CLA Health Insurance

[Adamski]

Guys,

Does anyone have a health policy through CLA? I've been researching various health policies (PPO, HSA, etc.) in recent months and I'm looking for feedback on CLA's health insurance carrier. I'm interested in both good and bad experiences relating to claims payment, availability and professionalism.

Thanks for your help.

[Howard]

Come on Larry, I thought you were older than the Dinosaurs and just used Medicare. :D

Anway, won't everything change after Sunday when the government will give all lazy good for nothings free insurance paid for by an extra tax on our "unearned" income.

[Adamski]

Come on Larry, I thought you were older than the Dinosaurs and just used Medicare. :D

Anway, won't everything change after Sunday when the government will give all lazy good for nothings free insurance paid for by an extra tax on our "unearned" income.

Howard,

Yes, but I won't qualify because I'm not a "lazy good for nothing". So I need to buy my policy.

FYI: I paid out an estimated $8,000 in health premiums last year and received $223. in insurance paid benefits. Like Obama said, it's "time for a change."

[STOUT]

When I checked into them they did not cover preexisting conditions. :mad:
Just like all the other private options insurance.

[Howard]

Howard,

Yes, but I won't qualify because I'm not a "lazy good for nothing". So I need to buy my policy.

FYI: I paid out an estimated $8,000 in health premiums last year and received $223. in insurance paid benefits. Like Obama said, it's "time for a change."


I feel your pain. We have for years had a high decuctible super low cost health plan. In good years our total medical / insurance cost might have been under $1,000 while in bad we would hit the $8,000 out of pocket limit - it was a win-win situation. Now if they pass the garbage they are trying to crap on us they are going to ban high deductible policies. What crap.

They don't understand what insurance is. It is the transfer of some portion of risk for a price. High deductible policies are a good thing, they make people aware of costs and reward those that stay healthy while not really costing anymore if you have medical problems. Our government is dumber than dirt.

[BCW]

I'm paying for my daughters health ins. while she attends college. She will be a senior at SIU, Carbondale in the fall. She is on the Deans list and very healthy. After having to experience another 10% increase on her policy, for no good reason, I was advised to pay it and have her re-apply under the new business plan. Same plan at an $80.00 savings. Talk about a broken system! I'm sure they will find some reason to deny her.

Tom

[Jefflange]

http://taxes.about.com/od/deductionscredits/qt/healthinsurance.htm

[surfflite]

Fortunately, my health care is FREE for me & my wife (and my kids until they got their own jobs that offer coverage in the passed few years) . Been that way since 1984. Of course I have to trade 40 hours/week for it but hey.

Oh yeh, and the Obama abomination can suck it!

[Adamski]

Fortunately, my health care is FREE for me & my wife (and my kids until they got their own jobs that offer coverage in the passed few years) . Been that way since 1984.

Kerry,

Nothing is FREE. You're receiving a reduced wage in exchange for a health care benefit.

[DaveLevenson]

I'll listen to Obama's health advice when he stops smoking!

I have had what Obama considers a 'Cadillac' insurance plan for about 30 years. For most of the first 27 years, I paid far more in premiums than I used in benefits. As I aged, and as inflation took its toll, the premiums increased until I began to wonder whether or not it made sense to stay with it.

A little over 2 years ago, (I was working on a washer at my store at the time) I had what my doctor called a massive heart attack. This was followed, a week later, by an episode of cardiac arrest (I survived thanks to a wearable defibrillator which fired when it was needed). I spent two weeks in the hospital, and six months in out-patient cardiac rehab. The bill for all of this, before the insurance company started adjusting things, came to a little over a half-million dollars. Without insurance, I'd have had to sell my house to pay for it. Even with the 'Cadillac' insurance plan in effect, my out-of-pocket came to about $6,000. Perhaps the insurance was worth it. The medical treatment has been successful. I have recovered full cardiac function, and can get on with life. My implanted pacemaker-defibrillator should save me if the 'timer' ever stops again. At present, I can no longer shop for insurance due to a pre-existing condition, and I can no longer afford to stay with the 'Cadillac' plan. I have switched to a higher-deductible plan with the same carrier.

Under the new rules, I have two questions: 1) Will I still be able to get the same level of care? 2) Will it cost me more or less than it does now?

[James2011]

BTW, I am happy with Mr. Obama's new heath plan....

[Adamski]

Guys,

I've listened to the debate about national health care for months. Through it all, I tried to remain impartial and open-minded to everything that was presented by both Democrats and Republicans. In the end, I learned little and understood even less. The one thing I did understand was that some state was going to get a lot of Federal Medicaid help if its representative voted FOR the health care bill. That, more than anything else, turned me off to this whole issue. Anyway, on and on the debate raged. One day the bill was almost dead and a week later it had legs again. Today, Obama established his legacy by signing the bill into law.

So here I sit and wonder what has changed. Some parts of the 2,600 page bill take effect this year while some don't become active until 2018 ... or so I am told. I hear that employers with more than 25 employees (or 50 part-time employees) will have to buy health insurance for the workers but the government will give these companies Federal tax credits to help pay the bill. Sounds okay ... I guess ... until I think about all that tax money that the government won't be getting due to all those nice company tax credits. Won't the Federal government have to make up that lost tax income somewhere? Seems to me the next "Big f------ deal" (quote from Joe Biden) will be a Big Tax Increase to replace all the credited-away business taxes.

Anyway, I've made my decision for my family. I'm sending my check and application out tomorrow. I'll be switching from a so-called "comprehensive" health care plan to one of the CLA sponsored "high deductable" plans. Will this save me premium dollars? For sure. Will this cost me more medical out-of-pocket dollars? Maybe.

Maybe in 4 or 5 years we'll begin to see just what did happen today. What will change and what will it really cost us taxpayers? Will it interrupt our slow economic recovery or not? Will we be better off or worse off than we are today? Only time will tell.

[surfflite]

Larry,

You are correct, my company pays $27,000/year for my health care "benefit". I would much rather have that money in wages as I've never spend $27K in one year paying for medical bills. However, I was involved in a skydiving accident several years ago and broke my back. The total hospital bill was $169K and some change. That equates to about 6.25 years of coverage. I've been at this company for 23 years now so that leaves 16.75 years x $27K = ~$452,250 that my company has paid out to insurance companies that I've never needed to use. (Obviously my company hasn't always paid $27K annually, it's been a gradual increase I'm sure, that's what they pay today. But you get the picture.)

[Howard]

Under the new rules, I have two questions: 1) Will I still be able to get the same level of care? 2) Will it cost me more or less than it does now?


The answer is a definite - who the hell knows. They don't even know what is in this bill. Didn't you hear Pelosi that we had to approve the bill to learn what is in it? Obama yesterday was boasting how children are immediately covered for pre-existing conditions. Today we learn that he did not know what he was talking about as they are only covered in new plans, not existing plans. If the president does not even get it then how can we be expected to!

But the bottom line is you will not get the same care and it will ultimately cost more - now if you pay more that is open for discussion. Since more people will be covered we will need more doctors - and we don't have them. Further, fewer and fewer want to go into general practice since they make no money there. Thus, you will wait much much longer to see a doctor who will rush you in and out even faster than today - giving you worse care. Since insurance companies will be forced to cover more things either your rates go up, or if the government does not allow that, they go out of business and you are stuck with government insurance. Since you are not a dead beat you will have to pay for that, and pay higher taxes to cover the deadbeats. Bottom line for all of us -- worse care for more money.

[STOUT]

BTW, I am happy with Mr. Obama's new heath plan....

Just remember, now YOU will be providing heath care for your employees. YOU will have to keep more paper work which will cost YOU more time and money.
Oh it might be nice that YOU are on the receiving end. How about paying for the others?
Remember it is now going to effect your bottom line which will mean you will be bringing home less than before. Congratulations to you.

[Adamski]

... I was involved in a skydiving accident several years ago and broke my back...)

Kerry,

You've got to stop jumping out of perfectly good airplanes. Partial chute opening, I assume.

[BCW]

Just remember, now YOU will be providing heath care for your employees. YOU will have to keep more paper work which will cost YOU more time and money.
Oh it might be nice that YOU are on the receiving end. How about paying for the others?
Remember it is now going to effect your bottom line which will mean you will be bringing home less than before. Congratulations to you.

I'm not very happy about anything that is forced through legislation without voter approval. However, none of us will be forced to provide health care for our employees as I understand it. Only fairly large small businesses will fall under that part of the plan. At least I THINK that's right, but who the heck knows. They kept details of the plan pretty secret.

Tom

[surfflite]

Larry,

Have you ever seen a jump plane?....far from perfectly good. haha
I have several hundred jumps, with just 1 bad one. :)

[Adamski]

Kerry,

In my younger days ... I almost took parchuting lessions one weekend. It turned out to be a low ceiling weekend so the school was canceled and never offered again. Probably just as well. Over the years, I've flown in a hot air balloon, open cockpit biplane and a sailplane besides my own more conventional aircraft. I love trying new things but now-a-days about the only "new" thing I try might be a new flavour of coffee.

[BCW]

I went to HS with a guy that bounced off the ground in paratrooper school. His shoot never opened and he just got up and walked away. A certain miracle for sure!

Tom

[Brett]

I am thankful every day for my 20 years of military service. I have a great retirement pay check, no health care premiums for myself or children (up to 25 yo in school) and zero out of pocket expense if I use a military facility. If I go private (which we usually) our deductables are very low. So join the military and if you survive, life is good.

[DaveLevenson]

Regardless of how much more or less we all will be paying for medical insurance, it was reported today that the IRS will be hiring 16,000 new agents as it takes on the job of enforcement of the new healthcare plan. That's pure overhead, and contributes nothing to medical care, but let's not forget who pays the salaries (and benefits, including health insurance) of that army of new civil servants.

[James2011]

Just remember, now YOU will be providing heath care for your employees. YOU will have to keep more paper work which will cost YOU more time and money.
Oh it might be nice that YOU are on the receiving end. How about paying for the others?
Remember it is now going to effect your bottom line which will mean you will be bringing home less than before. Congratulations to you.

STOUT, you don't fully undertstand Mr. Obama's health plan.

[DaveLevenson]

BTW, I am happy with Mr. Obama's new heath plan....

People who like socialism are the people who expect to be at the receiving end of the forced wealth redistribution chain. People are rewarded for being in need, and taxed or fined for not being in need. Over time, the number of people at the receiving end increases while the number of people paying decreases. The country gets what it pays for (or what it rewards). Eventually, everybody is at the receiving end and nobody is paying. That is when the country, and its government, achieve economic collapse.

[Adamski]

... the IRS will be hiring 16,000 new agents as it takes on the job of enforcement of the new healthcare plan...

Dave,

Now that's efficient. Just what we need - bigger government. Like we're not broke enough yet.

[Howard]

People who like socialism are the people who expect to be at the receiving end of the forced wealth redistribution chain. People are rewarded for being in need, and taxed or fined for not being in need. Over time, the number of people at the receiving end increases while the number of people paying decreases. The country gets what it pays for (or what it rewards). Eventually, everybody is at the receiving end and nobody is paying. That is when the country, and its government, achieve economic collapse.


Its worse than you think, we are at the point where roughly 50% of the populations pays zero Federal income tax, once we cross much beyond that the end is near.

As for those 16,000 IRS agents, it is much worse than you think. They will be tasked to make sure everyone has health insurance and tax or fine them if they don't. But what I heard on the news yesterday is this will not be an annual task - it will be monthly. So, as employers I guess we will have a host of new forms to fill out each and every month.

Maybe just maybe Obama's attack on the Supreme court during his state of the union address will motivate them to stick it back to him and rule this entire disaster illegal. Let's hope.

[surfflite]

Harold,

I assume you were not born in the USA. And that some of the reasons you or your family decided to come to America was to escape an oppressive government in your homeland. To you, these things our government is now doing seem normal or less harmful than where you came from. But to those of us who's families have been here since our founding fathers, we know FREEDOM & RIGHTS better than any other country in the world. WE will not stand for our government to turn this country into a socialist hellhole. Good God, that's why we came here in the 1st place, to get away from crap like this. Majority rules here and last time I checked 30-35% is NOT a majority. Had Obama received only 30-35% of the vote he would have lost, it's really that simple. There will always be slackers in America, but there would be no America today had the slackers always been in charge.

[STOUT]

STOUT, you don't fully undertstand Mr. Obama's health plan.

Oh and I suppose that YOU do?!
WOW everyone Harold knows more than the Doctors and Congress and can explain the 2,000 + pages about the health care bill that was passed.
Just ask Harold what is in the bill and what the future will bring to pass for all of us.

Sounds like he is the All powerful wizard from the Wizard of Oz.

[Howard]

As "god" Nancy P. told us it is critical that we pass the bill so that Americans can learn what is in it. When I studied government I vaguely recall that you read and understand a bill before you vote it into law, not afterwards. These clowns in DC still don't really know what is in it and the implications.

A few companies just started to state they will be taking multi million dollar write-off because of the law. The idiot Obama has called them out that they should not do this because they don't really know the impact yet. But the law states that a company must by law take a write-off in the quarter they learn of a tax impact on their business. Since it clearly takes away a 28% tax credit they were getting for retirie drug benefits they know the cost. The quarter is ending in a day or two, so now is when they MUST take the charge Mr. Obama. In AT&T's case that charge is just over one billion dollars. Yes this stupid law will definitely save money --- NOT!

[Ned]

Unfortunately for many of us, the day will come when we will be glad that insurance companies can no longer raise your rates by 39%, that insurance companies can no longer unilaterally cut off your coverage in mid-illness because you have what THEY now deem to be a "chronic condition", that insurance companies can no longer deny you coverage because of a "pre-existing condition."

When I worked in the corporate world, I had excellent top-tier health coverage (for which I paid extra). One of my sons had an athletic injury to his knee which required a minor operation. Now, on his own in his mid-twenties, it has been IMPOSSIBLE for him to get medical coverage (his company doesn't provide any). As soon as insurance companies hear he once had surgery, that's been the end of the story. Always completely turned down, even though he is in otherwise excellent health.

As for my other son (also in his mid-twenties), he had a very mild case of eczema as a teenager. Even though we've provided a multitude of documentation from several doctors attesting to this fact, it took us over a year and a half to help him secure even basic coverage once he was out of college.

It just seems to me that something is not right about this situation, and that some kind of regulation is required to insure that insurance companies can't do these kinds of things. I hope none of you ever find yourself, or your family members, in this kind of a bind.

Ned

[Howard]

Ned, you are 100% correct - but THIS LAW is NOT the answer. This is a pork filled take-over by government of an otherwise good healthcare system. Is insurance reform needed - yes, but not the government taking over 1/6th of the economy. Anything the government runs fails - medicare, medicaide, social security, Amtrack, Postoffice -- all of these are either technically bankrupt or close to it. Private industry with correct regulation is the way to go - without a profit motive everything fails.

This law really is another form of income redistribution wrapped up with lots of platitudes to make the masses think it is something good - but it is not. This law will cost billions if not trillions that we as a country just don't have. Time will prove this the biggest error our country has ever made.

[SonomaJoe]

otherwise good healthcare system


Howard,

Its America & I'm glad you are able to post your opinion!

As a laundromat owner & a landlord I see first hand how the healthcare system does not work & needs to be changed

You will have your chance to vote for Sarah Palin in three short years

[wallywash]

Having clean clothing is a basic right, that all residents (legal, illegal doesn't matter) of the good old USofA should have. Without clean clothes, how can one get a decent job, be seen (and not smelled) in public etc.

Laundromat owners, equipment manufacturers etc. make obscene profits at the expense of the less fortunate of society, and thus should be regulated such that everyone is entitled to clean clothes, and the aforementioned EMPLOYERS must provide the laundry service or equipment at a price and service level dictated by the Federal Government.

Where does it stop folks? The slippery slope is currently as icey as the Luge run at the recently finished Olympics.

Currently, every RESIDENT (legal or illegal) has access to quality healthcare. Those of us that pay for private health insurance (whether directly or through an employer paid plan) are paying for the "32 Million" that do not have insurance. Every one of those folks can get quality healthcare treatment TODAY.

There is a difference between takeover and regulation.

Gary

[James2011]

Someone said above, "anything that Gov runs fails",
hmmm
no no, some fail, but some success...
for example, look at health care program in South Korea, they have excellent health care program which give benefit to all PEOPLE, very cheap, this program was made by GOV around 1977 and 1989(extended).

I recall that Mr. Obama mentioned about S. Korea and he wants to follow it, even not 100% same level but I think 80% close...

[Jefflange]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447690/

Korean Health care

[Adamski]

Jeff,

Interesting article. Let's see if I can sum it all up. South Korea started its National Health Insurance (NHI) in 1977. At that time, it forced employers who had 500 or more employees to pay for health insurance for them and their families. Over time, the requirement grew to include employers with 300 - 500 employees and finally 100 - 300 employees. Pharmasists are allowed to consult with patients and provide prescription drugs without prescriptions (presumably to decrease doctor visits). There is little oversight of doctors so the more tests and procedures they prescribe - the more money they make.

The result of all this is South Korea has more MRI machines per capita than anywhere else in the world (according to the article). Also, 40% of all births are cesarean (compared to 20% here in the US). 80% of doctors have at least 1 specialty (compared to 50% here in the US) so they can make more money. The program includes almost no regulation on the supply side and offers little financial stability in health insurance. NHI encourages doctors to do more, pharmasists to sell more and medical device makers to make more machines so that patients can endure more tests, recover from more procedures and swallow more anti-biotics.

If this is the plan that Obama and Pelosi modeled their plan after, it don't look good.

[BCW]

Here's something quite interesting that I've come across:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act, more commonly referred to as the "healthcare bill", has taken over a year to craft and has been a lightning rod for political debate because it effectively reshapes major facets of the country's healthcare industry.
Here are 10 things you need to know about how the new law may affect you:

1. Your Kids are Covered
Starting this year, if you have an adult child who cannot get health insurance from his or her employer and is to some degree dependent on you financially, your child can stay on your insurance policy until he or she is 26 years old. Currently, many insurance companies do not allow adult children to remain on their parents' plan once they reach 19 or leave school.
2. You Can't be Dropped
Starting this fall, your health insurance company will no longer be allowed to "drop" you (cancel your policy) if you get sick. In 2009, "rescission" was revealed to be a relatively common cost-cutting practice by several insurance companies. The practice proved to be common enough to spur several lawsuits; for example, in 2008 and 2009, California's largest insurers were made to pay out more than $19 million in fines for dropping policyholders who fell ill.
3. You Can't be Denied Insurance
Starting this year your child (or children) cannot be denied coverage simply because they have a pre-existing health condition. Health insurance companies will also be barred from denying adults applying for coverage if they have a pre-existing condition, but not until 2014.
4. You Can Spend What You Need to
Prior to the new law, health insurance companies set a maximum limit on the monetary amount of benefits that a policyholder could receive. This meant that those who developed expensive or long-lasting medical conditions could run out of coverage. Starting this year, companies will be barred from instituting caps on coverage.
5. You Don't Have to Wait
If you currently have pre-existing conditions that have prevented you from being able to qualify for health insurance for at least six months you will have coverage options before 2014. Starting this fall, you will be able to purchase insurance through a state-run "high-risk pool", which will cap your personal out-of-pocket expenses for healthcare. You will not be required to pay more than $5,950 of your own money for medical expenses; families will not have to pay any more than $11,900.
6. You Must be Insured
Under the new law starting in 2014, you will have to purchase health insurance or risk being fined. If your employer does not offer health insurance as a benefit or if you do not earn enough money to purchase a plan, you may get assistance from the government. The fines for not purchasing insurance will be levied according to a sliding scale based on income. Starting in 2014, the lowest fine would be $95 or 1% of a person's income (whichever is greater) and then increase to a high of $695 or 2.5% of an individual's taxable income by 2016. There will be a maximum cap on fines.
7. You'll Have More Options
Starting in 2014 (when you will be required by law to have health insurance), states will operate new insurance marketplaces - called "exchanges" - that will provide you with more options for buying an individual policy if you can't get, or afford, insurance from your workplace and you earn too much income to qualify for Medicaid. In addition, millions of low- and middle-income families (earning up to $88,200 annually) will be able to qualify for financial assistance from the federal government to purchase insurance through their state exchange.
8. Flexible Spending Accounts Will Become Less Flexible
Three years from now, flexible spending accounts (FSAs) will have lower contribution limits - meaning you won't be able to have as much money deducted from your paycheck pre-tax and deposited into an FSA for medical expenses as is currently allowed. The new maximum amount allowed will be $2,500. In addition, fewer expenses will qualify for FSA spending. For example, you will no longer be able to use your FSA to help defray the cost of over-the-counter drugs.
9. If You Earn More, You'll Pay More
Starting in 2018, if your combined family income exceeds $250,000 you are going to be taking less money home each pay period. That's because you will have more money deducted from your paycheck to go toward increased Medicare payroll taxes. In addition to higher payroll taxes you will also have to pay 3.8% tax on any unearned income, which is currently tax-exempt.
10. Medicare May Cover More or Less of Your Expenses
Starting this year, if Medicare is your primary form of health insurance you will no longer have to pay for preventive care such as an annual physical, screenings for treatable conditions or routine laboratory work. In addition, you will get a $250 check from the federal government to help pay for prescription drugs currently not covered as a result of the Medicare Part D "doughnut hole".
However, if you are a high-income individual or couple (making more than $85,000 individually or $170,000 jointly), your prescription drug subsidy will be reduced. In addition, if you are one of the more than 10 million people currently enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan you may be facing higher premiums because your insurance company's subsidy from the federal government is going to be dramatically reduced.
Conclusion
Over the next few months you will most likely receive information in the mail from your health insurance company about how the newly signed law will affect your coverage. Read the correspondence carefully and don't hesitate to ask questions about your policy; there may be new, more affordable options for you down the road


Tom

[Howard]

Tom, you only present the party line on all the good things, but fail to mention all the bad things, the unintended things, and the huge cost. Almost no one is against better healthcare - but this bill is a total disaster in sheeps clothing -- it looks good but it will be a killer. It will destroy the economy and is just another wealth transfer scheme. Just yesterday AT&T (as required by law) took a one billion dollar write-off based on its increased costs to provide drug coverage to retired employees based on how this law eliminates a 28% tax deduction. This bill is far from deficit neutral at the Federal level, will cause huge costs at the state level, will raise insurance premiums for everyone, add more government waste, .... etc etc etc...

[Adamski]

Tom,

Your #9 mentions paying 3.8% tax on unearned income that is currently tax exempt. The only unearned income that I can think of that is currently tax exempt is Municipal Bond interest income. If these muni bonds become taxable, there will be much less incentive to buy muni bonds and schools, colleges, cities, etc will have a more difficult time funding their projects.

Just an observation. Obviously all this extra cost will have to be funded from somewhere. We're all just hoping the money comes out of someone else's pocket and not ours.

[Howard]

Tom,

.. We're all just hoping the money comes out of someone else's pocket and not ours.


Ah yes, socialism or perhaps communism -- definitely not capitalism.

Those that like this are not the ones that are going to be soaked to pay for it. Its redistribution of income. Those of you that like it would not if they told you they were going to charge you for it.

[James2011]

you know? original Mr. Obama's plan was very nice, very close to other country, but due to heavy road block from Republic party, the plan has been modified a couple of times and now it's not that good.

[Adamski]

you know? original Mr. Obama's plan was very nice, very close to other country, but due to heavy road block from Republic party, the plan has been modified a couple of times and now it's not that good.

Harold,

I see. So now, if this new plan turns out to be a piece of crap, it's all the Republican's fault ... right?

[Jefflange]

You must be insured
"Under the new law starting in 2014, you will have to purchase health insurance or risk being fined. If your employer does not offer health insurance as a benefit or if you do not earn enough money to purchase a plan, you may get assistance from the government. The fines for not purchasing insurance will be levied according to a sliding scale based on income. Starting in 2014, the lowest fine would be $95 or 1% of a person's income (whichever is greater) and then increase to a high of $695 or 2.5% of an individual's taxable income by 2016. There will be a maximum cap on fines."

Ok so should I cancel my insurance wait until I get sick and pay the fine and sign up for coverage? They can't deny me based on preexisting conditions.
Wow this is a great plan.

[James2011]

Harold,

I see. So now, if this new plan turns out to be a piece of crap, it's all the Republican's fault ... right?

no no no...........................

[Howard]

You must be insured
"Under the new law starting in 2014, you will have to purchase health insurance or risk being fined. If your employer does not offer health insurance as a benefit or if you do not earn enough money to purchase a plan, you may get assistance from the government. The fines for not purchasing insurance will be levied according to a sliding scale based on income. Starting in 2014, the lowest fine would be $95 or 1% of a person's income (whichever is greater) and then increase to a high of $695 or 2.5% of an individual's taxable income by 2016. There will be a maximum cap on fines."

Ok so should I cancel my insurance wait until I get sick and pay the fine and sign up for coverage? They can't deny me based on preexisting conditions.
Wow this is a great plan.

Yup! Just proves how stupid government is - they cannot do basic math. At first the fine was large enough to correctly "motivate" people, but it got watered down because the spineless congress was afraid what the reaction might be. This whole new law is one big clusther Fu#%#$ck.

[DaveLevenson]

Your #9 mentions paying 3.8% tax on unearned income that is currently tax exempt. The only unearned income that I can think of that is currently tax exempt is Municipal Bond interest income.

Unearned income (interest, rent, long-term capital gains, etc.) is currently exempt from Medicare and Social Security Tax (it is not exempt from Federal Income Tax). The new healthcare law makes unearned income subject to Medicare Tax (but not Social Security Tax, apparently) for high-income taxpayers.

[amndalb]

Thanks for sharing!!!

Health Insurance tx (http://www.texashealthinsurancenow.com/)

[Howard]

Unearned income (interest, rent, long-term capital gains, etc.) is currently exempt from Medicare and Social Security Tax (it is not exempt from Federal Income Tax). The new healthcare law makes unearned income subject to Medicare Tax (but not Social Security Tax, apparently) for high-income taxpayers.


Yes, but the definition of high income in places like NJ, NY, CA covers a very large portion of middle income families where both husband and wife work and have decent jobs. While $250K sounds like a lot of money if you live in many places, it really is not that much in these high income areas.

The government is getting to the point where maybe it is better to stop working and just take a handout. Have you ever calculated how much you pay in taxes when you factor in Federal, state and local income taxes, Fica tax, medicar tax, misc state taxes on income, property tax, sales tax, excise taxes, and don't forget "user's fees".

[BCW]

Yes, but the definition of high income in places like NJ, NY, CA covers a very large portion of middle income families where both husband and wife work and have decent jobs. While $250K sounds like a lot of money if you live in many places, it really is not that much in these high income areas.

The government is getting to the point where maybe it is better to stop working and just take a handout. Have you ever calculated how much you pay in taxes when you factor in Federal, state and local income taxes, Fica tax, medicar tax, misc state taxes on income, property tax, sales tax, excise taxes, and don't forget "user's fees".

I don't believe that to stop working is the answer. I know it was sarcasm, Howard. We need to vote all of these idiots out at the next election. The problem with that is we will get a new set of idiots. They might be worse than the old ones. Both the Dems and the Republicans have been offering just horrible choices for candidates on election years. Is it time for an Independent Party? I think that would send them a titan message. The timing is certainly right. I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's time for something other than the status quo.

Tom

[Howard]

I don't believe that to stop working is the answer. I know it was sarcasm, Howard. We need to vote all of these idiots out at the next election. The problem with that is we will get a new set of idiots. They might be worse than the old ones. Both the Dems and the Republicans have been offering just horrible choices for candidates on election years. Is it time for an Independent Party? I think that would send them a titan message. The timing is certainly right. I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's time for something other than the status quo.

Tom

I think term limits are the answer. Actually I saw a great cartoon about that, it said all politians should be limited to two terms: The first is in office, and the second is in jail!

More seriously, I think they should be limited to one consecutive term - you serve the term and then you are out, but you can run again after the next cycle. No more career politians.

[DaveLevenson]

Term limits are a great idea. But if people really liked the idea, they'd be unnecessary, as nobody would ever vote for an incumbent. It turns out that most voters believe in term limits for everybody except their own favorite politicians. Since voters tend to vote for incumbents, and since the already-elected politicians have no incentive to enact term limits, it will probably never happen.

New York City finally did manage to enact term limits... but the only politician ever affected by them was Rudy Giuliani -- who served two terms as mayor. He was riding a huge wave of popularity at the end of his second term (just after 9/11) but did not seek a third term due to term limits. Bloomberg was elected and then managed to get a judge to overturn the term limit law, and is now campaigning for his own third term as mayor. So much for term limits.

[Ned]

Howard,

It may be that you and I will never agree politically, but I would like to think that there are areas of commonality that people can build from. For example, I too believe that too many politicians are too insulated from the public they are supposed to serve. Maybe strict term limits is the way to go, and maybe tied to strict restrictions on then becoming a lobbyist and making lots of money based on their prior service in Washington, D.C.

Three things always bothered me about most Senators, and this is irrespective of political party:

1. For one thing, a very high percentage of them are millionaires, and I ask myself why that should be? I think the number is over 90%.

2. Secondly, during the Vietnam War era, a very high percentage of them had very few children serving in Vietnam. I think the figure was less than 4%, though I might be wrong. I do remember the number was so low that I was shocked. Here were men and women telling you YOUR son should be drafted and put his life at risk, yet at the same time kept their own children out of harm's way.

3. Thirdly, there is just so much money floating around Washington, it's hard for most senators and representatives not to be tempted to serve those moneyed interests - and I'm talking both big business and big labor - rather than serving the needs of the common man and woman. IMO, as long as big money can talk so loud, then our representatives will not be able to hear us. It seems to me we, as citizens, have to figure out some way of controlling the distorting influences of big money.

My two cents...

Ned

[Howard]

Dave - I think lots of incumbents get re-elected because they have more money to campaign with and run more ads and have brand awareness. The other reason is that most of the public is dumb as dirt and just vote for them. There should be a test that every voter has to take at the polls, and their vote should only count if they know what the people they are voting for stand for.

As for Congress being comprised of mostly millionaires, well there is a simple reason for that. How many less afluent people can take a year or two off from work to campaign for a job that they might not even get.

These were posted in front of the local post office today:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2635/4477026802_b1feb98170.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2687/4477026284_dbf84fc283.jpg

[STOUT]

You know I have a cousin that came up with an interesting idea. He stated that all people that receive any government assistance should not be able to vote. That way no votes could be bought and it would be the tax paying people that could vote. He has a good idea. It could be registered with your social security #.

Of course a lot of retired persons would not be happy. Also government workers would also be banned.

[Howard]

That is one great idea!

[SoooperDave]

Wow.
I can't believe I missed out on THIS thread....THIS is where all the fun is.

[surfflite]

If anyone could run (without being a millionaire) that would fix things. You shouldn't have to be uberrich to run for office. They should level the playing field and take the mighty $$$ out of the equation.