Yes correct.........unless they change the rules again?
That would be deductible and co-insurance.
This guy needed lung surgery and it would have bankrupted him
- Thread starter The Joker
- Start date
Yes correct.........unless they change the rules again?
That would be deductible and co-insurance.
Please read up on how this works... Seriously, while not a perfect plan, Certainly the right direction.
His parents pay their fair share of taxes too! His surgery wasn't free or paid for by taxpayers you dolt, it was covered by his insurance. He is able to stay on his parents insurance by law, how hard is that to figure out.
Secondly, taxpayers in the U.S. pay a far higher price to corporate tax loopholes and benefits to large corporations, that subsequently use corporate inversion to move their headquarters to tax friendly countries while still doing the majority of their business right here in the U.S. Mylan, for instance, paid an effective corporate tax rate of 16.2% last year. That's almost 19% less than the corporate tax rate, and far less than the average tax rate of a lower middle class family. Mylan also benefits from 3 billion dollars in contracts with the VA every year, yet their inversion and loopholes will cost the U.S. government almost 20 billion dollars in the next decade, and you think taxpayers paid for this poor kids surgery? You're an idiot then.
That's a flat out lie about Texas putting children on their Mother's insurance. It is your responsibility and she probably had better insurance or you couldn't be trusted to provide it so she carries them on hers, but there is no law saying the mother has to carry them. A flat out lie.
I wouldn't worry about them graduating by 26, they will have stopped speaking to you long before that.
Hope this helps,
FDC
The government doesn't have money to pay for anything. Brings memories of the Dumb and Dumber IOUs for the Lambo.
Because of Obamacare, other people paid for it with incredibly high increases in their premiums.
Such a completely false and ridiculous statement. Obamacare didn't set premium price, the insurance companies do that all by themselves. Completely 100% on the insurance company and not one thing to do with the ACA, but I don't expect that the truth is of much consequence here or it would have been evident from the onset.
Hashtag Friday can't get here soon enough.
Hope this helps,
FDC
this thread isn't in politics yet?
I can understand why corporations in the US seek out all these inversions - we have the highest (nominal) coporate tax rate among all the developed countries in the world!
as other countries have wisely reduced thier corporate taxes, we have increased ours! Even the French and Scanadavians wonder why US is considered so "capitalist" with punishing coporate and capital gains taxes we have here, they just laugh at our lack of business sense.
Congress has tried to comphrehensively reform the tax code, but you know how that goes.
So investment is hurt in this country by the high tax rates, chasing investors out, and only certain investors who can use the loopholes benefit, lots of time and money is misallocated to seeking out tax advantages and trying to understand and comply with the complex administration of the tax code here.
but I do think Obamacare could help the economy overall - more poor working folks might stay working instead of going on welfare so they can pay hefty medical bills.
I can understand why corporations in the US seek out all these inversions - we have the highest (nominal) coporate tax rate among all the developed countries in the world!
as other countries have wisely reduced thier corporate taxes, we have increased ours! Even the French and Scanadavians wonder why US is considered so "capitalist" with punishing coporate and capital gains taxes we have here, they just laugh at our lack of business sense.
Congress has tried to comphrehensively reform the tax code, but you know how that goes.
So investment is hurt in this country by the high tax rates, chasing investors out, and only certain investors who can use the loopholes benefit, lots of time and money is misallocated to seeking out tax advantages and trying to understand and comply with the complex administration of the tax code here.
but I do think Obamacare could help the economy overall - more poor working folks might stay working instead of going on welfare so they can pay hefty medical bills.
That's not true. We don't have even close to the highest corporate tax rates in the world by any measure. Check Norway, Finland, Sweden. Besides that, the 35% corporate tax rate was realized by less than .00007% by any corporations with revenue over 100 million last year. More than 88% of those same corporations paid less than 22% so the "tax rate" is far from 35%.
Billions in lost tax revenue due to ridiculous tax incentives and loopholes. The fact is that billions a year in profit still isn't enough to sate the greed the wealthy exhibit in this country. The fact that people still believe that trickle down economics is a viable system is beyond me.
Billions in lost tax revenue due to ridiculous tax incentives and loopholes. The fact is that billions a year in profit still isn't enough to sate the greed the wealthy exhibit in this country. The fact that people still believe that trickle down economics is a viable system is beyond me.
Like moving the age you can be on your parents insurance to 30 years old, sounds like what this regime would do :facepalm:
I disagree, I think employers should provide insurance for their workers not the government. The reason ins is so high is because doctors have to pay malpractice ins premiums that are ridiculous, so they rape ins companies to recoup, it's the lawyers in this country have caused the problem, IMO
Limit lawsuit settlements would be my first order of business if I was in charge
Left turn instead of RIGHT!
Left turn instead of RIGHT!
July 31 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review a case about whether the federal government can subsidize health insurance for millions of Americans, a party involved in the lawsuit said on Thursday.
The petition requests the U.S. high court decide the issue after two lower U.S. court rulings created uncertainties last week regarding the legitimacy of subsidies for individuals enrolled on federally run exchanges under the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is coordinating and funding the cases, filed the petition, according to the not-for-profit's website. (http://bit.ly/1tA8r5x)
The twin appeals court rulings, handed down by three-judge panels in Washington, D.C., and Richmond, Virginia, fell in line with partisan disagreements over healthcare reform. Two judges appointed by Republican presidents decided against the administration in the District of Columbia and three judges appointed by Democrats ruled in favor in Virginia.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in a 2-1 decision that the language in the Affordable Care Act dealing with subsidies shows they should only be provided to consumers who purchase benefits on exchanges run by individual states.
However, plaintiffs in the D.C. Circuit case, known as Halbig v. Burwell, claimed that Congress did not intend to provide subsidies through federally operated marketplaces.
While the Supreme Court has broad discretion over which cases to take, a split among lower courts can be a big factor in its deciding whether to hear an appeal.
The Supreme Court upheld the Obamacare law on constitutional grounds in 2012 but allowed states to opt out of a major provision involving Medicaid coverage.
Analysts estimate that as many as 5 million people could be affected if subsidies disappear from the federal marketplace, which serves 36 states through the website HealthCare.gov
Left turn instead of RIGHT!
July 31 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review a case about whether the federal government can subsidize health insurance for millions of Americans, a party involved in the lawsuit said on Thursday.
The petition requests the U.S. high court decide the issue after two lower U.S. court rulings created uncertainties last week regarding the legitimacy of subsidies for individuals enrolled on federally run exchanges under the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is coordinating and funding the cases, filed the petition, according to the not-for-profit's website. (http://bit.ly/1tA8r5x)
The twin appeals court rulings, handed down by three-judge panels in Washington, D.C., and Richmond, Virginia, fell in line with partisan disagreements over healthcare reform. Two judges appointed by Republican presidents decided against the administration in the District of Columbia and three judges appointed by Democrats ruled in favor in Virginia.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in a 2-1 decision that the language in the Affordable Care Act dealing with subsidies shows they should only be provided to consumers who purchase benefits on exchanges run by individual states.
However, plaintiffs in the D.C. Circuit case, known as Halbig v. Burwell, claimed that Congress did not intend to provide subsidies through federally operated marketplaces.
While the Supreme Court has broad discretion over which cases to take, a split among lower courts can be a big factor in its deciding whether to hear an appeal.
The Supreme Court upheld the Obamacare law on constitutional grounds in 2012 but allowed states to opt out of a major provision involving Medicaid coverage.
Analysts estimate that as many as 5 million people could be affected if subsidies disappear from the federal marketplace, which serves 36 states through the website HealthCare.gov
This.
According to a colleague at a recent economic conference by the big dudes - University of Chicago School of Economics, Harvard Business School, Stanford School of Business, etc. - the prevailing question throughout was this: what comes after capitalism? Or in other words, what now?!! LOL
Change, it is a coming....
Peace!
