SmarterthanYou
rebel
whats this 2.5% tax on those who choose not to get health coverage?
Obamacare would outlaw individual private coverage.
- Thread starter red states rule
- Start date
Hmmm... Yet they are capable of making actual responses to purse questions without fault.
Yeah, staffers couldn't possibly have asked somebody above them something, or even spoke to any other one, they just adopt whatever position they like and spout off all the time...
Methinks you again get desperate.
It's a tax that is a not-tax, like smoking taxes and other taxes on the poor that ignore the "firm pledge" of somebody who may not be named in a sentence unflattering.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so those people that make less than 200k, but more than necessary to qualify for a poverty break, get taxed with a 'non-tax penalty'?
C
Cancel4
Guest
The racists who hate President Obama because he's Black like to call whichever health care proposal they’re criticizing at the moment (they oppose all health care proposals) “Obama-care”.
President Obama is extremely popular. He is more popular than any President in history. Labeling the current proposal “Obama-care” is going to make it more popular.
The GOP has no power anyway, and soon Nazis Limpballs and Shammity will be silenced by the Fairness Doctrine.
http://www.end22.com/
President Obama is extremely popular. He is more popular than any President in history. Labeling the current proposal “Obama-care” is going to make it more popular.
The GOP has no power anyway, and soon Nazis Limpballs and Shammity will be silenced by the Fairness Doctrine.
http://www.end22.com/
Yes, penalties are a back door taxation as well as any sort of consumption taxes. One can pretend that costs are not passed on to consumers if it is a "corporate tax" but in reality it simply makes everything more expensive, especially when that which is taxed is in itself inflationary, such as energy.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Reality Check:
http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200906180008
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/16/161814/777
Bottom line: the original contention of the opening post on this thread was wrong. Period. The jokers who complied it's info are painfully bias and myopic. No ifs, ands or buts about it. But those who oppose Obama's administration or who are bending over backwards to appear "objective" in their criticism just can't accept this. Yeah, that is sad...but what can we do.
Reality Check:
http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200906180008
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/16/161814/777
Bottom line: the original contention of the opening post on this thread was wrong. Period. The jokers who complied it's info are painfully bias and myopic. No ifs, ands or buts about it. But those who oppose Obama's administration or who are bending over backwards to appear "objective" in their criticism just can't accept this. Yeah, that is sad...but what can we do.
Yikes! Red States and Yurt back from cave dwelling are going to give us advice and fed us corporate think tank BS. Why don't you two buffoons see if you can get back the billions spent in Iraq, seems you had nothing to say then about that waste, but helping Americans is not Ok in your pea brains. Those billions would have helped Americans, something you social darwinist corporate tools miss in your programmed slogan heads.
Every major industrial nation has healthcare, the only places that do not, are third world nations, and while the conservatives. republicans, and assorted libertarians would like, or simply don't care if America becomes a third world nation, people/society need to take care of each other. It is the human thing to do, it is the Christian thing to do, it the sane and sensible thing to do. Reactionary critics would still have us in the cave, progress moves forward even though there are lots of bumps along the way. Bravo, another step forward.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
http://www.healthcareproblems.org/health-care-statistics.htm
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
"Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available.1
The number of uninsured rose 2.2 million between 2005 and 2006 and has increased by almost 8 million people since 2000.1
The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.2
The increase in the number of uninsured in 2006 was focused among working age adults. The percentage of working adults (18 to 64) who had no health coverage climbed from 19.7 percent in 2005 to 20.2 percent in 2006.1 Nearly 1.3 million full-time workers lost their health insurance in 2006.
Nearly 90 million people – about one-third of the population below the age of 65 spent a portion of either 2006 or 2007 without health coverage.3
Over 8 in 10 uninsured people come from working families – almost 70 percent from families with one or more full-time workers and 11 percent from families with part-time workers.2
Every major industrial nation has healthcare, the only places that do not, are third world nations, and while the conservatives. republicans, and assorted libertarians would like, or simply don't care if America becomes a third world nation, people/society need to take care of each other. It is the human thing to do, it is the Christian thing to do, it the sane and sensible thing to do. Reactionary critics would still have us in the cave, progress moves forward even though there are lots of bumps along the way. Bravo, another step forward.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
http://www.healthcareproblems.org/health-care-statistics.htm
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
"Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available.1
The number of uninsured rose 2.2 million between 2005 and 2006 and has increased by almost 8 million people since 2000.1
The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.2
The increase in the number of uninsured in 2006 was focused among working age adults. The percentage of working adults (18 to 64) who had no health coverage climbed from 19.7 percent in 2005 to 20.2 percent in 2006.1 Nearly 1.3 million full-time workers lost their health insurance in 2006.
Nearly 90 million people – about one-third of the population below the age of 65 spent a portion of either 2006 or 2007 without health coverage.3
Over 8 in 10 uninsured people come from working families – almost 70 percent from families with one or more full-time workers and 11 percent from families with part-time workers.2
red states rule
New member
So you give Obama a pass for whipping up a fear-fest to get the stimulus passed, saying that we must act now and that the stimulus would have an immediate impact on employment thanks to funneling funds to shovel-ready projects, and projected that unemployment would not go higher than 8% if we 'acted now' - but WE'RE the ones setting unrealistic standards?
The stimulus is an abysmal failure, and I said it would be before it was passed. The writing was on the wall as it was sold as one thing but really represented political payback rather than having anything to do with helping the economy. We could have had a more effective bill for one-third the cost and done it this year, not in future years.
Obamacare is doing just what Republicans said it would. Makr the government the only place in town to buy health ins. It will ration care. It will decide who gets treatment and who does not. It will decide who lives and who dies based on how much it costs the government to treat them
red states rule
New member
The NY Times is telling us in advance how Obamacare will operate
Why We Must Ration Health Care
You have advanced kidney cancer. It will kill you, probably in the next year or two. A drug called Sutent slows the spread of the cancer and may give you an extra six months, but at a cost of $54,000. Is a few more months worth that much?
If you can afford it, you probably would pay that much, or more, to live longer, even if your quality of life wasn’t going to be good. But suppose it’s not you with the cancer but a stranger covered by your health-insurance fund. If the insurer provides this man — and everyone else like him — with Sutent, your premiums will increase. Do you still think the drug is a good value? Suppose the treatment cost a million dollars. Would it be worth it then? Ten million? Is there any limit to how much you would want your insurer to pay for a drug that adds six months to someone’s life? If there is any point at which you say, “No, an extra six months isn’t worth that much,” then you think that health care should be rationed.
In the current U.S. debate over health care reform, “rationing” has become a dirty word. Meeting last month with five governors, President Obama urged them to avoid using the term, apparently for fear of evoking the hostile response that sank the Clintons’ attempt to achieve reform. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published at the end of last year with the headline “Obama Will Ration Your Health Care,” Sally Pipes, C.E.O. of the conservative Pacific Research Institute, described how in Britain the national health service does not pay for drugs that are regarded as not offering good value for money, and added, “Americans will not put up with such limits, nor will our elected representatives.” And the Democratic chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus, told CNSNews in April, “There is no rationing of health care at all” in the proposed reform.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?_r=1
and Obamacare on the state level
Massachusetts Takes a Step Back From Health Care for All
BOSTON — The new state budget in Massachusetts eliminates health care coverage for some 30,000 legal immigrants to help close a growing deficit, reversing progress toward universal coverage just as Congress looks to the state as a model for overhauling the nation’s health care system.
The affected immigrants, permanent residents who have had green cards for less than five years, are now covered under Commonwealth Care, a subsidized insurance program for low-income residents that is central to the groundbreaking health care law enacted here in 2006.
Critics of the cut, which would save an estimated $130 million, say it unfairly targets taxpaying residents and threatens the state’s health care experiment at a critical time.
“It either sends the message that health care reform cannot be done, period,” said Eva Millona, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, “or it opens the door to doing it halfway and excluding immigrants from the process.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/us/15insure.html
SmarterthanYou
rebel
can you address my concerns about the 'tax increase' when not getting covered?
red states rule
New member
You mean the $500 BILLION dollar tax increase? The increase most of the liberal meida is NOT reporting
House Panel Votes Huge $500 Billion Tax Increase; Networks Couldn't Care Less
By Rich Noyes (Bio * Archive)
July 17, 2009 - 14:29 ET
The House Ways and Means committee approved a half-trillion dollar tax increase overnight, but the ABC and NBC morning news shows offered only a single sentence to the development, while CBS’s Early Show skipped it entirely.
Neither NBC’s Today nor ABC’s Good Morning America mentioned the tax increases $544 billion price tag, as each newscast folded the development into larger pieces on President Obama’s push for health care “reform.”
ABC’s Deborah Roberts first gave a mere two sentences to the CBO report that contradicts White House claims that Obama’s plan would save money. She then mentioned the big tax increase: “Meantime, a House committee approved billions in new taxes on the wealthy to pay for the reforms.”
Over on NBC’s Today, Natalie Morales, in introducing a longer report by correspondent Savannah Guthrie, mentioned that “During the night, the House Weighs and Means committee voted to increase taxes on higher income earners as part of a health care reform bill.”
MRC’s Geoff Dickens noted that neither the Guthrie piece nor a subsequent segment with NBC’s David Gregory on health care specifically mentioned the tax increase, although Gregory dwelled on the “sentimental” push on Capitol Hill to quickly ram through a health care bill in the next few weeks as an homage to ailing liberal Senator Ted Kennedy:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-n...billion-tax-increase-networks-couldnt-care-le
SmarterthanYou
rebel
yeah, that one too.
red states rule
New member
It is hard to keep up with all the tax increases the Dems are wanting to pass. Looks like Dems and Obama want to take uu back to the glory days of Jimmy Carter both with his economy and the tax rates that went along with it
A simple "I'm sorry. My reliance on the Investors Business Daily op-ed was in error" would have sufficed. No need to get neck deep in the horseshit.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You keep parroting the neocon lie........and as I showed with the links, choice for a private healthcare system would remain. What I find fascinating is that you are acting as if the current HMO dominated system hasn't killed folks. I suggest you actually READ the links that Midcan5 gave us, then do some honest research as to deaths due to insurance companies denials. Get informed before you enter the discussion.
You keep parroting the neocon lie........and as I showed with the links, choice for a private healthcare system would remain. What I find fascinating is that you are acting as if the current HMO dominated system hasn't killed folks. I suggest you actually READ the links that Midcan5 gave us, then do some honest research as to deaths due to insurance companies denials. Get informed before you enter the discussion.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Well, here's where it stands now as far as I know that's being kicked around in the House:
People who file income-tax returns and opt not to get any insurance would pay a 2.5 % penalty on the difference between their adjusted gross income and the tax filing threshold. Businesses that don't have/offer a health plan but meet minimum standards would pay a penalty in the form of a payroll tax that would range from 2-8 % (adjusted per individual payroll)l.
People who make $280,000 or more ($350,000 for couples) would pay a progressive surtax ranging from 1% to 5.4%.
So far, there hasn't been a consensus between the House and Senate plans....what I find interesting is how anti-Obama pundits are trying to concrete doom and gloom over something that hasn't been finalized for review yet.
You're quite right of course.
The party of "Change", who vowed to bring "transparency" to government and spent so many years lamenting "governing through fear" and "frightening the public to advance an agenda" are doing exactly what they accused the Bush administration of doing. 24 hour deadlines to evaluate and vote on the 1,000 page "Stimulus" and "Energy" bills = "Change You Can't Believe In" !
Don't let yourself get side-tracked.
red states rule
New member
Or even the very words from the bill the Dems passed???
Much like the "stimulus" bill, Dems must push this through before people know what the hell is in it - or else it would never be passed
red states rule
New member
and I thought libs were syaing Obamacare would be optional
Once again, libs are ignoring a basic economi principal - businesses do NOT pay taxes - WE PAY THEM. This is a tax on all of us 0 not just the so called rich
If any business gets hit with this huge tax, they will either 1) cut workers, 2) raise prices, 3) close up. 4) Reduce investment and stop growing
Either way, it will have an adverse effect and continue the "hope and change" the US economy has enjoyed since Obama took office