Ready For the Real Obamacare to be Implemented?

Nov 8, 2012
20,842
4,785
146
So who is ready for the Obamacare?

Oh, you didn't know? The american middle class is about to start paying a shitload more on their health insurance. Why? Because apparently people who want to take care of themselves and not be sick or have large medical expenses need to PAY MOAR!!! The costs of the actual insurance isn't enough, because it needs to be taxed.

I have to ask ATOT - especially the liberals - how do you justify the incoming Cadillac Tax on decent employer healthcare? Most people on ATOT are:
1) Employed
2) Have decent to good healthcare insurance
3) Will likely be affected by this - and will see the results when you pick your benefits for 2018 likely.





WASHINGTON (AP) — The last major piece of President Barack Obama's health care law could raise costs for thrifty consumers as well as large corporations and union members when it takes effect in 2018.

The so-called Cadillac tax was meant to discourage extravagant coverage. Critics say it's a tax on essentials, not luxuries. It's getting attention now because employers plan ahead for major costs like health care.

With time, an increasing number of companies will be exposed to the tax, according to a recent study. The risk is that middle-class workers could see their job-based benefits diminished.

First to go might be the "flexible spending accounts" offered by many companies. The accounts allow employees to set aside money tax-free for annual insurance deductibles and out-of-pocket health costs. That money comes out of employees' paychecks, and they're not able to use it for other expenses. Savvy consumers see it as a way to stretch their health care dollars.

The catch is that under the law those employee contributions count toward the thresholds for triggering the tax.

There are other wrinkles: Companies in areas with high medical costs, such as San Francisco, are more likely to be exposed to the Cadillac tax than those in lower-cost areas like Los Angeles. Ditto for employers with unionized workers who won better benefits through bargaining.

Republicans in Congress and a sizable contingent of Democrats are calling for repealing the tax. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the front-runner Democratic presidential candidate, says she's concerned and would re-examine the tax. Since it doesn't take effect right away, it's an issue for the next president.

"As currently structured, I worry that it may create an incentive to substantially lower the value of the benefits package and shift more and more costs to consumers," Clinton said in response to a candidate questionnaire from the American Federation of Teachers.


The Cadillac tax has two purposes: to act as a brake on health care spending and to raise money for covering the uninsured.

The value of employer-sponsored health insurance is tax-free to workers and tax-deductible for companies. It amounts to an income tax break worth $206 billion this year, according to the president's budget. Many economists call that an indirect subsidy that encourages wasteful spending. They argue that if not the Cadillac tax, some other kind of limit is needed. Major Republican health overhaul plans have also proposed curbs.

A recent study from the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that 26 percent of all employers would face the tax in at least one of their plans during its first year, 2018. Nearly half of larger companies would face the consequences of the tax that same year, because they tend to offer better benefits.

"It is a pretty broad-based tax that has a powerful effect on controlling the growth of premiums," said Larry Levitt, a co-author of the study. "The downside is workers may see an increase in their out-of-pocket costs."

Since the tax is indexed to general inflation, which rises more slowly than health insurance premiums, over time it would affect a growing share of health plans.

The Obama administration says such studies overstate the potential impact. The Treasury Department said in a statement that only "a small fraction of workers" would be affected. Regulations to implement the tax could soften some feared consequences, but proposed rules aren't expected until late this year or early next.

The Cadillac tax is 40 percent of the value of employer-sponsored plans that exceeds certain thresholds: $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage. The tax is levied on insurers and plan administrators, who are expected to pass it back to employers. The 40 percent rate is well above the income tax rates that most workers face.

Joe Kra of the benefits consultancy Mercer said he believes many employers will be required to make fundamental changes in their health plans to mitigate the tax's impact. Measures such as ditching flexible spending accounts may not be enough. That would accelerate a shift to high-deductible plans that require workers to pay a bigger share of health costs before insurance kicks in.

Here are some other potential twists:

— The Treasury Department says it is considering an exemption for flexible spending account contributions for dental and vision care, which are two popular uses.

The health care law already limited FSA contributions and without such accommodations, the Cadillac tax could lead to their demise.

"A benefit that you are offering your employees so they can save money on taxes is going to wind up costing you money," said economist Paul Fronstin of nonprofit Employee Benefit Research Institute.

— Treasury is also trying to figure what do about a different kind of workplace arrangement called a "health savings account."

A growing number of workers have high-deductible health insurance that comes with tax-sheltered health savings accounts, or HSAs, that they and their employer can contribute to.

But if an employee has his or her contribution deducted from their paycheck, it could potentially trigger the tax.

Officials say they're considering options.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/appro...-not-just-levy-luxury-190707190--finance.html

And in all honesty - Do you really think companies are going to pay this ridiculous tax? Of course not. They are going to lower everyone's coverage until it is within range of not paying. So essentially, this tax has done nothing but make our insurance worse off for those of us that want to be prepared for possible future costs/risks. That's nice :rolleyes:
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,041
4,682
126
Why again should the government be subsidizing our health insurance?
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,862
17,403
136
Why again should the government be subsidizing our health insurance?

Maybe not subsidizing but being involved looks to be pretty critical:

q6vneot.png
 
Last edited:
Nov 8, 2012
20,842
4,785
146
Why again should the government be subsidizing our health insurance?

I'm not going to agree or disagree one way or the other with indirect subsidies, but what is the point of subsidizing it and then saying "Welllll, we will subsidize this... but if you give them too much coverage then you gotta pay! Don't want those filthy middle class Americans having too much coverage"
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,963
55,354
136
How many of these 'I know it's working now but wait until the REAL OBAMACARE HITS' threads are there? I remember them before the initial taxes/regs went into effect, I remember them before the marketplaces went into effect, I remember them before the second year happened, I think some people said 'WAIT UNTIL 2016' recently, etc.

At this point it's just getting sad. It never ceases to baffle me how some people don't want to accept success because it came from the wrong political sports team.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,842
4,785
146
How many of these 'I know it's working now but wait until the REAL OBAMACARE HITS' threads are there? I remember them before the initial taxes/regs went into effect, I remember them before the marketplaces went into effect, I remember them before the second year happened, I think some people said 'WAIT UNTIL 2016' recently, etc.

At this point it's just getting sad. It never ceases to baffle me how some people don't want to accept success because it came from the wrong political sports team.

Initial taxes barely went in 2014. That was the first wake-up call for a bunch of people. Next it doubles to 2% of income, then goes to 2.5% of income.

Toss in the Cadillac tax in 2018.

And you're judging it based on what has been implemented so far? You're a funny guy.

Great arguments ol' chap.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,742
6,761
126
How many of these 'I know it's working now but wait until the REAL OBAMACARE HITS' threads are there? I remember them before the initial taxes/regs went into effect, I remember them before the marketplaces went into effect, I remember them before the second year happened, I think some people said 'WAIT UNTIL 2016' recently, etc.

At this point it's just getting sad. It never ceases to baffle me how some people don't want to accept success because it came from the wrong political sports team.

It is the job of the CBD to kill the other sports team. They are the evil other and not a variant and valuable co-member of the same league. The CBD says, see only evil as you destroy yourself and your own country. Essentially they are brain defective psychopaths who love being that way because their self hate is eating them alive with all the constant terror of self recognition this implies.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
So who is ready for the Obamacare?

Oh, you didn't know? The american middle class is about to start paying a shitload more on their health insurance. Why? Because apparently people who want to take care of themselves and not be sick or have large medical expenses need to PAY MOAR!!! The costs of the actual insurance isn't enough, because it needs to be taxed.

I have to ask ATOT - especially the liberals - how do you justify the incoming Cadillac Tax on decent employer healthcare? Most people on ATOT are:
1) Employed
2) Have decent to good healthcare insurance
3) Will likely be affected by this - and will see the results when you pick your benefits for 2018 likely.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/appro...-not-just-levy-luxury-190707190--finance.html

And in all honesty - Do you really think companies are going to pay this ridiculous tax? Of course not. They are going to lower everyone's coverage until it is within range of not paying. So essentially, this tax has done nothing but make our insurance worse off for those of us that want to be prepared for possible future costs/risks. That's nice :rolleyes:

Good, I don't give a damn about the middle class as if they voted for this they deserve to get it good and hard. And better yet, no more progressive refusing to put their money where their mouth is always saying it's a "collective action problem." I'm especially gratified their own law ensures they're picking up an outsized amount of the costs:

There are other wrinkles: Companies in areas with high medical costs, such as San Francisco, are more likely to be exposed to the Cadillac tax than those in lower-cost areas like Los Angeles. Ditto for employers with unionized workers who won better benefits through bargaining.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,963
55,354
136
Initial taxes barely went in 2014. That was the first wake-up call for a bunch of people. Next it doubles to 2% of income, then goes to 2.5% of income.

Toss in the Cadillac tax in 2018.

And you're judging it based on what has been implemented so far? You're a funny guy.

Great arguments ol' chap.

Haha. Just like I said.

In 2018 you will be saying JUST WAIT UNTIL 2019 I SWEAR.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,877
30,675
136
Initial taxes barely went in 2014. That was the first wake-up call for a bunch of people. Next it doubles to 2% of income, then goes to 2.5% of income.

Toss in the Cadillac tax in 2018.

And you're judging it based on what has been implemented so far? You're a funny guy.

Great arguments ol' chap.

But wasn't it already supposed to collapse? I thought what was implemented so far was supposed to bring about the end of health care in this country and drive costs through the roof.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,963
55,354
136
But wasn't it already supposed to collapse? I thought what was implemented so far was supposed to bring about the end of health care in this country and drive costs through the roof.

The reasoning as to why it will be a disaster changes about once a year as well.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Maybe not subsidizing but being involved looks to be pretty critical:

q6vneot.png

So which of those countries listed on the left side of your graphic have lower instances of preventable illnesses.... like heart disease, diabetes, or obesity?

What percentage of the total health expenditure per capita goes to preventable illnesses?

Add that data and when you are done, please repost.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,862
17,403
136
So which of those countries listed on the left side of your graphic have lower instances of preventable illnesses.... like heart disease, diabetes, or obesity?

What percentage of the total health expenditure per capita goes to preventable illnesses?

Add that data and when you are done, please repost.

Um no I'm not going to do that these are the facts, admittedly the costs are a few years old but everything points to US healthcare getting more expensive. One fact is every other country listed have Government involvement that actually works. Look at Mexico we know they have heart disease equal to or at a higher rate than the US. How can any person think that our system which is set up unlike anywhere else in the developed world which also has the highest costs is anything but the system being flawed.
 
Last edited:

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,795
8,375
136
Opposition against the ACA is originating from the Repub Party and not from the Health Care Industry, nor from those umpteen millions of folks who, if the ACA was the disaster the opposition party makes it out to be, would be storming the White House and the Halls of Congress to make immediate changes.

I haven't heard a peep from either, so I have to assume those horror stories emanating from the RNC simply aren't true.

The Repub Party can scheme and plot and connive, commit subterfuge and sabotage all they want to kill the ACA, but if the providers of health care and the recipients of the service aren't raising the roof over how the ACA is negatively affecting this aspect of our society, then obviously, it must be working at some acceptable level, and that points to the fact that the only folks who are making a stink about it are doing it purely for political gain and has absolutely NOTHING to do with how the ACA is doing what it's supposed to be doing.
 
Last edited:

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Um no I'm not going to do that these are the facts, admittedly the costs are a few years old but everything points to US healthcare getting more expensive. One fact is every other country listed have Government involvement that actually works. Look at Mexico we know they have heart disease equal to or at a higher rate than the US. How can any person think that our system which is set up unlike anywhere else in the developed world which also has the highest costs is anything but the system being flawed.

How long would I have to wait to have an MRI in Mexico versus here in the U.S.? In the U.S. were have the highest rates of diagnostic equipment per patient. If I twisted my knee at lunch while out walking.... I could be having an MRI by 5:00 p.m. Just an example.. don't read into it as more than that.

In Mexico, you would probably end up walking with a limp the rest of your life.

And you should add more data to the graph. The U.S. suffers from self-induced obesity and it's related health issues. Many more people aren't classified as obese but still suffer from bad lifestyle choices.. smoking, poor diet, no exercise to name a few. The solution is to not say fuck it we will just subsidize everyone.... but to reform healthcare in a meaningful way.

Prior to obamacare health savings accounts were doing that. With HSA's the healthcare consumer was more in tune with the true costs of healthcare. I've seen this for years living in Tennessee. Before obamacare we had tenncare which provided insurance to people who could not afford it or had pre-existing conditions. You would not believe how much was wasted by tenncare users going to the emergency room to get tylenol for free.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,844
33,906
136
I have to ask ATOT - especially the liberals -

Why would you ask the liberals? Obamacare is a conservative scheme. The liberals wanted a single payer system. Some even wanted a nationalized health system. Instead, we got a Heritage Foundation scheme.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,877
30,675
136
Why would you ask the liberals? Obamacare is a conservative scheme. The liberals wanted a single payer system. Some even wanted a nationalized health system. Instead, we got a Heritage Foundation scheme.

The Heritage Foundation is a bunch of RINOs...
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
The government single payer will probably be like how the VA takes care of Veterans. Waiting 6 weeks to a year for an appointment. Looking forward to that. As soon as the government realizes they cant afford it, they will just lower what can be paid on a claim like they do for Medicare. Use that as a real example.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Why would you ask the liberals? Obamacare is a conservative scheme. The liberals wanted a single payer system. Some even wanted a nationalized health system. Instead, we got a Heritage Foundation scheme.

If it was a conservative scheme it would have been something like "pay for your own fucking healthcare you leech." Instead it's some asinine Rube Goldberg machine of taxes/penalties and subsidies flying this way and that with little rhyme or reason. If Dems would have simply said "here's a subsidy for everyone to buy a catastrophic insurance plan and fund a Health Savings Account" we would have been done already. The more you get away from keeping it simple the worse your results tend to be.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Under the ACA if your pay increases with a raise, then you end up having to pay back the subsidies or some part of it. That is just plain stupid. People cant accurately predict their gross pay for the next year. This makes the whole system unmanageable.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,963
55,354
136
The government single payer will probably be like how the VA takes care of Veterans. Waiting 6 weeks to a year for an appointment. Looking forward to that. As soon as the government realizes they cant afford it, they will just lower what can be paid on a claim like they do for Medicare. Use that as a real example.

I always find it funny that conservatives think America is the best country in the world except when it comes to running our government. Then, America is a uniquely incompetent first world country that can't accomplish what all the rest have.

It just so happens to conveniently match up with what they are ideologically predisposed to want, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.