• 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!

Lawsuit over health care tax could kill ‘Obamacare’

From your report dudette:

"The ACA’s provisions related to insurance coverage are now projected to have a net cost of $1,252 billion over the 2012–2022 period (see Table 2, following the text); that amount represents a gross cost to the federal government of $1,762 billion, offset in part by $510 billion in receipts and other budgetary effects (primarily revenues from penalties and other sources)."

Point being?

From the previously quoted article: $940 billion bill would be the biggest change to domestic policy in a generation. The rich and the health industry would pick up most of the tab.

Proves that the numbers have changed since 2010.
 
Last edited:
Point being?

Same point I made originally, that most of the cost of health care reform is paid for by the wealthy and savings from other new policies.
 
I doubt this lawsuit goes anywhere. Contrary to what the summary states at GovTracks.us, the chronology of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590) as outlined at the Library of Congress clearly indicates that the bill did, in fact, originate in the House and was introduced and sponsored by Rep. Charles Rangel on September 17, 2009.

why did you quote me in your post?

i've already explained that it did originate in the house... all shell bell originate in the House

it started out as something other than obamacare, the senate changed it to obamacare... and then ran it though the house as reconciliation.


Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
There are 7 versions of Bill Number H.R.3590 for the 111th Congress. Usually, the last item is the most recent.
1 . Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Introduced in House - IH)[H.R.3590.IH][PDF]
2 . Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Engrossed in House [Passed House] - EH)[H.R.3590.EH][PDF]
3 . Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Placed on Calendar Senate - PCS)[H.R.3590.PCS][PDF]
4 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Amendment in Senate - AS)[H.R.3590.AS][PDF]
5 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Print - PP)[H.R.3590.PP][PDF]
6 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Engrossed Amendment Senate - EAS)[H.R.3590.EAS][PDF]
7 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)[H.R.3590.ENR][PDF]


personally, i think they remain true to the letter of the Constitution, but give a big middle finger to the spirit..... and lawmakers are want to do.
 
Same point I made originally, that most of the cost of health care reform is paid for by the wealthy and savings from other new policies.

I edited my post as you were replying, with a quote directly from the old quoted article.

$940 billion bill would be the biggest change to domestic policy in a generation. The rich and the health industry would pick up most of the tab.

The new numbers show the revised cost, and does not state it will be financed by the ever elusive group, the 'rich'.
 
“Obamacare” looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system could pull the plug on the sweeping federal health care law. A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House Read more: Lawsuit over health care tax could kill 'Obamacare' - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Given that Boehner has thrown his hands in the air and given the Senate the lead on budget bills so anything passed would have 'started' in the Senate, I'd say the lawsuit is grasping at straws.

But high priced lawyers have kids with crooked teeth too so I can't fault them for wanting to milk this if they can... :peace
 
I edited my post as you were replying, with a quote directly from the old quoted article.

$940 billion bill would be the biggest change to domestic policy in a generation. The rich and the health industry would pick up most of the tab.

The new numbers show the revised cost, and does not state it will be financed by the ever elusive group, the 'rich'.



Where does it say it will be paid for by the working class.

And, repealing ACA as proposed by the GOP in HR 6079 would increase, not decrease the deficit.

Here is the most recent (2012) cost estimate from the CBO if Congress were to repeal ACA:

[h=4]What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?[/h] "Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period."
CBO | Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act
 
Where does it say it will be paid for by the working class.

And, repealing ACA as proposed by the GOP in HR 6079 would increase, not decrease the deficit.

Here is the most recent (2012) cost estimate from the CBO if Congress were to repeal ACA:

[h=4]What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?[/h] "Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period."
CBO | Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act

You are trying to gild your lily with that declaration. The part you left out with emphasis added:

Why Are These Estimates Uncertain?

Projections of the budgetary impact of H.R. 6079 are quite uncertain because they are based, in large part, on projections of the effects of the ACA, which are themselves highly uncertain. Assessing the effects of making broad changes in the nation’s health care and health insurance systems requires estimates of a broad array of technical, behavioral, and economic factors. Separating the incremental effects of the provisions in the ACA that affect spending for ongoing programs and revenue streams becomes more uncertain as the time since enactment grows. The recent Supreme Court decision that essentially made the expansion of the Medicaid program a state option has also increased the uncertainty of the estimates. However, CBO and JCT, in consultation with outside experts, have devoted a great deal of care and effort to the analysis of health care legislation in the past few years, and the agencies have strived to develop estimates that are in the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes.
 
Where does it say it will be paid for by the working class.

And, repealing ACA as proposed by the GOP in HR 6079 would increase, not decrease the deficit.

Here is the most recent (2012) cost estimate from the CBO if Congress were to repeal ACA:

[h=4]What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?[/h] "Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period."
CBO | Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act

Who do you think will be paying the majority of those penalties? Not the 'rich', since they already have health insurance, and likely something that exceeds the minimum requirements of the ACA. The majority will likely fall on the twenty-somethings who are too old to be on the parents policies, and have not yet settled into a career type job that provides those bennies. The other group will be the no-man's-land, making too much money to qualify for the subsidised insurance, but not enough to afford the insurance offered by employers, many of which are thinking about cutting back to employee only policies because of the premium increases.

I have not once stated it should be repealed in it's entirety. There are certain parts of the ACA, which if enacted alone, would have been extremely beneficial, such as the Pre-existing clause (with those paying a higher premium for that coverage). The Insurance Mandate is a gift to the insurance industry, and has done nothing to increase the access points needed for that group being added. Go try and make a non-emergency appointment with a new doctor... 4-6 week wait. I've tried it.
 
You are trying to gild your lily with that declaration. The part you left out with emphasis added:


That's always the case with estimates over a decade period.

"However, CBO and JCT, in consultation with outside experts, have devoted a great deal of care and effort to the analysis of health care legislation in the past few years, and the agencies have strived to develop estimates that are in the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes."
 
Who do you think will be paying the majority of those penalties? Not the 'rich', since they already have health insurance, and likely something that exceeds the minimum requirements of the ACA. The majority will likely fall on the twenty-somethings who are too old to be on the parents policies, and have not yet settled into a career type job that provides those bennies. The other group will be the no-man's-land, making too much money to qualify for the subsidised insurance, but not enough to afford the insurance offered by employers, many of which are thinking about cutting back to employee only policies because of the premium increases.

I have not once stated it should be repealed in it's entirety. There are certain parts of the ACA, which if enacted alone, would have been extremely beneficial, such as the Pre-existing clause (with those paying a higher premium for that coverage). The Insurance Mandate is a gift to the insurance industry, and has done nothing to increase the access points needed for that group being added. Go try and make a non-emergency appointment with a new doctor... 4-6 week wait. I've tried it.



Thanks for sharing your hunch!
 
That's always the case with estimates over a decade period.

"However, CBO and JCT, in consultation with outside experts, have devoted a great deal of care and effort to the analysis of health care legislation in the past few years, and the agencies have strived to develop estimates that are in the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes."

If the pilot of your airplane said "I am quite uncertain we will get you there" or it is "highly uncertain if we reach your destination" I am willing to bet you would want off the plane.
 
If the pilot of your airplane said "I am quite uncertain we will get you there" or it is "highly uncertain if we reach your destination" I am willing to bet you would want off the plane.

All ten year estimates have the same uncertainties. I guess you missed the first part of the discussion to understand why that is significant.
 
All ten year estimates have the same uncertainties. I guess you missed the first part of the discussion to understand why that is significant.

I worked on Capitol Hill for a bit. I guess you have greater faith in our government to stick to a budget or come in with much of anything in a favorable financial way than I did even when I was one of the evil insiders.
 
I worked on Capitol Hill for a bit. I guess you have greater faith in our government to stick to a budget or come in with much of anything in a favorable financial way than I did even when I was one of the evil insiders.


I guess you were surprised then when President Obama reduced the deficit.
 
You're welcome to prove otherwise.

Health care reform law's tax hikes are coming: Who pays?

"Who gets thumped by higher taxes in President Barack Obama's health care law? The wealthiest 2 percent of Americans will take the biggest hit, starting next year. And the pain will be shared by some who aren't so well off — people swept up in a hodgepodge of smaller tax changes that will help finance health coverage for millions in need.

For the vast majority of people, however, the health care law won't mean sending more money to the Internal Revenue Service.

And roughly 20 million people eventually will benefit from tax credits that start in 2014 to help them pay insurance premiums."


Health care reform law's tax hikes are coming: Who pays? - Leader-Telegram: Daily Updates
 
Health care reform law's tax hikes are coming: Who pays?

"Who gets thumped by higher taxes in President Barack Obama's health care law? The wealthiest 2 percent of Americans will take the biggest hit, starting next year. And the pain will be shared by some who aren't so well off — people swept up in a hodgepodge of smaller tax changes that will help finance health coverage for millions in need.
For the vast majority of people, however, the health care law won't mean sending more money to the Internal Revenue Service.

And roughly 20 million people eventually will benefit from tax credits that start in 2014 to help them pay insurance premiums."


Health care reform law's tax hikes are coming: Who pays? - Leader-Telegram: Daily Updates

That is far from refuting what I said. :wink:
 
That is far from refuting what I said. :wink:

What part of this didn't you understand?

"The wealthiest 2 percent of Americans will take the biggest hit."

"For the vast majority of people, however, the health care law won't mean sending more money to the Internal Revenue Service."
 
Last edited:
What part of this didn't you understand?

"The wealthiest 2 percent of Americans will take the biggest hit."

"For the vast majority of people, however, the health care law won't mean sending more money to the Internal Revenue Service."

I present numbers from the CBO, you present The Christian Science Monitor and The Leader Telegram.

No problem. And from your own quotation:

And the pain will be shared by some who aren't so well off — people swept up in a hodgepodge of smaller tax changes that will help finance health coverage for millions in need.
 
I present numbers from the CBO, you present The Christian Science Monitor and The Leader Telegram.

No problem. And from your own quotation:

And the pain will be shared by some who aren't so well off — people swept up in a hodgepodge of smaller tax changes that will help finance health coverage for millions in need.

Your CBO source did not state what you claim. And your quotation above was followed with, "For the vast majority of people, however, the health care law won't mean sending more money to the Internal Revenue Service."

My taxes have not gone up to pay for health care reform, have yours?
 
No stumbling block? Did you forget the Dick Armey bussed in tea baggers and the republicans not attending meetings and walking out? Sure you did.

PolitiFact | Obama statements on single-payer have changed a bit



We need the house and the senate and a majority of the senate with no fillibuster from the republicans.

Here's a list of Senate bribes to help them get this POS through. It's Christian Coalition, but facts are facts and this is all well known.

The payoffs in the Senate Obamacare bill | Christian Coalition of America

So your own Senate didn't want this ****.
 
Here's a list of Senate bribes to help them get this POS through. It's Christian Coalition, but facts are facts and this is all well known.

The payoffs in the Senate Obamacare bill | Christian Coalition of America

So your own Senate didn't want this ****.

YOU may believe the Christian Coalition, but these crooks have been ripping off Americans and lying to them, like under FalWell when they declared the democrats were going to steal bibles and Ralph Reed is now employed to use Chinese females slave workers in the Marinas islands as prostitutes and then force them into abortions.

Bill Moyers: Ralph Reed in the Marianas Trenches

As head of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, Reed boasts he's building a political dynamo of five million members with a massive database, an annual budget of $100 million and full-time lobbyists in all fifty state capitals, a colossal effort aimed at putting in place a right-wing social agenda and identifying and establishing contact with what it estimates as 27 million conservative voters in America. As you can imagine, with clout like that, Reed and his coalition were in high cotton at the Tampa convention.

Which brings us to that curious Mariana Islands minimum wage plank in the Republican platform. Some years ago, our government made an effort to clean up sweatshops on the islands -- including Saipan -- that have been under the control of the United States since the end of World War II.

Chinese women were brought over to the islands to work under awful conditions -- subject to forced abortions and prostitution and paid pennies for producing garments labeled "Made in the USA."

Corrupt local officials hired the firm of infamous lobbyist Jack Abramoff -- for more than four million dollars -- to try to stop the reforms proposed back in Washington. Abramoff, in turn, hired Ralph Reed and his political direct mail company, Millennium Marketing, to conduct a phony grass roots campaign urging Alabama Christians to write their local congressman to oppose the reforms.

Of course, Reed didn't tell those Christians he was being paid to help keep running sweatshops that exploited women. Instead, he told them the reforms were a trick orchestrated by the left and organized labor. Limits on Chinese workers would keep them from being "exposed to the teachings of Jesus Christ." His company explained it was just trying to encourage "grass roots citizens to promote the propagation of the Gospel" and that many of the workers were "converted to the Christian faith and return to China with Bibles in hand."

The Christian right wing are not Christians and they are just as big of corporate thugs as the oil companies are.
 
why did you quote me in your post?

i've already explained that it did originate in the house... all shell bell originate in the House

it started out as something other than obamacare, the senate changed it to obamacare... and then ran it though the house as reconciliation.

You mean I can't quote someone as affirmation that they were right? Pity....:(

Seriously, I quoted you for emphasis, nothing more.
 
Back
Top Bottom