RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans

RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/9/2009 11:47:21 AM)
Oh shit...I want to thank all those who participated in that little exchange with Willbeur.....that has to be some of the funniest shit I have seen here all year. Damm you guys are funny...but of course special mention goes to willbeur for his oh so touching concern for the $300,000 income(commited investor) going bankrupt. It brought tears to my eyes.....

tazzygirl -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/9/2009 10:30:18 PM)
quote: No, because in a free market it is impossible for health insurance premiums to increase to the point where only the wealthy can afford them. The implication would be that medical care is only provided to the wealthy, which is a reducto ad absurdum. i had thought you had sunk as low as you could go, then, with this comment, i realized just how further you can sink. medical is only provided to the wealthy. pre-existing conditions... check out what a policy would cost you. lower premium policies dont pay squat, and the out of pocket expense is high... most people say "why bother". when someone has to make a decision to eat or buy their medication... to pay rent or buy health insurance...again... money talks. employers offer policies, and they are getting more and more expensive and offering less and less benefits. LOL... i recall on another blog site someone asked... why is it such a big deal for insurance companies to collect information pertaining to the race of someone they insure. Now, people would be outraged. in 2003, it was considered a great step forward by Aetna. Drag your head out of the republican sand dune and realize.... one illness could put you smack into the middle of this debate instead of sitting on the side lines screaming... I GOT MINE.. FUCK THOSE WHO DONT!

cadenas -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/9/2009 11:30:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas And when health insurance premiums after the $40k family has committed their finances, it won't bankrupt them? No, because in a free market it is impossible for health insurance premiums to increase to the point where only the wealthy can afford them. The implication would be that medical care is only provided to the wealthy, which is a reducto ad absurdum. Yes, our current "free market" health care system is indeed reduced to absurdity. That's what US-style rationing of health care has done. You are aware that the health insurance premium for an average family is twice as much as their tax burden? You are aware that for most families, if their mortgage payment was as high as their health insurance premium, the bank would decline to give them a mortgage because they don't make enough money?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/10/2009 8:06:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas You are aware that the health insurance premium for an average family is twice as much as their tax burden? You are aware that for most families, if their mortgage payment was as high as their health insurance premium, the bank would decline to give them a mortgage because they don't make enough money? I doubt the first statement, but if it is true, its because half the fucking country doesnt pay any taxes. The second statement is clearly false.

Mercnbeth -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/10/2009 8:27:50 AM)
Altruistic appearances: Reid, who wants to get a healthcare bill finished by Christmas, urged Republicans on the Senate floor to forego a debate on several conference reports this weekend in order to give Senators and staffers the weekend off. Of course a shot at the powerless side of the aisle,most likely to garner bi partisan support. "I understand the Republican leader doesn't want us to do health care. I appreciate that. He and I have different positions on that," said Reid. "I see no reason to punish everybody this weekend and I hope the minority will give strong consideration to the proposal that I've made." A higher priority disclosed: It turns out Reid has a 1,000 plus per plate fundraiser scheduled for Saturday in New Orleans, according to one local paper, which also reports that Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-LA, a key swing moderate in the health care debate, will also be in attendance. Only self serving disclosure. Sorry - no quotes from the delusional still believing what's going to come out of Congress will provide better care, more access, or cause premiums to go down.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/10/2009 8:40:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Altruistic appearances: Reid, who wants to get a healthcare bill finished by Christmas, urged Republicans on the Senate floor to forego a debate on several conference reports this weekend in order to give Senators and staffers the weekend off. Of course a shot at the powerless side of the aisle,most likely to garner bi partisan support. "I understand the Republican leader doesn't want us to do health care. I appreciate that. He and I have different positions on that," said Reid. "I see no reason to punish everybody this weekend and I hope the minority will give strong consideration to the proposal that I've made." A higher priority disclosed: It turns out Reid has a 1,000 plus per plate fundraiser scheduled for Saturday in New Orleans, according to one local paper, which also reports that Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-LA, a key swing moderate in the health care debate, will also be in attendance. Only self serving disclosure. Sorry - no quotes from the delusional still believing what's going to come out of Congress will provide better care, more access, or cause premiums to go down. Or the delusional that think that adding a potential 50 million people to medicare after the proposed medicare cuts wont lead to higher Federal taxes. Or that think the cost shifting to Medicaid can be borne by the States without state tax increases..which will receive only passing comment in the CBO costing (if any mention at all) since the CBO only costs the Federal budget. Or that think that a bill with triggers for a government plan doesnt include a ....public option! Reid is toast. Steve Wynn has the money to ensure that he's exposed for the corrupt bastard that he is.

mnottertail -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/10/2009 8:42:50 AM)
What the fuck do you care about taxes, a financil wizard on this board says that half the people dont pay them anyway.

cadenas -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 4:42:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas You are aware that the health insurance premium for an average family is twice as much as their tax burden? You are aware that for most families, if their mortgage payment was as high as their health insurance premium, the bank would decline to give them a mortgage because they don't make enough money? I doubt the first statement, but if it is true, its because half the fucking country doesnt pay any taxes. That's kind of my point: crying about "taxes are too high" doesn't help the majority of Americans anywhere near as much as fixing health insurance. By the way, I misspoke in one respect. My data actually was for the median, not the average. quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy The second statement is clearly false. What do you base that wild assertion on?

cadenas -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 4:45:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Or the delusional that think that adding a potential 50 million people to medicare after the proposed medicare cuts wont lead to higher Federal taxes. Given that you just two posts earlier admitted that most Americans don't pay anywhere near as much taxes as health insurance premiums in the first place, it seems to me that this is not exactly a big deal.

Mercnbeth -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 6:01:18 AM)
The Senate Bill: STRIKE ONE - No Government option. STRIKE TWO - Limited Benefits: A loophole in the Senate health care bill would let insurers place annual dollar limits on medical care for people struggling with costly illnesses such as cancer, prompting a rebuke from patient advocates. STRIKE THREE - ?

rulemylife -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 6:39:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Um.. may wanna recheck your figures... the 100,000 pay range has already been paying Maximum Taxable Earnings: Social Security (OASDI only) 2008 - $102,000 and 2009 - $106,800 http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=310 and i havent heard a word about them going bankrupt excuuuuuse me for rounding. 6% of 6800...4k extra taxes, no big deal. 6% of 200k (the range I put) 12k...very big deal, even to a 300k earner. To begin, 6% of $106,800 is $6,408. You did, however, manage to get the second amount right. Bravo Willbeur. Though I'm not sure why a financial expert like you needs to round numbers. Is it really that much harder to use 6.2%? But I guess the lingering question is how 6% to someone making $106,800 is no big deal, while 6% to someone making $200,000 is a very big deal. It would seem to me that 6% would impact the lower earner far more than the person who makes more. But then again, I don't understand these complicated financial calculations as well as an expert like you does.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 8:48:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas You are aware that the health insurance premium for an average family is twice as much as their tax burden? You are aware that for most families, if their mortgage payment was as high as their health insurance premium, the bank would decline to give them a mortgage because they don't make enough money? I doubt the first statement, but if it is true, its because half the fucking country doesnt pay any taxes. That's kind of my point: crying about "taxes are too high" doesn't help the majority of Americans anywhere near as much as fixing health insurance. By the way, I misspoke in one respect. My data actually was for the median, not the average. quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy The second statement is clearly false. What do you base that wild assertion on? Uhhhhh....math. Average to highside family individual insurance premium is around $1000 a month. Assuming a $350 a month car payment and a typical total debt payment to income ratio of 40% the monthly income to qualify is $40.5k /year. Median family income is $52k/year so 1/2 of the families would clearly qualify.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 8:50:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Or the delusional that think that adding a potential 50 million people to medicare after the proposed medicare cuts wont lead to higher Federal taxes. Given that you just two posts earlier admitted that most Americans don't pay anywhere near as much taxes as health insurance premiums in the first place, it seems to me that this is not exactly a big deal. Your lack of ability to analyze astounds. If 1/2 the people dont pay taxes, and you add the cost of covering 50 million people under Medicare to the 1/2 that does pay taxes it is a huge deal.

mnottertail -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 8:55:51 AM)
well there is actually such a thing as 1/0 and it is impossible, not non-existant. your ability to come up with valid cites that fully half do not pay taxes is underwhelming, and not at all astounding. If you perform your analysis on numbers that have no meaning to anyone is the answer still astounding in context? Ron

willbeurdaddy -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 9:12:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Um.. may wanna recheck your figures... the 100,000 pay range has already been paying Maximum Taxable Earnings: Social Security (OASDI only) 2008 - $102,000 and 2009 - $106,800 http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=310 and i havent heard a word about them going bankrupt excuuuuuse me for rounding. 6% of 6800...4k extra taxes, no big deal. 6% of 200k (the range I put) 12k...very big deal, even to a 300k earner. To begin, 6% of $106,800 is $6,408. You did, however, manage to get the second amount right. Bravo Willbeur. Though I'm not sure why a financial expert like you needs to round numbers. Is it really that much harder to use 6.2%? But I guess the lingering question is how 6% to someone making $106,800 is no big deal, while 6% to someone making $200,000 is a very big deal. It would seem to me that 6% would impact the lower earner far more than the person who makes more. But then again, I don't understand these complicated financial calculations as well as an expert like you does. Yes, I misstated the first amount..but not in the way you think, because your math wasnt responding to the same issue I was. We are talking about the impact of ADDITIONAL TAXES. Tazzy was quibbling over my rounding of $106,800 to 100,000, so I was pointing out that that difference is not a big deal. However 6% of the INCREMENTAL 200k taxed for a 300k salary is a big deal. You are tripling his SS tax from 6k to 18k a year. His discretionary income after taxes (with typical itemized deductions) and typical 5% 401k contribution (about the only savings anyone is doing at that level) is around $140,000. Pull mortgage and real estate taxes out of that and your down to about 80,000. Losing 12,000 out of 80,000 is a very big deal indeed, and as I said before, bankruptcy territory if they can't sell the house they can no longer afford. <start the violins from the bleeding hearts who dont think anyone needs 68k to live on>

mnottertail -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 9:15:07 AM)
Well, then we need the other half of the $300,000 'wage earners' to start paying taxes. You got the answers, wilbur, let's get 'er done!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ron

tazzygirl -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 2:48:15 PM)
quote: Yes, I misstated the first amount..but not in the way you think, because your math wasnt responding to the same issue I was. We are talking about the impact of ADDITIONAL TAXES. Tazzy was quibbling over my rounding of $106,800 to 100,000, so I was pointing out that that difference is not a big deal. However 6% of the INCREMENTAL 200k taxed for a 300k salary is a big deal. You are tripling his SS tax from 6k to 18k a year. His discretionary income after taxes (with typical itemized deductions) and typical 5% 401k contribution (about the only savings anyone is doing at that level) is around $140,000. Pull mortgage and real estate taxes out of that and your down to about 80,000. Losing 12,000 out of 80,000 is a very big deal indeed, and as I said before, bankruptcy territory if they can't sell the house they can no longer afford. <start the violins from the bleeding hearts who dont think anyone needs 68k to live on> LOL.... Damn, you cant even read can you. allow me to remind you what you said..... fuck the allow, im gonna do it anyways... quote: quote: quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Personally, I believe that the solution - if there is one - is much simpler than that: eliminate the cap on social security taxes. That, too, should not be a huge political problem. It would be a huge political problem and an economic disaster. I would literally bankrupt many in the 100-300k salary range. Not to re-state the inequity that creates, since benefits are based on limited salary. Per YOUR post, you stated those who paid SS taxes on incomes of 100K would go bankrupt. I stated ... THEY ALREADY ARE! AND THEY ARENT GOING BANKRUPT Now, cant you keep a damn thing straight? Now.. here is another bee for your bonnet... quote: Losing 12,000 out of 80,000 is a very big deal indeed, and as I said before, bankruptcy territory if they can't sell the house they can no longer afford. Like i should give a damn about something who has 80K left over while 1 in 6 households in this country cant put food on the table... poor babies may not be able to take that summer vaca in the hamptons or that cruise next year... tsk tsk. Go cry a fucking river some where else!

willbeurdaddy -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 3:25:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Yes, I misstated the first amount..but not in the way you think, because your math wasnt responding to the same issue I was. We are talking about the impact of ADDITIONAL TAXES. Tazzy was quibbling over my rounding of $106,800 to 100,000, so I was pointing out that that difference is not a big deal. However 6% of the INCREMENTAL 200k taxed for a 300k salary is a big deal. You are tripling his SS tax from 6k to 18k a year. His discretionary income after taxes (with typical itemized deductions) and typical 5% 401k contribution (about the only savings anyone is doing at that level) is around $140,000. Pull mortgage and real estate taxes out of that and your down to about 80,000. Losing 12,000 out of 80,000 is a very big deal indeed, and as I said before, bankruptcy territory if they can't sell the house they can no longer afford. <start the violins from the bleeding hearts who dont think anyone needs 68k to live on> LOL.... Damn, you cant even read can you. allow me to remind you what you said..... fuck the allow, im gonna do it anyways... quote: quote: quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Personally, I believe that the solution - if there is one - is much simpler than that: eliminate the cap on social security taxes. That, too, should not be a huge political problem. It would be a huge political problem and an economic disaster. I would literally bankrupt many in the 100-300k salary range. Not to re-state the inequity that creates, since benefits are based on limited salary. Per YOUR post, you stated those who paid SS taxes on incomes of 100K would go bankrupt. I stated ... THEY ALREADY ARE! AND THEY ARENT GOING BANKRUPT Now, cant you keep a damn thing straight? Now.. here is another bee for your bonnet... quote: Losing 12,000 out of 80,000 is a very big deal indeed, and as I said before, bankruptcy territory if they can't sell the house they can no longer afford. Like i should give a damn about something who has 80K left over while 1 in 6 households in this country cant put food on the table... poor babies may not be able to take that summer vaca in the hamptons or that cruise next year... tsk tsk. Go cry a fucking river some where else! I cant read? You post what I said and then misread it in your own post. "MANY IN THE 100-300K RANGE" WHICH IS WHAT I SAID IS NOT THE SAME AS THOSE "MAKING 100K". And there are many that are making 100k who are on the border right now, and who will have problems after the roll back of the Bush tax cuts and paying for health care and cap and trade. And you are one of those crying for handouts, Im not crying about anything other than the ruination of the country.

tazzygirl -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 4:07:26 PM)
BS. You gave a range. People within that range have been paying taxes for how long now? and you cant even admit when you are wrong. Let me tell you about "hand outs". Businesses USED to look out for workers, knowing healthy, secure workers worked harder, were extremely loyal, and willing to give when the company needed them too. What happened to these companies? rofl.... republicans.. business schools... time studies on employees.... bottom lining everything... worrying about only net worth... and looking to the bean counters. as a result.. no company loyalty... why should there be... no loyalty to the workers. its everyone out for themselves. you should be proud, willbe. you along with Merc and a few others on these boards have lived up to what you desire... money grubbers. such a lovely comment from you at this time of year. hand outs indeed.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans (12/11/2009 4:13:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl money grubbers. such a lovely comment from you at this time of year. hand outs indeed. money earners, wealth creators. and yes, hand outs are hand outs, any time of the year. Bullshit surrounding a birth 2000 years ago doesnt make this time of year any different than any other.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.296875E-02