4 Major Ways the Rich Pile On and Exploit the Rest of Us For More Money and Profit

[Cigar]

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/yacht_indian_empress.jpg

The new normal is for the wealthy to seize all of the income, move profits offshore and make everyone else pay the bills.

1. Taking ALL the Income

Charles Koch said, "I want my fair share -- and that's all of it." He's been getting his wish lately. In the first two years of the recovery, the richest 1% seemingly impossibly captured 121% of the income gains, while incomes for 99% of Americans declined, with the median household income dropping by 7.3 percent.

More and more people are working in respectable but low-wage positions in food service and retail. Low-income jobs ($7.69 to $13.83 per hour) made up one-fifth of the jobs lost to the recession, but accounted for three-fifths of the jobs regained during the recovery.

2. Wealth Grab

According to an AP report, the stock market has regained all its losses since March 2009 while adding an extra 18 percent. That's $11 trillion restored, plus almost $2 trillion gained. Using Economic Policy Institute figures (Tables 6 and 7), we can determine the beneficiaries of the new wealth:


* The richest 1%, 1.15 million families with 38.3% of the stocks, each regained their losses and added an additional $666,000.
* The next 2-5%, 4.6 million families with 30.9% of the stocks, each regained their losses and added an additional $134,000.
* The rest of the top 20%, 17.25 million families with 22% of the stocks, each regained their losses and added an additional $25,500.
* The 30% just above the middle, 34.5 million families with 8.9% of the stocks, each regained their losses and added an additional $5,160.


The bottom 50%, 57.5 million families with 0% of the stocks, gained nothing.

3. Corporate BetrayalAccording to their own SEC reports, Citigroup (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/831001/000120677413000852/citigroup_10k.htm), Pfizer (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/78003/000007800313000006/pfe-12312012xex13.htm) and Bank of America (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/70858/000007085813000097/bac-12312012x10k.htm) made much of their 2011-12 revenue in the U.S. (42%, 40%, and 82%, respectively). Yet they declared a total (http://www.nationofchange.org/looking-cheats-corporate-tax-filings-descent-circles-hell-1366031527) of $69 billion in foreign profits and losses of $19 billion in the United States.


As the big companies have been declaring themselves multinationals with no allegiance to the country that made them successful, they've also eliminated (http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17786-corpocrisy-the-systematic-betrayal-of-american-workers) tens of thousands of U.S. jobs. Citigroup (http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/15/investing/wall-street-banks-layoffs/index.html), Pfizer (http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/08/18/the-layoff-kings-the-25-companies-responsible-for-700-000-lost/) and Bank of America (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/20/business/la-fi-mo-bank-of-america-branch-job-cuts-20120920) are among the leading job cutters. The shock (http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine) of the recession has allowed them to turn their backs on their country, and Americans are too bewildered (and ill-represented) to properly fight back.


4. Let the Hungry Pay


The massive four-year redistribution of wealth and income toward the top leaves bills to be paid. So Congress wants to cut food (http://inplainsight.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/19/18307642-ax-hovers-over-food-stamp-program-as-costs-grow?lite) assistance. Nearly 47 million people get (http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY13budsum.pdf) an average of less than $5 a day to eat, at a total 2012 cost of about $80 billion, which is about the same amount 20 Americans (http://www.usagainstgreed.org/Fortune400_2011-12.xls) make from just one year of investment income.


In the spirit of American independence, Republican Congressman Stephen Fincher of Tennessee quoted the Bible: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat." Fincher, along with all but one of his congressional colleagues, failed to show up for a recent unemployment hearing (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/lawmaker-unemployment-hearing_n_3148362.html). Hungry Americans remain at the bottom of the pile, getting crushed by arrogance and insensitivity.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/4-major-ways-rich-pile-and-exploit-rest-us-more-money-and-profit

[patrickt]

No wealthy person or corporation has ever taken a cent of my money by threats or force. That's left up to liberals and their accomplices.

[Chris]

Thanks, cigar, for another example of Marx's theory of the exploitation of workers. About as true as his prediction of the fall of capitalism and the rise of socialism. But thanks for the effort to echo Marx.

[Chris]

No wealthy person or corporation has ever taken a cent of my money by threats or force. That's left up to liberals and their accomplices.

...in big government.

Only government has the power to exploit. Cigar gives examples, this one of the better: "The massive four-year redistribution of wealth and income toward the top leaves bills to be paid."

[Cigar]

No wealthy person or corporation has ever taken a cent of my money by threats or force. That's left up to liberals and their accomplices.

Ok ... so have "I" ever taken a cent of my money from you by threats or force?

[Chris]

Ok ... so have "I" ever taken a cent of my money from you by threats or force?

Do you support bigger government and higher taxes and more regulations?

[Micketto]

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/yacht_indian_empress.jpg

The new normal is for the wealthy to seize all of the income, move profits offshore and make everyone else pay the bills.

1. Taking ALL the Income

Charles Koch said, "I want my fair share -- and that's all of it." He's been getting his wish lately. In the first two years of the recovery, the richest 1% seemingly impossibly captured 121% of the income gains, while incomes for 99% of Americans declined, with the median household income dropping by 7.3 percent.

More and more people are working in respectable but low-wage positions in food service and retail. Low-income jobs ($7.69 to $13.83 per hour) made up one-fifth of the jobs lost to the recession, but accounted for three-fifths of the jobs regained during the recovery.

2. Wealth Grab

According to an AP report, the stock market has regained all its losses since March 2009 while adding an extra 18 percent. That's $11 trillion restored, plus almost $2 trillion gained. Using Economic Policy Institute figures (Tables 6 and 7), we can determine the beneficiaries of the new wealth:


* The richest 1%, 1.15 million families with 38.3% of the stocks, each regained their losses and added an additional $666,000.
* The next 2-5%, 4.6 million families with 30.9% of the stocks, each regained their losses and added an additional $134,000.
* The rest of the top 20%, 17.25 million families with 22% of the stocks, each regained their losses and added an additional $25,500.
* The 30% just above the middle, 34.5 million families with 8.9% of the stocks, each regained their losses and added an additional $5,160.


The bottom 50%, 57.5 million families with 0% of the stocks, gained nothing.

3. Corporate BetrayalAccording to their own SEC reports, Citigroup (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/831001/000120677413000852/citigroup_10k.htm), Pfizer (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/78003/000007800313000006/pfe-12312012xex13.htm) and Bank of America (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/70858/000007085813000097/bac-12312012x10k.htm) made much of their 2011-12 revenue in the U.S. (42%, 40%, and 82%, respectively). Yet they declared a total (http://www.nationofchange.org/looking-cheats-corporate-tax-filings-descent-circles-hell-1366031527) of $69 billion in foreign profits and losses of $19 billion in the United States.


As the big companies have been declaring themselves multinationals with no allegiance to the country that made them successful, they've also eliminated (http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17786-corpocrisy-the-systematic-betrayal-of-american-workers) tens of thousands of U.S. jobs. Citigroup (http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/15/investing/wall-street-banks-layoffs/index.html), Pfizer (http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/08/18/the-layoff-kings-the-25-companies-responsible-for-700-000-lost/) and Bank of America (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/20/business/la-fi-mo-bank-of-america-branch-job-cuts-20120920) are among the leading job cutters. The shock (http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine) of the recession has allowed them to turn their backs on their country, and Americans are too bewildered (and ill-represented) to properly fight back.


4. Let the Hungry Pay


The massive four-year redistribution of wealth and income toward the top leaves bills to be paid. So Congress wants to cut food (http://inplainsight.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/19/18307642-ax-hovers-over-food-stamp-program-as-costs-grow?lite) assistance. Nearly 47 million people get (http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY13budsum.pdf) an average of less than $5 a day to eat, at a total 2012 cost of about $80 billion, which is about the same amount 20 Americans (http://www.usagainstgreed.org/Fortune400_2011-12.xls) make from just one year of investment income.


In the spirit of American independence, Republican Congressman Stephen Fincher of Tennessee quoted the Bible: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat." Fincher, along with all but one of his congressional colleagues, failed to show up for a recent unemployment hearing (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/lawmaker-unemployment-hearing_n_3148362.html). Hungry Americans remain at the bottom of the pile, getting crushed by arrogance and insensitivity.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/4-major-ways-rich-pile-and-exploit-rest-us-more-money-and-profit

2836

[Agravan]

2836
LoL :)

[Micketto]

Ok ... so have "I" ever taken a cent of my money from you by threats or force?

Not me.
You get mine via government handouts like food stamps and welfare.

[Mainecoons]

But Cigar, are you telling us Mr. Obama's regime has been a gross failure that has made the rich richer at a faster pace than anytime in history?

Yes, unfortunately I suppose you are. :grin:

[Cigar]

But Cigar, are you telling us Mr. Obama's regime has been a gross failure that has made the rich richer at a faster pace than anytime in history?

Yes, unfortunately I suppose you are. :grin:

Are you saying making the rich richer at a faster pace than anytime in history a gross failure? :grin:

Chew first ... then swallow :grin:

[Cigar]

Not me.
You get mine via government handouts like food stamps and welfare.

Ladies and Gentlemen ... you can see the reason way they are still bitter and will always be bitter.

Enjoy that position ... and say ahhhhh

[Chris]

Are you saying making the rich richer at a faster pace than anytime in history a gross failure? :grin:

Chew first ... then swallow :grin:

Actually he's saying that's happening under Obama's reign. Still winning?

[Cigar]

2836



Electoral vote
332
206


States carried
26 + DC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.)
24


Popular vote
65,899,660[/URL] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-FEC-2)

60,932,152 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-FEC-2)



Percentage
51.1% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-FEC-2)

47.2%[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-docs.google.com-3"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#cite_not e-FEC-2)





http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4510257891116057&pid=1.7

[Mainecoons]

Well, I'm sure that to no one's surprise here, you are in denial about the crowning achievement of the Obama administration, making the rich richer faster than at any time in history and far faster than during the Clinton or Bush years.

[Cigar]

Actually he's saying that's happening under Obama's reign. Still winning?

So which is ... an economical failure or not ... ?

You guys to get your story straight

[nic34]

So you all have been wrong about Obama all along...... WoW! :laugh:

[Cigar]

Well, I'm sure that to no one's surprise here, you are in denial about the crowning achievement of the Obama administration, making the rich richer faster than at any time in history and far faster than during the Clinton or Bush years.

Obama Care is The Law.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4664245326185166&pid=1.7

GOP - 37 :grin:

If you choke ... don't worry ... it's covered. :laugh:

[Agravan]

Laws can be, and have been, overturned before.

[Micketto]

Ladies and Gentlemen ... you can see the reason way they are still bitter and will always be bitter.

Enjoy that position ... and say ahhhhh

Not bitter at all. I accept this.

I pay for the lives of people like you. This isn't new, it went on long before I was born.

Supporting your life is a part of mine.

You're welcome.

[Chris]

So which is ... an economical failure or not ... ?

You guys to get your story straight

I think the question goes to you. I predict your answer will be yes if you can find a way to blame Bush or Reps but no if you have to blame Obama and Dems.

[Chris]

Obama Care is The Law.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4664245326185166&pid=1.7

GOP - 37 :grin:

If you choke ... don't worry ... it's covered. :laugh:

I forgot to consider that you would more likely deflect than deal with the problem of government.

[Chris]

The Submerged Welfare State (http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/03/the_shadow_welfare_state_533.html) details more ways the government you support support the rich:


...According to a report released on May 29 by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the vagaries of the U.S. tax code obscure upwards of $1 trillion in government spending. Affectionately known as breaks or loopholes, these "tax expenditures" overwhelmingly benefit the richest Americans - at the expense of everyone else.

The ten largest loopholes - things like employer-sponsored health insurance exclusions, mortgage interest deductions, and preferential rates on investments - account for the lion's share of tax expenditures, or $926 billion annually.

http://i.snag.gy/Tp3XV.jpg

Of course, controversy over tax breaks isn’t new. But the numbers are staggering. To get a sense of the scale of these invisible expenditures, consider:


The $926 billion the government will spend on the 10 largest tax expenditures in 2013 equals one-third of projected government revenues. In other words, current tax collections are roughly three-quarters of their potential in the absence of these loopholes.
Taken together with traditional government spending, the top-10 tax expenditures represent more than a fifth of total outlays.
Without the top-10 tax expenditures, America’s projected $642 billion deficit for 2013 would be a nearly $300 billion surplus. (As the report notes, the amount of revenue collected if the tax breaks were eliminated would be somewhat less than the tax expenditures, because people would change their behavior in the absence of incentives. But you get the point.)
The U.S. spends 1.5 times more on tax expenditures than it does on all non-defense discretionary spending.
The $11.6 trillion CBO projects the U.S. will spend on tax expenditures during the next decade is nearly twice CBO’s projected budget deficit during the next decade. That is, without tax expenditures, a $6.3 trillion increase in the national debt during the next 10 years would be a surplus of nearly equal magnitude.


...Of the top-10 tax expenditures, seven accrue disproportionately to the wealthiest households. The top income quintile receives:


93 percent of spending on preferential tax rates for capital gains and dividends ($78 billion).
84 percent of spending on charitable contribution deductions ($33 billion).
80 percent of spending on state and local tax deductions ($64 billion).
73 percent of spending on mortgage interest deductions ($51 billion).
66 percent of spending on exclusions for pension contributions ($92 billion).
65 percent of spending on exclusions for capital gains transferred at death ($31 billion).
34 percent of spending on exclusions for employer-sponsored health insurance ($88 billion).


Tax expenditures are one of the largest contributors to America's growing inequality. They are why Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary. And they may well explain why Mitt Romney isn't president. For example, the government spends:


as much on exempting employer-sponsored health insurance from taxes ($248 billion) as it does on Medicaid ($265 billion).
as much on preferential tax rates for capital gains and dividend income for the top quintile ($78 billion) as it does on Food Stamps ($83 billion)
more than five times as much on encouraging the wealthy to save for retirement ($92 billion) as it does on cash welfare for the poorest Americans ($17 billion).




http://i.snag.gy/GlYDh.jpg

...

Note that the above omits the fact that corporate welfare and social welfare are both forms of rent seeking, both forms of redistribution of wealth.

The best government money can buy.

Social democracy, ain't it grand!

[nic34]

Thanks for making the argument for a more progressive approach ^^^^^^^^^^^ :grin:

Calif. Gov. Brown: State’s budget back in the black

Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday proposed a $97.6 billion general fund budget for the 2013-14 fiscal year that wipes out years of deficits and even includes a modest surplus.
The additional revenue increased the spending plan by 5 percent over the current year and helps the governor pour more money into public schools and universities.
The state’s budget shortfall stood at $25 billion when Mr. Brown took office two years ago.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/10/calif-gov-brown-california-budget-back-in-the-blac/

California: Back in the black with progressive governance

Eventually, the progressive California electorate got tired of this. Even as a tea party wave swept the nation in 2010, California's Democrats increased their legislative majorities and swept all statewide offices. We passed a ballot measure ending the supermajority requirement to pass a budget. And in 2012, after over 30 years of anti-tax orthodoxy dating back to the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, Californians voted to tax themselves to stop the crushing damage done to our schools by decades of low-tax neglect. Even better, redistricting reform has allowed Democrats to win even more seats, finally claiming a supermajority in the legislature and rendering the Republican Party structurally irrelevant in every meaningful way.

California's path back to prosperity has proven that cutting corporate taxes, gutting the social safety net and defunding our schools is simply not the way to run an economy. We had austerity imposed upon us for years by a minority party with no qualms about holding the state hostage to its whim, and no matter how much we did it, it still did not work.

Democrats across the nation can take California's example to put the lie to Republican claims of fiscal prudence, of course. But despite our nascent turnaround, California Democrats still stand at a crossroads. Gov. Brown is insistent that he will not rebuild the social safety net that was cut during the recession:

Brown said he is unwilling to restore funding for social service programs that have been cut during the recession. "That kind of yo-yo political economy is not good," he said. "I want to advance the progressive agenda, but consistent with the amount of money the people made available."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/13/1178367/-California-Back-in-the-black-with-progressive-governance

[Chris]

Thanks for making the argument for a more progressive approach ^^^^^^^^^^^ :grin:

Calif. Gov. Brown: State’s budget back in the black

Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday proposed a $97.6 billion general fund budget for the 2013-14 fiscal year that wipes out years of deficits and even includes a modest surplus.
The additional revenue increased the spending plan by 5 percent over the current year and helps the governor pour more money into public schools and universities.
The state’s budget shortfall stood at $25 billion when Mr. Brown took office two years ago.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/10/calif-gov-brown-california-budget-back-in-the-blac/

California: Back in the black with progressive governance

Eventually, the progressive California electorate got tired of this. Even as a tea party wave swept the nation in 2010, California's Democrats increased their legislative majorities and swept all statewide offices. We passed a ballot measure ending the supermajority requirement to pass a budget. And in 2012, after over 30 years of anti-tax orthodoxy dating back to the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, Californians voted to tax themselves to stop the crushing damage done to our schools by decades of low-tax neglect. Even better, redistricting reform has allowed Democrats to win even more seats, finally claiming a supermajority in the legislature and rendering the Republican Party structurally irrelevant in every meaningful way.

California's path back to prosperity has proven that cutting corporate taxes, gutting the social safety net and defunding our schools is simply not the way to run an economy. We had austerity imposed upon us for years by a minority party with no qualms about holding the state hostage to its whim, and no matter how much we did it, it still did not work.

Democrats across the nation can take California's example to put the lie to Republican claims of fiscal prudence, of course. But despite our nascent turnaround, California Democrats still stand at a crossroads. Gov. Brown is insistent that he will not rebuild the social safety net that was cut during the recession:

Brown said he is unwilling to restore funding for social service programs that have been cut during the recession. "That kind of yo-yo political economy is not good," he said. "I want to advance the progressive agenda, but consistent with the amount of money the people made available."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/13/1178367/-California-Back-in-the-black-with-progressive-governance




Thanks for making the argument for a more progressive approach ^^^^^^^^^^^

Would you mind elaborating? What was posted is the progressive approach.



Re California: California's Phony Budget Surplus (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/06/californias_pho.html)


My personal finances are doing great. I have a "surplus." I saved $1,000 last month after paying all my expenses. Well, not all my expenses. I didn't pay my $1,500 monthly mortgage. But, hey, don't be picky.

The above is something I made up. Actually, my personal finances are great and this is after never having missed a mortgage payment in 27 years. (OK, I was a few days late once but the stiff 5% penalty on that payment caused me never to be late again.)

But here's what's not made up:


And California, which faced a $26 billion deficit two years ago, expects a surplus of between $1.2 billion and $4.4 billion this year, thanks to a combination of tax increases, budget cuts and an improving economy. But it could be erased if the state were to adequately finance its teachers' pension fund, which says it will need an additional $4.5 billion a year, much of it from the state, to pay the benefits it promised.

In other words, California's state government has committed to a pension fund for teachers and has ginned up a surplus by underpaying into that fund. And notice the number: $4.5 billion. That puts it at the top end of the optimistic estimate of the surplus. And, according to this New York Times article, other state governments are playing similar games.
A couple of weeks ago, when California's state budget was released, a local TV station, KION, which has interviewed me on national economic issues, called me to ask if they could interview me on the state budget. I told them that I would need to spend at least 40 minutes to do my homework and have anything interesting and important to say and that I didn't have 40 minutes that day. In light of the above, I'm glad I declined.

[Mainecoons]

Whoops, Cigar gets punked again. :rofl:

[nic34]

David Henderson ..... you really had to dig to find a contrary view.... but he didn't say anything that my cites hadn't already shown..... what, teachers not getting their pension funds not "austere" enough for you?

[Mainecoons]

You really have a hard time with reading, don't you? The point was that California's budget surplus is a myth, that they aren't funding teacher's pensions. Do you approve of such sleigh of hand?

[Chris]

David Henderson ..... you really had to dig to find a contrary view.... but he didn't say anything that my cites hadn't already shown..... what, teachers not getting their pension funds not "austere" enough for you?

No, actually, I read it the other day and had it handy. Did you have a counterargument handy?

[Cigar]

David Henderson ..... you really had to dig to find a contrary view.... but he didn't say anything that my cites hadn't already shown..... what, teachers not getting their pension funds not "austere" enough for you?

I wonder if these guys wash their hands and gargle afterwards. :laugh:

[Mainecoons]

No, actually, I read it the other day and had it handy. Did you have a counterargument handy?

Short answer: No, as usual. :rofl:

[Mister D]

I wonder if these guys wash their hands and gargle afterwards. :laugh:

I wonder if you're gay. Seriously.

[Chris]

I wonder if these guys wash their hands and gargle afterwards. :laugh:

Anything to digress from facts.

[Chris]

Short answer: No, as usual. :rofl:

Yea, but cigar has his usual digression.

[Micketto]

I wonder if these guys wash their hands and gargle afterwards. :laugh:

Why is homosexual oral sex always on your mind? How often do you make these comments?

Seems very odd for someone as old as you must be to act so childish.

Or was that meant for PM's.... in yours and Nic's conversations ?

In which case... you're still queer.

[simpsonofpg]

Yea, I have really seen an improvement with Obama, more hand outs and welfare, food stamps etc. That is one reason I am still working 5 years after I went on SS full time. I should have save more and that is my fault but Obama has really done a job on us. thanks to the 47%.

[lynn]

Haven't they proven over and over again that the 47% who don't pay taxes is BS?

[Mister D]

Haven't they proven over and over again that the 47% who don't pay taxes is BS?

Income taxes.

[Dr. Who]

The Submerged Welfare State (http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/03/the_shadow_welfare_state_533.html) details more ways the government you support support the rich:



Note that the above omits the fact that corporate welfare and social welfare are both forms of rent seeking, both forms of redistribution of wealth.

The best government money can buy.

Social democracy, ain't it grand!

And the US pays more in funding insurer provided insurance than any country providing government sponsored insurance. The average per person in the rest of the industrialized world is about $4,000 per person. In the US it is $7,000 per person. http://www.globalissues.org/article/774/health-care-around-the-world

[zelmo1234]

Obama Care is The Law.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4664245326185166&pid=1.7

GOP - 37 :grin:

If you choke ... don't worry ... it's covered. :laugh:

That's Great, What good has come from it so far?

[jillian]

That's Great, What good has come from it so far?

you mean besides having a lot of young adults insured until they're 26?

or besides it being illegal to terminate or deny coverage for pre-existing condition?

[zelmo1234]

Haven't they proven over and over again that the 47% who don't pay taxes is BS?

You are correct it is 47% that do not pay federal income tax!

They do pay other taxes!

[zelmo1234]

you mean besides having a lot of young adults insured until they're 26?

or besides it being illegal to terminate or deny coverage for pre-existing condition?

No I was more thinking that Insurance premiums have almost doubled and might double again!

That there will be no more people insured just different people insurace.

Healthcare restirction boards to keep costs down!

3.8% additional tax on small business.

companies reducing workforces and full time employment to ovoid being taxed out of business!

You know stuff like that!

By the way I do like the staying on insurance until you rare 26!

Pre existing conditions? that is the scam! there is NO reason for any person under the age of 40 to carry insurance!

Pay the fine and for your yearly checkup and regular doctor visits. Decide you eant to ahve a child buy insurance for a year , then go back to paying the tax!

It is like buying car insurance after you have been in an accident and then having them fix your car!

[Dr. Who]

No I was more thinking that Insurance premiums have almost doubled and might double again!

That there will be no more people insured just different people insurace.

Healthcare restirction boards to keep costs down!

3.8% additional tax on small business.

companies reducing workforces and full time employment to ovoid being taxed out of business!

You know stuff like that!

By the way I do like the staying on insurance until you rare 26!

Pre existing conditions? that is the scam! there is NO reason for any person under the age of 40 to carry insurance!

Pay the fine and for your yearly checkup and regular doctor visits. Decide you eant to ahve a child buy insurance for a year , then go back to paying the tax!

It is like buying car insurance after you have been in an accident and then having them fix your car!
And hopefully you don't fall off a roof or get a brain tumor.

[roadmaster]

you mean besides having a lot of young adults insured until they're 26?

or besides it being illegal to terminate or deny coverage for pre-existing condition?
Now I even agree with these. Churches have had to help many with pre-existing conditions that insurance companies deny or make premiums too high to afford for the average worker. I am with them on both of these.

[zelmo1234]

And hopefully you don't fall off a roof or get a brain tumor.

If you are working and fall of a roof you are covered under workmans compensation.

Get a Brain tumor??? What is the problem go to your doc with headachs pay for that office visit, If they want X-rays, then you buy the insurance? IF you are lucky enough to be cured! Then when you are healthy again? Drop your coverage!

[Dr. Who]

If you are working and fall of a roof you are covered under workmans compensation.

Get a Brain tumor??? What is the problem go to your doc with headachs pay for that office visit, If they want X-rays, then you buy the insurance? IF you are lucky enough to be cured! Then when you are healthy again? Drop your coverage!What if it is your own roof, or your parents roof, or you injure yourself seriously while skiing or any number of other potential accidents that are not employment related? How about developing leukemia, or some other form of cancer? Some cancers only show up in blood tests. You suggest people just take their chances. Oh and by the way, the insurance company is privy to all of your prior medical records and can infer potential insurance fraud if you apply for insurance right after a doctor advises that you should have an X-Ray based on the nature of the headaches reported to the doctor. It can be interpreted as misrepresentation and you would lose your coverage, minimally, it could otherwise be considered attempted fraud and be subject to criminal prosecution.

[Mainecoons]

If you are working and fall of a roof you are covered under workmans compensation.

Get a Brain tumor??? What is the problem go to your doc with headachs pay for that office visit, If they want X-rays, then you buy the insurance? IF you are lucky enough to be cured! Then when you are healthy again? Drop your coverage!

Exactly what happened with Romney's MassCare, the prototype for ObamaCare.

[zelmo1234]

What if it is your own roof, or your parents roof, or you injure yourself seriously while skiing or any number of other potential accidents that are not employment related? How about developing leukemia, or some other form of cancer? Some cancers only show up in blood tests. You suggest people just take their chances. Oh and by the way, the insurance company is privy to all of your prior medical records and can infer potential insurance fraud if you apply for insurance right after a doctor advises that you should have an X-Ray based on the nature of the headaches reported to the doctor. It can be interpreted as misrepresentation and you would lose your coverage, minimally, it could otherwise be considered attempted fraud and be subject to criminal prosecution.

Any and all of the illnesses that you have on this list are thing that paying for your regular blood tests is way cheaper than paying for even the lowest level of obamacare!

Yes if I was a skier or planned on working on a dangerous roof, I would run down and pick up a months worth of insurance! But for the masses this will not matter.

Any and all of the illnesses, you can purchase insurance, they are barred from not covering pre existing conditions! This is not fruad, because the system makes it very legal to do this!

You ahve done nothing wrong you have paid your extra taxes to the government and you have paid for your doctor visits you ahve decided that you need insurance for the time that you are sick and that you can't afford it when you are healthy!

If you Want to know why the rates are skyrocketing??????? This is it, there is nothing that the insruace companies can do about it and the only way to fix the law is to make it so insuance companies do not ahve to cover pre existing conditions!

With most non life threating accidents. you can make the call from the hospital and get covered! So the system of the ACA is totally proken and needs to be repealed!

We are now checking into an insurance pool that the employee/s would pay in 25 dollars per pay period and this money would go into an account that would pay 75% of the insruance premiums when they were needed! If this in fact legal, adn we think it will be because it is not an insurance, but a benifit! Then the industry is doomed, as there woudl be no reason for a healthy person to have insurance!

[nic34]

Yes if I was a skier or planned on working on a dangerous roof, I would run down and pick up a months worth of insurance!

Maybe that would work once but most companies will laugh at you trying to do this.... the rest of your garbled rant is meaningless.... health ins was expensive even BEFORE obamacare....

[jillian]

Exactly what happened with Romney's MassCare, the prototype for ObamaCare.

it did and does very well.

mittens was proud of it until he went wingnut.

[Mainecoons]

It does very well?


OVERVIEW: While the Massachusetts health reform law of 2006, widely regarded as the model for the new federal health law, reduced the uninsured population in the state, it did so at the cost of rapidly rising underinsurance, increased health care premiums, and a financial crisis among the state’s safety-net hospitals and community health centers. And the financial burden of the reform has fallen disproportionately on lower-middle-class families.Those are some of the findings in a new, exhaustively documented report on the outcomes of the Massachusetts reform law released by Mass-Care (http://masscare.org/) and Massachusetts Physicians for a National Health Program (http://www.pnhp.org/). The report draws on hundreds of sources, including academic studies, government statistics and scientific surveys, in the first compilation of its kind.


The growth of residents with insurance coverage has exacerbated a primary care shortage in Massachusetts by increasing wait times for appointments and decreasing the portion of physicians accepting new patients, creating access problems even for those with coverage. Reform did not reverse growing use of the state’s emergency departments for care, despite expectations that expanding insurance coverage would reroute patients through primary care offices. There is no evidence as of yet that expanding insurance coverage has had an impact on health outcomes or disparities in health outcomes. Reform has also created a financial crisis for safety net providers that specialize in care for low-income communities and the uninsured, by shifting resources away from safety net providers while patient demand for safety net care has actually increased.
The public cost of reform has been high, exceeding $800 million in fiscal 2009 for a state with a total budget of $32.5 billion. However, federal taxpayers paid for the bulk of the law’s public expenses. The state has made a broad range of cuts to the original law in order to its keep costs down, cutting back coverage for over 30,000 documented immigrants, curtailing some benefits, increasing cost sharing, and increasing the share of enrollees required to pay premiums. Substantial funds from the federal stimulus bill were also used to sustain the reform law, but this was a short-term fix only.

http://masscare.org/ma-health-reform-law/massachusetts-health-reform-in-practice/

Note the source, genius.

:rofl:

[zelmo1234]

Maybe that would work once but most companies will laugh at you trying to do this.... the rest of your garbled rant is meaningless.... health ins was expensive even BEFORE obamacare....

The insurance pools can't laugh NIC they have to sell you insurance! They can't deny you on pre existing conditions!

You must be sold insuance! Read the law! They have no choice. This is what I ahve been saying it is like buying car insurance after having an accident adn the governemnt forcing the company to repair your car!

While companies would live to put an end to this the law prohibits them from doing so!

Now they may cange this but it will be in the form of changing the coverage of pre existing conditions! And the this is one of the 2 items in the bill that have public support!

The problem is that the people did not want the bill, it was rushed through whne the Kenedy seat went republican, and it is a terrible piece of legislation!

To go back on it now would absolutly kill the democratic party! Theya re stuck and must ride it out and hope for the best! As one of our Democratic congrss people from W MI stated, there is no silver lining in Obamacare!

[Mainecoons]

Nic, are you once again demonstrating that you don't do your homework?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/more-problems-with-masscare/59077/


That's the logic behind the Massachusetts plan as well. But what Massachusettsseems to be illustrating (http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/06/30/short_term_insurance_buyers_drive_up_cost_in_mass/) is that it's not enough to have a mandate; unless the penalty costs at least as much as buying insurance, people will game the system by dropping coverage, and then buying it when they need something done.

Do you have some sort of strange compulsion that causes you to come here and make a fool of yourself every day?

:grin:

[nic34]

Nic, are you once again demonstrating that you don't do your homework?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/more-problems-with-masscare/59077/



Do you have some sort of strange compulsion that causes you to come here and make a fool of yourself every day?

:grin:[/FONT][/COLOR]

With which post of mine do you differ?

Getting your naps on time are you?

[nic34]

The insurance pools can't laugh NIC they have to sell you insurance! They can't deny you on pre existing conditions!

You must be sold insuance! Read the law! They have no choice. This is what I ahve been saying it is like buying car insurance after having an accident adn the governemnt forcing the company to repair your car!

While companies would live to put an end to this the law prohibits them from doing so!

Now they may cange this but it will be in the form of changing the coverage of pre existing conditions! And the this is one of the 2 items in the bill that have public support!

The problem is that the people did not want the bill, it was rushed through whne the Kenedy seat went republican, and it is a terrible piece of legislation!

To go back on it now would absolutly kill the democratic party! Theya re stuck and must ride it out and hope for the best! As one of our Democratic congrss people from W MI stated, there is no silver lining in Obamacare!

So you're saying you can buy a "months worth" of insurance?
... and drop it whenever you want?

Not any I heard of....

I would advise the same warning Dr. Who posted:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/13467-4-Major-Ways-the-Rich-Pile-On-and-Exploit-the-Rest-of-Us-For-More-Money-and-Profit?p=300819&viewfull=1#post300819

[Chris]

So you're saying you can buy a "months worth" of insurance?
... and drop it whenever you want?

Not any I heard of....

I would advise the same warning Dr. Who posted:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/13467-4-Major-Ways-the-Rich-Pile-On-and-Exploit-the-Rest-of-Us-For-More-Money-and-Profit?p=300819&viewfull=1#post300819

Could be wrong but I think he's saying that's where Obamacare takes us.

[Peter1469]

Unless things change in the regulatory process; right now, insurance under Obamacare can't deny you. So you could go without until you get sick and then buy coverage. Then when you don't need it anymore cancel it. The penalty starts out pretty small. Something like $400 per year.

[Chris]

That pretty much nullifies the whole notion of insurance.

[Peter1469]

That pretty much nullifies the whole notion of insurance.

True. I think the plan was designed to bust the insurance companies and pave the way for a single payer system.

[Chris]

True. I think the plan was designed to bust the insurance companies and pave the way for a single payer system.

I can see that as a possibility but what about the cronyism involved in having the insurance companies write much of the law--why would they write themselves right out of business?

[Peter1469]

I can see that as a possibility but what about the cronyism involved in having the insurance companies write much of the law--why would they write themselves right out of business?

They got tricked. Maybe they got greedy by the prospects of high short term profits.

[Mainecoons]

With which post of mine do you differ?

Getting your naps on time are you?

Gosh Nic, you can't remember your own posting in response to Zelmo about people rushing down and getting insurance once they need it, and then cancelling it later.


Maybe that would work once but most companies will laugh at you trying to do this....

Under MassCare, genius, that is exactly what they can do and ARE DOING.

Maybe you should try siestas. You're even less sharp in the afternoons, if that is possible.

See your own post #50.

:rofl:

[Chris]

They got tricked. Maybe they got greedy by the prospects of high short term profits.

Well, they certainly stand to gain a lot of customers.

Something's missing, it's just too glaring an oversight.

[Peter1469]

Well, they certainly stand to gain a lot of customers.

Something's missing, it's just too glaring an oversight.



I think that they were told that change was coming and if they don't play ball they will be left totally out of the process.

[Chris]

I think that they were told that change was coming and if they don't play ball they will be left totally out of the process.

Well, the short term idea makes sense, some, they'd make their fortunes by political means, and get out while the getting's good. Maybe they were promised cushy jobs in the single payer system.

[nic34]

Gosh Nic, you can't remember your own posting in response to Zelmo about people rushing down and getting insurance once they need it, and then cancelling it later.



Under MassCare, genius, that is exactly what they can do and ARE DOING.

Maybe you should try siestas. You're even less sharp in the afternoons, if that is possible.

See your own post #50.

:rofl:

Man, you're one dense dude. That post #50 was referring to zel's assertions concerning the ACA.... I never said anything about MassCare ....

[Peter1469]

Well, the short term idea makes sense, some, they'd make their fortunes by political means, and get out while the getting's good. Maybe they were promised cushy jobs in the single payer system.

With the amount of money the top guys will make, they won't be needing other jobs...- or their children and grandchildren.

During the 2008 election cycle, Obama was often challenged on his Obamacare plan by liberal activists who favored a single payer system. There was a YouTube video where Obama told a woman that was his goal, but it couldn't pass Congress yet; that Obamacare was a transition towards the goal.

[jillian]

They got tricked. Maybe they got greedy by the prospects of high short term profits.

they weren't tricked. they aren't losing anything.

they involved themselves in process because they wanted to make sure that things that *could* hurt them were removed or never put into the mix.

that isn't 'cronyism'.

cronyism is... if you're my friend/cohort/investor and i give you a job/agency, etc.

that used to be the job of politicians... to keep their constituents employed.

[Dr. Who]

Any and all of the illnesses that you have on this list are thing that paying for your regular blood tests is way cheaper than paying for even the lowest level of obamacare!

Yes if I was a skier or planned on working on a dangerous roof, I would run down and pick up a months worth of insurance! But for the masses this will not matter.

Any and all of the illnesses, you can purchase insurance, they are barred from not covering pre existing conditions! This is not fruad, because the system makes it very legal to do this!

You ahve done nothing wrong you have paid your extra taxes to the government and you have paid for your doctor visits you ahve decided that you need insurance for the time that you are sick and that you can't afford it when you are healthy!

If you Want to know why the rates are skyrocketing??????? This is it, there is nothing that the insruace companies can do about it and the only way to fix the law is to make it so insuance companies do not ahve to cover pre existing conditions!

With most non life threating accidents. you can make the call from the hospital and get covered! So the system of the ACA is totally proken and needs to be repealed!

We are now checking into an insurance pool that the employee/s would pay in 25 dollars per pay period and this money would go into an account that would pay 75% of the insruance premiums when they were needed! If this in fact legal, adn we think it will be because it is not an insurance, but a benifit! Then the industry is doomed, as there woudl be no reason for a healthy person to have insurance!
Good luck with the ad hoc insurance. Insurance may not be able to refuse pre-existing health issues, but they certainly can charge premiums commensurate with the risk.

[Mainecoons]

Man, you're one dense dude. That post #50 was referring to zel's assertions concerning the ACA.... I never said anything about MassCare ....

Man, the ACA has the same problem. Dooh!

[Chris]

they weren't tricked. they aren't losing anything.

they involved themselves in process because they wanted to make sure that things that *could* hurt them were removed or never put into the mix.

that isn't 'cronyism'.

cronyism is... if you're my friend/cohort/investor and i give you a job/agency, etc.

that used to be the job of politicians... to keep their constituents employed.

It's crony capitalism. Keep up with the times, will ya. Here, to help you out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cronycapitalism.asp
http://www.cato.org/blog/crony-capitalism-not-capitalism-0

[zelmo1234]

So you're saying you can buy a "months worth" of insurance?
... and drop it whenever you want?

Not any I heard of....

I would advise the same warning Dr. Who posted:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/13467-4-Major-Ways-the-Rich-Pile-On-and-Exploit-the-Rest-of-Us-For-More-Money-and-Profit?p=300819&viewfull=1#post300819

How are they going to stop anyone from scaming the system you can't deny them coverage!

I have been trying to tell people that the new system is broken! If you can't deny care and they can't base anything on pre existing conditions!

Tell me how they are going to stop someone from scaming the system!