Taxes and Healthcare . . .

[champu 1]

I posted about this section last November. It doesn't say what your chain letter claims it does.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So you are saying that the tax will not be assessed until 2018?

It certainly doesn't apply to anything happening in 2011!

Here, read the document . . . or don't read it, simply search for the number 2011.

If your accountant said this applies to you next year, you seriously need to find a new one.

He said it will apply . . . he didn't give a date.

Here are the broad benchmarks:

These are the key components of the $940 billion health care overhaul bill (H.R. 3590) that is scheduled to take almost a decade to roll out in full.
2010 - Coverage
• Subsidies begin for small businesses to provide coverage to employees.
• Insurance companies barred from denying coverage to children with pre-existing illness.
• Children permitted to stay on their parents’ insurance policies until their 26th birthday.

2011 – Coverage and Taxes/Fees
• Set up long-term care program in which people pay premiums into system for at least five years and then become eligible for support payments if they need assistance in daily living.
• Drug makers face annual fee of $2.5 billion (rises in subsequent years).

2013 – Coverage and Taxes/Fees
• New Medicare taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and couples filing jointly earning more than $250,000 a year. Tax on wages rises to 2.35% from 1.45%. New 3.8% tax on unearned income such as dividends and interest.
• Excise tax of 2.9% imposed on sale of medical devices.

2014 – Coverage and Taxes/Fees and Cost Control
• Create exchanges where people without employer coverage, as well as small businesses, can shop for health coverage. Insurance companies barred from denying coverage to anyone with pre-existing illness.
• Requirement begins for most people to have health insurance. Subsidies begin for lower and middle-income people. People at 133% of federal poverty level pay maximum of 3% of income for coverage. People 400% of poverty level pay up to 9.5% of income. (Poverty level currently is about $22,000 for a family of four.)
• Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor, expands to all Americans with income up to 133% of federal poverty level.
• Subsidies for small businesses to provide coverage increases. Businesses with 10 or fewer employees and average annual wages of less than $25,000 receive tax credit of up to 50% of employer’s contribution. Tax credits phase out for larger businesses.
• Independent Medicare board must begin to submit recommendations to curb Medicare spending, if the costs are rising faster than inflation.

2016 – Taxes/Fees
• Penalty for those who don’t carry coverage rises to 2.5% of taxable income or $695, whichever is greater.

2017 – Coverage
• Businesses with more than 100 employees can buy coverage on insurance exchanges, if state permits it.

2018 – Taxes/Fees
• Excise tax of 40% imposed on health plans valued at more than $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

• Subsidies begin for small businesses to provide coverage to employees.

is there a condensed version of this?

All I found was: This:

Quote

- Require employers that offer coverage to their employees to provide a free choice voucher to employees with incomes less than 400 percent federal poverty level whose share of the premium exceeds 8 percent but is less than 9.8 percent of their income and who choose to enroll in a plan in the Exchange. The voucher amount is equal to what the employer would have paid to provide coverage to the employee under the employer’s plan, and will be used to offset the premium costs for the plan in which the employee is enrolled. Employers providing free choice vouchers will not be subject to penalties for employees that receive premium credits in the Exchange. (Effective January 1, 2014)

Where are the subsidies listed?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

I also did further research and contacted my accountant. He said that I am subject to this tax.

Fire your accountant. Dead serious.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

I also did further research and contacted my accountant. He said that I am subject to this tax.

Fire your accountant. Dead serious.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I'm not convinced that this limit is so high that people won't see it.

From the actual bill:

Quote

‘‘(I) in the case of an employee with self-only coverage, $8,500, and
‘‘(II) in the case of an employee with coverage other than self-only cov- erage, $23,000.

That's the annual coverage that wouldn't be considered in excess.

That's still pretty freekin' high.

What planet are you on? (same as Pirana)

My *current* policy runs a cost of $8000/yr. I pay 25% of it. This is a Blue Shield PPO plan. I still pay a deductable, 10% of costs, and a pretty typical $2000 year max expense. There are no fucking gyms or health spas in this package. And this from a company with 4000 employees, so it's not facing the pricing trouble that the small companies do. With the double digit increases (sometimes well over 10%) this year, it's pretty naive (or flat out dishonest) to not see the problem.

Now I could opt for Kaiser at 60% of the cost, and have health care where physical therapy is an unknown concept, or use the Blue Shield HMO, where I have to make an appointment with my PCP before I can make an appointment for the actual care. That would reduces costs, at the expense of the quality of care I receive.

Answer the question - why did unions demand and get this exemption? Why should the rest of us subsidize them merely for being in a union?

[quade 3]

Quote

My *current* policy runs a cost of $8000/yr. I pay 25% of it.

So then, my understanding is the company is paying for $6000 and that is the amount that would be applied in this example and that's well under the limit.

I'm not saying my understanding of the law is correct, but I understood the number to be applied is the amount the company is contributing.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,426]

>Although the exact amounts may not be correct, it is not false.

"Although it's not correct, it's true."

I think perhaps it is things like this that result in the GOP not being taken seriously sometimes.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

• Subsidies begin for small businesses to provide coverage to employees.

is there a condensed version of this?

All I found was: This:

Quote

- Require employers that offer coverage to their employees to provide a free choice voucher to employees with incomes less than 400 percent federal poverty level whose share of the premium exceeds 8 percent but is less than 9.8 percent of their income and who choose to enroll in a plan in the Exchange. The voucher amount is equal to what the employer would have paid to provide coverage to the employee under the employer’s plan, and will be used to offset the premium costs for the plan in which the employee is enrolled. Employers providing free choice vouchers will not be subject to penalties for employees that receive premium credits in the Exchange. (Effective January 1, 2014)

Where are the subsidies listed?

I did find this - It's a calculator for individual subsidies - but nowhere do I find anything about small business subsidies.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

My *current* policy runs a cost of $8000/yr. I pay 25% of it.

So then, my understanding is the company is paying for $6000 and that is the amount that would be applied in this example and that's well under the limit.

I'm not saying my understanding of the law is correct, but I understood the number to be applied is the amount the company is contributing.

The text I read was "cost of policy."

But this nuance is totally irrelevant. Given trending, do you really think 6000 wouldn't become 8500 in 8 years? That's a 4.5% increase per year. I can't recall ever seeing it under 5%.

Rolling around to your claim - these sort of policies are not exotic CEO level health plans. And whenever policy is set by fixed dollar amounts without regards to regional cost of living differences, California and other urban areas get hammered.

My cynical read on that is that Democrats see this as a way to eat their cake and have it too. They can get the faithful (suckers) in the big cities who are proud to give their tax dollars for idealistic notions. And the thresholds never impact those who live in the South or more rural areas where the prices/salaries can be 50-60%.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

My *current* policy runs a cost of $8000/yr. I pay 25% of it.

So then, my understanding is the company is paying for $6000 and that is the amount that would be applied in this example and that's well under the limit.

I'm not saying my understanding of the law is correct, but I understood the number to be applied is the amount the company is contributing.

The tax is on the plan, not on who pays for it.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[quade 3]

Quote

The tax is on the plan, not on who pays for it.

Hmmm, reading it again, you're right. I'm not sure where I got that notion.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>Although the exact amounts may not be correct, it is not false.

"Although it's not correct, it's true."

I think perhaps it is things like this that result in the GOP being looked at as a joke.

Fixed it

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

He said it will apply . . . he didn't give a date.

I am curious about a number of things though now . . . are you some high-powered executive at a company that gets some sort of extra-special health care coverage, like weekly in-home "chiropractic and therapeutic massage services" average workers don't get?

The entire bill seems to be set up for "excess benefit" coverage and I'm wonder just who it is that gets that?

One thing you need to remember is that the large unions were in oposition to the HC bill until they were exempted from the cadilac care taxation. Because the HC programs they had met the definition at that time so they would be taxed.

I do not know if the definition is still the same but that gives you an idea of where it started

You've always struck me as someone who most likely does manual work of some kind, probably a trade of some sort. Assuming you're not retired, which you might be.

So it makes me wonder why you are so quick to criticize unions. Sore point?

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[KidWicked 0]

turlespeed, just give up man, you got totally owned in this thread.

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

turlespeed, just give up man, you got totally owned in this thread.

Ditto

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

He said it will apply . . . he didn't give a date.

I am curious about a number of things though now . . . are you some high-powered executive at a company that gets some sort of extra-special health care coverage, like weekly in-home "chiropractic and therapeutic massage services" average workers don't get?

The entire bill seems to be set up for "excess benefit" coverage and I'm wonder just who it is that gets that?

One thing you need to remember is that the large unions were in oposition to the HC bill until they were exempted from the cadilac care taxation. Because the HC programs they had met the definition at that time so they would be taxed.

I do not know if the definition is still the same but that gives you an idea of where it started

You've always struck me as someone who most likely does manual work of some kind, probably a trade of some sort. Assuming you're not retired, which you might be.

So it makes me wonder why you are so quick to criticize unions. Sore point?

I was in a union for 17 years. Still a member just not a dues paying one. I manage union people today in the same trade. Great guys and gals who work hard and who's ass I will cover when it is the right thing to do. I got no beef with the members. The upper levels however are more evil than any corp you can mention and they do it on the backs of the members

By the way, I am in the IBEW

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

turlespeed, just give up man, you got totally owned in this thread.

\

lofl

thanks for the laugh man

good shit

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So it makes me wonder why you are so quick to criticize unions. Sore point?

In this case, the obvious reason is that their self interested action would need to be paid for by everyone else. What's to like about that?

In the bigger picture, the government unions are bankrupting local governments left and right, and that too doesn't endure them to taxpayers. With unions like the UAW, they do have to think about the survival of the company. But if you work for the city or state, that's not really a concern - they can always raise taxes.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

He said it will apply . . . he didn't give a date.

I am curious about a number of things though now . . . are you some high-powered executive at a company that gets some sort of extra-special health care coverage, like weekly in-home "chiropractic and therapeutic massage services" average workers don't get?

The entire bill seems to be set up for "excess benefit" coverage and I'm wonder just who it is that gets that?

One thing you need to remember is that the large unions were in oposition to the HC bill until they were exempted from the cadilac care taxation. Because the HC programs they had met the definition at that time so they would be taxed.

I do not know if the definition is still the same but that gives you an idea of where it started

You've always struck me as someone who most likely does manual work of some kind, probably a trade of some sort. Assuming you're not retired, which you might be.

So it makes me wonder why you are so quick to criticize unions. Sore point?

I was in a union for 17 years. Still a member just not a dues paying one. I manage union people today in the same trade. Great guys and gals who work hard and who's ass I will cover when it is the right thing to do. I got no beef with the members. The upper levels however are more evil than any corp you can mention and they do it on the backs of the members

By the way, I am in the IBEW

Unlike management who is there for us .

I know some unions will "give up" guys to save others, it's very utilitarian at times. But even in a closed shop state a member can tell the union he will hire his own representation and not use the union's, so it's not as compulsory as you make it seem. And per teh standard RW drivel, personal responsibility demands we take care of ourselves.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

So it makes me wonder why you are so quick to criticize unions. Sore point?

In this case, the obvious reason is that their self interested action would need to be paid for by everyone else. What's to like about that?

In the bigger picture, the government unions are bankrupting local governments left and right, and that too doesn't endure them to taxpayers. With unions like the UAW, they do have to think about the survival of the company. But if you work for the city or state, that's not really a concern - they can always raise taxes.

Yea, it'snot deficits in tax revs that are BKing cities and states . Brilliant.

AZ is selling off the prisons and most city buildings and we wave the NAzi flag when it comes to employee rights, so I doubt your limited / singular data is relevant.

[kelpdiver 2]

Did you have anything of substance to say, for a change? Anything remotely on topic?

Any attempt to defend this requested exemption?