Bait And Switch on Obamacare

[old navy]

Bullshit. They're not stealing from seniors. The people who can pay...the higher tax brackets...will pay for this. As they should.

But don't let something crazy like reality sink into your head.

I think it's funny that so many threads on this topic keep popping up as conservative brains are imploding about it. Can't say it's not constitutional, can ya

Oh and by the way...yer boy Romney can't really debate this issue with Obama...unless he wants to be called a hypocrite.



Want the video to prove the quote isn't taken out of context?? Sure. Here ya go.
Romney: "It's not a tax hike. It is a fee, an assessment." - YouTube

Fun times.

Quick question from your post... why should the 'higher tax bracket' pay for it?

It is easy to decide what to do with other people's money.

 

[old navy]

Obama is a man of low character. His presidency has been an embarrassment.

 

[Too Tall]

Bullshit. They're not stealing from seniors. The people who can pay...the higher tax brackets...will pay for this. As they should.

But don't let something crazy like reality sink into your head.

I think it's funny that so many threads on this topic keep popping up as conservative brains are imploding about it. Can't say it's not constitutional, can ya

Oh and by the way...yer boy Romney can't really debate this issue with Obama...unless he wants to be called a hypocrite.

Want the video to prove the quote isn't taken out of context?? Sure. Here ya go.
Romney: "It's not a tax hike. It is a fee, an assessment." - YouTube

Fun times.

Romney can always say he EVOLVED. It worked for the liar in chief when he came out for same sex marriage.

 

[Lovebears65]

Slush Fund Sleight-of-Hand: ObamaCare

Almost everyone with a brain knew right from the beginning that you cannot add 30 million people to the rolls without it costing a huge amount of money. Approximately 20 million of those won't be able to pay so the TAXPAER will pick up the bill. Every time you buy an over the counter medication you are paying a TAX on the bill. There are 21 other tax hikes embedded within this bill. And their other source of revenue is the 500 Billion dollars they are going to steal from the people who need the most care. The seniors.

I am a senior. Obamacare cost me about 20 bucks a month increase on my medical advantage plan. That is the money that was "taken" from social security.

Insurance companies offering "medical advantage" plans receive a payment of "x" dollars per month for each person enrolled. The last time I checked this was about $800. For this payment the company becomes totally responsible for the the benefits spelled out in the policy and I am effectively divorced from medicare.

Had I chosen to stay strictly on medicare there would have been no cost to me. There is no reduction in services to those on medicare just a reduction in payment to senior medical advantage plans.

My medical advantage insurance company is making a fortune in profits to the point where the state is getting pissed and it appears there will be no increase in premiums for a while. I can afford it and I presently have the best medical coverage of my life.

Anything that was "taken" WAS NOT taken from medicare. It takes a second to shout out the buzzwords and minutes to explain the real situation. Those doing the shouting are either ignorant or liars. There are no other choices.

The $20? I give it gladly. Call it a tax call it a fee, call it a premium. Call it anything you want. You seem to have no trouble doing that. The mechanics remain the same.

Oh yeah just to keep things factual. My medical advantage premium is $139 per month. Medicare takes out about $150 per month. Medicare gives the insurance company about $800 per month. That's the way it works. I pay $300. Medicare p ays about $800. The insurance company gets a total of about $1300 per month. You may not like it. Maybe with reason. That is no reason to be ignorant or to lie about it.

 

[francoHFW]

The Ryan Plan also takes 500 billion from Medicare Plus, so so does Romney. More Pubcrappe...Romneycare works great and ACA is better. Change the channel.

 

[Too Tall]

Bullshit. They're not stealing from seniors. The people who can pay...the higher tax brackets...will pay for this. As they should.

Follow the syllogism:

Taxes are an unavoidable pain of citizenship
The pain should be felt as close to equally by all citizens
Pain level is relative to income/net worth
Therefore, those with a higher income/net worth should pay more so that they share in the pain equally

.
They already do:

Top earners are the target for new tax increases, but the federal income tax system is already highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes in 2009 though they earned 43 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 2 percent of income taxes but earned 13 percent of total income. About half of tax filers paid no federal income tax at all.

Now, the obvious follow to this is, but what about those who don't pay any taxes...they're not sharing in the pain equally! First, poverty is its own pain. As a double aside, I concede there are people who choose poverty, but their number is miniscule.

About half of tax filers paid no federal income tax at all. That is not a miniscule number Mr centrist. Is it your contention that HALF or all tax filers are living in poverty?

Second, assuming that you've cut government first and cut it healthily, still have a budget deficit, and want to balance the budget, the money has to come from somewhere. Does it make sense to take a disproportionate amount of resources from the part of the system that needs it most? Yes, I said need. But I also said system. The parts are grouped and interdependent. Sorry, that's how nations work. This is one of the things that I think many people forget is that by raising the level of the lowest, you're diminishing the negative effects they have on the rest of the system. (YOU'RE HELPING YOURSELF BY HELPING OTHERS!) Self-interest, who'da thunk it. Take Henry Ford. He raised workers' salaries to $5 a day so that supply would never outpace demand. They had the money to buy the cars he wanted to sell!

Try abolishing half of the ridiculous rules and regulations that have been imposed by the current administration and are strangling job creators.

Third, as they rise up, they will indeed share in the pain. The goal has to be that we get people off assistance faster, meet their needs faster, and that they become productive themselves. Teach a man to fish...you get the point. You can dispute that public assistance ever helps. We can trade links until both of us are blue in the face. Jesus said, "The poor you will always have with you." Which means the problem will never be fully fixed from a discrete #'s point of view. What we CAN do, however, is create a process where the poor work hard, get a bit of help, and become self-sufficient.

What process do you suggest?

If you're shaking your head at this point and thinking, "People never get off the dole"...why are we keeping companies on welfare then? Look at these welfare queens.

Honeywell Profits: $4.9 billion; Taxes: -$34 million
Fed Ex Profits: $3 billion; Taxes: -$23 million
Wells Fargo Profits: $49.37 billion; Taxes: -$681 million
Boeing Profits: $9.7 billion; Taxes: -$178 million
Verizon Profits: $32.5 billion;Taxes: -$951 million
Dupont Profits: $2.1 billion; Taxes -$72 million
American Electric Power Profits: $5.89 billion; Taxes -$545 million
General Electric Profits: $7.7 billion; Taxes: -$4.7 billion

I suggest that the tax code needs some fixing.

Getting back to healthcare, the money's got to come from somewhere besides just cutting. Obama attempted to negotiate a $3 in cuts to $1 in revenue deal but was shot down. That seems pretty fair to me. Cutting alone would be great if we were in an ideal world where legislators, both Dem and Repub, didn't protect their own programs and states. Or the country's needs weren't growing. So....we compromise.

Oh no you don't try and pull that trick again. The $1 dollar in revenue takes effect immediately and the $3 in cuts NEVER happens. Republicans do learn from history.

Look, the American capitalist system is a great one. Arguably the best in the world. But it's a system of laws that enforce competitive fairness, trade balance, and lots of other benefits that without them...successful people couldn't be successful. The moral is, you didn't become successful by yourself. I don't care who you are. You need the American system of laws and commerce. And for that, you support the system

.
And.................

Please don't bring up the "if we confiscated all the wealth" argument, because it doesn't fly. The point is not a one-time garnishment... that of course wouldn't fix our problems. It's about getting cash flow in order so that revenues exceed spending. And if we stay on top of getting more spending cuts each year...instead of pro-forma budget increases...the amount of those revenues could go down

.
Confiscating all the wealth is too absurd to argue. Only liberals suggest silly things like that. We need an economic policy that encourages growth, while cutting the growth of government and the absurd trillion + dollar deficits year on year. Electing Senators that would obey the law and pass a budget would be a damned good start.

Also, don't try to go down the "But you're taking away people's incentives to succeed." Really?? You think that because your taxes go up suddenly The Donald won't want to be the richest bloke on the planet? Would 99% of the planet ever think they have TOO MUCH money? People will always want to be successful.

Whatever!

Will this send more businesses off-shore? Sure. Some other country is always going to have lower taxes, lower average wage figures, and less restrictive employment laws. We will pay for our high standard of living and our employee/consumer protections until the world reaches some semblance of economic parity (NO! That's not a call for one world government and total economic equality). It's just reality.

Sorry for the long post. I just took an Adderall as prescribed and it kicked in.

No apology necessary.

 

[bobcollum]

How can it be a bait and switch?

The people that liked it in the beginning for the most part still like it, and the same goes for the ones that didn't like it, they still don't.

It hasn't really changed, and it certainly didn't seem like any Conservatives were "baited" by it at any point...since that would require at least a modicum of support for it after the initial pitch.

Y'all get that?

 

[Amelia]

How can it be a bait and switch?

The people that liked it in the beginning for the most part still like it, and the same goes for the ones that didn't like it, they still don't.

It hasn't really changed, and it certainly didn't seem like any Conservatives were "baited" by it at any point...since that would require at least a modicum of support for it after the initial pitch.

Y'all get that?

Interesting point. Almost compelling. Not quite though.

The bait and switch happened. It was necessary in order to get vulnerable Democrats to sign on. Democrats who couldn't have risked considering it if packaged as a tax. Democrats who wouldn't have risked considering it if they hadn't been able to say, "no, no, nothing like Obama pulled with the contraceptives and the Catholic institutions will ever happen - we have Obama's word on that". Just for two bits of bait off the top of my head.

 

[WillowTree]

Well said onecut.

Furthermore, the bill doesn't take money out of the current Medicare budget but, rather, it attempts to slow the program's future growth, curtailing just over $500 billion in anticipated spending increases over the next 10 years. Medicare spending will still increase, however.

where does the $500 billion in future savings come from?

$220 billion = reducing annual increases in payments that health care providers would otherwise receive from Medicare.

$36 billion = increases in premiums for higher-income beneficiaries

$12 billion = administrative changes

$136 billion = projected savings from changes to Medicare Advantage

SAVINGS from Medicare help pay for other parts of the health care law so that the deficit doesn't go up. See how that works? Not stolen.

bullshit

 

[Vanquish]

No apology necessary.

#1 They don't share the pain equally. The current tax system is progressive, but it's not even close to what has been sustained historically, especially in light of the periods when taxes were highest being some of the best for growth ever.

#2 But income tax isnt the only tax. Those who might be exempt from income tax still pay payroll taxes. The truly non-payers are much smaller. Besides, the growth of the non-income-taxpaying population is largely a result of Republican tax policies. The earned-income tax credit is the main reason those with low incomes are largely exempted from federal income taxes. Sure it started with that guy who tripped a lot (Ford), but it was expanded by both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush to help the working poor so they didn't have to pay the minimum wage. (To be fair they said they were keeping minimum wage down to lower unemployment.)

#3 T

ry abolishing half of the ridiculous rules and regulations that have been imposed by the current administration and are strangling job creators.

Care to name a few? I'll give you an example of Obama ADDING a regulation and HELPING the common man: Obama stifled speculation which caused oil prices to go DOWN. Thanks regulation!!

Since April President Obama Cut Oil Prices 21%, Boosted GDP $78.4 Billion - Forbes
(That's the leftist mag...maybe you've heard of it Forbes? Ohhh right. That's not leftist.)

#4

What process do you suggest?

I think we need to lower the max time on welfare. I think that we need to find alternatives to government delivery of welfare towards services that tap into the energy and benevolence of the American people. That's a place where regulations can be cut for sure. But it can't JUST be charity. That would send the country into a tailspin. Organizations that receive welfare funds should have to disclose certain financial records for public knowledge for accountability. And individuals who receive funds should attend regular peer-group meetings that reinforce their financial obligations. This has been shown to reinforce the psychological aspect of wanting to get off the program. Think of it like AA for the poor.

Also permit taxpayers to deduct charitable giving whether or not they itemize their deductions.

#5

I suggest that the tax code needs some fixing.

Buddy you ain't kiddin'. But conservative rail that this is spanking the job creators. Bullshit on top of bullshit. Corporate welfare has to stop.

#6

Confiscating all the wealth is too absurd to argue. Only liberals suggest silly things like that.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA!! WRONG!

(sorry that's not really at you, but with the phenomenon you're about to read)

Dude. You're wrong. And it's ironic that CaliGirl got this ball rolling because she's one of the main ones I heard say it. I have heard this TIRED argument from conservative after conservative as a defense that no amount of money would be enough. You couldnt even take all the wealth from the richest people and fix the problem is what they say. It's NOT a liberal notion...it's a really stupid conservative defense/ attack on liberals.

And you're right!! It makes no sense because a one-time garnishment isn't what is needed. It's a way of getting the books balanced with enough yearly revenue.

Still need more proof?? Ok. I googled the phrase "Even if you confiscated all the wealth" and here's what came up:

Sorry, but that's a conservative statement.

#7

Whatever!

That's not a real response. People will never want to stop making money if they can. They will never be taxed out of wanting to be rich. You certainly wont tax ME out of it

I could add some personal anecdotes about my family's personal wealth making all of this against my own interests...but I don't feel like going into a whole defense of claims I make about personal wealth

 

[Dot Com]

Well said onecut.

Furthermore, the bill doesn't take money out of the current Medicare budget but, rather, it attempts to slow the program's future growth, curtailing just over $500 billion in anticipated spending increases over the next 10 years. Medicare spending will still increase, however.

where does the $500 billion in future savings come from?

$220 billion = reducing annual increases in payments that health care providers would otherwise receive from Medicare.

$36 billion = increases in premiums for higher-income beneficiaries

$12 billion = administrative changes

$136 billion = projected savings from changes to Medicare Advantage

SAVINGS from Medicare help pay for other parts of the health care law so that the deficit doesn't go up. See how that works? Not stolen.

bullshit

 

[Vanquish]

Well said onecut.

Furthermore, the bill doesn't take money out of the current Medicare budget but, rather, it attempts to slow the program's future growth, curtailing just over $500 billion in anticipated spending increases over the next 10 years. Medicare spending will still increase, however.

where does the $500 billion in future savings come from?

$220 billion = reducing annual increases in payments that health care providers would otherwise receive from Medicare.

$36 billion = increases in premiums for higher-income beneficiaries

$12 billion = administrative changes

$136 billion = projected savings from changes to Medicare Advantage

SAVINGS from Medicare help pay for other parts of the health care law so that the deficit doesn't go up. See how that works? Not stolen.

bullshit

is that for me or him?

 

[Jackson]

Well said onecut.

Furthermore, the bill doesn't take money out of the current Medicare budget but, rather, it attempts to slow the program's future growth, curtailing just over $500 billion in anticipated spending increases over the next 10 years. Medicare spending will still increase, however.

where does the $500 billion in future savings come from?

$220 billion = reducing annual increases in payments that health care providers would otherwise receive from Medicare.

$36 billion = increases in premiums for higher-income beneficiaries

$12 billion = administrative changes

$136 billion = projected savings from changes to Medicare Advantage

SAVINGS from Medicare help pay for other parts of the health care law so that the deficit doesn't go up. See how that works? Not stolen.

You do reallize the $500 Billion reduction comes when the largest increase of recipients come into play...the babyboomers, don't you?

 

[Rozman]

When has government ever said something,anything will cost let's say $100 billion and it cost anywhere
close to $100 billion...maybe in the end it cost $500 billion to a trillion...

 

[Vanquish]

Let's take that as true. I'm sure there's evidence in support and against in some cases (less of course), but let's start there. Does that mean government needs to pack up shop and never try...or get better at its job?

 

[Care4all]

Bullshit. They're not stealing from seniors. The people who can pay...the higher tax brackets...will pay for this. As they should.

But don't let something crazy like reality sink into your head.

I think it's funny that so many threads on this topic keep popping up as conservative brains are imploding about it. Can't say it's not constitutional, can ya

Oh and by the way...yer boy Romney can't really debate this issue with Obama...unless he wants to be called a hypocrite.

Want the video to prove the quote isn't taken out of context?? Sure. Here ya go.
Romney: "It's not a tax hike. It is a fee, an assessment." - YouTube

Fun times.

Bullshit. OBAMATAX is stealing 500 Billion dollars from Medicare (seniors) to pay for his OBAMABILL.

of which $490 Billion in medicare cuts was in the Republican plan.

6 or 1/2 dozen....both parties recommend the same cuts for savings.

 

[Amelia]

Let's take that as true. I'm sure there's evidence in support and against in some cases (less of course), but let's start there. Does that mean government needs to pack up shop and never try...or get better at its job?

Getting better at it's job would be avoiding attempting massive overhauls and drastic changes.

Would mean learning to break a task up into manageable chunks. Learning to wait until the air clears and assess the new landscape before moving on to the next chunk - the next chunk might not be needed after the first chunk is attended to.

Would mean not assuming that something which works for one state will work for everyone - and it especially means not assuming that something which has only shown moderate success for that one state with some serious red flags should be applied to all 50 states.

But first and foremost it would mean "do no harm". Don't steamroll the people in their own attempts to fix their problems. The gov't might not be as necessary as they think they are - which unfortunately is something the gov't doesn't want people to figure out.

 

[dblack]

The PPACA is classic bait and switch, no doubt about it. Roberts made the final move in the game by switching it back to a tax right under the wire. We got conned - hard. And yes, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate is guilty of exactly the same malfeasance.

The question is, what are we going to do about it?

 

[Care4all]

honestly, i still do not truly understand the SC decision fully. On the one hand, the State governments can't be forced to participate in the federal medicaid expansion, which would cost the States tax dollars they don't have, plus the threat of taking away federal funds that already exist was a no no..... but yet it was deemed okay to force individuals to purchase health insurance from a private company or be given a tax penalty?

I truly thought that would have been unconstitutional.....the part where we can be coerced to buy insurance from a private business....I could accept being forced in to a universal single health care plan like medicare, where insurance from the private sector for profit is merely optional, but i really thought this private sector thingy would be out of our federal gvts legitimate reach....

so what do I know? apparently nothing, cuz it's all AOK?

 

[dblack]

I truly thought that would have been unconstitutional.....the part where we can be coerced to buy insurance from a private business....I could accept being forced in to a universal single health care plan like medicare, where insurance from the private sector for profit is merely optional, but i really thought this private sector thingy would be out of our federal gvts legitimate reach...

Roberts ruled that way because the mandate is based on exactly the same principle as the common practice of manipulating us through tax incentives. And he recognized, correctly if corruptly, that ruling against the mandate would risk undoing countless pillars of accepted state power.

In other words, if he ruled that it's wrong to force people to pay higher taxes for not buying insurance, why should government be able to tax people more who don't take out home loans? If forcing people to choose between paying higher taxes or buying insurance isn't allowed then, buy the same principle, it's also wrong to force them to choose between going into debt for a home, or paying higher taxes.