-
I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics. OMG!!! Borrrrriiiinngg!!! (3 times 350, still not worth it.) I don't understand, why isn't affordable health care for everyone a good thing?
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
I'll try to phrase my response in a purely economic manner ...
- there's no such thing as a free lunch. Making the costs of health care 'affordable' for certain Americans requires that other Americans must pay more. Generally speaking, the ACA benefits low income Americans, seriously ill Americans, and older Americans ... but none of those are likely to comprise a significant component of the customer base for dancers, camgirls or escorts.
- One of the biggest groups of Americans who must pay more are young Americans under age 40. ACA rate mandates limited the amounts which could be charged to older / sicker Americans, which are in turn subsidized by 'over-charging' young Americans ( versus formerly available health insurance options which the ACA has now 'outlawed' ). This obviously takes more money out of the pockets of many dancers and camgirls directly, as well as taking more money out of the pockets of their prospective customers.
- young Americans who choose not to purchase ACA 'qualified' health insurance for themselves are still being required to 'subsidize' other Americans' health insurance costs. This takes the form of a new 1% tax on earned income in 2014, which increases to 2% in 2015 and 2.5% in 2016 - and will apply to the reported incomes of dancers, camgirls, and escorts, as well as to their customers. Also, where dancers and camgirls are concerned, new ACA related taxes are resulting in higher prices for plastic surgery ( due to the new medical device tax etc. ), higher prices for tanning ( due to a new targeted tax on tanning salons ), etc.
- where dancers and camgirls are concerned, another provision of the ACA is affecting millions of their potential customers. That provision involves the mandatory new costs to employers who must provide ACA 'quaiified' health insurance for 'full time' employees ( or pay a large new 'fine' ). The response by many employers has been to convert full time jobs to < 30 hour per week 'part time' jobs with no benefits to escape these new ACA related costs. However, cutting a worker's hours from 40 to 28 also reduces their paycheck, leaving far less 'discretionary' money to be spent on non-essential items like lap dancers or paid webcam.
-along similar lines, so-called 'higher earning' Americans now face major ACA related tax increases on investment income. Higher earning Americans who are business owners also face significantly higher health insurance premiums for their full time workers. This effectively reduces the 'after-tax' income of these 'high earning' Americans, who may comprise a significant portion of the customer base for 'upscale' strip club dancers and escorts.
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
- young Americans who choose not to purchase ACA 'qualified' health insurance for themselves are still being required to 'subsidize' other Americans' health insurance costs. This takes the form of a new 1% tax on earned income in 2014, which increases to 2% in 2015 and 2.5% in 2016 - and will apply to the reported incomes of dancers, camgirls, and escorts, as well as to their customers.
That's not fair! The government is just taking it just to keep the system working?
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
^^^ technically speaking, from an economic standpoint the system still isn't 'working' despite these new taxes. Submissions by ACA provider insurance companies for 2015 rates show significant rate increases ... meaning that the insurance companies 'lost money' in 2014. The US gov't / taxpayer is obligated to cover these 2014 insurance company 'losses' under a mechanism called 'risk corridor'. As such, federal income tax rates may need to be increased at some point ... which could take yet more money out of the pockets of dancers, camgirls and escorts, as well as their customers, in future years. Similarly, once federal subsidies to state 'expanded medicaid' insurance stops in 3 years, state income taxes may need to be increased. But who knows what will actually happen over the course of 3 years, right ?
But to answer your specific question, yes the concept of charging young and healthy people higher rates to provide older and sicker people with 'discounted' rates was baked into the ACA from day one. Similarly, charging new / higher tax rates and higher ACA insurance premiums for Americans who are earning a reasonable amount of income ( > 400% of the Federal Poverty Level or ~$47,000 per year ), to provide lower earning Americans with 'discounted' rates, was also baked into the ACA from day one. Unfortunately for the ACA's 'budget', lots of younger Americans failed to sign up ... see . But even if young Americans did choose not to sign up thus not pay ACA insurance premiums, the new IRS 'penalty tax' will now guarantee that young Americans without health insurance coverage will still pay towards the 'discounted' ACA insurance premiums of others !
Obviously, with the original timetable / postponements of the new ACA provisions, most Americans will really only start to see these ACA related tax changes when they file their 2014 tax return next spring. Arguably, dancers, camgirls and escorts will wind up experiencing a 'triple whammy', because of the disproportionate effect stemming from their younger age, the disproportionate effect stemming from their comparatively high income level, and the disproportionate effect on their typically younger, higher earning customers.
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elektra Luxx
That's not fair! The government is just taking it just to keep the system working?
Where exactly did you think the money was coming from?
The ACA setup is basically a lot like the club setups requiring dancers to tip-out (read: subsidise the living of) the rest of the staff + the club expenses. Considering all of the (generally justified) bitching we do abt high tipouts, house fees, & dance cuts, it amazes me that more girls in our industry don't seem to see the parallels.
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
I support affordable health care but this has been a nightmare. What is going to happen are that low income working people will end up with substandard health care they are probably paying a lot for. Meanwhile others who never paid in (illegals, long term welfare)will also be getting healthcare. The money will come from higher taxes. Also, a problem that is not being addressed is that many people are sick due to their own fault like obesity, smokers etc. They will cost everyone more. Instead what needs to be done is offer preventative treatment (gyms and smoking clinics)before it gets out of hand.
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
^^^ actually, ACA charges tobacco smokers much higher rates. But same rates for pot smokers, obese people, drug users, people with all sorts of 'expensive to treat' conditions that were arguably lifestyle related, etc.
Despite the after the fact HHS edict about tobacco smokers ( which was not part of the ACA law itself ... and is subject to a court challenge ), the main premise of the law was that probable costs of health care were NOT to be individually evaluated for individual Americans. Probable costs for health care were to be 'averaged out' within the various age groups. By definition this means that, if earnings level is above the $47k per year eligibility threshold for ACA premium 'discounts' ( and as long as they don't smoke tobacco ) AIDS patients, MS patients, cancer patients, overweight people, people who skydive, race car drivers, alcoholics, drug users etc. of the same age will all be charged the same premium for health insurance coverage. This further extends to equal premiums being charged to both men and women, despite the fact that very few men are likely to incur pregnancy / birth related health care costs.
Getting into discussions regarding future changes etc. borders on the political. As such, I'm limiting my focus to the 'here and now' in regard to present costs of ACA health insurance premiums, present costs of ACA related new / increased taxes etc. Indeed, younger dancers, camgirls, and escorts, as well as their expected customer base, are facing the fact that the ACA is going to take additional money out of their pockets ... while arguably providing nothing of value in return.
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
Obese should be charged more but will not. As for pregnancy not everyone will have one (I won't)so it would be unfair to charge women more because they MIGHT get pregnant.
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
^^^ again, you're threatening to open a political 'Pandora's Box' once you deviate from the 'everybody ( except tobacco smokers ) pays the same premium in the same age group' insurance model. And the tobacco smokers may actually wind up paying the same as well after lawsuits work their way through the courts. Those lawsuits are based on the 'equal treatment' premise you cited above ... i.e. if obese, alcoholic, drug using, high risk behavior etc. Americans are allowed to pay the same premium despite a documented history of higher health risk / health care costs, why should tobacco smokers be charged higher rates just because the HHS thinks they should ?
But this is a distraction from the central point, which is that young and healthy Americans need to be charged higher ACA insurance premiums and/or higher tax rates to 'subsidize' the health care costs of older / sicker Americans if the health care costs to those older / sicker Americans is going to be held down to remotely 'affordable' levels. And dancers, camgirls, and escorts, as well as the majority of their likely custfomer base, disproportionately fall into the young and healthy category.
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
There is really no way to make everything 'fair' in this life; someone will always get screwed over. The whole fantasy world of everyone gets free healthcare, food and whatever else they need is a pipe dream and it *is never going to happen.*
Where'd you think the $$ was coming from? Sure the government is providing it but it's not coming out of their salaries- it's coming from ours.
I've personally witnessed people who's premiums skyrocketed to just... unholy amounts of money immediately after this asinine plan took effect. As stated above, there is also a penalty for not being enrolled in the program- that right there is beyond unconstitutional.
I like the comparison to working in the club. You know how much it sucks to have to fork over money to people who don't really do shit? And you're the one doing all the work? It's pretty much exactly like that.
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
Quote:
I like the comparison to working in the club. You know how much it sucks to have to fork over money to people who don't really do shit? And you're the one doing all the work? It's pretty much exactly like that
From an economic standpoint, for dancers, camgirls, escorts etc. this really comes in two parts. The first part ... young healthy people being required to 'subsidize' older / sicker people via ACA insurance premium 'cost shifting' ... has already been discussed at length. The second part ... the costs of IRS tax credits to low income ACA enrollees and the costs of 'expanded medicaid' benefits for very low income enrollees ... has only been discussed in passing. Ultimately, these additional 'drains' on US federal and state tax revenues will need to be made up for by imposing higher federal and state income tax rates on 'higher earning' Americans ... which will include most dancers, camgirls, and escorts, as well as the majority of their paying customers.
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
I support affordable health care, but not in the form of Obamacare, which is not even "healthcare" in the first place.. Several countries around the world (Japan, Germany, the Scandinavian countries, Canada and Italy for example) have more efficient systems than ours for a fraction of the price in here.
We are doing a few things wrong in the USA regarding healthcare: life expectancy, child/,aternal mortality, and overal well beling are NOT very high, for starters.. Second, this whole "for profit" health care system has been proven to be a complete and utter failure..
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
Quote:
Several countries around the world (Japan, Germany, the Scandinavian countries, Canada and Italy for example) have more efficient systems than ours for a fraction of the price in here.
Again, from a purely economic standpoint, there is a difference between the price directly charged to health care beneficiaries, and the true cost to the gov't of providing that health care. Japan addresses that difference by 'printing money'. Germany and the Scandinavian countries address that difference via higher income tax rates. Canada addresses that difference by diverting gov't royalty earnings on oil / gas / minerals / lumber from gov't lands. Italy addresses that difference by accumulating bankrupting levels of gov't debt.
Additionally, many countries limit the actual costs of providing health care via de-facto 'rationing' ... from very long wait times for treatment by a limited number of doctors at a limited number of health care facilities ( encouraging waiting patients to go out of country for treatment, or to die while waiting ), to a 'committee' deciding whether particular ( i.e. expensive ) treatments will actually be provided at all under national health insurance.
The relevant point, of course, is that the total costs of health care in the US, as well as these other countries, isn't actually being accounted for ... with the direct premium prices / medical bills charged to beneficiaries bearing little relation to the actual costs incurred.
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
Whenever a customer brings up Obamacare and how it is such a scam, I always agree with him. I've learned a verbal technique to agree while disagreeing a'la Stephen Colbert. Ex: "Small employers like subway shouldn't have to pay for their part time employees health insurance. I mean, what's a little flesh eating bacteria among food handlers anyway?"
Sometimes the customers catch the irony, mostly they are too into whatever it is they want to say to even pay attention to my snark.
Interestingly, every western country seems to think that their national policy on health care is deeply flawed, but they also don't think it should be eliminated.
The argument over whether health care is a human right or not ends when you look at situations like the latest Ebola outbreak in west Africa. If sick people can't afford health care, chances are rich people will end up paying regardless. But only after much human and economic suffering. Germs don't discriminate.
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tourdefranzia
The argument over whether health care is a human right or not ends when you look at situations like the latest Ebola outbreak in west Africa. If sick people can't afford health care, chances are rich people will end up paying regardless. But only after much human and economic suffering. Germs don't discriminate.
The current Ebola outbreak isn't just a matter of 'poor ppl unable to afford treatment' -- health care workers are being attacked by residents in sm areas bc the residents are ignorant as to how the disease works & are afraid the health workers are there to make them sick, not trying to help them.
As to the 'small employers' comment -- again I point to the required tipouts & cuts that most clubs take from dancers. If the whole point of strip clubs is to have naked women dancing for $$, & all the rest of the staff is just supplementary, under Colbert's 'small employers' logic, why shouldn't you & your fellow dancers be required to supplement the staff's quality of life? I have seen the argument made here b4 that dancers are the reason that SC staff have jobs at the SC at all (kinda like those greedy small employers), & dancers are, after all, the ones making the BIG bucks!!!
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
Again, from a purely economic standpoint, there is a difference between the price directly charged to health care beneficiaries, and the true cost to the gov't of providing that health care. Japan addresses that difference by 'printing money'. Germany and the Scandinavian countries address that difference via higher income tax rates. Canada addresses that difference by diverting gov't royalty earnings on oil / gas / minerals / lumber from gov't lands. Italy addresses that difference by accumulating bankrupting levels of gov't debt.
Additionally, many countries limit the actual costs of providing health care via de-facto 'rationing' ... from very long wait times for treatment by a limited number of doctors at a limited number of health care facilities ( encouraging waiting patients to go out of country for treatment, or to die while waiting ), to a 'committee' deciding whether particular ( i.e. expensive ) treatments will actually be provided at all under national health insurance.
The relevant point, of course, is that the total costs of health care in the US, as well as these other countries, isn't actually being accounted for ... with the direct premium prices / medical bills charged to beneficiaries bearing little relation to the actual costs incurred.
Well, economics is not an exact science. Second, many things that are "good" from an economic standpoint do not function that well in the real world. From an economic point of view, things like people having more kids and more immigration are also good but just because they're good for the economy does not mean that they're good for the functioning of our society.
Also, you used the overly used libertarian argument "but those countries pay more in taxes". Have you ever thought that not everyone complain about paying taxes? Not everyone thinks that "taxation is theft".
Last but not least: even in this "for profit" system, people still have to wait for treatment in many areas, often for years.
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
I'll try to phrase my response in a purely economic manner ...
You’re response is very one sided. You don’t mention any of the benefits of the ACA for forum members.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
- there's no such thing as a free lunch. Making the costs of health care 'affordable' for certain Americans requires that other Americans must pay more. Generally speaking, the ACA benefits low income Americans, seriously ill Americans, and older Americans ... but none of those are likely to comprise a significant component of the customer base for dancers, camgirls or escorts.
The ACA benefits many wealthy and middle-class Americans as well. I personally know a wealthy small-business owner who will be saving lots of money on his employees’ health insurance, as a result of tax credits for small businesses that provide health insurance for their employees.
Overall the ACA will probably have little effect on strip clubs’ customer base. Most Americans get their health insurance through their employer or the government, so they won’t be seriously impacted by the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
- One of the biggest groups of Americans who must pay more are young Americans under age 40. ACA rate mandates limited the amounts which could be charged to older / sicker Americans, which are in turn subsidized by 'over-charging' young Americans ( versus formerly available health insurance options which the ACA has now 'outlawed' ). This obviously takes more money out of the pockets of many dancers and camgirls directly, as well as taking more money out of the pockets of their prospective customers.
You don’t know that young Americans will pay more. Some will pay more and some will pay less, depending on which state they live in, their options, and what subsidies they qualify for. Most young Americans 26 and under will pay much less, since they can stay on their parents’ health plan. Many young dancers will greatly benefit from this. In addition, insurance plans must meet certain standards, such as providing contraception and mental health coverage, which could benefit many dancers. Mental illness can be just as deadly as physical illness. Look at Robin Williams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
- young Americans who choose not to purchase ACA 'qualified' health insurance for themselves are still being required to 'subsidize' other Americans' health insurance costs. This takes the form of a new 1% tax on earned income in 2014, which increases to 2% in 2015 and 2.5% in 2016 - and will apply to the reported incomes of dancers, camgirls, and escorts, as well as to their customers. Also, where dancers and camgirls are concerned, new ACA related taxes are resulting in higher prices for plastic surgery ( due to the new medical device tax etc. ), higher prices for tanning ( due to a new targeted tax on tanning salons ), etc.
The penalty only applies if there isn’t an insurance plan available for less than 8 percent of the person’s income, and having insurance can potentially save the dancer tens of thousands of dollars if she ever became seriously ill.
The ACA will probably have zero effect on the cost of plastic surgery. The medical device tax is only 2.3 percent of the cost of the device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
- where dancers and camgirls are concerned, another provision of the ACA is affecting millions of their potential customers. That provision involves the mandatory new costs to employers who must provide ACA 'quaiified' health insurance for 'full time' employees ( or pay a large new 'fine' ). The response by many employers has been to convert full time jobs to < 30 hour per week 'part time' jobs with no benefits to escape these new ACA related costs. However, cutting a worker's hours from 40 to 28 also reduces their paycheck, leaving far less 'discretionary' money to be spent on non-essential items like lap dancers or paid webcam.
There’s no evidence that many employers and converting full-time jobs to part-time jobs as a result of the ACA. The percentage of jobs that are full-time has increased since the ACA went into effect.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-obama...art-time-work/
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
-along similar lines, so-called 'higher earning' Americans now face major ACA related tax increases on investment income. Higher earning Americans who are business owners also face significantly higher health insurance premiums for their full time workers. This effectively reduces the 'after-tax' income of these 'high earning' Americans, who may comprise a significant portion of the customer base for 'upscale' strip club dancers and escorts.
Some business owners may face higher costs some may face lower costs, and some won’t be affected at all. Many businesses are already providing health insurance for their workers. In addition, employment and pay in health care fields may increase as a result of the ACA. Overall, I don’t expect the ACA to have much effect on the customer base, either positive or negative. The additional expenses incurred will probably be barely noticeable in a $17 trillion economy.
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
Quote:
You’re response is very one sided. You don’t mention any of the benefits of the ACA for forum members.
True enough. I made the assumption that the OP, as well as the vast majority of SW member dancers, camgirls, escorts etc. are in a situation where they are relatively young, relatively healthy, earning significant amounts of money thus not eligible for major ACA 'subsidies', etc. In that situation it's difficult to come up with actual 'benefits' provided by the ACA ( versus previously available options which the ACA has now forced out of existence ). I did point out that the ACA provides benefits for low earning Americans, for older / sicker Americans, etc. Agreed that any dancers, camgirls, or escorts who are age 26 or less, and who can also maintain 'dependent' status resulting in continued medical insurance coverage by a parent's employer, also benefit ( at the expense of their parent and/or the parent's employer ).
But indeed if there are any SW members who had serious pre-existing medical conditions requiring expensive treatments, they have in fact benefitted ( financially ) from the ACA. Prior to the ACA, such treatments were obviously provided, but often resulted in the person being impoverished. But the fact remains that the huge majority of SW members awho are relatively young, relatively healthy, and earning significant amounts of money, are actually paying for those benefits, and are arguably all being impoverished in some degree as a result. As to whether this is a 'good thing' or a 'bad thing' is a political judgment I will avoid making ... I simply point out financial facts.
Quote:
There’s no evidence that many employers and converting full-time jobs to part-time jobs as a result of the ACA.
Many sources ... including the Federal Reserve ... would disagree. See
In regard to full time versus part time jobs, one can't look at raw numbers to judge the change in trend, because there were so many more full time jobs to start with. If you look at the rate of change in full time jobs vs part time jobs, however, the trend is immediately apparent ... and particularly so since January of 2013, when the new ACA related costs to employers for full time versus part time workers began to receive serious analysis / publicity.
http://citizenwells.files.wordpress....-part-time.jpg
Also, where the typical younger customer base of dancers, camgirls, and escorts is concerned, the part time jobs growth is an even larger factor ... for reasons illustrated below.
Quote:
The percentage of jobs that are full-time has increased since the ACA went into effect.
This stat is also true on the surface ... but predominantly due to the fact that the 'lion's' share of full time jobs have been going to Americans over age 55 ... with most of those going to Americans over age 65
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...0cohorts_0.jpg
Pundits have argued that a major reason that employers like to hire 65+ year old Americans is that they are eligible for Medicare, thus the employer faces zero risk of ACA related employee health care cost increases. And, obviously, dancers, camgirls, and escorts generally don't earn much money from 65+ year old customers.
However, going back to the OP's opening remark, even though we are discussing facts the discussion has now reached the point of 'nitpicking' ... and as such we now risk 'boring' SW readers as well as obscuring the truly important points made earlier.
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
As others have said, if you require insurance companies to insure everyone and also mandate that they cover procedures that were previously not covered under some policies, then someone has to pay for it. Period. Some of that money comes directly from healthy people in the form of required and/or increased health insurance premiums and some of it comes in the form of government subsidies, which means that those of us who are healthy and paying taxes shoulder the burdens from multiple directions.
I guess what has frustrated me the most is the game of hide the ball that the powers that be played all throughout this process. As the true costs of this system continue to come home to roost, it is becoming clear that both the projected cost to taxpayers of the government subsidies and the real costs of future insurance premiums were dramatically under-estimated. One of the big problems is that, thus far, it is estimated that most of the new participants were the most sick and those who qualified for subsidies. Blue Cross is now estimating a 13+% increase in its individual premiums for next year and their spokesperson seems confident that other insurance companies will follow suit. It is certainly happening with my own insurance company as well (another one of the largest), which is requiring that I pay another roughly 12% for a plan with coverage elements similar to what we had in 2014.
Now don't get me wrong, I am all in favor of a system that ensures that sick people do not die from preventable deaths simply for a lack of money. My general leanings have been made obvious in multiple posts on this board, but I am a human being first and I am happy to pay into a system that makes sure that sick people receive needed care. IMHO no civilized nation should stand by and let its people die for lack of medical treatment. But IMHO what Obama-care has become is an out of control freight train.
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
^^^ again, side-stepping political judgments in regard to 'good or bad', your additional data on increasing health insurance premiums for 2015 vs 2014 confirms the underlying financial facts. The ACA essentially transfers money from younger Americans to older Americans, and essentially transfers money from 'middle class' Americans to 'poor' Americans. Where the vast majority of dancers, camgirls, and escorts are concerned ( as well as the vast majority of their likely customer base ), this almost certainly means the ACA will cause their pre-tax incomes to be reduced due to reduced customer spending, and cause their after-tax / disposable incomes to be reduced even further due to the new ACA related taxes and / or significantly higher health insurance premium costs ( versus previously available options which the ACA has now 'outlawed').
Quote:
IMHO no civilized nation should stand by and let its people die for lack of medical treatment.
For the record, pre-existing US mandates on hospitals guaranteed this was already the case before the ACA was enacted. The major difference the ACA has produced is that the pre-existing situation could have resulted in an American who chose not to previously purchase health insurance and subsequently became seriously ill potentially being bankrupted by the cost of their own medical bills ... whereas the post-ACA situation allows that seriously ill person to purchase 'affordable' insurance after they have become seriously ill and thus avoid bankruptcy ( thanks in large part to money transferred from younger / healthier Americans with 'middle class' earnings levels ).
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
Obamacare has not kick in full force yet. It's better to wait to see what will really happen when it happens.
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
Okay someone I know (another dancer)explained it this way. You have two dancers who need a place to stay. One constantly makes say $1,000, is healthy, in demand etc. The other dancer is older, less attractive, not a great hustler and makes say $10 a day. The thousand dollar dancer now has to pay more in house so that it helps the other dancer have more money to put towards a place to stay. It reminds me of something that was talked about in another thread and that was the idea that with employee dancers there might hypothetically be forced to put their tips in a jar and split evenly with all the dancers though some made much less and some made more.
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
On Jan. 1, 2015: (1) There will be limits on out-of-pocket costs such as co-pays and deductibles of $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family; and (2) Employers with 50 or more employees are required to provide health benefits or face fines $2,000 per worker, excluding the first 30 workers. Both of these provisions were originally scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2014, but were delayed to give affected parties more time to comply. No doubt that the first provision is one of the factors involved in pushing up my premiums for 2015.
And it will be interesting to see how the public reacts the first time they have to pay the tax penalty for any gap periods.
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kellydancer
Okay someone I know (another dancer)explained it this way. You have two dancers who need a place to stay. One constantly makes say $1,000, is healthy, in demand etc. The other dancer is older, less attractive, not a great hustler and makes say $10 a day. The thousand dollar dancer now has to pay more in house so that it helps the other dancer have more money to put towards a place to stay. It reminds me of something that was talked about in another thread and that was the idea that with employee dancers there might hypothetically be forced to put their tips in a jar and split evenly with all the dancers though some made much less and some made more.
That kind of sounds like our current social security system. Young working people paying for elderly retired people. That is pretty much how the human race has operated for 200,000 years. It seems to be working ok, so far.
-
Re: I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elektra Luxx
I spent most last evening listening to my "date" talk about politics. OMG!!! Borrrrriiiinngg!!! (3 times 350, still not worth it.) I don't understand, why isn't affordable health care for everyone a good thing?
The topic aside, that is incredibly boring and lame lol. Props I guess for risking blowing it with you over an issue he has zero control or influence over? lol. What a player. Politics should go back on the list of impolite dinner conversation, ASAP.
Whenever someone wants to drag me into their $2 politics I can't resist poking holes in their beliefs. Don't try to convince me what the television told you is real and I won't question what the hell you mean by "supporting the troops", a.k.a don't question the foreign policy.