Suck it Dittochumps

Actually, no.

My employer has fewer than 50 employees and already offers a very generous health insurance plan. Has been since before I started there 10 years ago.

Sirfindafold · Post by **Sirfindafold** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:12 pm

Whats another "tax" amongst friends?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:13 pm

Sirfindafold wrote:Whats another "tax" amongst friends?

Go fuck yourself.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:03 pm

Mikey wrote:
R-Jack wrote:
Employers who have more than 50 employees and don't offer insurance will also begin to face a penalty.
Peace out.

Sin,
small business.
Actually, no.

My employer has fewer than 50 employees and already offers a very generous health insurance plan. Has been since before I started there 10 years ago.

mikey's a pretty sharp dude, so it can't be a reading comp dealio. Maybe he just had a college flashback and decided to smoke 3 lbs of weed this morning.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:10 pm

I've been in San Francisco since Sunday and it may be getting to me.

Python · Post by **Python** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:38 pm

Just curious, but can't you only tax an activity? "Taxing" inactivity is acually a penalty for not doing something. Makes no sense.

Python · Post by **Python** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:57 pm

Again, what the heck is being taxed? There's no product or service at all. It's a penalty for not buying something.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:00 pm

Python wrote:Again, what the heck is being taxed?

They could always amend the law to say that those who do not buy can never EVER use emergency services. Would that suit you better?

Python · Post by **Python** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:06 pm

That doesn't answer the question.

Python · Post by **Python** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:17 pm

88, a gift loan is still something tangible. In this case, we will be taxed on.....NOT having something. That's a penalty.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:40 pm

Python wrote:That doesn't answer the question.

It is a use tax on the medical service you will use.

Python · Post by **Python** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:47 pm

Wrong.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:28 pm

Python wrote:Wrong.

To quote Geddy Shakespeare, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Python · Post by **Python** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:37 pm

That's the dumbest response I've ever seen.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:40 pm

Python wrote:That's the dumbest response I've ever seen.

You've got bradhusker on "Ignore" too?

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:16 pm

BSmack wrote:Now let's see Romney run against it.

Count on it. As will every other Republican candidate in this country seeking office. Remember the Tea Party, B? Gonna be a long, hot summer….

You ARE aware, of course, of the House of Representatives intention to immediately repeal the Affordable Care Act, correct?

Futile gesture, granted, as such legislation should easily go down in flames on a party-line vote in the Senate. HOWEVER…

Only four Senatorial votes stand in the way of full repeal and a trip to Obama’s desk for immediate veto. Will that margin be narrowed to three?

While I certainly can’t speak for other Democrat Senators currently on the election hot-seat in other states, it will be fascinating to see if Claire McCaskill will have the sack to cast her vote to reject the repeal of her president’s legacy, or if she’ll placate the home folks, vote to repeal and try to save her political ass.

It’s one thing for an incumbent Senator seeking re-election to transparently distance herself from her president by citing a pressing need to stay home and serve her constituency instead of attending the Democrat Convention in Charlotte; and quite another to see her name once again attached to a vote reaffirming Obamacare. Especially when an overwhelming majority of Missourians (75%) voted to reject the federal ~~mandate~~ errrr, tax to purchase health care insurance in a state-wide election.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:44 pm

88 wrote:And they have to figure out how to force the States to expand Medicaid services as they want them to do without providing the States with sufficient funds to do so and without the ability to coerce the States into doing it by threatening to cut off ALL of their Medicaid moula.

States are exempt from Medicaid expansion. This creates a massive unfunded liability that will have to be made good by the Feds. Meanwhile doctors and clinics will (and are) dropping Medicaid patients like hot rocks.

The administration defended the mandate under the Commerce Clause and assiduously avoided presenting the penalties as a tax then Roberts comes along as says that Congress can't compel people to engage in commerce but it can tax them for not doing so. His opinion is a complete mess and that the mandate is really a tax.

For sub-moronic simpletons like BWelsh and Screw Jizzmopper, you might want to take a long, serious look at what exactly you think you "won" today. Your hero said he wasn't going to raise your taxes. Guess what? He pissed in your face again. Your insurance premiums are about to "necessarily skyrocket" without any corresponding improvement in service. In fact, your level of service will almost certainly decline. Oh yes, your income tax burden will also "necessarily skyrocket" in order to help to pay for shittier service than what you had before. Unfortunately for the economic well being of the nation, you idiots were so pitifully fucking stupid that you thought that you could add millions to the rolls and force carriers to cover everybody for everything add it would cost even less to provide coverage.

Yes, you are that fucking dumb.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:52 pm

Truman wrote:You ARE aware, of course, of the House of Representatives intention to immediately repeal the Affordable Care Act, correct?

DOA when it hits the Senate.

Futile gesture, granted, as such legislation should easily go down in flames on a party-line vote in the Senate. HOWEVER…

Only four Senatorial votes stand in the way of full repeal and a trip to Obama’s desk for immediate veto. Will that margin be narrowed to three?

While I certainly can’t speak for other Democrat Senators currently on the election hot-seat in other states, it will be fascinating to see if Claire McCaskill will have the sack to cast her vote to reject the repeal of her president’s legacy, or if she’ll placate the home folks, vote to repeal and try to save her political ass.

It’s one thing for an incumbent Senator seeking re-election to transparently distance herself from her president by citing a pressing need to stay home and serve her constituency instead of attending the Democrat Convention in Charlotte; and quite another to see her name once again attached to a vote reaffirming Obamacare. Especially when an overwhelming majority of Missourians (75%) voted to reject the federal ~~mandate~~ errrr, tax to purchase health care insurance in a state-wide election.

Obviously you don't understand WHY it is DOA in the Senate. Democrats can play the filibuster game too. Which means 60 votes would be needed to even get to debate. None of the Senators with seats actually in any danger will ever have to cast a meaningful vote because now instead of a 4 vote cushion, there is a 14 vote cushion.

But you say, what about when Romney wins [snort]? Surely then he will be able to repeal?

Nope. Not a chance. Romney would have to overcome a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. Which means that he would have to use reconciliation. In order to make reconciliation work, the changes would have to be deficit reducing. In other words, the only chance a repeal will ever have would be to replace it with something that also provides universal coverage at an even greater cost coverage.

Which means Romney can replace Obamacare (assuming he's even elected) only by enacting something that diminishes the profit margins of insurance companies EVEN MORE than Obamacare already does.

Don't you see? Your dream of killing Obamacare is dead and you guys don't even know it yet. Watching and listening to dittotards today is like watching headless chickens running around a yard.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:56 pm

R-Jack wrote:
Employers who have more than 50 employees and don't offer insurance will also begin to face a penalty.
Peace out.

Sin,
small business.

Meanwhile, hundreds of other businesses employing millions of workers are totally exempt. I guess it all depends on who you know, right? I suppose it does undercut the message that this act is such a great thing and I also suppose it is entirely coincidental that 40% of the exemptions issued are union workers.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/140112

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:59 pm

BSmack wrote:
Which means that he would have to use reconciliation. In order to make reconciliation work, the changes would have to be deficit reducing.

Eliminating Obamacare is deficit reducing, you brainless fuckpuddle.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:05 pm

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Which means that he would have to use reconciliation. In order to make reconciliation work, the changes would have to be deficit reducing.
Eliminating Obamacare is deficit reducing, you brainless fuckpuddle.

CBO says nope.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:08 pm

Funniest thing I've seen in quite a while...

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:27 pm

PSUFAN wrote:

Funniest thing I've seen in quite a while...

Gotta give that scowl bipartisan racks!

But, I think come November, they'll be on the other side.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:33 pm

BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Which means that he would have to use reconciliation. In order to make reconciliation work, the changes would have to be deficit reducing.
Eliminating Obamacare is deficit reducing, you brainless fuckpuddle.
CBO says nope.

And you have the nerve to mock poptart for believing in fairy tales and magical thinking? At least it won't take long to demonstrate the CBO's score is a pathetic joke...and so are you.

atomicdad · Post by **atomicdad** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:33 pm

PSUFAN wrote:

My Gawd Woman, What did you eat for lunch...

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:44 pm

88 wrote:It is now a new tax on young, healthy people, who have to derive significantly less benefits from it than they pay in, otherwise there would be no money left over to pay for the new people in the risk pool with high medical costs.

No, not quite. Mikey's awesome health care plan isn't likely to remain very awesome for very much longer. Gee, I wonder how employers are going to stay under the excise tax threshold. Hmmm, that's a tough one to figure out.

Cadillac Health Plan Tax to Penalize Majority of Employers by 2018

Top-Performing Companies on Target to Hold Costs Below Excise Threshold Until 2023

New York, May 19, 2010 — Health care reform’s so-called “Cadillac plan” excise tax will affect more than 60% of large employers’ active health plans by the provision’s 2018 effective date, according to an analysis conducted by Towers Watson (NYSE, NASDAQ: TW), a global professional services company. Based on data from the firm’s 2010 Health Care Cost Survey, the study also found that, by taking certain actions, employers can contain their costs and significantly delay hitting the excise tax cost ceiling for a number of years.

"The original concept of the excise tax was to penalize employers with excessively rich health benefit plans,” said Randall Abbott, a senior consultant for Towers Watson. “Assuming even reasonable annual plan cost increases to project 2018 costs, many of today’s average plans will easily exceed the cost ceiling primarily directed at today’s ‘gold-plated’ plans."

The excise tax was included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) passed into law on March 23, 2010. The provision levies a 40% nondeductible tax on the annual value of health plan costs for employees that exceed $10,200 for single coverage or $27,500 for family coverage in 2018. Towers Watson data reveal that the average 2010 cost of medical coverage for active single and family plans is $5,184 and $14,988, respectively. When these figures are projected out to 2018 with reasonable estimates of future health care inflation, the excise tax is often triggered.

As a result of the excise tax provision, a plan with single coverage costs of $11,200 in 2018 would exceed the limit by $1,000 and be assessed a tax of $400. If 10,000 employees were enrolled in that plan, the total tax bill would be $4,000,000. The tax is paid by the employer either through increased premiums on an insured plan or a surcharge levied by the administrator of a self-funded health plan. Employers will be forced to either absorb the additional tax or pass some, or all, of it back to employees in the form of higher premiums.

"All it takes to drive costs above the excise tax cap for six in ten employers is an 8% average annual cost increase. And, without making plan design changes, that’s what many employers are projecting," said Dave Osterndorf, a consulting actuary with Towers Watson. "This rate of increase has been typical for the past several years. We see it as an open question as to whether the recently passed PPACA will mitigate cost trends in the near term for employers."

The study found wide variations by industry. For about half of the industries examined, more than seven out of 10 employers will have at least one plan that will exceed the excise tax threshold in 2018, including the aerospace, chemicals, energy and utilities, health services and pharmaceutical industries.

It’s important to note that, based on the survey data, employers who are top performers* at managing their health benefit strategies have lower costs and face an annual plan cost increase of only 6%. These companies will experience about a five-year buffer before hitting the excise tax ceiling. "These top performers may avoid hitting the excise threshold until 2023 or beyond due to their focus on workforce health improvement, wellness, chronic condition management, and communicating the prudent use of health care goods and services," explained Osterndorf.

"There is some good news: Employers have a long runway to plan for 2018, so there is time to approach the issue strategically and thoughtfully. But reform and the excise tax may have unintended consequences," Abbott said. "As employers strive to preserve the affordability of core health coverage, there will be difficult decisions to change or eliminate ancillary benefits like dental coverage and health flexible spending accounts, which are included in the excise tax definition." Excise tax rules will also be needed to clarify certain confusing aspects of the law. For example, it appears that the cost of a self-funded dental plan is included in the tax calculation, but an insured dental plan is not.

One reason that employers need to be thinking about the excise tax now is the potential impact on any retiree plans they may sponsor. While the actual excise tax is not charged until 2018 (at the earliest), the projection of that future tax might be required to be recognized in an employer’s financial statements today. “This is one of the more poorly understood impacts of the excise tax — and one that employers are just beginning to address with their actuaries and auditors,” noted Osterndorf.

“The excise tax is likely to have repercussions beyond health care plan design and delivery. To continue to offer sustainable employee benefit programs, employers today will need to look at all areas of employee rewards,” Abbott concluded.

http://www.towerswatson.com/press/1895

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:55 pm

BSmack wrote:
Truman wrote:You ARE aware, of course, of the House of Representatives intention to immediately repeal the Affordable Care Act, correct?
DOA when it hits the Senate.

Truman wrote:Futile gesture, granted, as such legislation should easily go down in flames on a party-line vote in the Senate. HOWEVER…

Hey, I know you're burning cars and looting liquor stores in celebration today between posts, but try to keep up...

BSmack wrote:Obviously you don't understand WHY it is DOA in the Senate. Democrats can play the filibuster game too. Which means 60 votes would be needed to even get to debate. None of the Senators with seats actually in any danger will ever have to cast a meaningful vote because now instead of a 4 vote cushion, there is a 14 vote cushion.

At the expense of their political capital? Of the 33 seats currently up for election, guess how many are held by Democrats? And of those 21, 6 are retiring. Projections already have a Republican majority seated in January. In an off-year, the Dems might get away with such grandstanding. But not this year. And your lethargic base is gonna sit this one out this fall, B

BSmack wrote:But you say, what about when Romney wins [snort]? Surely then he will be able to repeal?

Nope. Not a chance. Romney would have to overcome a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. Don't you see? Your dream of killing Obamacare is dead and you guys don't even know it yet. Watching and listening to dittotards today is like watching headless chickens running around a yard.

I don't think President Romney would agree with you. So a little something called the "constitutional option" only works when the Dems are in control? I think that option is pronounced "nuclear" in places like Rochester. Never say never, B.

And yes, in the case of Obamacare, I think it would be appropriate for Senate Majority Leader McConnell to exercise such an option. And once your precious Obamacare is gone - it's gone. Maybe in another generation when everybody either dies or forgets how destructive and dangerous a Democrat controlled House, Senate and Whitehouse are to our republic, you will have the votes again to pass such an abominable tax on the American people.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:18 pm

Truman wrote: I don't think President Romney would agree with you. So a little something called the "constitutional option" only works when the Dems are in control? I think that option is pronounced "nuclear" in places like Rochester. Never say never, B.

And yes, in the case of Obamacare, I think it would be appropriate for Senate Majority Leader McConnell to exercise such an option. And once your precious Obamacare is gone - it's gone. Maybe in another generation when everybody either dies or forgets how destructive and dangerous a Democrat controlled House, Senate and Whitehouse are to our republic, you will have the votes again to pass such an abominable tax on the American people.

I don't think it would even come to that. Assuming the Republicans gain control of the Sentate, this pile of shit can be repealed under the reconciliation process which only requires a simple majority.

Dumbfucks like BSuck haven't yet considered the fact that the CBO scoring (which was totally bogus to begin with) will have to be revised to account for the ruling. Exempting states from the medicare expansion will drastically increase the federal burden and, when anticipated revenues from the excise tax on Cadillac plans and the individual mand...err tax fail to meet expectations, this house of cards will collapse.

It simply isn't a sustainable program on any level.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:38 pm

Affordable Care Act. Marvelous.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:26 pm

Now some of the rest of us can suckle the gob'ment teat, not just Wolfman!

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:52 pm

Wolfman wrote:Affordable Care Act. Marvelous.

Three lies for the price of one, Wolfie...

BTW, somebody needs to drop Pelosi in a lake. What a lying, old cunt.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:07 am

Wolfman wrote:Affordable Care Act. Marvelous.

Isn't it? Your 30 gram chocolate ration is going up to 25 grams.

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:10 am

Rack all 1984 resets...

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:56 am

the title of the thread says more about the author than it does the subject.

"Suck it Dittochumps", that's the best you could do?

No reaching across the aisle for this guy.

Enjoy your moment, we'll see what happens in November when an infuriated electorate lines up at the polls.

Can you say "landslide"?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:05 am

Python wrote:Again, what the heck is being taxed?

It's a tax.

It's a birth certificate.

It's a...

Fun never ends.