OBAMACARE! Whats In It For ME??

Hello!!
I'm 30 years old/married/1 Kid
Paid over 5000 dollars last year federal taxed!
Have Insurance now that cost me 56 dollars every week
My co-pays have went up each of the last 2 years! Now 20/40

I have for the most part refrained from condemning this bill as I have not yet read it and do not fully understand whats in!

Please if you are more informed than me please explain not only for myself but others like me

WHATS IN IT FOR ME???

Higher taxes as you pay the costs now for an entitlement program that won't exist until 2014.

If there is anything at all in it for you, you won't find out for another 4 years. In the meantime we will all be paying for for nothing. Actually, we will be paying for a newly created bureaucratic monstrosity that will have to be created to even try get this lead balloon of a program off of the ground.

It is estimated that this crap will create 159 new govt. agencies!! Wow! This is Obama's job creation plan paid for by the taxpayer. Let's all just work for the govt. Ouch... that sounds kind of creepy and socialistic.

reply to post by Niccawhois


If you're already paying for insurance then probably nothing.

Your taxes wont go up, either, unless you and the wife are collectively making 250,000 a year or more, afaik.

The bill is available online, but good luck reading it. You need a team of lawyers to decipher it.

From what I understand, insurance companies can no longer put a cap on how much they'll pay. This really helps people with diseases like cancer, who require very expensive medicines and procedures for a long period of time.

Insurance companies also can no longer turn you down for coverage if you have a pre-existing condition. $5 billion is being set aside to help pay for treatment of pre-existing conditions until 2014, when the major part of the bill kicks in (forcing people to buy insurance).

About the forcing part: the government will give you grants/tax breaks if you make less than 80k a year to help pay for your coverage.

Also now, all insurance companies must show their rates and costs in sort of an open market, where people can shop around for a policy. I guess this makes their costs more transparent and increases competition??

And if you had a kid fresh out of college, they can now be on your policy until they're 26. Before the bill passed, it was usually 22 or 23, then they lost coverage.

[edit on 23-3-2010 by Nicodeme]

"OBAMACARE! Whats In It For ME??"


taxes

reply to post by jibeho


Where are you getting this? You're saying taxes are going up right now, for everybody? That's not what I heard..

[edit on 23-3-2010 by Kaytagg]

reply to post by Niccawhois


What's in it for you? Nothing but higher taxes and no benefit.

You are now going to pay for all those people that don't work.
Drug dealers are going to get free health care paid by you.
Prostitutes are going to get free health care paid by you.
Bums are going to get free heath care paid by you.

Congratulations! You just adopted every drug dealer, prostitute and bum in B. Hussein O.'s third world Communist country.

Originally posted by Nicodeme
Also now, all insurance companies must show their rates and costs in sort of an open market, where people can shop around for a policy. I guess this makes their costs more transparent and increases competition??

Doesnt really matter if you still cant shop across state lines. How much competition is there between the McDonalds and the Burger King sitting across the street from one another? If a Jack in the Box two states over could get you that same burger 5% cheaper (barring travel time and spoilage since there isnt any with documents such as insurance policies) why wouldnt you go for the cheaper burger?

But since the only burger joints in town are sitting across the street from one another and you have to pick one or the other why would they bother to 'compete' at any effectual level?

TAXES: The bill applies an increased Medicare payroll tax to investment income and wages of individuals making more than $200,000 a year, or married couples above $250,000. The tax on investment income would be 3.8 percent if the Senate acts on a package of changes this week — higher than originally proposed. If the Senate follows through, the legislation also would impose a 40 percent tax on high-cost insurance plans worth more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. The tax would go into effect in 2018

www.google.com...

reply to post by Nicodeme


Tax breaks?! Are you serious?

Let's say you make $50K a year and pay 25% tax. You pay $12,500 in tax.

Now you get a tax break for the cost of health care. The tax break doesn't lower your taxes. It lowers you taxable income. So if you pay $300 a month for health insurance (not HEALTH CARE, they constantly trick you!) then you might get a tax break of ((12 x $300) x .25) or $900. And you can bet that your cost is going to go up at least $75 per month so you'll end up with nothing. No break. Nothing. Just paying for everybody else who doesn't work.

reply to post by Cabaret Voltaire


Just read this: www.cnn.com...

Credits will be available through exchanges for those whose income is above Medicaid eligibility and below 400 percent of poverty level who are not eligible for or offered other acceptable coverage.

[edit on 23-3-2010 by Nicodeme]

Originally posted by Nicodeme

About the forcing part: the government will give you grants/tax breaks if you make less than 80k a year to help pay for your coverage.

[edit on 23-3-2010 by Nicodeme]

...of which you'll have to help pay for if you make over $88K....

Why would you choose a conspiracy theory forum to ask about the details of a bill?
ok...lets take your question and mix it with the board theory...You will get a implant that will control your brain, make you eat fluoride, and become in time a reptilian shape shifting skinjob while reassigned to the nazi mars base for the final coming of the antichrist.

Just read the bill, or read the summery. Dont go to any overly partisan website (like fox news or msnbc) and simply read.

You think your going to get a straight answer here? Hell no...you will be more confused than anything else by the end of this topic.

incidently, one part I think most like is a clampdown on insurance companys. They cannot earn more than either 15 or 20% (number slipped from my mind for a sec and dont feel like googling to find the right number) profit for procedure, otherwise the difference gets refunded to you. So thats sweet. Means insurance companys simply cannot hike rates simply for profit, which is the issue going on as you mentioned there OPs. Profit motivated price hikes.

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by jibeho

 

Where are you getting this? You're saying taxes are going up right now, for everybody? That's not what I heard..

[edit on 23-3-2010 by Kaytagg]

Not for everybody. But sneaky backdoor BS nonetheless.

The big talk on Capitol Hill may be about health-care reform, but as part of this massive undertaking, the Democrats are quietly reshaping the tax system too. Tucked inside President Obama's latest health-care proposal is a major change to the Medicare tax.

Since its conception, the Medicare tax has always been tied to payrolls. Every paycheck, employers and employees each chip in 1.45%, regardless of how much someone makes. Under Obama's proposal -- which should be very close to what Congress winds up enacting -- a Medicare tax would now be applied to investment income too: Individuals who earn more than $200,000 and couples over $250,000 would pay an additional 2.9% surtax on unearned income from interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents.

I couldn't make this stuff if I tried. I feel sorry for my parents and my In Laws. My dad and my Father in law each dedicated 40 years to their respective companies. They have both recently retired and now have to face this BS. So much for saving and diversifying your investments.

The Democrats found their way to this "back door" because they couldn't agree on how to pay for the health-care bill: House Dems don't like the Senate's proposal to tax so-called Cadillac plans, and Senate Democrats don't like the House bill's inclusion of an income tax on the wealthy to pay for health care.

That paves the way for the second change. The Medicare tax has long been set at a flat rate -- the idea being that everyone pays into the system at the same rate and then receives the same amount of medical benefits later in life.

But by giving the Medicare tax the qualities of an income tax, Democrats can raise taxes on high-earners without explicitly calling it an income tax hike. The proposal also targets this group by adding 0.9% to their payroll portion of the Medicare tax too. Adding a tax just for households making over $250,000 would make the tax progressive for the first time.

The Obama administration says taxing the wealthy on unearned income is only fair because anyone who lives off their dividends and interest should have that money treated as wages too.

money.cnn.com...

I really like that last line. It is all about fairness. I call it penalizing the successful and those who have been prudent investors throughout their lives. I say they jack the tax rates on book royalties. Barry can spare the change. He really didn't earn anything to earn the royalties anyway.

[edit on 23-3-2010 by jibeho]

Originally posted by Kaytagg

TAXES: The bill applies an increased Medicare payroll tax to investment income and wages of individuals making more than $200,000 a year, or married couples above $250,000. The tax on investment income would be 3.8 percent if the Senate acts on a package of changes this week — higher than originally proposed. If the Senate follows through, the legislation also would impose a 40 percent tax on high-cost insurance plans worth more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. The tax would go into effect in 2018

www.google.com...

I like that one part "high cost insurance plans", any numbers for guidelines?

I think my plan is "high cost".

Does that mean my taxes will go up, depending on the Senates actions?

Originally posted by Nicodeme
reply to post by Cabaret Voltaire

 

Just read this: www.cnn.com...

Credits will be available through exchanges for those whose income is above Medicaid eligibility and below 400 percent of poverty level who are not eligible for or offered other acceptable coverage.

[edit on 23-3-2010 by Nicodeme]

You've provided some good information here, but yes, people here should read it for themselves. I've been almost amused watching people here on ATS freaking out....knowing as I do that a large percentage of readers here are going to benefit from, get grants and subsidies and perhaps get health insurance for the first time - it's going to help a lot of the working, underemployed, entrepreneurs, small business and the middle class financially. Oh by the way, how many of you or your friends and family are making over $85,000 dollars a year?

It's really going to help people with pre-existing conditions, as well as older people still under the age of 65 get access and it will also restrict the obscene profits the insurance companies are making.

Because ATS is such a young readership in general, I think many here do not realize what a big deal this is and that it is going to be a more humane world for the sick and the elderly...yeah I know some of you couldn't care less about sick people or the "baby boomers" but this is who is going to benefit the most in the short term.

Because of my age and a pre-existing condition, the last quotes I got for catastrophic insurance with a $5000. deductible would have cost me about $1,300 a month and excluded any "endocrine" or "immunologic" problems and those were the quotes I got 5 years ago so imagine what it is up to now, and maybe you can imagine how they might interpret nearly any illness to be being related to endocrine or immunological conditions - this should give you good idea of how these companies have been dealing with the sick and the disabled for too many years and why so many people have died needlessly for lack of access or care.


I am not thrilled about it as it is still ideologically all about the private insurance industry and health care for profit...and I absolutely believe health care would be better and cheaper if we had single payer or Medicare for everyone - it would still work within a capitalist system and doctors and health care workers who are good at what they do could still get rich and richer...they could still specialize and command a good price for their services. In rural communities like mine most doctors are still happy to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients, in fact they build their practices or start their careers serving that population and even though there is still a lot of paper work involved it is usually much less paperwork and hassle and denials than when they are dealing with private insurance companies...I know this because I am friends with a number of doctors and health care workers. One of the biggest problems for them all right now is that with this economy people just aren't getting health care at all.

It's going to be messy and we all have lots of disagreements but I hope some people calm down and do the research and find out exactly how this bill/bills is/are going to affect them before they start screaming bloody murder.

If you still must scream bloody murder I suggest instead that you get to work and become politically active - become a community organizer :-), a political activist or run for office and if you're going to call yourself a patriot you really need to show up to vote in every election both local and national for which you are eligible to vote. Otherwise I find your outrage kind of laughable.


[edit on 23-3-2010 by ChrisCrikey]

"You can keep the coverage you already have" as long as your employer doesn't opt for the cheaper penalty. After all, if no insurance is provided to you, the govenrment will pay for it or at least a portion of it. My employer pays $330, per month , basic coverage for every employee. There are several other plans offered, but the prices go up incrementally and the employee pays any thing over $330 per month. He proposed dropping the health care and pay us the $2000 a year difference by paying the penalties, instead of on the current premiums.

I like this idea because it allows me to shop my health insurance, using the new pricing info each provider must list on the internet and choose what works for me. Combine the $2000 per year from my employer and the government vouchers to buy a plan tailor made to my likings and not bland version that reflects the needs of everybody I work with. On the other hand, I can pocket $1400, by paying the $600 dollar penalty and get get coverage when I get sick. Besides, Im fairly young, eat well, run 10 miles a week and haven't seen a doctor in years. If I need one, they can no longer deny me for any reason.

In other words, due to this bill, why have health insurance unless your sick?

[edit on 23-3-2010 by mhc_70]