LostInTheWoods
Platinum Member
Would I lie to you
? It'd be bad for international relations....Physician Compensation Data, Doctor Salary, Physician Pay | Cejka Search
health insurance bill
- Thread starter tglass
- Start date
- Views: 13808
Would I lie to you
? It'd be bad for international relations....Physician Compensation Data, Doctor Salary, Physician Pay | Cejka Search
canoetrpr
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2005
- Messages
- 2,396
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Tractor
- Kubota M7040 cab/hyd shuttle - current, Kubota L3400 - traded
Would I lie to you
Physician Compensation Data, Doctor Salary, Physician Pay | Cejka Search
LOL! I must be the one who is wrong this. I say this because until the recent loonie rise to parity with the greenback, we did hear quite a bit about doctors leaving for greener pastures in the USA.
canoetrpr
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2005
- Messages
- 2,396
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Tractor
- Kubota M7040 cab/hyd shuttle - current, Kubota L3400 - traded
I was definately wrong. I imagine this one is about 4 years old but it gives you a breakdown. GPs are ~200k. Specialists are ~100k to 140k more.
http://www.cma.ca/multimedia/staticC...ine/income.pdf
I'd say this rings in almost even with the USA with the loonie where it is today.
http://www.cma.ca/multimedia/staticC...ine/income.pdf
I'd say this rings in almost even with the USA with the loonie where it is today.
ultrarunner
Epic Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2004
- Messages
- 24,602
- Tractor
- Cat D3, Deere 110 TLB, Kubota BX23 and L3800 and RTV900 with restored 1948 Deere M, 1949 Farmall Cub, 1953 Ford Jubliee and 1957 Ford 740 Row Crop, Craftsman Mower, Deere 350C Dozer 50 assorted vehicles from 1905 to 2006
Impact of New Health Law from Spokane Newspaper...
The 3.8% Federal Tax on the sale of Real Estate is the one that grabbed my attention.
Health law?s heavy impact - - March 28, 2010
The 3.8% Federal Tax on the sale of Real Estate is the one that grabbed my attention.
Health law?s heavy impact - - March 28, 2010
LostInTheWoods
Platinum Member
Ultrarunner,
I read your link. This is a pretty good example of why you can't believe the line you'll often hear about "we're only taxing the rich" to pay for XYZ.
Tax on investment income. ObamaCare imposes a 3.8 percent annual tax on investment income of individuals making $200,000 or more and on families making $250,000 or more. The new tax is not indexed to inflation, so more people will fall under it each year. Seniors on fixed incomes and people with IRAs and 401(k) plans will be hit particularly hard.
As this is not indexed to inlation, that means as each year goes by, more and more people will suddenly become "rich".
No matter what you do (unless your occupation becomes all together obsolete), your income should rise with time. You may not make $200,000 a year now, but what about in ten years? Twenty years?
This is similar to our Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). As I understand the AMT, it was originally passed in 1970, and was intended to snare 155 high-income households. Now, it is on pace to snare 20% of all households. Hopefully, those households can appreciate how "rich" they've suddenly become.
LostInTheWoods
Platinum Member
So. A few more days of research. A few more days of looking for answers. What's changed? Well, mostly things are still fuzzy.
I spent a few hours looking around the web, checking out CNN, Time, and the like. Here's the best info I can find so far. Much of this is simply copied verbatim.
Change will be slow. Eventually, "94% of legal residents" will have coverage (as opposed to 83% today). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that in 2019, 160 million Americans will still be getting insurance through their employers, paying about the same as they would without the reform.
Immediate benefits include "limited relief" for Medicare recipients with high prescription drug costs, and that people with costly illnesses can get coverage (but at what price is unknown).
By 2014, the law will set up state-based "exchanges" that will offer consumers and small businesses a choice of standardized health plans. They will come in four flavors: bronze, silver, gold, and platinum. This will spell out the out-of-pocket costs that can be expected with each type. The silver plan will require about 30% of costs out of pocket, and premiums could "easily run a family of four more than $10,000 per year". More expensive platinum plans would have out-of-pocket costs of about 10%, but would have much higher premiums. Premiums "may still be unaffordable, even with federal subsidies". There are no limits as to what insurance companies can charge for premiums.
The law "takes money out of some pockets and puts it into others". It also "shifts some of the cost of insurance away from the sick and toward the healthy". In a nod to our largest voting block, the oldest people in the plan will pay no more than three times the rate paid by the youngest. Payroll taxes on higher-income earners will start, healthier people will be forced to pay more for insurance, punishment will fall on those who opt out of coverage, and "squeezing the income of health care providers" will begin. As far as squeezing healthcare providers, the sources don't spell out exactly what that means. Does that mean lower reimbursements? Not sure. What I am sure of is that many doctors fall into the "higher earner" demographic that will be paying more in taxes to support the bill. So, if they're being taxed more and also having their income "squeezed", how does that encourage more people to pursue the profession when you now need them more than ever, as millions more will have health insurance coverage?
Coverage "may cost 10% - 13% more than the average individual policy now". But about one-half of those using the exchanges will receive tax credits via the "taking it from some pockets" option. For families earning up to four times the poverty line ($88,200), credits will be given so that they pay no more than 9.5% of their income for a "fairly basic" health plan. No one knows exactly just how basic that will be.
If you enjoy tanning beds, you will pay a 10% tax on your tanning visits. I suppose this is akin to a type of sin tax, such as with alcohol and cigarettes. They irony of it is that UV radiation (e.g. tanning beds) is sometimes prescribed for skin conditions like psoriasis.
By 2016, you'll either have health insurance, or pay a fine. The fine will be $695 a year, or 2.5% of your income (whichever is higher).
People under 26 can be insured under their parent's policies (Until 2014, anyone that has insurance through work will not be able to be covered under a parent's plan, even if the parent's plan is less expensive). Furthermore, this benefit does not cover the dependents of TRICARE, the insurance plan which covers the armed forces.
For small businesses, tax credits will be available to pay up to 35% of the employers share of insurance premiums. But only the smallest companies (10 or fewer workers, or average wages below $25,000) will qualify for the full 35%. Slightly larger companies will still get some credit, but I have not seen those numbers.
After 2014, insurance policies will not be able to cap the lifetime reimbursements of a given plan. No one knows how far premiums will rise as a result of this ban on lifetime limits. These were originally included to protect insurers from "massive outlays for expensive illnesses like cancer". There's really no other option. Those expenses are going to be factored into our premiums.
By 2018, if you have an especially good health plan now through your employer, there will be a 40% tax on the dollar amount of those plans that exceeds $27,500.
If you make more than $200,000 for singles, or $250,000 for couples (guess it doesn't pay to be married ), you will pay 0.9% of earned income and 3.8% on investment income. As was posted previously, I don't know how that will impact someone who's not "rich", but any who sell a house over this limit...?
The new bill makes "other big cuts in the Medicare system". It "slows the rate of growth in fees to hospitals". Which is probably why the 2010 Survey of Health Executives: Initial Response to Healthcare Reform says over 70% of healthcare executives believe the reform bill will "hurt their facility's financial stability". And 60% of respondents note that reform will have a "somewhat or very detrimental effect on the quality of care their facilities are able to provide".
The plan counts on most employers to continue to offer coverage, so all but the smallest of companies will be fined if they do not provide a health plan. But this penalty is lower than the cost of insurance. According to CNN, "President Obama said many times in campaigning for reform that if you like your plan, you can keep it...but only if your employer doesn't decide to get out of the insurance game altogether. And some surely will".
The CBO estimate is that "9 million will lose their workforce plan, offset by 7 million who gain it because the mandate motivates more people to get jobs with health benefits". I would say partially offsets, but that's just me.
In the end, I think a lot of people where under the impression that this bill would lower healthcare costs. I am under the impression that those people were wrong. In fact, I don't see where there's any help in that area (i.e. tort reform). Premiums will still continue to rise, likely faster than inflation, as they have been for many, many years. And if this is the case, where will the money come from to aid the millions who will be added to the plan in years to come? To quote CNNMoney.com, "this law can't work in the long run" without getting a grip on costs.
And as for rationing care, I don't see it. I can't find any information yet that would support the idea that this plan will call for rationing and/or longer waits for care, unless the sources I'm reading omitted some details. Will that play out in the future ("Well, we tried our darndest, but things are just overwhelmed. Now we require some other changes...more docs on set government salaries, government price regulations, rationed care, etc...)? I don't know. I'm simply saying I can't find any indication there are such provisions in this bill.
And of course, the new law will "increase the nation's healthcare tab instead of bringing costs down" despite the promises of the president and congress, according to TIME. Well, I don't think that news surprises many. When the government promises you something at price "X", you know to add 20%...
Other "UH-ohs" that have come to light in the last couple of days are from a report by the Health and Human Services Department. It would appear that "Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable". Oops. And cuts could "drive 15% of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red". Double oops. Also, seniors leaving private Medicare Advantage plans "might face higher out-of-pocket costs".
I spent a few hours looking around the web, checking out CNN, Time, and the like. Here's the best info I can find so far. Much of this is simply copied verbatim.
Change will be slow. Eventually, "94% of legal residents" will have coverage (as opposed to 83% today). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that in 2019, 160 million Americans will still be getting insurance through their employers, paying about the same as they would without the reform.
Immediate benefits include "limited relief" for Medicare recipients with high prescription drug costs, and that people with costly illnesses can get coverage (but at what price is unknown).
By 2014, the law will set up state-based "exchanges" that will offer consumers and small businesses a choice of standardized health plans. They will come in four flavors: bronze, silver, gold, and platinum. This will spell out the out-of-pocket costs that can be expected with each type. The silver plan will require about 30% of costs out of pocket, and premiums could "easily run a family of four more than $10,000 per year". More expensive platinum plans would have out-of-pocket costs of about 10%, but would have much higher premiums. Premiums "may still be unaffordable, even with federal subsidies". There are no limits as to what insurance companies can charge for premiums.
The law "takes money out of some pockets and puts it into others". It also "shifts some of the cost of insurance away from the sick and toward the healthy". In a nod to our largest voting block, the oldest people in the plan will pay no more than three times the rate paid by the youngest. Payroll taxes on higher-income earners will start, healthier people will be forced to pay more for insurance, punishment will fall on those who opt out of coverage, and "squeezing the income of health care providers" will begin. As far as squeezing healthcare providers, the sources don't spell out exactly what that means. Does that mean lower reimbursements? Not sure. What I am sure of is that many doctors fall into the "higher earner" demographic that will be paying more in taxes to support the bill. So, if they're being taxed more and also having their income "squeezed", how does that encourage more people to pursue the profession when you now need them more than ever, as millions more will have health insurance coverage?
Coverage "may cost 10% - 13% more than the average individual policy now". But about one-half of those using the exchanges will receive tax credits via the "taking it from some pockets" option. For families earning up to four times the poverty line ($88,200), credits will be given so that they pay no more than 9.5% of their income for a "fairly basic" health plan. No one knows exactly just how basic that will be.
If you enjoy tanning beds, you will pay a 10% tax on your tanning visits. I suppose this is akin to a type of sin tax, such as with alcohol and cigarettes. They irony of it is that UV radiation (e.g. tanning beds) is sometimes prescribed for skin conditions like psoriasis.
By 2016, you'll either have health insurance, or pay a fine. The fine will be $695 a year, or 2.5% of your income (whichever is higher).
People under 26 can be insured under their parent's policies (Until 2014, anyone that has insurance through work will not be able to be covered under a parent's plan, even if the parent's plan is less expensive). Furthermore, this benefit does not cover the dependents of TRICARE, the insurance plan which covers the armed forces.
For small businesses, tax credits will be available to pay up to 35% of the employers share of insurance premiums. But only the smallest companies (10 or fewer workers, or average wages below $25,000) will qualify for the full 35%. Slightly larger companies will still get some credit, but I have not seen those numbers.
After 2014, insurance policies will not be able to cap the lifetime reimbursements of a given plan. No one knows how far premiums will rise as a result of this ban on lifetime limits. These were originally included to protect insurers from "massive outlays for expensive illnesses like cancer". There's really no other option. Those expenses are going to be factored into our premiums.
By 2018, if you have an especially good health plan now through your employer, there will be a 40% tax on the dollar amount of those plans that exceeds $27,500.
If you make more than $200,000 for singles, or $250,000 for couples (guess it doesn't pay to be married
), you will pay 0.9% of earned income and 3.8% on investment income. As was posted previously, I don't know how that will impact someone who's not "rich", but any who sell a house over this limit...?The new bill makes "other big cuts in the Medicare system". It "slows the rate of growth in fees to hospitals". Which is probably why the 2010 Survey of Health Executives: Initial Response to Healthcare Reform says over 70% of healthcare executives believe the reform bill will "hurt their facility's financial stability". And 60% of respondents note that reform will have a "somewhat or very detrimental effect on the quality of care their facilities are able to provide".
The plan counts on most employers to continue to offer coverage, so all but the smallest of companies will be fined if they do not provide a health plan. But this penalty is lower than the cost of insurance. According to CNN, "President Obama said many times in campaigning for reform that if you like your plan, you can keep it...but only if your employer doesn't decide to get out of the insurance game altogether. And some surely will".
The CBO estimate is that "9 million will lose their workforce plan, offset by 7 million who gain it because the mandate motivates more people to get jobs with health benefits". I would say partially offsets, but that's just me.
In the end, I think a lot of people where under the impression that this bill would lower healthcare costs. I am under the impression that those people were wrong. In fact, I don't see where there's any help in that area (i.e. tort reform). Premiums will still continue to rise, likely faster than inflation, as they have been for many, many years. And if this is the case, where will the money come from to aid the millions who will be added to the plan in years to come? To quote CNNMoney.com, "this law can't work in the long run" without getting a grip on costs.
And as for rationing care, I don't see it. I can't find any information yet that would support the idea that this plan will call for rationing and/or longer waits for care, unless the sources I'm reading omitted some details. Will that play out in the future ("Well, we tried our darndest, but things are just overwhelmed. Now we require some other changes...more docs on set government salaries, government price regulations, rationed care, etc...)? I don't know. I'm simply saying I can't find any indication there are such provisions in this bill.
And of course, the new law will "increase the nation's healthcare tab instead of bringing costs down" despite the promises of the president and congress, according to TIME. Well, I don't think that news surprises many. When the government promises you something at price "X", you know to add 20%...
Other "UH-ohs" that have come to light in the last couple of days are from a report by the Health and Human Services Department. It would appear that "Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable". Oops. And cuts could "drive 15% of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red". Double oops. Also, seniors leaving private Medicare Advantage plans "might face higher out-of-pocket costs".
Last edited:
buckeyefarmer
Epic Contributor
I heard friday on the news that the government has come out and admitted the new health care bill will cost all people more money.
I have heard from one major company that has already announced to it's employees a sharp increase in health care cost due to the new bill.
I agree with what someone else said, I would like to see health insurance not be tied to an employeer, that it be available at a reasonable cost to anyone. The part I disagree with is you must have health insurance or face a fine, that just slaps the constitution in the face. We lose a little bit of our freedom every day.
I have heard from one major company that has already announced to it's employees a sharp increase in health care cost due to the new bill.
I agree with what someone else said, I would like to see health insurance not be tied to an employeer, that it be available at a reasonable cost to anyone. The part I disagree with is you must have health insurance or face a fine, that just slaps the constitution in the face. We lose a little bit of our freedom every day.
