LOL , thats what they wanted. They will eventually run out of rich people. then what !<br />
Let the good times roll.
Johnathan Swift had the right idea. He suggested the way to deal with the "Irish Problem" as the potato famine was called was for every Brit to consider it their duty to eat Irish babies. He received several thousand letters from Englishmen asking where they could get their Irish babies and find recipes.
It was part of the cease fire with the IRA.
So many details in obamacare that nobody told us about.
Like this one, which is not true. Time and again, many people distort facts for political advantage.
What about all the hidden taxes? on ins. companies pharma. makers of medical supplies? All going to be passed on to the consumer.
Don't believe everything you hear/read, particularly from the media. I suggest you read the laws and bills themselves. They are all public records. The media, where most people get their (mis-)information has no obligation to be truthful.
Don't get me wrong... the affordable care act will hurt my family a lot.
Higher taxes are a fact. Another fact doctors will receive less payments for medicare, medicade.
Just because you state something is a fact doesn't make it so. To which section of the law are you referring?
Even the high court said it is a tax.
That was in the context of the insurance mandate (get insurance or pay a fine). There was nothing hidden about the mandate as that was both a central approach of the legislation, and of the republican health care proposals in the 1990's. It was originally proposed by conservative economist Mark Pauly in the late 80's. Taxes are not higher, as you stated, under the affordable care act -- (I don't pay 40% instead of 39%). It actually provides a path to lower taxes as there will be less need for public subsidy of uninsured patients.
Unfortunately the details of the law are unworkable and will hurt many people in an effort to spare the insurance industry.
My former daughter-in-law who comes from a wealthy family has this all figured out...and she doesn't even need to charge the government!! See, she just gets married, gets her in-laws to co-sign her student loans, and then she defaults, leaving them holding the bag. The beauty of the plan is that the in-laws then have to pay or their credit is ruined...and the courts can't force her to pay!!! Simple!!! This is how the rich get richer...and the poor get poorer.
is that why she is "FORMER" ? LOL
Nooo...silly willy...she is a former because she got knocked up by someone else whilst married into our family.
No, what it does is that it provides that if person goes into the healthcare industry and decides to serve in an underserved area, and if another organization (e.g. state) subsequently forgives their student loans (as an enticement/reward to serving in those areas), that the loan forgiveness will not be taxed. It is a tax exclusion. <br />
It doesn't encourage running up debt. I promise you that nobody is going to medical school deciding to take a loan only so they can later working for a fraction of their potential salary in a poor neighborhood and have the taxes on their loan forgiveness excluded.
Most students starting medical school have no accurate idea of even what specialty they will pursue, much less where they will be accepted to residency, and even less where they will practice. The idea that a tax exclusion on a potential future loan forgiveness in the event that an individual subsequently decided to dedicate their career to serving the poor is a motivator for choice of medical school is laughable. If they were motivated primarily by money, they wouldn't go in to medicine; even if they did, they wouldn't serve the poor.
It is a reasonable argument that we should let the market forces alone workout who gets medical care. Capitalist theory says that the cost of a good or service should be set by supply and demand. So then, instead of Medicare payments based on RVU, should physicians in underserved areas be able to charge Medicare whatever they want? And if so, who will pay that bill?
If you read the actual law (111-158, Sec. 10908) you will see that it does not forgive any student loans. It simply say that a person whose loan is forgiven (by other programs, or by states) doesn't have to include the amount forgiven in their gross income. I suggest you not believe everything you read.
Thanks for your apology.
Can you point me to the executive order to which you refer?
Do you believe that intelligent people would base major financial decisions on an anticipated "payout" in 20+ years if the only basis for that is executive order, subject to change at any time, and likely to undergo 3 or more administration changes within the next 20 years?
You can find some details here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/26/we-cant-wait-help-americas-graduates
It appears to have nothing do with the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), nor does it enact loan forgiveness.
The Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program became law in 2007 when it was signed by President Bush. That law does allow for loan forgiveness under some circumstances after 20 years.
There was a house bill (HR4170) introduced by a Michigan congressman which would, under some circumstances, forgive loans after 10 years. This bill was referred to committee this March.