E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSLost in the debate over whether the money that uninsured people will be required to pay the federal government starting in 2015 is or isn't a tax, are a few significant facts that will influence not only the struggle over taxes from now until Election Day but also the future of tax policy:
Jim Watson / AFP - Getty Images
President Barack Obama speaks during a campaign event at Wolcott House Museum Complex in Maumee, Ohio, on July 5, 2012.
- The money (or penalty or tax or whatever you want to call it) that the uninsured will pay is relatively small, so small that one wonders whether it will have the effect of nudging people into buying insurance and whether a future Democratic Congress would need to increase the tax in order for it to have the desired nudging effect. By 2016, the Affordable Care Act requires most Americans who don’t buy insurance to pay a penalty of $695 for each uninsured adult in the household, or a percentage of household income, (2.5 percent of the amount of income over the tax filing threshold). That’s less than the average cost of buying insurance. “The individual mandate is too weak,” said Avik Roy, a critic of the law who is at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. Roy, who is also an advisor to the Mitt Romney campaign, predicted that people will go without insurance, pay the tax, and then purchase insurance only after they get seriously ill or end up in a hospital emergency room. “This will massively drive up the cost of health insurance in the private market, effectively destroying private health insurance, unless significant reform takes place,” he said.
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza and Politico's Jonathan Martin break down the war of words over what to call the health care insurance mandate in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling.
- Despite the raucous debate since last week’s Supreme Court decision, the revenue generated by the tax on the uninsured will be quite small: only $4 billion per year. By comparison, the federal government collects more than $6 billion every day in tax revenues. By 2019, the Affordable Care Act’s new Medicare tax on people with incomes more than $200,000 will be raising ten times as much revenue as the tax on the uninsured. And unlike the tax on the uninsured which starts in 2015, the Medicare tax will begin having its impact only five months from now: it takes effect on Jan. 1 and will collect $20 billion in new revenues next year, increasing to nearly $40 billion a year by 2019.
Recommended - First Thoughts: Romney's fatal flaw
Watch: Pelosi says Health care decision a 'victory for the American people'
- Aware of the fact that this new tax on the uninsured will inevitably raise taxes on some middle-class people – a tax increase which President Obama vowed to not to impose, Sen. Ron Wyden, D- Ore., is renewing his push for his idea of a waiver. Under a provision Wyden put in the ACA, states who don’t want to go along with the individual mandate and the tax for being uninsured have the option of setting up their own alternative systems for covering the uninsured – just as long as the alternative state plan gives individuals insurance coverage that’s at least as comprehensive as provided under federal law and as long as the state plan covers as many people as the federal plan would cover.
Obama has endorsed Wyden’s idea of moving up the date the state waiver becomes available from 2017 to 2014. Especially in light of the court’s decision last week which framed the penalty as a tax, Wyden said, a state waiver “will be increasingly attractive” to states which don’t want to go along with the tax increase or have their own version of health care reform they want to attempt. He said his waiver “is an opportunity for states to take approaches that are philosophically in tune with their views.” In some states that might be a single-payer government system; in others, it might be a market-oriented plan.
It remains to be seen whether any states will take Wyden up on his offer. But Wyden’s effort shows that some Democrats see the tax increase on the middle class as a political liability.
- The tax debate since last week’s decision has overshadowed the issue of cost. When a family pays a tax, it ends up of course with less money to spend or invest. But when it pays higher prices for health care, it also ends up with less money. A 2011 analysis by the RAND Corporation found that if health care costs had kept pace with the overall inflation rate - instead of exceeding it - over the prior decade, a median-income family of four would have an extra $5,400 left in their bank account at the end of each year. The success or failure of Obama’s massive overhaul will rest as much on its ability to control future cost increases as it will on the taxes that people will pay.
Leave a Comment:
Why don't the GOP controlled states apply for a waiver then just use the GOP health plan to cover everyone and then compare results. This will show the American people who's plan is better?
I am just glad to finally see it in the debate. Complex issues like this are hard to resolve, especially with all the adolescent name-calling that is part of today's politics. We need better government. Vote them all out!
We don't think or talk based on facts. We think, talk, and argue based on preconceived mindsets.
What republican plan?
They keep saying "tort" reform. Well they did that in Texas and it didn't bring down health care costs at all.
Republicans invented the mandate and insurance exchanges, yet now, they find both of these taboo.
What would they replace Obamacare with? Who knows. They say common sense, but what does that mean?
An at that time GOP led state "Massachusetts" has already proved that a similar plan can cover more than 90% of the people and reduce health insurance costs ;)
It simply means the Republicans were for it before they were against it. Inconvenient political truth for them. I also found the quote in the article a bit humorous that the individual mandate was too weak, and due to that, people wouldn't purchase insurance until they were sick, 'exploding' the cost of health care. What he fails to realize is that these people already have no insurance. It's just the same situation, with possibly more being covered, and certainly more paying the penalty for not taking personal responsibility.
The is actually one area where I agreed with the original Republican idea of an individual mandate, as it causes each individual who can afford insurance to purchase it rather than letting them stiff the system and force those who are responsible to pay for it. Latest figures show the average insured family pays over $1000 a year in additional costs to cover the uninsured who show up at the emergency room, and then walk on the bill.
People are living in a bubble when it comes to this legilation. If you are proponents, you really don't want to hear anything. But, this legislation, as it's worded and the fact that a mandate forcing Americans to purchase insurance was supported by the SCOTUS sets a very dangerous precedent that will definitely be leveraged in future controversial legislation.
Please explain to me how this Act causes such outcomes differently from Medicare and Social Security, the former having been the law since the 1960's and the latter since the 1930's?
Oh yeah... a $10 tax on Big Gulps and Big Macs.... a $20,000 tax on any car that doesn't get 40mpg... a 2000% tax on firearms... a 60% surcharge on any electricity not created by wind or solar... and a $10,000 a year tax on anyone not belonging to a union... this ruling is a Liberal wet dream.... the Taxocrats....
just a silly thought,
instead of filling the beast that is insurance, how about they act on the COST OF THE HEALTH CARE!!!!
instead of paying $60 for 2 asprin, how about actual cost +10%?
How about turning people away that dont intend on paying?
sure it sounds bad, but if you could cut the cost of health care by 90% then you are actually doing something!!!
I read canada has a 90%+ rating of their health care syatem, cause not everybody has cancer or broken limbs. if you have a serious health care need, expect a long wait.
dont believe me? google canadian officals coming to america for treatment, for cancer and heart surgery.
but i also read where canadian kids are getting their doctorate and leaving for higher paying america.
lets get the cost of healthcare down instead of fattening the insurance waist line!!!!!
Since a child I have known "health care" is UNIQUE in ANY countries make up. Since a child I have known the ONLY rightous future for health care SHOULD be eventual socialization. We are technically far along enough now that the old ways are not as important as TRULY they once were. This country has led the world in unbelievable advances medically. And will continue I believe. FREEDOM MEANS SIMPLE CHOICES. Health care is unique in our daily lives compared to any other aspect of living. This ACA is rightous. The dysfunctional unhonorable political theatrics brought to american politics over not just health care, but EVERYTHING, is ignorance. Nothing more ...... nothing less. Republicans bringing this new higher level of shame to capitol hill will pay dearly on election day. I pray.
This article grossly underestimates how many employers will drop employer-sponsored insurance.
An estimated 50-60% of American companies will make the budgetary decision to pay the 3K fine per employee rather than dole out the 12K in insurance per employee.
What is ironic, is that the so-called "99%" who rail against corporate profits think that corporations will be altruistic and pay their employees' insurance.
(And most employees are NOT in a position to do *anything* about it. People are struggling to keep their job, and if their employer drops their insurance, they won't be able to do a darn thing.)
A picture of Obama besides a sign saying "Betting on America" ??? Hell, with Obama in the White House, it is far more like GAMBLING WITH OUR FUTURE and that of our children !!!
Yes, my employer is also considering dropping health care insurance as a result of Obamacare. The moron-in-chief is unable to see what his legislation translates into the real world of business.
Absolutely. The root cause of the healthcare issue is the exhorbitant cost of services and medicine. We pay far more per capita for healthcare than any other civilized nation. From what I can tell, this bill does little to address this issue. Proponents claim that it will reduce costs, but I have yet to see an objective analysis breaking down why costs per capita will be reduced. All I've seen are talking points. It seems like it's a tax that will go directly into the coffers of government bureaucrats and health insurance companies (Health insurance companies gave over 3 times the amount of campaign donations to 0bama in 2008 than McCain. Coincidence?). Immediately after the bill was affirmed by the SCOTUS, the DJIA lost ~50 points, but health insurance providers recieved a nice bump. Investors are betting that they are about to make more profits.
The Supreme Court has declared the individual mandate penalty to be a tax so it is a tax. The President promised that he would not raise taxes on 95% of Americans in any way, not one dime. The individual mandate as well as other taxes in the health care law, raises taxes on some of the 95% of Americans, contrary to the President's promise. It does not matter how small the tax may be. Any such tax is a violation of the President's promise. To keep his promise the President needs to demand that the congress repeal the health care law immediately.
There seems to be some confusion about what is in the law. In essence the President promised to fix the problem. He promised to go over the health care bill, "line by line", with my congressman and every other lawmaker in Washington who requested it and that all proceedings regarding the health care bill would be broadcast on CSPAN. It is such a long bill, for the President to keep his promise to the American people and have a chance of going over the entire bill, "line by line", as promised, the broadcasts have to start immediately.
So, let's see folks:
1) If a GOP neo-conservative think tank says that any national health insurance plan must include an individual mandate, that is okay.
2) If a white Republican governor of Massachusetts pushes through a mandatory health care plan for his state that included an individual mandate and fines, that is okay.
3) If a white Republican President pushed through Medicare D and included an indiuvidual mandate, fines, and unlimited penalties in addition to the fine, that is okay.
4) If an African-American Democratic President gets a plan that follows the GOP models to the T and requires only that the individual buy private health insurance and imposes an individual mandate that most agree is so small that it may actually encourage people to opt out and pay it, that is rampant socialism??????
There is something more than taxes and mandates and health care going on here. In my own opinion, it is just codeword racism at its worst.
The only way this "tax" will ever be levied is if you refuse to buy health care, and can afford it. Is it really a tax if it is voluntary?
Pissedoffperson -- Great point. Note that for states to be given a waiver, they must provide similar levels of coverage compared to ACA. Currently the GOP plans are not anywhere close.
You may have heard Eric Cantor referring to a plan they proposed at the beginning of congressional debates, and the 'step by step" approach John Boehner referred to (I believe is HR 3962). This plan makes only small tweaks to the current system (e.g., tort reform) so by 2019 would cover only 3 million more uninsured people. ACA will cover at least 17 million uninsured--but more like 30 million.
You may have heard these same folks refer to a "patient centered" plan (I believe HR 3000) based upon the premise that patients become educated about medical care so they know what treatments to accept or refuse, and so they can complain about cost. This is supposed to drive costs down, which is not likely, and it wouldn't compare to ACA even as much as HR 3962.
Then there is the catastrophic coverage only idea, which once again is pitiful and obviously not comprehensive with preventative care like ACA, and of course ides like Paul Ryan's plan to provide vouchers that won't work either. There are other ideas, but these are always more costly with less benefit than ACA. I hope this answers your question, which is the same response as:
Moving on, what I noted in the article is there will be a tax hike, but only on the rich: "the Affordable Care Act's new Medicare tax on people with incomes more than $200,000." What this sounds like is what everyone including conservatives have been pushing for -- to make the current cap on FICA withholding (currently at $106,000 in income) higher so the rich pay more of their fair share. This only applies to Medicare, and not Social Security as most of us would like to see. And this additional revenue is slated for ACA, and not just Medicare. If I'm understanding this correctly, conservatives should be cool with this.
The small and unenforceable mandate may not be a problem. Most people want insurance and will pay for it as long as it is made more affordable--on their own--they don't need to be forced by a penalty. The article neglected to mention that while it is true the uninsured could wait until they are sick to get insurance, I believe there is a six month processing time. So people can't have a heart attack and get it on the way to ER.
Overall, the more folks learn about ACA, the less likely the GOP/TP will get traction with their "repeal and replace" lies.
brundo,
It's not voluntary. You either have to buy private insurance or pay a fee - you can't choose to not do either.
Calling it voluntary is like saying income tax isn't really a tax since you don't have to work so you don't have to pay.
@Ron,
How is that difference from Bush's Medicare Part D? It requires you to buy private insurance or pay both a fine and a unlimited uncapped unknown fee. You cannot choose to completely opt out of Part D unless you opt out of all Social Security completely (and even they you still have to pay the payroll taxes.) "Calling it voluntary is like saying income tax isn't really a tax since you don't have to work so you don't have to pay."
Hoist on your own petard.
arthur 66 Why would companies now giving health care to their employees stop? Especially when they will be getting back millions from the insurance companies thanks to the 80/20 plan in the aca, which for companies with more than 50 employees on a plan is 85% .
DJ, # 1.5,
you also noted the outlandish quotation in the article that since people could pay the tax instead of getting insurance, that would cause lots more people not to get insurance!! Huh ??
So people who get insurance now, voluntarily, will suddenly decide that they'll drop their insurance so that they can pay the tax.
Now that takes some convoluted illogic, for sure.
From the article:
Don't want to pay a tax? Buy health insurance and stop being a deadbeat. Sounds pretty easy to me.
Plus, an estimated 1.7% of the population will be affected. So why the "furor"? Oh, the GOP is trying to create yet another witless controversy.
Pyrrhic Victory -- A lot of that cost is coming from the insurance middlemen. Then imagine if providers became non-profit, in which they only cover overhead the way the US Postal Service does. There are already non-profit providers such as Intermountain, and it works well.
The other matter is allowing Medicare to negotiate with big pharma on drug costs, and a public option like the USPS in health care to provide even more competition. There are so many improvements that could be made IF there was the will. The obstruction is coming primarily from Republicans, so if you want progress you need to vote them out.
About companies providing health care, small businesses will receive tax breaks for providing plans. If they still can't afford it, their employees can go to the Exchange. For companies with 200 employees or more, they will still provide health care insurance. But once again, their employees can go to the Exchange if they find a better plan there.
My older sister, who is self employed, full plans on just paying the fine and not having insurance due to the fine being cheaper.
If the republicans want to really fight obamacare, they real need to put some meat where their mouths are and give a competing plan. Right now they are no different than the democrats not putting forth a budget.
Chris-749391 - The race card? Really? Pathetic.
Big lar - many companies will consider dumping their insurance benefits because it will be cheaper for them to do so. If the insurance they provide costs more than $10,200 for a single individual, they will have to pay a "cadillac tax" for anything over that amount, per employee in addition to their premium. If they choose to dump their plans and pay the penalty - The employer penalty is equal to $2,000 multiplied by the number of workers in the business in excess of 30 workers (will increase in time) and that will apply only if one of the employees receives a tax credit for the insurance they purchase.
Its all about the bottom line.
OK, I get it (without any help, either): Under the ACA, they will now be able to drop their current insurance until they actually get sick, then they can buy it. Sometimes the sysnapses just don't fire quickly enough.
There's already been 13,000 new " regulations " written for obamnacare/tax.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/lawyers-have-already-drafted-13000-pages-of-regulations-for-new-obamatax-law/
Why don't the GOP controlled states apply for a waiver then just use the GOP health plan to cover everyone and then compare results. This will show the American people who's plan is better?
That is a GREAT Point!
I would like someone to mathematically tell me why it is better for me to keep my insurance rather than drop it in the future. If I pay $300 a month or $3600 a year for coverage vs a fine of $700 a year, why would I not drop it if I cannot be denied insurance?
Dear Mitt Romney,
You can't be a PERFECTLY LUBRICATED WEATHER-VANE on the important issues of the day. You, Mr. Romney have been missing in action in terms of showing any leadership....you're so pathetic.
BTW:
Republicans want everyone to have guns, and no one to have health care.
What Romney just said right now is going to lead to a new conflict of words, and trouble on both sides. Even though he is moving to back his fellow Republicans, Romney is shooting himself in the foot by essentially opening himself to attacks on being accused of raising taxes and be showing discord amongst the Romney campaign team. Obama, however, might get some flak for raising taxes, even though it is more like a penalty than a tax.
I agree. Even if you are a free-market purist, you must realize that there are some sectors of the economy that the private sector is unable to control. In healthcare, nobody knows when they will need it, and that hurts businesses because they are uncertain about the demand for healthcare coverage. Secondly, private healthcare providers and insurers tends to spend nearly a quarter of their revenues on administrative costs like executive salaries, while government healthcare providers like Medicare and the VA tend to spend less than one-sixth of that amount, or about 4 cents for every dollar. Thirdly, there is a moral argument against the privatization of healthcare. It is very hard to justify how some people/organizations (healthcare providers, insurers, etc) should benefit and actually profit from the suffering of others, not to mention the fact that tens of thousands of Americans are either denied care or go into bankruptcy because they cannot afford expensive medical treatments or are not covered for such care. As Bill Maher famously said, "If conservatives get to call universal health care 'socialized medicine,' I get to call private health care 'soulless vampires making money off of human pain." That, in my opinion, is both unacceptable, and inhumane. Whatever you think about free markets, no man ought to profit off of another man's suffering.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
"SOCIALIZED MEDICINE" 2012
Here is what you can take to the bank about ObamaCare. It will never control the cost of healthcare, and it will cost far more then projected. There are after all numerous programs and entitlements started by Washington to prove my point, Amtrack, postal service, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security to name but a few that are all bankrupt or fast approaching. Now we have 2700 pages of ObamaCare that was written behind closed doors in secret locations by the most liberal members of the Democratic Party and their special interest group friends. ObamaCare is funded by one of the most convoluted tax schemes ever devised for an entitlement, and liberals think if they buy health insurance they are free from being taxed. Well it is no wonder we have clowns representing us in Washington, when we have complete idiots that vote.
SuMka - you do know Mass has the highest costs for health care in the US, and they still don't insure all their residents, despite what the Dems there promised??
The bottom line, health care costs are going to increase for all those who are currently paying, and for what? Better health care for all? Not by any long shot. All that extra money will go to those new IRS workers who will be your Big Brother. It will go for waivers for a bunch of people who are lucky enough to be at the 400% of poverty level or less. The rest of us will have to do with less than those on the govt. programs. Not very fair is it? Those who are currently working and paying into their employer plan will be hit the hardest. And these are the very same people who are ALREADY paying for the "free" health care the Poor and Illegals are receiving. How about don't hire the IRS workers, force everyone to pay taxes commensurate with their income and stop giving and entitlements (or green cards) to Illegals? We would be in a much better position than we are now.
If President Obama has cut taxes $3600 on middle class families and they choose to pay the penalty by making enough to buy health insurance but they don't buy it so they pay penalty of $695, have their taxes been raised?
I must be missing some piece of this puzzle.
Other than providing addition protections against excluding people based upon pre-existing conditions (the one clear benefit to this); I'm just not seeing how this really fixes the core problems of affordable healthcare and cost-shifting related to uninsured individuals.
Seems to me that this doesn't still adress the fact that many people in their late 20's and early 30"s, who are arguably the healthier segment of the population (and lower utilizers) gamble on not needing health insurance. At least in my experience, healthcare group insurance plans base premiums on utlization data of the pool of individuals covered. If statistically healthier people opt out, by definition your costs are higher because the pool of people are disproportionately higher utilizers of healthcare services.
From an objective standpoint, I'm trying to understand what has been gained?
So the tax/penalty is too puny, Congress will have to increase it to make Obamacare effective.
But Republicans have already vowed either to repeal Obamacare or underfund it.
The battle is on.
Wait . . . Dems made promises for Romneycare? Did Romney also promise . . . anything?
Or have you shaken that etch-a-sketch too hard and scrambled its brains?
steve in wash. u r so right
I say if you receive income or the value difference of a barter trade you give the people of our great country 10% cut and dry. Not for this or that but for the greater good. Our system is set up to justify taxes with expenditures and we elect people into office to set those justified straight. We do have check and balances, we need to trust in them. If we can't trust in the people we elect to office, I say we are all wasting our efforts on humanity and our destiny, may as well just give up and stop the somebody knows best crap.
Most Republicans advocate leaving the issue to each state, so that we can all see which program works best. (And some plans may work better in some corners of the nation than in other corners of the nation.) The one-size-fits-all approach is stupid.
this bill is and has always been step one to a national system. All you folks out there supporting this, when your employer comes to you and says we are dropping insurance offerings but here is an extra $1000 per year to go buy your own, let me know how well its working out for you.
Allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines would have been a great first move. Toss in some requirements about pre-exsisting conditions, age children can be on parents plan, and removing the lifetime cap. TORT reform to get rid of frivolous lawsuits that cost less to settle then litigate, of which the best would be loser pays.
But smart changes to our healthcare system would not breed more entitlement babies which make up the vast majority of the Democratic Party. They want you dependent on the government, and they want to be able to hand your money out for political favors. But I guess when people aren't smart enough to handle their money wisely, at least they have the Democratic Party to the rescue.
Of course the future generations that will be picking up the tab for how irresponsible Washington has been with our money, might not agree that the American people should have been so needy. Then again, as long as the Democrats can come up with excuses and find someone else to blame, they should have no problem raising entitlement babies in the current political environment.
Wrong!
Va Ind -- It sounds like you are confusing ACA with Paul Ryan's plan to provide vouchers for seniors, who would then try to purchase health insurance on their own.
Rick-3416939 -- It sounds like you are confusing a Republican plan to allow health insurance companies to set up HQ in a state with little or no regulations (the same as auto insurance) and sell their insurance to folks in other states from there. In states that don't have requirements about pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps, etc. people in those states are screwed, or as Rubio said, would have to move to another state.
Tort reform would make only a small dent in the cost of health care. The rightwing relies on this ONE point far too much as a solution. That could be included within reason, but you need a whole lot more meat on the bones.
What folks are tired of is picking up the tab for unnecessary wars and tax cuts for the rich.
'Roy, who is also an advisor to the Mitt Romney campaign, predicted that people will go without insurance, pay the tax, and then purchase insurance only after they get seriously ill or end up in a hospital emergency room. "This will massively drive up the cost of health insurance in the private market, effectively destroying private health insurance, unless significant reform takes place," '
So what happens then? This was so poorly written that it will just not work as intended. It will still be cheaper to just pay the penalty and then get insurance when they have a catastrophic illness (no exclusions for pre-existing conditions), or merely go the the emergency room on the taxpayers dime.
I think we're beginning to 'find out what's in it' - thanks Nancy Pelosi.
By the way - The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has calculated that Obamacare will now cost $1.76 TRILLION over 10 years, so if the uninsured don't pay it, and the rich are exempt since they have insurance except for a modest increase in Medicare premiums, and the poor get free Medicaid insurance, who's left to pay?
Get ready for a huge tax increase - Thanks, Obama.
"willowbrook" by covering a majority of the population so that people don't end up in ER without any insurance, will directly reduce costs for all. BTW, people will still have to buy "Insurance" from for private companies, it is not socialized medicine. On the extreme left, not having a single payer system or government provided healthcare is a shortcoming of ACA. I don't agree with that because as you also seem to agree, govt. run processes are usually very inefficient, just see your local DMV offices as examples.
ACA also directly helps small businesses as it probably will reduce their costs of providing insurance to their employees. People will get better care, there might be longer lines at the doctors offices because more people have insurance, but probably smaller lines at the ER. I will take that any day. Insurance exchanges will breed more competition, better quality of service etc. for the people as well.
SuMkA-1360775 "An at that time GOP led state "Massachusetts" has already proved that a similar plan can cover more than 90% of the people and reduce health insurance costs ;)"
Actually, 85% of people in the country already had health insurance before Obamacare, so having the taxpayers pay $trillions for a few more % is not very reasonable.
By the way - the 'Massachusetts' plan ended up costing MORE money, not less. That's pretty typical for government run programs, and Obamacare will be no different.
Why would folks listen to a Romney adviser (especially one named Roy) as a credible source about ACA? Romney will now insist his plan was paid with "fees" all the more, and who cares? At least we aren't having to post a $10,000 bond to opt out like the GOP wanted. Get over it rightwingers, the court upheld ACA and you nominated the worst possible candidate.
And WTF with the cynicism? The Left criticizes ACA because it won't be universal health care and cover 100% -- everyone. That I get. But the rightwingers criticize ACA because it only covers another 30 million people, so why bother? Those 30 million can vote, so maybe you'll figure it out then.
BTW, 1 trillion over 10 years -- Compare this to the recent agriculture bill (or Iraq war?) and get back with us on that.
I'm sick of that conservative talking point of people coming here to be treated. Although that may well be happening, I've never seen any hard numbers on that claim, or articles interviewing these unknown foreigners who come here for all that care.
Let's not forget the phenomenon of medical tourism is happening as well. Americans going to other countries because it's cheaper. Cheaper doesn't always mean better. Here's is a link to an article, on an investing website, advising people considering in investing in companies and foreign economy's that offer the medical tourism service. This system is perfect, the healthcare system in America is great! Please...
TruePatriot, you might want to check some of the aspects of the ACA bible that was passed.
1) Family & Specialist doctors can refuse to add new patients to their current list if they wish, therefore not even allowing the so called additional 30 million you talk about from getting to see a family doctor. So in the end they will end up going to emergancy rooms at hospitals for low level routine check ups. This will add alot of costs to the system and increase the number of lawsuits as people start to wait longer than a specific time to see someone.
2) Companies can opt out of giving employees health benefits and instead pay 8% of the employees' salary to the federal gov't as a penalty. They don't even have to increase their wages as compensation. Therefore, medium and small business will force employees to pay out of their own pocket for healthcare. This will drive incomes even lower in the future, why because people will get free healthcare at a certain wage category. Standard of living for most middle class will drop further towards the poor.
3) Tort reform is a big cost saver, reason is that every doctor, nurse, healthcare professional must carry large amounts of insurance to compensate for potential lawsuits. Most doctors need to carry an insurance policy that covers a lawsuit up to 50 million dollars. All these insurance costs by the professionals are billed to the gov't/insurance company to recieve payback for their upfront costs.
The biggest cost that the system will have is lawsuits in the future as waiting times increase in ERs due to doctors refusing to add patients which is their right under the ACA. In Canada they have mandated waiting time limits for patients and they are not even meeting those targets after 3 years. Imagine the lawsuits in the USA when the federal gov't dictates to clinics, hospitals, etc what the waiting times should be to see a sick person.
We could debate the war between progressives and radical right wingers until the cows come home and it wouldn’t matter. The fact is the right wing Republican/Tea Party is not interested in compromise on any legislation or for that matter anything that’s actually good for the majority of Americans. Wake up people radical right wingers in America are only interested in two things Money and Power. To increase their chances of gaining more of these two things they fill every news source in America with meaningless trash talk, lies and misinformation. They do this to confuse and frustrate the electorate. These people aren’t stupid they know frustrated voters are less likely to vote. This very simple formula exponentially increases their chances of gaining more money and power. The sooner the American people realize how evil these people truly are the sooner we can get our country back on track and working for all of us not just handful of greedy and power hungry billionaires like the Koch brothers.
@ Chris--You forget that Obama is ALSO WHITE!!!
The bill does nothing to address soaring healthcare costs. Until that is addressed all the bill is, is a tax increase that will go to growing thousands of new federal employees and bureaucrats, force people to pay more for their healthcare (no caps, remember) and pad the federal government's pockets. Not one person has adequately explained how this will lower costs, they can't because it won't. They mandate health insurance, now, what about deductibles? Will you pay thousands of dollars and still have to suffer through a deductible before insurance kicks in? Will you still have to pay 20% after the deductible kicks in? No answers seem forthcoming. All this did was pad pockets and not address the real problem of soaring medical costs.
Who is going to enforce that everyone gets insurance? Why not do without then go to the emergency room where you will get treatment anyway - insurance or not. You can't get blood out of a turnip.
Cricket: Aha! That's the 64,000 lb gorilla that no one wants to talk about. Now, they did get all those tax increases that the democrats wanted. They pretended they were creating a health care bill and voila, not so much health care, but lots of new money going into the government coffers via tax increases. Lots of new IRS agents were hired prior to the bill's passage, wonder why?
Look how they increased capital gains taxes, slashed deductions for medical care and capped Flex-care, much to the damage of people with special needs children. Oh, and the 2.3% tax on medical device manufacturers, why guess what that does to the cost of pacemakers, stents, operating tables, artifical limbs and a host of other medical devices? They just went up 2.3%.
Let's forget for a minute that you're trying to play the race card....
Let's see if you can spot the difference, Massachusetts is a state the United States all together are what? What is good for ONE state may just not be good for the other 49, do you get it now?
Romneys religion
1 Nephi 12:23 And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations. (Joe Smith, Mormon Founder, calls dark skinned people ugly, filthy, lazy, and perverts.)
jim192..............there are currently 15 members of Congress who are Mormons, including some Democrats. Most notably, senile old Harry Reid. There are also members of Congress who are Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, but the majority are Christian and particularly Catholic. Is it just Mormons you hate, or religion period? Are you as much a bigot as you seem?
Cherokee,
...to quote "senile" Harry, "That's a clown question, bro'!"
Listen I don't care what you call it: TAX, Penalty, FEE or whatever. The only people who is going to be paying are freeloaders. And GUESS WHAT: IF YOU THINK YOU CAN GET INSURANCE RIGHT WHEN YOU GET SICK, WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU HAVE WAIT FOR 6 MONTH BEFORE YOU APPLY. So if somebody who haven't had insurance it might work once, but then if they drop, they have to wait another 6 month. It wouldn't no sense. Second, most people who don't have is because they can't afford to, so once they able to afford to they get it.
Now lets get facts straight, in Massachusetts, Romneycare covers 98.1% of people. And it pretty successful plan. Good laboratory as republicans call states, and now we have for the nation. Before whining about this law, since not much you can do about it why don't you wait until it full in force, give sufficient time for it to work and then criticize if it don't work.
TORT reform was tried in Texas with failed results. Buying insurance across the lines will allow insurance companies to go to states with less regulation to give you less. Any more ideas? see problem is this plan was republican idea that democrats took and run with it.
Actually, addressing things like that would only make minor savings, due to the fact that they are not the main causes of costs. Allowing insurance to be bought across state lines isn't helpful because not all states cover the same things. And then most (if not all) insurers will move to the states that have the least regulations on what insurers must coverage, negatively affected the insured while lining the pockets of the insurers. Defensive medicine and frivolous lawsuits are important issues, but they are second to issues like waste, inefficient medical systems, a lack of cost regulations, and high administrative costs. Not to mention the fact that companies could abuse tort reform by lobbying for the inclusion of lawsuits that, while seeming frivolous, can harm consumers. Essentially, our "free market" healthcare system is outdated and inefficient, and the only way to fix it is for the government to play a bigger role in the system. Most countries that have cheaper, more efficient healthcare systems have significant government roles.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
A shout out to all you redistributing,occupying libs out there, go ahead and celebrate, for many of you, I know this is your favorite day of the year, the day after Independence day. Now you have an entire year before you are forced to recognize the glorious freedoms and American exceptionalism that you and Obama despise so deeply.
Dem-o-can, # 1.48 says,
I didn't realize I shared that viwepoint with conservatives. Whele our overall health care is much higher cost and much lower outcomes than most all other western democracies, I've always maintained, with no hard numbers, that the preponderance of cross-country medical care was coming towands the US.
It does seem like the US has the most cutting edge advancement in procedures and devices. These advancements are available to the wealthy from other lands that can independently afford them, but are not available under any US private insurance company coverage, or US government (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, SS Disability, Vet Adm., etc) coverage.
It seems to me like one of the results of the US's expensive medical system is money to fund developement of the greatest advances in healty care for the rest of the world, at the expense of providing ordinary care to most US citizens.
You notice that the President wants it both ways? He wants nationalized healthcare, but he doesn't want to tax the middle class- while providing "free" services to tens of millions of Americans AND opening up healthcare to tens of more millions of Americans who had preconditions (costing more), etc. So he wants yet another federally controlled program that can't support itself unless all of the burdon is carried by the top earners and business. Guess what- at some point those top earners are smart enough to draw a line and move on. If you knew that your 80-100 hour work weeks were costing you more then the value of the additional money in your pocket, you just might decide to take those vacations, not harm your health, and let your business not get any bigger (note the employment comment- small/mid-sized businesses create the majority of the jobs, so when the boss goes so goes the company). It would be a hard lession when those so enamored with new and expensive government programs notice that they can no longer afford their daily costs because they owe more and more off the top to the government running their lives (not to mention their choices, their treatments, and their livelihoods).
SuMka said:
That's pretty funny, "probably will reduce their costs of providing insurance." Now the facts. The ACA has exponentially INCREASED the cost of small businesses providing care to their employees. (The small employer market was impacted immediately due to the poor writing of the ACA.) I am the Plan Administrator for the small company I work for. I have been (stressfully) dealing with Obamacare since 8/2010 and it is no picnic. It is much harder now to even have a policy. We have lost access to the care we had pre-Obamacare. Explain to me how my care is better when we went from a PPO plan with a reasonable deductible and co-pays to a really high deductible, (the highest in our State) that only covers Preventable care? No prescription plan until the deductible is met. (And I have to tell the govt. our prescription plan is "non-creditable" compared to Medicare D, even though we have no employees/dependents who quality for Medicare D.) Essentially all we have is catastrophic care. My employees, including myself no longer go to the Dr until we are way, way sick. If anything, the increases have compelled us NOT to go. And how are the exchanges going to breed competition when we still cannot purchase across state lines? I'm pretty familiar with the insurance companies in our state, most of them do not even want the small employer business. They have to quote us by State law, but they don't have to give a competitive quote.
Oh and longer lines at the Dr's office, how will that give us better care as well when we have to sit with other sick people for long periods of time? Let alone, many Dr's are going to retire rather than have an unprofitable practice. If I were them, I would retire too.
All these comments and still no talk of a GOP health Plan and how it will help America. All I see is the same Fox talking points against ACA . The GOP have no plan is my conclusion except Repeal and that is it.
The best reasons to scrap ObamaCare are Medicare and Medicaid. Both have run far over cost projections, and both are rampant with waste, fraud, and abuse that Washington has been promising to fix for years. Reimbursements to the doctors have been steadily cut over the years making it very difficult to even find health professionals willing to take on new patients with either for coverage. If you want to be a not for profit doctor, just fill your practice with Medicare and Medicaid patients.
So when the two government run programs are failing, how can anyone in their right mind suggest starting another government run entitlement is the solution? With the cost of medical school and the overhead to practice, this country is going to see a serious shortage of health professionals as we move forward with entitlement healthcare, and there will be no incentive for advanced medical development. You better hope you never get anything worse then a common cold.
Medicare and Medicaid are not failing!
I just want to know where all the Republican outrage is over the
penaltytax for Medicare Part D if you don't initially enroll in the prescription coverage?"The late enrollment penalty is an amount that’s added to your Part D premium. You may owe a late enrollment penalty if at any time after your initial enrollment period is over, there is a period of 63 or more days in a row when you don’t have Part D or other creditable prescription drug coverage."
Republicans are out to get the biggest profits for the doctors and health facilities as possible. the greed that has infiltrated the republican party is just unbelievable! If Obamacare is so bad why is Romneycare any different as they are basically clones of each other?
I just figured out why Obamacare is so bad and Romneycare is so good. Obama isn't a republican't!
What GOP healthplan?
I've always had the best health care I can imagine. When I go to the doctor, I get right in. I refuse to wait in a doctor's reception area for hours on end while the Dregs of Humanity march through. No way.
If I don't have any children to write off on my taxes am I being "taxed" for not having children? Now if I have to pay a penalty for not having health coverage so that other tax payers do not have to foot the bill am I being taxed?
Think about it. The supreme court ruling said the ACA penalty fell under the tax code (like my children example) not that it was a "tax" itself. But if you all want to split hairs, knock yourselves out.
RTypo
Now you know what it is like for us who have a neighbor who has an income of $1,000,000+ and says he just goes to the ER to get taken care of because he doesn't think he needs to pay for health insurance. He doesn't pay for it and says he gets a write off? He adds to my bills for his being one of the !% greedy Americans!
That 1%, like my neighbor, is mostly republicans!
Tax
noun
1.
a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2.
a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.
I'll take definition #1 and include, "An obligation placed upon an individual based on wealth, needs and spending. " "Being responsible."
clwyd-2621393,
I'd like to know how your neighbor stiffs an ER bill and gets a write off. If they are and they're talking about tax write offs, that's a crime and if I were you, I would report them to the IRS.
Couple of a other things to consider:
1. One reason health care costs keep rising is because of what insurance companies pay providers. How many of you have seen the bill for a Doctor or hospital visit for someone with no insurance opposed to someone who has insurance? Insurance companies do not reimburse providers the same amount as a person without insurance will pay.
2. I keep hearing about government overhead for Medicare administration is only 4%. Could it be because most of the administration of Medicare is done by individual insurance companies through advantage plans and supplemental policies?
3. Health care and health insurance are not the same thing. I don't get any treatments or medicine from my insurance company and I sure don't get any insurance from my doctors, they give me assurances that if I do what they suggest, I will have a fairly healthy life.
4. There are other things I have an opinion on but let it suffice to leave you with one other thought. as I have read down the list of posts here, I have seen a few honest thoughts and opinions and that's the way it should be. However, there seems to be a large amount of name calling, baseless attacks and down right sophomoric attitudes. Sounds like a grade school playground at recess time. No wonder our congressmen can't get anything done, WE elected them from a collection of our peers. How about getting rid of the chauvinism and trying to see things from both sides.
Jim, Bozobama knows EXACTLY what he's doing to employer-provided insurance, being that he's aware he's destroying it, so you'll have no option than to come to HIS government-controlled insurance pools. We have to stop this crap AT THE BALLOT BOX this November! That's how we'll show Bozobama we won't put up with his "government is the only answer" garbage!
Mark Taft, The dregs of humanity are those that brag about the quality of their own health-care (and getting right in to see a doctor) by leaving those less fortunate to die of an easily treated disease. Have some forgotten the definition of humane or humanity? Absolutely! Otherwise, we would all be talking about how to improve ACA instead of how to destroy it.
The reason our Congressmen can't get anything done is because under the guise of 'so-called' Tax Reform; they signed the "Norquist Pledge" which has ground our Lawmaking & Economy to a Gridlock Halt?? (41Senators & 238 Congressmen, including Mitt & Newt ) If they want TRUE Tax Reform; Just "AX THE TAX CODE"?? With its $1.1Trillion in "breaks", Plus 45% paying NOTHING; there is your "DEFICIT". To give ANY of those "signers" your VOTE is almost "Treasonable"?? They pledge allegiance to ONE MAN?? Instead of their Country??
Now they say the states can do better....Fat chance if they could they would have already
Now they say a penalty is unconstitutional...Bull Medicare has the same kind of penalty for their prescription drug or additional insurance to cover costs that medicare does not cover. That was a sponsored REPUBICAN plan. Either you bought into it the day it went into effect or soon after that and later wanted in you paid an additional FEE/TAX/Penalty Which comes out to about 200 bucks a year and we had no uproar over that.
No the Republicans have not backed this plan to insure all Americans because they used the social card for years while effectively delaying the passage because the HC industry was happy with the status quo and their 18% increase every year in costs.
There are close to 40 million Americans who are without HC insurance beung served through medicade and emergency services. This is highly profitable for the HC industry and is one of the main reasons they are having such enthusiasm for rejection. So here is the deal folks. Everyone who has or will have in the future HC insurance will not be affected by this in the least. There is unproved potential for some relief from skyrocketing costs which will help businesses in hiring new employees and possibly continue paying some of their HC costs. In Mass where it has been in effect for some years now less than 1/2 of 1% do not have insurance and guess who pays for their HC? The tax payers of Mass.
Romney's excuse for not wanting the plan is as sorry an excuse as one has ever seen in politics. How can a man stand up and knock a plan that he sponsored when he was Gov. of Mass?
Now lets do this ....as the repubs said in 2000 after Bush stole the elction "get over it" It is the law of the land. SCOTUS has spoken and repeal will not happen as long as there is one person in the Seante who wants it.
Time for the Norquist zombies in the house and Senate to get to work and look up the word compromise and use it and tell that creep lobbyist I am going to do what is right for my country and my citizens not some crank creep like you. He has them strangled. Imagine that a lobbyist has a piece of paper on all of them including their presidential candidate that under no circumstances will they ever raise taxes even though in the case of congress that is their jobs to raise revenue to pay the countries bill.
All this election year crap over a bill that has such great potential is just plain stupid. But as you can see it is just what they on the right have been doing every since Obama got elected and they said their job in Washington was to make him a one term President. Gridlock means our nation stands still. When we stand still others pass us and then we have to catch up but if we are still standing still how can we do this. I have never seen our elected officials in Washington accomplish less and only when they were doing the same thing to Clinton was it ever close to being this bad. That is why this Republican Congress has an 11% approval rating which is about the same percentage of the amount of hard right idiots we have in this country!
That's how we'll show Bozobama we won't put up
Anybody who follows peole like this is as stupid as they are.
Down below we have a group taking a shot with bad logic.
Let's all just agree on the facts, the administration passed this law without even thinking about whether or not the mandate is consititional and then is backfilling with constitutional ration
NO NO NO. Congress passed this The Administration does not pass anything. It is constitutional because it is not because you people cannot deliver a beat down for your contributors the hc industry. It passed the SC It has been in effect for years in a state. The prescrition drug program for seniors has the same kind of penalty and that was passed by REPUBLICANS. The talking points you people are bringing up were all brought up by the SCOTUS of which two who voted against it should have recused themselves and if they had it would have passed without Roberts.
Art 1, Sec 9 Clause 4 prohibits direct tax on individuals "...unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration..." The 16th Amendment permits the Federal Government to tax indiviiduals based on income.
Since Roberts defined the penalty as a tax, which is clearly levied on individuals and neither in proportion to the census nor based on income, how can it possibly be constitutional? I think Roberts has become senile.
It is based on income. Read the law -- the amount is proportional to the income you (or your family) earn, subject to a minimum.
"Effective 01/01/2014: Impose an annual penalty of $95, or up to 1% of income, whichever is greater, on individuals who are not covered by an acceptable insurance policy; this will rise to a minimum of $695 ($2,085 for families), or 2.5% of income, by 2016."
Brian has parroted another inaccurate fallacy argument from the Fox/O'Reilly/Hannity/Limbaugh propaganda machine, who don't understand the law and haven't studied it.
Brian, I agree with you, I was thinking that this smelled more like a discriminatory head tax which is unconsitituional. And even if there is a component based on income, the minimum is not based on income and those subject to the minimum their penalty (ops, tax) is no based on income.
But that gets ahead of the strongest argument and that is that this is not a tax at all. It is the first time the government has held that a tax can be imposed on inactivity and so I can't square that with Robert's comment that this is not an expansion of the government's power. Anytime the SCOTUS rules to allow something that has not been allowed before, it is an expansion of the government's power. He's starting to sound like just another politicial.
So I say to those that support the mandate, do you want this to be treated as a tax, which means Obama raised taxes on the middle class and violated his campaign pledge (but then this is not the first time for that), or do you want it to be a penalty and want the SCOTUS to reconsider their decision with the individual mandate as a penalty.
Let's all just agree on the facts, the administration passed this law without even thinking about whether or not the mandate is consititional and then is backfilling with constitutional rationale, and calling this a tax was not even on their minds (both the law and Obama and all of the Dems for that matter continue to call it a penalty) and was not even their first argument. What a BS ruling.
Not true. The home mortgage deduction is the exact same thing as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's mandate.
If you purchase a home, you gain the benefit of the mortgage deduction, which reduces the tax you owe. If you are inactive (fail to buy a home), you don't get the mortgage deduction, so you pay more tax for the exact same income level.
I am not really sure that the argument that this is a tax on inactivity is watertight. I can easily see it being a tax on having an imperfect human body that is guaranteed to need healthcare. Keep in mind that it is not levied on persons that do not have human bodies, such as corporations.
Byron Raum: your mother would be proud of her brilliant son for the wit in your last sentence. Well done.
Dan, what kind of backwards argument is that? It is not at all like the home mortgage deduction. People that purchase houses with debt are allowed to get a tax break. So that law is a tax break, not an additional tax. Now to be like the AFC, the law would have to say that people that do not purchase houses with debt are subject to an additional tax. If you can't, or don't want to see the huge difference in the law, then I cannot help you.
Actually, Byron .... it is.
Corporations of certain size are mandated to have health insurance for their employees or be "fined"/"taxed"/ "whatevered". But then, some of the other sticky points jump in and corporations cannot charge the employee his/her 50% share of the premiums cost if it then exceeds a percentage of that employee's income. In other words, Obamacare also regulates the emploee-paid portion. That is why many employers are looking at dropping the insurance and paying the fines/taxes/whatever thus levied as a viable alternative.
The joke's on you Byron.
I wonder, if a corporation does pay the (per Supreme Court) TAXES ..... I wonder if those taxes will then be deductible in arriving at taxable income. Another Obama over$ight ???
Oboma is saying now that it is not in anyway a tax.
"If you purchase a home, you gain the benefit of the mortgage deduction, which reduces the tax you owe. If you are inactive (fail to buy a home), you don't get the mortgage deduction, so you pay more tax for the exact same income level."
Dan, what legislation forces you to buy a mortgage, and then includes the amount as "taxable income"?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2012/06/29/surprise-coming-obamacare-insurance-premium-rebates-might-be-taxable/
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-06-20/story/health-care-benefits-not-taxable-are-reportable
Get ready for a big surprise!
Why can we spend money on the military and not health care?
Please explain Republicans.
What you don't understand Mark is that both of those phrasings describe the exact same thing. If you take action A (or fail to take action B), you don't pay money. If you take action B (or fail to take action A), you pay money. Call it glass-is-half-full or glass-is-half-empty, it doesn't matter at the end of the day.
You attempted to make the argument that "this is the first time the government has held that a tax can be imposed on inactivity". That is not true. If I am inactive and fail to purchase a home, more money flows out of my pocket than if I am active and purchase the home. It doesn't matter whether you call that a tax break for home buyers or you call it a tax increase for renters, it amounts to the exact same thing.
It's the same reason that Republicans seem to think there is a difference between government spending and lowering taxes. There isn't -- in the end, they are the same thing -- an increase in the federal deficit.
No legislation forces you to buy a mortgage. Buying a mortgage is incentivized because of the tax break.
It's the same thing with the Affordable Care Act. Buying health insurance is incentivized because you are not subject to the monetary payment (tax/penalty/whatever) as long as you have health insurance. You are not really being "forced" to buy anything -- no one is holding a gun to your head, threatening you with criminal charges, etc. You can willfully not purchase insurance at all if you want to -- but you will pay a monetary amount for making that decision. Exactly the same choice a renter (vice a home buyer) makes.
Eric, we can spend money on ice cream, lollipops, pink unicorns for Nancy, high-spped rails for gamblers and all sorts of other $$$$$hit if you want to ...... you just have to figure out how to pay for it genius !!!!
Our country is about $16 trillion in debt and FINANCIAL REALITY is about to bite us in the proverbial a$$ !!
OK, Dan, so I purchased my home, but I paid cash (I sold my previous home). I have no mortgage, and thus no mortgage interest deduction. Where do I fit into your scheme of things?
This is where your argument breaks down. Purchasing a home is not a required action to avoid a tax/penalty or receive a tax break. However, if someone purchases a home via a mortgage, they may deduct mortgage interest within limits. This has no bearing at all on renting, or on living with someone rent free. You have confused several issues here.
For this home you may have purchased it with cash, but at sometime in the past you had a mortgage (unless you inherited the money). That mortgage gave you the tax advantage at that time.
My argument does not break down, because as you say, purchasing a home is not a "requirement" to avoid a tax/penalty or receive a tax break. Neither is buying health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Again, no one is holding a gun to your head. If you don't want to buy insurance, then don't. You will pay a sum of money for making that decision.
A renter makes virtually the exact same choice -- if he pays $600/mo in rent, all of that money is treated as taxable income. If he purchases a home with a mortgage that ends up at $600/mo, now about $400/mo of that money is no longer part of his adjusted gross income, reducing his tax liability. You can call that a tax break for the home buyer or a tax increase/penalty for the renter, your choice -- it doesn't matter.
Dan - If it was intended to be the same as mortgage interest deduction it would have been treated the same way. All they would have needed to do is expand the tax treatment of health expenses to allow deductions at lower percentages of adjusted gross income.
I'm going to take Judge Robert's word over what's constitutional over the folks commenting on here...
Plus...you need to read his entire ruling rather than base your opinion on the news soundbite. Roberts knows what he's talking about. The four dissenters come across as activist judges that are using their own political views to cloud their vision.
Bart -
I like the rulings regarding Arizona's immigration law and Montana corporate political contributions just as much as I like this one. Hell of a session they had this year.
Mark - "Let's all just agree on the facts, the administration passed this law without even thinking about whether or not the mandate is constitutional"
There was extensive consideration of the constitutionality of this before the bill was passed. You are deluding yourself if you think they didn't even think about it. They concluded it was constitutional and would be ruled so by the Supreme Court.
It will be much cheaper to pay the penalty rather than buy insurance. Oh, but I'm sure someones going to look at this and say, ok I can pay a $2k penalty for my family and get full coverage, or I can by a $12K policy for the same treatment, I will by the policy because it is the right thing to do for the country..... sure that's going to happen.
Dan- I see your logic, but the analogy is flawed. If I choose to buy a house instead of renting, I do not have to take the tax deduction. With this law, I can choose not to have health insurance, but I have no choice regarding the "penalty", as you call it.
Let's put this in another perspective, it would be cheaper now for me to drop my employer sponsered plan, pay for my medical care (basic check-ups) out of pocket and pay this fine. If I get sick, I will just go get insurance then to cover the cost of treatment.
Brian-1075075
Bare in mind that in article I, section IX of the constitution was modified to the 16th amendment, thus removing the need for apportionment or enumeration.
Fair enough, but we still do not know how the IRS will structure this on the 1040. I envision it being structured the same way as most other credits. e.g. The tax/penalty/whatever cost is actually built into the tax tables. Then, on the credits part of the 1040, there is a question about "do you have health insurance that meets the requirements ... etc.". If you answer yes, you get a credit equal to the amount that's built into the tax tables. If you answer no, you pay a higher total tax because there will be no credit.
If it's structured like this, then it's the same as it would be with the mortgage deduction. True, you don't have to take the mortgage deduction (although I don't think there's anyone who doesn't if they have a mortgage). With this type of structure, you don't HAVE to take the health insurance credit either (but you'd just cost yourself money if you didn't).
I would be more worried about how the IRS is going to enforce this. This is an actual legitimate question that has yet to be answered -- is the IRS going to be asking for photocopies of everyone's health care cards now? Has anyone addressed the HUGE gaping hole for widespread tax fraud here -- how many people without insurance will simply claim that they have it on the 1040 and take the credit when they're not entitled to it?
Eric
Artical 1, Section 8, you know the enumerated responsibilities of Congress ! Fully 8 of the 18 Clauses refer to National Defense, exactly none of them refer to healthcare!
agreed mark,
so i assume you disagree with the republican talking point that states that letting the bush tax cuts is a tax increase?
Chris, there is NO requirement to purchase Medicare part D nor a penalty for not doing so. Also, medicare and Social Security are not connected. You can participate in the Social Security program and not participate in Medicare...or Medicare and not Social Security.
And one last thing, People on Social Security do not pay payroll taxes.
At least try to make the lies a little believable.
Because the primary job of the federal government is NATIONAL DEFENSE!
And when the income for obamacare is $400 billion and the expenditures are $1.6 trillion, where is the extra money to pay for it going to come from? o's personal stash?
Maybe Romney's, Oh that's right it is all overseas.
Jpeg lmao...... people here in Detroit actually think Mr. Obama is paying for this. They really do think he has his own stash of money. Ive personally been at a Stimulus handout where people were being interviewed.... several people stated that... "We voted for Obama, now he gunna pay us back."
Eric, I'll explain in the most simple terms. The military defends our country and our interests. Always has and always will. For those that think we can skimp on defense your alone fearless BECAUSE the military has provided that security for you.
Health care...it's not my responsibility to pay for the health care of lazy, drug addicted beer guzzling welfare recipients who feel they are entitled to it simple because they exist. Those who work for a living have insurance, those who don't....won't. Naturally there are exceptions to the rules such as those with disabilities who are unable to work etc. If we lower health care costs, and help only those that really need it we wouldn't need this unconstitutional (I don't care what John Roberts thinks) mess that Obama is trying to force on us. If you know even the slightest thing about government red tape and social spending you would admit that it's a disaster waking to happen. One that can be prevented.
We're Americans and we were once proud and worked hard for what we had. Now everyone wants something for nothing.
Here we are comparing mortgages to taxable healthcare?
This will effect the free-loaders, which is probably 1% of the population, that want free health care and can pay for it.
Most folks will not even have to worry about it, and those that can't afford their own healthcare will get a subsidy.
I don't think it is any more "cut and dry" then that.
And Fedupinnys, I am a vet, and I agree with much that you have said except when was the last time we had to defend our own boarders from an invasion to justify our outrageous defense spending?
With this legislation it moves further away from paying for other people's healthcare, and closer to a single-payer system. Most don't even realize it. We are obsessing over this tax debate in the mandate. It's BS.
FedUPin NYS
Yes military does defend our country and our interests, but republicans are not much interested in troops, but airplanes and equipment and wars. Just year ago they were proposing in house to push military retirements to 60 year old after active member serves for 20 years and been promised their retirement right of way. They bunch of hypocrites.
First of all most 45 million Americans without health insurance are not on welfare. They Middle Class who not make enough money to afford insurance and make too much for medicaid. You think this plan is going to be free, they still have to play premiums, but it will be less where they can afford.
Unless you stupid or something, if you don't realize that you already paying for these people that dont' have insurance.
You just one hateful person who don't know any facts.
But with our current for-profit system tax payers ARE paying the health care costs of those who do not have insurance. We can't just let people die on the streets can we? And we all pay for things we don't nessicarily want to. Unlike you, the world doesn't revolve around *me* and what *I* want.
Our current system is broken. The U.S. spends around 17% of GDP on health care for dwindling service.
The ACA is not universal health care but a series of mandates on health insurers and individuals. The health insurance industy is being regulated like Switzerland's sytem that only pays 11% of it's GDP on healthcare. And they go much, much further.
Personally, I favor a single payer system
Tax
noun
1.
a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2.
a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.
Once again, most of us remain duped. Here's the $64,000 question?
HOW WILL ACA MAKE HEALTHCARE MORE AFFORDABLE OR FORCE PEOPLE TO GET COVERAGE WHEN ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS PAY A PENALTY and still not buy insurance insurance?!!
If you pay the penalty NEXT YEAR when the IRS catches up to you but need medical care before then, taxpayers are STILL going to pay for it.
If you pay the penalty for NOT buying insurance, YOU'RE STILL UNINSURED!
HELLO- has anybody else picked up on the stupidity that is ACA?! People wake up!!!
When will the conservatively biased mainstream media call the bill by it's actual name, and not the derogatory name made up by Republicans?
It was passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court - and the media is still showing it's conservative bias by calling the Affordable Care Act "Obamacare"!
Because Obama does care!!
Yes, fortuneately he cares; but unfortuneately, he's inept.
Yeah, tell bin Laden how inept Obama is.
Steve------that statement is so overrated. Did FDR take the credit for Mussolini or Hitler? Because the man is prez does not mean he is the one to get credit for bin laden be found and taken out. In fact without the aid of a person now in Afghan jail the mission would still not be accomplished and deploying the Navy Seals does not mean the prez gets the credit. It is the intelligence and the military that get the credit otherwise the prez needs to take full blame for every American lost life since he took office. You want to claim all of the credit you better be able to accept all the blame.
I believe it was Seal Team 6 and information obtained over the years that got Bin Laden. O is inept, a liar (check out his book of fiction or just wait until he opens his mouth), divider, and his admin is excuse ridden in that he blames everyone/everything BUT himself. Why don't you tell that to the seniors on medicare when these thieves STEAL $500,000,000 from Medicare?
Even Obama is calling it Obamacare, so what?? And your contention that the mainstream media is consevative has me laughing and rolling on the ground.
Obama wants a legacy so I would think he would be happy with that name. (but only if it actually works).
Steve I hope your giving more credit to our armed forces than to Obama for killing bin laden, considering they did all the work. Obama did nothing more than "Yay" or "nay"
GWB let Bin Laden go at Tora Bora because he couldn't make a decision to go after him and then said he didn't care if Bin Laden was dead or alive. This after losing countless American lives and $ 3 Trillion (unfunded) on 2 wars. Now who is inept?
For Bin Laden lets use a football analogy:
If the quarterback throws the ball and a receiver catches it in the end zone who gets credt?
Just the quarterback who threw the pass? Just the receiver?
For Republicans they say yes just the receiver, and the coach, who called the play deserves no credit whatsoever.
The truth is: the entire team gets credit. In this case, that includes Obama.
Your analogies are as lame as your logic ! How long are you libbies going to "feed" off the dead carcass of Bin Laden ?
SuMka-Clinton had the first and best shot at bin laden but he gave him money instead of trying to put him out of commission but I don't see you putting blame on his doorstep. What does blame only go back one administration or just to the last political party you didn't like? Don't be trying to dump to much praise on this accomplishment as Obama's only because every single person in the military deserves much more credit for putting their lives on the line everyday in the hopes we might someday stop terrorism on every level. Give credit to the admin and obama for something that they actually initiated and achieved--I think that list might be short---but I am not saying any of the other overpaid idiots in DC could have done any better. I will guarantee they couldn't have done any worse because I put no high expectations on any of the professional crooks, sorry I meant politicians, on either side of the fence.
Jim, when it's the ONLY POSITIVE thing this President can legitimately take some credit for, they're going to try to "feed" off this as long as possible!
Hmmm, so how is the recession Obama's fault?
I imagine with all the money the GOP/Tea Tools siphon from hillbilly rednecks and KKK racists in America, they can afford to hire 17 paid trolls to spread GOP lies, play the victim card and distort facts......
"bobm-346250" 9/11 happened on GWB's watch, 1yr into his administration when the administration repeatedly ignored warnings about terrorists receiving pilot training. Blame can be applied to Clinton also but only to the extent that in the light of the embassy bombings in Africa they should have probably gone after Bin Laden, but who knows if the intelligence directly implicated Bin Laden for those attacks or not. Also they were attacks on foreign soil. But lets not forget that Bin Laden was a product of failed policies of Reagan and Bush Sr. who created the Afghanistan Taliban in the first place or you also believe communists would have been worse for us than these terrorists?
Coming back to GWB administration, instead of focusing on Bin Laden when he was seen gloating about the attacks on video, the administration quickly seized on the situation as an opportunity to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and went to the extent of fabricating evidence. That $2T war did not buy us anything except for a giant hole in the budget. That money had to be borrowed from China. So indirectly China funded our Iraq and Afghanistan war efforts. Now if Bin Laden had been killed or captured at Tora Bora, we may have been out of there long back.
So yes lots of blame to go around, but there was only 1 President who acted with resolve and leadership when the situation demanded. And no, this was not his only accomplishment. ACA which goes some way towards reducing the cost of healthcare and will also directly benefit small businesses, Auto-bailout and survival of the US auto industry, economic and job recovery in the light of huge financial turmoil in Europe (the economy has generally been growing over the past year), re-establishment of US credibility on the international stage after the Iraq debacle, Overthrowing of many dictators in the middle east with covert or overt support and no US loss of life, etc. etc., and all this in the face of direct obstructionism from the Republicans, that is also leadership.
Teabagger trolls! Thats a new combo!!!
Fox "News" isn't even calling it Obamacare anymore. Turn on Fox and you will see "ObamaTax" splashed every few seconds.
Who's going to be taxed? Not me! Only the people who can afford health insurance and don't get it. will be pentalized. Why are the poorer states with the highest percentage people without health insurance so much against this health pan? Why do the poorer states always vote for the GOP? The GOP are against minimum wage!!!
A Tax is a tax is a tax. pure semantics
Since when have we heard Republicans concerned with the middle class - in particular the fraction who are without health insurance. Now they want to wine about this group being "taxed!?!! Really? What about the much larger group of middle class that suffers to pay higher insurance rates each year because of those who use hospitals and don't pay their bill!?! Don't be fooled. This is TAX RELIEF for the vast majority of Americans.
It's funny that Republicans say this is a tax on the entire middle class when the penalty only effects those that don't buy insurance.
In fact, the only tax increase about this is on Americans who make more than $250,000 per year.
Don't believe me then go to factcheck.org or politifact.com.
Well geez Eric, if it's a penalty as you say.... it sounds like you are saying John Roberts f — cked up big time and the law is unconstitutional !
.
No one mentions the health care of about 15 million illegal immigrants that won't be paying the individual mandate. They can't be tracked down to make payments.
Who will pay for the illegals?
PLEASE don't let the Repubs create a health care plan for humans. In Dallas, last year, a man died in the waiting room of the hospital because they forgot him and it was so busy.
jw
"Who will pay for the illegals?"
Mostly the Republican Middle-Class. The same people who will be paying for the cost overruns of Obamacare. Since, as per the IRS, only 51% of eligible taxpayers actually pay federal income tax, they will be stuck with the bill that won't be covered by the additional debt to China. In addition to possibly destroying the Republican Party, Obama will be destroying the Middle-Class. It all fits in with the Socialist Plan.
so what
jw101 - illegal immigrants are not eligible for inclusion in this or any other federally back health care program. That discussion point is a straw man deliberately designed to stir emotions and not address the facts.
Two other illegal immigrant points:
With respect to "will they receive medical care", the answer is probably yes as ERs are not allowed to turn people away if they can't pay. They are getting this now, PPACA will not change that.
With respect to the saw that "illegals will bankrupt hospitals" that's just BS. The huge majority of people currently without health insurance or the ability to pay are working class poor.
I guess semantics are not Etch-A-Sketch's repertoire? Hypocrites!
San Tan
You wouldn't know what is socialist if it was in front of you. How is it socialist when laws is almost same as Romney Care? please explain
The ACA does not cover illegal immigrants. Read the law and learn a lot, quit drinking the Kool-Aid!
If it's a tax then I'm being taxed for not having any children or a house mortgage to write off at the end of the year. Since I'm not married, I'm not getting that deduction, so I'm being taxed for being single too. I don't own my own business yet and don't have any business related write-offs. Ooops, looks like I'm being taxed for not owning a business now according to Republicans...
Who care if its a tax or a penalty if you have insurance it will not affect you!
There are several taxes in Obamacare.... fro instance, any medical equipment you have to use will cost you more...
Actually, this "tax" will affect me. Seeing as though my insurance rates go up every year to pay for those who receive health care without paying their bill, I see this as a TAX RELIEF!
Really???? I DO CARE about being LIED to, maybe that's acceptable to you or just your way of life but not to me -- I pay taxes you idiot. What about 1/2 TRILLION dollars they are robbing from medicare?
Dotties girl, the money from medicare does not affect the benefit side, it will come from the provider side, and no one has lied about it, except the conservatives who told you it would affect your benefits. We all know that will be happening, so where is the lie?
Heartlight
That 500 Billion taken from the provider side has affected me big time. I have had to change Insurance companies twice in two years. And now I can't get Medicare Advantage any more. WHY do you ask? Because according to Humana and Freedom Blue the cost was to high for them to provide Medicare Advantage Insurances policies. So they quit offering them. Now I have to pay MORE for LESS benefit because of OBAMACARE.
Are you really that stupid people. If you have insurance through your employer how long do you think it will take them to decide it would be cheaper to pay the TAX (yes it is a TAX) than to provide you with insurance? Then it will affect you. If obama tells you one thing you better believe the opposite. Talk to your doctor about obamacare they don't like it. THINK ABOUT IT!!! If it is so great WHY is it that our elected people in Washington DC including obama are exempt from it they will keep the coverage they currently have. You people better wake up obama is nothing but a big ass LIAR!!!!! As for all you black people STOP voting color!!!! DO YOU SEE obama HANGING WITH BLACK PEOPLE......NO!!!! Rich or Poor. He don't care about you. That jackass is too busy hanging with RICH WHITE PEOPLE IN HOLLYWOOD!!!! A bunch of plastic fake people just like him. OHIO you have the power to get this liar out of office and send him to hollywood to be with his friends.
PAS Really ? Im not giving up my family insurance? Your the idiot! My Doctor loves Obamacare and the whole Office has signs up supporting Obamacare. Why dont you just sign up to the GOP plan!!
If people don't buy insurance and this tax or penalty gets tacked on to the tax bill. The interest and penalties from there on out will be enough to persuade the people to buy the insurance. 695$ can turn into thousands in very little time when dealing with the IRS. People will look at their tax bill and say if i had only bought insurance. When the IRS get their hooks into the middle class working person it very difficult to get out from under their thumb. I know from my own experience with them. once i got caught with them after paying for seven yrs i still owed them what i owed them at the beginning. That was after paying them almost 60,000$ on a 16000$ bill. After i got straight with them i told myself never again will i get into a mess like this.
Ted, that is just stupid. People that owe the tax will probably pay it if they have the means, so your argument of penalties and interest stacked on top of the "penalty" is not accurate.
You said it yourself, you got caught. Well my advice to you is don't break the law and you won't get caught.
Most people will experience the penalty as getting a smaller refund, not as tax they have to pay out of pocket. The additional penalties and interest only apply if someone does not have withholding or does not make estimated tax payments, and then fails to pay the tax due. And you are right, Ted, it is not a position anyone wants to be in.
Really Jay? It sounds like you with a lot more people think a refund is something the government is giving you. Well a refund is a return of YOUR OWN money that the government took and used for the whole year and they are returning your overpayment with no penalties or interest. What would happen if you didn't pay taxes this year? Do you suppose you could just pay the tax on your income next year? No way you would have late filing fees, penalties and interest all due--and on something that really isn't even constitutional. I always laugh when I hear most people, who don't understand that the government is borrowing your money all year long in the form of withholding and that the tax isn't really due until April 15 of the following year, say "Wow I am getting a big refund this year". If your employer held 1/2 of your paychecks back anticipating a bad year and then at the end of the year he gave them to you in a lump sum would you say you got a bonus?
If you obtain your health insurance indirectly - such as through an employer- any refunds paid out will not go to you. The employer will get the refund to help offset the 70-80% of the insurance cost he pays for you.
IRS can not do *squat* in collecting this "tax". They can not garnish wages, put you in jail or any pf the punitive measures they can employ now. They are currently prohibited. IRS is just a collection point.
You can refuse to pay - it can not even collect interest and/or penalty.
One wonders how many will "refuse" to pay and challenge IRS. IRS is really toothless in this regard
The penalty is small enough to be negligible and will just be deducted from your income taxes. You won't miss it.
The real issue is that this law does NOTHING to guarantee coverage. The coverage increase only comes when states broaden Medicaid eligibility- IF the state opts to join in. The 30+million newbies are only going to be tacked onto existing Medicaid rolls. Just expanding Medicaid is basically what's being tried here.
We didn't need a 2k+ page law to do that. Instead we got a new slew of regulations on healthcare provision that has virtually almost nothing to do with access or affordability.
For every goody, like mandated coverage for pre-existing coverage, there are literally hundreds of laws (regulations not even written yet) that dictate how much care you, when/if you should get and who should pay for it.
The vast majority of proponents of this law haven't read it nor researched what's in it besides pre-existing conditions and coverage for grownups under their mommy and daddy's insurance.
Other than those two pieces most people have no clue what this law entails.
Let the Obama spin machine (MSNBC) begin to do its job.
You think MSNBC can even begin to compare to the overt bias of FOX?? HAH!!
I agree, Fox is very biased and stretches the truth, but is that justification for MSNBC or the mainstream media? Two wrongs don't make a right.
The truth is that most members of the media lean to the liberal side (would be interesting to see some actual statistics on individual member of the media). But beyond that it is just good business for them to cater to their base.
No, MSNBC cannot compare to the bias of FOX - it's is MUCH MORE BLATANT! FoxNews has conservative-commentators at 5pm, 8pm (if you don't believe O'Riley is a libertarian), and at 9pm. At 10pm is Greta VanSusteren - she's a registered Democrat. At 6pm, they have a divided panel between conservative and liberal - may lean more conservative, though. Now, let's look at MSNBC - at 5pm, I believe it's Chris Matthews - no objectivity there. At 6pm, it's Sharpton - no further comments needed. At 7pm, it's a repeat of Chris Matthews; at 8pm it's the blow-hard Ed Schulz show (liberal); at 9pm Rachel Maddow (liberal), at 10pm Lawrence O'Donnell (liberal)...and out of all of these shows, only Matthews and Sharpton will even have debates, albeit, very limited, with conservatives. The others simply have more liberals on their shows as guests simply to reinforce their own opinions. At least O'Reilly and Hannity and the folks on "The Five" will have the debate with libs (Bob Beckel is permanent member of The Five). Schulz, Maddow, and O'Donnell won't engage in the debate! They just give their biased opinion....and their ratings SUCK - as do their opnions!!!!!
seems to be doing just fine.
The biggest difference in FOX News and mainstream media outlets is simply that the mainstream is NOT lock-step conservative. As a non-con myself I hold views some of which are liberal, some middle-of-the-road, and yes, a few conservative. It's not wishy-washy, indecisive, or apathetic, it's simply a moderate point of view that many independents share (we don't like to be lectured on what to believe - we can make up our own minds thank you which is why liberal talk shows often fail). Generally you can determine unbiased news sources that present opposing views and are readily willing to retract/apologize when they broadcast something in error, something FOX rarely does perhaps because they're wrong so often and it would take a 24 hour staff continiously preparing the retraction scripts. They are not journalists over at FOX because it's obvious they don't research multiple sources and points of view. Most of their on-air staff are just pretty media personalities and news readers.
The Obama Propaganda Machine (OPM) is a very efficient and invasive network of various self-serving anti-American groups far better trained and effective than the talking heads at Fox News or any Conservative group. They are backed by an army of mindless lower echelon traditional Democrats who don't even begin to realize that they are being used and betrayed to their own detriment.
At least the folks on FOX have people from both sides to debate the issues! Have you ever watched al sharpton's show all one sided they just sit around and drink the kool-aid and praise the liar n chief. sharpton can't even speak well. Very BORING!!! As the rating show.
I don't watch Fox News, but I did catch an Al Sharpton segment, probably on MSNBC. I can't see Fox News being that bad in terms of raw prejudice or quality of presentation. If Fox is as bad, I can understand the hate liberals have for Fox News. Jesse Jackson should give Al some tips before they get together again for the Zimmerman trial. Al is the exception to my comment about OPM.
Seriously? There have been many invites for Republicons to go onto all of the MSNBC shows, which you neglect to mention, or don't watch enough of it to comment correctly about.
Former, RNC chair Steele is on many of the shows. SE Cup is on The Cycle now. So you obviously are full of it.
Ratings have more weight for entertainment, as I do when I flip to FOX, for a good laugh. If I want the more of the truth I am on MSNBC.
Wow, OPM? Did you come up with that all by yourself? Self-serving anti-Americans groups being used and betrayed? HMMM...I gotta tell you the facts are really not on your side, bubba.
See, there isn't propaganda when it comes to killing OBL, or saving the auto industry which BTW Etch-A-Sketch wanted to take credit for, the ACA modeled by Etch and called a tax now, but not when he had installed it for Massachusetts' residents, and the self-deportation proclamation for immigrants.
Where is the propaganda? You people fail! Big-time fail!
bahrrt
Is that a Marxist or a community organizer uniform? The facts are certainly on my side, bubba. I'm still waiting for your "facts". No one can match the Obama Propaganda Machine. The OBM is totally invasive throughout the media (including MSNBC).
I pay over $9100/yr out of pocket for my health insurance; what effect will having to pay a tax of $695 do?
In other words, if I'm in excellent health and feel that I don't need health insurance, and make enough money that someone else decides I can afford those premiums for something I don't want, I can get a free ride for about 6%?
Not much of a deterrent there, O...
I haven't paid a lot of attention to this before, but maybe it really IS time to repeal the 16th Amendment and apportion the cost of the Federal government to the States, based on population again. Certainly state income taxes would go up some, and you'd see the Federal government shrink back to its originally intended purpose and size, with a corresponding shrinkage of the metropolitan DC population, as bureaucrats and lobbyists would flee the city in droves.
And then, with Federal responsibility back to Constitutionally-authorized issues, Congress wold have time to do the things it's really supposed to do - like pass a budget and impeach miscreants.
So what if you had an MI, or stroked, or a serious MVA? You think, as many do, that you will always be in "excellent" health.
It's people like you that call for measures like this.
Oh, good luck repealing the 16th, at the same time, we should repeal the 2nd. Maybe it would save tens of thousands of lives by doing so.
I can't believe i am finally seeing this argument being made after all this time. The mandate is way to weak. The first year it is $95! Who in the owrld is going to go out and buy insurance who doesn't have it already instead of pay that? Only the very sick because they cannot be denied. Insurance costs will skyrocket. I do support the mandate to penalize the freeloaders but this small a penalty will do nothing to stop it.
It's the result of being forced to compromise with zealots and right-wing radicals.
Would you consider those who are unemployed and actively looking for work to be "freeloaders"? How exactly do they get health insurance? I don't think I've ever seen anyone explain this.
I am pretty sure that the Constitution (and the Supreme Court) would not allow some unbiased panel (even if you could find one) to decide which unemployed, sick, or poor people are truly deserving of federal aid and assistance (either temporarily or permanently) and which are not. If this godly panel had been empowered to review our many welfare programs, social security disability, unemployment, and many more; there would be far fewer on these welfare rolls. If we were honest with ourselves, we would admit that we've known able-bodied people on welfare, those quite able to work who are on disability, co-workers who got themselves fired to get unemployment and a vacation from work, those that are here illegally and live off our hospitals and schools, and those that misuse and don't need food stamps. I wish we could kick these low-lifes and undesirables out of these programs (as well as Obamacare) and out of the country - but we will not be allowed to do so. ( And not only because the Democrats need their votes for achieving their agenda.) We need to help the deserving unemployed, sick, and poor Americans. How do we do that without further enabling the "trash" and ruining our economy?
ONE more time people you need to be big time pissed about this crap!!!! We are a free people losing our freedom more and more everyday!!!! I don't like the government telling me what to buy or what not to buy. What are you going to do when all you gun control nut cases are told you have to buy a 9MM hand gun for personal protection? Of course if obama wins again that won't happen because he will be trying to take your guns rights. Another assault on the constitution. This guy should be FIRED for not up holding the constitution which he swore to do. LIAR n Chief!!!
OMG you are soooo oppressed by the Fed. *eyeroll*
You are one of the outspoken, misguided, youngbloods that think you are on a short leash. You have no idea what it is to be really oppressed by someone, or something.
What freedoms are you referring to that you are losing? Nobody has ever advocated getting a gun for protection (which really isn't for protection anyway, ask Zimmerman), and he never said that he would repeal the 2nd amendment.
So, WTF, are you talking about?
The thing about you cons is that you are so full of misguided, and misplaced anger, and fear that drive you that you can not be sensible about the real issues that face us all. Common sense things. The ACA is common sense and what is amazing about it is it is a Republicon idea. Now it is taboo to you.
You wanna be pissed be pissed at yourselves.
Since a large percentage of hospital care is not reimbursed and yet the hospitals stay open, the costs are borne by other paying patients. Medicare, Medicaid, insurance, and private pay patients all eat that cost. The law will just get some of those freeloaders to pony up. Those who can't afford get help and it will be those "who don't need insurance", (like my grandaughter will a $84k unpaid accident bill), who will have to put a little in the mix.
I tend to agree, Miki. I just cannot seem to see what the heck the repub's are crying about....except that they're against Obama. Repub's generally don't want free-loaders; they hate social programs and don't want to pay for someone else's misfortune. So this bill mandates in one way or another, that everyone pays. It doesn't affect those of us who have insurance. Well, theoretically our costs might go down because most of the previously un-insured are now paying into the system.
Anyway, I'm trying to understand why repub's who don't want to pay for others....are AGAINST the AHA, requiring people currently uninsured, to pay their portion. And the only reason I've come up with so far, is that dems are for it....therefore repub's must be against it.
I agree. Even Romney said this was a penalty to prevent people from "freeriding" on the rest of us. Most of this law was copied from the 1993 law the republicans created to oppose the healthcare programs Hilary came up with. Back then they called it individual responsibility. Now they call it the end of our way of life. Why the switch? Couldn't be Mitch's statement that the #1 priority is to make O a one term president could it? They wouldn't throw the country in front of a bus for politics, would they?
brundo: ever been to the emergency room? Try it sometime, look around you, "freeriders" are there, but notice most of them d
don't speak english!!!!! Been there!
Best way to eliminate waiting time in an ER in California is to go dressed up as a Border Patrol agent.
It irritates me when (and it should not surprise me) when the republican spin machine shouted to the hills that this will be and I quote "The biggest tax increase in the history of the US" this will generate over $500 billion in un-needed tax revenue.
Krestov....I assume you are still irritated by the Democrats as Obamacare is the biggest tax increase on the middle class. You did notice that only Democrats voted for Obamacare and they completely own this tax increase? I thought so...
Facts are wasted on the ignorant! Reagan and Bush I made larger Tax increases... And those were not "voulontary"
Buy insuranse or pay for your lazy self. Isn't "self reliance" a Republican idea?
Any law, no matter how well intentioned, that takes a shotgun approach (hoping some of the pellets hit the target) to solving a problem is seriously flawed. A health care fix with a 2700 page bill should never have been attempted. There should have been single bills, understandable by lay people, to fix the problems within the health care sector.
For example - 1 bill for pre-existing conditions, 1 bill for allowing children to stay on their parents insurance until 26, 1 bill for coverage caps, etc. Any other way is doomed to controversy, hearsay, and misunderstanding.
Wonderful idea, Bill, but that just is not possible in the Congress. The reps do NOT vote primarily b/c a bill is good for We the People: they vote based upon what the lobbyists of their supporters tell them is in THEIR best interest. Therefore, lots of horse trading goes on and the bigger the mix, the more opportunity to satisfy members in return for their vote. Had we done this right, it would have been a short bill: Medicare from time of birth. Then reforms such that the federal govt MUST negotiate prices with BigPharm, that a data base of standards of care MUST be developed, that thereafter, if the health care provider followed the new standards of care and the outcome was bad, NO MALPRACTICE suit would stand. But this will not happen b/c the health care INDUSTRY will not even accept this Act which provided them 20 to 40 million new policyholders. Said industry burns b/t 20 and 35% of all "health care dollars" in admin and advertising. Those who think the fed govt is inept should ask about the very low cost of administering social security.
T.H, I agree with you on the lobbying, what I posted is a simplified view. For real change to occur, "We the People" must be engaged. Our elected representatives, be they local, state, or federal, must learn that there are consequences for their actions. "We the People" must engage our representatives and let them know we will not stand for shotgun approach incomprehensible legislation.
TH, you are hilarious. You state the Republicans do not vote for we the people, implying the Democrats do? The problem is too big of a federal government. Say what you want about the Tea Party, but the entire premise is to get the Federal Government back to the original intent. The genie is out of the bottle and some of us see the writing on the wall with all the "giveaways". For me, I'm voting smaller government ticket all the way. Mark Warner and Jim Webb are both Democrats and are fiscally conservative, so they got my vote. This year, we have the choice between George Allen and Tim Kaine. Similar to Romney and Obama. In both cases, the Republican candidate has a history of spending money, but a lot less than the Democrat candidate. I care about my kids future. She already owes $50,000 due to excessive spending, primarily due to DEMOCRAT congress' (and the last couple years have been Democrat "budgets" because they keep tacking onto the last approved budget some 1200 days ago).
It stinks, but there is no doubt Romney is the lesser of two evils when it comes to my kid's future. With Obama and the Dems getting 4 more years, she'll end up owing more to foreign countries and the US Treasury then to the bank and her Dad for student loans. If the Republicans get in charge, hopefully, she'll just end up owing a little less than what she does in student loans. Not great, but better than the alternative....
Medicare for all and to "Hell" with the Republicans:
Obama/Biden in Nov.-"Vote":
But Obama cut $500 billion from Medicare ! How are you going to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the dollar$ that far ???
I'm voting for exactly "nobody"
Not much of a tax! No penalty for not paying it, no interest accrues, no garnished wages or criminal recourse.
Not much of a penalty! All of the above plus one doesn't have to pay it off before being eligible to buy a health insurance policy with all the benefits the rest of us will have been paying for years.
In short, this bunch of freeloaders gets treated pretty favorably. Perhaps it's time to quit worrying about them and to get this thing up and running in the best way possible for the rest of us.
Im confussed about who we are calling freeloaders. The freeloaders would be the ones not working but able to work and getting food stamps welfare and free health insurance paid for by the taxpayer (the working person who pays income taxes). A person who is working 40 hours a week but not buying health insurance is a long way from being a freeloader. They are still paying income taxes which means they are helping pay for the uninsured.
Krestov- Great post, it irritates me also, that the rethuglicans lie so easily, the biggest tax increase, my butt!
Please tell me which of the following Dumbocrat statements is true, and which is a lie...
See, the problem is that Obama has said all three. In fact, AS he was telling the American people that it wasn't a tax, he was instructing the government's attorneys to argue that it was a tax and that being a tax gave them the authority to do it.
So, REGARDLESS of which is true, Obama DIRECTLY lied to the American people. Of course, that isn't the only thing he lied about... just the one that belongs in this thread.
All I know is that I am sick and tired of paying for all the freeloaders and that includes free health care. My neighbor who is the administrator at a local hospital told me that they provide in excess of 250K some times a lot more free care per day 365 days a year. HE also told me that my wife's surgery and ICU bill of over 300K would have been half of that if all were insured.
Ed we taxpayers are always going to have to cover the freeloaders. They dont work but get food stamps welfare and free health care. Nothing we can do about it and Obama will make sure they get more and more free entitlements.
Interesting point about the penalty/tax being too low. Writer says this will require increases in the penalty/tax or jeopardize private health insurance. For all you Obama haters, no matter how much you dislike him, he is still the smartest guy in whatever room he is in. The penalty/tax is too low for a reason and that is to get us to where we need to be sooner than later. That is single payer. The private health insurance market is broken and can not be fixed. Kicking it to the curb as soon as possible will be a Godsend for this country financially.
odumbo is the smartest guy in the room..
of idiots..
hey, i have private health insurance and recently had surgery costing 60k.
my cost? zero! My doctor told me that that surgery now costs 100k and will be twice that
in 2014 and i would have to wait months to get the operation, putting my survival in jeopardy!
The government cannot even run the post office or medicare or social security, so who would
ever think that they can run a monstrosity like obamacare. On the path that we are going now
in 4 years this country will be broke and China will be the superpower.
It is time for a leadership change!
I call BS on the "costs" of your surgery. Your doctor has NO f'ing clue what the hospitals charges will be in 2014 for that surgery. He has no clue what it costs now. Doctors dont know the costs because its not part of thier decision making process. They don't need that knowledge and they don't care to know it either.
And if there is a delay in scheduling your procedure that's on the doctor for not scheduling it sooner. that's the only reason for it to take "months" to get.
Go back to faux news where your BS is welcome.
well nuthead..
i trust my doctor more that the idiots that are going to run obamacare
What is single payer? I hope its not government run health care that would be an even bigger disater. Everybody knows the govenment cant pour piss out of a boot.
Greatbspretender, the idiots "running" "obamacare" are the insurance companies.
Stop lying and spreading your BS . you wouldn't know a fact if it smack you upside the head in the ER.
A simple search of "odumbo" reveals that one of our posters has several usernames... I wonder if he is paid for each name and post?
It was a fact it has always been a tax and the Supreme Court just vereified it. Fact ...everyone pays an additional 1% medicare tax for funding ACA. Fact medical equipment will have a 2.5% tax assesed to companies. That of course will be passed along to the end result ....consumer. Fact the maximum allowable health savings deduction will now be 2500. Again will raise your tax liability. I have read where Obama disagrees with the law now as it stands because of the word tax. I find that Obama is just like a child and pouts, sulks and broods when it isn't his way or is it more like a dictator. Nope one in the same.
Any government run bureaucratic program is doomed for failure
The whole ACA should be repealed and redone by non-partisanship committees
to support state sponsored programs.
Less baggage and easier to control.
In addition to rising medical costs and insurance costs, there are now new taxes which I don't need.
Romney for President!
State run programs have "less baggage and easier to control"??? I assume that your first sentence referred to the federal government when you said "Any government run bureaucratic program is doomed for failure" since you think state government is not bureaucratic. Clearly, you never worked in your state government and are unfamiliar with how the insurance industry obtains whatever they want.
Show me 3 members of Congress that can form a bi-partisan committee....it's just not possible.
"A Few Billion - quite small" ????? By what standard??? Have you people (those quoted) lost their mind??
Time is nothing more than an Obamapologetic machine. They cannot print anything about Romney without a slam or slur (for example, see the headline on Romney's trip to Israel by Mark Halperin ) And they CERTAINLY cannot bring themselves to critically assess anything Obama does or says. After all, if Obama says it, it must be true and in our best interests -- regardless the facts! We the people -- what do we know???
Bottom line - 30,000,000 people are going to get a free ride on the backs of the 53% who actually have to pay income tax. It is just another massive welfare program.
Aren't they riding on us now, by getting health care at NO cost?
I'm confused by your terminology of freeloaders. How do you classify the millions of people who are unemployed through no fault of their own and cannot secure a new job despite their best efforts...are you calling them "freeloaders"? Please explain how in God's name these people are supposed to get health insurance for themselves and their families? Please show me anywhere in the ACA that addresses this.
ken berry: They'll still be getting a free ride because you will be paying for their insurance, what's the difference?
Actually, there is a huge difference in costs to the folks that actually pay insurance premiums. While it's true, the cost for emergency room visits are passed on to us, according to doctors I know, there biggest cost and pain in the tail are medicare and medicaid patients who come to the Doctor's office for EVERYTHING because there is no consequence. They have insurance and don't pay anything, the tax payer does. At least when folks don't have insurance, they limit their visits to primarily true emergencies.
So, ultimately, this will cost the average insurance rate payer, who chooses the responsible avenue, to pay their "fair share" of insurance, to get hit even harder. Just like those that didn't overextend on a mortgage, will get penalized for being the responsible ones in this economy and bail out everyone else.
I'm not missing any key points here. I was lied to from the start, straight and simple. Obama said it wasn't a tax from the beginning, and now he's admiting it's a tax. It was all lies from the start. Do you really expect me to believe anything else to do with this? There's an old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Since it was a lie from the start, it needs to go away. If you can't be honest, then you have a problem. I will NOT support lies from anybody in governmet (guess I'm not supporting the government anymore).
Jr said the 'Fool me once..' saying the best! Gawd, I miss that loser! lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ux3DKxxFoM
disatisfied, by your standards, all politicians lie. That would include Obama and Romney and Bush and Clinton and all the rest. Politicians don't think of it as lying, though, they are just talking points. If you were fooled by Obama saying it's not a tax, you must have been really fooled when GW Bush said he had proof that Iraq had WMD. Obama's bit of foolery will cost $4 billion. Bushs cost $2 Trillion, and didn't improve anyone's health care.
President Obama and his DEM Congressional leadership will go down in the history books as not being heralded as champions for Healthcare reform, but overzealous and voter base loyal politicians who failed to listen to the voices of an ENTIRE nation.
When have you seen a politican listen to the voters in this country,, Maybe back in the 20th century or eariler,they were all cr--ks but they listened to the poeple!!!!
this country needs to go to the single payer system as many other civilized countries have - that would apply to the multi billionaire to the guy living under the bridge - it has been proven that it works and is a huge benefit to the country using it - the opponents say the treatments are rationed - read real studies on the actual practice and in many cases, our country comes out behind - hospitals, doctors and staff would become government employees like the VA system that are treating our soldiers right now - the wouldnt have to pay a huge portion of their salary for medical malpractice insurance which drives up their costs so they could worry about their patients rather than their paycheck while their take home pay would be the same - the countries that have this system, when rated against the US, come out way ahead when health of the people is counted - yes, your taxes will be higher but your health costs would nil and you would more than likely go to the doctor than putting it off till you were really sick
GWMO,
Yeah, sure it works. If you don't mind dying before you get in to see the specialist, which sometimes takes 6 months. Single pay would be a disaster, run by a government that spends money faster than they can take it in. If you had family or friends, in the UK, or Canada, that have had major illnesses in the last few years, you wouldn't be making the above comments. NOBAMA care should be ash canned and this President should be focusing all of his time creating jobs, for the out of work families that are getting sick of his bullshi!.
If UK or Canada's single payer system spent the same per capita that we spend, everyone in the country would have the equivalent of a 'Cadillac' plan with instant access. the difference is not due to the system, but the money.
This whole news is just wanting to get obabma more votes....Too bad we don't have any one person worth voting for.. in November.. I think a woman president might straighten out the country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just a thought now that Obama care has hit the mainstream, you need to
check the taxes the democrats created. One thing for certain,
be ready to pay and pay. They need the tax dollars. How many of us can afford this?
While the individual mandate tax gets most of the attention, the
ObamaCare law actually contains 20 new or higher taxes on the American
people. These taxes are gradually phased in over the years 2010 (with
its 10 percent “tanning tax”) to 2018 (when the tax on comprehensive
health insurance plans kicks in.)
Six months from now, in January 2013, five major ObamaCare taxes will
come into force:
1. The ObamaCare Medical Device Manufacturing Tax
This 2.3 percent tax on medical device makers will raise the price of
(for example) every pacemaker, prosthetic limb, stent, and operating
table. Can you remind us, Mr. President, how taxing medical devices will
reduce the cost of health care? The tax is particularly destructive
because it is levied on gross sales and even targets companies who
haven’t turned a profit yet.
These are often small, scrappy companies with less than 20 employees who
pioneer the next generation of life-prolonging devices. In addition to
raising the cost of health care, this $20 billion tax over the next ten
years will not help the country’s jobs outlook, as the industry employs
nearly 400,000 Americans. Several companies have already responded to
the looming tax by cutting research and development budgets and laying
off workers.
2. The ObamaCare High Medical Bills Tax
This onerous tax provision will hit Americans facing the highest
out-of-pocket medical bills. Currently, Americans are allowed to deduct
medical expenses on their 1040 form to the extent the costs exceed 7.5
percent of one’s adjusted gross income.
The new ObamaCare provision will raise that threshold to 10 percent,
subjecting patients to a higher tax bill. This tax will hit
pre-retirement seniors the hardest. Over the next ten years, affected
Americans will pony up a minimum total of $15 billion in taxes thanks to
this provision.
3. The ObamaCare Flexible Spending Account Cap
The 24 million Americans who have Flexible Spending Accounts will face
new federally imposed $2,500 annual cap. These pre-tax accounts, which
currently have no federal limit, are used to purchase everything from
contact lenses to children’s braces. With the cost of braces being as
high as $7,200, this tax provision will play an unwelcome role in
everyday kitchen-table health care decisions.
The cap will also affect families with special-needs children, whose
tuition can be covered using FSA funds. Special-needs tuition can cost
up to $14,000 per child per year. This cruel tax provision will limit
the options available to such families, all so that the federal
government can squeeze an additional $13 billion out of taxpayer pockets
over the next ten years.
The targeting of FSAs by President Obama and congressional Democrats is
no accident. The progressive left has never been fond of the
consumer-driven accounts, which serve as a small roadblock in their
long-term drive for a one-size-fits-all government health care bureaucracy.
For further proof, note the ObamaCare “medicine cabinet tax” which since
2011 has barred the 13.5 million Americans with Health Savings Accounts
from purchasing over-the-counter medicines with pre-tax funds.
4. The ObamaCare Surtax on Investment Income
Under current law, the capital gains tax rate for all Americans rises
from 15 to 20 percent in 2013, while the top dividend rate rises from 15
to 39.6 percent. The new ObamaCare surtax takes the top capital gains
rate to 23.8 percent and top dividend rate to 43.4 percent. The tax will
take a minimum of $123 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten
years.
And, last but not least...
5. The ObamaCare Medicare Payroll Tax increase
This tax soaks employers to the tune of $86 billion over the next ten years.
As you can understand, there is a reason why the authors of ObamaCare
wrote the law in such a way that the most brutal tax increases take
effect conveniently after the 2012 election. It’s the same reason
President Obama, congressional Democrats, and the mainstream media
conveniently neglect to mention these taxes and prefer that you simply
“move on” after the Supreme Court ruling.
There are MORE TAXES, these just deal with the ObamaCARE medical issue.
Did I mention the 3.68% sales tax on home sales? It starts Jan. 1, 2013
Since NY already does this, it will be in addition to the NY State tax.
Everyone loves a democrat.....
You have spelled out a great deal about taxes, but forgot to mention the tax cuts for the middle class instituted by Obama. You also forgot to mention the continued tax cuts for the "job creators" who have not created jobs in over a decade. You also forgot about the 19 tax cuts for small businesses done by this administration. You have no concrete information, just more talking points for the GOP who care nothing for ALL AMERICANS!! You also obviously feel that if you cannot afford any insurance, so be it. You get to die! Look at today's jobs report. The majority of the jobs were added in the area of health care. With this affordable care act, doctors can be more proactive in the health of people before it reaches a catastrophic level. There will be a sharing of a person's health record which also goes a long way in preventing unnecessary tests.
I wish you really knew as much as you think you know!!
Unfortunately no matter who is in control this is an issue that neither side has a clue as how to truly fix. Our government is so screwed up they couldn't run a whorehouse and turn a profit even if the girls just worked for the fun of it!!
Don't give Obama any ideas ! Hell, he would have the government "subsidizing" the poor so they would get their "fair share".
I guess he could have his buddy, Barney Frank, run it by hand!
CT, at least President Obama has come up with a plan, which has already begun to improve health care in this country. The other side has offered NOTHING!!!
if you have to pay over $500/month premium for insurance, then you would likely to choose not to buy insurance at all. for healthy people not paying insurance, your chance of saving money is zero, because with the tax plus your medical bills (if any from any direct pay clinic), you'd be paying more and have no escape under Obamacare.
right, that's what this Obamacare tax does to some people who cannot afford high cost insurance. cry if you'd like but you have to pay a tax to IRS!
Obamacare is not a solution to this country's healthcare problem, but an additional problem for many people, and it doesn't control medical cost at all beside taxing you for nothing.
Even if your reading ability is low, Cellisis, try reading the main aspects of the Health Care Law. It is so clear that you truly don't understand it and that is understandable. It is complicated; please trust me, you are the very type of person it will help. Have someone explain it to you, not one of the idiots who doesn't understand the benefits that will help you.
Velma,
It is you who doesn't understand. The subsidy is in the form of a tax credit. So those people who cannot afford to buy insurance, have to buy insurance at full price, then wait over a year to get the tax credit. Just exactly how does that help?