[turtle777]

That's just awesome. The Obama administration continues their FAIL spree.

This latest blunder is just unacceptable. And again, makes Obama a liar when he said people making under $ 250k will not see tax increases.

WASHINGTON -- Some married couples would pay thousands of dollars more for the same health insurance coverage as unmarried people living together, under the health insurance overhaul plan pending in Congress.

The built-in "marriage penalty" in both House and Senate healthcare bills has received scant attention. But for scores of low-income and middle-income couples, it could mean a hike of $2,000 or more in annual insurance premiums the moment they say "I do."

Married Couples Pay More Than Unmarried Under Health Bill - WSJ.com



-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Their secret plan is to make marriage so unattractive that straight people will demand that gays be able to marry.

On topic: the point in the article about other tradeoffs and inequities that would develop if they eliminated this "penalty" seems valid. Given that, one wonders if slicing the inequities as it stands now actually has the least overall negative effect, given that many married people with combined incomes will have at least one, if not two, insurance plans available from their employers.

[hyteckit]

Marriage = Pre-existing condition

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

That's just awesome. The Obama administration continues their FAIL spree.

This latest blunder is just unacceptable. And again, makes Obama a liar when he said people making under $ 250k will not see tax increases.

Married Couples Pay More Than Unmarried Under Health Bill - WSJ.com

-t

Not surprising in the least. Just another hit on the traditional family which progressives mostly feel in an
anachronism. Imagine a tax penalty on same sex marriages to cover the inherent instability of those unions. There would be no end to protests, coverage by the media and charges of bias.

[Orion27]

From the article:

In any progressive system of taxes or benefits, there are trade-offs between how well-targeted a subsidy is and how equitable it is, said Stacy Dickert-Conlin, an economics professor at Michigan State University.
"You might like to have it be progressive, equitable and marriage-neutral. But you have to decide what your goals are, because you can't accomplish all three," she said.

One can already see the social engineering in this "health" bill. This is exactly why this legislation is so unpopular. What other "penalties" yet to be discovered?

[SpaceMonkey]

I am shocked, SHOCKED, that there is social engineering going on in this here establishment!

[OAW]

You guys are really reaching here ....

The disparity comes about in part because subsidies for purchasing health insurance under the plan from congressional Democrats are pegged to federal poverty guidelines. That has the effect of limiting subsidies for married couples with a combined income, compared to if the individuals are single.

People who get their health insurance through an employer wouldn't be affected. Only people that buy subsidized insurance through new exchanges set up by the legislation stand to be impacted. About 17 million people would receive such subsidies in 2016 under the House plan, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

So can a married couple receive a smaller tax-payer funded subsidy to purchase insurance on the new exchange (which doesn't presently exist) than a couple that is "shacking up" under certain circumstances? Yes. And that's an issue that can be discussed. But to call this a tax increase is utter and complete BS.

OAW

[hyteckit]

Gas prices just went up.

Obama said there won't be a tax increase for those making $250k and under.

Liar!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Gas prices just went up.

Obama said there won't be a tax increase for those making $250k and under.

Liar!

Exactly.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Gas prices just went up.

BS. Nobody forces you to buy gas. Unlike the proposed Health Care, gas is not a mandatory purchase.

Nice try to derail.

-t

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You guys are really reaching here ....



So can a married couple receive a smaller tax-payer funded subsidy to purchase insurance on the new exchange (which doesn't presently exist) than a couple that is "shacking up" under certain circumstances? Yes. And that's an issue that can be discussed. But to call this a tax increase is utter and complete BS.

OAW

No, we'll just call it a spending cut and say it's deficit reduction.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

No, we'll just call it a spending cut and say it's deficit reduction.

Even that analogy doesn't hold water. How can this be a "spending cut" when the program does not yet exist? IOW, there is no baseline level of spending on the health insurance exchange to "cut" from!

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Even that analogy doesn't hold water. How can this be a "spending cut" when the program does not yet exist? IOW, there is no baseline level of spending on the health insurance exchange to "cut" from!

OAW

Huh ?

You made the argument that it was a subsidy, so cutting a subsidy doesn't count as a spending cut ?

-t

[OAW]

Again. The plan isn't "cutting a subsidy". The subsidy doesn't even exist! What the plan is doing is "establishing" a subsidy. The spending you are talking about isn't even taking place yet ... so how can it be cut?

Let's say for the sake of discussion that this was an existing program. And married couples and unmarried couples had the exact same subsidy. If the Obama Administration then pushed a plan that would decrease the subsidy to the married couple then you could argue that the plan was decreasing benefits. Now if you wanted to criticize that then fine. That's your prerogative. But even then you still couldn't call it a tax increase.

But as I've already stated, the program does not yet exist. So whatever subsidy a couple gets ... married or not ... is more than what they are getting today. Which is absolutely nothing!

OAW

[turtle777]

So, non-married couples get a higher subsidy in the future ?

Yeah, that's fair.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

As I pointed out above, it's highly likely that this doesn't even matter, since dual-income couples likely have employer-based insurance options available to them. I'm guessing the negotiation over the bill took this into account when evaluating the trade-offs in targeting the subsidy to lower-income families.

Whether it's "fair" is not the right question to be asking, IMO. I'm guessing you don't think that our current progressive tax system is "fair," either.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Whether it's "fair" is not the right question to be asking, IMO.

Very true, in light of the current health care bill proposal, and general economic policies of the Obama administration, we might as well blot out "fair" from our vocabulary.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Well, if you want fair you should be asking for a single-payer universal government health insurance plan in which everyone pays the same amount. I don't see you disputing my point: there are plenty of subsidies that poor people get that the rich do not.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Well, if you want fair you should be asking for a single-payer universal government health insurance plan in which everyone pays the same amount.

I don't consider a general cross-subsidies system fair.

But, I admit, our definition of fairness might be different.

Socialism is NOT fair IMO. It's not fair to take more from someone who busts his ass to be successful, and give it to a slacker, so that their incomes are equalized.

Here is what I want: I want fairness as it pertains to equality of opportunity.

If you want fainess as in equality of outcome, please go to somewhere else.
There are tons of left-leaning socialist countries that are more than willing to accommodate you.

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

BS. Nobody forces you to buy gas. Unlike the proposed Health Care, gas is not a mandatory purchase.

Nice try to derail.

-t

That's like saying no one is forcing you to live in the US.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

As I pointed out above, it's highly likely that this doesn't even matter, since dual-income couples likely have employer-based insurance options available to them. I'm guessing the negotiation over the bill took this into account when evaluating the trade-offs in targeting the subsidy to lower-income families.

Whether it's "fair" is not the right question to be asking, IMO. I'm guessing you don't think that our current progressive tax system is "fair," either.

Exactly. Once again our friends on the right are blowing something way out of proportion. Falling all over themselves over an issue that won't even affect the vast majority of married couples.

And it is about "tradeoffs". From the article itself ...

Democratic staff who helped to write the bill confirmed the existence of the penalty, but said it cannot be remedied without creating other inequities.

For instance, they said making the subsidies neutral towards marriage would lead to a married couple with only one bread-winner getting a more generous subsidy than a single parent at the same income-level.

Would that situation be more "fair"?

OAW

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't consider a general cross-subsidies system fair.

But, I admit, our definition of fairness might be different.

Socialism is NOT fair IMO. It's not fair to take more from someone who busts his ass to be successful, and give it to a slacker, so that their incomes are equalized.

Here is what I want: I want fairness as it pertains to equality of opportunity.

If you want fainess as in equality of outcome, please go to somewhere else.
There are tons of left-leaning socialist countries that are more than willing to accommodate you.

-t

I think this is about fairness of opportunity, too. Married couples with dual incomes likely have opportunities for employer-based insurance that a single mother might not. Thus awarding a greater subsidy to the single mother evens the level of opportunity for access to affordable health insurance across the system. Actually, I would think you would prefer this approach, as it means that fewer employer-based health plans will have to compete with the evil subsidized government plan whose opponents believe will compete on an unfair playing field. If these people who are not getting the subsidy are being adequately served by the private market, and the people who are not being adequately served by the private market are getting the subsidy, where is the unfairness of opportunity?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I think this is about fairness of opportunity, too. Married couples with dual incomes likely have opportunities for employer-based insurance that a single mother might not. Thus awarding a greater subsidy to the single mother evens the level of opportunity for access to affordable health insurance across the system. Actually, I would think you would prefer this approach, as it means that fewer employer-based health plans will have to compete with the evil subsidized government plan whose opponents believe will compete on an unfair playing field. If these people who are not getting the subsidy are being adequately served by the private market, and the people who are not being adequately served by the private market are getting the subsidy, where is the unfairness of opportunity?

I hope the couples plans do not fall under the Cadillac Plan criteria, because under the plan they will be taxed. Can you say Tax Increase?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I hope the couples plans do not fall under the Cadillac Plan criteria, because under the plan they will be taxed. Can you say Tax Increase?

Now you're raising a critique of progressive tax systems in general. I am comfortable with the idea of the relative wealthy shouldering a certain burden in order to fund social programs for the less well-off. I say this as a single working adult making a good salary and thus paying a ridiculous amount of taxes relative to say, a married couple of the same income with kids.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Socialism is NOT fair IMO. It's not fair to take more from someone who busts his ass to be successful, and give it to a slacker, so that their incomes are equalized.

Such statements from the right are so full of myopic stereotypes, generalizations, and assumptions that they hardly warrant a response. Income isn't always simplistically tied to how "hard" one works. I'm not saying it's not a factor ... I'm just saying it's not the only factor like our good friends on the right like to delude themselves into believing. There are millions of low-income workers who "bust their ass" holding down two and three part-time jobs working 10+ hours a day just to make ends meet. All day ... everyday. Just like there are many high-income workers who nearly brought the economy to its knees "busting their ass" doing what they do. Go figure.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I hope the couples plans do not fall under the Cadillac Plan criteria, because under the plan they will be taxed. Can you say Tax Increase?

Well it depends ...

The goal is to fund reform and curb runaway spending by imposing an excise tax--35% or more--on total coverage worth $8,000 for an individual and $21,000 for a family (in 2013 dollars). This year, the average cost for insuring an individual and family was $4,824 and $13,375, respectively.

The proposal, sponsored by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., would generate more than one-fourth of the funding for health care reform legislation that is expected to cost $774 billion over the next decade. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank in Washington, estimates that by 2013, 90% of families will have coverage valued at less than $21,000.

Now this can legitimately be called a tax increase on those entities that will be subject to it. Is it a better approach than a surtax on high-income individuals (i.e. $250K for individuals and $500K for married couples)? That's debatable. But the legislation as it stands has to be paid for somehow. Then again, I suppose it doesn't have to be. They could just let it run up the deficit like the Bush Administration did with the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Such statements from the right are so full of myopic stereotypes, generalizations, and assumptions that they hardly warrant a response. Income isn't always simplistically tied to how "hard" one works. I'm not saying it's not a factor ... I'm just saying it's not the only factor like our good friends on the right like to delude themselves into believing. There are millions of low-income workers who "bust their ass" holding down two and three part-time jobs working 10+ hours a day just to make ends meet. All day ... everyday. Just like there are many high-income workers who nearly brought the economy to its knees "busting their ass" doing what they do. Go figure.

OAW

So what ?

Where they born with those jobs ?
Did some one else decide that this is what they have to do ?
Do they live in a cast system ?

-t

[olePigeon]

What's the deal with cadillac plans? If someone can afford to spend $20,000 a year on health insurance, why should they be penalized for that? Additionally, wouldn't the "cadillac plans" lower insurance for the rest of us?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

What's the deal with cadillac plans? If someone can afford to spend $20,000 a year on health insurance, why should they be penalized for that? Additionally, wouldn't the "cadillac plans" lower insurance for the rest of us?

The "cadillac" in this case is the size of the benefits. Usually these are plans with lots of benefits and at high cost to the employer, not the employee. I thought the "cadillac plan" tax being talked about was on the insurance company (at least that's how it was proposed in some iteration of the bill. To be honest I haven't been paying that close of attention).

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well it depends ...



Now this can legitimately be called a tax increase on those entities that will be subject to it. Is it a better approach than a surtax on high-income individuals (i.e. $250K for individuals and $500K for married couples)? That's debatable. But the legislation as it stands has to be paid for somehow. Then again, I suppose it doesn't have to be. They could just let it run up the deficit like the Bush Administration did with the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit.

OAW

Tax increases start immediately. Given the likelihood of run up of inflation, significantly more the 10% will be taxed in the outlying years. I say scrap the legislation. Then we don't have to worry about it's impact on the deficit hmmm?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

What's the deal with cadillac plans? If someone can afford to spend $20,000 a year on health insurance, why should they be penalized for that? Additionally, wouldn't the "cadillac plans" lower insurance for the rest of us?

Well, the Cadillac plans were handed out by companies like GM or Chrysler that went broke. The only reason why those plans were saved is because the government poured billions into those companies, or because the government propped up unions supporting them to extort those plans.

The rest of the Cadillac plans would be the plans that local, state and federal government workers get. But I doubt they would see a penny in disadvantages.

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Tax increases start immediately. Given the likelihood of run up of inflation, significantly more the 10% will be taxed in the outlying years. I say scrap the legislation. Then we don't have to worry about it's impact on the deficit hmmm?

The problem with that is that the status quo is simply unsustainable. Doing nothing is not an option.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So what ?

Where they born with those jobs ?
Did some one else decide that this is what they have to do ?
Do they live in a cast system ?

-t

A response that indicates that my point went right over your head. Never mind.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Thanks. It confirms that I didn't really have a point in the first place.

OAW

Fixed. You need to get better at telling how it is.

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, the Cadillac plans were handed out by companies like GM or Chrysler that went broke. The only reason why those plans were saved is because the government poured billions into those companies, or because the government propped up unions supporting them to extort those plans.
-t

Actually, one of the primary reasons why GM and Chrysler went broke is because they were unable to compete with other global manufacturers who don't have health care expenses at all. Their competitors don't have such expenses added into the cost of every vehicle because they are based in countries that provide universal health care for their citizens. Imagine that.

OAW

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The problem with that is that the status quo is simply unsustainable. Doing nothing is not an option.
OAW

We can start by negotiating some services by paying in cash. Probably would realize an immediate 30% reduction in cost. What a concept.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Actually, one of the primary reasons why GM and Chrysler went broke is because they were unable to compete with other global manufacturers who don't have health care expenses at all. Their competitors don't have such expenses added into the cost of every vehicle because they are based in countries that provide universal health care for their citizens. Imagine that.

Oh, yes, that would explain why VW, BMW, Daimler, Porsche etc... are so successful.

Yes, GM and Chrysler had other reasons behind their bankruptcy. But onerous union contracts were a BIG part of it. And unlike what you say, it *IS* possible to make good money while employing unionized employees, and even provide good health care.

The UAW just went completely overboard and demanded things that could not be reasonably paid for by ongoing operations.

-t

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The "cadillac" in this case is the size of the benefits. Usually these are plans with lots of benefits and at high cost to the employer, not the employee. I thought the "cadillac plan" tax being talked about was on the insurance company (at least that's how it was proposed in some iteration of the bill. To be honest I haven't been paying that close of attention).

Ooh, that makes sense. OK. If it was an individual plan that some guy was paying out of pocket for (not through an employer), I really didn't see the problem. That's different.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

We can start by negotiating some services by paying in cash. Probably would realize an immediate 30% reduction in cost. What a concept.

Skyrocketing health care costs. But you expect people to pay $50 for a freaking aspirin in the hospital in cash. Let alone the actual hospital charge. Yeah right!

OAW

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Skyrocketing health care costs. But you expect people to pay $50 for a freaking aspirin in the hospital in cash. Let alone the actual hospital charge. Yeah right!

OAW

Many people and families could afford to pay in cash. Home equity loans, used car instead of new, no new addition the home, no swimming pool, eat home, no boat. What's so funny about that?

[hyteckit]

Health care cost in the US is extortion.

Using your livelihood for ransom.

What the government needs to cap is health care and drug cost.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Many people and families could afford to pay in cash. Home equity loans, used car instead of new, no new addition the home, no swimming pool, eat home, no boat. What's so funny about that?

It's only funny because it's true.

People don't get that prices always skyrocket if central agencies / organizations are paying for it.
Making consumer pay out of pocket will make them compare prices and check around for better prices. They will also think twice before wasting money on stuff. It's just common sense.

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It's only funny because it's true.

People don't get that prices always skyrocket if central agencies / organizations are paying for it.
Making consumer pay out of pocket will make them compare prices and check around for better prices. They will also think twice before wasting money on stuff. It's just common sense.

-t

That's why US spends so much on national defense. $2000 toilets, $500 nails, $1 million per military man.

I say if the US needs to fight useless wars like the Iraq War, we should just have American's pay the war in cash. Or just print cash and have the taxpayers pay.

National defense is the biggest scam. It's a ponzi scheme.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I say if the US needs to fight useless wars like the Iraq War, we should just have American's pay the war in cash. Or just print cash and have the taxpayers pay.

That's exactly what we're doing. What's your point ?

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Oh, yes, that would explain why VW, BMW, Daimler, Porsche etc... are so successful.

You do realize that Germany has the oldest universal healthcare system in world right? A system that is financed by employee, employer, and government subsidies where premiums are tightly regulated by the government? Where the majority of hospitals are not-for-profit and the entire provider reimbursement regime is centrally managed? Where healthcare expenditures are 10.7% of GDP as opposed to 16% of GDP in the US? But I suppose you don't think that makes much difference to the German automakers cost structure huh?

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes, GM and Chrysler had other reasons behind their bankruptcy. But onerous union contracts were a BIG part of it. And unlike what you say, it *IS* possible to make good money while employing unionized employees, and even provide good health care.

The UAW just went completely overboard and demanded things that could not be reasonably paid for by ongoing operations.

This is one of the biggest myths that our good friends on the right have convinced themselves of. The fact of the matter is that one of the biggest burden on US automakers ...not incurred by their foreign competitors .... was the cost of honoring the pension and healthcare benefits for it's retiree population. The notion that US autoworkers are grossly overpaid compared to the employees of their foreign competitors is simply not true:

Q: Do auto workers really make more than $70 per hour?

How much does a UAW member make at a domestic auto plant? Various sites have cited the figure at an average of seventy-three dollars an hour (The Heritage Foundation). Keith Olbermann says that the figure is actually at twenty-eight before benefits, which only add ten dollars to the amount. Other sources indicate that Toyota workers (who are not unionized) made more last year after profit sharing was calculated. So clear it up for us. What's the real bottom line?

A: No. That figure is derived from what the auto companies pay in wages, health, retirement and other benefits, and includes the cost of providing benefits to retirees.

.....

That figure has caught hold with some conservatives, and it seeps into media coverage from time to time as well. A few examples: At a Nov. 19 House Financial Services Committee hearing on a possible bailout for the auto industry, Alabama Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus said, "Even with recent changes, the average hourly wage at General Motors is still $75 an hour. ..." Two of his GOP colleagues on the panel made similar statements. And in a Nov. 18 column in the New York Times, business reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote, "At GM, as of 2007, the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs."

The problem is, that's just not true. The automakers say that the average wage earned by its unionized workers is about $29 per hour. So how does that climb to more than $70? Add in benefits: life insurance, health care, pension and so on. But not just the benefits that the current workers actually receive – after all, it's pretty rare for the value of a benefits package to add up to more than wages paid, even with a really, really good health plan in place. What's causing the number to balloon is the cost of providing benefits to tens of thousands of retired auto workers and their surviving spouses.

The automakers arrived at the $70+ figure by adding up all the costs associated with providing wages and benefits to current and retired workers and dividing the total by the number of hours worked by current employees.

Labor Costs Aren't the Same as Wages Earned

OAW

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Health care cost in the US is extortion.
Using your livelihood for ransom.
What the government needs to cap is health care and drug cost.

Why not just cap lifestyle? Benefits would be reduced calorie diet, improving health, no new or used boat or car, improving the environment, lower standard of living, more in line with indigenous peoples thereby reducing carbon footprint. All worthy goals proposed by progressives. What am I missing?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

This is one of the biggest myths that our good friends on the right have convinced themselves of. The fact of the matter is that biggest burden on US automakers ... by far .... was the cost of honoring the pension and healthcare benefits for it's retiree population. The notion that US autoworkers are grossly overpaid compared to the employees of their foreign competitors is simply not true:

I agree that the retirees are a huge burden.

But do you think the big fat retiree checks happened in a vacuum ?
Do you think their health care was a Chevy, and only turned Cadillac when they retired ?

BOTH, active workers and retiree workers were overpaid compared to what GM, Ford and Chrysler could afford.
Sure, I give you that this started to change. But only buy buying out those workers for mad money, again, mostly financed by the government.

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

That's exactly what we're doing. What's your point ?

-t

No it's not.

We went to war and reduce taxes.

Didn't you hear? Republicans said it was common during the Pres. Bush era to not pay for things.

We should attach a tax increase to fund the war or rather wars.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Why not just cap lifestyle? Benefits would be reduced calorie diet, improving health, no new or used boat or car, improving the environment, lower standard of living, more in line with indigenous peoples thereby reducing carbon footprint. All worthy goals proposed by progressives. What am I missing?

So you want believe in reducing health care cost?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Many people and families could afford to pay in cash. Home equity loans, used car instead of new, no new addition the home, no swimming pool, eat home, no boat. What's so funny about that?

Dude. Go into the hospital for 3 days. Get an MRI, have an IV drip, pop a few pills of medication, and have a doctor and some nurses check in on you from time to time. Then pay out of pocket. We'll see if you are still talking that sh*t afterwards.

OAW