Obamacare's effect on the middle class

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
anyways this is a pretty misleading article, largely around the incredibly misleading and vague term 'middle class' which in this case appears to be used in the old british sense of the word, not the pluralistic american sense. A single earner earning 85k is a very nice income in most areas and firmly upper middle class.

bullshit. That's squarely middle class. It's a factory workers wage, so are you trying to say a factory work is upper middle class?

Factory workers don't make $85k.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
lol.. and yet, demonstrable greed and unethical practices aside, neither of you addressed the simple fact that HI profits account for less than 2% of total US expenditures on healthcare.

What do you -- or the Admin -- plan on doing to address the 50% of total expenditures that are a result of real problems in our entire healthcare system? After all, out-of-control rising costs are the number one problem, and therefore the number one priority for reform, are they not?

Is your only goal to teach those 2% scumbags a lesson, or do you wish to address the real problems anytime soon?

Please repeat the phrase "less than 2%" over and over to yourself until it fucking sinks in.

Would you be ok if you were forced to buy a burger from me for $1,000,000? You see, my business pays me a salary of $980,293.16 per burger that I make. The company has a meager profit of $19,607.84 per hamburger sold. Heck, they'll throw in the cheese and ketchup for free. You'll buy that for sure, because, well there is only a 2% profit margin. I'm sure that Wendy's, or Burger King have more than a 2% profit margin, so I'm a bargain. Right?

umm, HI corporate executive salaries only account for roughly 0.004% (using last years numbers) of the total US expenditures for healhcare.

Woops.

Feel free to repeat that number until it sinks in as well.

Your point is correct. We have to address other parts of the health insurance pie. That is where we can make the biggest gains. We need to reduce demand for tests and procedures of minimal utility. We need to increase supply of doctors to bring their salaries down. We need to move tasks from expensive areas to inexpensive areas. That is where we'll make the biggest gains.

I agree 100%, but is any of that in the bill? I think not...

But, your point is just plain silly when you focus only on the profit margin where there is a lot of fat in the expense line (my $980k salary per burger example). Insurance companies can cut a lot of fat and still make a nice profit while saving far more than 2%.

See above. "Cutting fat" in HI company salaries would effect less than 0.004% of US' healthcare costs.

yay.

Numbers used:
X = https://www.cia.gov/library/pu...-factbook/geos/us.html">U.S. 2008 GDP</a> = $14.26 Trillion
Y = U.S. 2008 Healthcare Expenditures = 16% of X = $2.28 Trillion
Z = U.S. 2008 Heatlh Insurance CEO Salaries = $85.4 Million = 0.004% of Y
A = U.S. 2008 Health Insurance Profits = $8.6 Billion = 0.37% of Y

So, I was actually wrong. 2% was actually wayyy too high a number. The actual percentage of total U.S. healthcare expenditures for HI profits was much less than 1% in 2008.

So, for any of you who insist upon focusing on the "fat cats," and your only goal is to tackle a whopping 0.374% of the cost issue, then please go about your business happily ignoring the fact that the real problems obviously lie elsewhere. :roll:

(If I screwed the math up, anywhere, please correct me)

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
lol.. and yet, demonstrable greed and unethical practices aside, neither of you addressed the simple fact that HI profits account for less than 2% of total US expenditures on healthcare.

What do you -- or the Admin -- plan on doing to address the 50% of total expenditures that are a result of real problems in our entire healthcare system? After all, out-of-control rising costs are the number one problem, and therefore the number one priority for reform, are they not?

Is your only goal to teach those 2% scumbags a lesson, or do you wish to address the real problems anytime soon?

Please repeat the phrase "less than 2%" over and over to yourself until it fucking sinks in.

Would you be ok if you were forced to buy a burger from me for $1,000,000? You see, my business pays me a salary of $980,293.16 per burger that I make. The company has a meager profit of $19,607.84 per hamburger sold. Heck, they'll throw in the cheese and ketchup for free. You'll buy that for sure, because, well there is only a 2% profit margin. I'm sure that Wendy's, or Burger King have more than a 2% profit margin, so I'm a bargain. Right?

Your point is correct. We have to address other parts of the health insurance pie. That is where we can make the biggest gains. We need to reduce demand for tests and proceedures of minimal utility. We need to increase supply of doctors to bring their salaries down. We need to move tasks from expensive areas to inexpensive areas. That is where we'll make the biggest gains.

But, your point is just plain silly when you focus only on the profit margin where there is a lot of fat in the expense line (my $980k salary per burger example). Insurance companies can cut a lot of fat and still make a nice profit while saving far more than 2%.

This HC reform site lists the total health insurance industry CEO pay for 2008.

It's only $67 million. H3ll, if they all worked for free it wouldn't make a pennies worth of difference.

I'd like to see more data, maybe comp for ALL execs and officiers (and not just the CEO), but so far no one's put up anything that indicates for-profit HI companies and NOT the underlying HC costs themselves are the problem.

And don't forget that private HI must subsidize Medicare/Medicaid because the government forces big discounts on the HC providers that the private companies and individuals must pick up.

Also keep in mind that about 1/2 of those CEO's salaries just get's paid right back into the fed/state governments' coffers. So get rid of their salaries and get rid of fed/state revenue too.

Everybody knows what drives the HC cost problem, but nobody dares mention it. (Hint: Keeping people 65 and older alive for a little longer etc). No bill we've seen does a danmn thing to address our cost problem (not even easy stuff like tort reform/punative damages or allowing people here to buy their drugs at the same rates as Canadians etc)

See my sig.

Fern

 

[Zstream]

Why is it that people attack companies who make money? Do you attack Intel, Apple, Samsung, Toshiba, Walmart, Starbucks ?

No, it is because retards would rather have a damn I-phone or 6$ coffee then pay for medical insurance.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
lol.. and yet, demonstrable greed and unethical practices aside, neither of you addressed the simple fact that HI profits account for less than 2% of total US expenditures on healthcare.

What do you -- or the Admin -- plan on doing to address the 50% of total expenditures that are a result of real problems in our entire healthcare system? After all, out-of-control rising costs are the number one problem, and therefore the number one priority for reform, are they not?

Is your only goal to teach those 2% scumbags a lesson, or do you wish to address the real problems anytime soon?

Please repeat the phrase "less than 2%" over and over to yourself until it fucking sinks in.

So, you don't respond to any of it.. and try to make it sound 1000% profit over 5 years while covering less people and denying rightful care for profit is not part of the problem.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: spidey07
Marked before the moonbats start attacking the source of the research and totally dismissing the facts. These facts are coming from a PWC analysis.

You mean the facts that this estimate is based upon the fact that there is no public option to drive down costs?

Glad you now suppor the public option spidey. Do all conservatives feel this way? What are we fighting over? Welcome aboard!

No public option, no outrageous price increases and theft of your hard earned money to support deadbeats, just say no to socialism.

Er, the deadbeats already have Medicaid. Its the working poor that need the help.

And the millions upon millions with "pre-existing conditions" which could be pretty much everything nowadays.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Zstream
Why is it that people attack companies who make money? Do you attack Intel, Apple, Samsung, Toshiba, Walmart, Starbucks ?

No, it is because retards would rather have a damn I-phone or 6$ coffee then pay for medical insurance.

Do those companies kill people as part of their profit making? Do they deny rightful care that was paid for because they can get away with it and improve their profits?

Yeah, no big deal.. chips for computers and killing people/denying care/covering less people/bleeding our country is the same.

Braaaaiiiinnnssss.

I pay for medical insurance. Crappy insurance in Florida was $15k for 3 of us and $10k here in NJ for finally decent coverage. Go fuck yourself and your assumptions and grow a brain.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Insurance companies need to be dismantled and we need full single payer. These scumbags need to be torn apart.

This is what you spout day after day after day. We need better handling of pre-existing conditions. But the insurance care many of us are getting is perfectly fine and will be better than what the government can ever provide us...

My parents (now deceased) were both on Medicare, and when I compare the level of care and the lack of hassles they received over the years with that I've experienced from my employer-provided policy (which on paper is damn good), it's no contest: Medicare wins hands down.

In fact, almost everyone on Medicare reports they're pretty happy with their coverage, but lots of people under private policies have all sorts of problems.

So be careful with your assessment of private- versus government-provided insurance: Government does do a lot of things right.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Alienwho

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Alienwho
If 85K is middle class, pretty much everybody I know who makes 50k, has a damn nice place to live, multiple vehicles and toys must be in absolute poverty.

Newsflash, for the majority of the United States, below 30 is "poverty" (nice to be impoverished and still having a washing machine, don't you think?) 30-45 lower middle, 45-60 middle, 60-90 upper middle, 90 - 200 upper, 200+ elite. You might think 85k is middle class in chicago if you live in a down town high rise, but you take that pay and commute a half hour to suburbia and you're in the upper middle class.

I'm an hour commute south from downtown Chicago. $85k is getting towards the upper end of middle class, but it's certainly not upper middle class. Try again.

Chuck

Here is a list of average wages in Chicago from 2007. A quick scan resulted in less than 15 that exceeded 85k. And by the looks of it, if you were over 80 you were way over (100k+) The 80-100k doesn't seem to exist. If 85k is middle class, than 90% of that list is lower-middle class, with most falling into the lower class spectrum.

Your own list there has 'septic tank servicer' at $44k a year. Many many many (Most in this day and age? Quite possibly.) households are two income earner. So Hubby makes $44k a year literally pumping sh1t, and his 'receptionist' Wife makes $28k a year...two low intelligence, low skilled jobs that combined make $72k a year. You're thinking that a single income earner who has a good job making in the upper $70k to say low $90k range is upper middle class??!?! Okey dokey...

Worse, you want that person, if he/she is the sole income earner in their household (maybe they have a family, maybe it's just two people, maybe it's just that one person) to pay $4k more a year? For what? The 'bartender' who's been F'ing off life to get subsidized health insurance?

No thanks. These 'Oh they can work on many things at once' failures we all call Politicians need to be locked into chambers, fed what the local school kids/military get to eat, and aren't allowed out until they've got a final - that means zero edits until bill is passed/not-passed - bill posted online for all of us to see. Then, the public should get a month, month and a half to examine it, given the magnitude of the bill.

Take another $4k a year away from middleclass folks...buwhahahaa...I F'ing love it, you can't make this sh1t up.

Chuck

 

[umbrella39]

Imagine that, the insurance lobby saying prices premiums will go up if they aren't allowed to continue to buttsex their customers! /shock at shills and their defenders

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
lol.. and yet, demonstrable greed and unethical practices aside, neither of you addressed the simple fact that HI profits account for less than 2% of total US expenditures on healthcare.

What do you -- or the Admin -- plan on doing to address the 50% of total expenditures that are a result of real problems in our entire healthcare system? After all, out-of-control rising costs are the number one problem, and therefore the number one priority for reform, are they not?

Is your only goal to teach those 2% scumbags a lesson, or do you wish to address the real problems anytime soon?

Please repeat the phrase "less than 2%" over and over to yourself until it fucking sinks in.

So, you don't respond to any of it.. and try to make it sound 1000% profit over 5 years while covering less people and denying rightful care for profit is not part of the problem.

No, I agree that their unethical practices are part part of the problem; but, in terms of the bigger picture -- costs -- their profits and salaries only equate to roughly 0.374% of the problem.

I haven't seen anything from the Admin to indicate that they are doing anything to address the real reasons for the rising costs; and none of their proposals include any aspect that would eventually reduce our total expenditures by the 40 to 50% less that we should be spending on healthcare as a nation.

Talking about sticking it to the evul CEO's, and pointing out their measly profits and salaries, does absolutely nothing to solve our fucking healthcare problem -- NOTHING.

 

[Jhhnn]

Three pages into it, I think it's time for somebody to point out that the original article is pure propaganda. The author extrapolates what he thinks will happen, co-ops vs public option, then labels it as Obamacare. That's hardly the truth, at all. Co-ops have been tossed into the mix as a spoiler, by the very interests the author supports...

 

[Jadow]

So, this plus crap and rape (cap and trade), + giant debt totally sinking the dollar =

about $7000 higher costs per year for the average household, and their net worth on a global scale is about half as much.

Yeah great plan Obama.

Anyone here think Obama was planted in Hawaii by the Russians in the 60's to take us down from the inside?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
lol.. and yet, demonstrable greed and unethical practices aside, neither of you addressed the simple fact that HI profits account for less than 2% of total US expenditures on healthcare.

What do you -- or the Admin -- plan on doing to address the 50% of total expenditures that are a result of real problems in our entire healthcare system? After all, out-of-control rising costs are the number one problem, and therefore the number one priority for reform, are they not?

Is your only goal to teach those 2% scumbags a lesson, or do you wish to address the real problems anytime soon?

Please repeat the phrase "less than 2%" over and over to yourself until it fucking sinks in.

So, you don't respond to any of it.. and try to make it sound 1000% profit over 5 years while covering less people and denying rightful care for profit is not part of the problem.

No, I agree that their unethical practices are part part of the problem; but, in terms of the bigger picture -- costs -- their profits and salaries only equate to roughly 0.374% of the problem.

I haven't seen anything from the Admin to indicate that they are doing anything to address the real reasons for the rising costs; and none of their proposals include any aspect that would eventually reduce our total expenditures by the 40 to 50% less that we should be spending on healthcare as a nation.

Talking about sticking it to the evul CEO's, and pointing out their measly profits and salaries, does absolutely nothing to solve our fucking healthcare problem -- NOTHING.

It will help people that are denied or canceled rightful care, which makes up millions of americans... so , yes, that is SOMETHING.

Notice how every other country pays half what we pay for more? Notice that our insurance companies are making massive profits? Yeah, no connection! Let's just play pretend!

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Jadow
So, this plus crap and rape (cap and trade), + giant debt totally sinking the dollar =

about $7000 higher costs per year for the average household, and their net worth on a global scale is about half as much.

Yeah great plan Obama.

Anyone here think Obama was planted in Hawaii by the Russians in the 60's to take us down from the inside?

The insurance companies want to continue raping america so threaten to raise our rates? Yeah, that is obama's fault!

This "study" was made by and for the insurance companies to threaten americans and congress. Yet, instead of going after them, you blame obama? Are you fucking braindead?

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Zstream
Why is it that people attack companies who make money? Do you attack Intel, Apple, Samsung, Toshiba, Walmart, Starbucks ?

No, it is because retards would rather have a damn I-phone or 6$ coffee then pay for medical insurance.

Do those companies kill people as part of their profit making? Do they deny rightful care that was paid for because they can get away with it and improve their profits?

Yeah, no big deal.. chips for computers and killing people/denying care/covering less people/bleeding our country is the same.

Braaaaiiiinnnssss.

I pay for medical insurance. Crappy insurance in Florida was $15k for 3 of us and $10k here in NJ for finally decent coverage. Go fuck yourself and your assumptions and grow a brain.

This is what is wrong with America.

You believe that people have a right to health care, I believe people have the right to purchase health care.

You believe that other people should pay for your health care, I believe you have the right to purchase your own health care.

You believe that since you are unable to pay for health care that someone else should pay for it. I believe you have the right and ability to get another job and improve your situation.

FYI, I pay 210$ a month for health care. If I have a family of three I should expect to pay 630$ a month. My assumptions are accurate and to the point. Based off of your prior post history, I could take a wager on how much you make, how much you spend and how much you are in debt. I use deductive reasoning to make my arguments. The scrupulous method of the HC industry is a different argument all together and deserves attention.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
lol.. and yet, demonstrable greed and unethical practices aside, neither of you addressed the simple fact that HI profits account for less than 2% of total US expenditures on healthcare.

What do you -- or the Admin -- plan on doing to address the 50% of total expenditures that are a result of real problems in our entire healthcare system? After all, out-of-control rising costs are the number one problem, and therefore the number one priority for reform, are they not?

Is your only goal to teach those 2% scumbags a lesson, or do you wish to address the real problems anytime soon?

Please repeat the phrase "less than 2%" over and over to yourself until it fucking sinks in.

So, you don't respond to any of it.. and try to make it sound 1000% profit over 5 years while covering less people and denying rightful care for profit is not part of the problem.

No, I agree that their unethical practices are part part of the problem; but, in terms of the bigger picture -- costs -- their profits and salaries only equate to roughly 0.374% of the problem.

I haven't seen anything from the Admin to indicate that they are doing anything to address the real reasons for the rising costs; and none of their proposals include any aspect that would eventually reduce our total expenditures by the 40 to 50% less that we should be spending on healthcare as a nation.

Talking about sticking it to the evul CEO's, and pointing out their measly profits and salaries, does absolutely nothing to solve our fucking healthcare problem -- NOTHING.

It will help people that are denied or canceled rightful care, which makes up millions of americans... so , yes, that is SOMETHING.

Notice how every other country pays half what we pay for more? Notice that our insurance companies are making massive profits? Yeah, no connection! Let's just play pretend!

again... and for the last time... the "connection" you speak of results in a whopping 0.374% of the total US expenditures on healthcare. So the "massive profits" you're so eager to put a stop to would address less than half of one percent of our total healthcare costs.

Fucking swell.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
anyways this is a pretty misleading article, largely around the incredibly misleading and vague term 'middle class' which in this case appears to be used in the old british sense of the word, not the pluralistic american sense. A single earner earning 85k is a very nice income in most areas and firmly upper middle class.

bullshit. That's squarely middle class. It's a factory workers wage, so are you trying to say a factory work is upper middle class?

Seconded. In the Chicago area at least, $85k a year household income is squarely solid middle class. NOT upper middle class, definitely not lower class.

Now, you go to some state like Kentucky or a poorer area in the US, then yeah, $85k a year is definitely upper middle class.

Got to seriously question the mentality of folks thinking a household making $85k a hear is upper middle class.

Chuck

Chucky, I'm with ya. 85k in Chicago is peanuts. Hell, I make only a little more than that, am single, and I'm definitely not rolling in the benjamins. I'm not poor either, but I couldn't imagine supporting a family of four around here on that. You'd be broke as a joke.

However, "middle class" really needs to be defined by the country as a whole.

Personally, I think that taxes really should have some kind of cost-of-living modifier built in. But that would equalize the board, and thereby, raise the red-states' taxes, and we can't have that.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Alienwho

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Alienwho
If 85K is middle class, pretty much everybody I know who makes 50k, has a damn nice place to live, multiple vehicles and toys must be in absolute poverty.

Newsflash, for the majority of the United States, below 30 is "poverty" (nice to be impoverished and still having a washing machine, don't you think?) 30-45 lower middle, 45-60 middle, 60-90 upper middle, 90 - 200 upper, 200+ elite. You might think 85k is middle class in chicago if you live in a down town high rise, but you take that pay and commute a half hour to suburbia and you're in the upper middle class.

I'm an hour commute south from downtown Chicago. $85k is getting towards the upper end of middle class, but it's certainly not upper middle class. Try again.

Chuck

Here is a list of average wages in Chicago from 2007. A quick scan resulted in less than 15 that exceeded 85k. And by the looks of it, if you were over 80 you were way over (100k+) The 80-100k doesn't seem to exist. If 85k is middle class, than 90% of that list is lower-middle class, with most falling into the lower class spectrum.

Honestly 110k+ combined income is upper middle class around Chicago. 180k+ is well off.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Insurance companies need to be dismantled and we need full single payer. These scumbags need to be torn apart.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Insurance companies need to be dismantled and we need full single payer. These scumbags need to be torn apart.

This is what you spout day after day after day. We need better handling of pre-existing conditions. But the insurance care many of us are getting is perfectly fine and will be better than what the government can ever provide us...

Wait until you lose your job, i wonder if you would feel the same way?

COBRA!

Get ready to pay $1900 a month. That's what my COBRA coverage would have been (this past NOV->AUG), if I had a wife and kids.

Luckily, I'm single and only had to pay $470 or so.

Night and day compared to the $50/month I was paying for the same coverage while I was employed.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: ebaycj


Get ready to pay $1900 a month. That's what my COBRA coverage would have been (this past NOV->AUG), if I had a wife and kids.

Luckily, I'm single and only had to pay $470 or so.

Night and day compared to the $50/month I was paying for the same coverage while I was employed.

ARRA!

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: spidey07
Marked before the moonbats start attacking the source of the research and totally dismissing the facts. These facts are coming from a PWC analysis.

You mean the facts that this estimate is based upon the fact that there is no public option to drive down costs?

Glad you now suppor the public option spidey. Do all conservatives feel this way? What are we fighting over? Welcome aboard!

No public option, no outrageous price increases and theft of your hard earned money to support deadbeats, just say no to socialism.

Er, the deadbeats already have Medicaid. Its the working poor that need the help.

And the millions upon millions with "pre-existing conditions" which could be pretty much everything nowadays.

In fact, I was just told by my new insurance (BCBS-IL) that if I went in for something as simple as a headache, it would be flagged pre-existing. The CSR said that basically everything would be flagged as pre-existing for the next 8 months.

... Until I told her that I had overlapping coverage THROUGH THE SAME COMPANY. All of a sudden, it was, "Oh I'm sorry sir, That must have been an oversight. I'll get that flag removed from your coverage immediately."

What a fucking scam. Oversight my ass. The flag is set to "no prior coverage" by default.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ebaycj


Get ready to pay $1900 a month. That's what my COBRA coverage would have been (this past NOV->AUG), if I had a wife and kids.

Luckily, I'm single and only had to pay $470 or so.

Night and day compared to the $50/month I was paying for the same coverage while I was employed.

ARRA!

Well, yes, the ARRA was a nice check that I got after my COBRA coverage was no longer needed. Though ~$150/month would have been WAY more affordable. Covering a family would still be around $600 per month.

However, that's not a permanent solution, as COBRA only lasts for so long.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Unlike you, I don't lie.

:laughlease. stop it, your killing me:laugh:

OK, time to put your money where your mouth is. Please document, with quotes and refuting sources, where I have lied.

It's not rocket science, anybody who claims they don't vote but spends all day posting theirn opinions on a stupid internet politifcal forum is obviously lying about something. You're only fooling yourself, but then that's not too hard to do.