The end of Obamacare...

[Saucexorzski]

You have an income, and you have write offs.
The more you can write off, the less taxable income is left.
Or why do you think Romney paid only some 14% taxes?
Expect Trumps effective tax rate to be somewhere in the single digit range.

Why you think Corporations effective tax rate is also in the 10s and not in the 30s percentage range.
Sorry if you cannot write stuff off.
And what you've linked is taxes you have to pay if you can't write anything off.

Yep as a sat TV contract installer I can write of the miles I drive. I've payed nothing in taxes for the last few years due to this. Though it messes up your ability to get loans.

[TZucchini]

Except a BIG FAT FINE IF YOU DON'T. Yeah, you don't have to(no jail time)...but if you want your INCOME TAXES(money) then you will or the government will take away your tax return. So yeah, one way or the other the government is getting your money vice not having insurance before and still getting to KEEP your tax return money which is their way into strong-arming you into getting insurance and it isn't even insurance tailored to your needs. Read a book.

You're not addressing the things that I'm saying. Just ranting about taxation.

Here's a very simply question. Does the PPACA force individuals to purchase health insurance?

[alexw]

....and not short enough it was.(Yoda) I guess that is what happens when you have to vote to pass something just to find out what's in it. Called this years ago.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/healt...YY5?li=BBnb4R7

And yes, it is a liberal/regressive news site so no need to hunker down in your safe space. Good thing Trump is going to get elected because he has already given his plan on how to fix the problem which is what we should of done in the first place.

Lol. Trump's idea's will do absolutely nothing to fix the US healthcare. You are utterly deluded if you think it would.

The real problems lie in the inefficiency of US healthcare not in whether its paid for via obamacare plans or Trumpcare plans, and the reasons for that are threefold.

First the for-profit model the US operates creates perverse incentives that dramatically escalate costs. So out of every $1 spent on healthcare 20c goes on marketing, admin, underwriting and profit. When you have hundreds of complex plans with different deductibles, co-pays, rates, etc, it takes an army millions strong to sell people on the idea your "plans" are better, and to do the admin work of managing them all.

Secondly the government doesn't have cost and price controls on healthcare as every single other advanced nation does. The for profit model means those providing healthcare always chose the most expensive way of treating patients that they can get away with and ramp those prices to the maximum they can get away with. So an expensive MRI is done instead of a cheap x-ray, and you are tested up the wazoo for things completely unrelated to your medical condition. This happens with literally everything.

Thirdly because its left to the market the sane option of preventative medicine is rarely practiced. Money is made by treating sick people not by stopping them getting sick. So why stop them getting sick when all that will do is deprive you of your most profitable customers?


Now please tell me how do the ideas of "I have the best plans" Trump solve these issues? They don't. Not in the slightest. You have to be stupid if you think they will do so. The only way to solve this is for the gov to full-on take control of the market via a single payer system, to drive out the inefficiencies, to rationalize the hundreds of plans to one, to take a holistic preventative view of healthcare, and use its bargaining power as the sole buyer to tell the healthcare providers "no we are not going to pay for that" when they try to price gouge or over-treat. Anything else is a distraction meant to rally the respective political tribes, but which will solve nothing.

[Wildtree]

Those same non-biased sources that said Obamacare was the end all be all standard and everyone was going to finally have affordable insurance? Those sources? That was my point.

Then provide said claim, would you please?
Just because you say so, doesn't mean it is so.

[Aoyi]

There is one Major change Obamacare brought that I couldn't live without. That insurance companies can't refuse you as a customer if you are sick. That allowed me to get the insurance plan I needed to get through my cancer treatments/surgeries that otherwise would have cost me over $100,000 this year. My premiums haven't changed all that much over the last few years, even though my health has.

[Matchles]

No matter how you feel about the law. It would be SHOCKING if this result stands. The district court judge completely overstepped her bounds by claiming Congress had standing to proceed with the case. There is long standing precedent that states matters of interpretation of law between Congress and the president is to be settled in the political sphere. If Congress wants these subsidies to exist as long as the money is first allocated for that purpose, they can pass a law stating that is the case. This will be overturned quickly. I can't believe a federal judge at any level would be this ignorant.

Edit: Apparently this article isn't about the recent case... Something even more far fetched.

[Smauldy]

So let's move to single payer healthcare like the rest of the modern world? Insurance companies only exist to jack up prices. We pay more so they can live better. It's beyond insanity.

[Nynax]

Universal privatized health care isn't feasible. It assumes health insurance companies would be able to turn a profit, and find ways to drive prices down through competition. It doesn't work that way. It means people who cost more to insure are paying the same price as people who very rarely use insurance. It drives the rates skyward quickly.
There are few acceptable choices.
Single payer. Government takes over, insurance becomes a matter of federal tax rate. Health insurance becomes 0% profitable and that market crashes.
Guaranteed health care. Everyone gets "free" health care. The government forces regulations upon insurance companies, forcing them to restructure and rebuild, becoming dangerously unprofitable. The government would set the maximum profit threshold and taxes would cover any deficit. Rates would rise across the board, constantly.
Especially since hospital supplies and pharmaceuticals have astronomical markups that keep increasing in order to maintain sustained increased future profitability margins. In other words. Unless someone passes laws regulating the markups of pharma, medical equipment, and medical supplies...we will see nothing but increased costs everywhere.

That's what I been saying! The regulation of pharmaceutical costs in the EU is why they don't have the absolutely crazy healthcare costs we do.

[unbound]

Good thing Trump is going to get elected because he has already given his plan on how to fix the problem which is what we should of done in the first place.

Oh, you mean the one that will cover only about 1 million of the currently 22 million getting Obamacare and cost between $330 billion and $550 billion more than Obamacare over 10 years?

http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/meas...althcare-plan/

[kail]

Well OP, the fate of Obamacare is simply tied to the general election. If Hillary does win and stands by what she currently claims, the ACA stays.

[Nynax]

So let's move to single payer healthcare like the rest of the modern world? Insurance companies only exist to jack up prices. We pay more so they can live better. It's beyond insanity.

It's crazy that we trust private insurance companies with what is probably the most important part of maintaining the public health of this country... Except that these are companies, and as we say over and over again about other businesses, a business's priority is to continually increase profits, especially if publicly traded. I doubt their boards are sitting around thinking "how can we help make people live healthier?" No, they are asking "How can we make even more money?"

[Kujako]

It's crazy that we trust private insurance companies with what is probably the most important part of maintaining the public health of this country... Except that these are companies, and as we say over and over again about other businesses, a business's priority is to continually increase profits, especially if publicly traded. I doubt their boards are sitting around thinking "how can we help make people live healthier?" No, they are asking "How can we make even more money?"

Well the good ones do. Because people being healthier increases their profits by decreasing their expenses. But that's long term thinking rather than trying to show an increase in profit each quarter.

[Tinykong]

Here's a very simply question. Does the PPACA force individuals to purchase health insurance?

Sure it does. People don't want to pay the fine, so they purchase health insurance.

[alexw]

Honestly you are more likely to see an evolution of Medicare to some quasi single payer like programs than going back to the previous system. This would be a third rail issue to more voters than what people on this forum think. You can't take away a system where people finally get benefits and then swipe them away and thinking there would be little to no political repercussion.

Even then as a center left voter I figured this program was due to fail and if you ask many democrats they would say the same. At this point they have two option and that is either raise the fee to the point it's fiscally non viable and you are basically forced to buy insurance because it's cheaper or allocate more funding to credits. Either way we lose because we established essentially a monopoly and without rate control they can just keep propping up rates. I guess that's what you get when you take Romney old plan and try to pass it off as your own.

Hillary is talking about medicare+ so basically extending it to anyone over 50, and, IMO, that is the right way to go about it though in an ideal world it would be expanded to everyone instantly. A more gradual stealth movement to medicare for all, will meet somewhat less resistance and have more chance of making it past congress. After everyone is on medicare single player which by itself will substantially reduce costs (all marketing costs gone and halving of admin costs), the gov can then begin the process of forcing down prices and ending excessive useless over-treatment.

[akris15]

No matter how you feel about the law. It would be SHOCKING if this result stands. The district court judge completely overstepped her bounds by claiming Congress had standing to proceed with the case. There is long standing precedent that states matters of interpretation of law between Congress and the president is to be settled in the political sphere. If Congress wants these subsidies to exist as long as the money is first allocated for that purpose, they can pass a law stating that is the case. This will be overturned quickly. I can't believe a federal judge at any level would be this ignorant.

Edit: Apparently this article isn't about the recent case... Something even more far fetched.

Wow I just saw that. Well in the immortal words of Ron burgundy "well that escalated quickly"

[Aggrophobic]

Where ever there is competition, the customer wins. Having state by state boundaries is ridiculous and subverts competition. Wisconsin health exchange is filled with bogus insurance plans that make the illusion that there is competition but in reality it's meant to drown consumers in really bad plans to really horrible plans by having to sift through hundreds and hundreds of plans. I can imagine national competition will make this worse but ultimately provide better insurance plans in the long run.

Good luck with that.
An even better idea is to get a good education that leads to a well paid job.
That way, stuff like what you pay for health insurance is not that big of a deal.

Not sure any of the presidential candidates will help you there though. One wants to do nothing and the other one will run the country into the ground. They both seem like pretty horrible candidates, if you ask me.
Not that any of this will affect me directly but it's going to be intresting to watch, thats for sure.

[jdbond592]

No, if Trump wins we get what we had before Obamacare but better. Insurance company's would be able to compete across state lines (they couldn't do that before) and that would drive up the competition and lower your insurance rates in the process. I have thought this through. You have not.

Ofcourse. We only had 8 years of Bush to create this masterplan.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Repeal Obamacare with a bill that extends medicare/medicaid to the entire population. Best solution.

[jdbond592]

Where ever there is competition, the customer wins. Having state by state boundaries is ridiculous and subverts competition. Wisconsin health exchange is filled with bogus insurance plans that make the illusion that there is competition but in reality it's meant to drown consumers in really bad plans to really horrible plans by having to sift through hundreds and hundreds of plans. I can imagine national competition will make this worse but ultimately provide better insurance plans in the long run.

Do you own cable, per chance? Do you know how TW and Comcast provide shoddy pricey services while competing against each other? You sound extremely naive.

[TZucchini]

Sure it does. People don't want to pay the fine, so they purchase health insurance.

The law allows individuals the ability to decide between two legal options.

So no. No one is being forced to purchase health insurance. You have options.