What I dont understand is even before this 'reform' passed, we had a shortage of healthcare in the country, from personnel to equipment and all the way in between.
This 'reform' isn't adding any more healthcare, just healthcare demand. What did they think was gonna happen?
madmallard wrote: What I dont understand is even before this 'reform' passed, we had a shortage of healthcare in the country, from personnel to equipment and all the way in between. This 'reform' isn't adding any more healthcare, just healthcare demand. What did they think was gonna happen?
That's a great question.
madmallard wrote: What I dont understand is even before this 'reform' passed, we had a shortage of healthcare in the country, from personnel to equipment and all the way in between. This 'reform' isn't adding any more healthcare, just healthcare demand. What did they think was gonna happen?
I don't know if I had voiced this thought or not, but either way, I had it (or read or heard it):
The problem with healthcare reform is that people want more and better healthcare for less money.
Another thing to consider, and I really have no idea on the answer/facts of this one, but how many doctors are being graduated today vs. 50 years ago vs. 100 years ago? What is the ratio then and now, doctors to non-doctors?
And I'm out of this thread again. No more chance of flounder for me.
oldsaw wrote: But, the stink and the stain are going to be around for a long time - like Georgia-clay-on-a-t-shirt long time.
Well, and that's the problem: no federal government program EVER actually goes away. They just hang around and get more layers of E36 M3 piled on top of them, even if the layers are mutually incompatible. That's why this damn country is unable to do anything efficiently except waste taxpayer money by the bargefull.
Datsun1500 wrote: As a business owner the health care part is scary because of the expenses, but not as scary as the stuff being slipped in.... How about the tax code change where you will have to write a 1099 form for all purchases? http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/costly-irs-mandate-slipped-into-health-bill/ If you don't want to read the entire article, here is the summaryThe House bill would extend the Form 1099 filing requirement to ALL vendors (including corporate) to which they pay more than $600 annually for services or property. Consider all the payments a small business makes in the course of business, paying for things such as computers, software, office supplies, and fuel to services, including janitorial services, coffee services, and package delivery services. In order to file all these 1099s, you’ll need to collect the necessary information from all your service providers. In order to comply with the law, you would have to get a Taxpayer Information Number or TIN from the business. If the vendor does not supply you with a TIN, you are obligated to withhold on your payments
You are right, Datsun1500.
Most people don't understand that. The way I look at it, the last few years in my business I have had to prepare only a few 1099's- under 20 per year. This law will force me to process over 500 per year.
Think what that means for a big company.
I had a business related stay in hotel recently for a week. The bill was about $800. So I am handing them my credit card and I realize, "Hmmm... next year I will have to stop this transaction right in the middle of it and get them to fill out the necessary tax forms". It's a freakin DISASTER!
Most businesses spend more than $600 per year on coffee, or mowing the grass. This will require 1099's on EVERYTHING.
It's gonna bury us.
But the accountants should make a killing.
mtn wrote:madmallard wrote: What I dont understand is even before this 'reform' passed, we had a shortage of healthcare in the country, from personnel to equipment and all the way in between. This 'reform' isn't adding any more healthcare, just healthcare demand. What did they think was gonna happen?I don't know if I had voiced this thought or not, but either way, I had it (or read or heard it): The problem with healthcare reform is that people want more and better healthcare for less money. Another thing to consider, and I really have no idea on the answer/facts of this one, but how many doctors are being graduated today vs. 50 years ago vs. 100 years ago? What is the ratio then and now, doctors to non-doctors? And I'm out of this thread again. No more chance of flounder for me.
The problem is not only how many doctors are going to graduate, but how many practicing now are going to continue. My wife works for an internist, and he's already planning an early retirement if this doesn't get repealed. And he's not alone. The other doctors in their complex are looking into such things and charging a flat fee just to stay a patient (some are starting this already at $1,000 a patient), to migrating to a cash only business. Others are stopping taking Medicare already.
Another friend with a repair shop had a meeting with his accountant and then insurance agency recently. If it all goes into effect, he will basically have to lay off his two employees as he does not take in enough money to cover the added expenses. He's barely scraping by in this economy, but so far is managing to keep it going. Any added expenses at this point make a real difference.
The govt. kool-aide version of this sounds good, but the reality is not pretty.
In reply to SVreX:
From the accounting side, it is not really a big deal. Back when I did that sort of thing, I spent more time trying to figure out who should and should not get a 1099 then actually doing them. Unless you have a medieval accounting system, for your accountant or bookkeeper doing a few hundred 1099s is as simple as clicking print.
By the way, you should already be giving a 1099 to the guy cutting your grass.
In reply to Otto_Maddox:
What Datsun1500 said.
Plus, I understand accountants are capable of doing this. Do you really think they will not charge more for 500 then for 20? Besides, 20 I was able to do myself. 500 I can not, so now I will ahve to hire an accountant to do a job I used to do myself.
You are right on the grass cutting. Bad example.
Don't you guys keep vender information in your accounting program? If you do, your program should be able to do your 1099s.
Nobody should be paying someone else to do 1099s. It is far too easy.
In reply to Datsun1500:
The more I think about it, you are right. There has to be an easier way of doing things. Things never get simpler. A reasonable person would conclude that instead of adding more rules and regulations to the current pile, maybe we should develop a new system that is simpler, easier and works better.
Now you're beginning to get the idea, Otto. This isn't just about sending out a few more 1099s--though once you consider that corporations are no longer exempt from needing to be issued one, my list of 1099s grows exponentially. It's also about a giant burden of collecting paperwork. Under the new law, if I do not have W9s on file for every vendor, I am potentially subject to paying the backup withholding. It's an audit trap, a paperwork nightmare, and absolutely impractical.
Back to the OT, however: I'm delighted the people have spoken out to say they're opposed to having government involved in healthcare, because I personally am tired of paying premiums for medicare that I CAN'T USE. Thank God we have all those old Republicans who are for smaller government and eliminating entitlements, because once they start refusing Medicare and Social Security--as they must if they follow their ideological thinking to its logical conclusion--I can use that money now disappearing from my paycheck to continue paying my own healthcare premiums (on which I pay income tax, of course, as a self employer), and funding my IRA (which will be the only thing I can expect to collect in my retirement). And I will surely be glad to be out from under the 7+% employer match on those things--I'll put that money to my employees' healthcare premiums, which I pay 100% (plus their families). Of course, the premiums went up 10% again this year, so wha-wha-wha, welcome to small business.
Seriously, shut up. You want what you got, but you don't want anyone else to get any. You don't want to pay taxes? Walk away from the money pot then, sweetie. Just remember that if you won't pay to put my kids through school, I certainly won't pay to support you in your old age. Why should I? Your future benefit to society is nil.
Margie
Marjorie Suddard wrote: Back to the OT
Wait, was that back to the "Off Topic", or back to the "Original Topic"? Add a dash of flounder, and VOILA! GRM Off-Topic discussion at its finest
Yeah, sometimes I like to stir the pot. I'm actually not trying to throw mud on any one "party" (THERE'S a misnomer, btw) actually, because there are elements of all the different radical viewpoints in what I just wrote.
What they all have in common, and the reason they can all be mashed up into one post, is that coming up with a consistent approach and implementing it would require focus, common sense, and a willingness to sacrifice short-term gain in the interest of a long-term goal... and no one wants to do that. It's easier to point fingers and yell.
In the meantime, I'll keep working while the government allows anyone who wants to slip a hand deeper into my pocket.
Margie
Marjorie Suddard wrote: In the meantime, I'll keep working while the government allows anyone who wants to slip a hand deeper into my pocket. Margie
It is the audit traps that really boil my blood.
This nonsense used to lead to rebellion. I wonder if we so well kept now that it won't again. I'm not talking about the bloody coup kind (although... ) but the kind that leads to large numbers formerly law abiding folk doing their own forms of money laundering. Cash-only, off-the-books deals with suppliers, etc. People are only willing to pay for a government they can afford. When it changes from a wealth enabler to a detriment... it becomes a necessary evil to be minimized by any means necessary.
Nobody starves so they can pay the tax man.
Marjorie Suddard wrote: In the meantime, I'll keep working while the government allows anyone who wants to slip a hand deeper into my pocket. Margie
So, Margie, at what point does that government reach-around begin to feel like an assault?
At what point does "No" mean "No" when you were "asking for it" all along?
And who is it you expect to save your wanton bottom-end?
Just askin......
Certainly not you, Oldsaw. Unless, of course, you are not accepting any gov't entitlements. Actually, I have a rather radical philosophy: I don't look for anyone to save me. I save myself. Always have. Have a very strong suspicion I will need to so so even after I turn 65 (or 72, the age my generation needs to reach to start grabbing that golden ticket yours seems to feel is a birthright for you and you alone).
Margie
In reply to Marjorie Suddard:
Where did you find a cliff in Florida that you could use to leap to that conclusion?
The only birthrights I have (and believe in) are those in the Constitution, which (the last time I checked) offered no such thing as a "golden ticket". Sorry, you have never seen a post (from me) advocating the existence or perpetuation of entitlement programs that use goverment as a surrogate for self-determination and personal responsibility.
Excellent, I stand corrected.
For some reason I thought you'd said before you were on Social Security. Mebbe just the name.
Margie
Marjorie Suddard wrote: Excellent, I stand corrected. For some reason I thought you'd said before you were on Social Security. Mebbe just the name. Margie
It's all good, Margie!
My username is age-relevant to the majority of (young-ish) posters who frequent the boards. The difference in our respective ages is not nearly as wide.
I am old enough (however) to have seen how society has devolved itself of those "inalienable rights" in pursuit of selfish interests to gain immediate gratification. That pisses me off and puts me in the "get off my lawn" category.
Strange. A majority of the American people voted to put a man in office that ran on all these policies. This IS the change we asked for. Yet because it wasn't what YOU voted for, it's socialist, communism, and overstepping his boundaries. The majority voted, the minority lost. The minority does not have a right to take that away. Louder and more obnoxious doesn't mean majority.
Kinda to the point earlier- 60% of Teabaggers are on medicare/social security or live with someone that is. In other words-"we want what WE got, but we don't want YOU to have it too."
I guess the gov't shouldn't regulate the financial market or take care of it's citizens? But it should tell us who we marry, what we smoke/drink, or if we're "manly" enough to sacrifice our lives for the country? Where does the "smaller gov't" line get drawn? Our nation's health and education is obviously not important. Sad.
We can subsidize our farming, but not our manufacturing? Pretty sure we have a lot more blue-collar workers in need of employment then farmers. I'd rather see the USA as the best place to build/sell a car or electronics then the cheapest place to buy corn.
Cone_Junky wrote: 60% of Teabaggers are on medicare/social security or live with someone that is.
First, it’s fair to assign an instant credibility fail to anyone that uses the Teabagger term as it’s loaded with hypocrisy, bias, irrelevance, & divisiveness.
Second, no relative measure is provided so we don’t know how that percent relates to the general population.
Third, don’t bother addressing point number two as we can immediately discern that this is complete junk math anyway. To produce a valid statistic, you’d first need to establish an objective, quantifiable definition of a Tea Party member which is impossible as most supporters of the movement aren’t identifiable through some form of formal registration.
I’m not advocating support for the Tea Party, I’m just asking everyone to observe the vicious, disrespectful, & systematic way our system of “group think” consisting of news outlets, political pundits, & internet peers go after those that have a different message.
RX Reven' wrote: First, it’s fair to assign an instant credibility fail to anyone that uses the Teabagger term as it’s loaded with hypocrisy, bias, irrelevance, & divisiveness.
Not trying to flounder here...but what is the proper term for a person who considers themselves a member of the Tea Party? Democrat = Democrats Republican = Republican Tea Party /= Teabagger? Maybe Tea Partier?
I’m not advocating support for the Tea Party, I’m just asking everyone to observe the vicious, disrespectful, & systematic way our system of “group think” consisting of news outlets, political pundits, & internet peers go after those that have a different message.
It's tough to find a discussion that stays civil these days isn't it? I'm as guilty as the next guy. Get a little carried away and Poof! You're in bombastic comment land.
I get what Marjie and Cone Junky are saying.
There does seem to be some "Me first!" thinking going on with folks who want to curtail government spending. They want to cut programs that don't affect them. Most people I know who advocate against deficit spending are pro-military. Our military expenditures are through the roof. But rarely do I hear a deficit hawk talk about cutting the military budget. It's most often social programs that affect the young or the poor.
How often has a deficit hawk mentioned cutting social security? Medicare? The prescription drug benefit? Programs that old folks rely on are treated as sacred cows.
If we're talking about cutting our spending it all needs to be on the table.
Teabagger = not OK
Obamacare = OK
Got it, thanks.
"Teabagger term as it’s loaded with hypocrisy, bias, irrelevance, & divisiveness."
I think you meant that the tea party is loaded with hypocrisy, bias, irrelevance, & divisiveness.
No need to define what a tea partyer is, they make that label themselves.
Doesn't matter how the percentage relates to general population. When 60% of Republicans relabeld as "tea partyers" are dependent on the social welfare they despise so much. Hypocrits.
"Different message"? How is it any different then the conservative views of the last few decades. When the "group think" is against your views, they're sheep. But when the "group think" supports your view, all of a sudden it's the new law of the land? How more of a "group think" do you need? They have thier own TV network!
You can rebrand Enron, Blackwater, and the GOP. But it's still the same people doing the same thing.
"Don't tread on me"? How about, don't tread on the majority vote of the United States of America.
Cone_Junky wrote: Strange. A majority of the American people voted to put a man in office that ran on all these policies. This IS the change we asked for. Yet because it wasn't what YOU voted for, it's socialist, communism, and overstepping his boundaries. The majority voted, the minority lost. The minority does not have a right to take that away. Louder and more obnoxious doesn't mean majority.
Strange. A majority of Americans wanted change, but didn't pay enough attention or didn't care if the platform promoted a social-democratic philosophy. Within that majority, some got what they wanted and some realized they were duped. There is nothing wrong with people changing their minds.
BTW, a minority voting block has every damn right to campaign against the majority. How do you think the Democratic party regained Congressional control in 2006 and the White House in 2008?
True, loud and obnoxious does not make a majority. But why is it unacceptable (to you) now, when it was OK prior to 2006/2008?
<Kinda to the point earlier- 60% of Teabaggers are on medicare/social security or live with someone that is. In other words-"we want what WE got, but we don't want YOU to have it too."
Teabaggers are those who engage in a certain sexual practice. You (apparently) have more experience with this than I, so I'll take you at your word. Tea Partiers (sic) are concerned with far more than just their personal benefit from Medicare and SS. They see the ramifications of an unbearable national debt and don't want YOU to have to pay for it.
And BTW, the government has (for decades) brainwashed people into believing their financial contributions to social service programs will manifest themselves as benefits when they are retired. But government has stolen and squandered those contributions and is faced with reneging on its' promise. Small wonder a large number of people are angry.
I guess the gov't shouldn't regulate the financial market or take care of it's citizens? But it should tell us who we marry, what we smoke/drink, or if we're "manly" enough to sacrifice our lives for the country? Where does the "smaller gov't" line get drawn? Our nation's health and education is obviously not important. Sad.
Government should have a limited presence in regulation of anything - enough of a presence to maintain a balance that benefits all, not just a few pet or special interests.
Churches can determine "who we marry", but government should guarantee civil-unions have equal legal status. What we eat/drink/smoke is none of government's damn business. Any person, regardless of gender or gender preference, who volunteers and qualifies to serve the country MUST have that right - and we'll all be the better for their service.
Health and education are VERY important, but it takes a convoluted and tortured interpretation of the Constitution to place government as the only/best arbiter.
We can subsidize our farming, but not our manufacturing? Pretty sure we have a lot more blue-collar workers in need of employment then farmers. I'd rather see the USA as the best place to build/sell a car or electronics then the cheapest place to buy corn.
Subsidization is a "can" vs. "should" issue. It's one that is exacerbated by corrupt and self-serving budget earmarks and pork barrel projects.
Frankly, the country would be far better off if government had a tax policy the rewarded companies for operating and producing here, instead of penalizing them so much they go to more hospitable business climates. The USA was once the "best place" for many things but government expansion and intrusion has certainly helped hasten the decline.
Cone_Junky, it's interesting that you want to see the country follow the example as practised by the state of California. As a resident there, one would think/hope you are aware of the abject failures stemming from a government-centric mentality regarding fiscal and social-engineering issues.
Oh well.
You'll need to log in to post.
