Too take a little break from all of the political discussion, watch this video.
http://edge.liveleak.com/80281...ed=1%26extra_params=
Try not to feel dizzy!
SSG,
I saw an interview with Bob Woodward last night. He wrote a new book and talked specifically about the Obama and Boehner deal. His investigation discovered that after an agreement was reached that Obama, on advise from those close to him, went back to Boehner and asked for more tax increases. He did this becuase, in Woodwards opinion, Obama was more interested in not looking weak rather than agreeing to a compromise. Why is it that if the Republicans dont give into everything than they are being uncompromising? When Harry Reid refuses to debate a bill passed in the house to repleal Obama care was that being uncompromising also? HOw about when the Democrates did not have enough votes to pass Obama care they used reconciliation as a means to run an end around normal bill passage, is that being uncompromising?
Woodward also discussed how Obama does not like the business of working with Congress. Not sure why he wanted the job if a core responsability for the job is one he does not like! Bill Clinton, George Bush and Ronald Reagan famously reached across the isle to work through things. I have yet to see Obama do that.
I saw an interview with Bob Woodward last night. He wrote a new book and talked specifically about the Obama and Boehner deal. His investigation discovered that after an agreement was reached that Obama, on advise from those close to him, went back to Boehner and asked for more tax increases. He did this becuase, in Woodwards opinion, Obama was more interested in not looking weak rather than agreeing to a compromise. Why is it that if the Republicans dont give into everything than they are being uncompromising? When Harry Reid refuses to debate a bill passed in the house to repleal Obama care was that being uncompromising also? HOw about when the Democrates did not have enough votes to pass Obama care they used reconciliation as a means to run an end around normal bill passage, is that being uncompromising?
Woodward also discussed how Obama does not like the business of working with Congress. Not sure why he wanted the job if a core responsability for the job is one he does not like! Bill Clinton, George Bush and Ronald Reagan famously reached across the isle to work through things. I have yet to see Obama do that.
I met with a business owner today, was with his doctor earlier in the week. The doctor stated that if the democrats win the election. He is going close his business, fire his employees and go to work in a hospital, since the burden of his compliance with the new healthcare law will be too much for him to bear. Why put up with the headaches, regulations he could work for the hospital and have no headaches and regulations that will mandate how much he can earn and how his business is conducted.
Also spoke with a VP of BOA, his department is now being told by reglulators that they can't launch this product or that product because it would ....... don't remember the rest, but most folks who WANT TO work hard and have the ability to run their own business are now considering packing it in and working for someone or something else.
It's truly a sad state of affairs. Bring back the 80's!
Also spoke with a VP of BOA, his department is now being told by reglulators that they can't launch this product or that product because it would ....... don't remember the rest, but most folks who WANT TO work hard and have the ability to run their own business are now considering packing it in and working for someone or something else.
It's truly a sad state of affairs. Bring back the 80's!
This country is headed down the path of Ricoh and SHARP, due to lack of Leadership, just like those companies.
quote:Originally posted by GMAN:
This country is headed down the path of Ricoh and SHARP, due to lack of Leadership, just like those companies.
GMAN, you summed it up nicely. Centralized command and control does not allow the local field do what they do best - Get and Keep customers. The Federal Government wants to control everything we do. They need to get out of the way of the American worker and great things will happen.
Reminds me of something I heard the other day. When we buy something with our own money that we will personally consume we care about both price and quality. That is a first party purchase.
If we are buying a gift for someone, we care about price but might not be as concerned about quality. That is a second party purchase.
If we are consuming something that we don't have to pay for, we may care about quality but not how much it costs...also a second party purchase.
If we are buying something that we will not personally consume and it is being purchased with someone else's money, that is a third party purchase and we will care little about price or quality.
Here is the kicker. By definition, all government purchases are third party purchases...products (or services) that they will not personally consume and paid for with money that is not thiers. Consequently, there is little concern about price or quality.
If we are buying a gift for someone, we care about price but might not be as concerned about quality. That is a second party purchase.
If we are consuming something that we don't have to pay for, we may care about quality but not how much it costs...also a second party purchase.
If we are buying something that we will not personally consume and it is being purchased with someone else's money, that is a third party purchase and we will care little about price or quality.
Here is the kicker. By definition, all government purchases are third party purchases...products (or services) that they will not personally consume and paid for with money that is not thiers. Consequently, there is little concern about price or quality.
quote:Originally posted by Old Glory:
Jason, Let's not quote nameless radicals and then place their words in our mouths as if all conservatives share those views. There are full-fledged communists supporting the Democratic party that you wouldn't want equated to you.
I apologize, I can see how what I posted could be interpreted that way and that wasn't what I intended.
As far as the coal burning cars, that is certainly something that needs to be addressed, but remember that the amount of energy produced by Wind and Solar doubled under Obama, so that is changing.
As as far as the point about electric cars not being worth the investment (the higher cost isn't off-set by the savings on fuel) that is actually true, and something I've pointed out to my friends on several occasions.
The calculation tips if you can hang onto a car for a longer time than a normal consumer does (as the military has with their previous cars). If that happens again, it would be a good investment or a great investment if the price of gas continues to climb and more electricity is replaced with more renewable energy.
I don't think many of us think the price of gas will fall, so seems like an OK assumption to me.
JRLZ mentioned why not the Ford hybrid and that's a decent point, but for use on a military base, the Volt actually makes more sense because unlike a traditional hybrid, it uses ONLY the battery for the first 35 miles, so for trips around base, etc, it would never use the gas, saving even more money.
Overall, I still don't see the problem with this purchase.
I have an active copier service technician in my territory who was just diagnosed with Terminal Cancer. He has very modest financial resources. In Canada, he is able to access almost free medical care and immediately apply for long term disability.
Not really knowing the details of "Obamacare", what would happen to this tech in the USA?
Not really knowing the details of "Obamacare", what would happen to this tech in the USA?
quote:Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
I have an active copier service technician in my territory who was just diagnosed with Terminal Cancer. He has very modest financial resources. In Canada, he is able to access almost free medical care and immediately apply for long term disability.
Not really knowing the details of "Obamacare", what would happen to this tech in the USA?
Depends upon the insurance he has, assuming he has any. (Obamacare includes a mandate to buy insurance, which is implemented as a fine (scaling up to $695 a year in 2016) but it doesn't go into effect until 2014).
Under most plans, the patient would have a deductible (wildly different on different plans, but probably more than $500 and less than $5,000) that he would have to cover, then the insurance will (probably) cover 70-80% of the charges.
In the end, depending upon what treatment was needed, how long it took, etc., the patient would probably wind up with a bill between $10k and $50k. It could be more, but it most likely wouldn't be less.
Those are results from an "average" plan, the actual plan he had could be much better or much worse, impossible to say.
Worth noting, Obamacare isn't universal coverage, so the consumer still faces these issues.
Before Obamacare, most plans also included a "maximum lifetime payout" the patient could have hit and if he left his job and changed insurance he could have been hit with the "pre-existing condition" meaning they wouldn't pay for something that was wrong with him before the insurance started. Both of those were eliminated in Obamacare.
Long Term Disability is a separate plan, so again, it depends on if such a plan was available and if he elected to purchase it as to whether he would be covered.
Long Term Disability would come from Social Security, at least until its insolvency.
Prior to ObamaCare he would be given care based on the Terms and Conditions of his policy but he could not be denied coverage and Hospitals would have worked out a payment plan, probably significantly reducing the charge in the process. Under ObamaCare, someone in Health and Human Services will decide what if any treatment he would receive.
Prior to ObamaCare he would be given care based on the Terms and Conditions of his policy but he could not be denied coverage and Hospitals would have worked out a payment plan, probably significantly reducing the charge in the process. Under ObamaCare, someone in Health and Human Services will decide what if any treatment he would receive.
quote:Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
I have an active copier service technician in my territory who was just diagnosed with Terminal Cancer. He has very modest financial resources. In Canada, he is able to access almost free medical care and immediately apply for long term disability.
Not really knowing the details of "Obamacare", what would happen to this tech in the USA?
First, my heart goes out to your friend. My prayers go out to him and his family.
Second, Obama care is not actually health insurance, it merely mandates , among other things, that everyone is required to purchase health insurance. What would happen to a person who is diagnosed with terminal cancer under “Obama Care” will then vary according to the insurance that they have.
In general terms, there would be co-pays for office visits and perhaps additional out of pocket co-insurance payments. Most health insurance plans include a maximum out of pocket cost for the insured. Most also include a life time maximum of benefits. Most benefits plans would also include long-term disability coverage. There are also a number of charities in the US that help to defray costs for those affected.
In the United States we also have government funded health insurance such as Medicare for retirees, Medicaid for the poor and the Veterans Affairs Department who offers coverage for veterans.
quote:Originally posted by Old Glory:
Long Term Disability would come from Social Security, at least until its insolvency.
Prior to ObamaCare he would be given care based on the Terms and Conditions of his policy but he could not be denied coverage and Hospitals would have worked out a payment plan, probably significantly reducing the charge in the process. Under ObamaCare, someone in Health and Human Services will decide what if any treatment he would receive.
One argument I have against Socialized Medicine is that is offers a lower quality of care than the current system in the United States. For example, a study of the 5 year survival rates for Breast, Colon, Rectal and Prostate cancers found that the US had the highest survivability rate at 73.8%. Great Britain, often recognized for their National Health Program, has a 5-year survivability rate of 52%. Canada was a close second at 70.5%. To put this into perspective – for every 10,000 people diagnosed with cancer 2,180 more people will be alive in the U.S. versus the U.K. and 330 more versus Canada. Those numbers represent real people. Simply put the U.S. has a better record of health care out comes when compared to the rest of the world.
Many of the studies done on health care note that waiting times to see a physician are longer in other countries versus the U.S. and the U.S. has greater diagnostic resources. The U.S. has Doctors per 1,000 people ratio of 2.3, the U.K. is 2.2 and Canada is 2.1. The U.S. has 25.9 MRI machines per million versus 8 for Canada and 5.6 for the UK. The U.S. has 34.3 CT Scanners per million versus Canada at 13.9 and the U.K. at 7.4.
The above numbers back up the stories I have heard from an Aunt of mine who is Canadian. She has told me that waiting times to get into an MRI or some other diagnostic tool are much longer in Canada than in the U.S. . It is this time from physician to MRI or other diagnostic tool that can mean the difference between life and death.
quote:Originally posted by Old Glory: Under ObamaCare, someone in Health and Human Services will decide what if any treatment he would receive.
Obamacare is not universal health care, so this is not true, The treatment will be determined by his doctors and the payment determined by his private health insurance plan.
quote:Originally posted by Old Glory:
Long Term Disability would come from Social Security, at least until its insolvency.
Social Security (which of course this working person has paid into all his life) would indeed kick in when he was unable to work.
quote:Originally posted by Old Glory:
he could not be denied coverage
Well, if he changed jobs or left his job and didn't continue his insurance, he could certainly be denied coverage. Even Mitt Romney has come out in favor of continuing the elimination of pre-existing conditions as specified in Obamacare.
quote:Originally posted by Jrlz:
Those numbers represent real people. Simply put the U.S. has a better record of health care out comes when compared to the rest of the world.
Except when it comes to Infant Mortality, in that case, we're 34th.
Oh, or overall lifespan, in that one we are 38th.
Politifact examined the cancer claims you made and said that while it was true, the US ranked much worse in other areas, so it's a wash. http://www.politifact.com/trut...e-system-best-world/
Life expectancies and mortality rates are not a good indicator of health care. There are too many factors that effect life expectancies such as automobile accidents, violent crimes, etc... I think the best way to measure the quality of health care is by outcomes, how does the system work when a patient accesses it? The study you reference put heavy weight on "fairness" in the system. Unfortunatly socialists are more interested in making sure a system is fair, rather than effective. It is shared misery. Take the UK for example. They have a more "fair" system than the US. Everyone gets the same level of care, excpet of course the elite who operate outside the system. Socalism is always for the people, not the socalists. I think the 2,180 people who are alive in the US 5 years after a cnacer diagnosis that would not be alove in the UK might prefer the US system, they might not call that a wash. That is 2,180 mothers, fathers, and grand parents. Another factoid - 5 year death rate for heart attack patients in the US is 19.6% versus 21.4% in Canada. So in the US 180 more heart attack patients will be alive in 5 years than in Canada.
quote:Originally posted by Jrlz:
That is 2,180 mothers, fathers, and grand parents.
Doing math here, correct me if I've added incorrectly.
Infant mortality: US is at 7 per 1,000, best in the world is around 3, which means in the US 4 more babies die than where it could be.
Annual births in US 4.1 million so there are ~16,000+ babies that died here vs. the countries with the lowest infant mortality.
I think calling it a "wash" is more than fair.
quote:Originally posted by JasonR:quote:Originally posted by Jrlz:
That is 2,180 mothers, fathers, and grand parents.
Doing math here, correct me if I've added incorrectly.
Infant mortality: US is at 7 per 1,000, best in the world is around 3, which means in the US 4 more babies die than where it could be.
Annual births in US 4.1 million so there are ~16,000+ babies that died here vs. the countries with the lowest infant mortality.
I think calling it a "wash" is more than fair.
I would disagree, the CDC notes that there is a disparity in infant mortality rates.
Examples of Important Disparities
Infant mortality among African Americans in 2000 occurred at a rate of 14.1 deaths per 1,000 live births.2 This is more than twice the national average of 6.9 deaths per 1,000 live births. The leading causes of infant death include congenital abnormalities, pre-term/low birth weight, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), problems related to complications of pregnancy, and respiratory distress syndrome.3 SIDS deaths among American Indian and Alaska Natives is 2.3 times the rate for non-Hispanic white mothers
In summary there are factors that drive up the infant mortality that are not related to the health care system. Many of the above disparities are effected more by the parent(s) than the health care system. A poor diet of the mother, not following back to sleep reccomendations, not taking pre-natal viatamins amonng a host of other factors would all effect the above disparities. These are not a result of our heatlh care system, rather poor decisions by adults.
We will have to agree to disagree. I happen to think our system, although with issues, is the best in the World. I know if heaven forbid I needed quality health care I would stay in the US. I dont believe I would go to Europe or even our fine neighbors to the north in Canada.
quote:Originally posted by Jrlz:
We will have to agree to disagree. I happen to think...
I agree! (to disagree)
I do not think our health "care" is bad, but I don't think it is the best.
The real issue is not the quality of the care for those who can afford it, but being able to afford it in the first place.
If you don't have a job that offers insurance (for example, if you are a farmer) then buying insurance is expensive and then when you have a problem (such as cancer since we were discussing it) you can easily wind up with a bill for a million dollars.
Old joke: A farmer wins a million dollars and they ask him what he'll do with the money and he says "I guess I'll just keep farming until it's all gone".
Obamacare addresses these issues: Everyone has to have insurance and insurance is more affordable for those outside the current system.
Obamacare does not address in any real way the core issue to healthcare the U.S. faces which is spiraling healthcare costs. I haven't heard of any way that actually does address this EXCEPT single payer or single provider (please feel free to suggest one). Of those two, single payer is the lesser of the evils. That's a fight for another day
I live in Massachusetts where we have had a version of universal health insurance for some time. Not sure what the impact has been, I can say that it has blown a big hole in the budget. I would have preferred to see each state do thier own thing. I think 50 individual states would build a better system than the federal government.
JasonR, you say Obamacare will be less expensive. I disagree. It certainly won't be less expensive for all the people whose employer drops their employer paid insurance because now the government will provide it.
When has the government lowered the cost of anything?
I understand that there is a catastrophic component that exits with health insurance that doesn't exist with auto , home, life insurance but if competitive factors are allowed to come into play with health insurance, I feel prices will come down and quality will improve. It works only every time it is tried. ObamaCare is socialized medicine which is the complete opposite of capitalism and competition. When has Socialism ever produced more or better anything?
When has the government lowered the cost of anything?
I understand that there is a catastrophic component that exits with health insurance that doesn't exist with auto , home, life insurance but if competitive factors are allowed to come into play with health insurance, I feel prices will come down and quality will improve. It works only every time it is tried. ObamaCare is socialized medicine which is the complete opposite of capitalism and competition. When has Socialism ever produced more or better anything?
A Premier of a Canadian Province (like a US Governor)recently visited the USA for Health care (Heart issues) because he could easily afford it and the wait times were much shorter. There are more than a few Canadians who do go to the USA for Healthcare.
I recently had to wait three months for an MRI. It cost me $10.00 .
... and yes Healthcare does take up an alarmingly big and growing part of the Canadian budget.
I recently had to wait three months for an MRI. It cost me $10.00 .
... and yes Healthcare does take up an alarmingly big and growing part of the Canadian budget.
quote:Originally posted by Old Glory:
JasonR, you say Obamacare will be less expensive. I disagree. It certainly won't be less expensive for all the people whose employer drops their employer paid insurance because now the government will provide it.
When has the government lowered the cost of anything?
I understand that there is a catastrophic component that exits with health insurance that doesn't exist with auto , home, life insurance but if competitive factors are allowed to come into play with health insurance, I feel prices will come down and quality will improve. It works only every time it is tried. ObamaCare is socialized medicine which is the complete opposite of capitalism and competition. When has Socialism ever produced more or better anything?
To Old Glory's Point - I live in Massachuseetts who has Universal Health Care. Obama said he used our plan as a blueprint for his. We were promised it would lower premiums for everyone. Guess what? It did not. My premiums are still increasing as fast as the national average.
quote:Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
A Premier of a Canadian Province (like a US Governor)recently visited the USA for Health care (Heart issues) because he could easily afford it and the wait times were much shorter. There are more than a few Canadians who do go to the USA for Healthcare.
I recently had to wait three months for an MRI. It cost me $10.00 .
... and yes Healthcare does take up an alarmingly big and growing part of the Canadian budget.
SSG, you back up what I have heard about the Canadian system regarding wait times. Hopefully, you did not need an MRI for a severe issue such as a cancer diagnosis. A three month wait for an MRI could be the differnce between life and death. The reason for the long wait times is that there are a low number of MRIs/capita. THis is becuase the Canadian government needs to ration thier funds and can not afford to support more MRIs or CT scanners. This is what we will see in the US under Obamacare. Obama Care will decrease payment rates to health care providers. So how will health care providers respond to lower revenue? They will need to lower costs by decreasing capital expenditures.
From CNBC:
There are now 49 million people without health insurance in the United States, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Under the Affordable Care Act, better known to the public as "Obamacare," more than 30 million people would become eligible to buy subsidized private insurance or receive Medicaid coverage in 2014.
The law requires most Americans to have some form of health insurance - known as the individual mandate. The law stipulates that those who do not acquire health coverage will face a penalty.
There are now 49 million people without health insurance in the United States, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Under the Affordable Care Act, better known to the public as "Obamacare," more than 30 million people would become eligible to buy subsidized private insurance or receive Medicaid coverage in 2014.
The law requires most Americans to have some form of health insurance - known as the individual mandate. The law stipulates that those who do not acquire health coverage will face a penalty.
I wonderhow people will be able to buy (afford) healthcare when they are not working
From the Motley Fool:
"Simplified, Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act/ ACA) does a few big things:
Prevents insurance companies from denying customers for pre-existing conditions.
Allows young adults to stay on their parent's insurance until age 26.
Limits age-rating, or charging premiums several times higher for older customers.
Eliminates lifetime insurance caps and restricts annual limits.
Restricts how much insurance companies can spend on non-medical costs (overhead).
Mandates that everyone acquire health insurance by 2014 or face a tax, offering subsidies or Medicaid for those who can't afford it."
"The measuring of political wins and losses misses the point altogether. The winners here are the nearly 50 million Americans who don't have health insurance. They're the majority of personal bankruptcy cases linked to medical bills, and those who couldn't quit their job because they can't afford to lose employer-provided coverage."
"Mitt Romney has vowed to repeal the ACA if elected president. One of the biggest complaints about the ACA is that it causes uncertainty. No one knows what might happen next, or what health-care costs will be a year or two from now. Alas, that hasn't gone away."
From this I would interpret that if you are unemployed with no income, you can fall back upon Medicaid for Health care. Of course, this probably means long lines, lots of paper work and probably not the best quality healthcare.
"Simplified, Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act/ ACA) does a few big things:
Prevents insurance companies from denying customers for pre-existing conditions.
Allows young adults to stay on their parent's insurance until age 26.
Limits age-rating, or charging premiums several times higher for older customers.
Eliminates lifetime insurance caps and restricts annual limits.
Restricts how much insurance companies can spend on non-medical costs (overhead).
Mandates that everyone acquire health insurance by 2014 or face a tax, offering subsidies or Medicaid for those who can't afford it."
"The measuring of political wins and losses misses the point altogether. The winners here are the nearly 50 million Americans who don't have health insurance. They're the majority of personal bankruptcy cases linked to medical bills, and those who couldn't quit their job because they can't afford to lose employer-provided coverage."
"Mitt Romney has vowed to repeal the ACA if elected president. One of the biggest complaints about the ACA is that it causes uncertainty. No one knows what might happen next, or what health-care costs will be a year or two from now. Alas, that hasn't gone away."
From this I would interpret that if you are unemployed with no income, you can fall back upon Medicaid for Health care. Of course, this probably means long lines, lots of paper work and probably not the best quality healthcare.
SSG says, "The winners here are the nearly 50 million Americans who don't have health insurance. They're the majority of personal bankruptcy cases linked to medical bills, and those who couldn't quit their job because they can't afford to lose employer-provided coverage."
It all boils down to socialism vs capitalism and both sides believe in helping those who can't help themselves. The biggest problem I have is paying for other people's obligations so that they can better afford luxeries I can't afford for myself. I drive a 10 year old car and still watch TV's that have tubes. If someone can't make it despite cancelling their cable, quiting smoking, canceling their cell phone, etc. then I will know that they truly need help.
A very large portion of the 50 million that don't have health insurance are people who would rather have their big screen TV's and new cars and are playing Russian Roulette with their families health. I have a problem with paying for that in the form of higher taxes and less effective health care.
Every time you hear, "Prevents insurance companies from..." their is a steep price to be paid either in cost or reduced effectiveness. I have a problem with paying for 26 year-olds to be on their parents policy, I have a problem with insurance companies being forced to cover the uninsurable. Remember when banks were forced to loan to the non-credit worthy? Look where that got us. I just don't believe that the best way to help those who can't help themselves is for the government to take over 1/3rd of the US economy.
By the way, insurance companies have caps and annual limits because you and I wanted lower premiums so this was their way of getting there. You can get truly unlimited if you are willing to pay for it. Don't put that on the insurance companies. And do you really want them to have a cap on their overhead? That probably means less customer service...you like that?
It all boils down to socialism vs capitalism and both sides believe in helping those who can't help themselves. The biggest problem I have is paying for other people's obligations so that they can better afford luxeries I can't afford for myself. I drive a 10 year old car and still watch TV's that have tubes. If someone can't make it despite cancelling their cable, quiting smoking, canceling their cell phone, etc. then I will know that they truly need help.
A very large portion of the 50 million that don't have health insurance are people who would rather have their big screen TV's and new cars and are playing Russian Roulette with their families health. I have a problem with paying for that in the form of higher taxes and less effective health care.
Every time you hear, "Prevents insurance companies from..." their is a steep price to be paid either in cost or reduced effectiveness. I have a problem with paying for 26 year-olds to be on their parents policy, I have a problem with insurance companies being forced to cover the uninsurable. Remember when banks were forced to loan to the non-credit worthy? Look where that got us. I just don't believe that the best way to help those who can't help themselves is for the government to take over 1/3rd of the US economy.
By the way, insurance companies have caps and annual limits because you and I wanted lower premiums so this was their way of getting there. You can get truly unlimited if you are willing to pay for it. Don't put that on the insurance companies. And do you really want them to have a cap on their overhead? That probably means less customer service...you like that?
If Obama wins re-election I fully expect copier sales to go off a cliff as bad or worse than they did in 2008.
Our economy is teetering on the edge. They just started pumping the money supply again. An Obama win and the economy will plunge into a full blown depression.
Our economy is teetering on the edge. They just started pumping the money supply again. An Obama win and the economy will plunge into a full blown depression.
Under Obama care some one could go with out insurance, pay the fine and if they get sick they can then sign up for insurance and the insurance compnay can not deny them. Does this make sense. It's like getting auto insurance after you crash your car.
quote:Originally posted by JasonR:quote:Originally posted by Jrlz:
We were promised it would lower premiums for everyone. Guess what? It did not. My premiums are still increasing as fast as the national average.
Well, I would make sure never to vote for whoever lied to you in that way ever again!
Well the law was singed in by Romney, however we had and still have a democratically controlled house in Mass. Currently the whole state is being run by the Democractic Party - Governor and House. Believe me I am not going to vote for any of the democrats that are in charge now. I will vote for Romney. He is a little to big government for me, but it is better than having the Marxist in Cheif we have now.
I read today that the average penalty will get all the way up to $1,200 by 2016. Who is going to pay a guaranteed premium that is higher vs a possible penalty that is only $1,200. Ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised if the government doesn't step in and even pay the penalty for those who can't.
quote:
Our economy is teetering on the edge. They just started pumping the money supply again. An Obama win and the economy will plunge into a full blown depression.
Look for larger price increases during the first quarter of 2013 from all of the overseas manufacturers, I would not be surprised to see increases of 8% or more. Pumping money into buying mortgages will have the dollar go even lower vs the yen, thus that means price increase.
I'm thinking if the dollar goes low enough, maybe manufacturing will come back to the US (I'm being stupid with this one)
quote:Originally posted by Old Glory:
I read today that the average penalty will get all the way up to $1,200 by 2016. Who is going to pay a guaranteed premium that is higher vs a possible penalty that is only $1,200. Ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised if the government doesn't step in and even pay the penalty for those who can't.
You are right on the mark. In Massachusetts there are plenty of people who pay the penalty rather than insurance premiums. To add insult to injury, if you get laid off from a job and dont have health insurance coverage you get fined. In Massachusetts you need to have coverage all year long, any lapses get you fined. Real nice. You lose your job then the state fines you becuase you dont have insurance. Now that is compassion. Dont worry, the other 49 states will soon enjoy this.
Let not this shake your faith in the Democratic party, but Mitt just released his tax returns and contrary to what Harry Reid said on the Senate floor, Mitt has paid taxes. Good thing for Reid that he can not be sued for Slander because he was on the Senate floor when he lied. I wonder if Harry can grow a pair and slander someone when he is not protected from the law by the Senate floor. How quickly do you think that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will issue an apology? My guess would be never.
Romney is on the front page once again with disclosure that he paid effectively 14% personal tax rate in 2011.
But contrary to popular perception, Romney's effective federal income tax rate is still higher than that of most Americans -- 80% of whom have an effective rate below 15%. That number, however, does not include other federal taxes such as the payroll tax.
The reason Romney's rate is so low -- despite having one of the highest incomes in the country -- is because his income was derived almost entirely from capital gains and dividends from his extensive portfolio of investments. And that form of investment income is typically taxed at just 15%, well below the 35% top tax rate for high earners.
The average tax rate for Canadians is over 20%. Mine was 23% last year and I had a lot deductions.
I think the USA should have a minimum tax rate on all citizens of at least 17-18% no matter how many deductions or entitlements you have.
But contrary to popular perception, Romney's effective federal income tax rate is still higher than that of most Americans -- 80% of whom have an effective rate below 15%. That number, however, does not include other federal taxes such as the payroll tax.
The reason Romney's rate is so low -- despite having one of the highest incomes in the country -- is because his income was derived almost entirely from capital gains and dividends from his extensive portfolio of investments. And that form of investment income is typically taxed at just 15%, well below the 35% top tax rate for high earners.
The average tax rate for Canadians is over 20%. Mine was 23% last year and I had a lot deductions.
I think the USA should have a minimum tax rate on all citizens of at least 17-18% no matter how many deductions or entitlements you have.
From CNN Money:
"Romney and his wife, Ann, gave just over $4 million to charity, the campaign said. The amount includes more than $1 million in cash to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and more than $200,000 to the Tyler Foundation, which serves families of children undergoing treatment for epilepsy. They also reported more than $900,000 in non cash contributions.
But the couple chose to deduct only $2.25 million of their charitable contributions. The reason was "to conform" to Romney's statement last month that he never paid less than 13% in income taxes over the past 10 years, Brad Malt, a lawyer who presides over the Romneys' blind trust, said in a statement.
Indeed, if the Romneys had declared the full $4 million it likely would have pushed their effective tax rate below 13%, said tax attorney Martin Press of the law firm Gunster.
"It is quite unusual for people not to take tax deductions that they're entitled to," Press said. '
"Romney and his wife, Ann, gave just over $4 million to charity, the campaign said. The amount includes more than $1 million in cash to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and more than $200,000 to the Tyler Foundation, which serves families of children undergoing treatment for epilepsy. They also reported more than $900,000 in non cash contributions.
But the couple chose to deduct only $2.25 million of their charitable contributions. The reason was "to conform" to Romney's statement last month that he never paid less than 13% in income taxes over the past 10 years, Brad Malt, a lawyer who presides over the Romneys' blind trust, said in a statement.
Indeed, if the Romneys had declared the full $4 million it likely would have pushed their effective tax rate below 13%, said tax attorney Martin Press of the law firm Gunster.
"It is quite unusual for people not to take tax deductions that they're entitled to," Press said. '