VI included in Health Care Bill

chockman, a little earlir in this post it was mentioned that if you have under a certain number of employees, you will not have to provide it. read back a little bit to check that out.

Chockman: If you mean that you'll have to provide health insurance for your employees, it's only true if you have over 50 employees. If you mean that your taxes will go up, then you can determine now if that affects you, and how much.

Below is the part of the bill dealing with increased taxes. The rich and the tanned are paying those taxes, mostly.

From http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html
QUOTE
Paying for the Plan:

- Medicare Payroll tax on investment income -- Starting in 2012, the Medicare Payroll Tax will be expanded to include unearned income. That will be a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for families making more than $250,000 per year ($200,000 for individuals).
- Excise Tax -- Beginning in 2018, insurance companies will pay a 40 percent excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" high-end insurance plans worth over $27,500 for families ($10,200 for individuals). Dental and vision plans are exempt and will not be counted in the total cost of a family's plan.
- Tanning Tax -- 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services.
UNQUOTE

For a year or so I should be able to keep prices reasonable

Chockman: If the taxes won't affect you for a year or so, then you must be a family making more than $250,000 per year ($200,000 for individuals), and you have unearned income (eg: interest, dividends, rental property). That's wonderful! You should have no trouble financing a restaurant business here.

I think you're almost up to stage 5!
1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

(And I meant that only as a light-hearted joke)

A Davis,
Sassy or Full of yourself:P

depends on who's buyin'

speee1dy....the service I used in the states would offer the prospective "employee" a list of benefits they could purchase if they so elected to....the benefits were an option ....taken from thier paycheck.... the service would handle that paperwork for them.. such as enrollment ,options ,etc... I as the customer to the service didn't have to be involved in these issues/decisions .... the employee got to decide if they wanted to purchase or afford it.....I wanted distance from these personell type matters...All I wanted was the labor expense .. ... what they did with their paycheck/earnings was up to them and the choices that the sevice had to offer...I always could choose to increase their wages or let them go completely with a phone call to the service ...the other none benefits ,such as workmen comp ,taxes etc came out as necessary

Hey Chicken Little, did you know that there is one class of persons specifically guaranteed the right to healthcare in the United States? Prisoners-something about denying them care being cruel and unusual punishment-according to the Supreme Court anyway.

Just about everything but breathing is more complicated and or expensive now than it was when the Founding Father's did their thing. Consider what is required to become a doctor today versus 200 years ago? Had affording medical care weighed so heavily on the common man then as today, do you really think it would have been overlooked? They were trying to build a country, and had the possibility of medical care been something they saw standing between success and failure, I believe it would have been provided! The genius of our Constitution is that it was purposely crafted to be a basic framework, open to interpretation, and at times subject to change via amendment. Back then they realized that societies evolve, and government needs to reflect those changes or perish.

So, no, health care is not a Right specifically provided by the Constitution for most of us, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed, or that room won't be made eventually to make it one. What we have now is a requirement that everyone have healthcare, and our government stepping in to provide an alternative to private insurance. What we faced otherwise was continued rising costs, corporate profiteering, and more and more poor and middle class risking everything they have because they cannot afford insurance.

The sky isn't falling, it's just changing a little like it always has.

Peace!

I'm curious. Why does everyone feel healthcare is or should be a "right?" We don't offer free medical education to providers. We don't provide free medication. Why should providers give free service? The fact is that we do provide free service or underpaid service to whoever needs it already. Why do we think "reforming" healthcare will be better when we didn't even talk about improving those things that make it so expensive in the first place? There was no talk about tort reform nor about decreasing malpractice insurance premiums, nor about teaching people to be healthy in the first place. This whole reform thing is a crock. It was done wrong and will not correct the problem.

Think about it. Do we think that food is a right? Do we tell the farmers how much they can charge for their crops? Do we then tell them we are only going to pay a portiion of that charge for those who are on welfare? Do we tell the grocery stores that they have to subsidize the crack heads with free food for whomever asks for it?

What about water? do we tell the water carriers that they will have to bear the burden of giving away 10% of their water to those who can't afford it?

Thank God clothing is free.....wait a minute, no it's not. Being clothed doesn't seem to be a right.

So. Food, water and clothing aren't rights, but healthcare is? Hmmm.

poorthang, thanks for the info. i guess they do it differently in the states.

Why does everyone feel healthcare is or should be a "right?"

I wish! Half the country thinks otherwise.

I think basic health care falls into the same category as public education.

Public Education is not in the US Constitution, However that does not stop unfunded Federal programs like no child left behind. Does the word unfunded have any meaning. The reform has been passed so no thinking is required.

Well I hate to break out my tired old argument about why I am against the level of government intervention in our lives that STXBob clearly advocates but I will 🙂

STXBob, here is why we fundamentally disagree. I believe in non-violence. Everything the government does it does through violence and the threat of violence. It forces us to pay taxes to pay for all of the ideas of this generation and unfortunately through the debt, of the previous generations. If you don't belive me try not paying them and see where you end up (in a cage). To provide healtcare to somone who can't afford it the government has to violently take away from someone who produced enough to afford their healthcare and the healthcare of those who can't. I want to live in a peaceful society and I don't think that is possible under socialism.

Do I think there should be charity? Absolutely, voluntary charity. But no man should point a gun at another man and force him to provide for others which is what government does. Socialism adovocates such violence, and even when its done for a noble cause, violence is still wrong according to my moral code. It also tends to turn into Stalinism and Nazism if left unchecked over time.

I firmly beleive in a government that has one goal, to reduce violence as much as possible. Defending the rights of people to not be violently assaulted for their speech, or for their property are the legitimate tasks of our govenment as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. This was a truly revolutionary concept that was, for the first time, implemented here in the United States. But in the last 80 years we went from a government that was there to protect the passive rights of many to one that violently took from one man to give to another. Healthcare is just the latest symptom of the ever increasing violence that us peaceful men must live with under the very institution that is supposed to be protecting our peacefullness.

I'll get off my soap box and I know some who probably agreed with some of my previous arguments (Lizard) on this thread will think I'm a bit crazy but I've put a good deal of thought into the morality of government over the years and I just can't get past the fact that no matter how good a government program may be it is still backed by a gun. I just cannot reconcile this with the peaceful and civilized society I wish to live in.

Sean

I didn't say public education was in the constitution. I said that public health care falls into the same category of entitlement as education.

Why is anyone "entitled" to anything? Aren't we supposed to make our own way in this world? My Christian obligation is to help those who can't help themselves. I agreey with Sean (stiphy): It is not the government's job to provide me anything except to protect me from employers who want to abuse me, foreign countries that want to kill me, criminals who want to rob me. To be honest, it is not even the government's job to educate me. (When they do try to educate me, it turns very quickly into propaganda)

I don't get the concept of entitlement. What did all those folks do to deserve entitlement to anything? Seems to me all they did was to completely disregard all the precepts of being an adult.

Stiphy,
I have never said you were crazy on any of my posts. We live in a republic that has Laws for the benefit/safety of the people. We do this by a vote to send someone to Washington to do our bidding. This didn't happen. The Health care Bill was passed for political reasons not the will or desires of the people. In 1945 the State of NJ passed a .10 cent milk tax and collected via RE Tax. This tax was to make sure that all school children in the state had "Free Milk" daily while in school. In 1952 the schools stopped giving free milk and charged the children. As of 2010 The Free Milk Tax is still collected. This administration has passed two other reforms that have turned out to be a bomb Credit Card Reform Act and the Underwater Mortgage Reform. This is an election year that could change the balance of power in the House and Senate. The Party in control had to do something.

it seems that those already getting free health care will continue to get it and those who have employer sponsored health care will still have it. now from what i have read everybody ( the middle class working poor ) will be able to have health care too. yes they will pay proportionate to their earnings. what is wrong with that.
say someone is making about 45-75,000 a year, they need surgery that has to be paid up front to the cost of 10-15,000. that amount is more than alot of peoples rent and they simply can not afford to pay. sure the hospital will take payments but the dr.s want their money up front before they will even schedule your surgery. so is this person going to stop paying rent, stop eating, stop driving to work. just what are they supposed to give up in order to get this surgery? what if it a life saving surgery. did you hear about the 2 week old baby who needs surgery but the insurance company will not cover it because it is a pre-existing condition. this baby could die without the surgery.
health insurance is now going to be mandatory just like auto insurance. im sure people put up a fuss when auto insurance became mandtory too.
can't please everybody

I listen to and respect the opinions of those opposed to the current healthcare reform. I listen and think because we could not have an intelligent debate otherwise. I respect because some of you are my dear friends, and you are good, smart people. We all want the same basic things in our material lives. We could happily co-exist for years (and many of us have) if nobody mentioned politics. The differences between us are mostly in our heads.

Yeah, Speee1dv---so if you make more than me you won't mind paying more for milk and bread than me since we both need food and I can't afford it as well as you? The solution is not to bilk the productive members of society. The solution is to pay workers appropriately so they can afford to live reasonably well and have insurance.

The parts of the bill that get rid of the preexisting conditions problem, or dropping people who have the audacity to require medical care, or that removes limits to coverage are good things. The part that says that I must have insurance or pay a fine is unconstitutional. The part that cuts payments to providers is a disaster: already those on medicaid cannot see a dentist in upper Wisconsin because medicaid doesn't cover what it costs the dentists so they refuse to see them. I hope that doesn't happen with the medical providers, too, but I suspect it will.

speee1dy,
Auto insurance is required because you operate under a license issued by the State. You don't drive you don't pay, Unlike this New Health Reform bill. If you don't want it or don't need it you will still pay a fine This is the first time our Govt will charge/fine it's citizens for not buying a product. I recently went to my Doctors office, I pulled up the same time an S500 Mercedes driven by a smartly dressed women with her Gucci handbag. While sitting in the waiting room she was a new patient and had to fill out the required patient information forms. When she turned her paper work into the receptionist she said I do not have insurance what kind of payment plan do you have. She was told you will have to speak to the Doctor about that. She then said how long do you think this will take I have an appointment to get my nails done. In my heart of hearts I do not believe she is the exception. We have Fraud in every Govt program, and guess who pays. Health care is good but who is going to run it, staff it and have oversight of it. Where is that money going to come from? Not the premiums they go to medical care only. You remember the old saying "There is no such thing as a free lunch"!

The solution is to pay workers appropriately so they can afford to live reasonably well and have insurance.

That used to be the case. I’m now reading Paul Krugman’s book, “The Consience Of A Liberal,” written just before Obama was elected, which explains his view of the rise and fall of income equality in America. To paraphrase, and to quote from some book reviews at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393333132:

During the Gilded Age, from the end of the Civil War to the 1930s, there were few taxes, and little regulation, which allowed extreme inequality between the few super-rich (robber barons) and the many poor.

From the 1930s to the 1980s, the New Deal, higher taxes, and regulation were largely responsible for creating a huge middle class with a decent standard of living. The number of poor became fairly small, and the super-rich were virtually eliminated. “America's post-war middle-class society was not the automatic product of a free-market economy he writes, but was created... by the policies of the Roosevelt Administration. By strengthening labor unions and taxing the rich to fund redistributive programs like Social Security and Medicare, the New Deal consensus narrowed the income gap, lifted the working class out of poverty and made the economy boom.” “By the time Dwight Eisenhower, Republican, became president most in the party had made their peace with the New Deal and only a fringe of an extremist element, known as movement conservatives, still opposed it.”

Starting in the 1980’s, notably with Reagan, movement conservatives began to polarize voters, getting them to support policies that were not in the best interest of most Americans. With lower taxes and deregulation, we regressed to a New Gilded Age, and the erosion of the middle class. This could be fixed with a New New Deal. “Things went awry, Krugman contends, with the Republican Party's takeover by movement conservatism, practicing a politics of deception [and] distraction to advance the interests of the wealthy. Conservative initiatives to cut taxes for the rich, dismantle social programs and demolish unions, he argues, have led to sharply rising inequality, with the incomes of the wealthiest soaring while those of most workers stagnate.”

Anyway, that is a summary of Paul Krugman's views, and obviously some of it is just opinion and he could be wrong. I'm always willing to look at other views.

STXBob et al,

History can be twisted any which way to make your side look good. What a shock that Krugman believes the government as an agent of plunder is a good thing. The gilded age saw some of the most dramatic increases in the standards of living in the history of the world in our somewhat free society. Millions of former slaves and millions of immigrants moved into the work force. I know there were problems but this world is never perfect. If stealing by the government to give to another is OK why not just bypass them an steal what you want?
Sorry to rant but theft is theft. The fact that we seem to have no moral problem receiving stolen goods is sad. By the way on the rights issue think of it this way "endowed by our Creator" they belong to us personally and no one has to be our slave for us to exercise they. Health care,education,housing,etc. etc. cannot be rights.

Taxation isn't theft. It's legalized theft. Bypassing the government creates anarchy.

Assuming that we want all Americans to have a decent standard of living, is there another way to do it, without regulation, taxation, and social programs? I will listen to all points of view.

We have to define a decent standard of living ? What about the Poor folks in Africa who still live in mud huts? This country already has a better standard of living than any other country in the world and it is still not good enough for some people. Class,separation has and always will exist. I loved it when Shawn Hanity ask Michael Moore to give up his money and wealth to support everything he was preaching,Poor Michael Moore would not do it or give him an answer.

If you want it, bust your ass for it. Make it happen and it will come.

Blah...Blah .... Blah ....No one is changing anyone's mind...either you like it ...or you don't...People who like a freebie will take the freebie...people who like the satisfaction of earning and choosing themselves will do that...Sometimes the game played is stacked against you and you try to figure a different way to play sooo What about...Lifetime alimony .....to someone you divorce..is that fair???? But that's what the law has allowed....you become a slave to that person ...for a very long time...Freedom is not free in alot of areas.... but it always cost somebody $$$$$$ Uncle sam has definetly stacked the deck..... STX bob...Are you serious??? Was the wallstreet bailout part of a social program ?