• 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!

GOP eyes Dem help on ObamaCare

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
House Republicans will bring three bills to the floor for votes this week that would expand religious and military exemptions under ObamaCare.

And for a change, Republicans are expecting significant help from Democrats to pass the legislation.

GOP leaders are treating the three ObamaCare bills as "suspension" legislation, which means they will get a shorter debate and must pass with a two-thirds majority vote. That's a sign Republicans believe they have enough support from Democrats to pass the bills.
Click to expand...

And I support all 3 of these bills. Why? Because they are reasonable. It is good to see the GOP working to fix Obamacare instead of trying to repeal it.

Article is here.
 
danarhea said:
And I support all 3 of these bills. Why? Because they are reasonable. It is good to see the GOP working to fix Obamacare instead of trying to repeal it.
Click to expand...

Very, very bad idea.

You can't polish a turd.

There is no way to “fix” the ObamaCare scam that doesn't begin with completely repealing the entire stinking pile of solid digestive waste, and starting over. There is nothing the least bit “reasonable” about attempting to “fix” it in any other way.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Very, very bad idea.

You can't polish a turd.

There is no way to “fix” the ObamaCare scam that doesn't begin with completely repealing the entire stinking pile of solid digestive waste, and starting over. There is nothing the least bit “reasonable” about attempting to “fix” it in any other way.
Click to expand...

This is the beginning of the end. Once the federal gov't gets a power/program, it will never let it go. This shows a significant switch from the pre-PPACA era when states had the power to regulate commerce within their borders and it was legal to simply pay cash for medical services (without a tax/penalty).
 
ttwtt78640 said:
This is the beginning of the end. Once the federal gov't gets a power/program, it will never let it go. This shows a significant switch from the pre-PPACA era when states had the power to regulate commerce within their borders and it was legal to simply pay cash for medical services (without a tax/penalty).
Click to expand...

Are you saying it's not legal to be single (without a tax/penalty)?

Because married people get tax breaks I don't get.
 
Deuce said:
Are you saying it's not legal to be single (without a tax/penalty)?

Because married people get tax breaks I don't get.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between doing something (e.g. getting married) to change your taxation status and having your taxation status change for not doing something (spending your after tax income as directed by the gov't). Giving the federal gov't the power to mandate spending your after tax income as directed or paying an additional tax penalty is new ground. Allowing individuals a tax deduction/credit if they buy "private" medical insurance is different than saying buy it or pay an additional tax.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
There is a huge difference between doing something (e.g. getting married) to change your taxation status and having your taxation status change for not doing something (spending your after tax income as directed by the gov't). Giving the federal gov't the power to mandate spending your after tax income as directed or paying an additional tax penalty is new ground. Allowing individuals a tax deduction/credit if they buy "private" medical insurance is different than saying buy it or pay an additional tax.
Click to expand...

Not really. There is no difference. Either way you pay less taxes if you do something, and pay more if you don't. Same with having kids etc.

The tax on not having health insurance is no different then if they had increased everyone's taxes by a certain amount and then gave everyone a credit for that exact same amount. Either way the results are identical in every way. Tax code has been written to incentive certain behaviors for a long time, and obamacare isn't some new found way to control people.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Not really. There is no difference. Either way you pay less taxes if you do something, and pay more if you don't. Same with having kids etc.

The tax on not having health insurance is no different then if they had increased everyone's taxes by a certain amount and then gave everyone a credit for that exact same amount. Either way the results are identical in every way. Tax code has been written to incentive certain behaviors for a long time, and obamacare isn't some new found way to control people.
Click to expand...

You are seriously justifying the government taking choice from the people? Damn...
 
Not that it's a big issue here in Massachusetts, where I haven't had any legitimate representation in Washington since I moved here in 1998, but I'll have to do the research on who the 100+ Republicans co-signing those bills are, so if their names ever come up on a Presidential ballot, I know to skip them.

There is no legitimate version of Medicare, Medicaid, or the ACA so far as I'm concerned. Any politician who supports them (to any level, or with any vote), ceases to have any potential for getting my support in the future.
 
Gipper said:
You are seriously justifying the government taking choice from the people? Damn...
Click to expand...

I didn't justify that anywhere. Incentivizing people isn't denying choice. I believe you have either misread what was said, or you are purposefully mischaracterizing it.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I didn't justify that anywhere. Incentivizing people isn't denying choice. I believe you have either misread what was said, or you are purposefully mischaracterizing it.
Click to expand...

Not getting an unnecessary tax used as a giant blowjob to the insurance lobby is an incentive?

B.F. Skinner would like a word with you.
 
Gipper said:
Not getting an unnecessary tax used as a giant blowjob to the insurance lobby is an incentive?

B.F. Skinner would like a word with you.
Click to expand...

You're taxes are less if you have health insurance, the same that it is less if you own a house, have a kid get married blah blah blah. Therefor you are incentivized towards that behavior. It is not controlling, it is not forcing.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Not really. There is no difference. Either way you pay less taxes if you do something, and pay more if you don't. Same with having kids etc.

The tax on not having health insurance is no different then if they had increased everyone's taxes by a certain amount and then gave everyone a credit for that exact same amount. Either way the results are identical in every way. Tax code has been written to incentive certain behaviors for a long time, and obamacare isn't some new found way to control people.
Click to expand...

It is a bit more complicated than that. Most (85% to 90%) now have their medical care insurance provided by (or heavily subsidized by) their employer (or the gov't). This means that neither the employer nor the employee now pays much (if any) of that insurance expense using after tax income; yet an uninsured person is now expected to either use their after tax income to buy their own "mandated" insurance or to pay a an additional tax for not doing so.

I am not personally affected, or so I believe, since the PPACA law exempts (from the uninsured tax penalty) those that would have qualified for Medicaid expansion (single up to 200% of the FPL) living in states that opted out of it.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is a bit more complicated than that. Most (85% to 90%) now have their medical care insurance provided by (or heavily subsidized by) their employer (or the gov't). This means that neither the employer nor the employee now pays much (if any) of that insurance expense using after tax income; yet an uninsured person is now expected to either use their after tax income to buy their own "mandated" insurance or to pay a an additional tax for not doing so.

I am not personally affected, or so I believe, since the PPACA law exempts (from the uninsured tax penalty) those that would have qualified for Medicaid expansion (single up to 200% of the FPL) living in states that opted out of it.
Click to expand...

Bolded part is a bunch of bull ****. I pay half my premiums and my employer pays the other half, and my half comes out of my paycheck, after taxes. It is not taken out before hand. Yes, employers I believe do get some kind of tax breaks on it, but they don't pay taxes on it for the same reason that they don't pay taxes on money they pay employees, it's a business expense.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
There is a huge difference between doing something (e.g. getting married) to change your taxation status and having your taxation status change for not doing something (spending your after tax income as directed by the gov't). Giving the federal gov't the power to mandate spending your after tax income as directed or paying an additional tax penalty is new ground. Allowing individuals a tax deduction/credit if they buy "private" medical insurance is different than saying buy it or pay an additional tax.
Click to expand...

Really? So if the federal government had levied an income tax of $695 on all Americans, and then offered a $695 tax credit for people with health insurance, you'd have been fine with it?
 
Deuce said:
Really? So if the federal government had levied an income tax of $695 on all Americans, and then offered a $695 tax credit for people with health insurance, you'd have been fine with it?
Click to expand...

It would never have passed so it is a non-issue. Why not levy a tax of $1000 per child and then offer a tax credit of $1000 per child to married parents? Is it not better to have two parent households? Using the federal income tax code for social engineering purposes could be done in many ways. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom