[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: ObamaCareÂ’s imploding even without repeal
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://nypost.com/2015/11/22/obamac ... imploding-even-without-repeal/
Published: Nov 23, 2015
Author: By Post Editorial Board
Post Date: 2015-11-23 09:37:47 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 3974
Comments: 61

It’s looking like ObamaCare won’t survive even if Congress can’t manage to repeal it.

The nation’s largest health insurer, UnitedHealth Group, said last week that it’s losing too much — $425 million — from policies sold on the health exchanges, and may have to pull out by 2017.

The company admits it’s “a potentially huge blow” to the new system: “If a major publicly traded insurer bows out, others may follow and destabilize the entire individual market.”

Game over for ObamaCare?

UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley seems to imply just that: “We can’t really subsidize a marketplace that doesn’t appear at the moment to be sustaining itself.”

Mind you, UnitedHealth was a huge backer of the 2009 law. One of its top execs, Andrew Slavitt, then joined the administration to run the health exchanges.

What’s going on here? Basically, the long-feared “death spiral”: Not enough young, healthy folks are signing up for these plans, so insurers are losing money despite the hefty federal subsidies for the coverage. They’re raising premiums to even things out — but that drives even more folks away, so that only older, less-healthy customers remain, driving new losses . . .

Looking at the collapse of the ObamaCare “cooperatives” a few weeks back, Betsy McCaughey warned in these pages that the death spiral was under way.

Now here’s America’s biggest insurance provider saying pretty much the same thing. Hemsley cited weak enrollment and high medical costs for those who did sign up.

And the Obama administration itself last month predicted 2016 enrollment would be less than half of what the Congressional Budget Office predicted in March.

Republicans have been tossing around plans to replace ObamaCare from the start. Now it’s time for Democrats to join in — unless they want to get caught looking when the whole thing goes belly-up.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: All (#0)

UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley seems to imply just that: “We can’t really subsidize a marketplace that doesn’t appear at the moment to be sustaining itself.”

Mind you, UnitedHealth was a huge backer of the 2009 law. One of its top execs, Andrew Slavitt, then joined the administration to run the health exchanges.

You can pretty much count on things ending badly when you sell your soul to the devil.

Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president

no gnu taxes  posted on  2015-11-23   9:39:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: no gnu taxes (#0)

That's part of the plan. It was designed for failure ... an intermediate step at best . The emperor and the Dems have always wanted a universal single payer European type system. They will make the argument that leaving national health care in the hands of the greedy Big Insurance,Big Pharma etc was the big flaw in Obamacare .

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-11-23   9:43:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: no gnu taxes (#0)

It is past time to repeal Obama Care, Obama, and all of the Dem's!

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

There are no Carthaginian terrorists.

“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton

Stoner  posted on  2015-11-23   10:04:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: tomder55 (#2)

The emperor and the Dems have always wanted a universal single payer European type system. They will make the argument that leaving national health care in the hands of the greedy Big Insurance,Big Pharma etc was the big flaw in Obamacare .

And they will be right, too.

We need universal Medicare, birth to death, paid for by taxes. That's what we need, and that's what we're going to get, eventually.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-23   10:33:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: tomder55 (#2)

The emperor and the Dems have always wanted a universal single payer European type system.

Unless there are MAJOR changes to the make up of Congress (and it doesn't appear there will be), that is no going to happen for a long time. The Republicans, as wussy as they might be, aren't going to vote in a single payer system.

Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president

no gnu taxes  posted on  2015-11-23   10:46:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: no gnu taxes (#0) (Edited)

"The nation’s largest health insurer, UnitedHealth Group ... may have to pull out by 2017."

Oh, I see. They were all for it when it looked like they'd make billions off the people forced to purchase their insurance. Now it doesn't look so good and they they want to "pull out"?<

No, no, no, no. They wanted it, they got it. They can pull out when WE are a allowed to pull out.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-23   10:51:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Vicomte13 (#4)

We need universal Medicare, birth to death, paid for by taxes. That's what we need, and that's what we're going to get, eventually.

You might be able to get these massive social welfare programs to work to some degree in small countries with homogeneous populations, and a common identity; however it's not going to work in the US. With a population as big and as diverse as it is, and with warring interests throughout, the producers aren't going to serve as a money bag for the beggars, especially when the beggars see them as the enemy.

Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president

no gnu taxes  posted on  2015-11-23   10:51:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Vicomte13 (#4)

"We need universal Medicare, birth to death, paid for by taxes."

We need Medicaid for the poor. Nothing else.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-23   10:59:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: misterwhite (#8)

We need Medicare for everybody, nothing more, nothing less.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-23   11:05:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Vicomte13 (#4)

And they will be right, too.

We need universal Medicare, birth to death, paid for by taxes. That's what we need, and that's what we're going to get, eventually.

If they are so right about it then why did they use Fabian tactics of gradualism with all their lies about what it would accomplish, passing it in the dead of night during a lame duck session of Congress on Christmas Eve ? Why couldn't they make their case to the American people that a universal top down single payer healthcare system is preferable if it really is so great ?

What your system brings to us is the final control of the individual by the state . The state decides what health care you need and if you are worth the expense. There is no appealing their edict .

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-11-23   11:13:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: tomder55 (#10)

What your system brings to us is the final control of the individual by the state .

He pretends to be a catholic. But in reality he is like a new world order deceitful Jesuit.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-23   11:17:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Vicomte13 (#9)

"We need Medicare for everybody, nothing more, nothing less."

Only 40% of Medicare is funded by the government. The rest is funded by payroll deductions and premiums.

You convinced me. Medicare for everyone who can afford it.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-23   11:19:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: no gnu taxes (#7)

You might be able to get these massive social welfare programs to work to some degree in small countries with homogeneous populations,

France is not all that small (about a fifth of the US population), and it is not at all homogeneous, but the French health insurance system (which is universal Medicare) works great.

The German health insurance system is pretty good too. So is the Italian. And Dutch and Belgian. And Danish and Swedish and Norwegian and Finnish and Austrian. Add those up, and you've got something approximating the population of the US, something not homogeneous, and something that all has health care about as good as here, and health insurance much better.

Ditto for universal public education there versus here. They educate as many kids, better, cheaper than we do. Because they wholeheartedly accept the universal national duty to do so, and they don't have a major electorate that opposes the IDEA of universal education. The kids over there clobber ours on math and sciences. We don't get much for OUR money, but that's not because universal public education doesn't work. It's because Americans are foolishly disunited on the need for it.

Ditto for the retirement systems. They have them, we have a hodge-podge of social security and IRAs.

Their taxes are higher to pay for these things. But when you combine the cost of our taxes PLUS the other money we have to spend to replace the health insurance, educational expenses and retirement benefits that the America-sized chunk of Europeans pay for out of their taxes, you discover that Americans pay MORE of their income to cover the same services that the Europeans do efficiently through government, and that the services and protections in America are shittier - for a higher price.

American social welfare is poor, BECAUSE we stupidly inject profit-seeking private corporations into providing what ought to be provided universally and consistently through government insurance on a not-for-profit basis, we end up spending a great deal more money, net-net, to get a great deal less.

But the for-profit middle-men, politically connected and savvy, who stockjob these public insurance programs by filling the gap, THEY are as happy as pigs in slop in the US crony capitalist system of providing basic social insurance.

And folks like you will fight against your own interests to your dying breath, because you have been utterly bamboozled by the propaganda of these middlemen, and will categorically refuse to actually look at the numbers and results. The results contradict an ideology you've bought, and you're not going to rethink it.

Which is too bad for you and for the rest of us too, because we really need bright conservatives to stop standing for crony capitalism, to understand that social insurance is part of necessary infrastructure for a modern economy, and to insist upon good financial management of the universal not-for-profits to cover these human infrastructural needs.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-23   11:22:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: tomder55 (#10)

If they are so right about it then why did they use Fabian tactics of gradualism with all their lies about what it would accomplish, passing it in the dead of night during a lame duck session of Congress on Christmas Eve ? Why couldn't they make their case to the American people that a universal top down single payer healthcare system is preferable if it really is so great ?

Because they're Democrats, and Democrats lie like they breathe. So do Republicans.

If the numbers were presented square to Americans, and the lies of Left and Right anticipated and counterbattery fire made in detail, I think the American people would "get it".

But it wouldn't matter, would it? Congress has a 9% approval rating, but it jams through all sorts of laws contrary to the will of the people.

Look at immigration. Vast majorities want control of our borders. Congress knows that, and does not care.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-23   11:28:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: misterwhite (#12)

Only 40% of Medicare is funded by the government. The rest is funded by payroll deductions and premiums.

You convinced me. Medicare for everyone who can afford it.

Payroll deduction is government. It's a forced tax. If people did not have to pay that tax, they would opt out and the system would collapse.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-23   11:29:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: A K A Stone (#11)

He pretends to be a catholic. But in reality he is like a new world order deceitful Jesuit.

I pretend nothing.

"Catholic" means universal. I am indeed a member of the Universal Church, and believe that it ought to be universal over all of mankind, for there is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female: all are one in Christ Jesus.

Jesus left a Church, not a Bible dispensary. The Church is the vehicle by which Christ's message has been carried, and will continue to be carried, throughout the world.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-23   11:31:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Vicomte13 (#15)

"Payroll deduction is government."

No. It's your payroll. The government takes money from you (and your employer) to pay for Medicare.

"If people did not have to pay that tax, they would opt out and the system would collapse."

Correct. They would use that money to buy private insurance, a system I prefer.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-23   11:33:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: misterwhite (#17)

No. It's your payroll. The government takes money from you (and your employer) to pay for Medicare.

Fiction.

"Involuntary mandatory payroll deductions" is deceptive political language that is used to allow folks like you to pretend to an alternate reality.

That which money, involuntarily subtracted (on pain of prosecution for non- compliance) and paid over to government, is a TAX.

You can do all of the semantic gymnastics you'd like, but the truth is that your health insurance (I assume that you are over 65) is government-funded social insurance paid for by taxes.

As it should be. But everybody should be covered, not just people over 65.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-23   11:40:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Vicomte13 (#16)

There is one church. But it isn't the Catholic church.

If it was they wouldn't call the pope Holy Father.

They wouldn't consider his words gods.

They wouldn't pray to mary.

They wouldn't remove the commandment about idols. Because they worship idols.

They woulodn't be full of pedophiles covered up by the churth.

The false prophet wi9ll be a pope imo.

Deceiving and being deceived comes to mind when I think of you.

Alos it did not rain Windex for 40 days and 40 nights. It rained water.

Another saying from the bible reminds me of you. SOmething about being boastfulo and proud.

FOr example when you came to the forum you came and said the forum would succeed because you were here and you are so smart and you write so well.

You also deny the power of God and say men piced and choosed and wrote the Bible.

You're an interesting character though. I enjoy correcting you even if you think I'm full of it.

We do have some common ground though. You don't buy evolution. You believe in the flood. Even the part I didn't think you would know about which was the floodgates of heaven eing opened and that being a source of rain.

So as I point out what I see to be flaws, contradictions, ignorance in your posts. I will admit that you do make a good point from time to time.

So dont take my words I say to you as the way I see it. If I am incorrect you could correct me with actual scripute. Not silly things like saying windex is ater in the Bible.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-23   11:40:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: All (#19)

Please forgive they typos above. I wrote them without glasses on. I will correct later.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-23   11:41:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Vicomte13 (#18)

funded social insurance paid for by taxes.

As it should be.

What chapter and verse is that found in?

Oh it isn't based on the Bible it is based on your presonal beliefs.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-23   11:43:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: A K A Stone (#21)

What chapter and verse is that found in?

Oh it isn't based on the Bible it is based on your presonal beliefs.

HOW to specifically fund social insurance, in the Christian church, is not spelled out.

How God did it in the one state he directly ruled is, extensively, with tithe and distribution.

Of course, they didn't have modern medicine then. Rather, they had God's promise that if the Hebrews in the land of Canaan ate the way God said to, he would not inflict on them the diseases that he inflicted upon Egypt.

(Did you get that part, about GOD (not Satan), inflicting the diseases on Egypt. God sure killed a lot of Egyptians, didn't he? Killed the Hebrews in the desert too.)

You know what, Stone, I'm going to take up your challenge. I'm going to sit down and write out, in full, the answer to every challenge you've made, and nail it all down with Scripture, line by line, directly cited.

You paraphrase, inaccurately, but you demand that I give point cites. Very well. Challenge accepted.

It will probably take me a year to do it all, and the result will be a very long book. I will post that book here, on your site. It will be thorough and exhaustive. And the beauty of then will be that I will only need to reference the page of the "Book for Stone", and on that page will be cite after cite after cite after cite, all point cited, that will answer every challenge you have made.

Until I've finished that, I won't post anywhere on the boards anymore. See you in a year.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-23   12:03:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Vicomte13 (#22)

You mad man! Aye, I'd say let him have it and gurgle his own words when the Time comes.

ebonytwix  posted on  2015-11-23   12:06:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Vicomte13 (#22)

And the beauty of then will be that I will only need to reference the page of the "Book for Stone",

Call it "Book for Pebbles".

See you in a year, Lord willing.

Fred Mertz  posted on  2015-11-23   12:14:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Vicomte13 (#18) (Edited)

"That which money, involuntarily subtracted (on pain of prosecution for non- compliance) and paid over to government, is a TAX."

You're the one using semantics because you want to obscure the truth by generalizing and calling everything a tax.

"You can do all of the semantic gymnastics you'd like, but the truth is that your health insurance (I assume that you are over 65) is government-funded social insurance paid for by taxes."

Medicare is funded from the general fund (40%), from the Medicare payroll deduction (40%) and from Medicare insurance premiums (20%).

"But everybody should be covered, not just people over 65."

Medicare is not free. If people want to pay the premiums, sure, I'd sign them up and cover them.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-23   12:15:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#12)

Only 40% of Medicare is funded by the government. The rest is funded by payroll deductions and premiums.

Medicare funds come from the Social Security Administration.

The Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is funded by the payroll tax. This covers Medicare Part A, things like inpatient hospital care, skilled nursing facility care, home health care, and hospice care.

Also, Medicare program administration, like costs for paying benefits, collecting Medicare taxes, and combating fraud and abuse

The Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund is funded by appropriated tax dollars. This covers Part B (Medical Insurance) and Part D (Drug coverage).

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-23   14:45:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: tomder55, no gnu taxes (#2)

That's part of the plan. It was designed for failure ... an intermediate step at best . The emperor and the Dems have always wanted a universal single payer European type system. They will make the argument that leaving national health care in the hands of the greedy Big Insurance,Big Pharma etc was the big flaw in Obamacare .

Correct. Obamacare is designed to fail (slow enough to have the beneficiaries addicted). Single payer will be offered as the only solution. Single payer is essentially reducing the age eligibility requirement of Medicare to zero. Paying for it is a bit of a problem.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-23   15:06:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: nolu chan (#26)

I don't care who disburses the funds. Most of the funds come from payroll deductions and insurance premiums.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-23   15:09:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: no gnu taxes, tomder55, CZ82 (#0)

What’s going on here? Basically, the long-feared “death spiral”: Not enough young, healthy folks are signing up for these plans, so insurers are losing money despite the hefty federal subsidies for the coverage. They’re raising premiums to even things out — but that drives even more folks away, so that only older, less-healthy customers remain, driving new losses . . .

A poster at another site told me if you are young and healthy with kids you pay through the nose.

His brother (family of 5) apparently has a policy (did not say exchange or corporate)which requires a $5,000.00 a year deductible in addition to premiums. For a young healthy family of 5 why bother? They will no doubt spend less than a grand a year for check ups and kids sick out of school.

"Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6

redleghunter  posted on  2015-11-23   15:28:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Vicomte13 (#22)

You know what, Stone, I'm going to take up your challenge. I'm going to sit down and write out, in full, the answer to every challenge you've made, and nail it all down with Scripture, line by line, directly cited.

No need to do that. I just point out the stuff I disagree with you on.

If I agree with you on it I don't tel you.

Maybe I should do that so you don't think I disagree with everything you say.

Ok some of my comments to you are a bit rude. But some of the things you say I just disagree with. So don't take it personallh.

Note to self lighten up on Vic he is actually an ok guy, even if I disagree with him and think he is ful of it at times.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-23   16:13:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: A K A Stone (#11)

He pretends to be a catholic. But in reality he is like a new world order deceitful Jesuit.

until the current Vicar of Christ was seated I always assumed that socialism and Catholicism was incompatible . Actually I know that most of the Popes of our age condemned socialism . Socialism is government deified; No law but that which serves the state. No god except that one which supports obedience of the state. No life matters except that life which can give the state what it desires, a subservient worker.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-11-23   16:14:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#28)

[misterwhite #12] Only 40% of Medicare is funded by the government. The rest is funded by payroll deductions and premiums.

[misterwhite #28] I don't care who disburses the funds. Most of the funds come from payroll deductions and insurance premiums.

The payroll deductions are extracted from people who are not eligible for Medicare. The government, in turn, uses their money to pay Medicare bills. It is a tax. It is not an income tax, it is an EXCISE TAX. The payroll deductions are a tax.

It is something like Social Security. You pay in all your life on a government promise of a benefit down the road. As you move on down the road, the government can move goal line and change the value of a touchdown.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html

Social Security & Medicare Tax Rates

Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program and Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) program are financed primarily by employment taxes. Tax rates are set by law (see sections 1401, 3101, and 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code) and apply to earnings up to a maximum amount for OASDI.

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751.html

IRS

Topic 751 - Social Security and Medicare Withholding Rates

Taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) are composed of the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance taxes, also known as Social Security taxes, and the hospital insurance tax, also known as Medicare taxes. Different rates apply for these taxes.

The current tax rate for Social Security is 6.2% for the employer and 6.2% for the employee, or 12.4% total. The current rate for Medicare is 1.45% for the employer and 1.45% for the employee, or 2.9% total. Refer to Publication 15, (Circular E), Employer's Tax Guide, for more information; or Publication 51, (Circular A), Agricultural Employer’s Tax Guide, for agricultural employers.

Only the Social Security tax has a wage base limit. The wage base limit is the maximum wage that is subject to the tax for that year. For earnings in 2015, this base is $118,500. Refer to "What’s New" in Publication 15 for the current wage limit for Social Security wages; or Publication 51 for agricultural employers.

There is no wage base limit for Medicare tax. All covered wages are subject to Medicare tax.

In tax years 2013 and later, Additional Medicare Tax applies to an individual’s Medicare wages that exceed a threshold amount based on the taxpayer’s filing status. Employers are responsible for withholding the 0.9% Additional Medicare Tax on an individual’s wages paid in excess of $200,000 in a calendar year, without regard to filing status. An employer is required to begin withholding Additional Medicare Tax in the pay period in which it pays wages in excess of $200,000 to an employee and continue to withhold it each pay period until the end of the calendar year. There is no employer match for Additional Medicare Tax. For more information, see Questions and Answers for the Additional Medicare Tax on IRS.gov.

Page Last Reviewed or Updated: October 06, 2015

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-23   17:34:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: A K A Stone (#30)

No need to do that. I just point out the stuff I disagree with you on.

Alright, then, can you give me a list?

If you give me a list of the specific things you want me to answer, I will answer them, point by point, with as much Scripture as you could ever care to see.

I don't make things up.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-23   17:37:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: nolu chan (#32)

Yes, it's a tax. Medicare (and Medicaid), Social Security, Public Education, Roads, Airports, Seaports, Storm Sewers and Water Treatment Plants are all necessary parts of the infrastructure of a modern society.

Government in the US doesn't do things like drill and sell its own oil from government lands, so the government has to take in the revenue that it spends on these things from the people. Some things may be called "excises", some, "surcharges". Some are called "fees" and "registration payments". Other things are called "surcharges", or "imposts". Generically, they're all "taxes".

If it's mandatory and it gives a revenue stream to government, it's a tax.

In effect, civil forfeitures, parking fees and speeding tickets are all "taxes" upon certain behaviors. Civil forfeiture is particularly galling, because the behavior doesn't even have to be illegal, and the standard by which the government can keep money is "preponderance of the evidence", which is hardly a standard at all.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-23   17:43:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: nolu chan (#27)

Single payer is essentially reducing the age eligibility requirement of Medicare to zero.

So then Medicare becomes Medicaid, except there are no income or asset or dependent qualification issues? And there's plenty of money to pay for all these services? And Bill Gates and Warren Buffet will get to go the plethora of doctors that are still available for free?

Or maybe the rich folks will go to private, easily accessible medical services, and everybody else will be doomed to crappy medical care like exists in all the other countries with with socialized medicine.

Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president

no gnu taxes  posted on  2015-11-23   18:00:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: no gnu taxes (#35)

everybody else will be doomed to crappy medical care like exists in all the other countries with with socialized medicine.

French medicine is as good as US medicine. There are no long waits. The people pay for the services through their taxes.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-23   18:04:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: redleghunter (#29)

$5,000.00 a year deductible in addition to premiums

I've heard of up to $12,000 deductibles...

No reason whatsoever to get insurance with that kind of stipulation...

Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!

CZ82  posted on  2015-11-23   18:15:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: no gnu taxes (#35)

So then Medicare becomes Medicaid, except there are no income or asset or dependent qualification issues? And there's plenty of money to pay for all these services?

Medicare for all would replace Medicaid, except maybe for some who would not qualify for Medicare for all. There would be no qualification issues, except maybe citizenship or legal residence.

As it is, when you become eligible, Medicare becomes your primary insurer, whether you like it or not.

I'm sure Gates and Buffett would go to doctors who are available for fee. Doctors could do both in the UK when I was there.

The health insurance companies would lobby against. It would put them out of business, to be replaced by government administration. Perhaps Uncle Sam could contract out the administration to large, existing health insurance companies at some exorbitant rate, and Uncle could take all the risk.

I did not say it would be free. The UK and other countries make it work, but Washington is different. In theory it could work, in practice, Washington corruption would probably spawn another monster. They might create something that eats more than all the money in the world.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-23   18:24:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: nolu chan (#32)

"The payroll deductions are a tax."

They are specific taxes with a specific, corresponding obligation by the government. The point being, both Social Security and Medicare are programs funded by the individuals who will later benefit from those programs.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-23   18:39:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: CZ82 (#37)

"I've heard of up to $12,000 deductibles..."

My healthy, single 28-year-old son signed up for the cheapest plan, pays $245 per month, $40/$80 co-pay per visit, and a $7,000 deductible.

Meaning he has to run up about $10,000 in costs before his insurance kicks in.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-23   18:50:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: misterwhite (#40)

sounds incrediable or very, very stupid

paraclete  posted on  2015-11-23   18:56:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: paraclete (#41)

"sounds incrediable or very, very stupid"

Sounds like Obamacare to me.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-23   19:00:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: Vicomte13 (#22)

It will probably take me a year to do it all, and the result will be a very long book. I will post that book here, on your site. It will be thorough and exhaustive. And the beauty of then will be that I will only need to reference the page of the "Book for Stone", and on that page will be cite after cite after cite after cite, all point cited, that will answer every challenge you have made.

Maybe you don't need a Book of Stone. Or anyone else.

You should realize there's a good chance you could spend a year writing it and no one would read it (including Stone). For a guy who won't even archive his writings on a Wordpress blog, writing a book to settle an argument on a thread on an obscure forum like LF seems a bit over the top.

You aren't even arguing the facts on this thread about the major insurer acting like it is pulling out of ObamaCare next year. You're on a tangent about the merits of single-payer, something never mentioned in the article at all.

Winning an argument over a few off-topic posts on a dusty forum is not worth spending a year to write a book about.

OTOH, if you do waste a year to write a book about single-payer, I suppose I could spend the year writing a book about why people get so het up over a few posts on an obscure forum, a study of the pathologies of news aggregator trolling.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-23   20:09:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: TooConservative (#43)

Well, Too, it's like this. The things that Stone and I were really arguing about are matters of God's Will, Scripture, life after death, Heaven and Hell. The subject matter - social insurance - is just a ring for shadowboxing. The REAL issue is religion, and it's the most important subject in the universe.

And the truth it, nothing about it is simple, because God is not simple. God is unutterably complex and superior. So what we have from him is itself complex, variegated. There is plenty of room in it for interpretation and disagreement.

What I am writing (because I have decided to go ahead and write it) is a long, systematic discussion of what God actually SAID, from the beginning through to the last thing written in Scripture, and what he has done since, that unifies what he said and did, to the extent that it can be unified.

This is of immense importance to me, because such a work answers not just the arguments that Stone makes, but ANY argument that is worth arguing. When one group of Christians is shouting that social supports through government are part of God's plan and mandate, and another group are shrieking that it's satanic and satanic to say so, there is a disconnect so profound that there isn't any hope for the world if it stays that way. Christ prayed for unity for a reason: division has weakened the whole Church, side to side, top to bottom.

It is a question - an open one - as to whether or not Scripture applied with reason can really unite Christians to a common purpose. I have the faith that it can, but I recognize that some aspects of God's message are offensive to everybody, with different pieces offending different people. The only way to overcome that revulsion, I believe, is to actually hammer out the points of contention, showing what God really said and did and meant. Once that is clear, it becomes difficult to continue to resist it and remain Christian.

But Scripture was revealed in a certain order, and God's revelation comes in layers. If you skip steps in its exposition and jump around to the point cites that you think makes your point, you lose the thread of the whole. The only way to keep the thread of the whole is to start at the beginning and move forward, carefully, expansively, observing the features along the way, and pointing out the ones that will become important later.

Example. the creation story itself was only important for giving a brief explanation of the origin of sin until the 1800s. Then, with theories of continental drift, dinosaur bones and evolution, the creation story became important because it was suddenly at odds with the rising science. Now, probably the greatest obstacle to faith in the world is science versus Genesis. 200 years ago, Genesis was an obscure backwater.

Today, to skip past Genesis to get to other stuff means to render the whole exercise useless to anybody who thinks of himself as "scientific". You HAVE TO address the issue of origins and science. You can't just leave it there, or it destroys the very foundation of Christianity. There is no point in reading the Bible or paying any attention to Jesus if it's not TRUE, and Genesis v. science makes it very much appear not true from the very beginning.

Waving hands around and saying "faith!" fail utterly. People born into a religion will have the "faith" through culture. Nobody else will believe a word of it. No, you actually have to ENGAGE the thoughts, and you cannot do it with a sneer on your lip. You have to LISTEN to the science and LOOK AT their evidence, and then present what Genesis REALLY SAYS. The traditional read of Genesis actually fails, and the reason that it fails is because the traditional read is a myth. What Genesis ACTUALLY SAYS is different from what the traditions say it says, and that difference is very important. Lots of people have read the words, but they haven't challenged them.

Before 1840, there was no reason to challenge them, but now we live in a world where the traditional read HAS been challenged, and largely destroyed, because of scientific facts, or things that appear to be facts. Screaming that it's a question of blind faith means the death of Christianity - and make no mistake, the massive drop off in Church attendance and the withering of the religion is mostly BECAUSE OF the inability of erroneous traditions and fables to actually ANSWER the science. Creation Museum" explanations don't cut it either. But what is actually written in Genesis, and the way it is written, are sobering IF IT'S ACTUALLY READ with the same care that a microscope slide is examined.

If God exists at all, and if he inspired this text, then he knew that the day would come when human science would seem to render Genesis, and therefore all of the rest of the Bible, an old myth. So, He either really exists and saw to it that deep truths are contained in Genesis that only modern scientific minds can see - the ANTIDOTE to "scientific atheism", or the atheists are right and it's just a bronze age myth.

As it happens, what's embedded in Genesis is utterly profound. But that profundity is not found in the English of 1611, or 1970. It is found in the Hebrew characters that comprise Genesis, and the subtle wording of the text in Hebrew.

God had to describe quantum physics using the language of Early Bronze Age bedouins. That's tough to do, unless you're God.

But it takes care and patience to see it. Once one does see it, though, one bends the knee and says "My Lord and my God", for there is no other way to explain the depth and texture of what is there. Blundering through using antiquated English doesn't cut it, though.

Genesis imposes a discipline on us, and the methodology that I offer proves itself in the first, hardest case: science versus religion. Relying on the inspired text as it is written, and reason, one realizes that science and religion cannot be perfectly squared, but also that science as currently believed does not square with all of the facts on offer. And in Genesis we get a glimpse of what WILL BE discovered, because God revealed it.

Completing this tour-de-force with Genesis gives us a great deal more confidence that our technique is a good one for really coming face to face with the God who inspired the Scriptures. And in the process it silences the Christian denominational bickering, because none of the denominations have the answers that God himself has, and revealed in his inspired word.

To get there, though, requires the discipline to start at the beginning and move forward, and to not permit partisans, however well meaning, to leap ahead in the story line and pick and choose a passage here and a passage there. It was revealed in a certain order, and that's how it ha to be unwrapped, in the same order, if one wants to understand.

This is worth doing irrespective of an argument with Stone, and it is a far more productive use of my time than arguing with cannibals about Medicare.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-23   21:15:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: CZ82 (#37)

I've heard of up to $12,000 deductibles...

No reason whatsoever to get insurance with that kind of stipulation...

It's a roll of the dice. If a young family has a kid develop cancer at about the age my son did and no insurance, they will be in debt in the high hundreds of thousands.

It's a gamble. My son was the healthiest kid in school ate a lot of fish, good foods, but alas somewhere in his DNA lurked the gene.

Such healthy families should have a catastrophic policy. Works almost like life insurance. You would get a lot nipping at that. Pay your own well visits, immunizations, sick call etc. But if a life changing event happens you pay x amount and the insurance kicks in.

Or they can do what we did and serve. Our healthcare is looking better each day:)

"Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6

redleghunter  posted on  2015-11-23   21:18:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: Vicomte13 (#44) (Edited)

Today, to skip past Genesis to get to other stuff means to render the whole exercise useless to anybody who thinks of himself as "scientific". You HAVE TO address the issue of origins and science. You can't just leave it there, or it destroys the very foundation of Christianity. There is no point in reading the Bible or paying any attention to Jesus if it's not TRUE, and Genesis v. science makes it very much appear not true from the very beginning.

Yes jesus was either liar, lunatic or Lord but if you believe him to be Lord then you have to believe what he says even if it conflicts with the scientific fable that pond scum became man.

the thing is the antichrist is with us and it's name is science. Science tries to fill in the details the Bible left out and in the process leaves Jesus out. there are a lot of things science hasn't answered but we have to listen to crackpot theories as truth, that is until the next truth that is discovered which renders previous truths obsolete. A friend of mine went to university to study science. The first day they told him forget everything you have learned, we had to teach you something so we taught you that.

paraclete  posted on  2015-11-23   22:14:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: paraclete (#46)

I disagree with the way you look at it. I do not believe that the choice is between the eyes God gave us and the reason behind those eyes, and somebody's else's opinion of what the Bible says.

There are tensions between Genesis and current scientific theory. There are also tensions within different parts of the Bible. These tensions are what make the study interesting.

You say you just have to believe what Jesus said. I don't dispute that at all. What I have been disputing with many of you is precisely what Jesus said. I see many things that Jesus and YHWH said that other Christians assert he did not say. And I see them assert several things that he supposedly said, but when I look at the text, I do not see that at all, but something different.

If it is simply a matter of "Jesus said whatever I choose to believe" - which is precisely what it appears to me that most Christians actually do, then that renders Christianity no different from Islam or any other pile of stinking superstitious crap. Christianity is only of any use if it is TRUE, and it is important to get it right. Just because Christians want to believe a certain thing doesn't mean that they are right. If Jesus said something different, then Christians need to adjust their beliefs to match his.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-23   23:07:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: paraclete (#46)

A friend of mine went to university to study science. The first day they told him forget everything you have learned, we had to teach you something so we taught you that.

I also studied the sciences in university. I never had any dramatic moment like that. Science is not a religion, not properly understood. It is a way of getting at knowledge and testing it, and properly used, it can be (and ought to be) applied to everything that is based on fact.

What I found was that the higher level sciences are not radically different from the lower level. The one builds on the other.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-23   23:10:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: Vicomte13 (#44)

What is the stuff embedded in it that makes it profound? And what is the stuff that will be seen later? Why DOES it conflict?

ebonytwix  posted on  2015-11-23   23:42:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: ebonytwix (#49)

What is the stuff embedded in it that makes it profound? And what is the stuff that will be seen later? Why DOES it conflict?

It is not a simple "six twenty four hour days" schema.

The first word is a pictographic sentence that shows the begetting of the Son by the Father before time begins, and the begetting points to the cross - in the very first word.

The name of God, El, means "the lord is my shepherd". When the plural God is first introduced, , it is followed immediately by "from El to the Cross".

It is not simply water - H20 - that is there at the beginning, it is the flow of chaos.

Light is not simply light, it is the word "order" also.

The words themselves are pictographic sentences. The concept of entropy and energy organizing chaos is there.

And so much more.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-24   0:39:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Vicomte13 (#50)

Go on! Go on! Do go on! It sounds awesome!

ebonytwix  posted on  2015-11-24   0:46:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: ebonytwix (#51)

It has to be done right, not piecemeal. I'm working on it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-24   1:08:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: Vicomte13 (#52)

Ok :P

ebonytwix  posted on  2015-11-24   1:11:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: misterwhite (#39)

They are specific taxes with a specific, corresponding obligation by the government. The point being, both Social Security and Medicare are programs funded by the individuals who will later benefit from those programs.

The excuse for confiscating the money is specific. Once they have it, they do what they want with it. The money goes into the general fund and disappears. Few millenials paying Social Security believe it will be there for them 40 years from now -- with good cause.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-24   1:23:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: nolu chan (#54)

The excuse for confiscating the money is specific.

You really did drink the Koolaid

paraclete  posted on  2015-11-24   1:32:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: Vicomte13 (#44)

This is worth doing irrespective of an argument with Stone, and it is a far more productive use of my time than arguing with cannibals about Medicare.

You're the one who keeps trying to start such a fight. I do like how you automatically categorize anyone who disagrees with you as a cannibal.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-24   5:47:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: TooConservative (#56)

You're the one who keeps trying to start such a fight.

The fight has been on in our nation since Social Security was enacted. It's still on.

"We didn't start the fire...well we didn't light it but we tried to fight it." - Billy Joel

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-11-24   9:23:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: nolu chan (#54)

Few millenials paying Social Security believe it will be there for them 40 years from now -- with good cause.

At some -- and I don't know when that will be, SS will be categorized as a retirement welfare program. There will be no ceiling on payroll deductions, and there will be a means test before you can receive SS benefits.

Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president

no gnu taxes  posted on  2015-11-24   9:30:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: paraclete (#55)

You really did drink the Koolaid

They really do take your money.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-24   14:13:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: no gnu taxes (#58)

At some -- and I don't know when that will be, SS will be categorized as a retirement welfare program. There will be no ceiling on payroll deductions, and there will be a means test before you can receive SS benefits.

When that happens, the government will just take all your earnings and give everyone an allowance.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-24   14:15:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: nolu chan (#59) (Edited)

I was referring to the cost without benefit, there are much better models than this

paraclete  posted on  2015-11-24   16:10:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com