Obamacare Stands/Insurance Mandate, er, Tax Upheld

Raees wrote: I read that millions of younger insured (20-somethings) who don't normally get health insurance because they're generally healthy will help bring down the overall costs. They'll be paying in like everyone else, but taking not very much out. That segment was not in the system previously.

That is what I was hoping for too, but I heard some speculation that the young will just choose to pay the fine.

Entitlement Whore wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: I will try to type real slow so maybe it will be easier to comprehend. Insurance companies pool the premiums collected from their customers and use that pool to pay claims, so of course your premiums will be used to pay health care for other people. That is the nature of insurance. Likewise, health care under VA and Medicaid/Medicare are paid with tax dollars, so of course your tax dollars, assuming you pay taxes, will go to pay for health care for others.

You fail to mention the federal subsidies that will pay up to about 95% of the insurance premiums for those with incomes in the range of approx 133% to 400% of the federal poverty level.

According to the CBO, in 2016 that will mean single people making less than $50K will get subsidies while families of four making under $102K will get subsidies.

These subsidies will be paid in the form of refundable tax credits. So even people who owe zero income tax would receive a full credit.

So who pays for these tax credits? Hint...it sure isn't the insurance companies.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-premiums.pdf

Dog is failing to mention a lot of things, like actual figures and references to the ACA bill. Maybe Dog is frantically looking over his lefty talking points websites to get the clip and paste he needs.

Nice diversion. Apparently I have hurt your feelings by referring to your reading comprehension issues. I truly apologize. I should not have done so, having battled dyslexia myself. Which brings to mind the old joke which pretty well fits me. About the guy who was an insomniac, dyslexic, agnostic. He lies awake at night wondering if there really is a dog. (drum flourish)

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Martin Ent Inc wrote: Dog speaks out the back end, but as a usual lib NEVER reads just takes for granted the gov. will take care of them.

Thanks for proving my opinion about the inability of conservatives to provide an articulate and thoughtful comment to the issues at hand.

Like you always do.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Nice diversion. Apparently I have hurt your feelings by referring to your reading comprehension issues. I truly apologize. I should not have done so, having battled dyslexia myself. Which brings to mind the old joke which pretty well fits me. About the guy who was an insomniac, dyslexic, agnostic. He lies awake at night wondering if there really is a dog. (drum flourish)

Well... here's another deflection for a moment. You didn't hurt any feelings. But you have spent the entirety of this thread making smart ass comments about the conservatives on this thread. I can't speak for others, but I have not wasted any time attacking you and questioning your intellect. If you need to use that kind of B.S to discuss a topic, well then... fine. I can be a nasty as the next person. But I get the impression that you don't have all the answers that you keep hinting at. If you understand the 2700 pages of the ACA bill, then I'm waiting for some references, some research form you... instead of general statements and snark.

Since you are claiming superiority on this subject, then I'd like to see some of that.

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: I will try to type real slow so maybe it will be easier to comprehend. Insurance companies pool the premiums collected from their customers and use that pool to pay claims, so of course your premiums will be used to pay health care for other people. That is the nature of insurance. Likewise, health care under VA and Medicaid/Medicare are paid with tax dollars, so of course your tax dollars, assuming you pay taxes, will go to pay for health care for others.

You fail to mention the federal subsidies that will pay up to about 95% of the insurance premiums for those with incomes in the range of approx 133% to 400% of the federal poverty level.

According to the CBO, in 2016 that will mean single people making less than $50K will get subsidies while families of four making under $102K will get subsidies.

These subsidies will be paid in the form of refundable tax credits. So even people who owe zero income tax would receive a full credit.

So who pays for these tax credits? Hint...it sure isn't the insurance companies.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-premiums.pdf

Actually the insurance companies will be paying for a portion of the costs of the ACA including the subsidies. They agreed to pay an annual fee ($60 billion), along with pharma ($27 billion), medical device manufacturers ($20 billion) in exchange for the increase in customers. the remainder of the costs of the subsidies and the other costs of the ACA will be paid for by a combination of taxes and savings. The taxes will primarily be extending (removing the cap) on Medicare taxes beyond incomes of $200,000, excise taxes on the cadillac plans, decreasing tax loopholes, etc. while reducing the amounts spent on Medicare and other programs.

Entitlement Whore wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Nice diversion. Apparently I have hurt your feelings by referring to your reading comprehension issues. I truly apologize. I should not have done so, having battled dyslexia myself. Which brings to mind the old joke which pretty well fits me. About the guy who was an insomniac, dyslexic, agnostic. He lies awake at night wondering if there really is a dog. (drum flourish)

Well... here's another deflection for a moment. You didn't hurt any feelings. But you have spent the entirety of this thread making smart ass comments about the conservatives on this thread. I can't speak for others, but I have not wasted any time attacking you and questioning your intellect. If you need to use that kind of B.S to discuss a topic, well then... fine. I can be a nasty as the next person. But I get the impression that you don't have all the answers that you keep hinting at. If you understand the 2700 pages of the ACA bill, then I'm waiting for some references, some research form you... instead of general statements and snark.

Since you are claiming superiority on this subject, then I'd like to see some of that.

Sorry, I have not been required to provide documentation for my research since my thesis for my master's degree. I have answered your questions, responded to your comments, and the only complaint you have is my snarkiness (coming from the king of snark and deflection, I take that as a comment). I will try to help you out with some basic research tools that may benefit you in your work and posting commentary. If you have a specific question, rather than depending upon the kindness of other posters, go to your computer, get on the browser of your choice and select the search engine of your choice. I prefer Google, but others use Bing, Yahoo, etc. Type in your question and lo and behold, a host of reference links will appear. Select from the most credible source, review their commentary, select other sources, review their commentary, etc. until a consensus answer will emerge. Try to find credible sites that present both sides of the issue. Try to avoid overly partisan sites, blogs with no peer reviewed publications, or sites that only provide opinions with no factual back up. In this manner, you will gain knowledge and not have to rely upon the kindness of other posters. I truly hope this will assist you in your future endeavors. I believe in the teach a man to fish, rather than just giving a fish theory, so this is provided in good faith and the best intentions. Best of luck.

Our government and many on the rolls believe in recieving the fish and not learning how to catch them.
So that analogy holds no water in the liberal world.

FredHayek wrote:

Raees wrote: I read that millions of younger insured (20-somethings) who don't normally get health insurance because they're generally healthy will help bring down the overall costs. They'll be paying in like everyone else, but taking not very much out. That segment was not in the system previously.

That is what I was hoping for too, but I heard some speculation that the young will just choose to pay the fine.

Young people should have at least a catastrophic insurance policy for accidents, emergency room and hospital/surgery. When I was 21 and dropped off my Dad's work plan, he steered me to his insurance agent who signed me up for a very affordable basic plan. It was cheap back then, and while not perfect it was better than uninsured.

The Obama care age premium cost ratios I believe are 3:1 from young to old, while actual costs are more like 6:1 approx. This is going to hit young people, as well as all the mandated free benefits they have to buy, but may or may not use. It is good to have them covered and in the risk pool, its just the details that are debatable. And yes the fine/penalty/tax whatever is probably too small for some income brackets to force compliance, another problem.

Yes, the same young people who will, as a result of the community rating portion of the law, be paying the same amount for their insurance as someone who is 50 years old, overweight, and suffering from Type-1 diabetes pays for their insurance, or rather, I should note that it will be their parents and not themselves footing that extra cost of insuring them for the majority of the time they are 20-something and that they will only be responsible for the community rated cost for about 40% of the time.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Actually the insurance companies will be paying for a portion of the costs of the ACA including the subsidies. They agreed to pay an annual fee ($60 billion), along with pharma ($27 billion), medical device manufacturers ($20 billion) in exchange for the increase in customers. the remainder of the costs of the subsidies and the other costs of the ACA will be paid for by a combination of taxes and savings. The taxes will primarily be extending (removing the cap) on Medicare taxes beyond incomes of $200,000, excise taxes on the cadillac plans, decreasing tax loopholes, etc. while reducing the amounts spent on Medicare and other programs.

And just where do you think that the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies and the medical device manufacturers are going to be getting those extra billions of dollars to contribute their "fair share" of the ACA costs Dog? You think it is going to come from their profits or from the pockets of those that they insure, or manufacture medical/drugs for consumption? If a doctor has to pay an additional $10K for his ultrasound machine, do you think he's going to eat that extra cost or pass it along in a higher cost to get an ultrasound? Higher cost to get the ultrasound means what - a higher insurance premium, right? A higher insurance premium which both the healthy, fit, 28 year young adult and the obese, diabetic 55 year old will share in equal measure because ACA also requires community ratings, right?