Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (493557)	6/30/2012 3:14:02 AM
From: d[-_-]b	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

After Obamacare, I'm still paying hrough the nose for Bluecross/Blueshield. My rates have gone up. I have seen no benefit. I learned about a benefit today from my company - I now get to pay taxes on any health care expenses paid by my insurance company due to dumbocare.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (493557)	6/30/2012 3:24:44 AM
From: Sr K	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793964

It doesn't start until 2014. Plenty of time to change it no matter who wins in November. I was against it, and I'm still against it. It's the law, but it can be changed. For me, the pre-existing conditions arguments are false. I don't want smokers or people who are overweight to get a free ride at my expense. I want personal responsibility. Rewards and penalties. I read this week that 2014 rates are supposed to be equal for men and women. That's all I would need to know to know it's not right. I believe that women should have higher healthcare rates than men, if the data show that they use or need healthcare services and products more than men of the same age. And rates probably should be based on age, but I'm open enough to consider "effective age" if there's a fair way to measure it. I would consider holistically looking at Social Security and Medicare, because if you live healthily and beyond average life expectancy, you would cost the SS system more while you would cost the Medicare system less. The Social Security "discount" for taking distributions at 62 or NRA or deferring distributions to age 70 are calculated only on mortality risk of the whole population. People who earn over $200,000 or $250,000 and live long in good health are going to pay the 3.8% tax for many years while delaying the high expenses of the last 6 months of life. There's something wrong about having to pay into the system for such a long period while not using the available benefits. Maybe it should end at age 85 (and then index this age cutoff to gains in longevity). And I saw no indication that the $200,000 and $250,000 start points are indexed. Obama ran in 2007-2008 on those cutoff numbers below which "no one's taxes would go up". By now those numbers should be up about 10% even from the signing of the ACA until 2014.