According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.
PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail Friday, November 06, 2009
Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”
> The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain > “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the > bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are > subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal > fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
its looks to me like 2.5% of someones income means this person who has to pay 15k for his family has an income of $600,000. i think they can afford it. that lowers their income to $585,000. cry me a river.
_____________________________________________________________________ * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
> nancy pelosi, a caring person in a "free" country
> hope and change
> According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family > non-group plan under the Speaker's bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.
> PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail > JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats' Mandate Can Lead to 5 > Years in Jail > Friday, November 06, 2009
> Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave > Camp > (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on > Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the > individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi > health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. > The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain > "acceptable health insurance coverage" and who choose not to pay the > bill's new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are > subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal > fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
> Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. > Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties > could apply to an individual:
> . Section 7203 - misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by > a > fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
> . Section 7201 - felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of > up > to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years."
>> nancy pelosi, a caring person in a "free" country
>> hope and change
>> According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family >> non-group plan under the Speaker's bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.
>> PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail >> JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats' Mandate Can Lead to 5 >> Years in Jail >> Friday, November 06, 2009
>> Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp >> (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on >> Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the >> individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi >> health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. >> The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain >> "acceptable health insurance coverage" and who choose not to pay the >> bill's new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are >> subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal >> fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
>> Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. >> Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties >> could apply to an individual:
>> . Section 7203 - misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a >> fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
>> . Section 7201 - felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up >> to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years."
> Are you really this gullible bub?
so are the newscasters on MSNBC right now - saying the same thing Bud is
> nancy pelosi, a caring person in a "free" country
> hope and change
> According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family > non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.
> PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail > JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 > Years in Jail > Friday, November 06, 2009
> Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp > (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on > Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the > individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi > health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. > The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain > “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the > bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are > subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal > fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
> Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. > Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties > could apply to an individual:
> • Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a > fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
> • Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up > to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”
On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, "Abbey Johnsson" <ac68...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Nov 7 2009 12:39 PM, bub wrote:
> > The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain > > “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the > > bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are > > subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal > > fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
> its looks to me like 2.5% of someones income means this person who has > to pay 15k for his family has an income of $600,000. i think they can > afford it. that lowers their income to $585,000. cry me a river.
> _____________________________________________________________________ > * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com
If this is accurate, I would assume that the $15,000 refers to the amount of coverage, as is usually the case when quoting policies. So a person making $100,000 would be paying $2,500 for a $15,000 policy, a person making $30,000 would be paying $750, etc.
At least that is what makes the most sense to me. But anyways, I think the posters point is, assuming the post is accurate, is that it's not a proper role of government to decide what type of coverage you have to obtain (and I know there are many things that are similar to this that are mandated by the government as well, but many of those aren't proper roles for the government either) and then punish you when you don't comply, especially in an industry that is within the free market that you mainly consume voluntarily (in the same sense that you consume and make food choices voluntarily).
Always saying "they can afford it" because someone makes more money then you doesn't make a law or tax the right thing to do. There may be other justifications for it (usually there aren't) but "hey, they can afford it" is not one of them.
> so are the newscasters on MSNBC right now - saying the same thing > Bud is
So you really believe someone who takes home $2000/mo is going to have to shell out $1,250/mo for insurance? Come on. Does that pass the smell test for you?
This Republican press release is giving you a sliver of the whole story. Why? That's easy: to deceive you.
> On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, "Abbey Johnsson" <ac68...@webnntp.invalid> > wrote: >> On Nov 7 2009 12:39 PM, bub wrote:
>> > The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain >> > “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay >> > the >> > bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are >> > subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including >> > criminal >> > fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
>> its looks to me like 2.5% of someones income means this person >> who has >> to pay 15k for his family has an income of $600,000. i think they >> can >> afford it. that lowers their income to $585,000. cry me a river.
>> _____________________________________________________________________ >> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com
> If this is accurate, I would assume that the $15,000 refers to the > amount of coverage, as is usually the case when quoting policies. > So > a person making $100,000 would be paying $2,500 for a $15,000 > policy, > a person making $30,000 would be paying $750, etc.
> At least that is what makes the most sense to me. But anyways, I > think the posters point is, assuming the post is accurate, is that > it's not a proper role of government to decide what type of coverage > you have to obtain (and I know there are many things that are > similar > to this that are mandated by the government as well, but many of > those > aren't proper roles for the government either) and then punish you > when you don't comply, especially in an industry that is within the > free market that you mainly consume voluntarily (in the same sense > that you consume and make food choices voluntarily).
> Always saying "they can afford it" because someone makes more money > then you doesn't make a law or tax the right thing to do. There may > be other justifications for it (usually there aren't) but "hey, they > can afford it" is not one of them.
You both are way off. This highlights the problem with Democrats. They are the worst PR people on earth. It's not surprising so many people are against this, because hardly anyone has a clue what the deal is.
The 2.5% is a tax on income if you don't get insurance from your employer and refuse to buy your own. The $15,000 is what the CBO estimates an exchange plan will cost in
a) 2016 b) for a family of four c) not including subsidies
Here are the estimated premiums according to your income, including subsidies for that reference plan in 2016:
> > On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, "Abbey Johnsson" <ac68...@webnntp.invalid> > > wrote: > >> On Nov 7 2009 12:39 PM, bub wrote:
> >> > The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain > >> > “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay > >> > the > >> > bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are > >> > subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including > >> > criminal > >> > fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
> >> its looks to me like 2.5% of someones income means this person > >> who has > >> to pay 15k for his family has an income of $600,000. i think they > >> can > >> afford it. that lowers their income to $585,000. cry me a river.
> > If this is accurate, I would assume that the $15,000 refers to the > > amount of coverage, as is usually the case when quoting policies. > > So > > a person making $100,000 would be paying $2,500 for a $15,000 > > policy, > > a person making $30,000 would be paying $750, etc.
> > At least that is what makes the most sense to me. But anyways, I > > think the posters point is, assuming the post is accurate, is that > > it's not a proper role of government to decide what type of coverage > > you have to obtain (and I know there are many things that are > > similar > > to this that are mandated by the government as well, but many of > > those > > aren't proper roles for the government either) and then punish you > > when you don't comply, especially in an industry that is within the > > free market that you mainly consume voluntarily (in the same sense > > that you consume and make food choices voluntarily).
> > Always saying "they can afford it" because someone makes more money > > then you doesn't make a law or tax the right thing to do. There may > > be other justifications for it (usually there aren't) but "hey, they > > can afford it" is not one of them.
> You both are way off. This highlights the problem with Democrats. They > are the worst PR people on earth. It's not surprising so many people > are against this, because hardly anyone has a clue what the deal is.
> The 2.5% is a tax on income if you don't get insurance from your > employer and refuse to buy your own. The $15,000 is what the CBO > estimates an exchange plan will cost in
> a) 2016 > b) for a family of four > c) not including subsidies
> Here are the estimated premiums according to your income, including > subsidies for that reference plan in 2016:
Thanks. That appears to be one confusing chart though. I seriously doubt most Americans would take the time to try to understand that chart even though the changes could have a huge effect on their lives (maybe good, maybe bad).
Anyways, am I correct that you should have added
d) households making 400-450% of the Federal Poverty Level?
> > Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up > > to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” > OMG! I'm so scared..........................
You sound just like a right winger when talking about jail time for non violent drug offenders.
-- "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). " - Ayn Rand
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:14:21 -0800, "Abbey Johnsson"
<ac68...@webnntp.invalid> wrote: >On Nov 7 2009 12:39 PM, bub wrote:
>> The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain >> “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the >> bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are >> subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal >> fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
> its looks to me like 2.5% of someones income means this person who has >to pay 15k for his family has an income of $600,000. i think they can >afford it. that lowers their income to $585,000. cry me a river.
Typical lib jealousy rears its very ugly head. WTF do you care how much someone makes? --
From earners to yearners. Obamanomics! From makers to takers. Obamanomics!
<kenhow...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 7, 12:14 pm, "Abbey Johnsson" <ac68...@webnntp.invalid> wrote: >> On Nov 7 2009 12:39 PM, bub wrote:
>> > The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain >> > “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the >> > bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are >> > subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal >> > fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
>> its looks to me like 2.5% of someones income means this person who has >> to pay 15k for his family has an income of $600,000. i think they can >> afford it. that lowers their income to $585,000. cry me a river.
>> _____________________________________________________________________ >> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com
>If this is accurate, I would assume that the $15,000 refers to the >amount of coverage, as is usually the case when quoting policies. So >a person making $100,000 would be paying $2,500 for a $15,000 policy, >a person making $30,000 would be paying $750, etc.
>At least that is what makes the most sense to me. But anyways, I >think the posters point is, assuming the post is accurate, is that >it's not a proper role of government to decide what type of coverage >you have to obtain (and I know there are many things that are similar >to this that are mandated by the government as well, but many of those >aren't proper roles for the government either) and then punish you >when you don't comply, especially in an industry that is within the >free market that you mainly consume voluntarily (in the same sense >that you consume and make food choices voluntarily).
>Always saying "they can afford it" because someone makes more money >then you doesn't make a law or tax the right thing to do. There may >be other justifications for it (usually there aren't) but "hey, they >can afford it" is not one of them.
>Ken
$15,000 of coverage will not cover one day in a hospital. My wife was in a car accident and suffered a severe head laceration. She was in overnight and the bill with stitches/x-rays, etc was $18,000.
--
From earners to yearners. Obamanomics! From makers to takers. Obamanomics!
>>> > The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain >>> > “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the >>> > bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are >>> > subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal >>> > fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
>>> its looks to me like 2.5% of someones income means this person who >>> has >>> to pay 15k for his family has an income of $600,000. i think they can >>> afford it. that lowers their income to $585,000. cry me a river.
>>> _____________________________________________________________________ >>> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com
>> If this is accurate, I would assume that the $15,000 refers to the >> amount of coverage, as is usually the case when quoting policies. So >> a person making $100,000 would be paying $2,500 for a $15,000 policy, >> a person making $30,000 would be paying $750, etc.
>> At least that is what makes the most sense to me. But anyways, I >> think the posters point is, assuming the post is accurate, is that >> it's not a proper role of government to decide what type of coverage >> you have to obtain (and I know there are many things that are similar >> to this that are mandated by the government as well, but many of those >> aren't proper roles for the government either) and then punish you >> when you don't comply, especially in an industry that is within the >> free market that you mainly consume voluntarily (in the same sense >> that you consume and make food choices voluntarily).
>> Always saying "they can afford it" because someone makes more money >> then you doesn't make a law or tax the right thing to do. There may >> be other justifications for it (usually there aren't) but "hey, they >> can afford it" is not one of them.
> You both are way off. This highlights the problem with Democrats. They are > the worst PR people on earth. It's not surprising so many people are > against this, because hardly anyone has a clue what the deal is.
> The 2.5% is a tax on income if you don't get insurance from your employer > and refuse to buy your own. The $15,000 is what the CBO estimates an > exchange plan will cost in
> a) 2016 > b) for a family of four > c) not including subsidies
> Here are the estimated premiums according to your income, including > subsidies for that reference plan in 2016:
> its looks to me like 2.5% of someones income means this person who has > to pay 15k for his family has an income of $600,000. i think they can > afford it. that lowers their income to $585,000. cry me a river.
Homeless people feel the same way about the 20k a year you make flipping burgers.
-- "You're using something I said as your sig line? Cool. (although I'm not sure if you agree with me or are ridiculing me, but still cool)" - brewmaster 7/30/2009
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:55:15 -0800 (PST), Omaha8_Beach > <kenhow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 7, 12:14Â pm, "Abbey Johnsson" <ac68...@webnntp.invalid> wrote: > >> On Nov 7 2009 12:39 PM, bub wrote:
> >> > The JCT letter  makes clear that Americans who do not maintain > >> > “acceptable health insurance coverage†and who choose not to pay the > >> > bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are > >> > subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal > >> > fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
> >> Â Â its looks to me like 2.5% of someones income means this person who has > >> to pay 15k for his family has an income of $600,000. Â i think they can > >> afford it. Â that lowers their income to $585,000. cry me a river.
> >If this is accurate, I would assume that the $15,000 refers to the > >amount of coverage, as is usually the case when quoting policies. So > >a person making $100,000 would be paying $2,500 for a $15,000 policy, > >a person making $30,000 would be paying $750, etc.
> >At least that is what makes the most sense to me. But anyways, I > >think the posters point is, assuming the post is accurate, is that > >it's not a proper role of government to decide what type of coverage > >you have to obtain (and I know there are many things that are similar > >to this that are mandated by the government as well, but many of those > >aren't proper roles for the government either) and then punish you > >when you don't comply, especially in an industry that is within the > >free market that you mainly consume voluntarily (in the same sense > >that you consume and make food choices voluntarily).
> >Always saying "they can afford it" because someone makes more money > >then you doesn't make a law or tax the right thing to do. There may > >be other justifications for it (usually there aren't) but "hey, they > >can afford it" is not one of them.
> >Ken
> $15,000 of coverage will not cover one day in a hospital. My wife was > in a car accident and suffered a severe head laceration. She was in > overnight and the bill with stitches/x-rays, etc was $18,000.
This of course is where the big problem with health care lies. Stitches and an xray should cost, what, $200? $18000? What did they do, buy a new xray machine just for her? GMAFB
> --
> From earners to yearners. Obamanomics! > From makers to takers. Obamanomics!
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:14:21 -0800, "Abbey Johnsson" > <ac68...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >On Nov 7 2009 12:39 PM, bub wrote:
> >> The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain > >> “acceptable health insurance coverage†and who choose not to pay the > >> bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are > >> subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal > >> fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
> > its looks to me like 2.5% of someones income means this person who has > >to pay 15k for his family has an income of $600,000. i think they can > >afford it. that lowers their income to $585,000. cry me a river.
> Typical lib jealousy rears its very ugly head. > WTF do you care how much someone makes?
I like when they say "how much does one person need?" (which of course always precedes "they should pay like 90% of their income in taxes blah blah blah")
> --
> From earners to yearners. Obamanomics! > From makers to takers. Obamanomics!
> You sound just like a right winger when talking about jail time for non > violent drug offenders.
> -- > "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no > right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of > rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities > (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). "
That's true. However, she failed utterly to see that there are times when your perception of an individual right is incorrect, and many times when you're acting against your best interest out of ignorance by insisting on your perceived right.
> >>> > The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain > >>> > “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the > >>> > bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are > >>> > subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal > >>> > fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
> >>> its looks to me like 2.5% of someones income means this person who > >>> has > >>> to pay 15k for his family has an income of $600,000. i think they can > >>> afford it. that lowers their income to $585,000. cry me a river.
> >> If this is accurate, I would assume that the $15,000 refers to the > >> amount of coverage, as is usually the case when quoting policies. So > >> a person making $100,000 would be paying $2,500 for a $15,000 policy, > >> a person making $30,000 would be paying $750, etc.
> >> At least that is what makes the most sense to me. But anyways, I > >> think the posters point is, assuming the post is accurate, is that > >> it's not a proper role of government to decide what type of coverage > >> you have to obtain (and I know there are many things that are similar > >> to this that are mandated by the government as well, but many of those > >> aren't proper roles for the government either) and then punish you > >> when you don't comply, especially in an industry that is within the > >> free market that you mainly consume voluntarily (in the same sense > >> that you consume and make food choices voluntarily).
> >> Always saying "they can afford it" because someone makes more money > >> then you doesn't make a law or tax the right thing to do. There may > >> be other justifications for it (usually there aren't) but "hey, they > >> can afford it" is not one of them.
> > You both are way off. This highlights the problem with Democrats. They are > > the worst PR people on earth. It's not surprising so many people are > > against this, because hardly anyone has a clue what the deal is.
> > The 2.5% is a tax on income if you don't get insurance from your employer > > and refuse to buy your own. The $15,000 is what the CBO estimates an > > exchange plan will cost in
> > a) 2016 > > b) for a family of four > > c) not including subsidies
> > Here are the estimated premiums according to your income, including > > subsidies for that reference plan in 2016:
> This doesn't specifically address what you are talking about, but some of > things here which are backed up with the bill itself doesn't sound so good.
Thanks, that does confirm what I was asking about above, that the $15,000 figure cited would be for a family of four with a houshold income that is 400-450% above the Federal Poverty Level, for which the average in that bracket is $102,000/year. They would also probably have about $5,000 in out of pocket expenses above the annual premium. That would put the cost at about $1800/month without any subsidies. Maybe the subsidies make up for that high cost, but that still seems like it would be much higher than most current employer plans. Are any families of four actually paying this much per month in total health care expenses?
> > The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain > > “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the > > bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are > > subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal > > fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
> its looks to me like 2.5% of someones income means this person who has > to pay 15k for his family has an income of $600,000. i think they can > afford it. that lowers their income to $585,000. cry me a river.
> _____________________________________________________________________ > * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com
If this is accurate, I would assume that the $15,000 refers to the amount of coverage, as is usually the case when quoting policies. So a person making $100,000 would be paying $2,500 for a $15,000 policy, a person making $30,000 would be paying $750, etc. *** Not remotely true :
It refers to this : According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.
So anyone not in a group plan will be totally fucked, yes.
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:55:15 -0800 (PST), Omaha8_Beach >> <kenhow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 7, 12:14Â pm, "Abbey Johnsson" <ac68...@webnntp.invalid> wrote: >> >> On Nov 7 2009 12:39 PM, bub wrote:
>> >> > The JCT letter  makes clear that Americans who do not maintain >> >> > â?oacceptable health insurance coverageâ? and who choose not to pay >> >> > the >> >> > billâ?Ts new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are >> >> > subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal >> >> > fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
>> >> Â Â its looks to me like 2.5% of someones income means this person who > has >> >> to pay 15k for his family has an income of $600,000. Â i think they >> >> can >> >> afford it. Â that lowers their income to $585,000. cry me a river.
>> >If this is accurate, I would assume that the $15,000 refers to the >> >amount of coverage, as is usually the case when quoting policies. So >> >a person making $100,000 would be paying $2,500 for a $15,000 policy, >> >a person making $30,000 would be paying $750, etc.
>> >At least that is what makes the most sense to me. But anyways, I >> >think the posters point is, assuming the post is accurate, is that >> >it's not a proper role of government to decide what type of coverage >> >you have to obtain (and I know there are many things that are similar >> >to this that are mandated by the government as well, but many of those >> >aren't proper roles for the government either) and then punish you >> >when you don't comply, especially in an industry that is within the >> >free market that you mainly consume voluntarily (in the same sense >> >that you consume and make food choices voluntarily).
>> >Always saying "they can afford it" because someone makes more money >> >then you doesn't make a law or tax the right thing to do. There may >> >be other justifications for it (usually there aren't) but "hey, they >> >can afford it" is not one of them.
>> >Ken
>> $15,000 of coverage will not cover one day in a hospital. My wife was >> in a car accident and suffered a severe head laceration. She was in >> overnight and the bill with stitches/x-rays, etc was $18,000.
> This of course is where the big problem with health care lies. Stitches > and an xray should cost, what, $200? $18000? What did they do, buy a new > xray machine just for her? > GMAFB
Severe auto accident.... Operations, grafts, plasma, .....
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 21:59:24 -0500, "~M~" <~...@gmail.com> wrote: >"Abbey Johnsson" <ac68...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message >news:t0qgs6xcro.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> its looks to me like 2.5% of someones income means this person who has >> to pay 15k for his family has an income of $600,000. i think they can >> afford it. that lowers their income to $585,000. cry me a river.
using your numbers ,let's do abit more of course in some states they already pay up to 65% in tax so 585,000 quickly becomes approx 204000 .
and to deadbeats like abbey, that still ain't enough. she thinks they can afford more
hey abbey, you know you can send any extra money you want to the treasury to use as they see fit. please send more of your money since you seem to like to spend other people's money.
> This doesn't specifically address what you are talking about
Not sure what you mean. The Republican press release was headlined "Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail" The headline is designed to scare the hell out of the average person earning $18/hr.
"Where am I going to get $1250/mo to buy health insurance?? I'm going to jail!!!!"
The chart shows that scare tactic headline is false. First, you don't have to buy any policy if you are willing to pay the 2.5% surtax on your income. Second, most people will not be paying anywhere near $15,000
, but some of
> things here which are backed up with the bill itself doesn't sound > so good.
I'm not surprised. The author is clearly trying to make it sound "not so good" by using emotionally charged phrases like "Eviscerating Medicare" and "Questionable Priorities." I'd seek out more objective analysis if I were you.
The plan is deeply flawed at its core because it lets insurance companies (and other for-profit entities) continue to suck 30%+ of health care dollars out the system without any benefit to patients. That makes everything far more expensive than it should be. But really, whose fault is that? As long as insurance companies can scare and con the uninformed American public into believing that not-for-profit health care is a bad thing, then there is very little the Dems or anyone else can do to control costs in meaningful ways. They've come up with a plan that will get almost everyone covered, and that's good, but the the core problem remains untouched. If they would have taken profit out of the equation there would have been enough money to cover everyone, improve services, and have cash left over.
> >> its looks to me like 2.5% of someones income means this person who has > >> to pay 15k for his family has an income of $600,000. i think they can > >> afford it. that lowers their income to $585,000. cry me a river.
> using your numbers ,let's do abit more > of course in some states they already pay up to 65% in tax so 585,000 > quickly becomes approx 204000 .
> and to deadbeats like abbey, that still ain't enough. she thinks they > can afford more
lol. thats true. (even the 'deadbeat' part. all i do is play golf everyday). i think with 204,000, you can afford 15k for health care. although, 65% seems like a bit of an exageration
> hey abbey, you know you can send any extra money you want to the > treasury to use as they see fit. please send more of your money since > you seem to like to spend other people's money.
sorry, cant do it. i need it for my greensfees!
_______________________________________________________________________ : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
On Nov 7, 11:18 pm, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
> They've come up with a plan that will get almost everyone covered, and > that's good, but the the core problem remains untouched. If they would > have taken profit out of the equation there would have been enough > money to cover everyone, improve services, and have cash left over.
Are you saying that the problem is profit, or waste? If the problem is profit, what are the true profit margins for the health care industry versus other industries? If you mean waste, than that's a different issue.
I don't know what you mean by "taken profit out of the equation" but I find it scary. I know you don't mean anything malevolent by it, but I'm concerned about the consequences.
|
