- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 30,534
- Reaction score
- 10,717
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Absolutely not. You have attacked my industry, used propaganda in that attack, and are advocating for a horrid replacement instead of trying to learn what's actually wrong with it. I have explained the problems in great detail all over this forum, mainly with the backing of a mod who is on the provider end, we tend to agree on the issues for the most part.Again I understand you work with private health insurance. You understand I don't think that should job should exist. Lets just leave it at that shall we?
Absolutely not. You have attacked my industry, used propaganda in that attack, and are advocating for a horrid replacement instead of trying to learn what's actually wrong with it. I have explained the problems in great detail all over this forum, mainly with the backing of a mod who is on the provider end, we tend to agree on the issues for the most part.
Wrong, there cannot be logic because it uses incomplete and/or dishonest analysis, I notice you never did challenge that.Yeah perfectly logical "propaganda"
And now you will be reported for baiting. But I will answer again, insurance is a choice that you make, it's a service and based on mathematical analysis based on probability and risk. As well my industry compiles these factors on a daily basis. It is perfectly legitimate business.and I pretty much see the private health insurance industry as an illegitimate waste of the public's money based on that "propaganda".
So you cannot produce worthwhile debate, commentary, sources or arguments and you resort to character attacks. Noted.You work in an unnecessary middle man position for profit often at the cost of the people your supposed to be helping. This is not a personal attack it's the nature of your buisness and I find it repugnant.
Again I understand you work with private health insurance. You understand I don't think that should job should exist. Lets just leave it at that shall we?
Sure about that? No car means you have to find another means to work, not every city has transportation, no restaurants/stores/farmers/meat producers means you must gather your own food, without them most Americans would probably starve.
Insurance is a service, so is medical care. If you want the best you have to pay, end of story.
Ah, but they are service providers, as are insurers.
Just because you have a choice doesn't mean your options are good. I'd rather be forced into one good option than have my choice of dozens of bad ones.
And most people don't have dozens of options when it comes to healthcare.
Just because you have a choice doesn't mean your options are good. I'd rather be forced into one good option than have my choice of dozens of bad ones.
And most people don't have dozens of options when it comes to healthcare.
well - so I support the government offering it's own healthcare, I have no problem with that - but I just don't like how they went about doing it.
That I am fine with giving a type of UHC for, on the other hand medical care costs money.
There is no such thing as a free lunch and for us to constantly give state hand outs for those who don't take their life, in their hands is stupid and counter productive.
It's true that some people are in dire straits when it comes to their options, but I will never accept somebody in Washington deciding my life for me as they are not my parents and certainly not entitled to the honor of being my keeper in this country.Just because you have a choice doesn't mean your options are good. I'd rather be forced into one good option than have my choice of dozens of bad ones.
Slight correction, there are always options, though they may not be great or inexpensive. I find that most people aren't willing to put in the work to find those options.And most people don't have dozens of options when it comes to healthcare.
I specifically mentioned restaurant only because it was the first thing that came to mind. The overall point is that all goods and services are pretty much a choice, nobody seems to mind when other necessities provide a profit so I would expect the same courtesy to be shown to the healthcare commodity.A farmer, harvester, producer, packager at a plant =/= Restaurant chef or wait staff. :shrug: At first you specifically said "restaurant" which for many is an extreme luxury they don't "need" - There's a huge difference. Between the Supply-chain and the luxury-chain.
There is no health insurance windfall, in fact most if not all health insurers are under the standard profit margin of the accepted average of success. Usually around 5.5-6% versus the norm of 9+Yeah - I have no problem with people choosing and then paying for their desired level of insurance they want to have - I simply don't like the pocket-profit that is behind it - including windfalls that come via stocks to holders.
There is no such thing as "balanced and fair" in insurance, everyone has a different set of needs in life for things to be equal everyone would have to have the same circumstances.My view is not the same thing as someone who might say we don't "need" insurance. I do believe we need insurance, and I believe that it can be run balanced and fair.
Nope, profit is also accounted to shareholders, some has to be witheld for government mandated responsibilities, etc. So no, there is no "windfall".Profit is what you are left over with AFTER you pay your benefit-costs, reimbursements, travel, employees' pay, taxes and fees, licenses, proxy labor, utilities and so on - so forth. Profit is extra for a company to do *whatever they want to* with.
Why the hell would a business keep the doors open for less than acceptable profit. It is their earned money for a service provided.If insurance is mandatory and they're charging 500 people $100.00 / year for insurance that equals $50,000 a year paid to the insurance company. If, after paying all that extra, an insurance company ends up with a 2% profit ($1,000) that they can do whatever with - why not refund it to the people as 'overpay'
Incorrect, the bill reclassified benefits as income, group insurance is not insurance, it is a benefit.
Except that the messenger in this case is also trying to play advocate and is not qualified.
The fact is the I.R.S is going to be given more power with this bill when they already have too much, the fact is taxes are going up, and the fact is the 1099 is a part of that.
Off topic. The fact is that this bill will drastically increase taxes past what people are accustomed to with the current I.R.S. and it's abusive powers.
For classification purposes no. Insurance is owned by the contract holder, if you have insurance you own the policy, if you have a group package the employer owns the policy and you have use of it, but it isn't truly insurance as it isn't portable.Ah, but some benefits are indeed part of the insurance package no?
You mentioned shoot the messenger, so I assumed you meant the people advocating for it's inclusion and not the form itself. Still. this is yet another backdoor tax increase and should be immediately excluded.How is the 1099 playing advocate?
Except that it's use is being extended past what is actually within it's scope for the purposes of funding a worthless and unpopular bill.Except that the 1099 merely reports what would be income regardless of the 1099's existence. Complaining about the form when it effectively does nothing is rather idiotic.
Yes and no. I've never had to use one as it doesn't pertain to my lines, but that is not the point of this thread, the fact is that taxes are going up, they are hidden by using very onerous methods, and the 1099 is all a part of it.Not necessarily. The primarily underlying theme here is anti-tax. The real threat isn't this reclass. If people actually did care about anti-tax and especially about IRS power, you'd be trying to stop individual Fin 48.
I take it you don't know what Fin 48 is?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?