ObamaCare…coming soon

[Veritas]

I think that is part of the proposal being looked at in Congress. It doesn’t mean it will not be removed, but it sure is a deal breaker for many of us. I hope a lot of things do not happen, but I usually send a lot of e-mail to Congress when it is so damaging to many taxpayers and ultimately the economy.

“Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) and others involved in talks on a health bill said Tuesday that the idea of taxing health benefits is unpopular with voters, though they stressed that it hasn’t been completely swept off the bargaining table.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124701192458308917.html

[an]

[quote=Veritas]I think that is part of the proposal being looked at in Congress. It doesn’t mean it will not be removed, but it sure is a deal breaker for many of us. I hope a lot of things do not happen, but I usually send a lot of e-mail to Congress when it is so damaging to many taxpayers and ultimately the economy.

“Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) and others involved in talks on a health bill said Tuesday that the idea of taxing health benefits is unpopular with voters, though they stressed that it hasn’t been completely swept off the bargaining table.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124701192458308917.html%5B/quote%5D

They said this:
[quote]Currently, people don’t pay taxes on their health benefits, which some critics say acts as an incentive for employers to provide overly generous plans.[/quote]
Like it’s a bad thing to have overly generous health insurance plan. How dare you treat your employee well.

[an]

[quote=Veritas]I think that is part of the proposal being looked at in Congress. It doesn’t mean it will not be removed, but it sure is a deal breaker for many of us. I hope a lot of things do not happen, but I usually send a lot of e-mail to Congress when it is so damaging to many taxpayers and ultimately the economy.

“Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) and others involved in talks on a health bill said Tuesday that the idea of taxing health benefits is unpopular with voters, though they stressed that it hasn’t been completely swept off the bargaining table.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124701192458308917.html%5B/quote%5D

They said this:
[quote]Currently, people don’t pay taxes on their health benefits, which some critics say acts as an incentive for employers to provide overly generous plans.[/quote]
Like it’s a bad thing to have overly generous health insurance plan. How dare you treat your employee well.

[an]

[quote=Veritas]I think that is part of the proposal being looked at in Congress. It doesn’t mean it will not be removed, but it sure is a deal breaker for many of us. I hope a lot of things do not happen, but I usually send a lot of e-mail to Congress when it is so damaging to many taxpayers and ultimately the economy.

“Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) and others involved in talks on a health bill said Tuesday that the idea of taxing health benefits is unpopular with voters, though they stressed that it hasn’t been completely swept off the bargaining table.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124701192458308917.html%5B/quote%5D

They said this:
[quote]Currently, people don’t pay taxes on their health benefits, which some critics say acts as an incentive for employers to provide overly generous plans.[/quote]
Like it’s a bad thing to have overly generous health insurance plan. How dare you treat your employee well.

[an]

[quote=Veritas]I think that is part of the proposal being looked at in Congress. It doesn’t mean it will not be removed, but it sure is a deal breaker for many of us. I hope a lot of things do not happen, but I usually send a lot of e-mail to Congress when it is so damaging to many taxpayers and ultimately the economy.

“Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) and others involved in talks on a health bill said Tuesday that the idea of taxing health benefits is unpopular with voters, though they stressed that it hasn’t been completely swept off the bargaining table.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124701192458308917.html%5B/quote%5D

They said this:
[quote]Currently, people don’t pay taxes on their health benefits, which some critics say acts as an incentive for employers to provide overly generous plans.[/quote]
Like it’s a bad thing to have overly generous health insurance plan. How dare you treat your employee well.

[an]

[quote=Veritas]I think that is part of the proposal being looked at in Congress. It doesn’t mean it will not be removed, but it sure is a deal breaker for many of us. I hope a lot of things do not happen, but I usually send a lot of e-mail to Congress when it is so damaging to many taxpayers and ultimately the economy.

“Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) and others involved in talks on a health bill said Tuesday that the idea of taxing health benefits is unpopular with voters, though they stressed that it hasn’t been completely swept off the bargaining table.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124701192458308917.html%5B/quote%5D

They said this:
[quote]Currently, people don’t pay taxes on their health benefits, which some critics say acts as an incentive for employers to provide overly generous plans.[/quote]
Like it’s a bad thing to have overly generous health insurance plan. How dare you treat your employee well.

[Veritas]

Sweden has long had the reputation of having the highest taxes in the world. But those times have past.

Denmark has now taken over as the country with the highest tax burden, according to website E24 and Danish newspaper Dagbladet Börsen.

Based on figures taken from the tax authorities in both countries, Danes now have a tax burden of 48.4 percent, compared to 47.8 percent for Swedes.

Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt is happy that Sweden no longer has the world’s highest tax burden.

[Veritas]

Sweden has long had the reputation of having the highest taxes in the world. But those times have past.

Denmark has now taken over as the country with the highest tax burden, according to website E24 and Danish newspaper Dagbladet Börsen.

Based on figures taken from the tax authorities in both countries, Danes now have a tax burden of 48.4 percent, compared to 47.8 percent for Swedes.

Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt is happy that Sweden no longer has the world’s highest tax burden.

[Veritas]

Sweden has long had the reputation of having the highest taxes in the world. But those times have past.

Denmark has now taken over as the country with the highest tax burden, according to website E24 and Danish newspaper Dagbladet Börsen.

Based on figures taken from the tax authorities in both countries, Danes now have a tax burden of 48.4 percent, compared to 47.8 percent for Swedes.

Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt is happy that Sweden no longer has the world’s highest tax burden.

[Veritas]

Sweden has long had the reputation of having the highest taxes in the world. But those times have past.

Denmark has now taken over as the country with the highest tax burden, according to website E24 and Danish newspaper Dagbladet Börsen.

Based on figures taken from the tax authorities in both countries, Danes now have a tax burden of 48.4 percent, compared to 47.8 percent for Swedes.

Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt is happy that Sweden no longer has the world’s highest tax burden.

[Veritas]

Sweden has long had the reputation of having the highest taxes in the world. But those times have past.

Denmark has now taken over as the country with the highest tax burden, according to website E24 and Danish newspaper Dagbladet Börsen.

Based on figures taken from the tax authorities in both countries, Danes now have a tax burden of 48.4 percent, compared to 47.8 percent for Swedes.

Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt is happy that Sweden no longer has the world’s highest tax burden.

[Veritas]

One of the big problems with the last Health care proposal by Hillary is rearing its ugly head in Obama care:

Unfortunately, the Clinton/Mitchell bill’s approach is quite different. Under the so-called “community rating” formula every person in a health alliance will pay the same premium regardless of age, sex, or medical condition. New York State implemented the same one-price-fits-all regime last year, with dismaying results.

In the first year of community rating 25-year-old males were hit with premium hikes of over $500, while 55-year-olds paid about $415 less than under the risk-rated system. Not surprisingly many young people decided to drop their coverage. With fewer young, healthy policyholders available to subsidize older ones, insurance premiums skyrocketed again this year. The upshot: Even older policyholders–who, in theory, should pay less under community rating–are paying slightly more.

Community rating together with universal coverage ensures a more regressive distribution of income. The median income of workers aged 25 or under, for example, is only $18,313, compared to $43,751 for those aged 45 to 54. Yet the Mitchell bill would force young people to pay $650 per year more than the real cost of their insurance and subsidize older people by about $2,000. The bottom line is a net transfer of $59 billion from people in their twenties and thirties to those 55 to 64.

The other problem is that in 2016 social security goes deficit, followed by 2017 the medicare trust is headed for deficit status.

[Veritas]

One of the big problems with the last Health care proposal by Hillary is rearing its ugly head in Obama care:

Unfortunately, the Clinton/Mitchell bill’s approach is quite different. Under the so-called “community rating” formula every person in a health alliance will pay the same premium regardless of age, sex, or medical condition. New York State implemented the same one-price-fits-all regime last year, with dismaying results.

In the first year of community rating 25-year-old males were hit with premium hikes of over $500, while 55-year-olds paid about $415 less than under the risk-rated system. Not surprisingly many young people decided to drop their coverage. With fewer young, healthy policyholders available to subsidize older ones, insurance premiums skyrocketed again this year. The upshot: Even older policyholders–who, in theory, should pay less under community rating–are paying slightly more.

Community rating together with universal coverage ensures a more regressive distribution of income. The median income of workers aged 25 or under, for example, is only $18,313, compared to $43,751 for those aged 45 to 54. Yet the Mitchell bill would force young people to pay $650 per year more than the real cost of their insurance and subsidize older people by about $2,000. The bottom line is a net transfer of $59 billion from people in their twenties and thirties to those 55 to 64.

The other problem is that in 2016 social security goes deficit, followed by 2017 the medicare trust is headed for deficit status.

[Veritas]

One of the big problems with the last Health care proposal by Hillary is rearing its ugly head in Obama care:

Unfortunately, the Clinton/Mitchell bill’s approach is quite different. Under the so-called “community rating” formula every person in a health alliance will pay the same premium regardless of age, sex, or medical condition. New York State implemented the same one-price-fits-all regime last year, with dismaying results.

In the first year of community rating 25-year-old males were hit with premium hikes of over $500, while 55-year-olds paid about $415 less than under the risk-rated system. Not surprisingly many young people decided to drop their coverage. With fewer young, healthy policyholders available to subsidize older ones, insurance premiums skyrocketed again this year. The upshot: Even older policyholders–who, in theory, should pay less under community rating–are paying slightly more.

Community rating together with universal coverage ensures a more regressive distribution of income. The median income of workers aged 25 or under, for example, is only $18,313, compared to $43,751 for those aged 45 to 54. Yet the Mitchell bill would force young people to pay $650 per year more than the real cost of their insurance and subsidize older people by about $2,000. The bottom line is a net transfer of $59 billion from people in their twenties and thirties to those 55 to 64.

The other problem is that in 2016 social security goes deficit, followed by 2017 the medicare trust is headed for deficit status.

[Veritas]

One of the big problems with the last Health care proposal by Hillary is rearing its ugly head in Obama care:

Unfortunately, the Clinton/Mitchell bill’s approach is quite different. Under the so-called “community rating” formula every person in a health alliance will pay the same premium regardless of age, sex, or medical condition. New York State implemented the same one-price-fits-all regime last year, with dismaying results.

In the first year of community rating 25-year-old males were hit with premium hikes of over $500, while 55-year-olds paid about $415 less than under the risk-rated system. Not surprisingly many young people decided to drop their coverage. With fewer young, healthy policyholders available to subsidize older ones, insurance premiums skyrocketed again this year. The upshot: Even older policyholders–who, in theory, should pay less under community rating–are paying slightly more.

Community rating together with universal coverage ensures a more regressive distribution of income. The median income of workers aged 25 or under, for example, is only $18,313, compared to $43,751 for those aged 45 to 54. Yet the Mitchell bill would force young people to pay $650 per year more than the real cost of their insurance and subsidize older people by about $2,000. The bottom line is a net transfer of $59 billion from people in their twenties and thirties to those 55 to 64.

The other problem is that in 2016 social security goes deficit, followed by 2017 the medicare trust is headed for deficit status.

[Author]

Posts