You do realize that the 25% taxes in the example doesn't cover state income taxes, right? The UK doesn't have state taxes of that nature. And I already pay 7% in sales tax as it is (in a red state). FWIW, the cheap tuition also covers grad school.

In addition, in the UK, the 40% applies if you make over $65,000. Below that its 20%. Above $300,000 its 45%. They have much wider bands than the US does.

And, you know, cheap tuition, full health coverage, along with infrastructure and education benefits (now paid by the state) would probably be quite a deal for 60% (where in the US right now taxes to feds, states, sales is 45-50% all included for most people).

From wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxatio..._United_States
(that's all inclusive federal and state)

The average US federal taxation rate is under 20%. No way it would need to get to 60%.

edit: According to The Economist in 2012 a British citizen with income of 100,000$ would pay a total effective tax of under 35%.

Damn, Arles, when did you take over your local Occupy chapter? So far you've made the following arguments:

Corporations don't care about their workers and will cut salary and benefits whenever possible.

Corporate profits only benefit the rich.

Increasing corporate profits won't benefit the average worker.

Reducing regulation/paperwork for corporations won't benefit the average worker.

What the country really needs is a massive expansion of Medicaid guaranteeing access to all those that currently can't afford insurance.


At some point you jumped way to the left of me.

I'll take them one by one below

I think they want to make money and do what it takes to land retain the best combination of salary value and ability in their position. No more, no less. They aren't out to provide charity but they aren't out to screw people either. If there is a way to save money and still keep their workers with good morale, they will investigate.

I've never said that and am not sure where you get that from.

This is somewhat akin to 1. I think some could, but by and large corp profits help the job security and maybe some form of minimal raise for average workers - but not much more. Just like I don't think companies want to screw their workers - I don't see much workers getting a ton from corporate profits. If they did, there wouldn't be nearly the number of small businesses out there as exist today.

They have an HR dept for a reason. No sure this helps or hurts the average worker. Laying off 1-2 HR guys because you don't have benefits won't really impact most workers - that is unless they are that HR guy. ;)

A lot of this already exists. If you don't make much and have kids, you probably qualify for some form of state subsidized care right now. What I am saying is look at additional subsidized care if gaping holes (ie, pre-existing conditions) aren't currently handled. An "ACA lite" that dealt with pre-existing conditions and workers making under 35K wouldn't be a terrible idea - provided there were income caps preventing companies from using this as a shield to drop coverage on the rank and file middle class.

No, I just try to think each issue out objectively without jumping to the "Republicans are bad" - "no, democrats are bad" sheep mentality. I may agree with some liberal ideas and other conservative ones. I don't think there's a rule against that? Well, unless you plan to run for one of the parties - which thankfully I do not ;)

Apparently China employs 2m people to monitor the internet ... perhaps this is the master-plan against unemployment for the US ... have the NSA hired everyone? ;)

BBC News - China employs two million microblog monitors state media say

OK, I need you to stop arguing two separate arguments at the same time. Again, I was replying to your quote: "I think other countries have consistent care across the population while many people here have access to better or similar care for less out of pocket (when you factor premiums, taxes and coinsurance)". I'm not making an assertion (which you suggest I am making in your reply) that we should simply make people pay $15K more and drop them all to the exchanges.

That's called shifting the goalposts, and while I don't think you meant to do it intentionally, I'd like you to stop it.

Otherwise, on the subject of what citizens in single-payer countries get vs. what we get here, and how much the cost of it impacts the average citizen, Imran & JPhillips have covered it.



Again, not to also sound like a broken record, but health care for most of the middle class in this country is already a crapburger (which is a great term, btw). As I documented in multiple links: premiums keep going up, benefits keep getting leaner, and employers (especially small-to-mid size) have been shedding plans steadily for the past decade (way before ACA).

I went to the link and checked, and you're describing the individual plan. The family version of that plan has a $931 monthly premium, with 30% coinsurance and a $4K deductible. For coverage to start in 2013 (because Autumn was talking about his current situation, not 2014, I believe).

In addition, if you read the brochure, holy shit that's a benefit-lean plan.

Honestly, if I made $100K/year and you bumped my federal income tax from 25% to 30% (an extra $400/month or so), and told me for that I'd get a health plan that:

*every provider nationwide was in network
*all drugs were free or very cheap
*basically 0 out of pocket costs
*no FSA/HSA paperwork (opportunity costs, people - how much time do you lose fighting with your private bureaucracy?)
*no loss of coverage due to a technicality
*no pre-existing condition bullshit ever
*no worrying about what my kids will do after 26
*outcomes would still be, on average, as good as they are now, if not better

I might take that plan.

Ok, it's not my intention to shift the arguments - I just occasionally ask a random question that comes to me ;)

I think the big disconnect here is that many in this thread feel that middle class health coverage is pretty dire. While I think most middle class workers have access to solid plans ($500 deductible with solid coinsurance at a fair out if pocket in the $200 to $500 a month range). And any change of this scope will be a fairly big premium increase for these people, IMO.

But, the ACA has been passed and eventually the opponents will stop peeing in the wind and it will be funded and live. Then, we will see how it plays out. My hope is that by 2015 some teeth have been put into the dropping of coverage (at least more than 800-2K).

Fair enough.

And, to be fair, I'm mainly be snitty because I deliberately posted the "mission accomplished" gif to annoy both Mike D and EagleFan (not Eaglesfan27) and neither of them rose to the bait. :(

I think the mission was accomplished because we both worked in crapburger and snitty into our posts :D

:highfive: :D

Sorry, been busy at work and have not read thru the somewhat heated but informative thread discussion on Obamacare. This is not to reply to any specific post but to state my thoughts for the record.

Obama was re-elected and his healthcare reform was clearly one of the key achievements (or failure depending on your perspective) for his first term. He was running on this platform and he won. It has withheld numerous assaults on it and the Supreme Court confirmed its legitimacy. I do not believe all GOP are really this stubborn, its a smaller radical subset that is grandstanding and playing politics.

I support this bill because I want to see significant change and I want the poor, those without jobs, the elderly before medicare eligibility etc. get some and/or affordable coverage. My problem is (1) healthcare costs and delivery is broken (2) I do not know if Obamacare is the best answer but it will change the current dynamics of provider-payer-medical products and patient. The healthcare issues I am concerned with will not change by capitalism alone so I support Obamacare and am willing to see how it plays out.

(I do believe many who do not have jobs or some healthcare have made bad decisions in their lives. However, there are many with children, underskilled, lost jobs due to the Great Recession etc. that should have access to affordable healthcare beyond the emergency room)

I hate the lack of transparency. What other service do you buy that you do not know the cost upfront when buying it. There is no easy way to compare costs at a hospital (yes the $10 aspirin is a real, I saw it on my after-the-fact bill when we had our first child).

I do not like how some Drs are against this. My theory is that when you peel back their arguments, they are against it because its a financial situation with them. There are tons of Drs outside of the US willing to come here to work for less. The foreign top tier may not be as good as the US top tier but they are good enough in the 80-20 rule.

Ultimately, I think Obamacare will evolve to become like SS, Medicare, Medicaid. It will be bloated, it will be inefficient but it will help a significant number of people who would not have healthcare otherwise. I'm willing to pay more taxes for this.

You missed out the tax-free allowance at the bottom end - currently a little over £9,000 (or about $15k). (In other words, if a person makes less than £9,000 per year, they don't pay any income tax at all.)

In my case, I get paid a little over £2,000 gross per month, and have take-home pay of about £1,550 - the deductions (of around 25%) include my contribution to the pension/retirement benefits scheme as well as income tax and National Insurance.

Exactly, I'm talking about a family of four, which is what I am. If I want the sort of $500 deductible Arles is talking about I would be paying at least $3,000 a month. Which I point out simply to address the fact that based on where Arles is, he thinks $600 for a plan like that is reasonable, and where I live such a plan would appear to be a Nigerian scam. I don't have any numbers to suggest whether most people are in his situation or mine, but I do know that the Affordable Care Act is meant to address people in my situation. So it's not surprising everything seems hunky dory to him. If they had his plans in my state I'd probably think that too. I suppose the question is, how many states are like mine?

The key to getting my premiums down is to get more than two providers into my state. Under the previous system that was never going to happen. By adding a mandate and other requirements of the ACA the hope is that there will be a big enough and diverse enough pool in Maine to attract more companies. Hopefully that will work. In the meantime the subsidy means that I can afford health insurance for my family that was going to prove very difficult to afford for me prior to that.

Obamacare is free, there is no need for additional taxes.

Hope none of our guys were hurt.

U.S. forces raid terror targets in Libya, Somalia - CNN.com

Sweet! After coming back from watching Captain Phillips to seeing this...damn, just awesome.

How was the movie?

If the markets go down on Monday, we'll know whom to blame, as Boehner is demanding concessions from Obama to raise the debt limit,something that Obama has said repeatedly no way, no how)

John Boehner Claims He Doesn't Have Votes For Clean Continuing Resolution Bill

(then again, it's all Kabuki Theater isn't it? Boehner has already said privately that he'd rather raise the debt limit with Demvotes then default... honestly it's time for the House to vote on the Senate CR bill.. let's see the "moderates" in the GOP have the spine to back up their words in public on it)

((why do I "Moderates"? When Steve King, the man who said you can tell who illegal immigrants are by their cantelope-sized calves from carrying illegal drugs over the border, is considered a moderate, you are the extremist party))

Maybe this is simply a rhetorical question but ... how "privately" was that really said since, well, you & I both know about it?

And by the rules of the House, he's almost certainly safe as Speaker even if he does it so the lack of privacy or secrecy about it makes sense to me.

(Personally I'd prefer to tie a concrete block around both his ankles & drop him in a toxic waste pond if he did it that way... and I'm not even one that has the debt ceiling in their top ten list of issues, but I get just how safely he could do it)

By that same logic, "America" also elected, in the same election, a Republican majority in the House to combat or to counter-balance a Democrat in the Executive Branch.

I thought it was really well done. Even though we all know the story. To put it in perspective, the movie theater was filled with your typical group of loud-mouths and talkers when the movie started...fast forward to the ending credits (which were silent)....and you could hear a pin-drop even as people were filling out. It was a pretty intense portrayal.

I wouldn't mind tying in cuts to a debt limit increase, but only if those cuts were to the military or defense budget.

So in short, America, you idiots, this is what you get?

Is there a statistic on how many of the GOP that won election won based on primarily opposing Obamacare?

But then even using that logic, a current majority of the House prefers a clean CR without any Obamacare conditions.

A(nother) game of chicken.

T-11.

Anyone in the financial industry with investment advice on how to play this?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/06/politi...html?hpt=hp_t1

Probably the same number that voted for Obama primarily for ACA.

There never can be a "serious conversation" about spending cuts because that's the opposite of increasing the federal budgets and budget deficits. The only solution is to pay lip service to it.

Okay, good to know.

We have your country hostage. If you don't negotiate with us, we will blow it up.

I don't get how Boehner has the audacity to place the ball in anyone else's court, but his own. I have to admit, I generally follow politics pretty close. Many times the rhetoric gets brutal, and in this case it's gone nuclear. It's going to get really ugly here I think.

I know that Wall Street really thinks that someone is bluffing, and that something is going to get done, and personally, I think it's going to come down to the last minute again before something gets resolved. In the end it's going to be just another few month deal, just so they can repeat this process all over again. I still think the Reps are going to pay for this as it ramps up.

The problem with all this today is that people generally only listen to "their" side's arguments. They never consider that their side is wrong and that their side is unquestioningly right. That makes situations where the whole ACA v. Obamacare confusion comes from. The media have fucked so many ignorant people up that people can't even think for themselves anymore.

Look I love my kids, but if they fuck up and it's their blame, then they need to own up to it. They need to accept reality. We don't have that in our time anymore. Even a biker who brake checks someone can have his lawyer blatantly lie about what was happening to save his own ass.

Here we have a group of people who just can't accept reality, and desperately want to create their own.

I did check about 7-8 sites listing the top issues of the 2012 presidential election and healthcare was not in the top 3-4 in all most of them. The top issues were economy (jobs), foreign policy (Iran, etc.), deficit, social security, medicare and healthcare.

I will still argue that ACA did not play a big role in why Obama was re-elected, despite what some have spinned it.

PilotMan, so the answer is to keep repeating this process without any solution?

Then by your logic above, the re-elected GOP did not win primarily due to their opposition to Obamacare. But yet we are here in this situation where they have made it their central argument.

I don't recall it being much of an issue at all - but then I'm in an uncontested blue state.

So I guess if the GOP wins in 2016, the Democrats can refuse to pass a budget unless the GOP quadruples welfare. If they say no, then the Dems can reduce their demand to doubling it and claim the GOP isn't compromising.

Admittedly it was likely more due to Romney losing than Obama winning.

Regardless, Healthcare reform was a central win in his first term and it became law. This is sour grapes and political grandstanding.

I agree, that's why I said earlier this was the wrong fight. The fight should be about federal budgets and deficits but they do not want to do any about those.

No the answer is that the process is the process. Unless you feel like breaking up the USA into 50 parts, or going the other route and anointing a dictator it is what it is.

The problem is that accepting the reality that what we have as far as laws and rules. Each side has to remember they are important and that the role they play is for the greater good. Your way might not be my way, but I'm here to help make this country work the best it can, and If I make you look good, I take pride that I did my best and we all succeed.

Instead we have a system where the new reality of progress is to go back and try as hard as you can to change the past. It's like the House is trying to be a new Butterfly Effect movie. Disney said "keep moving forward," sure stuff might not work or may need tweaked or changed, but unless we can do that we are destined to keep doing this: :banghead:

Isn't the answer to go back to the Regan/Tip O'Neil days where backroom bargains can be crafted? I think we only started getting really dysfunctional in the 90's and 00's.

Nice fact checking there Fox News:

Fox News' Anna Kooiman Falls For Parody About Obama Funding Muslim Museum

I didn't say healthcare was why Obama was reelected, I said that there was an election after the ACA was passed and if there was enough anger to repeal the law he would have lost.

One side has said openly and repeatedly that they won't compromise. Until that changes no combination of personalities will change things. Remember Obama has already agreed to over 2 trillion in spending cuts and was willing to do chained CPI and some Medicare changes, but Boehner and the GOP keep saying no because to get that they'd have to give up something.

Tip O'Neil = Boehner. Boehner has lost his "grip" on this party unfortunately.

I don't know if you can really make that argument. Depth of emotion (whether its anger or joy) doesn't really play into elections that are based on districts.

It's kinda like (looks for analogy) the multi-tiered answer approval polls that Rasmussen does. The most recent one had approval/disapproval at 48/51. But strongly approve was 27 while strongly disapprove was 40. It's the basic number that matters at the ballot box, not the more nuanced one (turnout not withstanding).

Plus you've got some percentage of people who were like me & sat out 2012 because they didn't believe Romney would have been a meaningful improvement anyway.

But surely thats the way the cookie crumbles with the democratic system setup the way it is - the idea is that everyone plays by those rules and gets on with things in a constructive manner ....

(no political system is perfect - if the US had proportional representation then I'd give it 5 minutes before people in sparsely populated states started complaining that they had little influence on national politics and that the system was biased towards 'city folk')

The current situation with obstructionist politics doesn't help anyone and is potentially incredibly destructive.

Any real conversation should start with cutting the military. While a 20% cut would pretty much solve the deficit thing, the economic devastation of destroying our nations largest social welfare program would be too much to bear.

So we just spin our wheels electing people who make cuts that just nip at the edge seem the most important and urgent thing ever.

Is someone not playing by the rules that exist? And nope, I'm not picking on you here Marc nor am I being facetious or even rhetorical, I'm posing what I think is a pretty legitimate question.

The rules -- the actual ones -- are what they are. They aren't what we'd like 'em to be (no matter who you talk to it seems) but they are what they are.

And the ability to bring things to a relative standstill is product of those rules. There are processes available to change the rules, rather frequent elections to change the actors, no shortage of means for the governed to communicate their desires to the governing. It's not an immutable construct.

Military spending is about 4 1/2% of GDP, so a fifth of that would amount to a little under 1% of GDP.

Obama's deficits have run about 8-9% of GDP on average.

I guess I'm not seeing this as a social welfare versus military argument. We need to cut spending from many buckets.