Obamacare individual mandate

[133743Hokie]

Just read an interesting column...

Based on 2017 tax data, approximately 4 million people paid the fines/taxes for not having insurance. The average payment was $708. Given that the required payment was the greater of $695 or 2.5% of taxable income above the filing threshold ($10,350 in 2017), it appears that most of the fines/taxes were paid by people with low incomes. The math comes out to $38,670 average taxable income. So the new tax law will help about 4 million people making an average of less than $39k keep more of their money.

[awesome guy]

Liberals hate the poor, thank God president Trump is helping them out.

[RiverguyVT]

Just read an interesting column...

Based on 2017 tax data, approximately 4 million people paid the fines/taxes for not having insurance. The average payment was $708. Given that the required payment was the greater of $695 or 2.5% of taxable income above the filing threshold ($10,350 in 2017), it appears that most of the fines/taxes were paid by people with low incomes. The math comes out to $38,670 average taxable income. So the new tax law will help about 4 million people making an average of less than $39k keep more of their money.

Ha! Solid take!
Thx!

[cwtcr hokie]

Just read an interesting column...

Based on 2017 tax data, approximately 4 million people paid the fines/taxes for not having insurance. The average payment was $708. Given that the required payment was the greater of $695 or 2.5% of taxable income above the filing threshold ($10,350 in 2017), it appears that most of the fines/taxes were paid by people with low incomes. The math comes out to $38,670 average taxable income. So the new tax law will help about 4 million people making an average of less than $39k keep more of their money.

And per the MSM 52 million people will lose coverage without the mandate (tax penalty).... huh????? NOBODY loses coverage, any person in the USA can still go get health insurance and the subsidies are still there if you are poor. The tax penalty has zippo to do with if a human has the personal responsibility to go get health ins. in some form.

[ElbertoHokie]

Just read an interesting column...

Based on 2017 tax data, approximately 4 million people paid the fines/taxes for not having insurance. The average payment was $708. Given that the required payment was the greater of $695 or 2.5% of taxable income above the filing threshold ($10,350 in 2017), it appears that most of the fines/taxes were paid by people with low incomes. The math comes out to $38,670 average taxable income. So the new tax law will help about 4 million people making an average of less than $39k keep more of their money.

And per the MSM 52 million people will lose coverage without the mandate (tax penalty).... huh????? NOBODY loses coverage, any person in the USA can still go get health insurance and the subsidies are still there if you are poor. The tax penalty has zippo to do with if a human has the personal responsibility to go get health ins. in some form.

You do understand that those MSM numbers come from the fact that they're assuming that more people that 4M will elect to not get covered. Those people are probably healthier so premiums will go up for the people the unhealthier people that elect to get covered. Those people may not be able to afford the premiums and then they drop off coverage and the vicious cycle continues?

[cwtcr hokie]

Just read an interesting column...

Based on 2017 tax data, approximately 4 million people paid the fines/taxes for not having insurance. The average payment was $708. Given that the required payment was the greater of $695 or 2.5% of taxable income above the filing threshold ($10,350 in 2017), it appears that most of the fines/taxes were paid by people with low incomes. The math comes out to $38,670 average taxable income. So the new tax law will help about 4 million people making an average of less than $39k keep more of their money.

And per the MSM 52 million people will lose coverage without the mandate (tax penalty).... huh????? NOBODY loses coverage, any person in the USA can still go get health insurance and the subsidies are still there if you are poor. The tax penalty has zippo to do with if a human has the personal responsibility to go get health ins. in some form.

You do understand that those MSM numbers come from the fact that they're assuming that more people that 4M will elect to not get covered. Those people are probably healthier so premiums will go up for the people the unhealthier people that elect to get covered. Those people may not be able to afford the premiums and then they drop off coverage and the vicious cycle continues?

Glad you agree that humans DECIDE to buy health insurance or not, same as any other insurance. Of course if you are dumb enough to think insurance is not worth it then your life span is probably short anyways.... hard to fix stupid

[HokieHam]

Just read an interesting column...

Based on 2017 tax data, approximately 4 million people paid the fines/taxes for not having insurance. The average payment was $708. Given that the required payment was the greater of $695 or 2.5% of taxable income above the filing threshold ($10,350 in 2017), it appears that most of the fines/taxes were paid by people with low incomes. The math comes out to $38,670 average taxable income. So the new tax law will help about 4 million people making an average of less than $39k keep more of their money.

Can you link it?

[ip_law-hokie]

Just read an interesting column...

Based on 2017 tax data, approximately 4 million people paid the fines/taxes for not having insurance. The average payment was $708. Given that the required payment was the greater of $695 or 2.5% of taxable income above the filing threshold ($10,350 in 2017), it appears that most of the fines/taxes were paid by people with low incomes. The math comes out to $38,670 average taxable income. So the new tax law will help about 4 million people making an average of less than $39k keep more of their money.

And per the MSM 52 million people will lose coverage without the mandate (tax penalty).... huh????? NOBODY loses coverage, any person in the USA can still go get health insurance and the subsidies are still there if you are poor. The tax penalty has zippo to do with if a human has the personal responsibility to go get health ins. in some form.

You do understand that those MSM numbers come from the fact that they're assuming that more people that 4M will elect to not get covered. Those people are probably healthier so premiums will go up for the people the unhealthier people that elect to get covered. Those people may not be able to afford the premiums and then they drop off coverage and the vicious cycle continues?

Glad you agree that humans DECIDE to buy health insurance or not, same as any other insurance. Of course if you are dumb enough to think insurance is not worth it then your life span is probably short anyways.... hard to fix stupid

Humans decide to buy health insurance, but our society demands that all people who are sufficiently ill get treatment - regardless of whether they can pay for it.

Until this changes, the only option is too ration and allocate health services to the most people for the lowest possible cost.

Single payer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HokieFanDC]

Just read an interesting column...

Based on 2017 tax data, approximately 4 million people paid the fines/taxes for not having insurance. The average payment was $708. Given that the required payment was the greater of $695 or 2.5% of taxable income above the filing threshold ($10,350 in 2017), it appears that most of the fines/taxes were paid by people with low incomes. The math comes out to $38,670 average taxable income. So the new tax law will help about 4 million people making an average of less than $39k keep more of their money.

And per the MSM 52 million people will lose coverage without the mandate (tax penalty).... huh????? NOBODY loses coverage, any person in the USA can still go get health insurance and the subsidies are still there if you are poor. The tax penalty has zippo to do with if a human has the personal responsibility to go get health ins. in some form.

You do understand that those MSM numbers come from the fact that they're assuming that more people that 4M will elect to not get covered. Those people are probably healthier so premiums will go up for the people the unhealthier people that elect to get covered. Those people may not be able to afford the premiums and then they drop off coverage and the vicious cycle continues?

Glad you agree that humans DECIDE to buy health insurance or not, same as any other insurance. Of course if you are dumb enough to think insurance is not worth it then your life span is probably short anyways.... hard to fix stupid

Humans decide to buy health insurance, but our society demands that all people who are sufficiently ill get treatment - regardless of whether they can pay for it.

Until this changes, the only option is too ration and allocate health services to the most people for the lowest possible cost.

Single payer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not for single payer, but I agree that people who can't afford great healthcare plans shouldn't get great healthcare plans.

[awesome guy]

Single payer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll take policies IP doesn't comprehend for $100 Alex

[RiverguyVT]

Single payer would cause prices to go (way) up, per person.

[HokieHam]

Single payer would cause prices to go (way) up, per person.

And would overwhelm the system. Consequences.........

[ip_law-hokie]

Single payer would cause prices to go (way) up, per person.

Got it.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answer ... thcare.asp

[133743Hokie]

Single payer would cause prices to go (way) up, per person.

Had a really good discussion with my 28 year old son on this topic while sitting around the fire pit drinking beer when he was in town over Thanksgiving. He was referencing a white paper on the topic that he had read.

Essentially the papers take is that all of the premiums paid for health insurance policies plus all of the individual co-pays and deductibles paid would cover all of the additional funding needed, above current tax dollars, to pay for universal single payer coverage of a similar level to today's coverages. Thus the individual wouldn't see any cost above what they see today -- it would be cost neutral.

I need to try and find that paper.

[ip_law-hokie]

Single payer would cause prices to go (way) up, per person.

Had a really good discussion with my 28 year old son on this topic while sitting around the fire pit drinking beer when he was in town over Thanksgiving. He was referencing a white paper on the topic that he had read.

Essentially the papers take is that all of the premiums paid for health insurance policies plus all of the individual co-pays and deductibles paid would cover all of the additional funding needed, above current tax dollars, to pay for universal single payer coverage of a similar level to today's coverages. Thus the individual wouldn't see any cost above what they see today -- it would be cost neutral.

I need to try and find that paper.

Our per capita costs already greatly exceed any other country’s. It’s not close and it’s only going to get worse.

You guys seem think that I welcome single payer wholeheartedly. I don’t. There will be rations.

But it’s the only realistic way forward. Every other industrialized nation has come to this conclusion except us, and look where we stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[USN_Hokie]

Those people are probably healthier so premiums will go up for the people the unhealthier people that elect to get covered.

Translation: old people won't have their boner pills subsidized by young healthy people.

I'm good with this.

[cwtcr hokie]

Single payer would cause prices to go (way) up, per person.

Had a really good discussion with my 28 year old son on this topic while sitting around the fire pit drinking beer when he was in town over Thanksgiving. He was referencing a white paper on the topic that he had read.

Essentially the papers take is that all of the premiums paid for health insurance policies plus all of the individual co-pays and deductibles paid would cover all of the additional funding needed, above current tax dollars, to pay for universal single payer coverage of a similar level to today's coverages. Thus the individual wouldn't see any cost above what they see today -- it would be cost neutral.

I need to try and find that paper.

Our per capita costs already greatly exceed any other country’s. It’s not close and it’s only going to get worse.

You guys seem think that I welcome single payer wholeheartedly. I don’t. There will be rations.

But it’s the only realistic way forward. Every other industrialized nation has come to this conclusion except us, and look where we stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You do realize that we pay the most as the rest of the world is subsidized by the good ol USA. OF course if you want to wait 6-9 months to have something checked out then yes you would be for single payer.

[ip_law-hokie]

Single payer would cause prices to go (way) up, per person.

Had a really good discussion with my 28 year old son on this topic while sitting around the fire pit drinking beer when he was in town over Thanksgiving. He was referencing a white paper on the topic that he had read.

Essentially the papers take is that all of the premiums paid for health insurance policies plus all of the individual co-pays and deductibles paid would cover all of the additional funding needed, above current tax dollars, to pay for universal single payer coverage of a similar level to today's coverages. Thus the individual wouldn't see any cost above what they see today -- it would be cost neutral.

I need to try and find that paper.

Our per capita costs already greatly exceed any other country’s. It’s not close and it’s only going to get worse.

You guys seem think that I welcome single payer wholeheartedly. I don’t. There will be rations.

But it’s the only realistic way forward. Every other industrialized nation has come to this conclusion except us, and look where we stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You do realize that we pay the most as the rest of the world is subsidized by the good ol USA.

We subsidize the bottom lines of pharmaceutical companies, correct. So let’s stop doing that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cwtcr hokie]

Single payer would cause prices to go (way) up, per person.

Had a really good discussion with my 28 year old son on this topic while sitting around the fire pit drinking beer when he was in town over Thanksgiving. He was referencing a white paper on the topic that he had read.

Essentially the papers take is that all of the premiums paid for health insurance policies plus all of the individual co-pays and deductibles paid would cover all of the additional funding needed, above current tax dollars, to pay for universal single payer coverage of a similar level to today's coverages. Thus the individual wouldn't see any cost above what they see today -- it would be cost neutral.

I need to try and find that paper.

Our per capita costs already greatly exceed any other country’s. It’s not close and it’s only going to get worse.

You guys seem think that I welcome single payer wholeheartedly. I don’t. There will be rations.

But it’s the only realistic way forward. Every other industrialized nation has come to this conclusion except us, and look where we stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You do realize that we pay the most as the rest of the world is subsidized by the good ol USA.

We subsidize the bottom lines of pharmaceutical companies, correct. So let’s stop doing that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

how do we "subsidize" private pharma companies, please explain in more than two words

[ip_law-hokie]

Single payer would cause prices to go (way) up, per person.

Had a really good discussion with my 28 year old son on this topic while sitting around the fire pit drinking beer when he was in town over Thanksgiving. He was referencing a white paper on the topic that he had read.

Essentially the papers take is that all of the premiums paid for health insurance policies plus all of the individual co-pays and deductibles paid would cover all of the additional funding needed, above current tax dollars, to pay for universal single payer coverage of a similar level to today's coverages. Thus the individual wouldn't see any cost above what they see today -- it would be cost neutral.

I need to try and find that paper.

Our per capita costs already greatly exceed any other country’s. It’s not close and it’s only going to get worse.

You guys seem think that I welcome single payer wholeheartedly. I don’t. There will be rations.

But it’s the only realistic way forward. Every other industrialized nation has come to this conclusion except us, and look where we stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You do realize that we pay the most as the rest of the world is subsidized by the good ol USA.

We subsidize the bottom lines of pharmaceutical companies, correct. So let’s stop doing that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

how do we "subsidize" private pharma companies, please explain in more than two words

Because they get 2x, 3x or more for the cost of a drug or procedure, as compared to what health agencies around the world are paying for it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cwtcr hokie]

Single payer would cause prices to go (way) up, per person.

Had a really good discussion with my 28 year old son on this topic while sitting around the fire pit drinking beer when he was in town over Thanksgiving. He was referencing a white paper on the topic that he had read.

Essentially the papers take is that all of the premiums paid for health insurance policies plus all of the individual co-pays and deductibles paid would cover all of the additional funding needed, above current tax dollars, to pay for universal single payer coverage of a similar level to today's coverages. Thus the individual wouldn't see any cost above what they see today -- it would be cost neutral.

I need to try and find that paper.

Our per capita costs already greatly exceed any other country’s. It’s not close and it’s only going to get worse.

You guys seem think that I welcome single payer wholeheartedly. I don’t. There will be rations.

But it’s the only realistic way forward. Every other industrialized nation has come to this conclusion except us, and look where we stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You do realize that we pay the most as the rest of the world is subsidized by the good ol USA.

We subsidize the bottom lines of pharmaceutical companies, correct. So let’s stop doing that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

how do we "subsidize" private pharma companies, please explain in more than two words

Because they get 2x, 3x or more for the cost of a drug or procedure, as compared to what health agencies around the world are paying for it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

They get what from who, again use words, makes discussion easier. FYI, the reason the rest of the world pays little for drugs is the american consumer pays the price for drugs. Funny thing though is it costs a ton to get a single drug to market, not to mention the massive amount of dollars lost on drugs that never sell a single dose of it. But your problem is if pharma does not spend a ton trying to get new drugs to work our healthcare does not improve..... so more people die

[USN_Hokie]

[

Our per capita costs already greatly exceed any other country’s. It’s not close and it’s only going to get worse.

You guys seem think that I welcome single payer wholeheartedly. I don’t. There will be rations.

But it’s the only realistic way forward. Every other industrialized nation has come to this conclusion except us, and look where we stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You do realize that we pay the most as the rest of the world is subsidized by the good ol USA.

We subsidize the bottom lines of pharmaceutical companies, correct. So let’s stop doing that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

how do we "subsidize" private pharma companies, please explain in more than two words

Because they get 2x, 3x or more for the cost of a drug or procedure, as compared to what health agencies around the world are paying for it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IP I think Bernie Sanders stole your login information. I just thought you would want to know.

[133743Hokie]

Single payer would cause prices to go (way) up, per person.

Had a really good discussion with my 28 year old son on this topic while sitting around the fire pit drinking beer when he was in town over Thanksgiving. He was referencing a white paper on the topic that he had read.

Essentially the papers take is that all of the premiums paid for health insurance policies plus all of the individual co-pays and deductibles paid would cover all of the additional funding needed, above current tax dollars, to pay for universal single payer coverage of a similar level to today's coverages. Thus the individual wouldn't see any cost above what they see today -- it would be cost neutral.

I need to try and find that paper.

Our per capita costs already greatly exceed any other country’s. It’s not close and it’s only going to get worse.

You guys seem think that I welcome single payer wholeheartedly. I don’t. There will be rations.

But it’s the only realistic way forward. Every other industrialized nation has come to this conclusion except us, and look where we stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We stand as the premier industrialized nation -- that's where we stand.

[ip_law-hokie]

Single payer would cause prices to go (way) up, per person.

Had a really good discussion with my 28 year old son on this topic while sitting around the fire pit drinking beer when he was in town over Thanksgiving. He was referencing a white paper on the topic that he had read.

Essentially the papers take is that all of the premiums paid for health insurance policies plus all of the individual co-pays and deductibles paid would cover all of the additional funding needed, above current tax dollars, to pay for universal single payer coverage of a similar level to today's coverages. Thus the individual wouldn't see any cost above what they see today -- it would be cost neutral.

I need to try and find that paper.

Our per capita costs already greatly exceed any other country’s. It’s not close and it’s only going to get worse.

You guys seem think that I welcome single payer wholeheartedly. I don’t. There will be rations.

But it’s the only realistic way forward. Every other industrialized nation has come to this conclusion except us, and look where we stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We stand as the premier industrialized nation -- that's where we stand.

You can keep thinking that, but you are wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[133743Hokie]

Single payer would cause prices to go (way) up, per person.

Had a really good discussion with my 28 year old son on this topic while sitting around the fire pit drinking beer when he was in town over Thanksgiving. He was referencing a white paper on the topic that he had read.

Essentially the papers take is that all of the premiums paid for health insurance policies plus all of the individual co-pays and deductibles paid would cover all of the additional funding needed, above current tax dollars, to pay for universal single payer coverage of a similar level to today's coverages. Thus the individual wouldn't see any cost above what they see today -- it would be cost neutral.

I need to try and find that paper.

Our per capita costs already greatly exceed any other country’s. It’s not close and it’s only going to get worse.

You guys seem think that I welcome single payer wholeheartedly. I don’t. There will be rations.

But it’s the only realistic way forward. Every other industrialized nation has come to this conclusion except us, and look where we stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We stand as the premier industrialized nation -- that's where we stand.

You can keep thinking that, but you are wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So please enlighten us as to which country is. Would love to hear your thoughts.