Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Leatherneck on March 22, 2010, 07:16:32 PM
-
Whatever bureaucracy they set up to administer socialized health care will look around for money. Any guess what will be their first target?
I have one. As a federal employee, I buy a pretty good policy from GEHA that covers Leatherness and me. I pay $186.06 and the government claims to pay $376.06 every two weeks. That's $14,615.12 a year, most of which the feds already (claim to) pay. That's semi-real cash that's easily available to them by fiat.
Next up, federal contractors?
TC
-
I have been a federal contractor with two companies. While I can tell you that I noticed the fed gov's influence in many areas (notably benefits for same sex couples, minor pay equalization, explicitly stating that janitors will make a certain amount well above min wage, etc.) one company has crappy benefits and the other has really good benefits.
Both companies have the same benefits for non-government personnel as government. While it is certainly in the realm of possibility for them to try, the Feds have never seemed to care about the kind of benefits before. The contracts with them can take more than a year to negotiate, the companies often have to hire out of pocket and wait for the contract to be complete before compensation is paid.
While contractors might be next up, it will take years depending on the contracts an work.
-
My guess on finding $$. Probably before 2010 elections, a must in 2012, you'll here about the little European thingy called a VAT. Value Added Tax. In the form of a national sales tax or so forth.
I could be wrong.
-
My guess on finding $$. Probably before 2010 elections, a must in 2012, you'll here about the little European thingy called a VAT. Value Added Tax. In the form of a national sales tax or so forth.
I could be wrong.
It came up early in the HC debate. Count on seeing the VAT before Obama goes away.
-
A VAT would be great if we got rid of the income tax. not really seeing that in their plans though.
-
I'd prefer a VAT or some version of fair tax if we abolish the Income Tax. But the tards in charge are salivating a having both to fund all sorts of insane entitlements
-
A version of 'payroll tax' (FICA) on all unearned income (interest, dividends, capital gains) is already in the plans if not already included in Obamacare. [barf]
-
Well we know the Income Tax ain't going anywhere. Since over 16,000 new IRS agents need be hired just to enforce ObamaCare.
-
A VAT would be great if we got rid of the income tax. not really seeing that in their plans though.
Primary reason why I disagree with a VAT (among many reasons) is because it will be added and income tax will not be eliminated.
-
First, there is no Consititutional authority for fed.gov to force us to buy health insurance-or anything else. (and don't give me the 'commerce clause' weasel-out, even the 1st amendment doesn't give you the 'right' to shout 'fire' in a theater or 'bomb' at the airport). Second, the 16th amend is already on shaky groung (IMHO). IWO, this dog ain't leaving the porch. They can legislate and regulate all they want, they'll just drive trade/commerce/exchange underground.
-
They can legislate and regulate all they want, they'll just drive trade/commerce/exchange underground.
Ain't it funny how what used to be called the "Free Market" is now called the "Black Market"?
Any road, any time you can buy goods or services for cash and not require a reciept it is usually good for at least a 20% savings. It is my preferred way of doing business.
-
A version of 'payroll tax' (FICA) on all unearned income (interest, dividends, capital gains) is already in the plans if not already included in Obamacare. [barf]
Ayup. 3.8% on unearned income. This is on top of whatever other taxes were already in place.
-
The problem is not the taxation, the problem is the spending. It is the spending that accumulates annual deficits and aggregates national debt. That debt is then sold to the world (read: China) who then own us. Bottom line is that .gov-especially at the federal level-is too big, too powerful, and has too much of OUR money. How has this happened? A-P-A-T-H-Y. Election turnout is and has been abysmally low-people can't be bothered to vote-let alone inform themselves of issues. We've allowed ourselves to be turned into a nation of impotent, bleating sheep. Nevermind Republicans vs. Democrats or 'Conservatives' vs. 'Liberals'. That's just a sideshow to keep the rubes agitated. THEY (government apparatchiks ie, our 'elected representatives') are in it purely and completely for themselves. Make no mistake. Our interests are not represented. .gov does what it wants and there is nobody to stop them. Do you really think they care if they're voted out of office? HA! You can bet made a deal for a fat job (read bribe) after they've left office.
.gov has been feeding us crap for some time now. 'Health care reform', 'financial meltdown', 'terrorism', 'dot.com crisis' 'savings and loan failures', think about it, people. They've always got a new crisis for us. And it's all BS. They devalue our money, steal the fruits of our labor, regulate and manipulate the minutia of our lives through the tax code on and on. It's got nothing to do with political ideology. Neither party is your friend and neither represents our interests.
-
Ayup. 3.8% on unearned income. This is on top of whatever other taxes were already in place.
What's 'unearned' income?
-
What's 'unearned' income?
Dividends, interest, capital gains, like that. Earned income is labor.
-
The black market is what keeps countries like Italy, weighed down by burrocrats, afloat. You can't survive unless you're off the books. We're headed the same way.
"Unearned income" is income you think you earned by past work but which is, in the Obamatopia, morally wrong because it's not happening right now and by "working families." See, past work and past savings and past investment don't count; they're unfair to people who function in an eternal economic present.
The VAT is coming, on top of income taxes of course. I suspect we'll see some dramatic cutbacks in military spending down the road, although Obama no doubt envisions the military as one more welfare organization.
-
Government has already, at various times, instituted some rather unsavory taxes . . . I see an attempt to bring these back.
* Personal property tax - everything you own is taxed. Cars, TVs, jewelry . . . everything. When I was a kid they had such a tax in Illinois, but widespread noncompliance led to it being abolished. Look for it to come back in some form.
* Tax on "imputed income." I already get nicked for my employer-paid life insurance benefits, but look for this to expand. (Own a home? What you save by NOT paying rent can be considered "imputed income.")
* Capital tax. Not a capital gains, tax, but a tax on capital itself. (In this vein, I understand some states used to include things like stock ownership in their personal property tax calculations.)
* Tax people by the mile for what they drive. (People with fuel-efficient cars aren't paying their fair share of gasoline taxes.)
And of course, they can always tack on "fees" and "charges" without calling them "taxes."
And consider . . . the expansion of government power that it would take to enforce these. :O
-
Government has already, at various times, instituted some rather unsavory taxes . . . I see an attempt to bring these back.
My favorite (for absurdity):
We used to be required to get our cars inspected to get new license plates every year. This was wildly unpopular, obviously. So, they passed a law that allowed you to pay an extra $10 or $15 for the license plates to be able to forego the inspection. Since nearly everyone paid the extra money, rather than go through the inspection, a few years later they closed the inspection stations. But, of course our license plate fees never went back down. Recently, I noticed they also added a "wheelage fee" whatever the hell that is...
-
Leather- Why should you federal employees get a better deal than the rest of us? As a private citizen, I paid $390 a month to Anthem Blue Cross (with a $3500 deductible, I might add) until they raised it to $564 a month. And that's just for me, one person. It seems I'm carrying your discounted premiums.
-
$560 a month with a $3500 deductible?
Unless you're a really nasty health risk, you should consider shopping around. ;)
-
Mine is $149 a month, no deductible, no co-pay.
-
$560 a month with a $3500 deductible?
Unless you're a really nasty health risk, you should consider shopping around
Of course I did and had another policy within 2 weeks. $335/mo with $3500 deductible and another $1750 co-pay to get to that $3500. You know, none of us know when we're going to be sick, or require medical attention. You younger people could easily have a child born with a severe health problem requiring intensive and long term medical care. Do you know that Anthem/Blue Cross enjoyed a 2009 profit in the hundreds of billions of $$ in 2009? This money came from subscriber premiums. Are they charging too much because they have a monopoly, or are they denying claims to increase profits?
-
Of course I did and had another policy within 2 weeks. $335/mo with $3500 deductible and another $1750 co-pay to get to that $3500. You know, none of us know when we're going to be sick, or require medical attention. You younger people could easily have a child born with a severe health problem requiring intensive and long term medical care. Do you know that Anthem/Blue Cross enjoyed a 2009 profit in the hundreds of billions of $$ in 2009? This money came from subscriber premiums. Are they charging too much because they have a monopoly, or are they denying claims to increase profits?
The answer is both.
Even those prices are nuts. Like I said, I live in a country with "socialist" medicine, and am able to fully cover myself for $149 a month. That's the private option here.
-
Are they charging too much because they have a monopoly, or are they denying claims to increase profits?
Neither. They're running a successful business, which used to be considered a good thing in America.
If you don't like the prices and services you're getting from Anthem, fire 'em and hire someone else. If you can't hire anyone else for the kind of prices you think are correct, you might take that as a clue that your expectations are a little off the mark. It's unlikely that you know better than the markets what this stuff should cost.
-
Leather- Why should you federal employees get a better deal than the rest of us? As a private citizen, I paid $390 a month to Anthem Blue Cross (with a $3500 deductible, I might add) until they raised it to $564 a month. And that's just for me, one person. It seems I'm carrying your discounted premiums.
Are you paying higher premiums for a medical condition, though?
We are young, and paying less than that for my entire family.
-
Five years ago, I was paying over $500/month for my share to cover our family of four.
There was no other (reasonable) choice because that is what my then employer offered.
-
I paid $390 a month
And I pay almost exactly that. What's your point? And how are you "subsidizing" my insurance?
TC
-
I didn't read the entire thread....so sorry if this is old news. The McCarren-Ferguson Act of 1943 prohibits ObamaCare. That's assuming the .fedgov even remembers this law is on the books and assuming the D's would abide by it.
-
... The McCarren-Ferguson Act of 1943 prohibits ObamaCare. ...
How so?
-
interesting (http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/testimony/250917.htm), would be funny to watch that -- session. [popcorn]
-
McClarren-Ferguson prohibits the federal government from interfering in the "business of insurance". That regulation of insurance companies are the exclusive bailiwick of the states. Even though insurance companies may do business in many states, they have to follow the regulation by the individual states. That's why one can not buy an insurance policy issued in a state where one does not reside. In otherwords, if you want to buy an auto or a health or any kind of policy, you must buy it from the company that is doing business in your state from an agent of that company in your state. The commerce clause does not apply in this instance.