Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

".............The Health and Human Services Department "was given a billion dollars implementation money," Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg of Montana said. "That money is gone already on additional bureaucrats and IT programs, computerization for the implementation.".......

......The IRS, Health and Human Services and many other agencies will now write thousands of pages of regulations -- an effort well under way:
"There's already 13,000 pages of regulations, and they're not even done yet," Rehberg said.
"It's a delegation of extensive authority from Congress to the Department of Health and Human Services and a lot of boards and commissions and bureaus throughout the bureaucracy," Matt Spalding of the Heritage Foundation said. "We counted about 180 or so."...................................."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07 ... z1znCd0lNi" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

7 new taxes on those making less than 250k a yr. Obviously a big FU to the middle class :

1. Individual Mandate Tax: we all know about that one

2. Medicine Cabinet Tax that took effect in 2011. This tax prohibits reimbursement of expenses for over-the-counter medicine, with the lone exception of insulin, from an employee’s pre-tax dollar funded Health Saving Account (HSA), Flexible Spending Account (FSA) or Health Reimbursement Account (HRA). This provision hurts middle class earners particularly hard since they earn enough to actually pay federal taxes, but not enough to make this restriction negligible.

3. Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Cap, which will begin in 2013, is perhaps the most hurtful provision to the middle class. This part of the law imposes a cap of $2,500 per year (which is now unlimited) on the amount of pre-tax dollars that could be deposited into these accounts. Why is this particularly hurtful to the middle class? It is because funds in these accounts may be used to pay for special needs education for special needs children in the United States. Tuition rates for this type of special education can easily exceed $14,000 per year and the use of pre-tax dollars has helped many middle income families.

4. Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle which is currently 7.5% of adjusted gross income. This is the hurdle that must be met before medical expenses over that hurdle can be taken as a deduction on federal income taxes. Obamacare raises this hurdle to 10% of adjusted gross income beginning in 2013. Consider the middle class family with $80,000 of adjusted gross income and $8,000 of medical expenses. Currently, that family can get some relief from being able to take a $2,000 deduction (7.5% X $80,000 = $6,000; $8,000 –$6,000 = $2,000). An increase to 10% would eliminate the deduction in this example and if that family was paying a 25% federal tax rate, the real cost of that lost deduction would be $500.

5. Health Savings Account (HSA) Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% currently to 20% beginning in 2013. This provision actually sets these accounts apart from Investment Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and other tax advantaged accounts, all of which remain with a 10% early withdrawal tax.

6. Indoor Tanning Services Tax, which places a 10% excise tax on people using tanning salons.

7. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans or the “Cadillac” Health Insurance Plan Tax. These are plans that provide extensive coverage and that are generally fully paid for, or largely paid for, by employers. This provision imposes a 40% excise tax on the employer-paid premium on taxpayers who are covered by such plans, beginning in 2018. The reason it begins in 2018 is because most unionized workers are covered by plans that fall under this definition and a deferral was made to spare union members from this tax for at least a period of time.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... -new-taxes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

13 new taxes for businesses & over $250k per yr households:

1. Employer Mandate Tax will impose an annual non-deductible tax on employers with more than 50 employees who do not provide health insurance for their employees.

2. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers that begins in 2013, places a 2.3% excise tax on all items retailing for more than $100.

3. Surtax on Investment Income for households earning $250,000 and more, beginning in 2013, will raise the Capital Gains Tax from 15% to 23.8% on investment income for these households and will raise Taxes on Dividends from 15% to 43.4% for the same households. Aside from the impact on retired citizens dependent on dividends, this provision will pull income from the private economy. In addition, the tax rate on Other Investment Income earned by Subchapter S Corporation (which many small business are organized as, allowing the owners to claim all business income as personal income) will rise from 35% to 43.4%.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... -new-taxes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

10 more new taxes directed at the health industry.....

1. Individual Mandate Tax: we all know about that one I have insurance already. So, I don't worry about paying a penalty for not getting it.

2. Medicine Cabinet Tax that took effect in 2011. This tax prohibits reimbursement of expenses for over-the-counter medicine, with the lone exception of insulin, from an employee’s pre-tax dollar funded Health Saving Account (HSA), Flexible Spending Account (FSA) or Health Reimbursement Account (HRA). This provision hurts middle class earners particularly hard since they earn enough to actually pay federal taxes, but not enough to make this restriction negligible. I wonder how many people use these. I don't, probably because I live a healthy life and the only medicine we use is birth control. Which has been free the last 6 months.

3. Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Cap, which will begin in 2013, is perhaps the most hurtful provision to the middle class. This part of the law imposes a cap of $2,500 per year (which is now unlimited) on the amount of pre-tax dollars that could be deposited into these accounts. Why is this particularly hurtful to the middle class? It is because funds in these accounts may be used to pay for special needs education for special needs children in the United States. Tuition rates for this type of special education can easily exceed $14,000 per year and the use of pre-tax dollars has helped many middle income families. this is interesting. It doesn't affect me, but I would like to see how my premiums change.

4. Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle which is currently 7.5% of adjusted gross income. This is the hurdle that must be met before medical expenses over that hurdle can be taken as a deduction on federal income taxes. Obamacare raises this hurdle to 10% of adjusted gross income beginning in 2013. Consider the middle class family with $80,000 of adjusted gross income and $8,000 of medical expenses. Currently, that family can get some relief from being able to take a $2,000 deduction (7.5% X $80,000 = $6,000; $8,000 –$6,000 = $2,000). An increase to 10% would eliminate the deduction in this example and if that family was paying a 25% federal tax rate, the real cost of that lost deduction would be $500.

How would this change with people having more affordable insurance. maybe with this law, people will have access to better insurance then they already do. Just a thought.

5. Health Savings Account (HSA) Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% currently to 20% beginning in 2013. This provision actually sets these accounts apart from Investment Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and other tax advantaged accounts, all of which remain with a 10% early withdrawal tax.

6. Indoor Tanning Services Tax, which places a 10% excise tax on people using tanning salons. GOOD! I'M 100% FOR THIS

7. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans or the “Cadillac” Health Insurance Plan Tax. These are plans that provide extensive coverage and that are generally fully paid for, or largely paid for, by employers. This provision imposes a 40% excise tax on the employer-paid premium on taxpayers who are covered by such plans, beginning in 2018. The reason it begins in 2018 is because most unionized workers are covered by plans that fall under this definition and a deferral was made to spare union members from this tax for at least a period of time.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... -new-taxes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ibanez wrote:1. Individual Mandate Tax: we all know about that one I have insurance already. So, I don't worry about paying a penalty for not getting it.

2. Medicine Cabinet Tax that took effect in 2011. This tax prohibits reimbursement of expenses for over-the-counter medicine, with the lone exception of insulin, from an employee’s pre-tax dollar funded Health Saving Account (HSA), Flexible Spending Account (FSA) or Health Reimbursement Account (HRA). This provision hurts middle class earners particularly hard since they earn enough to actually pay federal taxes, but not enough to make this restriction negligible. I wonder how many people use these. I don't, probably because I live a healthy life and the only medicine we use is birth control. Which has been free the last 6 months.

3. Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Cap, which will begin in 2013, is perhaps the most hurtful provision to the middle class. This part of the law imposes a cap of $2,500 per year (which is now unlimited) on the amount of pre-tax dollars that could be deposited into these accounts. Why is this particularly hurtful to the middle class? It is because funds in these accounts may be used to pay for special needs education for special needs children in the United States. Tuition rates for this type of special education can easily exceed $14,000 per year and the use of pre-tax dollars has helped many middle income families. this is interesting. It doesn't affect me, but I would like to see how my premiums change.

4. Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle which is currently 7.5% of adjusted gross income. This is the hurdle that must be met before medical expenses over that hurdle can be taken as a deduction on federal income taxes. Obamacare raises this hurdle to 10% of adjusted gross income beginning in 2013. Consider the middle class family with $80,000 of adjusted gross income and $8,000 of medical expenses. Currently, that family can get some relief from being able to take a $2,000 deduction (7.5% X $80,000 = $6,000; $8,000 –$6,000 = $2,000). An increase to 10% would eliminate the deduction in this example and if that family was paying a 25% federal tax rate, the real cost of that lost deduction would be $500.

How would this change with people having more affordable insurance. maybe with this law, people will have access to better insurance then they already do. Just a thought.

5. Health Savings Account (HSA) Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% currently to 20% beginning in 2013. This provision actually sets these accounts apart from Investment Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and other tax advantaged accounts, all of which remain with a 10% early withdrawal tax.

6. Indoor Tanning Services Tax, which places a 10% excise tax on people using tanning salons. GOOD! I'M 100% FOR THIS

7. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans or the “Cadillac” Health Insurance Plan Tax. These are plans that provide extensive coverage and that are generally fully paid for, or largely paid for, by employers. This provision imposes a 40% excise tax on the employer-paid premium on taxpayers who are covered by such plans, beginning in 2018. The reason it begins in 2018 is because most unionized workers are covered by plans that fall under this definition and a deferral was made to spare union members from this tax for at least a period of time.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... -new-taxes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On #2 and #3. I know you don't have kids yet but if you do someday you will understand how these two are a kick in the ass for the middle class.

FSAs were grossly abused for OTC drugs prior to this taking effect.

And my understanding is that you can still get OTC, but you need to be able to prove its required by a doctor which means getting a script for it. Which kind of defeats the purpose of OTC, but at least it can curb some abuse.

On #3 - I didn't know you could use your FSA to pay for educational expenses. They should have excluded those costs from the restriction, but administratively I can see why they didn't. Perhaps they need to legislate a new type of account specifically for those qualifying expenses? Or just give a 100% deduction on the tax return which amounts to the same effect.

danefan wrote:FSAs were grossly abused for OTC drugs prior to this taking effect.

And my understanding is that you can still get OTC, but you need to be able to prove its required by a doctor which means getting a script for it. Which kind of defeats the purpose of OTC, but at least it can curb some abuse.

On #3 - I didn't know you could use your FSA to pay for educational expenses. They should have excluded those costs from the restriction, but administratively I can see why they didn't. Perhaps they need to legislate a new type of account specifically for those qualifying expenses? Or just give a 100% deduction on the tax return which amounts to the same effect.

It's semantics about what you mean by "educational" - speech therapy and other occupational therapies (early intervention care, especially at early ages) were allowed under FSA's previously. I wasn't aware that they are now going to be disallowed but yes, if that's true then that's a huge hit to people who won't be able to afford the private bill for such services and even may not be able to swing the bill now that they have to pay with post-tax dollars.

As for the OTC part of it, I agree, people abused it, but I think it strikes at the core of what this program, and really any health care reform is about. Our problem with balooning health care costs is that we want everything - every new medicine, every new technique, every new everything - and we want it all right now. We're ravenous in our desire for and our consumption of health care. At it's core, what this legislation starts to do is to start restricting access to things that we could, in the past, simply reflexively obtain. It's rationing without going as far as using the word rationing. There's just no getting around it - we're going to have to deal with having less access and less services than we had before. That's ultimately where this legislation takes us - it's just difficult to say that without people instantly thinking they are going to be denied some medicine or denied some procedure.

GannonFan wrote:

danefan wrote:FSAs were grossly abused for OTC drugs prior to this taking effect.

And my understanding is that you can still get OTC, but you need to be able to prove its required by a doctor which means getting a script for it. Which kind of defeats the purpose of OTC, but at least it can curb some abuse.

On #3 - I didn't know you could use your FSA to pay for educational expenses. They should have excluded those costs from the restriction, but administratively I can see why they didn't. Perhaps they need to legislate a new type of account specifically for those qualifying expenses? Or just give a 100% deduction on the tax return which amounts to the same effect.

It's semantics about what you mean by "educational" - speech therapy and other occupational therapies (early intervention care, especially at early ages) were allowed under FSA's previously. I wasn't aware that they are now going to be disallowed but yes, if that's true then that's a huge hit to people who won't be able to afford the private bill for such services and even may not be able to swing the bill now that they have to pay with post-tax dollars.

As for the OTC part of it, I agree, people abused it, but I think it strikes at the core of what this program, and really any health care reform is about. Our problem with balooning health care costs is that we want everything - every new medicine, every new technique, every new everything - and we want it all right now. We're ravenous in our desire for and our consumption of health care. At it's core, what this legislation starts to do is to start restricting access to things that we could, in the past, simply reflexively obtain. It's rationing without going as far as using the word rationing. There's just no getting around it - we're going to have to deal with having less access and less services than we had before. That's ultimately where this legislation takes us - it's just difficult to say that without people instantly thinking they are going to be denied some medicine or denied some procedure.

I agree. We want everything 'on-demand' including our health care. We're also a society of 'internet doctors' that self-diagnose. Our health care system is also a system where we treat by process of elimination. That is a complete waste of time, but unfortunately it seems to be the only way some doctors know how to treat.

I also think we're still ignoring for the most part the root cause of our health issues - our diets.

We're fat and out of shape. We're too reliant on everything being motorized and immigrants to do our hard labor.

danefan wrote: I agree. We want everything 'on-demand' including our health care. We're also a society of 'internet doctors' that self-diagnose. Our health care system is also a system where we treat by process of elimination. That is a complete waste of time, but unfortunately it seems to be the only way some doctors know how to treat.

I also think we're still ignoring for the most part the root cause of our health issues - our diets.

We're fat and out of shape. We're too reliant on everything being motorized and immigrants to do our hard labor.

I'm not sure I necessarily agree with our diets being at the root cause of most of our health issues. It certainly doesn't help, don't get me wrong, but just because you're fat doesn't mean you're going to be a drain on the health care system.

I think you need to also look at the amount of health care that is consumed by the elderly portion of our population. Obviously for the better, people live far longer now than they ever have, but that comes at a cost. Old people get sick, old people break hips and need knees replaced, and old people need a lot of things (medication, treatments, etc) to stay upright and kicking. It's not just coincidence that we're seeing a huge spike in health care costs as the baby boomer generation enters their sunset years. We have a medical system and funding that, although wonderfully benevolent and caring for the elderly, costs a lot of money and continues to cost money. Couple that with generations that get increasingly adamant about fulfilling individual desires and it's a bad combination. And that's the rub - I'm not sure how to pull back in that regard - how do you tell grandmom she has to cut back on pain medication, how do you tell grandpa that since he'll never be overly mobile again that it's a waste to have a double knee replacement? At some point we're going to need to say that everything that people get now - well, they're just not going to be able to get those things unless they can pay for it themselves. That's a tough pill to swallow (there's a pun there, I'm sure of it).

danefan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
It's semantics about what you mean by "educational" - speech therapy and other occupational therapies (early intervention care, especially at early ages) were allowed under FSA's previously. I wasn't aware that they are now going to be disallowed but yes, if that's true then that's a huge hit to people who won't be able to afford the private bill for such services and even may not be able to swing the bill now that they have to pay with post-tax dollars.

As for the OTC part of it, I agree, people abused it, but I think it strikes at the core of what this program, and really any health care reform is about. Our problem with balooning health care costs is that we want everything - every new medicine, every new technique, every new everything - and we want it all right now. We're ravenous in our desire for and our consumption of health care. At it's core, what this legislation starts to do is to start restricting access to things that we could, in the past, simply reflexively obtain. It's rationing without going as far as using the word rationing. There's just no getting around it - we're going to have to deal with having less access and less services than we had before. That's ultimately where this legislation takes us - it's just difficult to say that without people instantly thinking they are going to be denied some medicine or denied some procedure.

I agree. We want everything 'on-demand' including our health care. We're also a society of 'internet doctors' that self-diagnose. Our health care system is also a system where we treat by process of elimination. That is a complete waste of time, but unfortunately it seems to be the only way some doctors know how to treat.

I also think we're still ignoring for the most part the root cause of our health issues - our diets.

We're fat and out of shape. We're too reliant on everything being motorized and immigrants to do our hard labor.

Maybe I don't get OTC. When I go to CVS and I need Zyrtec D, which is behind the counter. I say I need it, show my ID and they give it to me. That's OTC, right? Stupid question but I get confused.

I agree with you, America is fat and out of shape. Physical fitness won't solve all our problems, but it seems that we have to seriously regulate our diets and exercise. I think my neighbors are a great example. The mom is a hardcore, leftist radical who teaches her 9 and 11 yr old to hate Republicans while loving others (while she bitches about poor people, calls our other neighbors niggers and mocks the deaf woman down the block). Then she gets all pissed when I call her out. Her husband is a 9th grade drop out, is 43 and just broke the $40k barrier at his chemical dye job. The family complains about their fat kids. Yet, they don't fix the diet or force them outside. It's a travesty.

GannonFan wrote:

danefan wrote: I agree. We want everything 'on-demand' including our health care. We're also a society of 'internet doctors' that self-diagnose. Our health care system is also a system where we treat by process of elimination. That is a complete waste of time, but unfortunately it seems to be the only way some doctors know how to treat.

I also think we're still ignoring for the most part the root cause of our health issues - our diets.

We're fat and out of shape. We're too reliant on everything being motorized and immigrants to do our hard labor.

I'm not sure I necessarily agree with our diets being at the root cause of most of our health issues. It certainly doesn't help, don't get me wrong, but just because you're fat doesn't mean you're going to be a drain on the health care system.

I think you need to also look at the amount of health care that is consumed by the elderly portion of our population. Obviously for the better, people live far longer now than they ever have, but that comes at a cost. Old people get sick, old people break hips and need knees replaced, and old people need a lot of things (medication, treatments, etc) to stay upright and kicking. It's not just coincidence that we're seeing a huge spike in health care costs as the baby boomer generation enters their sunset years. We have a medical system and funding that, although wonderfully benevolent and caring for the elderly, costs a lot of money and continues to cost money. Couple that with generations that get increasingly adamant about fulfilling individual desires and it's a bad combination. And that's the rub - I'm not sure how to pull back in that regard - how do you tell grandmom she has to cut back on pain medication, how do you tell grandpa that since he'll never be overly mobile again that it's a waste to have a double knee replacement? At some point we're going to need to say that everything that people get now - well, they're just not going to be able to get those things unless they can pay for it themselves. That's a tough pill to swallow (there's a pun there, I'm sure of it).

Good point on old people. They suck.

On the point of diets - I think of the inner city and the huge prevalence of diabetes and diabetes related health problems. So much of that is preventable with a better diet.

The biggest problem with health care that we have is being completely ignored by this bill...we just don't have enough bleepin' doctors. This bill didn't lift the cap on the number of residency positions that we have. We should have lifted the cap a long time ago and it has been biting us in the a** for a while now. We just can't continue to produce doctors at the same rate we do now with an aging population and growing rates of type II diabetes. With the exception of a few specialties most doctors are very much overworked.

And all of this doesn't just mean less medical attention. It means less manpower and higher costs for clinical trials when we have a huge queue of promising drugs waiting for their turn. The US has produced the vast majority of medical advances and we could lose our advantage in the medical industry if we don't have people available to conduct trials.

We can either make health care more affordable by making it crappier - having PAs take over primary care, having less preventative care and less care for chronic diseases - or we can make it more affordable by investing to create more doctors and more technology. We're basically doing the former.

And if this is such a great health care plan for businesses, why have so many unions and businesses who have supported Obama gotten waivers?

GannonFan wrote:

danefan wrote: I agree. We want everything 'on-demand' including our health care. We're also a society of 'internet doctors' that self-diagnose. Our health care system is also a system where we treat by process of elimination. That is a complete waste of time, but unfortunately it seems to be the only way some doctors know how to treat.

I also think we're still ignoring for the most part the root cause of our health issues - our diets.

We're fat and out of shape. We're too reliant on everything being motorized and immigrants to do our hard labor.

I'm not sure I necessarily agree with our diets being at the root cause of most of our health issues. It certainly doesn't help, don't get me wrong, but just because you're fat doesn't mean you're going to be a drain on the health care system.

I think you need to also look at the amount of health care that is consumed by the elderly portion of our population. Obviously for the better, people live far longer now than they ever have, but that comes at a cost. Old people get sick, old people break hips and need knees replaced, and old people need a lot of things (medication, treatments, etc) to stay upright and kicking. It's not just coincidence that we're seeing a huge spike in health care costs as the baby boomer generation enters their sunset years. We have a medical system and funding that, although wonderfully benevolent and caring for the elderly, costs a lot of money and continues to cost money. Couple that with generations that get increasingly adamant about fulfilling individual desires and it's a bad combination. And that's the rub - I'm not sure how to pull back in that regard - how do you tell grandmom she has to cut back on pain medication, how do you tell grandpa that since he'll never be overly mobile again that it's a waste to have a double knee replacement? At some point we're going to need to say that everything that people get now - well, they're just not going to be able to get those things unless they can pay for it themselves. That's a tough pill to swallow (there's a pun there, I'm sure of it).

Sounds like you are advocating death panels.......

Pwns wrote:The biggest problem with health care that we have is being completely ignored by this bill...we just don't have enough bleepin' doctors. This bill didn't lift the cap on the number of residency positions that we have. We should have lifted the cap a long time ago and it has been biting us in the a** for a while now. We just can't continue to produce doctors at the same rate we do now with an aging population and growing rates of type II diabetes. With the exception of a few specialties most doctors are very much overworked.

And all of this doesn't just mean less medical attention. It means less manpower and higher costs for clinical trials when we have a huge queue of promising drugs waiting for their turn. The US has produced the vast majority of medical advances and we could lose our advantage in the medical industry if we don't have people available to conduct trials.

We can either make health care more affordable by making it crappier - having PAs take over primary care, having less preventative care and less care for chronic diseases - or we can make it more affordable by investing to create more doctors and more technology. We're basically doing the former.

And if this is such a great health care plan for businesses, why have so many unions and businesses who have supported Obama gotten waivers?

There's a great op-ed by Daniel Henninger at page A9 of yesterday's WSJ that shows how Obamacare will disrupt the doctor-patient relationship by turning health care professionals into recordkeepers for the gargantuan federal bureaucracy. Time that could be spent on diagnostics or preventative care will instead disappear into the gaping maw of Barry's paper-pushers.Thanks, JellyBelly.

danefan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
It's semantics about what you mean by "educational" - speech therapy and other occupational therapies (early intervention care, especially at early ages) were allowed under FSA's previously. I wasn't aware that they are now going to be disallowed but yes, if that's true then that's a huge hit to people who won't be able to afford the private bill for such services and even may not be able to swing the bill now that they have to pay with post-tax dollars.

As for the OTC part of it, I agree, people abused it, but I think it strikes at the core of what this program, and really any health care reform is about. Our problem with balooning health care costs is that we want everything - every new medicine, every new technique, every new everything - and we want it all right now. We're ravenous in our desire for and our consumption of health care. At it's core, what this legislation starts to do is to start restricting access to things that we could, in the past, simply reflexively obtain. It's rationing without going as far as using the word rationing. There's just no getting around it - we're going to have to deal with having less access and less services than we had before. That's ultimately where this legislation takes us - it's just difficult to say that without people instantly thinking they are going to be denied some medicine or denied some procedure.

I agree. We want everything 'on-demand' including our health care. We're also a society of 'internet doctors' that self-diagnose. Our health care system is also a system where we treat by process of elimination. That is a complete waste of time, but unfortunately it seems to be the only way some doctors know how to treat.

I also think we're still ignoring for the most part the root cause of our health issues - our diets.

We're fat and out of shape. We're too reliant on everything being motorized and immigrants to do our hard labor.

A lot of doctors, especially the younger ones, are scared of lawsuits so they order every test they can to try and eliminate things and avoid being sued.

HI54UNI wrote:

danefan wrote:
I agree. We want everything 'on-demand' including our health care. We're also a society of 'internet doctors' that self-diagnose. Our health care system is also a system where we treat by process of elimination. That is a complete waste of time, but unfortunately it seems to be the only way some doctors know how to treat.

I also think we're still ignoring for the most part the root cause of our health issues - our diets.

We're fat and out of shape. We're too reliant on everything being motorized and immigrants to do our hard labor.

A lot of doctors, especially the younger ones, are scared of lawsuits so they order every test they can to try and eliminate things and avoid being sued.

+1

And my guess is that the costs of all those extra tests aren't including when estimating the impact of malpractice on healthcare costs.

Well you people are NOT cheering me up...
I'd like a little feel good news today okay

HI54UNI wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I'm not sure I necessarily agree with our diets being at the root cause of most of our health issues. It certainly doesn't help, don't get me wrong, but just because you're fat doesn't mean you're going to be a drain on the health care system.

I think you need to also look at the amount of health care that is consumed by the elderly portion of our population. Obviously for the better, people live far longer now than they ever have, but that comes at a cost. Old people get sick, old people break hips and need knees replaced, and old people need a lot of things (medication, treatments, etc) to stay upright and kicking. It's not just coincidence that we're seeing a huge spike in health care costs as the baby boomer generation enters their sunset years. We have a medical system and funding that, although wonderfully benevolent and caring for the elderly, costs a lot of money and continues to cost money. Couple that with generations that get increasingly adamant about fulfilling individual desires and it's a bad combination. And that's the rub - I'm not sure how to pull back in that regard - how do you tell grandmom she has to cut back on pain medication, how do you tell grandpa that since he'll never be overly mobile again that it's a waste to have a double knee replacement? At some point we're going to need to say that everything that people get now - well, they're just not going to be able to get those things unless they can pay for it themselves. That's a tough pill to swallow (there's a pun there, I'm sure of it).

Sounds like you are advocating death panels.......

No, not at all, just making the observation that old people require more medical care than non-old people, even the fat non-old people. And old people have more free time on their hands to go out and seek medical care. I had partial loss of hearing in one of my ears (diagnosed as eustachian tube dysfunction) and it took me two weeks to find a way to squeeze a doctor's visit into my schedule (between work, the kids, etc). If I was old I would've been in that office the very next day. Of course, I probably would've been there anyway for some other appointment.

Pwns wrote:The biggest problem with health care that we have is being completely ignored by this bill...we just don't have enough bleepin' doctors. This bill didn't lift the cap on the number of residency positions that we have. We should have lifted the cap a long time ago and it has been biting us in the a** for a while now. We just can't continue to produce doctors at the same rate we do now with an aging population and growing rates of type II diabetes. With the exception of a few specialties most doctors are very much overworked.

And all of this doesn't just mean less medical attention. It means less manpower and higher costs for clinical trials when we have a huge queue of promising drugs waiting for their turn. The US has produced the vast majority of medical advances and we could lose our advantage in the medical industry if we don't have people available to conduct trials.

We can either make health care more affordable by making it crappier - having PAs take over primary care, having less preventative care and less care for chronic diseases - or we can make it more affordable by investing to create more doctors and more technology. We're basically doing the former.

And if this is such a great health care plan for businesses, why have so many unions and businesses who have supported Obama gotten waivers?

Get ready for importation of tens of thousands of doctors from overseas, esp India, over the next decade..

The limits on FSAs blow. That includes the money often set aside for child care pre tax. We max out the amount within 4 months, between 3 kids.

Same with medical between 5 people in the family- 2 kids with special needs. Most insurance policies have complex deductible thresholds that are near impossible to surpass unless you are run over by a bus.

As a business owner that pays 100% insurance premium on 20 employees, I can tell you my 35% tax credit amount on $60000 of insurance dollars- about $4000. That before the 12 hours of staff & cpa time it took to calculate the figures.

This entire thing is like a three card Monty convention with one queen.

BTW - the 3.8% investment tax is not indexed to inflation. Similar to the ATM. The same thing for the premium subsidy dollars. The qualification for a subsidy is indexed to inflation, but not the pool of subsidy dollars. More people getting smaller & smaller subsidy amounts.

sent from my Samsung Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk for one percenters