The Glade 4.0

But the author never mentions proportionally what increase is due to what, and the article is titled "Here are the new taxes you're going to pay for Obamacare".

There was no need to discuss the expiration of the Bush tax cuts at all- they do not effect the ACA, and the ACA does not effect them. Just because they happen to potentially cause an increase in taxes.....does not mean that the 25% increase due to expiring tax cuts has anything to do with paying for Obamacare.

Additionally, Rynar's second post in this thread illustrates him tying this farce (the ACA) with investment income being cut in half. Something that the ACA has only a minor (4%) effect on.

I wouldn't have had a problem if he'd been campaigning against the non-renewal of the expiring bush era tax cuts, but lumping them in with the ACA, to me, reeks of hyperbole. It's implied that the Bush era tax cuts will be allowed to expire in order to fund Obamacare, but there is no actual support for that position, just out-of-context numbers.

For the numbers to be in context, it would be: An increase from 15-18.8% with the Bush Era tax cuts, or an increase from 40-43.8% without the tax cuts in effect. Just displaying the second number with no contextual increase carries implications that there is some compounding effect of the tax cut expiration on how much people will pay, rather than a simple additive effect.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

First, the Court didn't sell us anything. Can't rely on them to sort out Congress's mess. Congress and Obama sold this to the public.

Second, you're pulling out some pretty dramatic numbers out of what seems like the air. Suggesting that Florida's medicare costs will quadruple in 2 years? I can't buy that without some sort of backup.



Hang on, now, that's a completely unfair assessment. Children's care are benefits to people in their 20s and 30s. Suggesting that my kids are getting a free ride and/or mooching off my healthy *** is completely unfair. I incurred those costs. If 30% of the healthcare costs or so are for children, then that benefit is for the parents responsible for them. And they do pay taxes (well, most).



Well I, for one, am really glad to see you're back. And with such class. Things were entirely too respectful while you were away.

Not at all. If the administration's plan rests on raising the the tax on dividends 3.8% on top of what it knows it will progress those taxes to through other government function, it is absoulutely proper to examine the full intent of all of it's policies.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Uhm, yes? The healthy pay for the sick. This is how health insurance works. There is no possible way people over 60 can afford their own health care. Medicare is in a gigantic financial pit despite people paying into it their whole lives, it's just far, far too expensive for the average over-60 to afford their own health care, unless you want to cut the life expectancy down drastically.

It currently costs an average of $1.25 million for a 65-year old to pay for healthcare until their death. To have this much money, assuming a real return of 6%, an individual would need to save $5000 per year every year starting at age 25. That's over 10% of the average person's total income, set aside just for health care.

So, instead, we'll just tax an extra $5k per year on everybody over 25.

Because that's what you need to do. The money needs to come from somewhere. In fact, taxing the young to pay healthcare for the old doesn't even have the benefit of inflation/investment... so it would be MORE money taxed to pay for today's health care expenses.


We, as a society, are simply demanding that we live too long. We can't afford to. And if we try to afford to, we will break the back of our economy in half trying to carry that burden.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

How do you go from "$665 to $4,700 depending on income" to "$5,000/year on everybody"? Not to mention "everybody" here is only people without insurance, which is decidedly not "everybody".

Depending on the source, the expected total out-of-pocket healthcare costs for a retiree at age 65 are between $190,000 and $305,000. Considering that Medicare pays 80%, this means that the actual total cost of the healthcare is between $950,000 and $1,525,000. I just picked $1.25 million as it's right in the middle. This gets "paid" for now by Medicare's massive borrowing. There's no alternative to Medicare for most seniors because noone can actually afford this sum. The ACA just reduces Medicare's debt growth, like you said it doesn't raise anywhere near enough money to solve the problem.

No, insurance works by distributing risk over a large pool. This forces "insurance" on known reoccurring costs "pre-existing conditions" are not good things to insure because they make everything more expensive. It costs more to involve a 3rd party in paying for something than an exchange by two parties. There are the rare exceptions where economies of scale overcome the associated overhead and processing costs of the 3rd party but as I said - rare exceptions.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville