PDA

View Full Version : Bill Clinton's comments on IbamaCare



peb
10-04-2016, 07:57 PM
http://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-bill-clinton-on-obamacare-1475621678



Wonder how many people will deride Clinton's claim about rising health care premiums on this forum?

Paul Pless
10-04-2016, 07:58 PM
We did this up earlier today.

CK 17
10-04-2016, 07:59 PM
Anything worth doing is worth doing twice:p

Waddie
10-04-2016, 08:06 PM
Anything worth doing is worth doing twice:p

That's what my wife said........ :)

regards,
Waddie

Norman Bernstein
10-04-2016, 08:14 PM
Wonder how many people will deride Clinton's claim about rising health care premiums on this forum?

There is an actual truth about the cost of health care premiums... and it can be compared with the rate at which healthcare costs escalated BEFORE Obamacare, and afterwards. Yes, there are details, but the fundamentals are what they are, and they are not affected by opinions... only facts. Furthermore, two truths prevail:

1) There is no such thing as perfect legislation... ANY legislation will result in winners and losers. The balance is a judgment call.

2) Obamacare cannot be judged against a non-existent alternative.

Tom Montgomery
10-04-2016, 08:19 PM
Obamacare was a compromise necessary because the Republicans promised to stand look-step against a single payer system.

Republicans will undoubtedly declare Obamacare a failure and push for its elimination

Democrats will acknowledge Obamacare's shortcomings and push for the real solution... a one payer system.

One step at a time....

peb
10-05-2016, 06:12 AM
Obamacare was a compromise necessary because the Republicans promised to stand look-step against a single payer system.

Republicans will undoubtedly declare Obamacare a failure and push for its elimination

Democrats will acknowledge Obamacare's shortcomings and push for the real solution... a one payer system.

One step at a time....



Demonstrably, historically false. The GOP stop lockstep against ObamaCare, it was passed with zero gop votes. So how could they have done anything more to stop some other plan?

You guys live in a dream world, not in the world where premiums have been going up 3 times faster than before Obama are.

Paul Pless
10-05-2016, 06:17 AM
Obama sucks.

Norman Bernstein
10-05-2016, 07:26 AM
You guys live in a dream world, not in the world where premiums have been going up 3 times faster than before Obama are.

My problem, peb, is that when I research this, I find that your statement is absolutely FALSE. I've googled this endlessly, and nowhere do I see anything like '3 times faster'.... more like 'lower than if there was no ACA at all'.

Feel free to back up your claim, though.

peb
10-05-2016, 08:38 AM
My problem, peb, is that when I research this, I find that your statement is absolutely FALSE. I've googled this endlessly, and nowhere do I see anything like '3 times faster'.... more like 'lower than if there was no ACA at all'.

Feel free to back up your claim, though.

I know how fast my premiums went up prior to ObamaCare and their rate of increase since then. Bill Clinton described the situation perfectly.

Norman Bernstein
10-05-2016, 08:42 AM
I know how fast my premiums went up prior to ObamaCare and their rate of increase since then. .

..and YOUR anecdotal experience is true of the nation as a whole?

Sorry... that doesn't cut it, as an argument. If you can demonstrate via link or reference the contentions you have made, it would be a different story... but from everything I've been able to google, the rate of increase in premiums (even accounting for copays and deductibles) is down substantially from the pre-ACA era.

No legislation is ever perfect; there will always be winners and losers. I'm sorry for those whose premiums increased.... but if the result of the legislation was 1) the average rate of premium increase is down, and 2) 11 million more people can now obtain coverage, then it was a good deal.

Gerarddm
10-05-2016, 10:18 AM
I have seen some media headlines that Bubba called Obamacare 'crazy'. He did not. What he said was, for-profit healthcare was crazy. There is a huge actual and perceptual difference between the headlines and the actual sentence. It does parallel my contention that to make a profit off other people's misery is immoral.

SINGLE PAYER!

Chip-skiff
10-06-2016, 12:08 PM
iBama Care?

Is that the version for tablets and mobile phones?

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-06-2016, 07:15 PM
Demonstrably, historically false. The GOP stop lockstep against ObamaCare, it was passed with zero gop votes.

.

If zero GOP votes isn't lock step what is?
The Dems really stuffed it down the GOP's throat, didn't they? That's what happens when you are ignorant of parliamentary processes. The GOPers are still whining.

Michael D. Storey
10-07-2016, 04:43 PM
iBama Care?

Is that the version for tablets and mobile phones?He meant Ipanacare. Some dental thing, I reckon

David G
10-13-2016, 10:20 PM
https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/14716270_10155228163862908_556807313708677701_n.pn g?oh=f56aa8d28149503faf751df1f9037c4e&oe=589D279A

Too Little Time
10-14-2016, 08:26 AM
..and YOUR anecdotal experience is true of the nation as a whole?

Sorry... that doesn't cut it, as an argument. If you can demonstrate via link or reference the contentions you have made, it would be a different story... but from everything I've been able to google, the rate of increase in premiums (even accounting for copays and deductibles) is down substantially from the pre-ACA era.

No legislation is ever perfect; there will always be winners and losers. I'm sorry for those whose premiums increased.... but if the result of the legislation was 1) the average rate of premium increase is down, and 2) 11 million more people can now obtain coverage, then it was a good deal.
..and YOUR anecdotal experience is better?

There have been numerous articles about the ACA recently. Insurers are leaving the marketplace because they cannot afford the cost of the sick patients they are required to insure there. They are not required to insure sick patients in other sales venues.

There are a number of stories about people with less than full year coverage - they get sick, get insurance, get cured, drop insurance.

Here is one from today: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/in-north-carolina-aca-insurer-defections-leave-little-choice-for-many-consumers/2016/10/14/770f7bb2-9172-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-national%3Ahomepage%2Fcard

Norman Bernstein
10-14-2016, 08:34 AM
..and YOUR anecdotal experience is better?

I didn't state any anecdotal experience, whatsoever.

peb
10-14-2016, 08:48 AM
Another honest democrat on the topic:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/home-and-garden/mn-governor-says-obamacare-no-longer-affordable/vp-AAiSDKN

You can have blinders on all you want, but the individual insurance market under ObamaCare is a disaster. Those of us who have to live with it want out.

Too Little Time
10-14-2016, 08:59 AM
I didn't state any anecdotal experience, whatsoever.


but from everything I've been able to google

If you say so.

Too Little Time
10-14-2016, 09:02 AM
https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/14716270_10155228163862908_556807313708677701_n.pn g?oh=f56aa8d28149503faf751df1f9037c4e&oe=589D279A
I am in favor of choice. Feel free to move to a country with the health insurance program you prefer.

People forget an axiom: You can have anything you want, but you cannot have everything you want.

Tom Montgomery
10-14-2016, 09:51 AM
Demonstrably, historically false. The GOP stop lockstep against ObamaCare, it was passed with zero gop votes. So how could they have done anything more to stop some other plan?

You guys live in a dream world, not in the world where premiums have been going up 3 times faster than before Obama are.

I was not absolutely clear. My mistake. When I used the word "compromise" I did not mean the ACA was a compromise worked out between Republicans and Democrats. What I meant is that the ACA was a compromise of the Democrats' preferred solution: single-payer. The ACA was a deliberate half-loaf proposal.

And this article explains the reason why:


The dream of bringing single-payer healthcare to the United States is a hardy one. It's still with us despite years of disrespect by the general public, intense opposition from powerful stakeholders in the healthcare economic status quo, and the enactment of the very non-single payer system known as Obamacare.


Should we give up on the dream, already? That's the question raised by a provocative recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine by Jonathan Oberlander, a political scientist and health policy expert at the University of North Carolina, one of the most percipient critics of the U.S. healthcare system.


The enduring appeal of Medicare for All is understandable, given the fragmented, inequitable, costly, profit-driven, and wasteful nonsystem that prevails in the United


His regretful answer is yes.


"Single-payer," he writes "has no realistic path to enactment in the foreseeable future. It remains an aspiration more than a viable reform program." Instead, he argues that "preserving and strengthening the ACA, as well as Medicare, and addressing underinsurance and affordability of private coverage" is "the best way forward now for U.S. medical care."


Oberlander's words may trigger an uproar among single-payer advocates, and not merely because they're passionate about their goal and convinced that it's the only sure way of bringing universal coverage to the U.S., but because they're probably right.


Anyone seeking a clue to how passionate they are need only examine the controversy ignited recently by one of our most dedicated single-payer advocates, the Los Angeles oncologist and biotech executive Paul Y. Song.


Speaking at a New York rally for Bernie Sanders, the single-payer advocate running for the Democratic nomination for President, Song laced into the opponents of single-payer: "Medicare for all will never happen if we continue to elect corporate Democratic whores who are beholden to big pharma and the private insurance industry instead of us," he said. The twitterverse decided he must have been calling Hillary Clinton a "whore," Sanders disavowed the statement, and Song issued a heartfelt apology.


Song is someone I know well and respect as a serious student of healthcare policy and a valiant crusader for single-payer healthcare (we've shared panel appearances on this and other healthcare topics). He was unfairly pilloried for his terminology; having been present at many single-payer debates, I find it perfectly plausible that Song was referring generally to Democrats of little faith. (His wife, the journalist Lisa Ling, is a Clinton supporter.)


What's worse, his basic point got obscured once the social media outrage machine went into overdrive. It's a sound one and hardly subject to dispute: the obstacles to single-payer include "big pharma and the private insurance industry," along with political leaders who allow those industries' interests to control the policy discussion. It's a safe guess that Hillary Clinton, still bearing scars from her experience trying to get healthcare reform enacted during her husband's Administration, wouldn't disagree.


Oberlander, for his part, is impressed that single-payer is at least back on the debate floor, thanks in part to Sanders, whose platform includes Medicare-for-all. I've analyzed the Sanders proposal critically, while acknowledging that single-payer deserves to be front-and-center in any discussion of U.S. healthcare reform.


Many healthcare experts faulted Sanders for failing to accept that the American political system simply isn't going to get over its hostility to single-payer any time soon. Oberlander's point is that a fixation on single-payer threatens to become a distraction from efforts to preserve the gains already made and enact achievable advances in reform.


The irony is that Oberlander acknowledges that "the enduring appeal of Medicare for All is understandable, given the fragmented, inequitable, costly, profit-driven, and wasteful nonsystem that prevails in the United States." He notes, too, the failure (so far) of Obamacare to bring relief to the unaffordability of medical treatment for many Americans and the presence of a population of uninsureds that still numbers 30 million.


But aspiring to solve these problems via single-payer healthcare isn't enough, he argues. "Single-payer supporters have not articulated a convincing strategy for overcoming the formidable obstacles that stand in its way."


Medicare for All "would trigger fierce resistance from conservatives and the business community and anxiety in many insured Americans fearful about changing coverage and the specter of rationing" Oberlander writes. "The ACA’s comparatively conservative reform approach inspired false charges of 'socialized medicine,' 'pulling the plug on grandma,' and 'death panels.' It takes only a little imagination — or a look back at the history books — to predict the reactions that an actual single-payer plan would evoke."


He might have added that enactment of Medicare for all would intensify, rather than quell, the politicization of healthcare in the U.S. To quote again healthcare policy expert Harold Pollack, as we did in our analysis of the Sanders proposal: "Imagine the national policy debate over abortion, contraception, HIV prevention, immigration policy, and other matters in a national Medicare plan."


No rational expert on healthcare doubts that some form of single-payer is the best device for true healthcare reform in the U.S.--although as Oberlander notes, there are almost as many forms of single-payer in existence as there are countries that claim to apply it, from Britain's government-owned healthcare system to Canada's privately-owned but government-insured system, to the hybrid versions in Germany and Switzerland.


Oberlander believes that some incremental steps toward single-payer are "conceivable" but that a viable full-scale transformation is simply not currently foreseeable. He's not so far apart from some of single-payers' most dedicated advocates, many of whom take the long view.


The possible paths are many, but the goal beckons from the very distant future. What drives the single-payer dream is an essential truth, articulated for me a few years ago by the late Arnold Relman, the reformist former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine: "It's the only logical solution."


http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-single-payer-20160422-snap-htmlstory.html

Norman Bernstein
10-14-2016, 10:12 AM
You guys live in a dream world, not in the world where premiums have been going up 3 times faster than before Obama are.


Arrrggghhhh......

From Politifact:


On average, premiums have risen (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/04/republican-national-committee-republican/republican-national-committee-says-health-insuranc/) by about 5.8 percent a year since Obama took office, compared to 13.2 percent in the nine years before Obama.

Furthermore:


Just 7 percent of all plans in the federal exchange had a proposed rate hike of 30 percent or higher, estimates (https://www.agilehealthinsurance.com/term-health-insurance/health-insurance-learning-center/double-digit-obamacare-rate-hikes) Agile Health Insurance, which bills itself as "an affordable alternative to Obamacare." That translates to average increases at far lower levels than what Trump said.

Looking at finalized rates for the lowest and second-lowest cost marketplace plans in the silver category (https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/second-lowest-cost-silver-plan-slcsp/) — which are the basis for federal premium subsidies and chosen by 68 percent (http://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2015-Fact-sheets-items/2015-06-02.html) of enrollees — the average increase is nowhere near 35 to 55 percent.

The Kaiser Family Foundation found (http://kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet/analysis-of-2016-premium-changes-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marketplaces/) that the cost of a benchmark silver plan will be 4.4 percent more expensive on average across major cities in 13 states and Washington, D.C. (Again, that is a smaller annual increase than what had been occurring before Obamacare became law.)

So, if you're wistful about the 'good old days' BEFORE Obamacare, it must mean that you're anxious to see health care premiums rise far faster than with Obamacare.

Sure you'd want that?

peb
10-14-2016, 10:37 AM
Find the report that tells how much premiums have gone up for unsubsidized plans Norman. Then I will believe you.

Too Little Time
10-14-2016, 11:38 AM
2) Obamacare cannot be judged against a non-existent alternative.


So, if you're wistful about the 'good old days' BEFORE Obamacare, it must mean that you're anxious to see health care premiums rise far faster than with Obamacare.
Consistency is not your strong point.



The Kaiser Family Foundation found (http://kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet/analysis-of-2016-premium-changes-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marketplaces/) that the cost of a benchmark silver plan will be 4.4 percent more expensive on average across major cities in 13 states and Washington, D.C. (Again, that is a smaller annual increase than what had been occurring before Obamacare became law.)
I like the KFF people. They seem to do a good job. I went to the link and looked at the table. There seem to be a large number of states where the premiums (before rebates) went up 20% or more. The 4.4% does seem to be misleading.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-14-2016, 11:55 AM
Obamacare came about by passage of an ordinary legislative process. It can be altered like any other piece of legislation if there are enough votes.
The votes aren't there because the right has demonized ACA to heighten the hatred for the president among their constituents. Their constituents shy away from the ACA even tho' many of them would benefit by enrolling.

switters
10-14-2016, 11:58 AM
I have seen some media headlines that Bubba called Obamacare 'crazy'. He did not. What he said was, for-profit healthcare was crazy. There is a huge actual and perceptual difference between the headlines and the actual sentence. It does parallel my contention that to make a profit off other people's misery is immoral.

SINGLE PAYER!

Do you think the ACA (Obamacare) is not for profit health care?

Norman Bernstein
10-14-2016, 12:15 PM
Find the report that tells how much premiums have gone up for unsubsidized plans Norman. Then I will believe you.

There are quite a few... but the analysis is only meaningful if you compare the rate of premium increases BEFORE Obamacare, to those afterwards.


Republicans say the average family health insurance premium has increased by $4,154 under President Obama. That’s right — and it’s a much slower rate of growth than under President George W. Bush. In fact, employer-sponsored premiums have been growing at moderate rates for the past few years.

This is a prime example of what we call a “true, but” claim: an assertion that’s technically correct, but changes in meaning or significance once it’s put in context or fully explained.


The Republican National Committee took to Twitter (https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/557725275522609152) before Obama gave his State of the Union address to spread this statistic: “Under Obama, Average Family Premiums Have Increased $4,154.” Two days later, Rep. Barbara Comstock tweeted the same stat (https://twitter.com/RepComstock/status/558305390182817793), and the RNC lists it (http://rncresearch.tumblr.com/post/108696375165/sotu-fact-check-obamacare-premiums-under-obama), along with other premium numbers, in a State of the Union “fact check.”


The average employer-sponsored family premium has gone up by $4,154 under Obama, from 2008, before he took office, to 2014, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s annual employer survey (http://files.kff.org/attachment/2014-employer-health-benefits-survey-full-report) conducted with the Health Research & Educational Trust. The catch? That’s relatively slow growth for premiums. The RNC may cast it as bad news, but it’s an improvement compared with the growth in premiums before Obama took office.


Under Bush, the average family premiums (including both what employers and employees pay) went up $4,677 in his last six years in office, from 2002 to 2008, an increase of 58 percent. That $4,154 growth under Obama is a 33 percent increase. If we look at Bush’s first six years, the discrepancy gets even bigger: From 2000, the year before Bush was first inaugurated, to 2006, the average family premium went up $5,042, or an increase of 78 percent. (See Exhibit 1.11 on page 31 of the KFF report for these numbers.)

So, yeah.... out of context, the premium increases seem huge.

Relative to what they were WITHOUT Obamacare?

Not so much.

Health care costs have been rising out of proportion to inflation for many decades... and not even the ACA can prevent that. More and better treatments for illnesses cost more and more money. Of course, if you needed a new heart 40 years ago, the cost of treatment was remarkably low: there WAS no treatment.

We can debate if new and expensive treatments are 'worthwhile', 'economical', or cost-conscious'.... the only person not willing to participate in THAT debate would probably be the patient. I don't know too many conservatives, opposed to Obamacare, who are willing to short-shrift themselves on health care, when there's a crisis... I only know conservatives who argue that the high cost of health care is justified only for those capable of paying... and not, for those who aren't.

Corvida
10-14-2016, 02:09 PM
Just to set the record straight, the singular reason we do not have single payer in America is Joe Lieberman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/health/policy/14health.html

He was the 60th and deciding vote to override republicans, and flat out refused to vote for anything with single payer in it. Every other Democrat was on board with a Medicare buy in.

Ted Hoppe
10-14-2016, 02:21 PM
Obama sucks.

he is/was a disappointment. There are many here will compare him to someone who would have done nothing which makes him look good. Such dysfunction from a community organizer who didn't carry out what he said he would in such a convictive speeches.

Ted Hoppe
10-14-2016, 02:23 PM
Just to set the record straight, the singular reason we do not have single payer in America is Joe Lieberman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/health/policy/14health.html

He was the 60th and deciding vote to override republicans, and flat out refused to vote for anything with single payer in it. Every other Democrat was on board with a Medicare buy in.

The reason why we do not have single payer is because none of us made them do it. You can't blame anyone except your self when it comes to representive government. voting is just the beginning. Had we had hundrds of thousand go to Washington, written letters, made thier desires known they would have made the effort but instead we left the insurance and big pharma write our coverage legislation.

Norman Bernstein
10-14-2016, 02:31 PM
he is/was a disappointment. There are many here will compare him to someone who would have done nothing which makes him look good. Such dysfunction from a community organizer who didn't carry out what he said he would in such a convictive speeches.

I suspect that history will strongly contradict your opinion.

Ted Hoppe
10-14-2016, 02:35 PM
What is crazy is that "poor" people have gold coverage for free. Regular folks who are self employed have bronze coverage with huge deductibles. This is hardly fair when working middle folks who are paying out of pocket are covering a lot more burden and for much much more benefits.

Since becoming truly self employed myself... it was explained to me that I needed to pay myself 17,000 a year and my medical coverage would be free saving me 1800 a month. If I paid myself 65,000 a year I would be responsible for that 1800. That is so goofy as I need to earn 2600 dollars a month more before taxes so I can pay that 1800 to get the coverage I would get for free if I didn't work.

Ted Hoppe
10-14-2016, 02:40 PM
I suspect that history will strongly contradict your opinion.

did Obama not say he would restore habieas corpus, close those unlawful Guantanamo prisons, create a stable Iraq, prosecute the Wall Street banksters, improved international trade for working Americans... the list goes on and on. Morover - diespite have a Black president we have the worst race riots since the 1970s.

Norm perhaps compared to what we can expect from our two prize candidates, Obama will appear good. Until he fulfills those promises above...then this opinion can stand on its face of facts.

Norman Bernstein
10-14-2016, 02:45 PM
What is crazy is that "poor" people have gold coverage for free.

REALLY? Link or reference, please.


Regular folks who are self employed have bronze coverage with huge deductibles. This is hardly fair when working middle folks who are paying out of pocket are covering a lot more burden and for much much more benefits.

Since becoming truly self employed myself... it was explained to me that I needed to pay myself 17,000 a year and my medical coverage would be free saving me 1800 a month. If I paid myself 65,000 a year I would be responsible for that 1800. That is so goofy as I need to earn 2600 dollars a month more before taxes so I can pay that 1800 to get the coverage I would get for free if I didn't work.

Uhhhh, not QUITE the way it works. First, when you're self employed, if you are organized as an S Corp, you DO have the ability to pay yourself, as an employee (meaning, with full payroll deductions for SS, Medicare, unemployment, etc.), as well as taking an 'owners draw', i.e., your share of the profits. The former requires payroll deductions, the latter does not... but BOTH require paying income tax. If you're not an LLC or S corp, all of your income (less deductible business expenses) will be taxed with 'self employment' tax (i.e., payroll taxes)

Unfortunately, the IRS, in it's wisdom (or lack thereof) does not define what portion of income must be paid as salary (with payroll deductions), and what portion can be taken as an owner's draw, if you're an S corp. There's no specific number.... but at any time, if you're audited, the IRS can decide that you've taken too little as salary vs. an owner's draw, and penalize you with fines. Of course, like a lot of tax cheating, you can only be 'snagged' if you're audited, and random audits are a low percentage phenomenon.... but considering the subsidized health care issue, I suspect that anyone taking only a tiny portion of their income as salary, is waving a red flag in front of the taxman's face.

Regardless, you could pay yourself $17,000 in salary, and take the rest as an owners draw.... your eligibility would be determined by your total income, NOT by just the 'salary' portion.

I think you've been getting some very bad advice.

Norman Bernstein
10-14-2016, 02:52 PM
did Obama not say he would restore habieas corpus, close those unlawful Guantanamo prisons, create a stable Iraq, prosecute the Wall Street banksters, improved international trade for working Americans... the list goes on and on. Morover - diespite have a Black president we have the worst race riots since the 1970s.

Norm perhaps compared to what we can expect from our two prize candidates, Obama will appear good. Until he fulfills those promises above...then this opinion can stand on its face of facts.

That all works, if you're especially naive.

EVERY Presidential candidate makes campaign promises. NO Presidential candidate, when elected, delivers on every single promise. In the case of Obama, and for the very first time, we have an inventory of his campaign promises, and the results.... Politifact has been keeping a running tab since 2008... I can't seem to find the running total, but last time it was posted, he delivered on the majority of his campaign promises... and many of the ones he didn't deliver on, he COULDN'T, due to Congressional obstruction.

Take a look:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/

We can play this game with EVERY single Presidential campaign winner for decades, and the same would be true. So, based on your criteria, there has NEVER been a good President, since ALL of them failed to deliver on at least some major campaign promises. It's an especially naive perspective.

We could elect Trump... how well do you think HE would be able to deliver in his promises?

For a tabulated list of Obama's accomplishments in office, see http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

Could he have done more? Maybe. Did he 'fail'? Certainly not.

Ted Hoppe
10-14-2016, 03:02 PM
He
REALLY? Link or reference, please.



Uhhhh, not QUITE the way it works. First, when you're self employed, if you are organized as an S Corp, you DO have the ability to pay yourself, as an employee (meaning, with full payroll deductions for SS, Medicare, unemployment, etc.), as well as taking an 'owners draw', i.e., your share of the profits. The former requires payroll deductions, the latter does not... but BOTH require paying income tax. If you're not an LLC or S corp, all of your income (less deductible business expenses) will be taxed with 'self employment' tax (i.e., payroll taxes)

Unfortunately, the IRS, in it's wisdom (or lack thereof) does not define what portion of income must be paid as salary (with payroll deductions), and what portion can be taken as an owner's draw, if you're an S corp. There's no specific number.... but at any time, if you're audited, the IRS can decide that you've taken too little as salary vs. an owner's draw, and penalize you with fines. Of course, like a lot of tax cheating, you can only be 'snagged' if you're audited, and random audits are a low percentage phenomenon.... but considering the subsidized health care issue, I suspect that anyone taking only a tiny portion of their income as salary, is waving a red flag in front of the taxman's face.

I am well aware of S corps taxes, I met with a few accountants. The system sucks for those in small business as you well know. The fact is I need to work 1 week a month earning 2600 to cover my families health insurance at the same level as those who don't work at all that get same best insurance as we have. Crazy - you bet.

one more thing - I know few millionaires and billionaires who receive ACA benefits as they have recognized that paying themselves is stupid. IN fact I overheard a billionaire owner of a transnational corporation telling his lawyer he recieved Blue Cross Blue Sheild gold coverage for 16 dollars a month through California Care as he pays himself 1 dollar a year. Moreover - There are many high wealth individuals who quietly who get gold coverage at state expense for thier families, receive total college tuition from the goverment for thier children and many other benefits we set aside for the poor. do you think Trump was unique in saying he was so smart for figuring out how to game the system. OBamas' ACA proves we alll are suckers.

Norman Bernstein
10-14-2016, 03:13 PM
I am well aware of S corps taxes, I met with a few accountants. The system sucks for those in small business as you well know. The fact is I need to work 1 week a month earning 2600 to cover may families health insurance at the same level as those who don't that get same best insurance. Crazy - you bet.

Sorry, but you almost make it sound as if it would be far better to be poor.... which is incredibly offensive to poor people. You think it's better to actually be earning $17K/yr, in order to get free health care, rather than earnig $65K per year, and paying for health care?

You don't really believe that... and, once again, if you were actually earning $65K a year but declaring only $17K, you'd be a tax cheat.


one more thing - I know few millionaires and billionaires who receive ACA benefits as they have recognized that paying themselves is stupid.

First, how is it that you know 'a few millionaires and billionaires'?

Secondly, in what possible universe would a millionaire or billionaire want to cheat the system for the sake of, say, $25,000 in free health care?

Sorry, but I don't buy ANY of that... it doesn't even REMOTELY make sense!


IN fact I overheard a billionaire owner of a transnational corporation telling his lawyer he recieved gold levelBlue Cross Blue Sheild gold coverage for 16 dollars a month through California Care as he pays himself 1 dollar a year.

Another story I don't believe. To qualify for subsidized health care, they ask about ALL your income, not merely salary.


Moreover - There are many high wealth individuals who quietly who get gold coverage at state expense for thier families, receive total college tuition from the goverment for thier children and many other benefits we set aside for the poor.

Yet another claim that I'd have to see substantiated. I'm not going to believe that bubbemeiseh without proof.


do you think Trump was unique in saying he was so smart for figuring out how to game the system.

Trump, like lots of high wealth individuals, take advantage of loopholes and defects in the law.

I do NOT criticize Trump, or anyone else, for taking advantage of those loopholes...... (and more importantly, it's not Trump's 'genius', it's his accountants who figure this stuff out. Implying that Trump is a 'genius' for taking advantage of tax loopholes that thousands of accountants are well aware of, is ridiculous)

I DO criticize him for trying to preserve them... and create even bigger ones, through his 'trickle down' economic plan, as well as the entirely self-serving proposal to end the estate tax... benefiting his own children immensely.


OBamas' ACA proves we alll are suckers.

The only 'suckers' are the people who are willing to swallow the right wing propaganda, and refuse to look this stuff up, for themselves. This thread has a ton of false myths about Obamacare, all of which can be discovered quite easily, on line.

Ted Hoppe
10-14-2016, 03:27 PM
Sorry, but you almost make it sound as if it would be far better to be poor.... which is incredibly offensive to poor people. You think it's better to actually be earning $17K/yr, in order to get free health care, rather than earnig $65K per year, and paying for health care?

You don't really believe that... and, once again, if you were actually earning $65K a year but declaring only $17K, you'd be a tax cheat.



First, how is it that you know 'a few millionaires and billionaires'?

Secondly, in what possible universe would a millionaire or billionaire want to cheat the system for the sake of, say, $25,000 in free health care?

Sorry, but I don't buy ANY of that... it doesn't even REMOTELY make sense!

Another story I don't believe. To qualify for subsidized health care, they ask about ALL your income, not merely salary.

Yet another claim that I'd have to see substantiated. I'm not going to believe that bubbemeiseh without proof.

Trump, like lots of high wealth individuals, take advantage of loopholes and defects in the law.

I do NOT criticize Trump, or anyone else, for taking advantage of those loopholes......

I DO criticize him for trying to preserve them.

The only 'suckers' are the people who are willing to swallow the right wing propaganda, and refuse to look this stuff up, for themselves. This thread has a ton of false myths about Obamacare, all of which can be discovered quite easily, on line.

Norm - I respect you, your opinions often and find general agreement on many issues. But here you are out of your area of expertise talking about what people get away with and what forms those government employees ask for. Perhaps it is different where you live. I just went through it getting my family covered. I submitted everything they asked for and they gave me a quote that was chilling.

The facts are the system is screwed. I don't care how nice a fellow Barry is. He did create a flawed system

Norman Bernstein
10-14-2016, 04:09 PM
Perhaps it is different where you live. I just went through it getting my family covered. I submitted everything they asked for and they gave me a quote that was chilling.

I'm sorry that, in your personal circumstance, you came out on the bad side.... but you simply cannot judge the entire system on the basis of a personal anecdote. The overall statistics are available for anyone willing to look for them, and they paint a very different picture.

(Fair disclosure: since I turned 65 last week, I am now on Medicare. As it turns out, my total costs, factoring in the cost of the supplemental plan, along with the surcharges imposed by Medicare due to my income, when compared with the savings due to my dropping off my wife's employee plan, made little difference... maybe I saved $100 or so_


The facts are the system is screwed. I don't care how nice a fellow Barry is. He did create a flawed system

He did what he could. Yes, he did it without a single GOP vote in Congress.... but congress wasn't the only party that he needed cooperation from: he needed insurance company participation, and big pharma cooperation, etc. Yes, it' a flawed system.... but I'm fairly positive that you wouldn't want to return to the way things were before the ACA, because you'd be even WORSE off.

This issue before us is whether we fix Obamacare.... or repeal it, without ANY proposal for a replacement. Millions of people are better off with the ACA... I'm sorry that you aren't one of them... but not sorry about the millions who heretofore had NO health care coverage.

Too Little Time
10-14-2016, 06:21 PM
What is crazy is that "poor" people have gold coverage for free. Regular folks who are self employed have bronze coverage with huge deductibles. This is hardly fair when working middle folks who are paying out of pocket are covering a lot more burden and for much much more benefits.

Since becoming truly self employed myself... it was explained to me that I needed to pay myself 17,000 a year and my medical coverage would be free saving me 1800 a month. If I paid myself 65,000 a year I would be responsible for that 1800. That is so goofy as I need to earn 2600 dollars a month more before taxes so I can pay that 1800 to get the coverage I would get for free if I didn't work.
One disadvantage of being self employed is that the business owner cannot deduct insurance premiums for himself. One advantage of being self employed is that the owner can deduct insurance premiums for his wife (who works in the business) and her spouse (the business owner).

I am in favor of free health care for the poor. I don't remember how the subsidies phase out, but I think premiums are limited to 10% of income. That seems a reasonable phase out.

David W Pratt
10-14-2016, 07:44 PM
Did Clinton have his post-coronary treatment in Canada of the US?

peb
10-24-2016, 06:58 PM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_PREMIUMS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-10-24-17-03-27

25% average across 39 states before subsidies. I haven't checked into my increase, but I expect to get killed for the 4th straight year. Ouch.

peb
10-24-2016, 07:08 PM
Gotta love this little snippet from the article posted in #43:


In some states, the premium increases are striking. In Arizona, unsubsidized premiums for a hypothetical 27-year-old buying a benchmark "second-lowest cost silver plan" will jump by 116 percent, from $196 to $422, according to the administration report.
But HHS said if that hypothetical consumer has a fairly modest income, making $25,000 a year, the subsidies would cover $280 of the new premium, and the consumer would pay $142. Caveat: if the consumer is making $30,000 or $40,000 his or her subsidy would be significantly lower.

So, lets look at this person with 25K/year income. It does not say what he was paying the previous year after subsidy, so lets just assume the percentage is the same. He will pay $142 out of $422. That is 33%. So if he is paying 33% of 196 in 2016, that is $64/month. His payments are going up a whopping 121%. Yikes. Or it is going from 3% of is gross income to almost 7% of his gross income. That is astoundingly bad. That is a system that is in complete meltdown.

Too Little Time
10-24-2016, 07:46 PM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_PREMIUMS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-10-24-17-03-27

25% average across 39 states before subsidies. I haven't checked into my increase, but I expect to get killed for the 4th straight year. Ouch.

As I said in another post:

You can buy outside of the marketplace. There the increases are not as large. The reason is those policies are priced according to risk not government whim.