Real costs

[Old Rocks]

There has been extreme whining, gnashing of teeth, wearing of sackcloth, and throwing of ashes by the 'Conservatives' on this board concerning the increases in costs of healthcare under this administration.

Yes, the costs have increased at the rate of 5/8% per year on the average since Obama took office. Compared with the average of 13.2% per year under Bush. But what does that mean in real costs?

OK, The health care that cost you $1.00 in 2001 cost you;
2002 $1.13
2003 $1.28
2004 $1.48
2005 $1.64

Health care that cost you $1.00 in 2009 cost you;
2010 $1.06
2011 $1.12
2012 $1.18
2013 $1.25

So, during the first five years of the Bush administration health care costs increased over 250% more than in the first five years of the Obama administration. Yet the 'Conservatives' want to go back to that. Are they all masochists?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Health care costs are going down and should continue to go down. We DO have Obama to thank for much of that. But, don't expect any of the rw's to admit that they just want to close their eyes and their minds and believe the last idiotic chain letter they got in their email.

Every thread here is filled with them demanding answers but not one of them has bothered to look it up for themselves.

 

[boedicca]

There has been extreme whining, gnashing of teeth, wearing of sackcloth, and throwing of ashes by the 'Conservatives' on this board concerning the increases in costs of healthcare under this administration.

Yes, the costs have increased at the rate of 5/8% per year on the average since Obama took office. Compared with the average of 13.2% per year under Bush. But what does that mean in real costs?

OK, The health care that cost you $1.00 in 2001 cost you;
2002 $1.13
2003 $1.28
2004 $1.48
2005 $1.64

Health care that cost you $1.00 in 2009 cost you;
2010 $1.06
2011 $1.12
2012 $1.18
2013 $1.25

So, during the first five years of the Bush administration health care costs increased over 250% more than in the first five years of the Obama administration. Yet the 'Conservatives' want to go back to that. Are they all masochists?

Your analysis of "costs" is highly suspicious.

Linky-poo?

 

[Immanuel]

When the cost for the unwed woman who works in the accounting department making $50k a year with health care benefits paid by her employer suddenly becomes her responsibility because the employer decides it is cheaper to pay the fine... Oh F it, you guys don't give a shit about her and the people like her. She is probably a conservative and deserves what she gets, right?

Immie

 

[Old Rocks]

There has been extreme whining, gnashing of teeth, wearing of sackcloth, and throwing of ashes by the 'Conservatives' on this board concerning the increases in costs of healthcare under this administration.

Yes, the costs have increased at the rate of 5/8% per year on the average since Obama took office. Compared with the average of 13.2% per year under Bush. But what does that mean in real costs?

OK, The health care that cost you $1.00 in 2001 cost you;
2002 $1.13
2003 $1.28
2004 $1.48
2005 $1.64

Health care that cost you $1.00 in 2009 cost you;
2010 $1.06
2011 $1.12
2012 $1.18
2013 $1.25

So, during the first five years of the Bush administration health care costs increased over 250% more than in the first five years of the Obama administration. Yet the 'Conservatives' want to go back to that. Are they all masochists?

Your analysis of "costs" is highly suspicious.

Linky-poo?

PolitiFact | Republican National Committee says health insurance premiums have risen 29 percent under Barack Obama

From 2008 to 2013, premiums rose by an average of 5.8 percent per year. But between 1999 and 2008, premiums rose by an average of 13.2 percent a year -- in other words, twice as fast as premiums rose under Obama.

So, contrary to the tweet’s implication that Obama has presided over runaway health care costs, premiums are actually increasing less quickly than previously

 

[Old Rocks]

When the cost for the unwed woman who works in the accounting department making $50k a year with health care benefits paid by her employer suddenly becomes her responsibility because the employer decides it is cheaper to pay the fine... Oh F it, you guys don't give a shit about her and the people like her. She is probably a conservative and deserves what she gets, right?

Immie

Link?

 

[OnePercenter]

Just think. If Reagan hadn't fucked with the HMO act which eliminated competition, none of this would be a discussion.

 

[Immanuel]

When the cost for the unwed woman who works in the accounting department making $50k a year with health care benefits paid by her employer suddenly becomes her responsibility because the employer decides it is cheaper to pay the fine... Oh F it, you guys don't give a shit about her and the people like her. She is probably a conservative and deserves what she gets, right?

Immie

Link?

You are asking for a link on an obviously hypothetical situation... one that is more than likely going to happen next year?

Or are you asking for a link about the fact that "you guys don't give a shit"? There is plenty of evidence of that in any one of the hundreds of Obamacare threads on this site.

You don't think companies are going to drop employee healthcare? Maybe they won't but they will be idiots if they don't. Let's see... pay a $2000 tax (or is it a fine this week?) or pay $6,000 or more to cover health insurance? I doubt every business with do this, but I don't doubt that there will be many that do.

Immie

 

[OnePercenter]

When the cost for the unwed woman who works in the accounting department making $50k a year with health care benefits paid by her employer suddenly becomes her responsibility because the employer decides it is cheaper to pay the fine... Oh F it, you guys don't give a shit about her and the people like her. She is probably a conservative and deserves what she gets, right?

Immie

Link?

You are asking for a link on an obviously hypothetical situation... one that is more than likely going to happen next year?

Or are you asking for a link about the fact that "you guys don't give a shit"? There is plenty of evidence of that in any one of the hundreds of Obamacare threads on this site.

You don't think companies are going to drop employee healthcare? Maybe they won't but they will be idiots if they don't. Let's see... pay a $2000 tax (or is it a fine this week?) or pay $6,000 or more to cover health insurance? I doubt every business with do this, but I don't doubt that there will be many that do.

Immie

Why shouldn't they, employee costs are 100% subsidized.

 

[Immanuel]

Link?

You are asking for a link on an obviously hypothetical situation... one that is more than likely going to happen next year?

Or are you asking for a link about the fact that "you guys don't give a shit"? There is plenty of evidence of that in any one of the hundreds of Obamacare threads on this site.

You don't think companies are going to drop employee healthcare? Maybe they won't but they will be idiots if they don't. Let's see... pay a $2000 tax (or is it a fine this week?) or pay $6,000 or more to cover health insurance? I doubt every business with do this, but I don't doubt that there will be many that do.

Immie

Why should they, employee costs are 100% subsidized.

For corporations that pay taxes and even then the idea that they are 100% subsidized is not true. Corporations can write off their employee expenses including healthcare costs. They can write off the healthcare expenses against their income reducing taxable income and reducing their effective tax rate, but the rate they are subsidized is determined by the effective tax rate that they pay. If they only pay an effective tax rate of 10% then they are being subsidized 10% of their healthcare. Every additional dollar spent on healthcare will save them 10 cents in taxes. That is not 100% subsidy. It is 10%. For every dollar they spend on healthcare the government subsidizes them by the effective tax rate.

An even better way of stating this is an example such as this. On December 26th the corporate tax planners got together and calculated what their tax rate was going to be for this year. They had paid $0 for employee healthcare all year long. If they decided to pay healthcare expenses for all employees on December 31st (note they would not chose healthcare more than likely it would be bonuses, but the idea is the same) totaling $5 million and this reduced their tax rate from 25% to 10%, they are not going to save $5 million in taxes they are going to save $750,000 in taxes, but it will cost them the $5 million to do so. So really the additional expense is $4,250,000. Worth it? Didn't think so.

On the other hand, if they can reduce their taxable income from 25% to 0% and their taxes before the healthcare expenditure was more than $5 million then it would be 100% subsidized.

If you understand your personal taxes you will see that what I am saying is true. Let's say you itemize your deductions. You've calculated all your income and deductions and you see that you owe the IRS $1000. You're about to write the check when you suddenly remember that $1,000 gift you made on January 2nd to the Make-A-Wish Foundation. "Hot damn!" you think. You open up Turbo Tax... dash to the deductions section, key in Make-A-Wish Foundation and $1000. Turbo Tax quickly recalculates your taxes due and viola! now you owe $850. That $1000 contribution didn't save you $1000 in taxes, it saved you $150 which was your marginal tax rate. Well, hey, at least you saved yourself $150.

The same principle applies to corporations. You don't get a dollar for dollar reduction in your taxes, you get a reduction based upon your marginal rate. Same thing goes for corporations.

Immie

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There has been extreme whining, gnashing of teeth, wearing of sackcloth, and throwing of ashes by the 'Conservatives' on this board concerning the increases in costs of healthcare under this administration.

Yes, the costs have increased at the rate of 5/8% per year on the average since Obama took office. Compared with the average of 13.2% per year under Bush. But what does that mean in real costs?

OK, The health care that cost you $1.00 in 2001 cost you;
2002 $1.13
2003 $1.28
2004 $1.48
2005 $1.64

Health care that cost you $1.00 in 2009 cost you;
2010 $1.06
2011 $1.12
2012 $1.18
2013 $1.25

So, during the first five years of the Bush administration health care costs increased over 250% more than in the first five years of the Obama administration. Yet the 'Conservatives' want to go back to that. Are they all masochists?

I don't want to go back to Bush; I want to have a large Medical Saving Account and a robust free market for insurance for big ticket items

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There has been extreme whining, gnashing of teeth, wearing of sackcloth, and throwing of ashes by the 'Conservatives' on this board concerning the increases in costs of healthcare under this administration.

Yes, the costs have increased at the rate of 5/8% per year on the average since Obama took office. Compared with the average of 13.2% per year under Bush. But what does that mean in real costs?

OK, The health care that cost you $1.00 in 2001 cost you;
2002 $1.13
2003 $1.28
2004 $1.48
2005 $1.64

Health care that cost you $1.00 in 2009 cost you;
2010 $1.06
2011 $1.12
2012 $1.18
2013 $1.25

So, during the first five years of the Bush administration health care costs increased over 250% more than in the first five years of the Obama administration. Yet the 'Conservatives' want to go back to that. Are they all masochists?

I don't want to go back to Bush; I want to have a large Medical Saving Account and a robust free market for insurance for big ticket items

And, if you don't have that large savings account to pay your bills?

That's right, we're right back to the socialist system we have now those who do pay their bills are stuck subsidizing those who do not.

Whatchha think? Should we all just trust that you have a large savings account for your medical bills?

No thanks.

You have to prove you can pay for auto accidents you cause and you should have to prove you can pay your own damn medical bills.

 

[OnePercenter]

You are asking for a link on an obviously hypothetical situation... one that is more than likely going to happen next year?

Or are you asking for a link about the fact that "you guys don't give a shit"? There is plenty of evidence of that in any one of the hundreds of Obamacare threads on this site.

You don't think companies are going to drop employee healthcare? Maybe they won't but they will be idiots if they don't. Let's see... pay a $2000 tax (or is it a fine this week?) or pay $6,000 or more to cover health insurance? I doubt every business with do this, but I don't doubt that there will be many that do.

Immie

Why should they, employee costs are 100% subsidized.

For corporations that pay taxes and even then the idea that they are 100% subsidized is not true. Corporations can write off their employee expenses including healthcare costs. They can write off the healthcare expenses against their income reducing taxable income and reducing their effective tax rate, but the rate they are subsidized is determined by the effective tax rate that they pay. If they only pay an effective tax rate of 10% then they are being subsidized 10% of their healthcare. Every additional dollar spent on healthcare will save them 10 cents in taxes. That is not 100% subsidy. It is 10%. For every dollar they spend on healthcare the government subsidizes them by the effective tax rate.

An even better way of stating this is an example such as this. On December 26th the corporate tax planners got together and calculated what their tax rate was going to be for this year. They had paid $0 for employee healthcare all year long. If they decided to pay healthcare expenses for all employees on December 31st (note they would not chose healthcare more than likely it would be bonuses, but the idea is the same) totaling $5 million and this reduced their tax rate from 25% to 10%, they are not going to save $5 million in taxes they are going to save $750,000 in taxes, but it will cost them the $5 million to do so. So really the additional expense is $4,250,000. Worth it? Didn't think so.

On the other hand, if they can reduce their taxable income from 25% to 0% and their taxes before the healthcare expenditure was more than $5 million then it would be 100% subsidized.

If you understand your personal taxes you will see that what I am saying is true. Let's say you itemize your deductions. You've calculated all your income and deductions and you see that you owe the IRS $1000. You're about to write the check when you suddenly remember that $1,000 gift you made on January 2nd to the Make-A-Wish Foundation. "Hot damn!" you think. You open up Turbo Tax... dash to the deductions section, key in Make-A-Wish Foundation and $1000. Turbo Tax quickly recalculates your taxes due and viola! now you owe $850. That $1000 contribution didn't save you $1000 in taxes, it saved you $150 which was your marginal tax rate. Well, hey, at least you saved yourself $150.

The same principle applies to corporations. You don't get a dollar for dollar reduction in your taxes, you get a reduction based upon your marginal rate. Same thing goes for corporations.

Immie

You're getting personal deductions (subsidies) mixed up with corporate deductions (subsidies).

Personal deductions (subsidies) are almost never 100%, which is why you should NEVER live in the house you own, nor fail to make yourself a contract employee (corporation) if you make over $100,000.00/yr. Corporate deductions (subsidies) are 100% or more which reduces your taxable liability.

 

[OnePercenter]

There has been extreme whining, gnashing of teeth, wearing of sackcloth, and throwing of ashes by the 'Conservatives' on this board concerning the increases in costs of healthcare under this administration.

Yes, the costs have increased at the rate of 5/8% per year on the average since Obama took office. Compared with the average of 13.2% per year under Bush. But what does that mean in real costs?

OK, The health care that cost you $1.00 in 2001 cost you;
2002 $1.13
2003 $1.28
2004 $1.48
2005 $1.64

Health care that cost you $1.00 in 2009 cost you;
2010 $1.06
2011 $1.12
2012 $1.18
2013 $1.25

So, during the first five years of the Bush administration health care costs increased over 250% more than in the first five years of the Obama administration. Yet the 'Conservatives' want to go back to that. Are they all masochists?

I don't want to go back to Bush; I want to have a large Medical Saving Account and a robust free market for insurance for big ticket items

You MAY build a large MSA, but (thanks to Reagan) there will NEVER be a free market for insurance.

 

[Immanuel]

Why should they, employee costs are 100% subsidized.

For corporations that pay taxes and even then the idea that they are 100% subsidized is not true. Corporations can write off their employee expenses including healthcare costs. They can write off the healthcare expenses against their income reducing taxable income and reducing their effective tax rate, but the rate they are subsidized is determined by the effective tax rate that they pay. If they only pay an effective tax rate of 10% then they are being subsidized 10% of their healthcare. Every additional dollar spent on healthcare will save them 10 cents in taxes. That is not 100% subsidy. It is 10%. For every dollar they spend on healthcare the government subsidizes them by the effective tax rate.

An even better way of stating this is an example such as this. On December 26th the corporate tax planners got together and calculated what their tax rate was going to be for this year. They had paid $0 for employee healthcare all year long. If they decided to pay healthcare expenses for all employees on December 31st (note they would not chose healthcare more than likely it would be bonuses, but the idea is the same) totaling $5 million and this reduced their tax rate from 25% to 10%, they are not going to save $5 million in taxes they are going to save $750,000 in taxes, but it will cost them the $5 million to do so. So really the additional expense is $4,250,000. Worth it? Didn't think so.

On the other hand, if they can reduce their taxable income from 25% to 0% and their taxes before the healthcare expenditure was more than $5 million then it would be 100% subsidized.

If you understand your personal taxes you will see that what I am saying is true. Let's say you itemize your deductions. You've calculated all your income and deductions and you see that you owe the IRS $1000. You're about to write the check when you suddenly remember that $1,000 gift you made on January 2nd to the Make-A-Wish Foundation. "Hot damn!" you think. You open up Turbo Tax... dash to the deductions section, key in Make-A-Wish Foundation and $1000. Turbo Tax quickly recalculates your taxes due and viola! now you owe $850. That $1000 contribution didn't save you $1000 in taxes, it saved you $150 which was your marginal tax rate. Well, hey, at least you saved yourself $150.

The same principle applies to corporations. You don't get a dollar for dollar reduction in your taxes, you get a reduction based upon your marginal rate. Same thing goes for corporations.

Immie

You're getting personal deductions (subsidies) mixed up with corporate deductions (subsidies).

Personal deductions (subsidies) are almost never 100%, which is why you should NEVER live in the house you own, nor fail to make yourself a contract employee (corporation) if you make over $100,000.00/yr. Corporate deductions (subsidies) are 100% or more which reduces your taxable liability.

I am pretty certain you are 100% incorrect on that as the link below shows, but I should know better than to get in a discussion such as this with someone who thinks he knows everything.

Corporate Taxable Income [A Closer Look] | Accounting-Financial-Tax.com

If you review the link, you will see that expenses such as healthcare expenses reduce "taxable income" which is not the same thing as "Income Tax Due". The corporate tax rate is 35% of taxable income over $18.3 million. That means if a corporation has taxable income of more than $18.3 million, after deductions, the next dollar they earn will cost them 35 cents in taxes.

Tax Rate Guide for 2012 and 2013 - Corporate and Individual Tax Rate Schedules

You must be reading too many left wing talking points without thinking things through.

Correction, here is the correct link.

http://accounting-financial-tax.com/2009/10/corporate-taxable-income-a-closer-look/


Immie