"Opt Out" Scam Debunked

[Polk]

Which taxes will the states have to pay? If the public option is funded through premiums from those who are in it, how does opting out raise state taxes?

It doesn't. They're just making shit up.

 

[Polk]

Which taxes will the states have to pay? If the public option is funded through premiums from those who are in it, how does opting out raise state taxes?

The public option will be subsidized for those making 400% of the poverty level or lower.

That is how it increases the tax burden on all of us.

Chopping the public option from the bill doesn't eliminate the insurance subsidization provisions.

 

[MaggieMae]

Many of the provisions in the House bill, just announced, have a better chance of surviving than Reid's draft proposal (emphasis on DRAFT) on opt-out. Harry Reid jumped the gun because he's trying to shore up his own voting base. If he loses reelection, Reid can always just shrug and say "Well? I tried..."

What he announced was completely contrary to what the WH said it wanted to see in a final Senate version, which is probably going to be the trigger option as well as relief for the middle-class by way of some of the elements proposed in the House bill which puts more constraints on the health insurance industry. It's the best compromise among squabbling Democrats and Just Say No Republicans. Watch what happens.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Many of the provisions in the House bill, just announced, have a better chance of surviving than Reid's draft proposal (emphasis on DRAFT) on opt-out. Harry Reid jumped the gun because he's trying to shore up his own voting base. If he loses reelection, Reid can always just shrug and say "Well? I tried..."

What he announced was completely contrary to what the WH said it wanted to see in a final Senate version, which is probably going to be the trigger option as well as relief for the middle-class by way of some of the elements proposed in the House bill which puts more constraints on the health insurance industry. It's the best compromise among squabbling Democrats and Just Say No Republicans. Watch what happens.

It is still not clear that any bill will clear the Senate even in reconciliation. Any form of the public option, even a trigger, will certainly cost some Dem votes and in recent days some moderate Dems have voiced concerns about the reforms, guaranteed issue, disability waiver of premium and cap on out of pocket expense, raising the cost of health insurance premiums for everyone and indicate they wouldn't vote for a bill they thought would do that. We recently had two reports, one from Pricewaterhousecoopers and another from Oliver Wyman, that claimed the reforms in the bill would likely raise health insurance premiums by as much as 30% if nearly all young healthy people did not buy insurance, and we had a similar report from the University of Michigan about a month ago to the same effect.

Obama and the Congressional Dems chose to respond to these reports by slandering their authors, all highly respected experts on health insurance matters, but from recent comments from Senate Dems such as Bayh, Nelson, Landrieu and Lincoln, it is clear some Senate Dems have not dismissed the conclusions of these reports and are considering what effect on their future careers voting for a bill that will increase health insurance premiums for their constituents will have.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Which taxes will the states have to pay? If the public option is funded through premiums from those who are in it, how does opting out raise state taxes?

The public option will be subsidized for those making 400% of the poverty level or lower.

That is how it increases the tax burden on all of us.

Chopping the public option from the bill doesn't eliminate the insurance subsidization provisions.

True, but to the extent the public option is successful, it will cost the state and local governments tax revenues - the public option would be a department of HHS and as such not subject to the state and local taxes and fees insurance companies are - and divert capital, reserves, from investment in the private sector economy to finance the federal deficit.

So each time some one switches from private insurance to the public option, state and local governments lose tax revenues and investment capital is lost to the private sector economy. From the perspective of a state trying to balance its budget and grow its economy, would the people of the state be better off with a public option and revenue shortfalls and less investment capital to create jobs or not?

 

[MaggieMae]

Many of the provisions in the House bill, just announced, have a better chance of surviving than Reid's draft proposal (emphasis on DRAFT) on opt-out. Harry Reid jumped the gun because he's trying to shore up his own voting base. If he loses reelection, Reid can always just shrug and say "Well? I tried..."

What he announced was completely contrary to what the WH said it wanted to see in a final Senate version, which is probably going to be the trigger option as well as relief for the middle-class by way of some of the elements proposed in the House bill which puts more constraints on the health insurance industry. It's the best compromise among squabbling Democrats and Just Say No Republicans. Watch what happens.

It is still not clear that any bill will clear the Senate even in reconciliation. Any form of the public option, even a trigger, will certainly cost some Dem votes and in recent days some moderate Dems have voiced concerns about the reforms, guaranteed issue, disability waiver of premium and cap on out of pocket expense, raising the cost of health insurance premiums for everyone and indicate they wouldn't vote for a bill they thought would do that. We recently had two reports, one from Pricewaterhousecoopers and another from Oliver Wyman, that claimed the reforms in the bill would likely raise health insurance premiums by as much as 30% if nearly all young healthy people did not buy insurance, and we had a similar report from the University of Michigan about a month ago to the same effect.

Obama and the Congressional Dems chose to respond to these reports by slandering their authors, all highly respected experts on health insurance matters, but from recent comments from Senate Dems such as Bayh, Nelson, Landrieu and Lincoln, it is clear some Senate Dems have not dismissed the conclusions of these reports and are considering what effect on their future careers voting for a bill that will increase health insurance premiums for their constituents will have.

I must have missed that. I would dearly love to see Obama do some personal "slandering" and stop being Mr. Nice Guy.

That said, after three long months of full-throttle debate on this issue, I would think that everything is on the table that is needed to either pass something or not. The only way I can see it happening is a slap on the wrist of the insurance companies, toss a few more requirements for coverage on them, and give them fair warning (the trigger option) that if they don't start reducing costs THEMSELVES and providing low-cost plans for middle-income people, then the government will step in.

 

[Immanuel]

Look at Social Security and Medicare - they are regressive taxes, because once your income soars you don't keep paying, it caps out.

True for Social Security... incorrect for Medicare. There is no cap on Medicare.

Immie

 

[Care4all]

The public option will be subsidized for those making 400% of the poverty level or lower.

That is how it increases the tax burden on all of us.

Chopping the public option from the bill doesn't eliminate the insurance subsidization provisions.

True, but to the extent the public option is successful, it will cost the state and local governments tax revenues - the public option would be a department of HHS and as such not subject to the state and local taxes and fees insurance companies are - and divert capital, reserves, from investment in the private sector economy to finance the federal deficit.

So each time some one switches from private insurance to the public option, state and local governments lose tax revenues and investment capital is lost to the private sector economy. From the perspective of a state trying to balance its budget and grow its economy, would the people of the state be better off with a public option and revenue shortfalls and less investment capital to create jobs or not?

no.

the reason the public option will not have to pay taxes is because it is being run as a NON PROFIT BUSINESS, whatever money is made goes back in to the business itself or refunded to policy holders through lower premiums.... and if you do not make a profit, you do NOT pay taxes...PERIOD.

Only profits are taxed....if there are no profits there are no taxes and we have hundreds if not thousands of non profit businesses out there that do not pay taxes, who compete with businesses that do pay taxes....

I believe Anthem, blue cross blue shield is a non profit or was at one time, so they did not pay taxes either....is my understanding of it toomuchtime.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Which taxes will the states have to pay? If the public option is funded through premiums from those who are in it, how does opting out raise state taxes?

The public option will be subsidized for those making 400% of the poverty level or lower.

That is how it increases the tax burden on all of us.

I will get you a youtube video and links at some point, i posted them in another thread in response to care4all. I just forget where and didn't save the link or video on my laptop.

Here you go, im a little late but i got you the information

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2aV6uJGkP0]YouTube - Christropher Hayes, Netroots Nation Day 1, Simple Explanation of the Proposed Public Option[/ame]

It is in the bill that those making under 400% of the poverty line will be subsidized with tax dollars http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Chopping the public option from the bill doesn't eliminate the insurance subsidization provisions.

True, but to the extent the public option is successful, it will cost the state and local governments tax revenues - the public option would be a department of HHS and as such not subject to the state and local taxes and fees insurance companies are - and divert capital, reserves, from investment in the private sector economy to finance the federal deficit.

So each time some one switches from private insurance to the public option, state and local governments lose tax revenues and investment capital is lost to the private sector economy. From the perspective of a state trying to balance its budget and grow its economy, would the people of the state be better off with a public option and revenue shortfalls and less investment capital to create jobs or not?

no.

the reason the public option will not have to pay taxes is because it is being run as a NON PROFIT BUSINESS, whatever money is made goes back in to the business itself or refunded to policy holders through lower premiums.... and if you do not make a profit, you do NOT pay taxes...PERIOD.

Only profits are taxed....if there are no profits there are no taxes and we have hundreds if not thousands of non profit businesses out there that do not pay taxes, who compete with businesses that do pay taxes....

I believe Anthem, blue cross blue shield is a non profit or was at one time, so they did not pay taxes either....is my understanding of it toomuchtime.

So how do they pay for the subsidies again? Where does the government get its money?

 

[Polk]

True, but to the extent the public option is successful, it will cost the state and local governments tax revenues - the public option would be a department of HHS and as such not subject to the state and local taxes and fees insurance companies are - and divert capital, reserves, from investment in the private sector economy to finance the federal deficit.

So each time some one switches from private insurance to the public option, state and local governments lose tax revenues and investment capital is lost to the private sector economy. From the perspective of a state trying to balance its budget and grow its economy, would the people of the state be better off with a public option and revenue shortfalls and less investment capital to create jobs or not?

no.

the reason the public option will not have to pay taxes is because it is being run as a NON PROFIT BUSINESS, whatever money is made goes back in to the business itself or refunded to policy holders through lower premiums.... and if you do not make a profit, you do NOT pay taxes...PERIOD.

Only profits are taxed....if there are no profits there are no taxes and we have hundreds if not thousands of non profit businesses out there that do not pay taxes, who compete with businesses that do pay taxes....

I believe Anthem, blue cross blue shield is a non profit or was at one time, so they did not pay taxes either....is my understanding of it toomuchtime.

So how do they pay for the subsidies again? Where does the government get its money?

That would be financed from tax revenues. The point is that's not a feature of the public option. That's a feature of another provision of the bill. Get rid of the public option and those subsidies just go to buy other policies.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Chopping the public option from the bill doesn't eliminate the insurance subsidization provisions.

True, but to the extent the public option is successful, it will cost the state and local governments tax revenues - the public option would be a department of HHS and as such not subject to the state and local taxes and fees insurance companies are - and divert capital, reserves, from investment in the private sector economy to finance the federal deficit.

So each time some one switches from private insurance to the public option, state and local governments lose tax revenues and investment capital is lost to the private sector economy. From the perspective of a state trying to balance its budget and grow its economy, would the people of the state be better off with a public option and revenue shortfalls and less investment capital to create jobs or not?

no.

the reason the public option will not have to pay taxes is because it is being run as a NON PROFIT BUSINESS, whatever money is made goes back in to the business itself or refunded to policy holders through lower premiums.... and if you do not make a profit, you do NOT pay taxes...PERIOD.

Only profits are taxed....if there are no profits there are no taxes and we have hundreds if not thousands of non profit businesses out there that do not pay taxes, who compete with businesses that do pay taxes....

I believe Anthem, blue cross blue shield is a non profit or was at one time, so they did not pay taxes either....is my understanding of it toomuchtime.

First, the public option would not in any sense be a business. It would be a department of government run by a political appointee in HHS. Although in the in the current bills, it is supposed to pay for its own expenses from premium and investment income, there are no provisions for what might be done with any surpluses that might, unlikely, arise.

However, insurance companies pay a wide variety of state and local taxes and fees for the right to do business in the state, and the public option would not be subject to any of these. Not only do the companies have to pay taxes and fees but thousands of insurance company employees are required to pay annual license fees in order to sell that insurance or manage agents or brokers. Employees of a public option, being employees of HHS and doing the federal government's business, would not be subject to any of these license fees.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Many of the provisions in the House bill, just announced, have a better chance of surviving than Reid's draft proposal (emphasis on DRAFT) on opt-out. Harry Reid jumped the gun because he's trying to shore up his own voting base. If he loses reelection, Reid can always just shrug and say "Well? I tried..."

What he announced was completely contrary to what the WH said it wanted to see in a final Senate version, which is probably going to be the trigger option as well as relief for the middle-class by way of some of the elements proposed in the House bill which puts more constraints on the health insurance industry. It's the best compromise among squabbling Democrats and Just Say No Republicans. Watch what happens.

It is still not clear that any bill will clear the Senate even in reconciliation. Any form of the public option, even a trigger, will certainly cost some Dem votes and in recent days some moderate Dems have voiced concerns about the reforms, guaranteed issue, disability waiver of premium and cap on out of pocket expense, raising the cost of health insurance premiums for everyone and indicate they wouldn't vote for a bill they thought would do that. We recently had two reports, one from Pricewaterhousecoopers and another from Oliver Wyman, that claimed the reforms in the bill would likely raise health insurance premiums by as much as 30% if nearly all young healthy people did not buy insurance, and we had a similar report from the University of Michigan about a month ago to the same effect.

Obama and the Congressional Dems chose to respond to these reports by slandering their authors, all highly respected experts on health insurance matters, but from recent comments from Senate Dems such as Bayh, Nelson, Landrieu and Lincoln, it is clear some Senate Dems have not dismissed the conclusions of these reports and are considering what effect on their future careers voting for a bill that will increase health insurance premiums for their constituents will have.

I must have missed that. I would dearly love to see Obama do some personal "slandering" and stop being Mr. Nice Guy.

That said, after three long months of full-throttle debate on this issue, I would think that everything is on the table that is needed to either pass something or not. The only way I can see it happening is a slap on the wrist of the insurance companies, toss a few more requirements for coverage on them, and give them fair warning (the trigger option) that if they don't start reducing costs THEMSELVES and providing low-cost plans for middle-income people, then the government will step in.

The trigger is just a propaganda ploy to sneak a public option in. How can insurance companies lower costs when the Dems are standing firm against introducing any competition into the health insurance market? Over and over again the Dems have refused to consider proposals to allow insurers to sell national insurance policies and have refused to consider an amendment to ERISA that would allow employees to choose a voucher for the purchase of individual policies instead of being forced to accept health insurance policies that are designed to meet the company's needs rather than the employee's needs.

These two moves would allow hundreds of insurance companies to compete for every individual policy, introducing real price competition, not just the meaningless slogan Obama mouths about competition, and forcing insurance companies to try to answer the policy holder's concerns instead of working only to address the company's concerns as it does not and as the Dems are insisting it should continue doing. This kind of intense competition for each policy would drive down premiums, provide a variety of choices and allow workers to move anywhere in the country to get a better job without having to change insurance policies.

Over and over again throughout this debate the Dems in both Houses have refused to consider these reforms that would increase real choice and real competition to drive premiums down, even as they continued to whine about the lack of choice and competition in insurance markets and the high price of health insurance. If the Dems were really interested in bringing premiums down instead of just engineering a government take over of the health insurance industry, they would include these reforms in any health insurance overhaul and allow a trigger to reconsider a public option only if these reforms failed to meet realistic benchmarks by specified dates.

 

[Harry Dresden]

It doesn't even come close to breaking even.

blame that on management not the workers........

I wasn't blaming the workers.

i know Kev...that was mostly for our uninformed Rabbi...

 

[Care4all]

True, but to the extent the public option is successful, it will cost the state and local governments tax revenues - the public option would be a department of HHS and as such not subject to the state and local taxes and fees insurance companies are - and divert capital, reserves, from investment in the private sector economy to finance the federal deficit.

So each time some one switches from private insurance to the public option, state and local governments lose tax revenues and investment capital is lost to the private sector economy. From the perspective of a state trying to balance its budget and grow its economy, would the people of the state be better off with a public option and revenue shortfalls and less investment capital to create jobs or not?

no.

the reason the public option will not have to pay taxes is because it is being run as a NON PROFIT BUSINESS, whatever money is made goes back in to the business itself or refunded to policy holders through lower premiums.... and if you do not make a profit, you do NOT pay taxes...PERIOD.

Only profits are taxed....if there are no profits there are no taxes and we have hundreds if not thousands of non profit businesses out there that do not pay taxes, who compete with businesses that do pay taxes....

I believe Anthem, blue cross blue shield is a non profit or was at one time, so they did not pay taxes either....is my understanding of it toomuchtime.

First, the public option would not in any sense be a business. It would be a department of government run by a political appointee in HHS. Although in the in the current bills, it is supposed to pay for its own expenses from premium and investment income, there are no provisions for what might be done with any surpluses that might, unlikely, arise.

However, insurance companies pay a wide variety of state and local taxes and fees for the right to do business in the state, and the public option would not be subject to any of these. Not only do the companies have to pay taxes and fees but thousands of insurance company employees are required to pay annual license fees in order to sell that insurance or manage agents or brokers. Employees of a public option, being employees of HHS and doing the federal government's business, would not be subject to any of these license fees.

please explain more about the taxes and fees that the public option will not have to pay while the private insurance will? If the state has laws that to sell insurance you have to be incensed in a certain manner, to be qualified then those selling insurance for the public option will also have to meet the state's requirements.

I believe you are incorrect.

Does Medicare have insurance salesmen? NO. ????

 

[Immanuel]

no.

the reason the public option will not have to pay taxes is because it is being run as a NON PROFIT BUSINESS, whatever money is made goes back in to the business itself or refunded to policy holders through lower premiums.... and if you do not make a profit, you do NOT pay taxes...PERIOD.

Only profits are taxed....if there are no profits there are no taxes and we have hundreds if not thousands of non profit businesses out there that do not pay taxes, who compete with businesses that do pay taxes....

I believe Anthem, blue cross blue shield is a non profit or was at one time, so they did not pay taxes either....is my understanding of it toomuchtime.

First, the public option would not in any sense be a business. It would be a department of government run by a political appointee in HHS. Although in the in the current bills, it is supposed to pay for its own expenses from premium and investment income, there are no provisions for what might be done with any surpluses that might, unlikely, arise.

However, insurance companies pay a wide variety of state and local taxes and fees for the right to do business in the state, and the public option would not be subject to any of these. Not only do the companies have to pay taxes and fees but thousands of insurance company employees are required to pay annual license fees in order to sell that insurance or manage agents or brokers. Employees of a public option, being employees of HHS and doing the federal government's business, would not be subject to any of these license fees.

please explain more about the taxes and fees that the public option will not have to pay while the private insurance will? If the state has laws that to sell insurance you have to be incensed in a certain manner, to be qualified then those selling insurance for the public option will also have to meet the state's requirements.

I believe you are incorrect.

Does Medicare have insurance salesmen? NO. ????

It doesn't seem to me like they will be selling the public option. You will forced into it if you don't already have insurance. There will be no salesmen. You will call a bureaucrat who will sit there doing absolutely nothing and will refuse to offer any help at all.

Don't believe me, go to the Welfare office.

Immie

 

[toomuchtime_]

no.

the reason the public option will not have to pay taxes is because it is being run as a NON PROFIT BUSINESS, whatever money is made goes back in to the business itself or refunded to policy holders through lower premiums.... and if you do not make a profit, you do NOT pay taxes...PERIOD.

Only profits are taxed....if there are no profits there are no taxes and we have hundreds if not thousands of non profit businesses out there that do not pay taxes, who compete with businesses that do pay taxes....

I believe Anthem, blue cross blue shield is a non profit or was at one time, so they did not pay taxes either....is my understanding of it toomuchtime.

First, the public option would not in any sense be a business. It would be a department of government run by a political appointee in HHS. Although in the in the current bills, it is supposed to pay for its own expenses from premium and investment income, there are no provisions for what might be done with any surpluses that might, unlikely, arise.

However, insurance companies pay a wide variety of state and local taxes and fees for the right to do business in the state, and the public option would not be subject to any of these. Not only do the companies have to pay taxes and fees but thousands of insurance company employees are required to pay annual license fees in order to sell that insurance or manage agents or brokers. Employees of a public option, being employees of HHS and doing the federal government's business, would not be subject to any of these license fees.

please explain more about the taxes and fees that the public option will not have to pay while the private insurance will? If the state has laws that to sell insurance you have to be incensed in a certain manner, to be qualified then those selling insurance for the public option will also have to meet the state's requirements.

I believe you are incorrect.

Does Medicare have insurance salesmen? NO. ????

The public option would be a part of the Department of Health and Human Services, and as a part of the federal government it would not be subject to state and local taxes anymore than the Post Office is. UPS and FedEx have to pay a variety of state and local taxes, for example to place their kiosks on city streets, but the Post Office pays nothing for all the mailboxes it has on the streets. This is just an example. UPS and FedEx pay local business taxes just to do business in the many cities they serve, but the Post Office doesn't' have to pay those taxes. In the same way, since a public option would be a part of HHS, like the Post Office, it would not be subject to the taxes and fees insurance companies are, and that means states in which it operates will lose revenues.

 

[CindyInKentucky]

Grubby Harry Reid's "opt out" provision works the same way you can "opt out" of sending your kids to gubmint schools.

You can send your kids to the private school all you want, but you don't get to opt out of the taxes to pay for everyone who opts into the gubmint schools.

How many states will fall for that?

There will be a lot of States taking part in the public option. I don't believe Kentucky will since the State is a majority of Republicans. I would have rather seen Universal Health Care, but that's never going to happen in the United States. People here are too greedy and selfish for that to ever happen.

 

[Ravi]

First, the public option would not in any sense be a business. It would be a department of government run by a political appointee in HHS. Although in the in the current bills, it is supposed to pay for its own expenses from premium and investment income, there are no provisions for what might be done with any surpluses that might, unlikely, arise.

However, insurance companies pay a wide variety of state and local taxes and fees for the right to do business in the state, and the public option would not be subject to any of these. Not only do the companies have to pay taxes and fees but thousands of insurance company employees are required to pay annual license fees in order to sell that insurance or manage agents or brokers. Employees of a public option, being employees of HHS and doing the federal government's business, would not be subject to any of these license fees.

please explain more about the taxes and fees that the public option will not have to pay while the private insurance will? If the state has laws that to sell insurance you have to be incensed in a certain manner, to be qualified then those selling insurance for the public option will also have to meet the state's requirements.

I believe you are incorrect.

Does Medicare have insurance salesmen? NO. ????

The public option would be a part of the Department of Health and Human Services, and as a part of the federal government it would not be subject to state and local taxes anymore than the Post Office is. UPS and FedEx have to pay a variety of state and local taxes, for example to place their kiosks on city streets, but the Post Office pays nothing for all the mailboxes it has on the streets. This is just an example. UPS and FedEx pay local business taxes just to do business in the many cities they serve, but the Post Office doesn't' have to pay those taxes. In the same way, since a public option would be a part of HHS, like the Post Office, it would not be subject to the taxes and fees insurance companies are, and that means states in which it operates will lose revenues.

The fees and taxes insurance business pay are used to hire government employees to regulate the insurance businesses. It would be a wash.

 

[Care4all]

First, the public option would not in any sense be a business. It would be a department of government run by a political appointee in HHS. Although in the in the current bills, it is supposed to pay for its own expenses from premium and investment income, there are no provisions for what might be done with any surpluses that might, unlikely, arise.

However, insurance companies pay a wide variety of state and local taxes and fees for the right to do business in the state, and the public option would not be subject to any of these. Not only do the companies have to pay taxes and fees but thousands of insurance company employees are required to pay annual license fees in order to sell that insurance or manage agents or brokers. Employees of a public option, being employees of HHS and doing the federal government's business, would not be subject to any of these license fees.

please explain more about the taxes and fees that the public option will not have to pay while the private insurance will? If the state has laws that to sell insurance you have to be incensed in a certain manner, to be qualified then those selling insurance for the public option will also have to meet the state's requirements.

I believe you are incorrect.

Does Medicare have insurance salesmen? NO. ????

The public option would be a part of the Department of Health and Human Services, and as a part of the federal government it would not be subject to state and local taxes anymore than the Post Office is. UPS and FedEx have to pay a variety of state and local taxes, for example to place their kiosks on city streets, but the Post Office pays nothing for all the mailboxes it has on the streets. This is just an example. UPS and FedEx pay local business taxes just to do business in the many cities they serve, but the Post Office doesn't' have to pay those taxes. In the same way, since a public option would be a part of HHS, like the Post Office, it would not be subject to the taxes and fees insurance companies are, and that means states in which it operates will lose revenues.

i can understand the 'fee' or 'license' part that concerns you, but the tax part is on profit...whether it is state or federal....you gotta make a profit to be taxed....no?