User avatar
By BigCliff
#480502
A simple explanation of why Ryan's plan to offer a voucher option instead of Medicare won't save us any money-
To see why, imagine two beneficiaries. One has medical expenses amounting to $150 and the other, $50. The average cost is $100. Now imagine that a private plan bids $90 to cover beneficiaries, so it looks to be about 10 percent cheaper than traditional Medicare. That plan, however, while it is designed to be very attractive to the $50 beneficiary, isn’t appealing to the $150 one, so that person stays in traditional Medicare.

The result is that total costs rise from $200 ($150 for the expensive beneficiary plus $50 for the inexpensive one) to $240 ($150 for the expensive beneficiary plus $90 for the inexpensive one). So even though the plan “looks” like it saves money, it doesn’t.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-2 ... -cost.html
Pretty damn simple, really.
User avatar
By Upsetter
#480533
AND the inscos make out like bandits by taking on the low cost patients while the high cost ones stay on the fixed bene plan, pocketing the difference in cost v premium. Their margins go thru the roof til that low cost patient turns into a high cost one, then that person will likely switch to the fixed plan and dump the insco to save on their out of pocket cost.

The devil will be the details on this though, it will depend on how the rules are written as to how much of a giveaway to inscos this will be. But given the amount of sway theyve had on a dem controlled rulemaking process so far, it will likely be a field day with their yesmen bitches running the show.
User avatar
By Muddled Duck
#480536
So, those who weren't going to vote for Romney still aren't, and those who weren't going to vote for Obama still aren't.

Sounds to me like VP doesn't do shit in regards to helping get elected. I'll chime in the next election cycle when the VP makes a fuck.
User avatar
By Cary
#480543
True, but there's only like, six of us stuck here in the basement...
By SOBF
#480544
True, but there's only like, six of us stuck here in the basement...
Make it 5. I'm out.
User avatar
By BigCliff
#480548
SOBF wrote:
True, but there's only like, six of us stuck here in the basement...
Make it 5. I'm out.
Hah. You won't last a day.
User avatar
By eponymous
#480792
Got this from ADP today.....
Dear Eponymous,

As a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, effective January 1, 2013, employers will be required to withhold a 0.9% Additional Hospital Insurance Tax on High-Income Taxpayers (a.k.a., “Medicare Surtax”).

High-Income Taxpayers are defined as those with an annual income of $200,000 for individuals, $250,000 for joint filers, and $125,000 for married individuals filing separately. The increase applies only to the employee portion of the Medicare tax, though the employer is responsible for withholding and reporting.

Employers should be mindful that the law requires an employer to withhold the Additional Medicare Tax on wages or compensation it pays to an employee in excess of $200,000 in a calendar year.

Reconciliation of over or under withholding for joint filers or married individuals filing separately, is accomplished when the employee files his/her income tax return. An employee has the option to have additional Federal Income Tax withheld on Form W-4 in anticipation of meeting the wage threshold for the additional Medicare Surtax.*

ADP’s payroll application has been updated and your company payroll should reflect the new Medicare Surtax requirements as applicable, beginning in calendar year 2013.

For more information about the Additional Medicare Tax, you can access the following links:
• Refer to the IRS FAQ’s at http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/art ... 01,00.html
• Details can also be found on the ADP website at http://www.adp.com/tools-and-resources/ ... dates.aspx

We appreciate the opportunity to serve your payroll and tax filing needs.

Sincerely yours,
Your ADP Service Team

*This information is provided solely as a courtesy and not as legal or tax advice. Your tax professional and/or legal counsel should be consulted for updates that may have an impact on your organization and specific facts related to your business.
I just heard him tell me in a press conference the other day that he just wants to help the people in the middle, he doesn't want to drag anyone else down. I guess by "anyone else" he didn't really mean me. We know who he means when he says "somebody else" though.
User avatar
By Mattb
#480839
eponymous wrote: I just heard him tell me in a press conference the other day that he just wants to help the people in the middle, he doesn't want to drag anyone else down. I guess by "anyone else" he didn't really mean me. We know who he means when he says "somebody else" though.
If you're making enough that an additional .9% surtax on income over $200/$250k is going to be an appreciable amount of money, you're most definitely not middle class, and Obama's been talking for ages about how your taxes are going to go up under his policies. As for dragging you down, I'd say that's a bit of a stretch at a time when high income taxpayers (e.g. you) are paying historically low taxes. Did the economy under Clinton drag you down too?

If a couple has an AGI of $300k, that's $450 - not nothing, but not exactly going to break the bank either. I know that the Romney/Ryan camp feels we'd be better off as a nation if we were to take that $450 from a food stamp recipient or someone on Medicaid - to each his own, I guess.
User avatar
By eponymous
#480989
the two are not mutually exclusive. don't make it like allowing someone who is rich to keep a dollar they already earned means that some poor fellow has to pay another dollar into the system to cover it. especially when for the most part they don't pay into it in the first place. how about we fix it instead of asking the "rich" to keep paying and paying and paying 'cause its just not that much money in the end. when you add up this .9% for that program and another .9% for this program and so on and so on pretty soon it doesn't make sense to keep working and earning so that someone else gets what is "rightfully" theirs.

and if by historically low taxes you mean the top 10% of wage earners paid something like 70% of all taxes instead of 71% then yeah I suppose that would be accurate.

I worked until midnight last night and got up at 5:30 for a 7:30 meeting north of Boston. I knocked off early tonight so i could get frustrated on teh suck. By early I mean 10. Guess what - another 7:30 meeting tomorrow morning. I make the money I make because I earn it. Nobody gave it to me. I should get to keep as much of it as possible.
User avatar
By jdub
#480992
eponymous wrote:
I worked until midnight last night and got up at 5:30 for a 7:30 meeting north of Boston. I knocked off early tonight so i could get frustrated on teh suck. By early I mean 10. Guess what - another 7:30 meeting tomorrow morning. I make the money I make because I earn it. Nobody gave it to me. I should get to keep as much of it as possible.
Sounds like the hours the Chinese guy keeps at the 7/11 down the street. Except he couldnt give a shit about the suck...he doesn't have time or money to worry about flyfishing.

If you wanna keep every penny you earn, sounds like the "new" Russia would be the perfect place for you. Ran into a bunch of the nouveau riche Russians this summer....their perspective and yours seem identical.
User avatar
By Mattb
#481019
eponymous wrote:the two are not mutually exclusive. don't make it like allowing someone who is rich to keep a dollar they already earned means that some poor fellow has to pay another dollar into the system to cover it. especially when for the most part they don't pay into it in the first place.
There are certainly multiple ways to solve the problem, but the coming election is a choice between two of them. The Romney/Ryan plan functions pretty much exactly like you describe- tax cuts for high income taxpayers and huge cuts in programs for the poor/elderly/disabled.
User avatar
By BigCliff
#481021
eponymous wrote:the two are not mutually exclusive. don't make it like allowing someone who is rich to keep a dollar they already earned means that some poor fellow has to pay another dollar into the system to cover it. especially when for the most part they don't pay into it in the first place. how about we fix it instead of asking the "rich" to keep paying and paying and paying 'cause its just not that much money in the end. when you add up this .9% for that program and another .9% for this program and so on and so on pretty soon it doesn't make sense to keep working and earning so that someone else gets what is "rightfully" theirs.

and if by historically low taxes you mean the top 10% of wage earners paid something like 70% of all taxes instead of 71% then yeah I suppose that would be accurate.

I worked until midnight last night and got up at 5:30 for a 7:30 meeting north of Boston. I knocked off early tonight so i could get frustrated on teh suck. By early I mean 10. Guess what - another 7:30 meeting tomorrow morning. I make the money I make because I earn it. Nobody gave it to me. I should get to keep as much of it as possible.
I must have missed the part where you explained how an extra $450/yr is going to leave you hungry and how the Clinton tax rates delayed your financial independence by 5(?) years.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 9

Baclofene Andorre order cialis online Acheter V[…]

Atlantic salmonfly swap

that's like racist against yellow people, mate. […]

Friday Cheer Through Pics

Every time I see your name Joe I just want to se[…]

"bragging about your kids online is as gay as[…]

Subscribe to The Drake Magazine