• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The right apposes Obama care for one reason The $250,000.00 pay for it.

ttwtt78640 said:
That would likely be an extremely regressive form of taxation. I would have to see the details of that "consumption tax" plan to make an informed evaluation, but a national retail sales tax alone is likely to hit low income folks very hard if applied to rent, utilities and groceries.
Click to expand...

Fair tax handles that okay, too much work IMHO, but they do it.
 
jbander said:
Blind and ridiculous , what you will find out now is that even the half wits from your side of the isle will be telling everyone about all of the parts of Obama care we should save. You have no opinion other then the one someone else created for you. just like the rest of you blind party. I do love to watch you frothing at the mouth over everything that black guy does, You have me rolling on the floor.
Click to expand...

If you are rolling on the floor, it is not because of anything I have done. Fleas, perhaps?
 
Renae said:
Fair tax handles that okay, too much work IMHO, but they do it.
Click to expand...

It does not handle that very well. The inclusive (hidden?) nature of the fair tax is extremely troubling, as is the idea that "households" pay sales taxes as opposed to individuals. The potential for tax evasion is huge (what is "for personal cosumpton"?) as is the enforcement overhead (all sellers of "new" goods and services become (unpaid?) federal tax collection agents). Is a "household" anyone sharing a mailing address or a "family"? If three college students or McWorkers share rent do they then get one rebate to "share" or three rebates (one each)? If one moves during the year do they get a new rebate or rebate adjustment? Is the "poverty level" rate rebate based on the age of "household" members (in other words, does an infant typically consume as much as a teenager)?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Personally I would like to see real public health care; single-payer following whichever active model has shown to be the most cost-effective, while satisfying health-care practitioner's reasonable wage/benefits expectations, and still providing decent heath care across the board.

Of course, I'd also like to see our economy revived, everyone having access to decent jobs, employers making good profits, production return to the USA, universal social acceptance of an individual right to keep and bear arms...and peace on earth among many other things.

A man can dream. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

And put strict laws in place that make pharmaceutical kickbacks for perscriptions illegal so doctors aren't looking at you like a potential user the first step you walk into the drug dealers' door.
 
jbander said:
Thats getting out there, real close to goofy but hay it's your opinion, bad as it is. Like I said we will be listening to all the black presidents haters saying the parts they want to keep. It will be a gas to watch.
Click to expand...

My, aren't we full of assumptions... not everyone who understood what a boondoggle the PPACA is/was, cares about the skin color of the sitting President. Funny how those who scream about 'haters', are the first to identify the President by his skin color.

There is only one redeeming factor in the PPACA, which could have been addressed with a two page bill, and no additional burden on employers. Pre-existing conditions.

However, no one else should have to pay more to cover someone who chose not to have insurance before they became ill. Their premiums should be commensurate with the expense expected to treat the condition that they chose not to have insurance for.

Other than that, IMO, the PPACA is bird cage liner.
 
tres borrachos said:
This is precisely the reason I don't recommend nipping at the cooking sherry while posting.
Click to expand...

I recall watching this guy do it on TV back in the day quite a bit:

 
calamity said:
I just re-upped for all our benefits through my employer this week. I was quite stunned by the cost for healthcare. We pay $350 per month while my employer kicks in over a $1000. That's for two people, on a $4000 deductible plan.

IMO, that's freaking outrageous.

If Trump delivers on cutting those costs....hey, I'd be pretty pleased.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't you in your late 60's? I believe I saw a post where you stated your age, but maybe someone else I'm thinking of. Why are you not on medicare? You opted to stay on your employer's plan over Medicare? That is rarely a good move. With Part B premium, 100 something a month, you get an 80/20 coverage with 1100 or so deductible. The exact numbers change year to year. But on top of part b premium you can get what's called a plan N, it covers that 20 percent and deductible. Comes with small co-pays tho. And when your in your enrollment period, no health questions, so your looking at additional 60-70 bucks depending on the supplement company and whether you are a smoker.

The only reason I can ever think to not switch over from private insurance to medicare is if your spouse would lose coverage because they are under 65. But then you have to factor in your old as balls on private insurance. A pricey thing indeed. You may find it cheaper to switch to medicare yourself, and have your younger spouse find an independent plan. Also, your employer might have gotten a **** deal from their insurance company. I can'tell you the number of times I've burst a guy's bubble about how ****ty a healthcare plan their company offers.

The only effective way to cut those costs, is taking on the Hospital lobby. An extremely powerful industry. And doing away with the chargemaster system and their abuse of the non-for-profit status, that lets them profit more than tobacco by a wide margin. And it's not doctors doin it, they make **** wages compared to hospital admins. So fixing the hospital death grip on healthcare prices will actually net doctors more money. Lower insurance costs, and save us all a ton.

Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us | TIME
 
Renae said:
And here I thought my 250 deductible plan was out of hand.
Click to expand...

$250 total, per year? Damn! That's our co-pay for an Emergency room visit, after meeting deductibles but before reaching max out of pocket, which I believe is about $6K.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't you in your late 60's? I believe I saw a post where you stated your age, but maybe someone else I'm thinking of. Why are you not on medicare? You opted to stay on your employer's plan over Medicare? That is rarely a good move. With Part B premium, 100 something a month, you get an 80/20 coverage with 1100 or so deductible. The exact numbers change year to year. But on top of part b premium you can get what's called a plan N, it covers that 20 percent and deductible. Comes with small co-pays tho. And when your in your enrollment period, no health questions, so your looking at additional 60-70 bucks depending on the supplement company and whether you are a smoker.

The only reason I can ever think to not switch over from private insurance to medicare is if your spouse would lose coverage because they are under 65. But then you have to factor in your old as balls on private insurance. A pricey thing indeed. You may find it cheaper to switch to medicare yourself, and have your younger spouse find an independent plan. Also, your employer might have gotten a **** deal from their insurance company. I can'tell you the number of times I've burst a guy's bubble about how ****ty a healthcare plan their company offers.

The only effective way to cut those costs, is taking on the Hospital lobby. An extremely powerful industry. And doing away with the chargemaster system and their abuse of the non-for-profit status, that lets them profit more than tobacco by a wide margin. And it's not doctors doin it, they make **** wages compared to hospital admins. So fixing the hospital death grip on healthcare prices will actually net doctors more money. Lower insurance costs, and save us all a ton.

Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us | TIME
Click to expand...

No. I'm on my early 50's; wife is early 40's.

Costs that are out of hand are drugs, IMO. Lots of people I work with take meds that cost over $3000 per month. Pretty much all the costs for any new drug treating chronic diseases is out of control.
 
calamity said:
No. Early 50's; wife is early 40's.
Click to expand...

Then I was mistaken, that is kind of a ****ty plan. I would look at alternatives next time your enrollment period rolls around.

Are you locked in or still in the grace period? Maybe contact your financial adviser, and see if they can come up with some alternatives. If you don't have an FA, you are in your early fifties, this is the perfect time to get one. Trust me, any FA worth their salt will scour insurance plans to save you premium money, so you can invest it with them. It's what I did as an FA before switching to underwriting.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
It does not handle that very well. The inclusive (hidden?) nature of the fair tax is extremely troubling, as is the idea that "households" pay sales taxes as opposed to individuals. The potential for tax evasion is huge (what is "for personal cosumpton"?) as is the enforcement overhead (all sellers of "new" goods and services become (unpaid?) federal tax collection agents). Is a "household" anyone sharing a mailing address or a "family"? If three college students or McWorkers share rent do they then get one rebate to "share" or three rebates (one each)? If one moves during the year do they get a new rebate or rebate adjustment? Is the "poverty level" rate rebate based on the age of "household" members (in other words, does an infant typically consume as much as a teenager)?
Click to expand...

Personally i would use something like a SS# to distribute rebates instead of households. If the number belongs to a dependent than the Guardian gets the rebate.

You object to using retailers as unpaid tax collectors but we already require them to be one at the state level and its not an unpaide service. Its cost is built onto the price of the product.

How they determine what the end product is to be taxed is something im cutious about how they determine as well. Fair tax sounds ok to me in principle but the devil is in the details and would need to be looked at closely.


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Then I was mistaken, that is kind of a ****ty plan. I would look at alternatives next time your enrollment period rolls around.
Click to expand...

It's your standard PPO with high deductibles: $2000 deductible per person and $1000 a month in premiums. I'm just glad my company pays most of the premium and we have and HSA to cover costs as the incur.

But, I certainly will argue that the costs are outrageous.
 
trouble13 said:
Personally i would use something like a SS# to distribute rebates instead of households. If the number belongs to a dependent than the Guardian gets the rebate.

You object to using retailers as unpaid tax collectors but we already require them to be one at the state level and its not an unpaide service. Its cost is built onto the price of the product.

How they determine what the end product is to be taxed is something im cutious about how they determine as well. Fair tax sounds ok to me in principle but the devil is in the details and would need to be looked at closely.


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) contains two strikes against a fair tax - its base rate is hidden (unlike the Texas sales tax) and that rate is increased to cover collection cost overhead (at tax on a tax?). Also, the Texas sales tax does not apply to labor, rent or (most) grocery items yet the fair tax seems to. If I mow your grass for $20 then what must I pay (when, how and to who) under the fair tax and how would that ever reasonably be expected to be enforced?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) contains two strikes against a fair tax - its base rate is hidden (unlike the Texas sales tax) and that rate is increased to cover collection cost overhead (at tax on a tax?). Also, the Texas sales tax does not apply to labor, rent or (most) grocery items yet the fair tax seems to. If I mow your grass for $20 then what must I pay (when, how and to who) under the fair tax and how would that ever reasonably be expected to be enforced?
Click to expand...
Im not sure how they would enfore tax collection on services like the one you described. Its a good question.

You claim the base rate is hidden but im not ckear what you mean by that?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
calamity said:
$250 total, per year? Damn! That's our co-pay for an Emergency room visit, after meeting deductibles but before reaching max out of pocket, which I believe is about $6K.
Click to expand...

Cause my kiddo was in football I pay for the best my company offers, like 365 a month out of my paycheck. And a little research, that is my CO PAY Deductible, for something major, like surgery I have to pay 2k up front, they pay the rest to certain limits. ER is 150. Specialist is 35, PCP is 20. For example, when I have my big surgery, it's 2k out of pocket, they pay up 76k.
 
trouble13 said:
Im not sure how they would enfore tax collection on services like the one you described. Its a good question.

You claim the base rate is hidden but im not ckear what you mean by that?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The fair tax is not added to the "sticker" price like the Texas sales tax is.

As defined in the proposed legislation, the tax rate is 23% for the first year. This percentage is based on the total amount paid including the tax ($23 out of every $100 spent in total). This would be equivalent to a 30% traditional U.S. sales tax ($23 on top of every $77 spent—$100 total).[4] The rate would automatically adjust annually based on federal receipts in the previous fiscal year.
Click to expand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

What that means is that buying $77 worth of goods will then cost $100 plus the the Texas sales tax on the $100 sale instead of only on the $77 of net goods bought. That would effectively be raising the Texas sales tax by 30% as well. Is that sneaky or what?
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
The fair tax is not added to the "sticker" price like the Texas sales tax is.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

What that means is that buying $77 worth of goods will then cost $100 plus the the Texas sales tax on the $100 sale instead of only on the $77 of net goods bought. That would effectively be raising the Texas sales tax by 30% as well. Is that sneaky or what?
Click to expand...
I see what you mean. I will give you the counter argument but lile you i also see a problem in their math.

If a product costs $100 today its because it has hidden taxes embedded in it already of aprox $30. Removing those embedded taxes will lower the cost of the products but after taxes the final price of the product will return to the original cost of $100.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Renae said:
Cause my kiddo was in football I pay for the best my company offers, like 365 a month out of my paycheck. And a little research, that is my CO PAY Deductible, for something major, like surgery I have to pay 2k up front, they pay the rest to certain limits. ER is 150. Specialist is 35, PCP is 20. For example, when I have my big surgery, it's 2k out of pocket, they pay up 76k.
Click to expand...

Yeah that sounds about right: $150 for ER, $250 for a stay with about $2k for deductible.
 
GottaGo said:
Other than that, IMO, the PPACA is bird cage liner.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, on Planet Earth:

Five-year decline in hospital-acquired conditions leads to $28B in savings
Fewer patients have died due to hospital-acquired conditions over the past five years and hospitals saved more than $28 billion in healthcare costs during the same time period, according to a new federal government report.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services credits the 21 percent decline in hospital-acquired conditions in part to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act.
Click to expand...
Indeed, the report, “National Scorecard on Rates of Hospital-Acquired Conditions,” by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, finds that roughly 125,000 fewer patients died during 2010 to 2015. In total, hospital patients experienced more than 3 million fewer hospital-acquired conditions, such as adverse drug events, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, central line associated bloodstream infections, pressure ulcers and surgical site infections, during that time period.
Click to expand...
 
trouble13 said:
I see what you mean. I will give you the counter argument but lile you i also see a problem in their math.

If a product costs $100 today its because it has hidden taxes embedded in it already of aprox $30. Removing those embedded taxes will lower the cost of the products but after taxes the final price of the product will return to the original cost of $100.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

OK, nice theory but rest assured that your rent (or my lawn mowing fee) will not drop by 30% "just to be fair". Remember that the "prebate" is supposed to cover (neutralize?) that.

Very few are now in the 30% FIT bracket and even those few use a myriad of deductions (and accounting methods) to escape paying taxes on gross income. For example, the cost of payroll (labor) is now a 100% deductible expense and would no longer be so, so its net cost would rise by at least whatever the FIT rate the employer now pays.
 
Last edited:
trouble13 said:
That site is vauge on details

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That is intentionally so. It has yet to be explained why it is "fair" to tax only the end user but not those that make billions from the manufacture or wholesaling of consumer products. That is why it takes at least a 30% "fair tax" rate to get about 18% of GDP in revenue.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, nice theory but rest assured that your rent (or my lawn mowing fee) will not drop by 30% "just to be fair". Remember that the "prebate" is supposed to cover (neutralize?) that.

Very few are now in the 30% FIT bracket and even those few use a myriad of deductions (and accounting methods) to escape paying taxes on gross income. For example, the cost of payroll (labor) is now a 100% deductible expense and would no longer be so, so its net cost would rise by at least whatever the FIT rate the employer now pays.
Click to expand...

I get it. They are oversimplifing the explination and qhen you look at it in its complex form problems arise.

The claim is that in a competive matket the product price will nsturally fall 30% becsuse it has to in order to be compete for their share of the market. If they dont the next guy will. The principle is solid i just dont know if i completely agree with it in practice.

Another point the advocates raise is what you touched on about payroll taxes. By removing them, employees will recieve higher wages so that they can afford increased prices.

The prebate they talk about i see as a replacement to subdidies. Instead of paying farmers to farm or not farm that money is being used to influence the market giving the consumer that control. I kind of like that idea too.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom