Displaying 41 - 50 of 186 Forum Posts Prev 3 4 5 6 7 Next
  • Mar 21, 2017 12:20 PM
    Last: 8d
    I'm such a procrastinator and I have a feeling I'll be waiting until April 18th to file. I love when tax day falls on a weekend and Emancipation Day falls on a Monday. Three days may not seem like a lot to many people, but it's a godsend for procrastinators out there!
  • Mar 21, 2017 12:57 PM
    Last: 8d
    J.K.Logic Wrote: And we don't even have universal healthcare, just a patchwork system of programs to help Americans get health insurance access and discounts and coverage and whatnot. So why do we continue to operate like this? If it's so obvious we are spending more and getting far less, why can't we have a serious conversation about universal healthcare, as other countries employing it are having better results across the board than us?

    This question has baffled me before, during, and after I wrote my college thesis paper on this topic. We spend more money per person than any other country in the world yet have some of the lowest rankings of access to care and affordability than any other industrialized country in the world.

    I hate to bring politics into this discussion, but it's impossible to ignore politics when it's so intertwined in the discussion. Our government made a very deliberate choice to operate a for profit healthcare system decades ago and chose to have a system where healthcare wasn't a right, but a privilege.

    Obamacare did help alleviate some of these issues by mandating that insurance companies couldn't deny someone simply because they had a preexisting condition, but there wasn't enough votes to pass what President Obama stated he wanted, which was the public option. (Obama later even went further and said that he would have loved to have a single-payer system similar to the rest of the industrialized world, but knew that idea was dead on arrival in Congress.)

    What Obamacare didn't do very well was tackle costs of services. An MRI in one hospital may cost $500 while an MRI in another hospital in the same city may cost $1,500. The list goes on and on (and on). If we really want to fix the healthcare system we have to start with cost control, but that just isn't politically possible right now.

    Then we need to begin an attempt to change the hearts and minds of voters. "Medicare for All" polls a heck of a lot better than "Socialized Healthcare," but a lot of people don't understand that they are the same exact thing.

  • Mar 14, 2017 02:59 PM
    Last: 8d

    The American Health Care Act that Congress is currently debating won't just affect the individual health insurance market and Medicaid, but Medicare as well.

    The bill Congress is debating now repeals the Medicare payroll surtax on high-income earners and virtually all other tax and revenue provisions in Obamacare. While this change wouldn't be noticeable to most seniors on the program, they could potentially deplete the Medicare Trust Fund by 2025, which would then require the Congress to step in and potentially make draconian changes in order to keep the program afloat. Tens of millions of baby boomers who will be relying on Medicare for their health insurance coverage in 2025 would then be forced to take a "wait and see" approach to what happens with their coverage.

    While I'm still decades away from being eligible for Medicare, I still worry about my parents who will be entering the program in a few short years. People who paid into the system for their entire lives shouldn't have to worry about whether or not they will be able to get coverage. Hopefully Congress will be able to figure this out if they are going to continue moving forward with AHCA.

  • Mar 10, 2017 10:33 AM
    Last: 19d

    I'm sorry to hear about your husband.

    I encourage you to speak with someone who works at the SSA, but this is what I found.

    Your survivor benefit amount would be based on the earnings of the person who died. The more they paid into Social Security, the higher your benefits would be.

    The monthly amount you would get is a percentage of the deceased's basic Social Security benefit. It depends on your age and the type of benefit you would be eligible to receive.

    These are examples of the benefits that survivors may receive:

    • Widow or widower, full retirement age or older -- 100 percent of the deceased worker's benefit amount;
    • Widow or widower, age 60 -- full retirement age -- 71½ to 99 percent of the deceased worker's basic amount;
    • Disabled widow or widower aged 50 through 59 -- 71½ percent;

  • Mar 04, 2017 02:39 PM
    Last: 22d

    I don't like artificial "end" dates because Congress has never shown that they are able to adhere to them whatsoever. What typically happens is they do nothing until a month or two before the "end" date and then pass stopgap extensions for years and years.

    If they are going to do away with Medicaid expansion then they should just do away with it. I know that sounds harsh, but acting like they are going to spend three years coming up with a replacement is misleading at best.

  • Mar 07, 2017 01:57 PM
    Last: 6d

    I just have a hard time adding up the numbers.

    One of the main reasons for the individual mandate is to help alleviate the costs that came about with forcing insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of preconditions. If healthy young people aren't forced to purchase insurance and insurance companies still have to accept everyone then no one should be surprised when the costs skyrocket for everyone who has insurance.

  • Feb 28, 2017 04:04 PM
    Last: 26d

    President Trump is delivering his first address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday, the first of his Presidency.

    Mr. Trump's speech gives him an opportunity to lay his agenda out to the American people and to try to reset his agenda after a tumultuous first month in office. It will be interesting to see if he approaches the speech like his predecessors have or if he will continue using his brash style that propelled him to the Presidency.

    One thing that I'll be paying attention to is how the Republican members in the audience react to what he says. We already know that the Democrats will sit on their hands for most of the night, but I'm interested to see how Republicans will react if he proposes something that may come across as over the line.

    Is anyone planning on watching President Trump's speech tonight? If so, what are you hoping to hear?

  • Feb 22, 2017 08:18 AM
    Last: 30d
    J.K.Logic Wrote: Now that he is president, do you think he will stand by this campaign promise? Personally I think he will, for the most part. Though he does have somewhat of an uphill battle in some senses, with politicians like Paul Ryan wanting to gut the programs. I do agree with him (at least here) that it simply isn't fair to cut any of these, as we collectively have been paying in for years. It's not fair to the American taxpayers that have been paying in.

    That's the million dollar question.

    I actually think the opposite. I have a feeling that President Trump would sign anything the Congress sends him and then try to spin it to his advantage. I just can't see him vetoing something that the House and Senate sends him which privatizes Medicaid and cuts Social Security.

    It would be great to be proven wrong, but I just have a feeling that he's not going to live up to these campaign promises if the Congress sends him bills that cut these programs.

  • Jan 12, 2017 01:46 PM
    Last: 1mo
    J.K.Logic Wrote: Is there a viable plan announced yet from the GOP as to what the replacement will be?

    They aren't anywhere near that. The only thing Republicans in Congress seem to agree on is that they don't like Obamacare. Once you get past that they are all over the place.

    I've been following their debates closely and will be sure to keep us all updated, but it really seems that a small number of Republicans in the Senate are starting to get cold feet about completely dismantling Obamacare without having a replacement plan ready to go in its place.

  • Feb 21, 2017 04:11 PM
    Last: 1mo
    J.K.Logic Wrote: Also I doubt many are doing this exclusively. I wonder what figures taxing out of state buyers in states with no sales tax would even amount to anyways? Can't be much. Maybe I'm naive on this..

    I can guarantee you that tens of thousands of people from Washington cross the border every single day to take advantage of our tax free status. Heck - there's a town of 160,000 just across the river from us that work in Oregon, but live in Washington to avoid paying income tax.

    J.K.Logic Wrote: For general and smallish retail purchases (maybe purchases under X amount, say $1000?), I think the extra bureaucracy involved would be more of an annoyance and a deterrent for people to travel freely from state to state than it would be a boon for your state to be proud of.

    But maybe for buying large tickets items like cars and boats and whatnot, I can see the logic there. I don't think I should have to show state ID for buying a pair of pants at the mall, for this situation. But maybe if I'm buying a brand new car, perhaps I should.. but then maybe even not.

    I see your point of view and can't say I necessarily disagree in theory, but my issue is just with fairness. The reason some states have no sales tax is because their income or other taxes are higher. And knowing that people are taking advantage of that just rubs me the wrong way.