You are confusing income and wealth here. If a person is single and has a capital gain of $35000 and with SS benefits of $13000, that person would not pay any income taxes since capital gains under the 25% marginal tax rate would be taxed at zero and thus, that person may or may not qualify for those subsidies depending on the state they live in. A person making $65000 in wages, is married with two dependent children may or may not pay income taxes depending on which credits were available. Then you have a person who is single, unmarried, and has two children. Their income is net self employment income of $10000, with gross earingins being %18000. In this scenario, no income tax, but self employment tax would be liable. However, if the person qualifies for EITC and/or the ACTC, then that person may not have to pay anything since the refundable credits would more than likely pay their tax obligation and possibly have some left over for a refund. The point is that the 47% who do not pay any income taxes amy be wealthy or may not be wealthy depending on their circumstances and where their income is derived from.
It already is in the price. Look at this way, the price you pay with a 30% discount plus a sales tax is generally lower than you pay for the same thing during a sales tax holiday iwthout the discount.
uh oh, time for him to be "peer-reviewed" away by people who stand to be hurt by him speaking against Obamacare....
So is some Billionaire going to pay 1% of their income? That is what they are saying. They also said you would keep your current insurance, have the same doctor, it wouldn't cost you any more than it does today, blahblahblah... If you are living paycheck to paycheck, an additional 1% of spending, based on last years income, when your employer drops your insurance because it isn't recognized as insurance (no fines in this case), they don't pay you any more to compensate the loss of your non-insurance, and drops your hours, etc... etc..., to boot, is like squeezing blood from a dry turnip, by the way.
Positive multiplier effects don't lie either; most every public policy that purports to provide for the general welfare should have one.
This insurance plan is based on the young buying insurance for the older, poor and sick. And the companies paying for their employees. How many of the young are going to pay the small fine instead of forking out hundreds for insurance they can't afford and feel they don't need? How many companies are going to cut jobs and hours to get out of paying? How many will drop paying for their employees and let them buy their own? How many will cut pay or raises to pay for insurance for their employees? How many will not be able to use the insurance once they get it because the deductible is way to high? Only time will tell.
I'm not sure what your complaint is here. It is the essence of the concept of insurance, that risk is spread around. The central idea is that everyone pays just in case, for the large majority those cases do not happen, but a small minority need considerable help. People who pay premiums for insurance do so not because they want to throw money away, but because they know that they MIGHT need far more than then could have otherwise afforded. Over the years, I have paid over $25,000 in vehicle and house insurance, and never once turned in a claim. So for me, the money was "wasted", right? So why, exactly, is insurance a problem? Or are you saying you prefer a system where insurance is only available for those who are very unlikely to need it, while the insurance industry pays themselves multimillion dollar bonuses for their high profits?
Well, time and the experience of other nations, which has been pretty consistent. Medical care is expensive. I don't think there is any way around this. But of course, it's inexpensive not getting medical care when you need it - unless you're the one who needs it, of course. I don't think the US has the resources or national wealth to provide proper medical care for everyone who needs it right now. The US is not a very healthy nation - lots of obesity, lots of cancer. In the Western world, the US is among the least healthy nations there is. So far, we're "dealing" with that sad fact by providing improper care (or no care at all) for too many citizens. At first, providing better and more nearly universal medicine is going to cost a bundle. No getting around that. Will doing so improve national health? If it doesn't, there aren't any good options.
Well for one, insurance is a fluffy word for being a bookie. You make a bet, that is the essence, except that the bookie is more honest and they at least pay you when they lose, insurance companies will do everything they can to avoid paying. Insurance has actuaries, which is another fluffy word for odds makers. Our government had the opportunity to make healthcare available for everyone with government run system like medicare, or even better, make hospitals a non-profit who can't be sued. I use the VA for my health needs and it has worked perfectly. Take the money away and have a fair system, that is the fair answer for the citizens of the United States
So we will all be better off because the people that can't afford health insurance will get tax payer provided subsidizing or tax payer increased premiums to cover the cost of their care. So... what you are saying is... nobody is better off accept the people that didn't take care of themselves?
No. All I am saying is, that by solving simple poverty civil Persons in our republic have no longer any excuse to not take better care of themselves, under any form of Capitalism.
I want you to read what you just wrote. Now tell me how buying coverage once you have a problem is insurance at all.
Nope, incorrect. Money will most definitely be changing hands. It is a refundable tax credit, meaning that even people with zero income tax liability will get the full value. So, someone who owes no taxes and qualifies for the credit will be able to receive a check for the full value of the credit at the end of the fiscal year.
Yes, time will tell if the "young" are smart or dumb, selfish or thoughtful. . .because the "young" also get into car accidents, get hurt in sports, or simply contract STD's or get pregnant! Health care coverage is NOT exclusively for the old. . .although it is obvious they have greater needs than the young's (in general). To not realize would just demonstrate how stupid our population really is! And, almost everyone can pay a $5,000 deductible without going bankrupt. .but what about a $75,000 hospital bill? Which, by the way, shrinks to about $25,000 IF one is insured. . .but if one is NOT insured, it remains $75,000! Why do you have such little faith in the intelligence of the American people? Why do you think the rest of the world has managed to adapt to paying for health care insurance. . . even if they don't know that they'll get a life threatening illness, or that their kid could break his back on a ski slope? Why do you think the rest of the world is willing to pay much higher taxes to get that kind of coverage, either through government health care, or a combination of government and private health care? There is no remedy for stupidity. . .and no insurance for it! However, I wonder if anyone ever did a study about how many people purchase lottery tickets. . .in spite of the odds against winning. And how many people buy term life insurance? And how many people will purchase a security system for their home? We are all taking precautions against potential tragedies, in order to protect ourselves and protect those we love. Why not health care insurance? Is ANYONE foolish enough to believe that an accident or illness cannot possibly happen to self or those we love? I would be curious to see a study that would show if there is any data that correlate those who are "risk takers" (whether it be in sports, life style, gaming, etc. . .) and those who covers their back against "potential disasters." I would bet that it is those who engage in the most "risky" behaviors who will refuse to cover themselves (and their loved ones) in case anything goes wrong with those risky behaviors!
With time, we will ALL be better off! Not only because EVERYONE will have access to free preventive care, but also because those who would normally be dependent on emergency rooms for their even casual care (but especially their severe health issues) will no longer need to abuse this outlet as they have done in the past . . .simply because the cost was basically absorbed by all of us who do have insurance. A person with diabetes, who wasn't able to purchase health care (because of pre-existing condition and/or lack of fund) will now be able to purchase insurance AND receive on-going care. . .which will PREVENT a life threatening, and VERY COSTLY surgery to amputate a foot or a leg. If you were taking care of yourself, if you had insurance, nothing much will change for you. . .some may pay a little more, some will pay a little less, but no one will take away your insurance. What will change (with time) is that the cost of even insurance covered treatment will go down, because it will not need to cover those who are uninsured and not paying for insurance, but accessing the health care system anyway. Or. . .do you think that we should just put a line in the sand and refuse any treatment to anyone who comes to an emergency room without insurance? Is that the kind of "Christian country" we want to be?
The complaint in that instance is simply the duplicitous and contradictory arguments being thrown out to support the ACA. On the one hand you have supporters saying that the ACA remedies the problem of taxpayers footing the bill and then on the other hand you have supporters saying that the ACA is awesome because of the fact that the taxpayers will be footing the bill. I thought that I stated that pretty clearly in the post you quoted.
Gobbledygook nonsense. That's exactly the OPPPOSITE of what he actually said. Read much? And you're the one making "assumptions" about cash flow. Most people DO have health insurance, according to the proponents of Obamacare, the entire plan was to insure about 11% of the population who do not. Having health insurance, in NO WAY, guarantees increases in preventive medicine....ANOTHER "assumption" on your part. Once again, the FATAL FLAW/BLIND SPOT in the Left's thinking: Forcing Americans ot pay health insurance companies for coverage they may not want or need, IN NO WAY guarantees ANY level of actual medical care. You cannot be "denied coverage"; you CAN STILL BE DENIED MEDICAL CARE, however. What do you think the "Asset Allocation Boards" are for? . He has made very sound points,based on REAL WORLD REALITIES, which you have countered with made up nonsense.
Right. Collectivism wealth redistribution, masked as a means of making people more self sustaining. We have been fighting the war on poverty in an effort to make people self sustain for how long? I suppose we keep doubling down.
It depends on the public policy decision. Since supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost, promoting the general welfare should promote the general prosperity through some market recognizable means; a positive multiplier effect on the economy of our republic, should rightfully be called a provision of the general welfare.
More collectivism. I should pay more money, to support those who can't or won't support themselves, because I am to believe that this will make me "better off". I am not buying it. There is no such thing as "free". Cost increases to cover those who pay "a little less" is a big change for me. And as this article states, simple math shows that huge increases to the risk pool by those people MOST risky, will infact increase my costs. So now its "with time". This plan was sold on immediate reductions to health insurance costs. You don't get to apply christian values to public policy when its convenient to your argument. That isn't how it works. I believe in the separation of church and state fully, regardless if the principals align with my political views. But thanks for showing that double standards are acceptable to you so long as they fit your agenda.
Would you rather have to "buy it" after your position, hypothetically, got downsized due to a lack of demand from Persons who merely need money to engage in Commerce in our modern economy, instead of learning how to fish.
So... let me get this straight. I should support Obamacare because if people had to provide for their own healthcare, many people would be broke, and that would result in me being out of a job? Between that logic, and your complete molestation of the General Welfare clause, I don't think we will ever be able to have a rational conversation.
Not really any of my business but this is exactly why the government and not the private sector should handle a universal health care system IF there is going to be one. The government can afford to run a 'business' at a loss because they are not in it to make money but to provide for the welfare of all their citizens, a private company however can't. Putting public service in the hands or private companies and interests is just silly.
The person who is 500lbs, has diabetes, cancer, whatever is still going to require healthcare, and by law Hospitals are required to treat someone who is dying. Costs of care are incurred regardless of whether this person is insured or not. As a matter of fact, there's about 60 billion dollars of unpaid medical bills from uninsured patients every year in the US. My point is that with or without Obamacare, you're still paying for these individuals regardless.
