My Rant; Your Precious Obamacare - Page 11

Pedigree Database

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Micaho

by Micaho on 09 February 2013 - 12:02

Thanks for your research, keepthefaith!  I know so little about the law and hate to be bothered by rumors if that's all they are.  I have one more question:  Is it true doctors will be required to ask patients if there is a gun in their household as part of the required screening regardless of the reason for the patient being treated?  Or maybe this was something proposed for new gun control legislation?  Sounds really intrusive to me.  If this was discussed elsewhere I missed it.

by keepthefaith on 10 February 2013 - 20:02

Micaho, I am skeptical of the requirement that physicians will be required to be screeners for weapons other than possibly for patients who are in need of mental health care. 

BTW, even with regard to IRS powers to collect any penalties, I'd seek professional advice as opposed to relying on media reports even from the more reputable publications like Forbes.

Check out the link below ........ there is an article about the point I was making regarding the lack of primary care physicians to take care of the tens of millions of patients who will need medical care. Obamacare will end up with people receiving care from those who may just not be qualified to provide proper medical care. An excerpt:

"As the state moves to expand healthcare coverage to millions of Californians under President Obama's healthcare law, it faces a major obstacle: There aren't enough doctors to treat a crush of newly insured patients.

Some lawmakers want to fill the gap by redefining who can provide healthcare.

They are working on proposals that would allow physician assistants to treat more patients and nurse practitioners to set up independent practices. Pharmacists and optometrists could act as primary care providers, diagnosing and managing some chronic illnesses, such as diabetes and high-blood pressure.

"We're going to be mandating that every single person in this state have insurance," said state Sen. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina), chairman of the Senate Health Committee and leader of the effort to expand professional boundaries. "What good is it if they are going to have a health insurance card but no access to doctors?"

You can be sure that the legislators and those who have the clout will make sure they receive care from physicians ....... but the rest of the people?  As Marie Antoinette would say: "let them eat cake"!


http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-doctors-20130210,0,1509396.story

by beetree on 10 February 2013 - 20:02

I get the distinct feeling not many people here have actually filled out a Form 1040, with itemized deductions on their own.  Thinking

The expanded information on pay stubs is intended to provide transparency to where deducted monies are going to, that is all.  One should know that one can not be taxed twice on the same amount, that helps figuring some stuff out. 

There are thresholds that need to met to determine the amount of money one can deduct as medical expense. My guess is that anyone paying $20,000 in medical insurance will make that threshold, handily, in some manner, unless they are in the uber upper brackets. Then who cares? They can just pay for whatever.

by keepthefaith on 10 February 2013 - 20:02

Concierge medicine is where those who can afford it will move to ............ and many of the better doctors will also choose to adopt this model down the line. There are many variations of this model but what it does offer is more individualized attention and better care. 

BTW, Inova is one of the best hospitals in the Washington Metro area.

http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/health/concierge-medicine/

Micaho

by Micaho on 10 February 2013 - 21:02

I don't get your comment, Bee.  If my employer assigns a cash value to a benefit I receive, for example, what the employer pays toward my health insurance coverage, why couldn't the government decide to consider that as a form of income to be taxed? 

Currently I have a (Box 1) "Gross distribution" which is higher than my (Box 2a) "taxable amount" by the amount of my (Box 5) "Employee Contributions." If I don't itemize medical expenses to meet the required 7.5% of adjusted income threshold, why couldn't the IRS tax the contribution amount?

I think they will have to increase tax sources, not just tax rates to pay for Obamacare. 

by beetree on 10 February 2013 - 21:02

Because there are laws that allow an employer to allow you not to have to claim their health benefit contribution as part of your salary. You may also still be making an employee contribution...and yes, you must itemize, or accept the standard deduction. Which most do if they are young and healthy because the threshold is hard to meet unless you are truly sick or disabled. At least until 2014, I do believe. Then who knows.






 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top