Originally posted by MisterOpus1
So wait, we need to cry about big corps. no longer being able to double-dip by taking tax deductions on subsidies they are receiving from the government (i.e. us taxpayers)?
p.s. I'll admit that I have conflicting feelings about this that are certainly well aligned with how you've presented it here. However, the more I've read about the credit/subsidy, the less I feel that corporations were just getting a free-ride. It sounds like it was implemented with the best intentions to try to help retirees. But what do I know--maybe I'm just reading too much right-wing propaganda.
Lez--I read through your response a bit quickly and honestly it just confused me a bit. However, with regard to the NY Times article you posted, doesn't that just add conviction to the fact that the CBO is not much more reliable than the local weatherman? Again, they're just given "assumptions" to run with and give an output. And where do those assumptions come from? Government officials that want to push an agenda and will find a way to do so by pulling the wool over our eyes (I'm not specifically picking on Dems here, but the whole slew of government wads).
As several others have said (paraphrasing): Do you really believe that adding insurance coverage for an additional 30+ million people actually saves money as opposed to creates new spending entitlement programs? Perhaps that's an overly simplistic view, but it certainly defies logic to believe that at face value. And as many others have said, the savings and the math are all contrived (which I wholeheartedly believe).
And as some others have said--the program looks all pretty in the first few years, with all of that pain coming on the out years (likely once BO is out of office). At that point, the program will likely have become entrenched and will be nearly impossible to repeal (not that "progressives" want it repealed).
Shakka
yet another problem with assumptions and what not (CBO or whomever the official number cruncher is): Trying to model human behavior (which is a nearly impossible task). But Reynolds suggests history is not on the administration's side.
quote:
The Rich Can't Pay for ObamaCare
The president intends to squeeze an extra $1.2 trillion over 10 years from a tiny sliver of taxpayers who already pay more than half of all individual taxes. It won't work.
By ALAN REYNOLDS
President Barack Obama's new health-care legislation aims to raise $210 billion over 10 years to pay for the extensive new entitlements. How? By slapping a 3.8% "Medicare tax" on interest and rental income, dividends and capital gains of couples earning more than $250,000, or singles with more than $200,000.
The president also hopes to raise $364 billion over 10 years from the same taxpayers by raising the top two tax rates to 36%-39.6% from 33%-35%, plus another $105 billion by raising the tax on dividends and capital gains to 20% from 15%, and another $500 billion by capping and phasing out exemptions and deductions.
Add it up and the government is counting on squeezing an extra $1.2 trillion over 10 years from a tiny sliver of taxpayers who already pay more than half of all individual taxes.
It won't work. It never works.
The maximum tax rate fell to 28% in 1988-90 from 50% in 1986, yet individual income tax receipts rose to 8.3% of GDP in 1989 from 7.9% in 1986. The top tax rate rose to 31% in 1991 and revenue fell to 7.6% of GDP in 1992. The top tax rate was increased to 39.6% in 1993, along with numerous major revenue enhancers such as raising the taxable portion of Social Security to 85% of benefits from 50% for seniors who saved or kept working. Yet individual tax revenues were only 7.8% of GDP in 1993, 8.1% in 1994, and did not get back to the 1989 level until 1995.
Punitive tax rates on high-income individuals do not increase revenue. Successful people are not docile sheep just waiting to be shorn.
From past experience, these are just a few of the ways that taxpayers will react to the Obama administration's tax plans:
• Professionals and companies who currently file under the individual income tax as partnerships, LLCs or Subchapter S corporations would form C-corporations to shelter income, because the corporate tax rate would then be lower with fewer arbitrary limits on deductions for costs of earning income.
• Investors who jumped into dividend-paying stocks after 2003 when the tax rate fell to 15% would dump many of those shares in favor of tax-free municipal bonds if the dividend tax went up to 23.8% as planned.
• Faced with a 23.8% capital gains tax, high-income investors would avoid realizing gains in taxable accounts unless they had offsetting losses.
• Faced with a rapid phase-out of deductions and exemptions for reported income above $250,000, any two-earner family in a high-tax state could keep their income below that pain threshold by increasing 401(k) contributions, switching investments into tax-free bond funds, and avoiding the realization of capital gains.
• Faced with numerous tax penalties on added income in general, many two-earner couples would become one-earner couples, early retirement would become far more popular, executives would substitute perks for taxable paychecks, physicians would play more golf, etc.
In short, the evidence is clear that when marginal tax rates go up, the amount of reported incomes goes down. Economists call that "the elasticity of taxable income" (ETI), and measure it by examining income tax returns before and after marginal tax rates claimed a bigger slice of income reported to the IRS.
The evidence is surveyed in a May 2009 paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research by Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley, Joel Slemrod of the University of Michigan, and Seth Giertz of the University of Nebraska. They review a number of studies and find that "for an elasticity estimate of 0.5 . . . the fraction of tax revenue lost from behavioral responses would be 43.1%." That elasticity estimate of 0.5 would whittle the Obama team's hoped-for $1.2 trillion down to $671 billion. As the authors note, however, "there is much evidence to suggest that the ETI is higher for high-income individuals." The authors' illustrative use of a 0.5 figure is a perfectly reasonable approximation for most purposes, but not for tax hikes aimed at the very rich.
For incomes above $100,000, a 2008 study by MIT economist Jon Gruber and Mr. Saez found an ETI of 0.57. But for incomes above $350,000 (the top 1%), they estimated the ETI at 0.62. And for incomes above $500,000, Treasury Department economist Bradley Heim recently estimated the ETI at 1.2—which means higher tax rates on the super-rich yield less revenue than lower tax rates.
If an accurate ETI estimate for the highest incomes is closer to 1.0 than 0.5, as such studies suggest, the administration's intended tax hikes on high-income families will raise virtually no revenue at all. Yet the higher tax rates will harm economic growth through reduced labor effort, thwarted entrepreneurship, and diminished investments in physical and human capital. And that, in turn, means a smaller tax base and less revenue in the future.
The ETI studies exclude capital gains, but other research shows that when the capital gains tax goes up investors avoid that tax by selling assets less frequently, and therefore not realizing as many gains in taxable accounts. In these studies elasticity of about 1.0 suggests the higher tax is unlikely to raise revenue and elasticity above 1.0 means higher tax rates will lose revenue.
In a 1999 paper for the Australian Stock Exchange I examined estimates of the elasticity of capital gains realization in 11 studies from the Treasury, Congressional Budget Office and various academics. Whenever there was a range of estimates I used only the lowest figures. The resulting average was 0.9, very close to one. Four of those studies estimated the revenue-maximizing capital gains tax rate, suggesting (on average) that a tax rate higher than 17% would lose revenue.
Raising the top tax on dividends to 23.8% would prove as self-defeating as raising the capital gains tax. Figures from a well-know 2003 study by the Paris School of Economics' Thomas Piketty and Mr. Saez show that the amount of real, inflation-adjusted dividends reported by the top 1% of taxpayers dropped to about $3 billion a year (in 2007 dollars) after the 1993 tax hike. It hovered in that range until 2002, then soared by 169% to nearly $8 billion by 2007 after the dividend tax fell to 15%. Since very few dividends were subject to the highest tax rates before 2003 (many income stocks were held by tax-exempt entities), the 15% dividend tax probably raised revenue.
In short, the belief that higher tax rates on the rich could eventually raise significant sums over the next decade is a dangerous delusion, because it means the already horrific estimates of long-term deficits are seriously understated. The cost of new health-insurance subsidies and Medicaid enrollees are projected to grow by at least 7% a year, which means the cost doubles every decade—to $432 billion a year by 2029, $864 billion by 2039, and more than $1.72 trillion by 2049. If anyone thinks taxing the rich will cover any significant portion of such expenses, think again.
The federal government has embarked on an unprecedented spending spree, granting new entitlements in the guise of refundable tax credits while drawing false comfort from phantom revenue projections that will never materialize.
Mr. Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and the author of "Income and Wealth" (Greenwood Press, 2006).
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
...i.e. you can't tax your way to prosperity. More government is rarely, if ever, a good long-term solution.
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
p.s. I'll admit that I have conflicting feelings about this that are certainly well aligned with how you've presented it here. However, the more I've read about the credit/subsidy, the less I feel that corporations were just getting a free-ride. It sounds like it was implemented with the best intentions to try to help retirees. But what do I know--maybe I'm just reading too much right-wing propaganda.
What's the old saying - the road to hell is paved with good intentions? Regardless, I just can't seem to understand how so many Conservatives can seemingly justify their hatred for welfare to those who need it for basic life survival, while either supporting or willfully ignoring government handouts to big corporations at the same time. It's a ridiculous double-standard.
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Funny how Waxman's position is to go back to the CBO. If you go back to one of my posts way back up by a former CBO head you'll probably understand why Waxman's argument probably doesn't hold water. They think the CBO is all-knowing, but the CBO just crunches numbers based on the assumptions they are told to use (i.e. garbage in, garbage out as the author stated).
With what little time I've had lately, I've ran across a few criticisms of CBO numbers (not including yours, however). Those criticisms to some extent may be justified at times. In fact, one of the articles you cited by Douglas Holtz-Eakin (http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...66&pagenumber=5), wasn't that guy part of the CBO while Bush or Reagan was in office, then was an economic advisor or something to Bush II? If so, boy, his number crunching was really a ing treat for those lovely 8 years, weren't they?
We all seem to hail the CBO as nonpartisan, but we can cite certain instances where this may seemingly not be the case. Sadly, I think it's the closest thing we've got when it comes to nonpartisan number crunching that gets cited so often BY BOTH SIDES. I seem to remember when this health care debate began, 17sss used CBO religiously to attempt to make his point (which I believe he was only using part of the numbers, but I can't remember). Stuff like this only affirms my dislike and annoyance with economics and economists in general - it's so completely nonscientific and contrived out of pure speculation at best. Some times it holds true, other times it looks completely silly. I just can't hold my attention span long enough to care what anyone says about these things, no matter who they are.
Anyway, Waxman didn't just point to the CBO. He also cited the "Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers from leading U.S. companies." I know nothing about this group, but it's nice to see more than one source citing cost savings with the health care plan, especially if it's coming from a group like this.
Shakka
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Stuff like this only affirms my dislike and annoyance with economics and economists in general...
I've missed you too.;)
And yeah, Holtz-Eakin was the CBO head from 2003-2005 under Bush. If we're going to say the CBO was not totally non-partisan then, then it is disingenuous to suggest that they are any more objective now. I think they try to be, but given what I keep referencing about them accepting assumptions at face value and computing what that means, perhaps it is more accurate to say they are a non-partisan group that is being driven by a partisan machine (something like a cog in a bigger machine).
Another thing--we have a CBO and an OMB. One answers to Congress and the other to the Executive Office (I believe that is the difference). I can't recall for the life of me whether or not they operate on similar or different assumptions or if they came to the same or different conclusions on this whole bill.
Lebezniatnikov
CBO uses the numbers in the bill - not in some secret partisan memorandum. The "assumption" is that the cost of the implementation of the law will be the same as the funding allocated to it. Wars are basically unfunded mandates, so the fact that Holtz-Eakin's CBO was way off on the Iraq War estimate is basically partisan posturing. It's not like the CBO is making numbers up - they can all be found in the bill and verified independently.
The real point of contention is whether the funding in the bill is sufficient to fully implement the mechanisms the bill delivers. That is a point that is worth discussion, but to dismiss the CBO numbers as partisan is distorting the argument. The CBO offers the most accurate assessment of funded mandates available. Increases in price would require a supplemental funding package passed through Congress (again, the possible necessity of this is certainly a point of discussion).
And in any case, Holtz-Eakin's entire argument is centered around the contention that deliverables will only be distributed well after tax collection starts and that philosophically this means that we'll be collecting ten years of taxes for six years of returns. That's not necessarily true - a lot of the health care deliverables start by next year. But even so, it doesn't at all address the CBO finding that the second ten years under health care reform will lower the deficit by $1.2 trillion relative to projected cost growth of the former status quo.
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
CBO uses the numbers in the bill - not in some secret partisan memorandum. The "assumption" is that the cost of the implementation of the law will be the same as the funding allocated to it. Wars are basically unfunded mandates, so the fact that Holtz-Eakin's CBO was way off on the Iraq War estimate is basically partisan posturing. It's not like the CBO is making numbers up - they can all be found in the bill and verified independently.
The real point of contention is whether the funding in the bill is sufficient to fully implement the mechanisms the bill delivers. That is a point that is worth discussion, but to dismiss the CBO numbers as partisan is distorting the argument. The CBO offers the most accurate assessment of funded mandates available. Increases in price would require a supplemental funding package passed through Congress (again, the possible necessity of this is certainly a point of discussion).
And in any case, Holtz-Eakin's entire argument is centered around the contention that deliverables will only be distributed well after tax collection starts and that philosophically this means that we'll be collecting ten years of taxes for six years of returns. That's not necessarily true - a lot of the health care deliverables start by next year. But even so, it doesn't at all address the CBO finding that the second ten years under health care reform will lower the deficit by $1.2 trillion relative to projected cost growth of the former status quo.
Lots of fancy politicky talk there. Over here in the real world where some of us deal with actual business & economic production on a daily basis, we understand that 20 year economic projections are about as accurate as Stevie Wonder playing darts. Just 2 years ago, the CBO said Social Security wouldn't be in the red until 2019. This year, Social Security went into the red.
Whatever "health care deliverables" start next year that you're referring to, I'm not sure. But a lot more economically punative measures are also being enacted that are immediately killing businesses, which will force them to lower wages and/or purge scores of employees from their payrolls.
When in all of recorded human history has this kind of central planning, with price controls, arbitrary dictates, wage fixing, freebees, and social engineering experiments EVER worked? The New Deal, the Fair Deal, Great Society, the War on Poverty, the Community Reinvestment Act, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Fannie, Freddie, the Stimulus Package... but this time it's different b-b-because Obama says so! Deficit reduction on the horizon! lol
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Lots of fancy politicky talk there. Over here in the real world where some of us deal with actual business & economic production on a daily basis, we understand that 20 year economic projections are about as accurate as Stevie Wonder playing darts. Just 2 years ago, the CBO said Social Security wouldn't be in the red until 2019. This year, Social Security went into the red.
I'm assuming you are referring to the 2007 report that stated 2019 is when existing funds will evaporate and social security will become insolvent. That isn't the same as an annual budget shortfall - as a small business owner, I'm sure you understand the distinction. That CBO report also went on to say:
"CBO estimates that over the 75-year projection period, dedicated revenues will fall short of scheduled benefits by about 1.8 percent of taxable payroll (see Table 3-1).5 In other words, to bring the program into actuarial balance over the next 75 years, payroll taxes could be immediately increased by 1.8 percent of taxable payroll and kept at that higher rate, or scheduled benefits could be reduced by an equivalent amount. That estimate is similar to the most recent estimate of the long-range actuarial deficit reported by the Social Security trustees."
That's largely borne out as true (though unsurprisingly, nothing changed and the recommendation went unheeded).
quote:
Whatever "health care deliverables" start next year that you're referring to, I'm not sure.
Let’s start with how health insurance reform will expand and strengthen coverage:
— This year, children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied health insurance coverage. Once the new health insurance exchanges begin in the coming years, pre-existing condition discrimination will become a thing of the past for everyone.
— This year, health care plans will allow young people to remain on their parents’ insurance policy up until their 26th birthday.
— This year, insurance companies will be banned from dropping people from coverage when they get sick, and they will be banned from implementing lifetime caps on coverage. This year, restrictive annual limits on coverage will be banned for certain plans. Under health insurance reform, Americans will be ensured access to the care they need.
— This year, adults who are uninsured because of pre-existing conditions will have access to affordable insurance through a temporary subsidized high-risk pool.
— In the next fiscal year, the bill increases funding for community health centers, so they can treat nearly double the number of patients over the next five years.
— This year, we’ll also establish an independent commission to advise on how best to build the health care workforce and increase the number of nurses, doctors and other professionals to meet our country’s needs. Going forward, we will provide $1.5 billion in funding to support the next generation of doctors, nurses and other primary care practitioners — on top of a $500 million investment from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Health insurance reform will also curb some of the worst insurance industry practices and strengthen consumer protections:
— This year, this bill creates a new, independent appeals process that ensures consumers in new private plans have access to an effective process to appeal decisions made by their insurer.
— This year, discrimination based on salary will be outlawed. New group health plans will be prohibited from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that discriminate in favor of higher-wage employees.
— Beginning this fiscal year, this bill provides funding to states to help establish offices of health insurance consumer assistance in order to help individuals in the process of filing complaints or appeals against insurance companies.
— Starting January 1, 2011, insurers in the individual and small group market will be required to spend 80 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Insurers in the large group market will be required to spend 85 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Any insurers who don’t meet those thresholds will be required to provide rebates to their policyholders.
— Starting in 2011, this bill helps states require insurance companies to submit justification for requested premium increases. Any company with excessive or unjustified premium increases may not be able to participate in the new health insurance exchanges.
Reform immediately begins to lower health care costs for American families and small businesses:
— This year, small businesses that choose to offer coverage will begin to receive tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums to help make employee coverage more affordable.
— This year, new private plans will be required to provide free preventive care: no co-payments and no deductibles for preventive services. And beginning January 1, 2011, Medicare will do the same.
— This year, this bill will provide help for early retirees by creating a temporary re-insurance program to help offset the costs of expensive premiums for employers and retirees age 55-64.
— This year, this bill starts to close the Medicare Part D ‘donut hole’ by providing a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the gap in prescription drug coverage. And beginning in 2011, the bill institutes a 50% discount on prescription drugs in the ‘donut hole.’
But a lot more economically punative measures are also being enacted that are immediately killing businesses, which will force them to lower wages and/or purge scores of employees from their payrolls.
Such as... tax breaks?
quote:
This year, small businesses that choose to offer coverage will begin to receive tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums to help make employee coverage more affordable.
When in all of recorded human history has this kind of central planning, with price controls, arbitrary dictates, wage fixing, freebees, and social engineering experiments EVER worked? The New Deal, the Fair Deal, Great Society, the War on Poverty, the Community Reinvestment Act, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Fannie, Freddie, the Stimulus Package... but this time it's different b-b-because Obama says so! Deficit reduction on the horizon! lol
Careful, you're starting to sound like you don't know what's in this bill. Is there any central planning or arbitrary price controlling going on in an exchange that fosters capitalist competition? And social engineering? It's a cutesy catch phrase, but not one that indicates any substantive understanding of what's actually in the bill.
And, to take your bait, define "worked" - because I'm sure it depends entirely on who you ask. Millions of Americans have received health care through Medicare and Medicaid - you base your statement on cost I'm assuming. And yes, it's financially irresponsible for Tea Partiers and Republicans alike to deride either cutting costs in Medicare coverage or boosting taxes. There are two ways to pay for things you can't afford - one, you cut costs. That's what this bill does. Or two, you increase funds available (through raising taxes). To stand in the middle and say "bah" to both is hypocrisy.
Shakka
I too meant to add that I hope nobody in this forum is foolish enough to believe that anyone can predict anything 10 years out with realistic accuracy. That is a mug's game if ever there was one.
5 year plan...where have I heard that term before...:disbelief
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I'm assuming you are referring to the 2007 report that stated 2019 is when existing funds will evaporate and social security will become insolvent. That isn't the same as an annual budget shortfall - as a small business owner, I'm sure you understand the distinction. That CBO report also went on to say:
"CBO estimates that over the 75-year projection period, dedicated revenues will fall short of scheduled benefits by about 1.8 percent of taxable payroll (see Table 3-1).5 In other words, to bring the program into actuarial balance over the next 75 years, payroll taxes could be immediately increased by 1.8 percent of taxable payroll and kept at that higher rate, or scheduled benefits could be reduced by an equivalent amount. That estimate is similar to the most recent estimate of the long-range actuarial deficit reported by the Social Security trustees."
No, I was referring to Peter Orszag who was working at the CBO in 2008... and is now, as you know, Obama's budget director, who said this in August of 2008:
quote:
Today, Social Security’s revenues each year are greater than its outlays, but as the baby-boom generation (people born between 1946 and 1964) continues to age, growth in the number of Social Security beneficiaries will accelerate, and outlays will grow substantially faster than revenues. CBO projects that outlays will first exceed revenues in 2019 and that the Social Security trust funds will be exhausted in 2049. If the law remains unchanged, the Social Security Administration (SSA) will then no longer have the legal authority to pay full benefits.
So, 2 years ago it was 2019 when we'd see it run into the red. He also wrote a paper in 2002 saying the risk of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failing were 1 in 3 million. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...bHSSbWYOkYgszZA
Guess who funded that hard hitting analysis into Fannie Mae? That's right- Fannie Mae. That projection worked out about as well as his Social Security projections from 2008.
Yes and all those lovely things Matt is saying we can expect are directly leading to this:
-AT&T: $1 billion unplanned financial hit this quarter.
-Deere & Co.: $150 million
-Caterpillar: $100 million
-AK Steel: $31 million
-3M: $90 million
-Valero Energy: $20 million
-Verizon: $750-950 million
-Prudential: $100 million... and 300 other major companies.
Here is a great example of to put it all into context... written by Byron York about how Obamacare's unintended consequences are about to destroy Zoll Medicial Corp (number 1 manufacturer of heart defibrillators) in Massachusetts, who is going to get hit with $10 million in new taxes while their profits were $9.5 million last year. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...s-88860652.html
quote:
Such as... tax breaks?
quote:
This year, small businesses that choose to offer coverage will begin to receive tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums to help make employee coverage more affordable.
This is exactly why political people with no real world business experience are a joke. Additional details not mentioned in that quote:
-Businesses with fewer than 25 employees that pay an average of no more than $40,000 will get a tax credit – up to 35 percent of the company’s share of their total health care premium.
-Companies with 26-49 workers are unaffected.
-Businesses with 50 or more workers must offer coverage or pay $750 per worker. That penalty applies for every employee if even one signs up for government-subsidized insurance. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010...lUpperPromoArea
The employer that the CBS story discusses is actually INCENTIVIZED to just pay the $750.00 a head penalty rather than cover his employees. He could pay $90,000 in penalties, or $480,000 in coverage. Hmmmm. If he chooses to pay the $480k and his competition doesn't, they will be able to drastically lower their product/service costs and he won't. He'll be out of business within 6 months. PLUS, small businesses can only get that tax credit if average salary is below $40,000... so if anyone gets a raise, the company's costs will rise AND they will lose that 35% tax credit. Can you say "European style wage stagnation"?
It's a damn shell game. There is no actual incentive for growth. Hell, if I ran a business with 50+ employees, I'd have every incentive to DOWNSIZE. This is of course, by design... a stepping stone to a defacto single payer system.
quote:
Careful, you're starting to sound like you don't know what's in this bill. Is there any central planning or arbitrary price controlling going on in an exchange that fosters capitalist competition? And social engineering? It's a cutesy catch phrase, but not one that indicates any substantive understanding of what's actually in the bill.
Careful, you're starting to sound like you don't understand how businesses operate ;)
Lulz if you think this bill fosters growth and competition. Responding to that isn't even worth my time; no offense, but you really don't understand business.
quote:
There are two ways to pay for things you can't afford - one, you cut costs. That's what this bill does.
:stongue:
The CBO confirmed that the removal of the 21% cuts in reimbursements would make ObamaCare a deficit expander.
Being the believer in the CBO that you are, what do you think of their new projection that thanks to Obama's budgets in the first 2 years, our debt will rise to 90% of GDP? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...e-to-90-of-gdp/
quote:
Or two, you increase funds available (through raising taxes). To stand in the middle and say "bah" to both is hypocrisy.
Edit: or 3, you could decrese out of control government spending and/or channel some of the money they give themselves as raises during economic turmoil into other avenues of use.
Whatever claims you want to make, there is no escaping the fact that more people will be dependant on government than before. That is not a positive thing. The economic pie is finite. The more you take from the private sector, the less operational it becomes because Government does not create demand or produce; it just consumes. Throw in the trillions (and growing) of unfunded liabilities in Union pensions, and, well you can look at Greece now and see where we are headed when there are no more tax dollars to take. I know you're going to go down with the ship on this one... your support for Obama is strangely unwavering despite all the bald faced lies you've seen him toss out there. But there's still time to defect man! ;)
Shakka
P.S. Obama is from Kenya. Lolz.
Shakka
Where do I get my "free" , yo?
quote:
Health care overhaul spawns mass confusion for public
Margaret Talev | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: April 06, 2010 10:04:45 PM
WASHINGTON — Two weeks after President Barack Obama signed the big health care overhaul into law, Americans are struggling to understand how — and when — the sweeping measure will affect them.
Questions reflecting confusion have flooded insurance companies, doctors' offices, human resources departments and business groups.
"They're saying, 'Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?' " said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com. The California-based company sells coverage from 185 health insurance carriers in 50 states.
McLean said the call center had been inundated by uninsured consumers who were hoping that the overhaul would translate into instant, affordable coverage. That widespread misconception may have originated in part from distorted rhetoric about the legislation bubbling up from the hyper-partisan debate about it in Washington and some media outlets, such as when opponents denounced it as socialism.
"We tell them it's not free, that there are going to be things in place that help people who are low-income, but that ultimately most of that is not going to be taking place until 2014," McLean said.
Adults with pre-existing conditions are frustrated to learn that insurers won't have to cover them until 2014 (though those under 18 will be protected in late September); then they become both hopeful and confused upon learning that a federal high-risk pool for them will be established in the next few months. "Health insurance is so confusing. You add this on top of it and it makes it even more confusing," McLean said.
The Obama administration is embarking on a years-long public education campaign about the overhaul, including a Web component. However, much of the guidance will depend on Department of Health and Human Services regulations that are still being developed.
Parents of young adults, including those who are preparing to graduate from college this spring, have heard that the overhaul will let them keep their children on their insurance plans until they reach age 26. That starts in September, however; they have to determine how to cover them until then.
A new wave of inquiries could come next month as federal COBRA subsidies for laid-off workers dry up.
Ann Wooten of Austin, Texas, a breast cancer survivor, said she didn't understand whether the health insurance overhaul law meant that she should try to access private coverage again someday. She was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2008 after she lost her insurance in a divorce, and soon after she lost her job at a convenience store as a result of the economic crisis.
Medicaid has covered her treatments but she must apply regularly to renew the coverage. She went back to school to learn hotel management and is seeking a good-paying job with benefits. She doesn't know how the health overhaul will affect her options, and hasn't yet found the time or energy to investigate.
Americans who already have good coverage aren't so worried about the immediate implications, but some admit that they're plenty confused.
"Why does it take so long for certain health care things to take effect?" said Sandra Preston, a state employee in Paterson, N.J.
Ben Wiesen, a software engineer who works for a small company in Tarrytown, N.Y., said he'd read up on the overhaul but remained concerned about the unknowns.
"The timelines have been pretty clearly stated," he said. "It's the execution and the details: How are they really going to roll out the changes, and who ultimately will be the arbiter and decision-maker?"
Actor Sam Robards, the son of Lauren Bacall and the late Jason Robards, was visiting Washington last week with his children and Danish-born wife. Chatting in front of the White House gate, he said he tried to follow news coverage of the overhaul but conceded that "I'm not totally clear" on the details. He said he was glad that he got good coverage through the Screen Actors Guild so he didn't have to worry about it.
The couple previously lived in Denmark, which has universal health coverage. They applauded the overhaul's aim of extending coverage to nearly all Americans.
Many small business owners are nervous about requirements being phased in.
"Members are still trying to wrap their head around everything that's in this law," said Michelle Dimarob, the manager of legislative affairs for the National Federation of Independent Business, the small-business lobby.
Dimarob said the lobby's primary concern was that its costs would rise over the next four years as a result of fees, taxes and coverage mandates related to the overhaul.
"The next question that comes out of their mouths is: 'What do I have to do right now?' They need to start talking with their accountant, depending on how they're organized, what industry they're in and whether they're offering insurance now and what kind they're offering. We're suggesting they talk to their agent or broker."
Suntan businesses face a new excise tax starting in July as part of the overhaul. Other business owners are trying to understand new Internal Revenue Service reporting requirements related to business-to-business transactions that will kick in as a result of the new law. Others are looking ahead to coverage mandates for 2014 and calculating how many part-time versus full-time employees they should have to best contain costs.
While Obama has been touting a tax credit for small businesses that offer employees health coverage, Dimarob said many small businesses wouldn't be able to participate. First they must do research to see whether they qualify. "It requires them to understand the intricacies," she said.
The president has begun traveling the country to talk about the new law to ordinary Americans. In Maine last week, he explained many highlights of the four-year phase-in. However, Obama's remarks were laced with enough political rhetoric to dilute his policy message.
Many organizations have produced timelines explaining when provisions are to be phased in. Still, it's confusing for consumers, and until the administration issues more regulations, many details can't be pinned down.
"The first meeting the president held with the team post-passage was on implementation," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said. "Obviously this is a big task, and a campaign to ensure that people understand what benefits are coming online when obviously will be tremendously important."
