Outside the Cocoon

What Does The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) Mean For Me

Well, all the hoopla is over and and the campaigns have ended and I find myself in a position of having so many questions.  I will admit up front to having been a sporadic voter, by that I mean there have been several elections in which I did not cast a vote.  My primary reason was time.  Not the time it took to vote but the time it took to get informed enough to vote.  Even now I feel my votes where based on just the tiniest bits of actual information and mostly gut feeling.  I am going to step out on a limb here and guess that I am not alone in this voting style.

But none of that matters until the next election and so, for me, today is more about trying to learn more about the impact of what has happened and to see if I can boil it down into pieces that 1) I can understand and 2) To determine what that means to me individually.  This may sound completely self serving and in some ways it is but I am also the only test subject that I have complete access too.  Having said this I will admit to this being one persons completely biased opinion right up front.  However in order to be completely self serving I do owe it to myself to try to look at things from every angle don't I?

I know this morning and in the days ahead the economy will most likely continue to take center stage but my focus for this post is the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare.  To be honest I don't know what to call it.  It seemed to me that the GOP originally coined the name Obamacare to discredit the Presidents plan but then Democrats decided to embrace the term and use it as their own and it is certainly the more well know name for Obama's Health Care Reform Bill, but in the interest of accuracy I will from here on out refer to it as the Affordable Care Act.

First a bit of history about me and health insurance.  For most of my adult life I have had health insurance.  There have been short periods and longer periods from a few months to over a year that I have gone without insurance.  The longest stretch was the most recent and it wasn't until I started writing this that I started thinking about all the other times.  When I graduated from college but hadn't found a job yet.  I don't think I had any coverage then.  Every time I changed jobs I lost the insurance coverage from my previous employer and had to wait the average 3-6 months before taking coverage and most recently having left the traditional job market.  I am currently part time self-employed and part time waitress with health insurance coverage recently obtained under my husbands insurance.  I will also note here that I pay the full amount with no contribution from my husbands employer.  No judgement was meant by that statement I am just trying to lay out the facts.

Presuming that with Obama's re-election the Affordable Care Act will be fully implemented, here are some of my questions which I will attempt to research and answer for myself over the next few weeks.  In an effort to answer the bigger questions of; Does this plan help me?  And, do I think it helps America as a whole?

1)  What are the basic components of the plan?

2)  How will the plan be implemented and monitored?

3)  What is the effect if any on small business? 

4)  Will part-time employees be covered under their employers insurance?

5)  Is everyone covered?

6)  How will gaps in employment be covered?

7)  Will our elected officials be participating in this program?

8)  What happened in the Supreme Courts Ruling?

9)  What can we learn from other countries?

10)  When does it all happen?

 

I fear already that this list may be more than I can handle and that my research will inevitably spark many more questions but I would like to know at least some of the answers and so I will begin here.

 

 

 

 

The Mainstreet Fairness Act (HR 5660) Is it a new tax? Is it fair?

I thought I had said my peace on this topic but every time I read something about it I find that I have new reasons to be out raged.  A few days ago I stumbled onto Senator Delahunts own statement regarding this bill .  You can read the full statement in the link above. 

I would like to provide a rebuttal on a few of the items in this statement.

1) "These outdated systems allow many on-line retailers to avoid collecting sales taxes from out of state consumers, and place retailers on local Main Streets at a competitive disadvantage simply because they collect and remit sales tax revenue."

If you have been following this story at all I am sure that you have heard the argument that shipping costs often are greater than the sales tax would be.  I believe that this is a valid point but let me elaborate further.  Brick and mortar stores have advantages because they are brick and mortar and internet sellers have advantages because they are internet seller. 

If I want or need something right now I am going to drive to the store and buy it.  If I want to touch the item, try it on, feel the quality, I am going to drive to the store and buy it.  If I want to talk to a person face to face and ask questions about the item I am going to drive to the store for that item.  If I want someone that I can go to for repairs on my item or training on how to use the item, I am going to go to a brick and mortar store to buy the item. 

If on the other hand I am looking for a deal, searching for a unique item or just don't want to get dressed I am more likely to shop on line.  My point is that shopping on line and shopping in a store are two very different animals.  They both have their advantages and their disadvantages.  I believe that one of the advantages of selling on line should be the continuation of a sales tax exemption.

2)  "This year, an estimated $18.6 billion will go uncollected; by 2012, the states will be losing at least $23 billion annually, based on conservative estimates.  From 2009-2012, this amounts to a loss of approximately $55 billion. In some cases, these revenue losses can comprise up to one half of a state’s budget shortfall."

Think for just a minute about what this is really saying.  The wording is quite misleading.  It's as if we are supposed to feel sorry for the states that can't balance their budgets.  They need our help.  And where exactly is this mythical 18.6 billion dollars that our poor government can't get its hands on???  The evil internet sellers don't have it.  You probably used your little piece of it to buy some baby food or a gift for your mother or to buy gasoline for your car.  Maybe you put it into your savings account or your 401K.  And think about this a little deeper.  All of the things I just mentioned are taxable in some way by the government already aren't they??  Maybe you have never purchased any thing on-line and you don't care but you should because even if 5660 passes and the government starts to tax all internet purchase and they get their hands on the 23 billion that they think they are losing every year, they will still have a short fall in their budgets.  And fear not they will be looking for a new way to cover that.

3)  "Most importantly, it will help state and local governments balance their budgets without raising any new taxes and will not cost the federal government a dime."

Ok first of all if you read the 2nd quote from the very same statement it says that the revenue from 5660 will at best cover only half of some states budget deficits.  I know it only says "help" but please the implication is that the state governments are actually interested in balancing their budgets.  I myself am more than a little bit skeptical on that point.  And more importantly I have to take issue with the statement that this is not a "new" tax.  I can't believe that I am actually going to quote the Websters dictionary definition of the word "new" but here it is..."appearing, thought of, discovered, made etc, for the first time, different from the one in the past."  This IS A NEW TAX for the people paid by the people!!!!!!!!!!! Yes you and me. 

Additional Articles

Yahoo News article"New" Internet sales tax bill is introduced 

NCSL NEWS article State Lawmakers Praise Delahunt for Main Street Fairness Legislation

Am I the only one who see the irony in this article?  The basis of the article is how great this legislation is and then they point out that the US Supreme Court has ruled against this measure not once but twice.

Proposition HR 5660 "The Mainstreet Fairness Act"

There is quite a bit of flap going on about the Democratic supported bill to tax internet sales (HR 5660).  So here is my two cents.  For the purposes of full disclosure, I am an internet seller so you probably already now that I am opposed to this bill. 

Here is a list of its sponsors and cosponsors.

From what I can tell the nutshell version from those who support the bill is that internet sellers have an unfair advantage over brick and mortar store fronts due to the fact that one has to collect and remit  state and local sales tax.  Let's not argue that point even though we could.

The nutshell version for those opposed to the proposition is that it is far too complicated and burdensome to handle.  (brick and mortar stores remit sales tax to their local governments, city, county and state in most cases)  Internet seller would be required to remit the same taxes for every jurisdiction that they sell to.  Once again we will just accept this and not argue the point.

My thoughts are these.  Whether you are for or against this proposition should not be based on either of the reasons noted above.  Simply consider the following:

Ask yourself

1) Should the government be able to tax anything it wants to?

2) Currently Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon do not have a sales tax.  Should they be forced to enact a sales tax to make it "fair" to the other 46 states?

3) Are brick and mortar stores restricted from taking advantage of internet sales?

4) Do you think that the government spends your tax dollars wisely and frugally?

Depending on how you feel about these questions should be the determining factor in whether or not you support giving the government more of your money.