But, there are other benefits as well.

EDIT: (oh oops, I wrote it on a DIFFERENT forum, oh well) Who are these 30 million people who can't AFFORD healthcare? Can't afford is when after a place to live and food to eat, you have no money left. The government has no right to provide people with a higher standard of living with other people's money.

[wallypiper]

The government has been doing that for 50 years. It's a matter of degree. Public schools. Food stamps. Social Security. Hope scholarships. Medicaid. And now health insurance reform. I don't doubt that there are 30 million people who can't afford health insurance. The most recent info I can find is for 2008. According to the national poverty center at the University of Michigan, 13.2% of the population lived below the poverty line in 2008. The poverty line depends on age and situation but the highest threshold was $25,694 in 2007 for a family of two adults and three children. If you don't think that is poverty, I don't know how to argue it. 13.2% is almost 40 million people and it's a pretty good bet that most of those people do not have private health insurance.

I don't support most of this legislation but I do believe that true facts are necessary in the debate about what we should do with health care in the US. Costs ARE out of control. We get a benefit from the high cost in the form of the most advanced care available in the world. The question is do we want that? And if want it, then to what extent are we willing to continue it and pay for it. One of the big problems facing this country is loss of real economic output. Health care makes up about 16% of GDP and that is projected to roughly double over the next 25 years due mostly to the baby boomer (that's me) bulge hitting the health care system en masse. The economy cannot absorb that. Most of the people getting the health care will not be working. So those that are working will be asked to fork over 25-30% of their income to pay for it. I don't think they'll do it so, while we boomers still have some control over things, we need to work out a plan to address that.

By the way, I heard a really interesting comment on the bill this morning. The gist of it was that the dreaded public option which has, at least according to lots of politicians and talking heads, been dropped from the plan is actually very much there. They have turned the health insurance industry into a public utility with rates, rules and products controlled by the government but administered by private industry. Actually, in the long run, that may be a viable solution. It's worked pretty well for other public utility functions. Not perfectly, but overall our public utilities are way better than any I've seen anywhere else in the world - water, power, sewage, transportation - all can provide models for how we might handle health care.

[wallypiper]

The government has been doing that for 50 years. It's a matter of degree. Public schools. Food stamps. Social Security. Hope scholarships. Medicaid. And now health insurance reform. I don't doubt that there are 30 million people who can't afford health insurance. The most recent info I can find is for 2008. According to the national poverty center at the University of Michigan, 13.2% of the population lived below the poverty line in 2008. The poverty line depends on age and situation but the highest threshold was $25,694 in 2007 for a family of two adults and three children. If you don't think that is poverty, I don't know how to argue it. 13.2% is almost 40 million people and it's a pretty good bet that most of those people do not have private health insurance.

I don't support most of this legislation but I do believe that true facts are necessary in the debate about what we should do with health care in the US. Costs ARE out of control. We get a benefit from the high cost in the form of the most advanced care available in the world. The question is do we want that? And if want it, then to what extent are we willing to continue it and pay for it. One of the big problems facing this country is loss of real economic output. Health care makes up about 16% of GDP and that is projected to roughly double over the next 25 years due mostly to the baby boomer (that's me) bulge hitting the health care system en masse. The economy cannot absorb that. Most of the people getting the health care will not be working. So those that are working will be asked to fork over 25-30% of their income to pay for it. I don't think they'll do it so, while we boomers still have some control over things, we need to work out a plan to address that.

By the way, I heard a really interesting comment on the bill this morning. The gist of it was that the dreaded public option which has, at least according to lots of politicians and talking heads, been dropped from the plan is actually very much there. They have turned the health insurance industry into a public utility with rates, rules and products controlled by the government but administered by private industry. Actually, in the long run, that may be a viable solution. It's worked pretty well for other public utility functions. Not perfectly, but overall our public utilities are way better than any I've seen anywhere else in the world - water, power, sewage, transportation - all can provide models for how we might handle health care.

[Hughduffel]

The government has been doing that for 50 years. It's a matter of degree. Public schools. Food stamps. Social Security. Hope scholarships. Medicaid. And now health insurance reform. I don't doubt that there are 30 million people who can't afford health insurance. The most recent info I can find is for 2008. According to the national poverty center at the University of Michigan, 13.2% of the population lived below the poverty line in 2008. The poverty line depends on age and situation but the highest threshold was $25,694 in 2007 for a family of two adults and three children. If you don't think that is poverty, I don't know how to argue it. 13.2% is almost 40 million people and it's a pretty good bet that most of those people do not have private health insurance.

I don't support most of this legislation but I do believe that true facts are necessary in the debate about what we should do with health care in the US. Costs ARE out of control. We get a benefit from the high cost in the form of the most advanced care available in the world. The question is do we want that? And if want it, then to what extent are we willing to continue it and pay for it. One of the big problems facing this country is loss of real economic output. Health care makes up about 16% of GDP and that is projected to roughly double over the next 25 years due mostly to the baby boomer (that's me) bulge hitting the health care system en masse. The economy cannot absorb that. Most of the people getting the health care will not be working. So those that are working will be asked to fork over 25-30% of their income to pay for it. I don't think they'll do it so, while we boomers still have some control over things, we need to work out a plan to address that.

By the way, I heard a really interesting comment on the bill this morning. The gist of it was that the dreaded public option which has, at least according to lots of politicians and talking heads, been dropped from the plan is actually very much there. They have turned the health insurance industry into a public utility with rates, rules and products controlled by the government but administered by private industry. Actually, in the long run, that may be a viable solution. It's worked pretty well for other public utility functions. Not perfectly, but overall our public utilities are way better than any I've seen anywhere else in the world - water, power, sewage, transportation - all can provide models for how we might handle health care.

Again, its hard to keep costs low when the entire population of illegal immigrants use the ER as a clinic. Ask a physician on an ER rotation, or ask a few people who have been there. 70% of the ER's bills go unpaid. I'll tell you something else. Putting more people into the insurance pool won't make HEALTHCARE cheaper. Insurance is already only a 4% profit margin industry. The only way you can make healthcare cheaper is by paying people less, reducing the quality or quantity of services, or making sure that they are able to collect ALL debts.

By the way, while your harping on our excellent utilities you should read about how GA Power (who has a state sponsored monopoly) used the georgia congress to override the authority which is supposed to regulate it (Public service commission). Next year the cost of the nuclear plant will be collected on all georgians' power bills, until 2016 whether you're in the state or not.

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2009/02/09/daily72.html

[Dan43]

Next year the cost of the nuclear plant will be collected on all georgians' power bills, until 2016 whether you're in the state or not.

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2009/02/09/daily72.htmlNot tryin to be a smartass, but how can GA Power collect anything off your power bill is you are not in the state?

[wallypiper]

70% of the ER's bills go unpaid. So I've heard.
I'll tell you something else. Putting more people into the insurance pool won't make HEALTHCARE cheaper. I agree with that, too.
Insurance is already only a 4% profit margin industry. The only way you can make healthcare cheaper is by paying people less, reducing the quality or quantity of services, or making sure that they are able to collect ALL debts. I more or less agree with that also. Nevertheless, we have to do something because the day is fast approaching when we will be spending 30% of our collective national income on health care and I don't think that will work. It's all well and good to rant about you can't do this and you can't do that but we have to do something. Got any ideas? Do you just plan to watch people that can't pay for care or insurance, and that will be an ever growing part of the population, sit down and die? I don't consider that an acceptable alternative in a modern society that clearly has the means to prevent it.


By the way, while your harping on our excellent utilities you should read about how GA Power (who has a state sponsored monopoly) used the georgia congress to override the authority which is supposed to regulate it (Public service commission). Next year the cost of the nuclear plant will be collected on all georgians' power bills, until 2016 whether you're in the state or not.

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2009/02/09/daily72.html

Actually, I support the expansion of nuclear power production in GA and it makes sense to me that the users of power will have to pay for it. That bill is not law yet, by the way. It passed the state Senate but still has to pass the house and be signed by the governor. And also, what Dan said. What do you mean in the state or not? If I'm not in the state and don't get my power from GA power, how are they going to get any money from me?

[TurboTech]

The real root problem in all of this isn't the insurance companies it's that the providers (hospitals) have to treat everyone regardless if they can pay or not....The hospitals are overcharging the insurance companies to make up for the losses they incur on unpaid bills....Just like if Wally World lost 10mil in shoplifting, their gonna raise the prices on everything the honest people buy to recover the losses...

My wife just had our second child... We stayed at the hospital for 3 nights, natural delivery with epidural and the bill was 11k...We paid 500 in deductible and 20%....Our day nurse told us that out of her 5 moms only us, and one other was a "paying" customer....

Now the way I look at it there's only two ways out of this problem.....Turn people away for care, tear up the Hippocratic oath and let people die like dogs in the street...Or find a way to cover these people so that the provider gets paid and we (the insured) get lower costs because the hospitals and docs aren't loosing so much, and are getting something from everyone who comes in the door...This will (hopefully) pave the way for lower insurance rates to us in the long run due the fact that the providers will no longer have to overcharge the insurance company's for the losses from the uninsured....

We're paying for these people already...And it's getting us all higher insurance rates because of it....Some of you guys have very generous employers who pay a huge part of your insurance rate....Many of us don't, mine pays very, very little of it and we're a largish company...We're all subject to the same rates, just a matter of who's getting theirs "subsidized".

Question though, what motivates employers to pay large chunks for their employees? Just a benefit, and a feel good thing, or is there large tax benefit to paying for it? If it's the later, why don't more employers pay to get a larger tax break on their whole gross...If it works that way.

[Butthead]

most employers pay benefits to retain good employees. getting a tax break only means your overall costs for healthcare are decreased. it
is still signiciant expense off your bottom line.



Question though, what motivates employers to pay large chunks for their employees? Just a benefit, and a feel good thing, or is there large tax benefit to paying for it? If it's the later, why don't more employers pay to get a larger tax break on their whole gross...If it works that way.

[02ep3]

When i say "refine" it's all a matter of opinon and perspective. You all may think refine as making it smaller, that's fine. I'm sure there is plenty of stuff in there that won't work. I also hope they find the parts that do work and put more effort into those. All i was saying is that I don't believe that it's perfect as is, it's just a step in the right direction.

As far as other goverment institutions, sure i agree that plenty are F-d up. Those that don't work need to be cut, those that do need to be supported. I think where we differ is that many of you believe the goverment institutions, by definition, are bad. I choose to see the world with greater resolution and would like to evaluate the merits and weaknesses of each institution as they are.

[02ep3]

In response to TurboTech, I believe there has been some motiviation for employeers to offer a large chunk of employees total benefits as health insurance as that portion of the compensation package was not taxable to the employees. If you get a raise, that's going to be taxed. If you get a sweeter Healthcare plan, that isn't going to increase the employees taxable income.

..I'm not sure if healthcare is included in the base on which FICA or SS taxes are calculated. There may be some motivation there.

[Dan43]

As far as other goverment institutions, sure i agree that plenty are F-d up. Those that don't work need to be cut, those that do need to be supported. I think where we differ is that many of you believe the goverment institutions, by definition, are bad. I choose to see the world with greater resolution and would like to evaluate the merits and weaknesses of each institution as they are.Give us an example of a good, efficent, effective, well run civilian government institution please.

[Butthead]

< in my best Bush 41 voice > ain't gonna happen. not gonna do it.


Give us an example of a good, efficent, effective, well run civilian government institution please.

[impalanar]

< in my best Bush 41 voice > ain't gonna happen. not gonna do it.

Bush 41 didn't say "Can't do it" which is really what would apply.

[wallypiper]

..I'm not sure if healthcare is included in the base on which FICA or SS taxes are calculated. There may be some motivation there.

We are an S-corporation and our health care benefits are NOT included in W2 income. I believe they are a tax deductible expense for the corporation but in an S-Corp, all income and expenses flow through directly to the shareholders. IOW, any taxable income the corporation would have as a regular C-corp is distributed to the shareholders in proportion to the amount of the company each owns, for tax purposes at least. Not always in reality. Sometimes the money is kept in the corporation and in that case it increases your basis which matters if you ever sell your share of the company. But it's still taxable, even if you don't get a cash distribution. So, on the one hand it's tax deductible and therefore reduces the taxes we have to pay on our share of the profit. On the other hand, it comes out of our pocket. Do people with individual policies get to deduct health insurance premiums? If not, they are getting screwed.

[Hughduffel]

Not tryin to be a smartass, but how can GA Power collect anything off your power bill is you are not in the state?

My point being, if you decide to move in 2015 you've paid on a utility bill for a power plant you may never use. Do you pay your power bill in advance? I don't.

[Hughduffel]

So I've heard. I agree with that, too. I more or less agree with that also. Nevertheless, we have to do something because the day is fast approaching when we will be spending 30% of our collective national income on health care and I don't think that will work. It's all well and good to rant about you can't do this and you can't do that but we have to do something. Got any ideas? Do you just plan to watch people that can't pay for care or insurance, and that will be an ever growing part of the population, sit down and die? I don't consider that an acceptable alternative in a modern society that clearly has the means to prevent it.

Actually, I support the expansion of nuclear power production in GA and it makes sense to me that the users of power will have to pay for it. That bill is not law yet, by the way. It passed the state Senate but still has to pass the house and be signed by the governor. And also, what Dan said. What do you mean in the state or not? If I'm not in the state and don't get my power from GA power, how are they going to get any money from me?

I support the expansion of nuclear energy but they should finance it themselves. The only reason they're getting this deal is politics, if they didn't have a monopoly it wouldn't have happened that way.

My solution to the healthcare problem? The short version? Get rid of welfare, institute fair tax, the illegals will go away. Inistitute tort reform, allow undercover patients to police hospitals for running up the bill. There's plenty more things that weren't even CONSIDERED for this ridiculous tax bill.

[02ep3]

Give us an example of a good, efficent, effective, well run civilian government institution please.

Sure that's tough. Because ANY institution can be more efficient tomorrow that it is today. That goes for private industray and Gov't alike. That's the point. You misunderstand me. Gov't does need to be held accountable! A gov't employee should have the same healthy fear of being fired than a employee in industry.

Though, i find how you qualified your question interesting. You said "civilian" gov't institution which i take you to mean, exclude military institutions. Do you mean to say that any or every branch of the military could not be more effective and efficient with their taxpayer funding. Or do lazer beams shooting down nuclear misssles (or not shooting them down) seem like an efficient use of billions of dollars? THey too need to fear the red-pen on the budget.

[impalanar]

Sure that's tough. Because ANY institution can be more efficient tomorrow that it is today. That goes for private industray and Gov't alike. That's the point. You misunderstand me. Gov't does need to be held accountable! A gov't employee should have the same healthy fear of being fired than a employee in industry.

Though, i find how you qualified your question interesting. You said "civilian" gov't institution which i take you to mean, exclude military institutions. Do you mean to say that any or every branch of the military could not be more effective and efficient with their taxpayer funding. Or do lazer beams shooting down nuclear misssles (or not shooting them down) seem like an efficient use of billions of dollars? THey too need to fear the red-pen on the budget.

I find your dodge of the question interesting.

[Butthead]

his argument is full of poo.

as far as his point on the military -- sure they could/should be more efficient. but at least the constitution
grants that power to the fed. :)


I find your dodge of the question interesting.

[02ep3]

The question cannot be answered in the way you believe it should be, a list of institutions. Because ANY institution can be considered less-than-effective than it should be. How do you measure it anyway? What metrics would you apply? I'm certain your means of measuring it would be different than my own. Asking me that question is like asking me to pick stocks and tell you which company does not require improvement.

USPS, sure. that needs to be right sized for today's needs. But can you just get rid of it? No.
Medicare/medicaid. Tons of fraud in the system and inefficiencies. Can you cut it? Even republicans say no.
Every branch of the military. Plenty of waste in procurement and programs which are not necessary. Is there necessary spend? Of course.
Dept. of Energy. Pissed that we wasted a couple Billion on Yucca mountain, but the fed guarantees on the Nuclear plants is probably a good move.
we could do this all day...


I think we can both agree that Gov't needs to be accountable for spending. What i think is the heart of the matter is our disagreement on the goals on which the gov't spends money. I venture to guess that you might say the Fed. Gov't should have no goals and should therefore not spend any of our money. I disagree, there are valid goals for the Fed to have and they should strive to efficiently spend whatever money they tax from us. We need to hold them accountable for the manner in which they spend.

But, do i think we need the mail? Yes
But do i think we need a strong military? Yes.
But do i think we need a strong mangement of our energy policy? Yes.

[impalanar]

The question cannot be answered in the way you believe it should be, a list of institutions. Because ANY institution can be considered less-than-effective than it should be. How do you measure it anyway? What metrics would you apply? I'm certain your means of measuring it would be different than my own. Asking me that question is like asking me to pick stocks and tell you which company does not require improvement.

USPS, sure. that needs to be right sized for today's needs. But can you just get rid of it? No.
Medicare/medicaid. Tons of fraud in the system and inefficiencies. Can you cut it? Even republicans say no.
Every branch of the military. Plenty of waste in procurement and programs which are not necessary. Is there necessary spend? Of course.
Dept. of Energy. Pissed that we wasted a couple Billion on Yucca mountain, but the fed guarantees on the Nuclear plants is probably a good move.
we could do this all day...


I think we can both agree that Gov't needs to be accountable for spending. What i think is the heart of the matter is our disagreement on the goals on which the gov't spends money. I venture to guess that you might say the Fed. Gov't should have no goals and should therefore not spend any of our money. I disagree, there are valid goals for the Fed to have and they should strive to efficiently spend whatever money they tax from us. We need to hold them accountable for the manner in which they spend.

But, do i think we need the mail? Yes
But do i think we need a strong military? Yes.
But do i think we need a strong mangement of our energy policy? Yes.

He did not say "Name one perfect Gov't agency?" And while you can always be more efficient that in and of itself does not make you inefficient. All you have to say is "No, I cannot answer that question." Instead you run in circles and say that it cannot be answered and you may be right, but not for the reasons you list. The likely reason the question cannot be answered is because this agency does not exist.

[02ep3]

I said that question cannot be answered. First line of my post. Though i go further to make my point:

We disagree on the SCOPE of government.
But I believe, we can agree that whatever the scope of gov't is, that it must be held accountable and driven to be more efficient. (VERY difficult task indeed)


I appear far towards the left end of the spectrum relative to you guys, which --be honest-- many of you (not all) seem pretty far to the right. You guys just think i love government carte blanche, but i don't. The mountain of waste that encrusts washington makes me sick as well. Though, i believe there is a kernel of neccesity in the federal govermnet (the scope of gov't, I call it a kernel, you can call it a nanoparticle). When it comes to the healthcare bill, I know there will be waste there as well. As with any enterprise there is waste ( you can read a mountain on Lean manufacturing processes. waste challenges industry and us all). But the Healthcare reform as a whole was necessary to add to the scope of the federal government as, on the whole, the nation will benefit from it. ....and i know you disagree.