• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758, 1205]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, semantic word games with colors....It feels so 2nd grade.
Umm, it's not semantics -- it's responding to what he actually said. I'm sure that concept is foreign to you, but then so are DEATH PANELS!! :lamo

Fortunately for me, I can still type no matter how sore my foot is. :lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

So the last one, family of 4 making over $30K, sounds like a $2400 tax...That family now doesn't pay that in federal tax on the entire income....So Obama is doubling the taxes, net, for poor working families....

One percent of 30k is 300 bucks. Arithmetic 101.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

You left out the subsidies:

Again Karl, all one gets is tax credits, NOT reduced premiums. Again for clarity, tax credits don't mean crap to someone who can't afford the insurance in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Great, yet more empty threats. :roll: The law prevents my property taxes from increasing more than 3% annually.

For now you mean.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Adam T already tried that. A tax credit doesn't mean crap to anyone who can't afford it in the first place.

Anyone earning less than 133% of the poverty line will be eligible for free Medicaid. Anyone earning between 133-400% of the poverty line will be eligible for subsidies. So yes, there might be a handful of people who still won't be able to afford it even with the subsidies. But there won't be very many of them, and they'll at least have financial hardship exemptions available so they don't have to buy it. The point of the individual mandate is to dissuade people who CAN afford health insurance but CHOOSE not to get it.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

no need to post that I was right.. I already knew I was.

and no , I was not "full of it" ...read my post again, I specifically said "both medicare surtaxes".... apology accepted in advance.
The topic was not Medicare, therefore your answer was off topic and/or a red herring.

That the taxes were 'on the rich' is another off topic red herring (general taxes were the discussion... Sheik's taxes IIRC). Yes, yes, you said they were on the rich, everyone can read.

I did not say that you have failed to identify them as Medicare taxes (since it was plainly there for anyone to read, why would I?), meaning that in addition to all you other errors, you have now introduced a strawman.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

The medical industry in about to get a raise. No longer will there be masses of people running to emergency rooms for every complaint and then stiffing the hospital on the bill. Now the hospitals will collect on those bills. If anything, this should lower costs; though in reality, almost nothing comes down in price, so I'm not expecting that.

But I thought ensuring everyone had health insurance would reduce the cost for those who had insurance as their premiums cover the hospital nonpayments...was I misled?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Are you saying that the IPAB doesn't exist in the law?

Seriously mac???

Do I really have to post this again???

Un****ingbelievable.

Whatever. Hopefully, reading it a second time will clarify why your question is a sad pathetic strawman ...


Palin revives 'death panels' claim ahead of Supreme Court decision

"Though I was called a liar for calling it like it is, many of these accusers finally saw that Obamacare did in fact create a panel of faceless bureaucrats who have the power to make life and death decisions about health care funding," she wrote Monday.

But Palin's initial comments make no mention of the IPAB. At the time, she referred to a proposal in the House's healthcare bill to have Medicare reimburse doctors for discussing end-of-life planning with their elderly patients.

The House bill did not include the IPAB at all, and in the wake of Palin's remarks, end-of-life planning was axed from the Senate bill that Obama ultimately signed.


Read the part in red a few times, just to be sure. :lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

One percent of 30k is 300 bucks. Arithmetic 101.


Then I misread....The clue was that I said it sounded like....But either/or, think about it dana, a family making just north of $30K per year gross. That's a measly $587 per week, give or take...You might as well say the tax is $300K...They don't have it.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Well since you understand how supply and demand works, you should realize that Obama's healthcare plan would increase the supply to the medical industry. According to the law of supply and demand, this should reduce healthcare costs.

Please explain this. The supply increase is patients thus increasing the demand on medical providers. How is this going to reduce costs? IF there were some significant increase in medical providers I believe your claim would be true...
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Again Karl, all one gets is tax credits, NOT reduced premiums. Again for clarity, tax credits don't mean crap to someone who can't afford the insurance in the first place.
I'm sorry your other post was wrong. I really am.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Anyone earning less than 133% of the poverty line will be eligible for free Medicaid. Anyone earning between 133-400% of the poverty line will be eligible for subsidies. So yes, there might be a handful of people who still won't be able to afford it even with the subsidies. But there won't be very many of them, and they'll at least have financial hardship exemptions available so they don't have to buy it. The point of the individual mandate is to dissuade people who CAN afford health insurance but CHOOSE not to get it.

Again for clarity.

Folks making more than 133% of the Federal Poverty Level and you pay for insurance or pay the $600 a year tax. A single person making over $14,856 would have to pay for insurance (on $14,856, really?) or $600 tax. A married couple with no kids making over $20,122 a year would be required to pay for insurance for 2 or the tax for 2. A family of 4, 2 adults and 2 kids making over $30,656 a year would have to buy insurance for 4 or pay double the tax for the adults.

You claim up to 400% subsidies, do you have any proof that comes from a reliable source and not a "kook" blogspot?
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Let's require every American to own a gun. If they don't want to buy one, they can pay a tax. As a sop to liberals, we can give subsidies to poor people so they can buy guns, too. We'll call it the "Affordable Protection for Establishing Security Act," or "APES" for short.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Again Karl, all one gets is tax credits, NOT reduced premiums. Again for clarity, tax credits don't mean crap to someone who can't afford the insurance in the first place.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/Title I/Subtitle E/Part I/Subpart A

It is a refundable tax credit. Refundable Credits - What's a Refundable Tax Credit?

A refundable tax credit is a tax credit that is treated as a payment and thus can be refunded to the taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

People earning up to 400% of the federal poverty line will be eligible for subsidies. And if for some reason those aren't sufficient, there is a financial hardship exemption in which case they won't have to pay it.



I'm not too worried about it. :lol:
a lot a low income earners won't be eligible for subsidies..... if their employer offers a qualified plan, they gotta take it or pay the tax.... their premiums are not subsidized.
subsidies come into play when the employer doesn't have qualified plans to offer.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Mark Hemmingway did a good job explaining why liberal supposed fact checkers like 'FactCheck' are nothing but propaganda shills for Obama...

Lies, Damned Lies, and

And you believed him, accepted whole, willingly suspending your disbelief? And from the Weekly Standard no less, a completely neutral, unbiased, always accurate publication.

I'm shocked I tells ya! Shocked!
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]



you're both right.... it's a refundable tax credit.. but you have to pay all year long and then get it back.

sure, you get the credit for whatever you pay, but if you can't afford it, you still gotta muddle through til tax time
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Let's require every American to own a gun. If they don't want to buy one, they can pay a tax. As a sop to liberals, we can give subsidies to poor people so they can buy guns, too. We'll call it the "Affordable Protection for Establishing Security Act," or "APES" for short.

well, it's worth a shot ( no pun intended)... we have precedent now.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Seriously mac???

Do I really have to post this again???

Un****ingbelievable.

Whatever. Hopefully, reading it a second time will clarify why your question is a sad pathetic strawman ...


Palin revives 'death panels' claim ahead of Supreme Court decision

"Though I was called a liar for calling it like it is, many of these accusers finally saw that Obamacare did in fact create a panel of faceless bureaucrats who have the power to make life and death decisions about health care funding," she wrote Monday.

But Palin's initial comments make no mention of the IPAB. At the time, she referred to a proposal in the House's healthcare bill to have Medicare reimburse doctors for discussing end-of-life planning with their elderly patients.

The House bill did not include the IPAB at all, and in the wake of Palin's remarks, end-of-life planning was axed from the Senate bill that Obama ultimately signed.


Read the part in red a few times, just to be sure. :lamo:lamo:lamo


You are either a really, really bad liar, or just an easy dupe to liberal propaganda...

The Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, is a fifteen-member United States Government agency created in 2010 by sections 3403 and 10320 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which has the explicit task of achieving specified savings in Medicare without affecting coverage or quality.[1] Under previous and current law, changes to Medicare payment rates and program rules are recommended by MedPAC but require an act of Congress to take effect. The new system grants IPAB the authority to make changes to the Medicare program with the Congress being given the power to overrule the agency's decisions.

Independent Payment Advisory Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and the National Review article I posted are from as far back as two weeks ago...Please re read.

IPAB, Obamacare

Now stop lying.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Again Karl, all one gets is tax credits, NOT reduced premiums. Again for clarity, tax credits don't mean crap to someone who can't afford the insurance in the first place.
Oops. For clarity, here's your smiley: :3oops:

How will premium subsidies be provided?

Premium tax credits would be refundable and advanceable. A refundable tax credit is one that is available to a person
even if he or she has no tax liability. An advanceable tax credit allows a person to receive assistance at the time that they
purchase insurance
rather than paying their premium out of pocket and waiting to be reimbursed when filing their annual
income tax return.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/7962-02.pdf
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

you're both right.... it's a refundable tax credit.. but you have to pay all year long and then get it back.

sure, you get the credit for whatever you pay, but if you can't afford it, you still gotta muddle through til tax time

Folks will simply take health insurance from March to May, then cancel. Or better yet join a church exempt from the law.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

The topic was not Medicare, therefore your answer was off topic and/or a red herring.

That the taxes were 'on the rich' is another off topic red herring (general taxes were the discussion... Sheik's taxes IIRC). Yes, yes, you said they were on the rich, everyone can read.

I did not say that you have failed to identify them as Medicare taxes (since it was plainly there for anyone to read, why would I?), meaning that in addition to all you other errors, you have now introduced a strawman.

we weren't talking about Medicare.. we were talking about the tax increases imposed under Obamacare...... I made no errors, it's just that you failed to read.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom