No. of Recommendations: 1
If Obama gets everything he wants to "stop the fiscal cliff" it will bring in around 800 billion over 10 years

Yes sports fans thats around $80 billion per year over 10 years

The interest on the national debt .... just the interest, is nearing $500 billion per year

So, we throw away $500 billion per year on interest

Obama's new plan will bring in $80 billion per year

Talk about peeing into the wind .....


Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Obama's new plan will bring in $80 billion per year
____________________

Obama's new plan is to pass taxes that say they are going to get 82B from the rich, but that the rich can beat easily and end up collecting less.

That way he can keep the hate at a fever pitch.

You know there is no attempt here at fiscal sanity, so you really do have to look for what may actually be the motive.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If I were the Republicans, I would make only one demand. Balance the budget.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Obama's new plan is to pass taxes that say they are going to get 82B from the rich, but that the rich can beat easily and end up collecting less.

Not just that .... what is $80 billion dollars in government numbers? Yes, if you found it laying in the street, you would bend over and pick it up ..... but it is only $80 billion ......

$80 billion is what we spend in a year to finance food stamps


Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Obama's new plan is to pass taxes that say they are going to get 82B from the rich, but that the rich can beat easily and end up collecting less.

Not just that .... what is $80 billion dollars in government numbers? Yes, if you found it laying in the street, you would bend over and pick it up ..... but it is only $80 billion ......

$80 billion is what we spend in a year to finance food stamps

____________________

That is precisely why I look at it, and say it does much much more for Obama if he does not collect it. It is a failure if he does -- since it does nothing, it is a talking point that perfectly fits his agenda if he does not collect it

What do you think his team expects?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If Obama gets everything he wants to "stop the fiscal cliff" it will bring in around 800 billion over 10 years

Yes sports fans thats around $80 billion per year over 10 years

The interest on the national debt .... just the interest, is nearing $500 billion per year

So, we throw away $500 billion per year on interest

Obama's new plan will bring in $80 billion per year

Talk about peeing into the wind .....


It's more like peeing into your breakfast.

Obama doesn't care about solving problems. Neither do his supporters. They care about his legacy and destroying the GOP while preserving their salad bowls.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What do you think his team expects?

We know the Obama experts expect whatever Obama say should be ... right or wrong.

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If I were the Republicans, I would make only one demand. Balance the budget.

The democrats won't go for that. They won't cut spending unless it's defense and they won't touch entitlements.

If we set the defense budget to zero we'd still have a yearly deficit of $3-400 billion and climbing because of entitlement growth.

Good negotiations and problem solving require two parties interested in doing something.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The democrats won't go for that. They won't cut spending unless it's defense and they won't touch entitlements.

You could close down the military, close the department of defence, bring all toops, ships and aircraft back to the US, lay off every military person and sub contractor .....

And we would still be in the hole .. except with several hundred thousand new unemployed that would rise to a couple million after everything trickles down.

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1


Yes sports fans thats around $80 billion per year over 10 years

The interest on the national debt .... just the interest, is nearing $500 billion per year



Adding $80bil to Federal Revenue is better than your party's plan to cut 20% across the board in income taxes and "see what happens next."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
$80 billion is what we spend in a year to finance food stamps


Bears


If we restrict the spending to just Twinkies we could save a bundle.

99
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Adding $80bil to Federal Revenue is better than your party's plan to cut 20% across the board in income taxes and "see what happens next."

See ... you are Obamasized .. listening to the Koolaid

The Republicans are saying we have no choice but to begin addressing entitlements

Raise the taxes on the rich ... go for it

But, take the ceiling out for medicare and social security contributions

Set up a means test to get Social Security and Medicare ... over a certain income at age 65 .... congratulations on your success, but you can also afford to be on your own.

Raise the retirement age to 67 and early retirement to 64 ... sorry we live longer

Those alone will total many times more than the $80 billion ... but the unions hate it

We are doomed ... the unions are making us pull a "Hostess"


Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
See ... you are Obamasized .. listening to the Koolaid

The Republicans are saying we have no choice but to begin addressing entitlements

Raise the taxes on the rich ... go for it


Compromise to them means destroy the other party. Notice how she couldn't defend the futility of the move; all she was able to say was bbbbut I don'ttt like yourrrsss! Or something.

Use.Less.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Good negotiations and problem solving require two parties interested in doing something.


I think we have about 15% of either party at that stage. So combined, we are almost a third of the way there.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0



See ... you are Obamasized .. listening to the Koolaid

The Republicans are saying we have no choice but to begin addressing entitlements


You've been watching too much FoxNews:
Obama put entitlements on the table a year ago, but the republicans turned into a war over the debt ceiling, went into filibuster-overdrive with lots of "on-the-steps" dramatics, and eventually moved on to other dramatics.
The current melodrama among the Republican, so they don't have to actually talk about the budget, is defeating a nominee that hasn't even been asked by the president to be a nominee.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But, take the ceiling out for medicare and social security contributions

Caps are necessary to prevent even further tax evasion.

Set up a means test to get Social Security and Medicare ... over a certain income at age 65 .... congratulations on your success, but you can also afford to be on your own.

SS is means-tested already. Medicare is also--if you don't need/use it, they don't pay anything (but you still pay the premium).

Raise the retirement age to 67 and early retirement to 64 ... sorry we live longer

Full retirement age is 67 for people born in 1960 or later (from memory). Early retirement has no impact on Social Security.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Obama put entitlements on the table a year ago

But the Dems have been saying NO .. same as always ... as the Unions pull their strings

You Kool-Aid drinkers just ignore the Party Platform

Democrats divided over whether entitlements to be on table for 'fiscal cliff' negotiations; Obama says yes

WASHINGTON (AP) — Deep divisions among Senate Democrats over whether cuts to popular benefit programs like Medicare and Medicaid should be part of a plan to slow the government's mushrooming debt pose a big obstacle to a deal for avoiding a potentially economy-crushing "fiscal cliff," even if Republicans agree to raise taxes.

http://blog.al.com/wire/2012/11/democrats_divided_over_wheth...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Caps are necessary to prevent even further tax evasion.

So, if you dont cap the level of contribution .... people will be able to evade paying easier?

Hmmm'

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
SS is means-tested already. Medicare is also--if you don't need/use it, they don't pay anything

Jeez Jerry ... if you die Medicare dont pay either ..... Medicare is Mean tested? ... you make this stuff up when you dont have an answer?


And SS is not means-tested already. There is a limit on what you can earn before 50% of your benifit is taxed as income ... a problem for the 72 year old guy bagging groceries so he does not lose his house .... but Millionares, Thousandares .... still only pay tax on that first half and keep everything else ..... they should, if they have an income at 65 of over $125,000, not get anything.

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0



Democrats divided over whether entitlements to be on table for 'fiscal cliff' negotiations; Obama says yes



You're confusing what is currently going on and what took place the last couple years.
A year ago you can't find a single distraction talking point that uses the word: Fiscal Cliff
No back then the distraction was: Debt Ceiling

I'm not saying the dems in the senate are any different than the republicans in the house:

Distract::kick it down the road::Distract::kick it down the road::Distract

that's all we've had, and you only see one thing... It's all Obama's fault.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Obama put entitlements on the table a year ago,

What entitlements did Obama put on the table a year ago? And don't hand me that Medicare sequester crap.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
A year ago you can't find a single distraction talking point that uses the word: Fiscal Cliff
No back then the distraction was: Debt Ceiling


The last Debt Ceiling was what triggered the extension of the 10 year Bush tax cuts ,,, which were extended again under an agreement that set the sequester in place ... and all of that rolled together is set to expire and is called .... the Fiscal Cliff.

The sad part is ..... the Debt Ceiling problem is back :)

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0



which were extended again under an agreement that set the sequester in place ... and all of that rolled together is set to expire and is called .... the Fiscal Cliff.


so show me a newspaper article from before 11/25/11 that uses the word fiscal cliff
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
so show me a newspaper article from before 11/25/11 that uses the word fiscal cliff

That is what I said ... all those things combined are "the Fiscal Cliff" and you are corect, it didnt become a catch phrase until ... believe after June 2011 ... 11/11 may be right.

Guess you couldnt have a fiscal cliff to worry about without [putting all the crap in a pile and seetting a default timer that ends 2013

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So, if you dont cap the level of contribution .... people will be able to evade paying easier?

No, the cost of evasion is higher than the tax paid--so people do not have an incentive to evade it. If all income is subject to SS tax, then there is an ongoing incentive to incur the cost to evade the tax because the amount saved each year is much substantially higher.

Plus, by having a cap on the contribution, there is automatically a cap on the benefit payable.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
There is a limit on what you can earn before 50% of your benifit is taxed as income ... a problem for the 72 year old guy bagging groceries so he does not lose his house ....

http://www.ssa.gov/planners/taxes.htm
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0



That is what I said ... all those things combined are "the Fiscal Cliff" and you are corect, it didnt become a catch phrase until ... believe after June 2011 ... 11/11 may be right.


it didnt become a catch phrase until ...

Think About It
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No, the cost of evasion is higher than the tax paid--so people do not have an incentive to evade it. If all income is subject to SS tax, then there is an ongoing incentive to incur the cost to evade the tax because the amount saved each year is much substantially higher.

The only way to avoid a payroll based tax is to get paid under the table. Not an option for most, and especially higher level corporate personnel.

Plus, by having a cap on the contribution, there is automatically a cap on the benefit payable.

The max SS payment is somewhere around $2,500 per month at age 65. whats that? 30,000? not a bad chunk of unfunded cash.

But, someone who has an after retirement income of say $125,000 (number can be sliding scale) does not need the 30,000 to get by nicely. The system on the other hand, really cant afford to "supplement the wealthy" ... yes that sucks, but there must be changes.

There are about 10 million people who maxed the Social Security cap each year ($110,100 in 2012) at that point they stopped contributing for that year.

So, in desperate times .. and these are desperate times

Make over $125,000 or whatever in retirement income, you by means testing dont need social security, the system keeps "your" $30,000. I would expect that would be billions in total

Then, remove the cap and people who earn pre retirement over $110,100 will continue to pay into Social Security to their actual max earnings that year. With 10 million people hitting the present $110,100 cap, remove the cap and you again add billions to the system

Sucks, but call it the cost of success.

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Your link states

file a federal tax return as an "individual" and your combined income* is ?between $25,000 and $34,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits.
?
more than $34,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.



Do you understand what that is saying?

If you earn between $25,000 and $34,000, 50% of your benefit is taxable

So, you get $30,000 from Social Security and exceed the above limit

At that point 50% of your Social Security income is taxable

So, say you are in ... ??? a 20% bracket (so I dont need to pull out a calculator)

50% of your Social Security is $15,000

That is taxable at the 20% referenced ... you will be required to pay ... 3,000 to the IRS.

You pay $3000

You keep $27,000

Not really a cap

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Set up a means test to get Social Security and Medicare ... over a certain income at age 65 .... congratulations on your success, but you can also afford to be on your own."

I'm not against this, in principal, but I'm surprised you are for it.

Raise taxes a little bit on younger, working wealthy Americans and we'll fight it to the death.

Take money out of the pockets of senior, wealthy Americans? No problem, as long as it doesn't have the word "tax" attached to it.

Your plan is every bit the "tax' that Obama's plan is.

These seniors worked all their lives, paying TAXES into Social Security and Medicare. Then, when they reach the age where they can begin getting some of that back, you want to tell them they can't have it because they have enough already?

In effect, your "tax" is worse because you are, in effect, taxing wealth. Most of these wealthy seniors are over the income limit that I assume you'd use because of returns on their investments, rather than earned income, yet, you will use that against them to cut their SS and Medicare benefits.

However, that said, it makes economic sense if done correctly.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Raise taxes a little bit on younger, working wealthy Americans and we'll fight it to the death.

Take money out of the pockets of senior, wealthy Americans? No problem, as long as it doesn't have the word "tax" attached to it.

Your plan is every bit the "tax' that Obama's plan is.


I have no problem and believe we must also increase the Social Security tax on everyone as well as move early retirement to 64 and full retirement to 67 ... and as I said, means test for social Security and Medicare ...

Sucks ,,, but ignoring the situation will suck more down the road.

Republicans have come around to put taxed on the table along with reduced spending

Dems (according to the press) are split on entitlement changes

See what happens

The can being kicked has hit a wall

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Has anyone heard if one of the options for medicare changes is for opt out? I actually would like to continue my health insurance without being forced to go on medicare. Maybe there are lots of people like that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Republicans have come around to put taxed on the table along with reduced spending"

I'll believe that when I see it. Boehner still insists there will be no tax hike but they will find other ways to increase revenue.

While some GOP members have come out against The Pledge, most are still on board and I don't think Boehner can get the votes.

I'd be shocked if there is a deal before Christmas.

"I have no problem and believe we must also increase the Social Security tax on everyone as well as move early retirement to 64 and full retirement to 67"

No problem with that either. it's the natural order of things. We are living longer and 70 is still a working age for many, though I think the change should only affect those younger than 55.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Has anyone heard if one of the options for medicare changes is for opt out? I actually would like to continue my health insurance without being forced to go on medicare."


Medicare works because everyone must be in it. If you could opt out, the insurance companies would insure the healthy seniors, while Medicare gets left with the sick.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And SS is not means-tested already.

50% is subject to your federal income tax rate (whatever it is, depends on your income), over a certain income--I have fogotten what that ceiling is, and 85% is subject to taxation over something like income of $34,000--my mother teeters on that brink herself.

There is a limit on what you can earn before 50% of your benifit is taxed as income ... a problem for the 72 year old guy bagging groceries so he does not lose his house ....

The income ceiling for reducing your SS benefit (temporarily--you get it more than back in increased SS benefits when you stop working) is something over $14,000. And I bet that part-time Wal-Mart greeter you are so concerned about doesn't make over $14k. A friend of my mother's had to go back to work as a WM greeter in his 70s when his investments went south in the early 2000s. He made less than $1,000/month working as many hours as they'd let him, therefore no temporary SS reduction.

Funny how you;re so worried about whether this old man is being taxed, but you don;t care if his Medicare is replaced by a voucher that covers a fraction of his health care needs :-/
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The sad part is ..... the Debt Ceiling problem is back :)

Back?!
A little perspective on the debt ceiling--history:

February 2010 - $14.294 trillion
December 2009 - $12.394 trillion
February 2009 - $12.104 trillion
October 2008 - $11.315 trillion
July 2008 - $10.615 trillion
September 2007 - $9.815 trillion
March 2006 - $8.965 trillion
November 2004 - $8.184
May 2003 - $7.384 trillion
June 2002 - $6.4 trillion
August 1997 - $5.95 trillion
March 1996 - $5.5 trillion
August 1993 - $4.9 trillion
April 1993 - $4.37 trillion
November 1990 - $4.145 trillion
October 1990 - $3.23 trillion
November 1989 - $3.1227 trillion
August 1989 - $2.87 trillion
September 1987 - $2.8 trillion
August 1987 - $2.352 trillion
July 1987 - $2.32 trillion
October 1986 - $2.3 trillion
August 1986 - $2.111 trillion
December 1985 - $2.0787 trillion
November 1985 - $1.9038 trillion
October 1984 - $1.8238 trillion
July 1984 - $1.573 trillion
May 1984 - $1.52 trillion
November 1983 - $1.49 trillion
May 1983 - $1.389 trillion
September 1982 - $1.2902
June 1982 - $1.1431 trillion
September 1981 - 1.0798 trillion
September 1981 - $999.8 billion
February 1981 - $985 billion
December 1980 - $935.1 billion
June 1980 - $925 billion
September 1979 - $879 billion
April 1979 - $830 billion
August 1978 - $798 billion
October 1977 - $752 billion
June 1976 - $700 billion
March 1976 - $627 billion
November 1975 - $595 billion
February 1975 - $577 billion
June 1974 - $495 billion
December 1973 - $475.7 billion
October 1972 - $465 billion
March 1972 - $450 billion
March 1971 - $430 billion
June 1970 - $395 billion
April 1969 - $377 billion
June 1967 - $358 billion
March 1967 - $336 billion
June 1966 - $330 billion
June 1965 - $328 billion
June 1964 - $324 billion
November 1963 - $315 billion
May 1963 - $309 billion
July 1962 - $308 billion
March 1962 - $300 billion
June 1961 - $298 billion
June 1960 - $293 billion
June 1959 - $295 billion
September 1958 - $288 billion
February 1958 - $280 billion
July 1956 - $278 billion
August 1954 - $281 billion
June 1946 - $275 billion
April 1945 - $300 billion
June 1944 - $260 billion
April 1943 - $210 billion
March 1942 - $125 billion
February 1941 - $65 billion
June 1940 - $49 billion
December 1939 - $45 billion
December 1919 - $43 billion

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/US-Debt...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Funny how you;re so worried about whether this old man is being taxed, but you don;t care if his Medicare is replaced by a voucher that covers a fraction of his health care needs :-/

Obama care is on its way. the costs estimates are revised upward quarterly, you dont even know what taxes and regulations are in it that will not take effect until 2014 and beyond ... you are being kept in the dark ... worse ... the Government itself is in the dark .. they have no idea what they have created (not a slander comment, just a fact)

Mean time, my Cardiologist is retiring early due to Obamacare, Expect smaller creative "yet profitable" cutting edge medical device manufacturers may (are expected) to close due to the new Obamacare tax ... not on profit, but on revenue ... and we know the final result, we see it in Europe already ... Failure of Governments financial sectors.

Yes, we need to address the 30 million uninsured, but at the rate Obama care costs are increasing, our own cost of insurance will increase as employers opt out and we are mandated to pick up the cost and the potential loss of new medical technology, drug research and the quality of health care loss , and the cost of government and state administration and policing .... it may turn out that it would have been cheaper and more efficient to just have the government write 30 million checks to Humana health insurance (most likely with a volume discount) rather than venture into the unknown.

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
my Cardiologist is retiring early due to Obamacare

More likely age and significant savings.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The sad part is ..... the Debt Ceiling problem is back :)

Back?!

A little perspective on the debt ceiling--history:


A little perspective on the past two elections

Obama was going to cut spending and balance the budget ... which would eliminate the need for adjusting the debt ceiling

He has incompetently done nothing

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
More likely age and significant savings.

57, part of a thriving group practice of 14 Cardiologist

Between what is expected from Obamacare
The continual reduction of Medicae and Medicaid payments
The cost of malpractice insurance
The size of the staff required to meet documentation requirements for any form of government or insurance company payments
The common health insurance policy of "negotiating" the amounts to be paid ..... after they have been administered
An older patent base who require greater care ... which they cant afford

And the drop in income as most Physicians are forced to move to medical group corporations to survive the costs, paperwork, insurance and hours.

There was an ad in the local paper couple months ago. They were looking for a "floating physician" (cover all specialties during their undefined shift (8 hrs .. ;; wink wink ,12 hrs if there are still sick people to be seen , 16 hrs because you must complete all the paperwork)

Pay .... $72,000 plus hospital pays malpractice insurance ..... expect a real shortage of doctors in the future ... or at least English speaking doctors.

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Pay .... $72,000 plus hospital pays malpractice insurance

Bears,

A couple of days ago (maybe yesterday) there was a thread comparing U.S. physician salaries to French GP salaries.

The word from the U.S. was that the average U.S. physician salary was $191,000 per year.

Is this example some small town or outlier where the hospital in question is just low bidding the job to bring in a "cheap" doctor from Bangladesh or something?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Medicare works because everyone must be in it. If you could opt out, the insurance companies would insure the healthy seniors, while Medicare gets left with the sick.

That makes sense except how can insurance companies "choose" to insure the healthy and drop the sick now that ACA doesn't allow for dropping customers? I suppose they raise the rates for the sick, but aren't there laws against this?

One of the options for fixing the current debt problem is raising the eligibility age for Medicare, right? People would be forced to stay on their own insurance. But if the ACA now has a program for people to get insurance that is more affordable where they can't be dropped, why does it matter? I just heard a segment on TV where they said the future changes to Medicare may make it harder to find a doctor or hospital to take you (because of changes in payments starting in January). If so, wouldn't it be better if they change eligibility so that you can keep your doctor? They also talked about means testing where you pay for Medicare based on your wealth, which is probably one of the options in the debt debate.

I'm sorry to be so dense about this, but I guess I have not been vested in understanding the whole thing since I have affordable, good health care. I still don't see how we are going to bring health care costs down which is the real problem.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Expect smaller creative "yet profitable" cutting edge medical device manufacturers may (are expected) to close due to the new Obamacare tax ..

If insurance companies won't pay for it, then it is a failure. So your argument is a Catch-22. If the device works, then insurance will pay for it. If it doesn't work, then it should not be on the market.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Has anyone heard if one of the options for medicare changes is for opt out? I actually would like to continue my health insurance without being forced to go on medicare.

Private insurance considers itself *secondary*--with Medicare as primary. This limits the exposure (payout !!) of the insurance companies to things not covered by Medicare or to costs in excess of what Medicare pays--all of which work in the favor of the insurance company bottom line.

So, if there was no Medicare (by choice--"opt out"), then you would be paying all those costs yourself (directly or indirectly). Plus you would be paying the insurance company for <what>???? You only find out if you are covered when you file a claim. And if they do NOT pay--what happens?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The word from the U.S. was that the average U.S. physician salary was $191,000 per year.

The big plus to the $72,000 is that you go under the hospital malpractice policy and save a bundle, Here in Florida, there is an alarming shortage of gynecologist due to the fact most are in smaller practices (alone or maybe one partner) and the cost of OBGYN malpractice is through the roof. SO many are leaving the profession .... not so much the state, Floridas Malpractice insurance rates are considered below average in many parts ... consider that if you’re an OB-GYN in the Bronx, you’re paying $190,000 per year for malpractice insurance.

The $72,000 starting slary is in Bradenton Fl at a medium sized hospital. As far as small cities, Bradenton is considered on the expensive side since is directly on the Gulf of Mexico and just above Sarasota Fl. (about 15% more expensive than neighboring cities. We have three hospitals, though one is smaller than the other two, but it acts more as a trama center and a heart institute, limiting its specialties.

But fear not .... it is all but guaranteed any young start up doctor will wind up doing well in the nest several years ,,,,

You see .... The average Doctor age in Bradenton, Florida is 64 years old.

Brace for the medical crisis

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Expect smaller creative "yet profitable" cutting edge medical device manufacturers may (are expected) to close due to the new Obamacare tax ..

If insurance companies won't pay for it, then it is a failure. So your argument is a Catch-22. If the device works, then insurance will pay for it. If it doesn't work, then it should not be on the market.




Jerry ... I think you are missing the wording of the tax

The devices are not having a tax added to them ...

The companies are not paying an additional tax on profits from making the Medical devices

Medical Device Manufacturers will be taxed on "Revenue" not "Profit"

Do you know how many startup companies live or die on 2.3 percent of revenue?

If the government wants to add a tax to someones "revenue" rather than profit ... lets get serious and tax revenue on Tobacco related companies, the liquor industry and gambling

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Medical Device Manufacturers will be taxed on "Revenue" not "Profit"

In other words, it is an income tax. Gee, now WHERE have we seen THAT before?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Private insurance considers itself *secondary*--with Medicare as primary.

Only if you are paying for the health insurance yourself

Say your wife is on Medicare and you work and get insurance

As long as you are working, your insurance is primary and her medicare is secondary.

You get canned at work and go on COBRA with the same insurance (except it is costing you around $16 -1700 per month for a good full coverage policy) company, the Cobra is your primary (and only) insurance. Because she is on your Cobra and you pay for that, Medicare becomes her primary and you insurance the secondary ... as expected ... it does not reduce the amount you both pay to maintain your COBRA insurance

Once you retire, you get Medicare and can pay the difference youself or buy one of the Medicare Advantage Plans, wich leave you paying only the usual $1000 dollar hospital deductable that medicare charges also. With or without Medicare Advantage Plans ,,, there is the perscription "Donut Hole" that if you break into it and through it, you blow another something like $3700 per year out of pocket)

Without an Advantage plan, you pay the deductible for one hospital stay is %1000 maybe $1,100 (dont remember). there is also a Part B deductible of $155, after which Medicare pays 80 percent of approved services--the patient pays the other 20 percent. If you have a good Medicare Advantage Plan, it pays that 20% for you.

I know with my mother, she had cancer, went in the hospital then out patient for Chemo for several months. Many treatments, many tests, many cat scans, many stomach scope procedures I believe after the whole thing settled out, she was billed around $1400.00 as a deductable. There were some other costs, the few drugs that were covered but carried a deductable outside the Medicare Advantage Plans coverage, special personal care items, transportation costs .... I dont remember everything, just that I pulled out my check book quite often.

Later she fell at home ... to the hospital ... a stay of about two weeks ... $1000 deductable Medicare Advantage paid everything else

But, She also could not remain in her condo and had to go to an assisted living. First to Rehab where they claimed "dont worry, medicae covers this" she was there for 90 days .... when she left the rehab called me and said there was a balance that needed to be taken care of. Dopey me, I'm taking out the check book ... how much could it be ... Medicare covered most ... $300.00? The bookeeper handed me a bill for $11,000. After I got up from the floor, the bookeeper told me the rehab personel were wrong, Medicare covered 3 maybe 4 weeks. Mom was responsible for the $11,000 dollar. I then said that mom was broke, I was not paying and when she died, it would go to the estate and bankruptcy court.

Now, she got around $1000 in Social Security, the assisted living was around $3200 per month .... so I got stuck paying the $2200 per month difference out of my pocket. Since all her Social Security was being used for the assisted living and I was paying the monthly balance of $2200 per month, I also wound up paying her $260 per month Medicare Advantage bill, the required $30 dollars per month for her "personal expenses", since she had no money, I also picked up the $350 condo maintaince fee and the $330 mortgage payment the realestate tax and home owners insurance plus, since after cancer maintaince drugs she always hit the Medicare donut hole (which Advantage programs have also, but offer some free generics and off brands) if I rember right, the Donut hole was costing me around $3600 per years or more ... all told about $3500 out of my pocket for nearly two years .... very tough two years .... Oh yeah, when she moved into the assisted living, I discovered she had around $7000 in credit card bills (why would they give an 87 year old woman a credit card with a $10,000 limit?) didnt pay those, they went with the estate to bankruptcy court also/

Three years before all this, I paid off all here credit card debt ,,,, I didnt know about ... to the tune of around $16,000. Between then and her fall, I put about $7000 of repairs and upgrades into her condo.

During that three years, there were many other expenses. I bought her a car (used) paid for the service on it, paid for her car insurance, began paying the condo maintaince fee (for 4 years),suplimented several other expenses paid for the few uncovered medical services, medical supplies and covered the "donut hole" famously built into the medicare at around $3600. Per year (think I paid that for 4 years)

Did a quick tally of the previous 4 years after she passed. I stopped counting when it broke $200,000 ..... That was $200,000 of my retirement funds .... hurt me bad

What do they say? Your parents wiped your butt and payed your expenses when you were a child .... so ....

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Medical Device Manufacturers will be taxed on "Revenue" not "Profit"

In other words, it is an income tax. Gee, now WHERE have we seen THAT before?


Jerry ... put on the glasses

Medical Device Manufacturers will be taxed on "Revenue" not "Profit"

It is not an income tax ... it is taxing the companies revenue not profit

Try this ... Stan's startup Defibrilator company known as "Stans Shocks" has been in business for 3 years.

Each of those three years, the company has lost over $1 million dollars

In 2013 "Stans Shocks" expects to sell $10 million in Defibrilators, but will still lose $1 million dollars .... Stan is barely hanging on.

Under an "income tax", Stans Shocks" made no income so would pay no tax (he lost $1 million dollars)

Under the Obamacare Tax, in 2013 Stan sells $10 million in Defibrilators, but loses $1 million dollars. Obama says Stan owes a tax of 2.3% of the $10 million in revenue ... that failed to make a profit

That is not a tax ......

That is Chicago style extortion ...... and hopefully found illegal

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That is Chicago style extortion ...... and hopefully found illegal

Bears
_____________________

the Supreme Court has already basically rules just how broad the word tax can be defined. I do not see how this is illegal.

Things are going to get really ugly. Winning via hatred has a price, it will be paid.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It is not an income tax ... it is taxing the companies revenue not profit

Income = revenue. Same as any other "person". Citizens-United means this income tax can be extended to all "persons"--not just living ones who have to work for a living. We can get rid of the business tax rates, loopholes, deductions, etc and use the standard income tax for people. Businesses can't get married--they are all the same sex. LOL !! So they have to file as "single". Now to watch the lobbyist stampede....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Private insurance considers itself *secondary*--with Medicare as primary.

Only if you are paying for the health insurance yourself


No, the insurance company sets the rules for that. If they agree to sell you a policy with them being primary and Medicare being secondary, then the cost is WAY higher. I have seen this specifically stated in health insurance policies. They stated they were *secondary* and obtaining Medicare coverage (if available) was *mandatory*. In fact, they would not process anything UNTIL your application for Medicare--with a subsequent rejection letter--was presented to them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Income = revenue


Now you are covering up with your foolishness blanket ... dont you feel embarrassed when you do that ... so often?

Shameful ... foolish .....embarrassing

Go away ... just go away .... cant waste my time on your foolishness ....

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Private insurance considers itself *secondary*--with Medicare as primary.

Only if you are paying for the health insurance yourself

No, the insurance company sets the rules for that. If they agree to sell you a policy with them being primary and Medicare being secondary, then the cost is WAY higher.


jerryab ... your responses are simply argumentative and ... well ... sorry ... stupid

But, no problem .... you are now on ignore ... I jest cant stomach the foolishness of your responses ... so fricken embarrassing.

Your are ignored .. gone .... good riddance

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
your responses are simply argumentative and ... well ... sorry ... stupid

Noted you do not dispute the claims made are factually true.

I jest cant stomach the foolishness of your responses ... so fricken embarrassing.

The truth shall set you free....
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement