• 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!

One man's ObamaCare nightmare[W:51]

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

According to Obama that is impossible as non-negotiable means non-negotiable. Unless of course he plans to violate his law by himself, again. Then that would just make him a liar, again.

Obama doesn't write law. And frankly, republicans have done similar things while in power. It's the nature of you having lost. Let's say we establish as a rule that anytime your party loses, we shut everything down until we get our way. We'll have democrats do it too when reversed. How long before we recognize this childish behavior for what it is?
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Obama doesn't write law. And frankly, republicans have done similar things while in power. It's the nature of you having lost. Let's say we establish as a rule that anytime your party loses, we shut everything down until we get our way. We'll have democrats do it too when reversed. How long before we recognize this childish behavior for what it is?

"we shut every thing down". LOL.

Everything is not shut down, nor will it be.

Obama does write law. He has already done it to Obamadon'tcare.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

"we shut every thing down". LOL.

Everything is not shut down, nor will it be.

Obama does write law. He has already done it to Obamadon'tcare.


Try to focus. don't take the word everything as literal. :roll::roll::roll:
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

You have a lot to learn about sourcing. For sourcing I gave you PBS. You miss a lot J.

Your question misses the point. It doesn't matter if I or you are for or against. Say I'm against it. So what. It doesn't change the position. I don't as a matter of fact support everything, which would be rare for any law. Disagreeing with an aspect is as common as the common cold. The point here is one of process. By all means, fix an aspect. But do it as it is, a law already passed. Stop whining. Stop holding up progress.

Maybe you accept that pablum, I don't. If you want to lay down and just take it as a voter, then remember that when your fellow travelers lose the majority, and the presidency.....Cuz I sure will.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Our fundamental disagreement seems to be who's purview this falls under? See, I believe that powers not specifically enumerated under Article 1, Section 8 are delegated to the states to figure out for themselves. That simple understanding is whether or not one wants an all powerful federal system making decisions for the entirety of the American population, and dictating from on high, or whether the people have more accountability at a more local level. You seem to want a more centralized government, I don't.

I want a solution that works, and I don't care if the states compel people to take responsibility for themselves, or if the federal govt. requires it. This passed muster before the Supreme Court. Somebody has to solve this problem that has existed and been talked about since the late 80's at least. It became a signature issue in the 1992 election, and Bill Clinton won partly because he advocated healthcare reform. He was blocked by the repubs. The repub alternative talked about "personal responsibility" and had an individual mandate.

In November, 1993, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., introduced what was considered to be one of the main Republican health overhaul proposals: "A bill to provide comprehensive reform of the health care system of the United States."

Titled the "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993," it had 21 co-sponsors, including two Democrats (Sens. Boren and Kerrey). The bill, which was not debated or voted upon, was an alternative to President Bill Clinton's plan. It bears similarity to the Democratic bill passed by the Senate Dec. 24, 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Here is a summary of the 1993 bill:

Title I: Basic Reforms to Expand Access to Health Insurance Coverage and to Ensure Universal Coverage - Subtitle A: Universal Access - Provides access to health insurance coverage under a qualified health plan for every citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States.

(Sec. 1003) Establishes a program under which persons with low incomes (and who are not eligible for Medicaid) will receive vouchers to buy insurance through purchasing groups.

(Sec. 1004) Requires each employer to make available, either directly, through a purchasing group, or otherwise, enrollment in a qualified health plan to each eligible employee.

Subtitle B: Qualified General Access Plan in the Small Employer and Individual Marketplace- Requires the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to develop specific standards to implement requirements concerning: (1) guaranteed eligibility, availability, and renewability of health insurance coverage; (2) nondiscrimination based on health status; (3) benefits offered; (4) insurer financial solvency; (5) enrollment process; (6) premium rating limitations; (7) risk adjustment; and (8) consumer protection.

(Sec. 1119) Requires each qualified general access plan to: (1) establish and maintain a quality assurance program and a mediation procedures program; and (2) contain assurances of service to designated underserved areas.

(Sec. 1141) Provides for the formation of purchasing groups by individuals and small employers.
Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan - Kaiser Health News
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Maybe you accept that pablum, I don't. If you want to lay down and just take it as a voter, then remember that when your fellow travelers lose the majority, and the presidency.....Cuz I sure will.

Take what? The law? No, like with any other law, feel free to vote the incumbants out. Feel free to work for new legislation. But be a damn grown up. Both sides have laws passed they don't like. It's the nature of things.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

I want a solution that works, and I don't care if the states compel people to take responsibility for themselves, or if the federal govt. requires it. This passed muster before the Supreme Court. Somebody has to solve this problem that has existed and been talked about since the late 80's at least. It became a signature issue in the 1992 election, and Bill Clinton won partly because he advocated healthcare reform. He was blocked by the repubs. The repub alternative talked about "personal responsibility" and had an individual mandate.


Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan - Kaiser Health News

Ok, but this is not a federal government issue. Our constitution specifically lays out the powers, and responsibilities of the federal government to oversee. Health Care is NOT one of them. Excuse me if I say it sounds more like you want some kind of central authority dictating over your life. In order to have that you have to change the constitution, and that hasn't been done.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Take what? The law? No, like with any other law, feel free to vote the incumbants out. Feel free to work for new legislation. But be a damn grown up. Both sides have laws passed they don't like. It's the nature of things.

You want to take what an all powerful dictate government tells you to take...I'd rather have my liberty. And I will absolutely vote against progressives, repub, or demo. As for new legislation, that will have to be done, although at this point, you demo's have now implemented a new entitlement, and so rather than new legislation all together, this one will have to be dismantled, and changed to work. Unfortunately, it is going to be up to the adults to make it work, and not be a burden on the people.

In the grand scheme of things, this law, totally rammed through by a party line only vote, that was compiled, and written by liberals, and progressive input only, and where the people were lied to repeatedly by the crafters of this law, in telling them that it wasn't a tax, then when it came time to defend it in court, it was argued cynically that it was a tax, this in the end could very well push the people over the edge and guarantee that progressives have to crawl back under that rock they hid under for the last 50 years.

The major mistake liberals often make in their quest to change America from a Constitutional Republic, to a Banana Republic, is that they over reach. Liberals feel that instead of treating people like responsible adults who can make choices for themselves, good or bad, liberals feel like they have to treat everyone like children and make those decisions for them. In addition, they cynically know that once you give someone an entitlement, you lock them, and their vote into your camp for generations. It's sad. It is the way all tin horn dictators like Chavez do things, or did things, and maybe that is why liberals openly liked that global miscreant...
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Ok, but this is not a federal government issue. Our constitution specifically lays out the powers, and responsibilities of the federal government to oversee. Health Care is NOT one of them. Excuse me if I say it sounds more like you want some kind of central authority dictating over your life. In order to have that you have to change the constitution, and that hasn't been done.

You are trying to shave that tomato peel to finely. If the states require you to buy car ins., and the feds require you to buy health ins., when you write the checks the result is the same; you are out some money but you have a party to pay for your expenses is something bad happens and it should be your responsibility to pay for it.

Some things are just handled better at the federal level. Would you like 50 state armies; would their weapon systems inter-operate? The states build roads and they could have built an interstate highway system, but they look only at their state and never envisioned such a system. They could have compelled ins. companies to offer only policies that did not allow the exclusion of people based on pre existing conditions, but it would not have worked since the greedy ins. companies would have pulled out and gone to states that did not require such a hurdle. What was needed was an over-arching federal solution, one that has been needed for over 30 years; nobody stepped up to do it until Obama. I don't want to see this progress turned back. The states had 30 years to handle it and they did nothing (except Romneycare in Mass., which is the same as Obamacare). That's how I know the state level is not the correct place to handle this problem. If it needs to be improved, then get working on it. No rollback.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

You want to take what an all powerful dictate government tells you to take...I'd rather have my liberty. And I will absolutely vote against progressives, repub, or demo. As for new legislation, that will have to be done, although at this point, you demo's have now implemented a new entitlement, and so rather than new legislation all together, this one will have to be dismantled, and changed to work. Unfortunately, it is going to be up to the adults to make it work, and not be a burden on the people.

In the grand scheme of things, this law, totally rammed through by a party line only vote, that was compiled, and written by liberals, and progressive input only, and where the people were lied to repeatedly by the crafters of this law, in telling them that it wasn't a tax, then when it came time to defend it in court, it was argued cynically that it was a tax, this in the end could very well push the people over the edge and guarantee that progressives have to crawl back under that rock they hid under for the last 50 years.

The major mistake liberals often make in their quest to change America from a Constitutional Republic, to a Banana Republic, is that they over reach. Liberals feel that instead of treating people like responsible adults who can make choices for themselves, good or bad, liberals feel like they have to treat everyone like children and make those decisions for them. In addition, they cynically know that once you give someone an entitlement, you lock them, and their vote into your camp for generations. It's sad. It is the way all tin horn dictators like Chavez do things, or did things, and maybe that is why liberals openly liked that global miscreant...

That's all strawman j. The fact is we are a nation of laws, and we have processes in place. You'd be on the other side of the issue if this was a republican in office. The congress is behaving childishly and are merely trying to circumvent a law already debated and passed. That's what makes Stewart's commentary resonate. It would be a lot like the Giants demanding 25 more points of they'll shut down the NFL. Congress needs to move forward, like adults, following the law.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

The proposal has to be how to improve what is existing.

Not according to Obama. He said "non-negotiable". I assume he finally meant something this time? Or was it another one of his lies?
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Not according to Obama. He said "non-negotiable". I assume he finally meant something this time? Or was it another one of his lies?

As being offered it is. But congress can write law as it sees fit.
 
No they can't when you have an Obama sycophant blocking anything reasonable from a vote.

No, that's just one more misunderstanding on your part.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

You are trying to shave that tomato peel to finely. If the states require you to buy car ins., and the feds require you to buy health ins., when you write the checks the result is the same; you are out some money but you have a party to pay for your expenses is something bad happens and it should be your responsibility to pay for it.

Sorry bead, I totally disagree...There are major differences between car insurance, and the ACA. If Obama, and the liberal progressives wanted that to be true, then a more reasonable fix would have been to open the market to have health insurance sold across state lines...Did they do that? No. Also, car insurance is different in many ways. Maybe when Health insurance starts covering my oil changes I'll listen, until then, it is a bad comparison.

Some things are just handled better at the federal level. Would you like 50 state armies; would their weapon systems inter-operate?

The Army is covered in Article 1 Section 8. Can you show me where the Constitution says that the individual be compelled by threat of penalty that anyone buy a private product?

The states build roads and they could have built an interstate highway system, but they look only at their state and never envisioned such a system.

Again, laid out in Article 1 Section 8 quite clearly. And once the interstate system was built, it is the states through federal funding that maintains that system...You're not told you are required to drive that interstate system are you?

They could have compelled ins. companies to offer only policies that did not allow the exclusion of people based on pre existing conditions, but it would not have worked since the greedy ins. companies would have pulled out and gone to states that did not require such a hurdle.

Maybe, maybe not...You have no idea what would have happened because there was only one thing that progressives were after, and they were not to be denied....Nothing else was tried.

What was needed was an over-arching federal solution, one that has been needed for over 30 years; nobody stepped up to do it until Obama.

Not true, Hillary tried this crap, and was refuted. But beyond that, I understand that you don't see market solutions to problems, only big government solutions...That isn't America, or at least not any America I want to see take hold.

I don't want to see this progress turned back.

Well, that all depends on how this thing takes hold...The rubber is going to meet the road, and although the current circus going on in DC may not be successful in getting this dictate staved off until the beast can be contained, there will come a time when people (if the want) will over turn the Senate, and Presidency and return it to repubs who will then repeal this horrible law.

The states had 30 years to handle it and they did nothing (except Romneycare in Mass., which is the same as Obamacare).

That's like saying that you don't do what I want, so I am going to force you to....It is, or was, a free country.

That's how I know the state level is not the correct place to handle this problem.

Well, as I have pointed out, your analogies in coming to your conclusions are flawed, and typical of those in support that parrot the same things. Meh, I guess to a certain extent so are mine, but hey we will see in the long run won't we?

If it needs to be improved, then get working on it. No rollback.

Careful what you wish for...This is also typical of the hard left thinking that is further dividing this country today...The idea that one party control rams through something horrible, then instead of actually fixing it, they cross their arms like children, and say you don't like it fix it, knowing full well that they won't lift a finger to rationally work to do just that.

Go ahead and keep playing these totalitarian games and hopefully the American people see it for what it is, and banish progressivism for another century.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

That's all strawman j.

Just saying it doesn't make it so Joe...It is up to you to point out what you think is a straw man argument.

The fact is we are a nation of laws, and we have processes in place. You'd be on the other side of the issue if this was a republican in office. The congress is behaving childishly and are merely trying to circumvent a law already debated and passed.

Isn't the Constitution a law?

That's what makes Stewart's commentary resonate.

Nah, what makes you like Stewart, is that you agree with the liberal bias contained within his commentary, and agree with it. That is flawed thinking to believe that everyone thinks like you do...But, in the end, I think that some of these things will be enshrined in law, never to be overturned, less the people that try die the death of the third rail of touching an entitlement, until the country just goes broke, and we become a third world ****hole...Congratulations, you will have had a hand in defending that outcome.

It would be a lot like the Giants demanding 25 more points of they'll shut down the NFL.

This isn't a game Joe...Bad analogy.

Congress needs to move forward, like adults, following the law.

Agreed. The house is doing that exactly the way they are supposed to, and the demo's are throwing a temper tantrum and blocking the adults.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Just saying it doesn't make it so Joe...It is up to you to point out what you think is a straw man argument.



Isn't the Constitution a law?



Nah, what makes you like Stewart, is that you agree with the liberal bias contained within his commentary, and agree with it. That is flawed thinking to believe that everyone thinks like you do...But, in the end, I think that some of these things will be enshrined in law, never to be overturned, less the people that try die the death of the third rail of touching an entitlement, until the country just goes broke, and we become a third world ****hole...Congratulations, you will have had a hand in defending that outcome.



This isn't a game Joe...Bad analogy.



Agreed. The house is doing that exactly the way they are supposed to, and the demo's are throwing a temper tantrum and blocking the adults.

Yes the Constitution is law, and by that document, law has been written, passed, and held up in court. Didn't you get the memo?

And, it's an apt analogy. Your side lost. By vote, by the Constitution, by rule of law, your side lost. Now republicans are throwing a temper tantrum.

And no. The house is behaving like children. They will regret that. I've told you such things in the past and been right each time. Instead of being wrong again, you might give advice some consideration. :coffeepap
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Yes the Constitution is law, and by that document, law has been written, passed, and held up in court. Didn't you get the memo?

And I am sure that when the time comes that Republicans have the house, senate, and Presidency, that you have no problem when those majorities lock out democrats in their decision to not only repeal this law, but move on agenda's they want and ram them through, right?

Is this what we have come to? Each side just ruling instead of leading, and do you think that is what the principles that founded this country were set up to do?

And, it's an apt analogy. Your side lost.

The problem here is that you are viewing this through a sectarian sense, and not really caring about what the country wants, just your team...

By vote, by the Constitution, by rule of law, your side lost. Now republicans are throwing a temper tantrum.

Really? Because I would say that the American people lost in this...That means you too.

And no. The house is behaving like children.

Is they?

They will regret that.

That is how progressive demo's see things, through the politics of pain when their opponents don't just lay down and let them run rough shot....

I've told you such things in the past and been right each time. Instead of being wrong again, you might give advice some consideration.

You think arrogance like this is actually helpful for reasonable discourse in a discussion? Sounds childish to me. :coffeepap:
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

And I am sure that when the time comes that Republicans have the house, senate, and Presidency, that you have no problem when those majorities lock out democrats in their decision to not only repeal this law, but move on agenda's they want and ram them through, right?

Is this what we have come to? Each side just ruling instead of leading, and do you think that is what the principles that founded this country were set up to do?



The problem here is that you are viewing this through a sectarian sense, and not really caring about what the country wants, just your team...



Really? Because I would say that the American people lost in this...That means you too.



Is they?



That is how progressive demo's see things, through the politics of pain when their opponents don't just lay down and let them run rough shot....



You think arrogance like this is actually helpful for reasonable discourse in a discussion? Sounds childish to me. :coffeepap:

J, don't you remember when they had it all? They did exactly the same thing.

And the country wants 90% of the law. Your sides misinformation effort makes it seem otherwise. Actually read those polls.

As for arrogance, while what I said was accurate, do keep a little sense if humor. If you do, you won't be so upset all the time.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

J, don't you remember when they had it all? They did exactly the same thing.

Oh, so you justify bad acts to excuse, because "the other side did it first" eh? Hmmmm....Sounds childish. :coffeepap

And the country wants 90% of the law. Your sides misinformation effort makes it seem otherwise. Actually read those polls.

Hell, "the country" doesn't know half of what is in the law, nor do they understand it, or what's in the 20,000 pages of new regulations that so far have been whipped up by the institutions like HHS since this laws passing.

And although I agree with many of the polls, that they show people don't want this shut down, but that they also think that the law is deeply flawed, only goes further to highlight that with progressive liberal rule of government only leaves a path like that to do what the people want.

As for arrogance, while what I said was accurate, do keep a little sense if humor. If you do, you won't be so upset all the time.

There is nothing funny about mean spirited arrogance. It is only something that would be allowable in internet conversations...Actual interaction in public, would have you choosing your words much more carefully, if you actually wanted to discuss anything.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Oh, so you justify bad acts to excuse, because "the other side did it first" eh? Hmmmm....Sounds childish. :coffeepap



Hell, "the country" doesn't know half of what is in the law, nor do they understand it, or what's in the 20,000 pages of new regulations that so far have been whipped up by the institutions like HHS since this laws passing.

And although I agree with many of the polls, that they show people don't want this shut down, but that they also think that the law is deeply flawed, only goes further to highlight that with progressive liberal rule of government only leaves a path like that to do what the people want.



There is nothing funny about mean spirited arrogance. It is only something that would be allowable in internet conversations...Actual interaction in public, would have you choosing your words much more carefully, if you actually wanted to discuss anything.

Not justify j, merely pointed out your hypocrisy. You jumped to the wrong place once again.

You don't know the law, and yet you whine? Point is when asked about the parts in the law, they say yes, they support that. They often strongly support it. Again, read your own surveys.

And I do nothing in a mean spirit. Mostly with but a giggle. Your off yet again j. ;)
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Not justify j, merely pointed out your hypocrisy. You jumped to the wrong place once again.

Whatever Joe...This isn't about me or you. It is about trying to correct this miscarriage of the process in making the law, and fixing that.

You don't know the law, and yet you whine?

Oh give me a break! :roll: The very legislators that rammed this through didn't know what they were passing. Need I play Connyers again?

Point is when asked about the parts in the law, they say yes, they support that. They often strongly support it. Again, read your own surveys.

mmmhmmm, yeah...Sadly, people like 'free stuff', and in our society they want to get it at the expense of others. That is what progressives like you see as a win, because it allows you to lock people into a vote for their free stuff. The modern day slavery. I hope you are proud.

And I do nothing in a mean spirit. Mostly with but a giggle. Your off yet again j.

Hard to giggle about the decline of America.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Whatever Joe...This isn't about me or you. It is about trying to correct this miscarriage of the process in making the law, and fixing that.



Oh give me a break! :roll: The very legislators that rammed this through didn't know what they were passing. Need I play Connyers again?



mmmhmmm, yeah...Sadly, people like 'free stuff', and in our society they want to get it at the expense of others. That is what progressives like you see as a win, because it allows you to lock people into a vote for their free stuff. The modern day slavery. I hope you are proud.



Hard to giggle about the decline of America.

J, it's not a miscarriage just because you or a group doesn't like it. Remember, most like the things in the law. Once you understand that, you will see the only thing unpopular is the mischaracterizing of the law. Stop misrepresebpnting it, and it might possibly become popular. And face it, that's what really scares your side. If it didn't, you wouldn't have to mischaracterize it.

And stop with the silly, childish "people like free stuff" and "modern day slavery." If you can't make a valid argument, just say you really can't. No one is in slavery. No one.
 
The family said their 4 person family, 2 parents & 2 boys of unspecified age (2 college age boys? 2 10 yr old boys?), premium is going from $333 to almost $1,000 a month.

As is common with these sorts of stories, the background facts are vague and impossible to verify. For one thing, where in the hell were they getting a "cadillac" plan, as they described it, for $333 a month for a family? I frankly don't believe that's possible on the open individual private ins. market.

Either someone was subsidizing them (meaning paying part of their premium), or it was a horrible policy and not a cadillac plan, or they're lying, OR something has happened recently in their health situation, like cancer (but like I said, I've never heard of being able to insure an entire family for $333 with a decent insurance plan, no less a cadillac plan). Even under one of my employers, an employee had to pay $1,000 to cover a family (employee ins. was free).

I have been checking private ins plans a bit for the last 2 years. I am single, not a tobacco user, no health concerns at all, over 50. Even I would have trouble finding a decent plan for $333 a month. In fact, when looking, I tried to keep the premium under $400, and in doing that, found that I would have to do a high deductible ($5,000), 20% to 30% coinsurance, and about $35 copay for dr visits. That's close to what I was getting from my last employer, so not bad. Out of pocket for year would be at least $10,000. Those were PPO plans. Still, not bad, compared to COBRA. I could get something decent for around $350 to $400 a month. So-called cadillac plans for me would run over $700 a month this year....same as last year.

So WHERE did they find a "cadillac" plan for an entire FAMILY for $333 a month? The article doesn't say, so it's impossible to verify. Which says a lot about that article and the "facts." And so it is with the scare tactic stories being spread around.

Also...the policy they have now? Isn't that under Obamacare, since Obamacare went into effect in 2010? It's just not the bronze, silver, platinum, standardized plans.

Note: If the family's income is less than $100,000, I think they'll qualify for a subsidy on the sliding scale. I would advise mom and dad to look for jobs with benefits, including health coverage and pension or a 401k. They have a family to support! But even if they get health coverage benefits, they may well have to pay about $1,000 for family coverage. That's fairly normal, as far as I know, for a group policy.
 
Last edited:
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

J, it's not a miscarriage just because you or a group doesn't like it.

No, you're right. It is a miscarriage when a super majority of one party crafts a bill behind closed doors, won't allow anyone from the minority party in to amend, pays off skiddish members of their own party to pass it, and then does a hurried vote at midnight on Christmas eve, to ram it through. That is not the way we do things no matter what you say.

Remember, most like the things in the law. Once you understand that, you will see the only thing unpopular is the mischaracterizing of the law. Stop misrepresebpnting it, and it might possibly become popular.[/QUOT

So, what I read you saying here is, 'Most people like free stuff in the bill, and if the other side would just stop revealing the horrible things contained within the law then we could lull people to sleep so that they just accept it.'

What people are not paying attention to is the taxation that is coming along with this turd...

"Taxes that took effect in 2010:

1. Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971.

2. Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113.

3. “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105.

4. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies ($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980.

5. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike ($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004.

6. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services ($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399.

Taxes that took effect in 2011:

7. Medicine Cabinet Tax ($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959.

8. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike ($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959.

Taxes that took effect in 2012:

9. Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Min$/Jan 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957.

Taxes that take effect in 2013:

10. Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93.

Capital Gains Dividends Other*
2012 15% 15% 35%
2013+ 23.8% 43.4% 43.4%
*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.

11. Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax ($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:

First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee
Current Law 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
Obamacare Tax Hike 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed 1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed

Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93

12. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers ($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986

13. Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI ($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

14. Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” ($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

15. Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D ($4.5 bil/Jan 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994

16. $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives ($0.6 bil/Jan 2013). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000

Taxes that take effect in 2014:

17. Individual Mandate Excise Tax (Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following

1 Adult 2 Adults 3+ Adults
2014 1% AGI/$95 1% AGI/$190 1% AGI/$285
2015 2% AGI/$325 2% AGI/$650 2% AGI/$975
2016 + 2.5% AGI/$695 2.5% AGI/$1390 2.5% AGI/$2085
Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS).Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337

18. Employer Mandate Tax (Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

19. Tax on Health Insurers ($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993

Taxes that take effect in 2018:

20. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans ($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956"

20 Hidden Tax Hikes in Obamacare


And stop with the silly, childish "people like free stuff" and "modern day slavery." If you can't make a valid argument, just say you really can't. No one is in slavery. No one.

It is valid to call things what they are. :coffeepap
 
Back
Top Bottom