Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the fox link doesn't talk about jobs going overseas, it talks about jobs lost, which your links don't refute.

Oh my god, are you really going to argue semantics now? Jobs being shipped overseas is jobs lost in America. They'd have to lay off people in America just to give jobs to somebody overseas. It's job loss.

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Which agrees with the Fox article. What did they "distort" or "exaggerate" in this case?

No, it doesn't. Him sharing a concern isn't him agreeing with Fox.

The spin is that there will be tremendous job loss and reduction in R&D despite the significant increase in numbers of people covered by healthcare in the United States.

In other words, he's saying that this tax isn't going to matter really because the number of people covered by the new health insurance which will ultimately increase revenues!!!! Significant increase is the actual word he used.


Here is exactly what Fox said.

Several companies have already responded to the looming tax by cutting research and development budgets and laying off workers.

No. No way companies are laying off people or cutting R&D due to the looming tax. If anything, they are using this as an excuse like many companies like to do. Hrmm...how do I cut my work force, and push the extra work onto others without looking like the bad guy? Oh, I know, I'll just claim this new tax is going to kill my profits!!


Since you want to argue semantics, Fox's title is this "Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013" is misleading and false as well. Notice the word WILL, and not the word COULD. Distorting? Yes. Misleading? Yes. False? Yes.

There are many medical devices that aren't being taxed. So this tax isn't going to affect everybody's wallet. Not everybody will need to buy a medical device that's being taxed. Hey, not according to Fox!!

Source2:

Spending on taxable medical devices represents less than 1 percent of total personal health expenditures, so a small increase in their price would have an almost imperceptible effect on health insurance premiums.

Listen, we aren't going to agree on this, so you keep believing Fox and I'll chose not to. That we can agree on.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Oh, what does Obama's proposal to raise taxes, which he's not, have to do with Affordable Care Act? These are two distinctly different pieces of legislation.

I don't want to start a completely different argument in this thread, but...at some point taxes are going to have to go up. So there.

You were arguing in your last post against the idea of the Affordable Care Act being another case of redistribution of wealth, and then you say in this post that taxes will have to go up. Which means that all tax payers are having to shoulder the cost of this program. So, me, being a taxpayer who has health insurance will not only continue to struggle to meet my own medical expenses even after insurance has paid its part, but will now have to also shoulder the cost of this for others who are getting gov't sponsored health insurance at a subsidized rate.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Skinsguy,

You seem to have your own interpretation of the rules, especially regarding the individual mandate. The mandate isn't specifically for low income people neither do ALL in the pool of 30 million qualify to receive a tax credit.

It's what I said earlier. Not all will qualify to receive the tax credit. Those who don't will be covered under Medicaid, and those who refuse will have to pay a penality.

Originally Posted by 12thMan

The Supreme Court's ruling said, the federal gov't under Obamacare cannot dictate to states whether to accept Medicaid funding. Essentially, that's the only portion of the law that was more or less struck down.

Right. And I'm saying states will probably wind up going along with the medicaid extension program anyway, because the federal government is footing the bill for the next several years.

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Right now the federal government pays for about 57% of total Medicaid costs. That's even before we start debating whether "Obamacare" is a good or bad idea. Medicaid eligibility varies from state to state. Some states have a vastly more complex healthcare delivery system than others. State run hospitals, university hospitals, and other network providers are absorbing the costs and looking toward the state for reimbursement. In other words, states defray costs and foot the bill for covering the uninsured. When times are lean, Medicaid is the typically the first program to see the axe and have eligibility requirements change. The new law, "Obamacare", says you can't change those eligibility requirements for Medicaid. Cut your budgets elsewhere. See where this is going? Now we can debate the merits of Medicaid, but to call it socialized medicine is not the case.

Yes, it's more government. More relaxed Medicaid requirements equals more getting on medicaid, which equals higher taxes to cover the costs, which means states having to eventually cut their budgets in other areas of need, which means more job loss.

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Lastly, I couldn't care less which party get's credit. The facts are the facts. A Democrat passed healthcare reform. Had it been Reagan, Bush, or Roy Rogers I'd acknowledge that.

I'll hold you to that then.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Are you saying Romneycare was passed against Mitt Romney's will or what are you saying? And yes, the two plans are damn similar. The president used Romneycare as a template. LOL..so much for conservatism, I guess.

First off Romney is not a conservative.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

First off Romney is not a conservative.

Conservatism is a myth. The sooner you realize that the better.

[saden1]

We are still waiting for the replacement:

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

You were arguing in your last post against the idea of the Affordable Care Act being another case of redistribution of wealth, and then you say in this post that taxes will have to go up. Which means that all tax payers are having to shoulder the cost of this program. So, me, being a taxpayer who has health insurance will not only continue to struggle to meet my own medical expenses even after insurance has paid its part, but will now have to also shoulder the cost of this for others who are getting gov't sponsored health insurance at a subsidized rate.

Federal tax rates are at a 30 year low. Revenues are the lowest we've seen in years. Yes, taxes need to go up. Not because of Obamacare, but for the sake of our fiscal future.

As far as the bold portion of your statement, guess what, you and I are footing the bill right now for those without insurance every time they make an emergency room visit. You know that, right? I haven't seen one healthcare economist or insurance industry study that says your healthcare premiums will get jacked up to pay for someone else's healthcare plan. If you can show me ONE independent study reflecting that, I'm all ears.

You seem to either think or imply that I'm saying taxes need to go up to cover the costs of Obamacare. The healthcare law, by and large, pays for itself and is projected to be deficit neutral. I can't make that any more clear.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Federal tax rates are at a 30 year low. Revenues are the lowest we've seen in years. Yes, taxes need to go up. Not because of Obamacare, but for the sake of our fiscal future.

Revenues are at an all time low because unemployment is at an all time high. Couple that with increased spending that this Administration and the last Administration did, and that is why our government is in the fiscal shape that it is currently in. Raising taxes is not the end all, be all solution to the problem, and those of us who are lucky enough to be employed cannot take more tax hikes.

Originally Posted by 12thMan

As far as the bold portion of your statement, guess what, you and I are footing the bill right now for those without insurance every time they make an emergency room visit. You know that, right? I haven't seen one healthcare economist or insurance industry study that says your healthcare premiums will get jacked up to pay for someone else's healthcare plan. If you can show me ONE independent study reflecting that, I'm all ears.

Well, supposedly Obamacare is modeled after Romneycare...just ask the good citizens of Mass. why they are paying the highest premiums for health insurance in the country.

Originally Posted by 12thMan

You seem to either think or imply that I'm saying taxes need to go up to cover the costs of Obamacare. The healthcare law, by and large, pays for itself and is projected to be deficit neutral. I can't make that any more clear.

It was originally supposed to be a net reduction of about $143 billion in the deficit, but the plan is actually costing $115 billion more than what was originally estimated. So yay, deficit neutral. Did the "Doc fix" ever go into play as well? If so, then you're looking at adding roughly about $84 billion to the deficit. Just because it might be "deficit neutral" doesn't mean taxes won't go up because of the law.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Federal tax rates are at a 30 year low. Revenues are the lowest we've seen in years. Yes, taxes need to go up. Not because of Obamacare, but for the sake of our fiscal future.

As far as the bold portion of your statement, guess what, you and I are footing the bill right now for those without insurance every time they make an emergency room visit. You know that, right? I haven't seen one healthcare economist or insurance industry study that says your healthcare premiums will get jacked up to pay for someone else's healthcare plan. If you can show me ONE independent study reflecting that, I'm all ears.

You seem to either think or imply that I'm saying taxes need to go up to cover the costs of Obamacare. The healthcare law, by and large, pays for itself and is projected to be deficit neutral. I can't make that any more clear.

Keep kidding yourself that taxes will not go up. I don't care who tells me that or what party they are with we will see an increase in cost. Lets reverse this for a minute. Name one major federal program that has not had a drastic over run in projected cost?

[saden1]

Yes 12thMan, unemployment is an all time high, government spending is an all time high and all the government does is spend spend spend unless a true conservative like Ronald Reagan is elected. As for the taxes, they always seem to go up and there is no reason to doubt they won't go up under the uber liberal Obama. Sure they are low now thanks to Bush but what about tomorrow when Obama becomes our overseer for the next 4 years? Surely they will punitively go up on all Americans.

Open your eyes man, we are dealing with a fella who hates America as our president!

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by saden1

Yes 12thMan, unemployment is an all time high, government spending is an all time high and all the government does is spend spend spend unless a true conservative like Ronald Reagan is elected. As for the taxes, they always seem to go up and there is no reason to doubt they won't go up under the uber liberal Obama. Sure they are low now thanks to Bush but what about tomorrow when Obama becomes our overseer for the next 4 years? Surely they will punitively go up on all Americans.

Open your eyes man, we are dealing with a fella who hates America as our president!

plus he's muslim

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by saden1

Yes 12thMan, unemployment is an all time high, government spending is an all time high and all the government does is spend spend spend unless a true conservative like Ronald Reagan is elected. As for the taxes, they always seem to go up and there is no reason to doubt they won't go up under the uber liberal Obama. Sure they are low now thanks to Bush but what about tomorrow when Obama becomes our overseer for the next 4 years? Surely they will punitively go up on all Americans.

Open your eyes man, we are dealing with a fella who hates America as our president!

Speaking of Reagan, I suggest many conservatives to check out this article by one of Ronald Reagan's leading men in office. (David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget) I don't want to hear about "liberal media" blah blah blah.... This is a straight up conservative from Reagan's administration calling the GOP on their idiocy. Yes I know it's a 2010 article.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/op...pagewanted=all


Sad thing is, even older GOP guys know the current GOP has ran this country into the ground.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by saden1

We are still waiting for the replacement:

You have to laugh at those dimwits at this point.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by saden1

Open your eyes man, we are dealing with a fella who hates America as our president!

ok ,I get it you don't like the man but this is BS.

[firstdown]

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured....but not everyone must prove they are a citizen."