I see dead people ...

[tyflier]

How is that???

Come on, Lee...almost every post you have made in this thread has been a defense of the banks, the insurance companies, and the major corporate "bigwigs". You have gone out of your way to defend them as simple, hard working, honest individuals, with no ill intent, just trying to get by.

Conversely, you have continuously stated that politicians and the government are to blame, that THEY are the ones to fear, and that this is THEIR fault.

This is starting to feel like a FOX news program. You've slung mud at politicians in an effort to clean the corporate pigs, and now you're trying to act as though your statements were fair and non-judgemental. Do you really expect me to fall for that? :sobstory:

 

[tyflier]

Let's just say that power corrupts many people, CEOs of major corporations and politicians alike, and both have played their roles in getting us into our current mess. The question is, how do we change it? Sensible regulation seems to be part of it. The CEOs of major corporations "game the system" so they get unfair advantages that protect their companies from actual free markets, while the little company gets regulated to death because its CEO doesn't have the power to corrupt the politicians to get protection from the function of the markets. Seems like both sides are dirty to me.

Seems a very fair and incredibly accurate description to me...

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Was that Spiderman? Maybe it was Thomas Jefferson...

 

[Duff]

I do have a problem when the gov tries to micro manage by taking over healthcare, owning large portions of private business, running the banks, etc.

Do you have any PROOF that they are taking over healthcare? And what large portions of private business do they own? If you're referring to the auto industry bailout, where's the PROOF that government ever made ANY business decision while holding that "ownership" stock, other than getting them to figure out how to stop hemorrhaging money to avoid complete collapse and failure? And again, please provide 1 example of how they are RUNNING the banks now. I'd love to see any of this PROOF that doesn't come from a Fox "news" show, because to date, I still haven't. Sure the Fox heads make all sorts of claims, but haven't seen or heard a single piece of actual proof.

 

[Outcast]

Do you have any PROOF that they are taking over healthcare? And what large portions of private business do they own? If you're referring to the auto industry bailout, where's the PROOF that government ever made ANY business decision while holding that "ownership" stock, other than getting them to figure out how to stop hemorrhaging money to avoid complete collapse and failure? And again, please provide 1 example of how they are RUNNING the banks now. I'd love to see any of this PROOF that doesn't come from a Fox "news" show, because to date, I still haven't. Sure the Fox heads make all sorts of claims, but haven't seen or heard a single piece of actual proof.

What in the world do you call Obama's health care reform, if not a government takeover? We will have to take it, no matter if we want to or not, or we will have to face the consequences.... Or is that all just Fox news fear tactics?

 

[Duff]

What in the world do you call Obama's health care reform, if not a government takeover? We will have to take it, no matter if we want to or not, or we will have to face the consequences.... Or is that all just Fox news fear tactics?

Yes, that's what so many say, but show me PROOF that it's a government takeover? Regulations that make insurance companies honor their policies and treat customers fairly is not a take over. Providing help for those that need it is not a take over. Private insurance companies will still exist, they just won't be able to rip off the public as easily anymore. Where's the takeover in any of that? Or if there's something else I'm missing, please, by all means, enlighten me. Just because some talking head says it's a take over, doesn't make it true. Where's the PROOF?

 

[Outcast]

I don't have proof. I have just had a bad feeling in my gut ever since they proposed it and passed it without a proper discussion. Seems shady if you ask me.

 

[Nanci]

I feel like this is Groundhog Day.

 

[Leew]

OK Tyflyer, you win. Thanks for engaging me for the last few days. I have enjoyed our conversation. I think the nice discussion has ended.

 

[Outcast]

I feel like this is Groundhog Day.

I know, isn't it great./sarcasm font

 

[tyflier]

What in the world do you call Obama's health care reform, if not a government takeover? We will have to take it, no matter if we want to or not, or we will have to face the consequences.... Or is that all just Fox news fear tactics?

Wait a second...a "government takeover" would indicate to me that there is only going to be a single insurance provider, that provider would be the government, and that every citizen in this country would be required to pay into this government owned and operated insurance company. THAT would be a "government takeover".

Now...you, me and everyone else in this forum knows that this isn't even CLOSE to what is actually happening. What is actually happening is a closing of the loopholes that allow insurance companies to to treat their policy holders in a fair manner, even if that means their profit margin suffers.

There is rumoured to be a government run option where individuals will be able to pay their premiums and get their coverage, and that those premiums will be based on income eligibility. But that's not a "government takeover"...it's a government option that is not forced down anyones throat, is not remotely "socialist" in nature, and absolutely allows the free market to work by giving consumers yet another otion in the insurance field if they find their present provider lacking.

That is a FAR cry from a government takeover...

Now...you tell me whether a "government takeover" of healthcare is real or just FOX news fear tactics...

 

[tyflier]

Now...you, me and everyone else in this forum knows that this isn't even CLOSE to what is actually happening. What is actually happening is a closing of the loopholes that allow insurance companies to to treat their policy holders in a fair manner, even if that means their profit margin suffers...

That should read--

What is actually happening is a closing of the loopholes to force insurance companies to to treat their policy holders in a fair manner, even if that means their profit margin suffers...

Sorry...

 

[starsevol]

Chris,

I understand that one of the ramificatons of this "government takeover" is that anyone who recieves heath benefits from their job will be taxed on whatever their employer pays for their healthcare. It will be treated as income and taxed as income. And that goes for EVERYONE whether they opt into the program or not.

Also, that businesses will be forced to provide information on everyone they do business with, over a certain amount of money. I am not sure of the details of that, but it sounds like a paperwork nightmare.

This is what I am hearing. Am I wrong?

 

[tyflier]

Chris,

I understand that one of the ramificatons of this "government takeover" is that anyone who recieves heath benefits from their job will be taxed on whatever their employer pays for their healthcare. It will be treated as income and taxed as income. And that goes for EVERYONE whether they opt into the program or not.

Also, that businesses will be forced to provide information on everyone they do business with, over a certain amount of money. I am not sure of the details of that, but it sounds like a paperwork nightmare.

This is what I am hearing. Am I wrong?

I haven't heard anything about employees being taxed for their employer's contributions. I have heard of tax breaks for employers that start offering insurance programs for employees that have none, and I have heard of a tax being imposed on individuals that refuse to carry some form of health insurance. But this is the first I have heard about any employee being taxed because of an employer's contributions.

And yes, businesses will be required to show expenditures for every account over a certain dollar figure. It may seem like a "paperwork nightmare", but I can't really see how else the government can be expected to seal up loopholes without such restrictions. Mis-reporting of costs, profits, losses, and net worth is one of the biggest reasons we are in financial hell as a country. Seems only fair to close up those loopholes in an effort to prevent further misrepresentations.

Unfortunately for small businesses, as someone else pointed out in another discussion, big corporations are offered the same protections as single-owner businesses under the Constitution, thus small businesses must be expected to follow the same procedures and regulations regarding profit/loss and expenditure reporting as the big boys.

 

[Outcast]

Chris, I really hope you are right about this being their way of closing loopholes.

 

[tyflier]

Chris, I really hope you are right about this being their way of closing loopholes.

So do I!!unch: :sidestep:

 

[starsevol]

I haven't heard anything about employees being taxed for their employer's contributions. I have heard of tax breaks for employers that start offering insurance programs for employees that have none, and I have heard of a tax being imposed on individuals that refuse to carry some form of health insurance. But this is the first I have heard about any employee being taxed because of an employer's contributions.

And yes, businesses will be required to show expenditures for every account over a certain dollar figure. It may seem like a "paperwork nightmare", but I can't really see how else the government can be expected to seal up loopholes without such restrictions. Mis-reporting of costs, profits, losses, and net worth is one of the biggest reasons we are in financial hell as a country. Seems only fair to close up those loopholes in an effort to prevent further misrepresentations.

Unfortunately for small businesses, as someone else pointed out in another discussion, big corporations are offered the same protections as single-owner businesses under the Constitution, thus small businesses must be expected to follow the same procedures and regulations regarding profit/loss and expenditure reporting as the big boys.

Now mind you, I don't watch Fox News at all, the only program I watch on that station is Stossel (yeah, I really like him), and I get most of my news out of my local paper and local channels.
Our local newspaper, the Providence Journal, was where I found out about employer contributions being taxed as income. My state has been run by democrats for 50 years now, and the paper has a heavy democratic slant, so I am not sure what to think here. I know that if employer contributions are taxed as income, the results will be devistating, at least in my world. Our health care insurance costs are a huge percentage of our income, nearly 25%. Paying additional taxes on that would really hurt us.
The thing about having to report everything, ok, let me give you my own business as an example. My husband and I run a bicycle shop. As far as small businesses go, you can't get much smaller than us, only the 2 of us work there. Off the top of my head sitting here, we have roughly 10 suppliers that we use all the time, and many more that we use occaisonlly, to buy our inventory from. From what I understand, every time I make out a bike or bike parts order I will have reams of paperwork to fill out to send off to "big brother". I think if this ends up becoming a reality, the damage it does will far outweigh any benefits.

Chris, you are really not going to like what I have to say here. But there is no way that this country is sustainable as things are now. And the only solution that I can see is one that no one wants to look at.

 

[Leew]

Bethany, I think I can answer some of your questions. The tax break Tyflyer mentioned that employers get for offering health care to employees is that they will be able to deduct that expense from their gross income. That money will not be counted as part of their profits so they won't have to pay tax on that amount themselves.

Taxing of your health care coverage that you receive from your employer is part of Obama's new tax program and is not part of the new health care plan. What ever your employer spends on your health insurance will be considered income to you and you will be taxed according to the tax bracket you may be in.

My understanding of reporting expenses is that you will have to report expenses for any services you pay for over the amount of $600 per year to any one individual. You will not be required to report expenses for goods you purchase. Of course you will have to keep recipets to prove the purchases of goods if you are ever audited.

 

[starsevol]

Bethany, I think I can answer some of your questions. The tax break Tyflyer mentioned that employers get for offering health care to employees is that they will be able to deduct that expense from their gross income. That money will not be counted as part of their profits so they won't have to pay tax on that amount themselves.

Taxing of your health care coverage that you receive from your employer is part of Obama's new tax program and is not part of the new health care plan. What ever your employer spends on your health insurance will be considered income to you and you will be taxed according to the tax bracket you may be in.

My understanding of reporting expenses is that you will have to report expenses for any services you pay for over the amount of $600 per year to any one individual. You will not be required to report expenses for goods you purchase. Of course you will have to keep recipets to prove the purchases of goods if you are ever audited.

If this is true, it is better than I had thought, except for Obama's tax plan. If that comes into law, then we will be paying an extra 25% in taxes than we are right now.

 

[tsst]

Do you have any PROOF that they are taking over healthcare? ...

Unless I misunderstand I will no longer have a choice to refuse healthcare unless I prefer to pay a fine to the gov. Seems like a first step. The forced purchase of a private service by the gov!?!? And as Bethany pointed out my healthcare will now be taxed by the gov. And for tyflier, they will then "socialize" that money to fund somebody else's coverage.

And what large portions of private business do they own? ...

Government Motors Corp and Chrysler to start with not sure which banks they bought into.

... If you're referring to the auto industry bailout, where's the PROOF that government ever made ANY business decision while holding that "ownership" stock, other than getting them to figure out how to stop hemorrhaging money to avoid complete collapse and failure?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1501561,w-obama-gm-wagoner032909.article

 

[Duff]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1501561,w-obama-gm-wagoner032909.article[/URL]

That would fall under "other than getting them to figure out how to stop hemorrhaging money to avoid complete collapse and failure". Which is taking steps to safeguard the taxpayers money. They wouldn't be able to pay it back if the bleeding wasn't stopped. I'm definitely not in favor of government bailouts of corporations, but at least they made an effort to ensure repayment would be possible.