Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Supreme Court be master debatin' the [Patient Care and Affordability Act]

19192939496

Posts

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    It's not semantic in the least. A credit gives you money even if you owe nothing, whereas a deduction can only reduce what you owe (if you owe).

    Right, but in the context you are arguing about it isn't a meaningful difference.

    The government not getting $3500 because the interest on someones mortgage on their second house is deductible, is just as much a tax someone else has to pay, as the government giving a $3500 credit to for health insurance. Because what ever that $3500 was going to fund has to be made up for somewhere.

    I think that's a pretty radical position to take. The $3500 deductible is money never collected. It's not a shortfall that needs to be made up somewhere else, it was never owed and never collected. Whereas the $3500 credit was money collected from somewhere, in the Treasury's coffers, and then given to someone who already owed $0.00 as a free gift from the government.

    That's not to say I oppose credits - I don't. But to say they're basically equivalent to a deduction is wrong across the board, and in your explanation seems to require the belief that reducing your obligation is the same as giving you free stuff. I don't think that's true for the IRS, and I don't think it's true anywhere else. Being handed a coupon for a dollar off is clearly not the same as being handed a dollar.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    It is if you have to shop at that store for every purchase.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Sticking with the analogy, it still not because many get to shop for free. Perhsos it works better if we imagine you get the dollar after you check out, even if you only took free samples.

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    spool32 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    It's not semantic in the least. A credit gives you money even if you owe nothing, whereas a deduction can only reduce what you owe (if you owe).

    Right, but in the context you are arguing about it isn't a meaningful difference.

    The government not getting $3500 because the interest on someones mortgage on their second house is deductible, is just as much a tax someone else has to pay, as the government giving a $3500 credit to for health insurance. Because what ever that $3500 was going to fund has to be made up for somewhere.

    I think that's a pretty radical position to take. The $3500 deductible is money never collected. It's not a shortfall that needs to be made up somewhere else, it was never owed and never collected. Whereas the $3500 credit was money collected from somewhere, in the Treasury's coffers, and then given to someone who already owed $0.00 as a free gift from the government.

    That's not to say I oppose credits - I don't. But to say they're basically equivalent to a deduction is wrong across the board, and in your explanation seems to require the belief that reducing your obligation is the same as giving you free stuff. I don't think that's true for the IRS, and I don't think it's true anywhere else. Being handed a coupon for a dollar off is clearly not the same as being handed a dollar.

    Debt forgiveness is taxable by the IRS.

    How is Visa saying I don't owe them $3500 different from the USG saying I don't owe them $3500?

    The whole 'a credit is a tax on someone else' thing is based on zero-sum thinking. That the government giving someone a $3500 credit means they must collect $3500 from someone else. Which is fine, but just waving away the AR side of it is dishonest. If the government lets someone deduct $3500 in interest on their second house, that money must come from somewhere else as well.


    If my Gross Income(non-adjusted) is 30k and I owe 4k(ignoring standard deduction) , and I manage to cancel out all my income via deductions and pay the government $0, somehow that costs nothing, but if I get to -$1 because of a credit that means someone else is paying more. The first $4000 is just 'never owed', but the $1 costs someone else?

    What If I get my owed taxes down to $1000, and then claim $1000 credit. So I pay nothing, but get nothing. Is that different from getting it down to $0 through deductions alone?

    It's some weird double standard, where deductions are a spontaneously occurring phenomenon. In that whatever anyone owes in taxes utilizing all the deductions(and maybe credits?) in the tax code is "the true amount owed". Until you get to <0 dollars owed, only THEN does that money have to come from somewhere else.


    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    spool32 wrote: »
    Sticking with the analogy, it still not because many get to shop for free. Perhsos it works better if we imagine you get the dollar after you check out, even if you only took free samples.

    Going with the coupon analogy, what if your one of those crazy coupon clippers. You get hundreds of dollar in merchandise for only $3, and the other guy gets $1 cash and some free samples. Which person cost the store's bottom line more?

    Ohh, and then you give some of your new essentially free shit to the store manager, and some to the guy who prints coupons.

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Thats realy where the analogy breaks down, because the value of the things yiu get from the government store are pretty broadly similar.

    Adeduction is you keepyour money. A credit is you keep your money and also here is some more extra money on top, free of charge.

  • tyrannustyrannus Registered User regular
    let's just say that foregone income and a cost are the same things basically, just how they come about is different. because ultimately, who "pays" for it is the US Govt, because they are foregoing that income by allowing the credit/deduction.

  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    MuddBudd wrote: »

    I'm certainly pleased that the woman lost her irrational fear of things that didn't exist, but the problem is that short of sending all Republicans to Canada for a 4 year orientation in how society can function well while providing a solid safety net I don't see how it can help. UHC is good. It is better than our current system. ACA is closer to universal healthcare and is better than our current system.

    The thing that always kills me is the maternity leave stat in the US. Even 6 weeks (if you can get it) is ABSURDLY short. Thats just about time to housebreak and train a puppy. Not a person.

    Dumbfuck was scared people get abortions. Who the fuck cares if people get them, don't get them yourself, we all pay taxes, so as long as you don't get them, your rights and opinions don't get infringed. In the off chance someone without income gets an abortion, it's not like they won't ever pay taxes (rare), and half the population can't at all.

    Ugh I hate people.

    Ladies.
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit I'm a good person yes it's trueRegistered User regular
    wait wait wait

    so now taxes are taxes, expiring tax cuts are taxes, and cutting taxes for other people are taxes?

    What isn't a tax, Republicans?

    fuck gendered marketing
  • ArtereisArtereis Registered User regular
    I didn't mean to disappear after dropping those numbers, but it has been a busy week. The way the letter basically looked was it had the amount of premiums they took in for the state in the past year, and then said that with payouts totaling 3.8%, they did not meet the 85/15 requirements on that plan and would be issuing a rebate.

  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    Artereis wrote: »
    I didn't mean to disappear after dropping those numbers, but it has been a busy week. The way the letter basically looked was it had the amount of premiums they took in for the state in the past year, and then said that with payouts totaling 3.8%, they did not meet the 85/15 requirements on that plan and would be issuing a rebate.

    So it's 3.8% payout for the entire state?

    GODDAMN. That's gonna be a hell of a rebate.

    Someone tell me I am reading that wrong.

    steam_sig.png
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    The ACA is a decnet groundwork for the private end of a good pbulic/private soljution to healthcare

    Keep the ACA stuff for exchanges, standards of insurance, and such and add in a baseline public insurance plan and you've got an ok system

    something similar to how the Swiss system works where the government provides baseline care and if you want more you go buy a private plan on top of that.

  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    Quick question: guy at work was saying that the ACA makes our taxable income increase by the cost of our employer provided health care. That is, if I make $75,000, and my health insurance costs $25,000, my total taxable income is now $100,000, to be paid out from my $75,000 salary.

    Some quick googling revealed the closest thing to this being true was that employers need to list the cost of health care on W-2s now, but the IRS's website specifically said this is not taxed.

    So I guess the question is, is the guy at work correct? And if he's not, is there any reason why he might think that's true?

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    He is not correct, and he believes it to be true because of a nationwide disinformation campaign.

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    He is not correct, and he believes it to be true because of a nationwide disinformation campaign.

    He must be pretty scared that the death panels are gonna get him for speaking truth to power...

  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    If anything, it would be lowering your taxable income.

    Ladies.
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Quick question: guy at work was saying that the ACA makes our taxable income increase by the cost of our employer provided health care. That is, if I make $75,000, and my health insurance costs $25,000, my total taxable income is now $100,000, to be paid out from my $75,000 salary.

    Some quick googling revealed the closest thing to this being true was that employers need to list the cost of health care on W-2s now, but the IRS's website specifically said this is not taxed.

    So I guess the question is, is the guy at work correct? And if he's not, is there any reason why he might think that's true?

    It was part of McCain's alternate plan - the other part was that employers would give you the money instead of giving it to the insurance company, so it actually would be part of your income.

  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    If anything, it would be lowering your taxable income.

    How? My company spends X on my salary, and Y on my health insurance. So the total my company spends on me is X + Y. If this raises my salary from 75k to 100k, like in the example, I would pay taxes as if I made 100k, out of my 75k take home, no?

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

  • davidsdurionsdavidsdurions Your Trusty Meatshield Panhandle NebraskaRegistered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    If anything, it would be lowering your taxable income.

    How? My company spends X on my salary, and Y on my health insurance. So the total my company spends on me is X + Y. If this raises my salary from 75k to 100k, like in the example, I would pay taxes as if I made 100k, out of my 75k take home, no?

    If something is in a non-taxed income box on the W-2, then you won't pay taxes on it.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    If anything, it would be lowering your taxable income.

    How? My company spends X on my salary, and Y on my health insurance. So the total my company spends on me is X + Y. If this raises my salary from 75k to 100k, like in the example, I would pay taxes as if I made 100k, out of my 75k take home, no?

    You're not taxed on that extra $25k. Also, if your company is paying into a general fund and not on a per-capita basis, your income is only being taxed on your regular check instead of before deductions.

  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    The full value of employer sponsored plans SHOULD be on your pays tub. Too many assholes with OPINIONS have no idea what insurance actually costs

    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    Also, $25,000 for insurance :rotate:

    Ladies.
  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Yeah I'm sure my wife's work spends about $10K per employee, and that it's only so cheap because they have such a large pool (she works for a big university).

    Mblackwell on
    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    That's ridiculous. You might as well pool the money together and pay out of pocket -- Assuming no one is dying of kidney failure or something.

    Ladies.
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    10K per person is absurd on a large group plan, unless you're wife's employer hasn't talked to their broker in like 10 years and the carrier REALLY REALLY wants them to switch plans.

    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    I'd place the larger group plans probably around 6k. Most people pay for part of that too, I know I pay probably about $1200 a year.

    Ladies.
  • CabezoneCabezone Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Cost per person can vary a shitton based on age. The same plan might cost a company 2k for a 25yo and 20k for a 65yo....these are not real figures I don't know the actual change offhand but my company pays considerably more for older employees. All of our older employees count as having "Cadillac" plans despite having the same plan as the much cheaper young employees.

    Cabezone on
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    It all depends, since most states allow insurers more leeway with underwriting large groups, such that, if you have a group with extraordinarily high utilization, they will fuck you year after year on renewal.

    Im pretty sure that wasn't addressed in the ACA and it really should be illegal.

    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    10K per person is absurd on a large group plan, unless you're wife's employer hasn't talked to their broker in like 10 years and the carrier REALLY REALLY wants them to switch plans.

    A lot of state-level government plans are super shit because there is a huge degree of malfeasance present in the negotiations between politicians and providers, who are also major campaign donors. I wouldn't be shocked if there were private examples of similar collusion where the firm and employee suffered, but the executives involved in the negotiations walked off with a big payday. I'm not even sure if that would be illegal.

  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    It depends on state for the price of things since there is so much variation in the laws and regulation at the moment, but the whole premium cost for the group plan I saw in WA was in the 500 something a month range, so roughly 6k to 7k a year. Age variation of price of premiums is a bigger thing for individual plans, since the group plan will typically cover a variety of ages in a company or whatever, but depending upon the group it can be slanted in one direction. The price variation on premiums for individual plans in WA from the cheapest premium age group (young adults) to the highest (elderly/near retirees not on medicare) is that the top rates tend to be about 3 to 4 times more expensive than the bottom rates for the same coverage.

    Savant on
  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    That number was a total cost mind you. The employee they pays around $2,500 a year for a family (about $200 a month). It's a pretty high-end insurance policy. They give all of the workers a cost breakdown however which is how I was able to divine what the insurance company is being paid total. I could be wrong however since it's been awhile since I last looked at all of the paperwork, but that's what I seem to recall from when we signed up last year for the current policy.

    Mblackwell on
    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    That number was a total cost mind you. The employee they pays around $2,500 a year for a family (about $200 a month). It's a pretty high-end insurance policy. They give all of the workers a cost breakdown however which is how I was able to divine what the insurance company is being paid total. I could be wrong however since it's been awhile since I last looked at all of the paperwork, but that's what I seem to recall from when we signed up last year for the current policy.

    Er, you're being a bit confusing here. Are you saying that the employee portion of the premium being paid is $2500 a year, but the whole cost of premium including the employer contribution is $10,000 a year? Because that is what I assumed you were saying.

    Because my number of 500 something a month was the total cost of the premium for the group plan, regardless of how the employer decided to break it up between themselves and the employee. So it was like 6k something or 7k something a year per employee for the Washington state group plan I am talking about. 10k a year per employee in premiums is quite a bit and I would not call it cheap, but it might not be unreasonable if you are in a really expensive health insurance market overall. New York was somewhere I heard mentioned as being rather pricy.

    Checking a premium chart I have handy for an individual insurance company in WA, the monthly premium for the highest level coverage for nonsmokers in the most elderly age groups is in the low 800s without dental, and about 900 a month with dental. I'd have to compare the benefits more carefully to be sure, but I don't think they were too much worse than a standard group plan. And that adds up to only being less than $11k a year for the most expensive to insure age group.

    Washington state may be a bit unusual though as they have a set up that siphons some of the high risk folks into a state run high risk insurance pool which is more expensive, while providing community rating for those who don't have too many preexisting conditions or can make themselves exempt from the underwriting requirements on individual plans (typically by having long term group coverage beforehand). So that's something that might change once the Obamacare provisions come more strongly into effect.

  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    I hope a lot of emotional wingers bet big on repeal on Intrade.
    Deebaser wrote: »
    10K per person is absurd on a large group plan, unless you're wife's employer hasn't talked to their broker in like 10 years and the carrier REALLY REALLY wants them to switch plans.

    A lot of state-level government plans are super shit because there is a huge degree of malfeasance present in the negotiations between politicians and providers, who are also major campaign donors. I wouldn't be shocked if there were private examples of similar collusion where the firm and employee suffered, but the executives involved in the negotiations walked off with a big payday. I'm not even sure if that would be illegal.

    One of the top healthcare executives and one of the Democratic State Senators who turned his back on unions happen to share the same name (Norcross) because they came out of the same vagina. and basically engineered the votes so that Christie could pass his landmark reaming of state employees bill.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    Individual insurance and 50+ group insurance are usually underwritten completely differently. If I remember correctly most states allow carriers to increase large group plans based on member utilization.

    Another possible reason for shit to be that high is the group maintaining a plan that isn't offered anymore, because it has something like a one tiered Rx rider with a $5 copay, and the carrier is trying to price them the fuck out

    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Individual insurance and 50+ group insurance are usually underwritten completely differently. If I remember correctly most states allow carriers to increase large group plans based on member utilization.

    Another possible reason for shit to be that high is the group maintaining a plan that isn't offered anymore, because it has something like a one tiered Rx rider with a $5 copay, and the carrier is trying to price them the fuck out

    I was mostly going through the individual insurance costs as an illustration that at least where I am $10k in premiums per year would be considered anything but cheap, and at least with our somewhat weird laws the premiums for individual carriers are pretty transparent and more available to the general public. So you can get a rough idea of how they set premiums that are normalized across a wider portion of the population by age group, as opposed to what they are set to based on a more particular subset in a employer group. Group plan pricing is more opaque, so I can't generalize as well based on the numbers I've come across.

    Savant on
  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    Savant wrote: »
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    That number was a total cost mind you. The employee they pays around $2,500 a year for a family (about $200 a month). It's a pretty high-end insurance policy. They give all of the workers a cost breakdown however which is how I was able to divine what the insurance company is being paid total. I could be wrong however since it's been awhile since I last looked at all of the paperwork, but that's what I seem to recall from when we signed up last year for the current policy.

    Er, you're being a bit confusing here. Are you saying that the employee portion of the premium being paid is $2500 a year, but the whole cost of premium including the employer contribution is $10,000 a year? Because that is what I assumed you were saying.

    K.

    The plan covers everything with only a $15 copay (and only for some services). Dental and Rx are split off into separate coverage (which only cost a few dollars a month).

    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    yeah the arguement of "i dont want tax dollars to go to something(abortion) I dont believe in" is rediculous, like everyone else loves everything their tax dollars support.
    Deebaser wrote: »
    The full value of employer sponsored plans SHOULD be on your pays tub. Too many assholes with OPINIONS have no idea what insurance actually costs

    To be clear here, is it the amount they pay for the plan, or the "value" of the plan (what would be paid if they didnt have the bulk/negotiated discount). Because I thought it was the "value" shown.

    steam_sig.png
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    Quick question: guy at work was saying that the ACA makes our taxable income increase by the cost of our employer provided health care. That is, if I make $75,000, and my health insurance costs $25,000, my total taxable income is now $100,000, to be paid out from my $75,000 salary.

    Some quick googling revealed the closest thing to this being true was that employers need to list the cost of health care on W-2s now, but the IRS's website specifically said this is not taxed.

    So I guess the question is, is the guy at work correct? And if he's not, is there any reason why he might think that's true?

    He's probably lying or misinformed, but may perhaps be talking about something real. What he is probably talking about: health insurance premiums will now be reported on your W-2, but continue to be untaxed.

    What he may be talking about: starting in 2016 there will be a 40% tax on that part of health insurance premiums that exceed the cadillac threshold. This threshold is currently at about $10K for an individual and $26K for a family, but increases by medical inflation each year.

    The purpose of this policy is to prevent the stuffing of non-insurance things (fancy club memberships etc) into the non-taxed insurance category.

    Behemoth
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    It cant be the "value" of the insurance, because that's a pretty meaningless term.

    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    That number was a total cost mind you. The employee they pays around $2,500 a year for a family (about $200 a month). It's a pretty high-end insurance policy. They give all of the workers a cost breakdown however which is how I was able to divine what the insurance company is being paid total. I could be wrong however since it's been awhile since I last looked at all of the paperwork, but that's what I seem to recall from when we signed up last year for the current policy.

    Er, you're being a bit confusing here. Are you saying that the employee portion of the premium being paid is $2500 a year, but the whole cost of premium including the employer contribution is $10,000 a year? Because that is what I assumed you were saying.

    K.

    The plan covers everything with only a $15 copay (and only for some services). Dental and Rx are split off into separate coverage (which only cost a few dollars a month).

    Is there any deductible, or coinsurance? If not then yeah, that sounds like a pretty high end insurance plan, which would go a long way towards explaining why it is expensive. Most health insurance plans now include heavier cost sharing provisions (deductibles, coinsurance, or copays) up until some set out-of-pocket limit, and the numbers and restrictions depend on the plan. If you get rid of most of those then you shift more of the cost into the premium.

This discussion has been closed.