Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 164

Thread: Official Gameday Thread: Mandate vs. America, Thursday 10 AM

  1. #141
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,453
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4503929][IMG]http://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2011/10/premium-growth.png[/IMG]


    Sure.


    But what explains the higher increases years before?

    Obamacare foreshadowing in 2002?

    lolz....[/QUOTE]

    [IMG]http://alltheragefaces.com/img/faces/png/surprised-gasp.png[/IMG][IMG]http://alltheragefaces.com/img/faces/png/surprised-gasp.png[/IMG][IMG]http://alltheragefaces.com/img/faces/png/surprised-gasp.png[/IMG]


    OMG!!

    The largest increase in yearly premiums occurred right before Medicare Part D was passed.


    [IMG]http://alltheragefaces.com/img/faces/png/surprised-gasp.png[/IMG]

    [B][SIZE="7"]OBAMA!!![/SIZE][/B]

  2. #142
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,776
    Post Thanks / Like
    My premiums rose 11 and 12 percent back to back years under GW. Oh boy........;)

    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4503921]It was going up but not at this pace. Our premiums were going up on average around 4-6% per year before. We have been up 15% for three years running. You guys aren't getting the point here. What we need is a fix for the rising costs. Obamacare actually accelerated the rise in insurance premiums. For those of us that already have insurance and pay for it this bill does little good. It does lots of bad however when you look at all of the new taxes and deficits that will require even more tax hikes.

    Basically I feel that Obamacare gives every currently insured American (90% or so of us) the shaft. Sure it helps 7-8% of the population that currently is uninsured. Free healthcare is great if you qualify no doubt. But someone has to pay for it. There is no benefit for the rest of us. The plan was sold as something that reduces healthcare costs. They said premiums would go down by $2500 per family. So far my premiums are up $7500 per year since the bill passed. That plus 800 Billion in new taxes over 10 years and 2 trillion of new deficits over 10 years. Thats real money out of my pocket. My company is now looking into high deductable plans because our monthlies for family coverage are going up another 15.5% this year. We already pay $2200 per month per family. That will go to $2500 next year for a grand total of 30K yearly per family. I have the list for the high deductable plans and even those range between $1400 to $1800 per family. Then we need to pay $6000 deductables and coinsurance per family.

    I have to say that (unless you re part of the 8% that will get the free insurance) anyone defending or rooting for this plan to go forward is blinded by their partisanship. Those of you that don't run a business probably have no idea but your bosses do. That money needs to come from somewhere. Many will get stuck on these high deductible plans in the next couple of years. These costs get paid from the pools that determine how much you can be paid.[/QUOTE]

  3. #143
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,727
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;4504077]My premiums rose 11 and 12 percent back to back years under GW. Oh boy........;)[/QUOTE]

    Your out-of-pocket premiums, or the premium your employer (the Government) covers for you?

    How much does a Federal L.E. Agent pay out of pocket for his healthcare these days? I would have assumed, like many others in Fed. Govt. service, it wouldn't have been much.

    If it is, maybe you boys need a better Union. :dunno:

  4. #144
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,776
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4504085]Your out-of-pocket premiums, or the premium your employer (the Government) covers for you?

    How much does a Federal L.E. Agent pay out of pocket for his healthcare these days? I would have assumed, like many others in Fed. Govt. service, it wouldn't have been much.

    If it is, maybe you boys need a better Union. :dunno:[/QUOTE]

    I'm not in a union and I pay out of pocket for both premiums and services.

  5. #145
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4503929][IMG]http://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2011/10/premium-growth.png[/IMG]


    Sure.


    But what explains the higher increases years before?

    Obamacare foreshadowing in 2002?

    lolz....[/QUOTE]

    Huh? Insurance premium increases were on the downswing. Your chart shows the 9% in 2010. My premiums went up 15% in 2011 and again in 2012. I just got a letter from Oxford that they are raising premiums 15.5% across the board in 2012. All of that is consistent with the letter we got from Oxford after Obamacare passed in which they said "due to new requirements from the ACA we have requested a rate hike of 40% from the State Board. There are some price controls. I have no idea what caused premiums to spike in 2002 but I would venture a guess that it was something government did.

  6. #146
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,776
    Post Thanks / Like
    Something the gov't did or something the insurance company made up to continually F their customers?

    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4504089]Huh? Insurance premium increases were on the downswing. Your chart shows the 9% in 2010. My premiums went up 15% in 2011 and again in 2012. I just got a letter from Oxford that they are raising premiums 15.5% across the board in 2012. All of that is consistent with the letter we got from Oxford after Obamacare passed in which they said "due to new requirements from the ACA we have requested a rate hike of 40% from the State Board. There are some price controls. I have no idea what caused premiums to spike in 2002 but I would venture a guess that it was something government did.[/QUOTE]

  7. #147
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,422
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;4504096]Something the gov't did or something the insurance company made up to continually F their customers?[/QUOTE]

    No. It was from aholes going to the hospital instead of the dr.

    [url]http://www.hschange.com/CONTENT/472/[/url]

  8. #148
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,727
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;4504086]I'm not in a union and I pay out of pocket for both premiums and services.[/QUOTE]

    Really?

    Hmm.

    Perhaps you're working for the wrong portion of our Federal Govt.

    But I'm sure you have your reasons.

  9. #149
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,776
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4504109]Really?

    Hmm.

    Perhaps you're working for the wrong portion of our Federal Govt.

    But I'm sure you have your reasons.[/QUOTE]

    No I'm good, thanks for the worry. ;)

  10. #150
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,727
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;4504113]No I'm good, thanks for the worry. ;)[/QUOTE]

    I wasn't worried.

    I assume, since you've said your agency falls under DHS, that you're under this:

    [url]http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/[/url]

    Some good solid plans availble under that system.

  11. #151
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,776
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4504117]I wasn't worried.

    I assume, since you've said your agency falls under DHS, that you're under this:

    [url]http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/[/url]

    Some good solid plans availble under that system.[/QUOTE]

    I'm not under DHS.

  12. #152
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,477
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4504109]Really?

    Hmm.

    Perhaps you're working for the wrong portion of our Federal Govt.

    But I'm sure you have your reasons.[/QUOTE]



    Most Federal agencies have access to the same health plans.....There are many options and plans but all have premiums and Co-pays.....

    In my case, for a family plan that provides good coverage i pay around 450.00 a month......I am also responsible for co-pays of 20.00 per doctor visit and 40.00 for a specialist.....The Government pays the rest of the premium which is usually about 70% for most plans....

    I also pay extra for dental and vision services if wanted....Most plans have very limited or no dental or vision services and you have to opt for specific plans to cover these costs.....

  13. #153
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,453
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4504089] I have no idea what caused premiums to spike in 2002 but I would venture a guess that it was something government did.[/QUOTE]

    Of course you don't know, just like you don't know now. :rolleyes:

  14. #154
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;4503891]Of course you thought the article nailed it your mind is made up. I am going to wait and see what happens before I draw a conclusion. The costs were already going up before the bill.

    [B]Getting out of Iraq is more important when it comes to the deficit, IMO.[/B][/QUOTE]

    And that is why most of the conservatives who are now *****ing about spending a hypocrites. Where were the tea party signs and costumes and protests a few years back?

    How US is deferring war costs

    By Ron Scherer, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / January 16, 2007

    NEW YORK
    To pay for World War II, Americans bought savings bonds and put extra notches in their belts. President Harry Truman raised taxes and cut nonmilitary spending to pay for the Korean conflict. During Vietnam, the US raised taxes but still watched deficits soar.

    But to pay for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has used its credit card, counting on the Chinese and other foreign buyers of its debt to pay the bills.

    Now, as President Bush is promising to boost the number of troops in Iraq, there is increased scrutiny over how the US is going to pay for it all.

    The US is spending about $10 billion a month on Iraq and Afghanistan. By the end of this year, the total funds appropriated will be nearly $600 billion – approaching the amount spent on the Vietnam or Korean wars, when adjusted for inflation.

    However, the actual impact of the war on the economy is different than in the past, largely because the US economy is so much bigger now. During World War II, some analysts calculate that the US spent as much as 30 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on the war effort. The Korean War, at its spending peak in 1953, represented 14 percent of GDP; Vietnam was about 9 percent. The current war, however, is less than 1 percent of America's annual $13 trillion GDP.

    Payment due: in the future
    The US can certainly afford the war, says budget analyst Stan Collender, a managing director of Qorvis Communications in Washington. But the spending is taking resources from other areas, he notes. Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. "And it's still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought," he says.

    Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. "It's fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed," says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank in Washington. "But eventually everything has to be paid for."

    Congressional questioning
    Congress hopes to hold hearings on the financial implications of the war before the president releases his budget proposal for fiscal year 2008 on Feb. 5. Democrats, now in the majority, plan to ask a wide range of questions, from the future costs of the war to how those costs should be budgeted.

    "We won't balance the budget in one year. The best we can expect is five years," says Rep. John Spratt (D) of South Carolina, the new chairman of the House Budget Committee, in a phone interview. "But we need to know: What is the bar we need to reach?"

    Estimating the budget deficit has become more difficult in recent years because the White House has funded much of the war through emergency supplemental bills, which are not included in the federal budget. According to a Congressional Research Service report, it is a practice that other administrations have employed since the Korean War. This year, the White House is expected to ask for another $100 billion in supplemental war funds, but Representative Spratt says he would like to get the war back on the budget since it can be argued the war is no longer an emergency.

    "Calling it an emergency means the spending does not get the scrutiny," he adds, because then the spending is reviewed by only one committee – House Appropriations. In addition, he says, emergency spending is exempt from caps on discretionary spending. This has prompted the military to include in the bill items that are not directly related to the war. Making the spending a part of the budget would end the practice of some members placing pet projects on a bill that must be passed, he says.

    A war-by-war cost comparison
    Numbers are fuzzy on how much has been spent so far on the global war on terror. According to the House Appropriations Committee, some $471 billion has been committed so far. Spratt says it's closer to $507 billion. By the end of this year, on a cash basis, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be closing in on the costs of the Vietnam War ($650 billion in today's dollars) and the Korean War ($691 billion).

    Some analysts believe the cost of the war is much higher than Congress estimates. In a study last January and updated in October, Harvard Prof. Linda Bilmes and Columbia Prof. Joseph Stiglitz estimated the budgetary and economic cost of the war at $2 trillion.

    Ms. Bilmes, in a phone interview, says Congress looks only at its cash outlays, not at the war's future costs. For example, she says, an estimated 42,000 light trucks are in use in Iraq. Although it costs something to run them, the major cost will be replacing them. "That's not factored into the cost of the war," she says.

    The same is true of the cost of taking care of injured veterans in the future. "After our study came out, what surprised us is that the VFW, the Vietnam Vets, and others said, 'Thanks for shining the spotlight on this issue, but your numbers are too low,' " Bilmes says. After working with the vets, she concluded that the future costs of caring for the wounded were much higher than she had estimated.

    Just the cash costs alone have mushroomed over the past two years, says Steve Kosiak, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a think tank in Washington. He estimates that Congress has appropriated nearly $300 billion during that period. "Perhaps some of the additional cost is for repairing the equipment," he says. "But it's fair to say it's partly a mystery why it's up so much."

    Polls show people are concerned about the war, says Dennis Jacobe, chief economist at the Gallup Organization in Washington. But, he adds, "they are not concerned about the cost."

    This is partly because of the way the war is funded through the supplemental budget process, Mr. Jacobe says. But it's also because the war has not disrupted the economy the same way past wars have. "It's really had no significant impact except for the deficit spending," he says.

    [url]http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0116/p01s01-usfp.html/(page)/2[/url]

  15. #155
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4503743]IJF, you are correct in pointing out that healthcare costs are a problem. The issue with Obamacare is that it does nothing whatsoever to address the costs. It also creates a new entitlement for 40 million Americans that we simply dont have the money to pay for. The Obamacare Taxes (close to 1 trillion over 10 years)don't come close to covering the expense. On top of the trillion in new taxes the program is in the hole for an additional 2 trillion. That's just to cover the new entitlement. Those of us that currently purchase insurance are left with even higher premiums then we had before alongside Trillions in new expenses which must result in even more new taxes.

    The entire program doesn't work as described. I would have preferred single payer to Obamacare and that's not saying much. Quite honestly anyone touting Obamacare as a good thing simply doesn't understand the costs or more likely they don't care. They certainly don't understand the collateral damage it will inflict on small businesses and more so those people that work for small businesses.[/QUOTE]

    Chief, I will be completely honest here; I do not pretend to understand this law in full. I did not read it completely so I try to rely on analysis through sources I trust. What I can say with certainty is that I fully believe that had this bill (now a law) not been crafted, nothing would have been done. Nothing.

    Sure the political parties would have mentioned costs during some debates and pandered for votes where it could help them. Since Clinton tried to take a stab at it, nothing serious was attempted.

    You may very well be right about the negatives to this law; or the people in favor may be correct. What I believe is that inaction is inexcusable and many, many people are suffering (and dying) with the status quo

  16. #156
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4503769]Some pretty laughable statistics, all given without context or scale or in many cases even reasonable comparison (the first one especially made me lol with how utterly worthless it is as a stat). Also many of them assume the data collection side is spot on, and i can tell you from experience, it's oooooo not in own own Government, much less in some of the less professional/democratic states in the world.

    The problem is this is how some think Law should work. Base it on invalid, partial, and consciosuly omitted stats on everyone as a whole, instead of looking at a problme, seeing what parts don't work, and fixe=ing/working on just that.

    Of course, doing that doesn't give the State as much power. So of course they won't do that, when they just have the State run/regulate us all, including the 70%+ who were and are quite happy with our own healthcare in the U.S.

    To fix a single leaky sink, a modern Liberal would Nationalize the Sink Manufacture and Repairman industries.[/QUOTE]

    Fish, with respect, there are many times where you link your threads with stories from Fox News so its a little hard to see you questioning the integrity of sources-especially calling out sources for being biased. :rolleyes:

    By the way, the author of this article stated that many of the statistics used was from Business Insider (not exactly a liberal source).

  17. #157
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,727
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;4504194]I'm not under DHS.[/QUOTE]

    Congrats on the new job then.....assuming when you said in the past you were under DHS you were being honest. Was a while ago though, so to be expected you'd have moved up and out in the world. So congrats!

    [QUOTE=jetsmetsrangers;4504205]Most Federal agencies have access to the same health plans.....There are many options and plans but all have premiums and Co-pays.....

    In my case, for a family plan that provides good coverage i pay around 450.00 a month......I am also responsible for co-pays of 20.00 per doctor visit and 40.00 for a specialist.....The Government pays the rest of the premium which is usually about 70% for most plans....

    I also pay extra for dental and vision services if wanted....Most plans have very limited or no dental or vision services and you have to opt for specific plans to cover these costs.....[/QUOTE]

    Aye, I'm well aware of whats offered, thanks. It's still a pretty decent plan, generally speaking. $450 for a family (4-4+ indiviudals?) is $100/month per, thats not bad at all.

    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4504240]Fish, with respect, there are many times where you link your threads with stories from Fox News so its a little hard to see you questioning the integrity of sources-especially calling out sources for being biased. :rolleyes:

    By the way, the author of this article stated that many of the statistics used was from Business Insider (not exactly a liberal source).[/QUOTE]

    I link from FOX and CNN in about equal measure, and make very clear they are the source (90% of which is actually written/researched by the Associated Press). Best of luck proving bias in my sources compared to most here, who pul from all manner of extreme-bias blogs, newssites and similar. FOX and CNN represent mainstream right-and-left news, like it or loathe it.

    As to your source, the worthless stats speak for themselves IMO. When one chooses to make a point that the US spends more on Healthcare than the GDP of the UK, which means exactly squat all without any context or additional apples-to-apples comparison, it tells the tale right off whgat the intention of the piece is, sensationalism based on whatever "scary" stats one can conjure.

    Did you know, for example, that the US spends more of Healthcare in one hour than the entire GDP of Tuvalu!!!!!! OMFG!!!!!! TEAR IT ALL DOWN!!!!! ;)
    Last edited by Warfish; 06-30-2012 at 10:06 AM.

  18. #158
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;4503155]Individuals whose employers don’t offer minimum essential coverage and whose household incomes are 133–400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) will qualify for federal subsidies

    [B]Federal poverty level (FPL)[/B]

    [U]For an individual[/U]
    133% = $14,404
    400% = $43,320

    [U]Family of four[/U]
    133% = $29,326
    400% = $88,200

    [B]Federal subsidies:[/B]
    Generally, individuals will be eligible for subsides in the form of premium tax credits and cost sharing assistance if their household income is 100–400 percent FPL, and their share of employer-offered coverage (if applicable) exceeds 9.5 percent of their household income. Most individuals between 100–133 percent of FPL will be eligible for Medicaid and as such, ineligible for these subsidies. to help them pay their insurance premiums or cost sharing obligations (e.g., co-insurance or co-payments) under a plan they purchase through a state exchange.

    Individuals who do not obtain or retain qualifying health care coverage will be required to pay a penalty as part of their income tax returns. In 2014, the penalty is $95 or 1 percent of the individual’s income, whichever is greater. By 2016, it increases to $695 or 2.5 percent of income. For families, the maximum penalty is three times the per-person flat-dollar penalty. The penalty for dependent children without coverage is half the cost of the individual flat-dollar penalty (e.g., $47.50 in 2014).

    [URL]http://www.larsonallen.com/EFFECT/Breaking_Down_the_Insurance_Requirements_in_Health_Care_Reform.aspx[/URL][/QUOTE]


    Here's a hypothetical which may require both doggin and cpa.
    Suppose my income is say $400,00 a year. BUT, my [B]taxable[/B] income is only $50,000 for my household because most of my income is in tax free bonds. What would be my status for either subsidy or penalty?

  19. #159
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,776
    Post Thanks / Like
    I never said I was under DHS, always been under DOJ.

    [QUOTE=Warfish;4504253]Congrats on the new job then.....assuming when you said in the past you were under DHS you were being honest. Was a while ago though, so to be expected you'd have moved up and out in the world. So congrats!



    Aye, I'm well aware of whats offered, thanks. It's still a pretty decent plan, generally speaking. $450 for a family (4-4+ indiviudals?) is $100/month per, thats not bad at all.



    I link from FOX and CNN in about equal measure, and make very clear they are the source (90% of which is actually written/researched by the Associated Press). Best of luck proving bias in my sources compared to most here, who pul from all manner of extreme-bias blogs, newssites and similar. FOX and CNN represent mainstream right-and-left news, like it or loathe it.

    As to your source, the worthless stats speak for themselves IMO. When one chooses to make a point that the US spends more on Healthcare than the GDP of the UK, which means exactly squat all without any context or additional apples-to-apples comparison, it tells the tale right off whgat the intention of the piece is, sensationalism based on whatever "scary" stats one can conjure.

    Did you know, for example, that the US spends more of Healthcare in one hour than the entire GDP of Tuvalu!!!!!! OMFG!!!!!! TEAR IT ALL DOWN!!!!! ;)[/QUOTE]

  20. #160
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,422
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4504277]Here's a hypothetical which may require both doggin and cpa.
    Suppose my income is say $400,00 a year. BUT, my [B]taxable[/B] income is only $50,000 for my household because most of my income is in tax free bonds. What would be my status for either subsidy or penalty?[/QUOTE]

    Gross income.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us