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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (39087)	1/5/2015 1:40:40 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Respond to of 42652

LOL! Don't like their own medicine. The Schadenfreude is over flowing... <g> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the heart of the 378-year-old university, voted overwhelmingly in November to oppose changes that would require them and thousands of other Harvard employees to pay more for health care. The university says the increases are in part a result of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, which many Harvard professors championed.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (39087)	1/5/2015 2:03:46 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I admit that I often take a tad too much enjoyment from other people's misery. I try not to, but sometimes it is difficult for me. That may be a sin I have to pay for some day. Lord help me. But right now, today, at this moment, I love it. I don't want these people to get sick and die or anything like that. But I cannot come up with any reason they should not feel the same pain as others are feeling when they, the high-and-mighty, are what dumped it on us. So, excuse me if I don't pout for their difficult circumstances.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (39087)	1/5/2015 5:59:39 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Respond to of 42652

2015 Is the Year of the Obamacare Mandate - Philip Klein, DC Examiner No aspect of President Obama’s healthcare law is more contentious than the requirement that individuals purchase health insurance the government deems acceptable or pay a penalty. Obama himself originally opposed the individual mandate in his 2008 primary fight during the Democratic National Convention, before embracing it as president. The provision was one vote away from being wiped out by the U.S. Supreme Court, a decision that could have taken the rest of the law down with it. It still remains highly unpopular — with 64 percent of Americans having an unfavorable view of the provision, according to a December tracking poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Yet for all its fame and for all the antagonism it has caused, Americans haven’t had much actual interaction with the mandate. That will change when they file their taxes in 2015. Though the requirement to purchase insurance began in 2014, most Americans will file their 2014 taxes this year, meaning 2015 is the year most people will start to feel the impact of the individual mandate. When Americans go to file their taxes in 2015, they’ll have to take the extra step of demonstrating to the IRS that they maintained government-approved insurance coverage in 2014. If they do not meet the requirement, or fail to qualify for any of the exemptions from the mandate (such as claiming an income hardship), they will be forced to pay a penalty. For the 2014 tax year, the penalties will be relatively modest, at $95, or 1 percent of income above the filing threshold, whichever is higher. The filing threshold is around $10,000, meaning a person earning $50,000 would be subject to a penalty of about $400. <span style="font-size:1.3em;"> In the 2015 tax year, that penalty will rise to 2 percent of adjusted income, or $325. By 2016, it will rise to 2.5 percent of income, or $695. So an uninsured American earning $50,000 would be subject to a penalty of about $1,000 in the 2016 tax year. Even though the mandate won’t reach its peak for several years, the fact that Americans will be exposed to the mandate in a more tangible way this year will make it less abstract and provide an opening for the new Republican-controlled Senate. As Americans become even more aware of the mandate when they file the taxes, Republicans can pass a bill to repeal it. Such a repeal isn’t likely to become law, but forcing Obama to veto it will reinforce his willingness to impose more government burdens on individuals for the sake of his healthcare scheme — helping Republicans make the case for why their nominee should take over the White House. </span> Along with Obama, insurance lobbyists will be fighting to keep the requirement that nearly every American purchase a comprehensive version of their product. This will provide Republicans an opportunity to demonstrate that they’re willing to take on powerful corporations on behalf of the little guy, while Democrats ally themselves with corporate lobbyists. When Obamacare was being debated, some liberals opposed the idea of mandating that individuals purchase private insurance coverage and letting hundreds of billions of dollars in federal subsidies flow through the federal government rather then just moving to a fully government-run system. To these purists, the alliance between Democrats and big insurance companies is still unseemly. It is true that given Obamacare’s design, repealing the individual mandate in isolation without undoing other aspects of the law would disrupt the market to the extent that it exists. That’s why, ultimately, Republicans will have to coalesce around a broader alternative approach to reforming the nation's healthcare system.