• 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!

Recession Ended in June 2009

Don't you remember Obama saying "it's not a tax, it's not a tax, it's not a tax, it's not a tax, it''s not a tax, it's not a tax, it's not a tax." Then finds out a penality is uncontitutional...and says, it's a tax, it's a tax, it's a tax, it's a tax, it's a tax"

We'll let the courts figure out what to call it,. but the fact remainds, no one who obeys the law has to pay it. ;)
 
You do know that simply ignoring the specific increase in taxes that I posted doesn't mean that they don't exist. Nor does it prove that you were correct in claiming that "Obama (the Government) doesn't have to raise new revenue, since there is not a public option".

BTW, the fine on individuals that don't want or can't afford health insurance is a new tax. Who cares who it's being assessed too. Even the requirement forcing individuals to purchase insurance can in some ways be considered a new tax. It's an obligation that is being forced upon us by the government that will have the same result as a traditional tax - less money to spend by those being required by the government to purchase.

Tax | Define Tax at Dictionary.com
1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.
 
Last edited:
You do know that simply ignoring the specific increase in taxes that I posted doesn't mean that they don't exist. Nor does it prove that you were correct in claiming that "Obama (the Government) doesn't have to raise new revenue, since there is not a public option".

BTW, the fine on individuals that don't want or can't afford health insurance is a new tax. Who cares who it's being assessed too. Even the requirement forcing individuals to purchase insurance can in some ways be considered a new tax. It's an obligation that is being forced upon us by the government that will have the same result as a traditional tax - less money to spend by those being required by the government to purchase.

Tax | Define Tax at Dictionary.com

Didn't see your post. Otherwise I would have replyed.

I'll take the second part first. Again, don't care what you call it, if you obey the law, there's nothing you have to pay. No different than any other similar law.

Now, those you mention are quite limited and don't apply to most. A large majority of people and business will see nothing. high income and cadillac policies will see increases. Some business will actually get tax credits, negating the overall tax burden.

Being disingenuous about the this is not helpful. There is no real tax burden and most simply won't see any tax increase. Again, read the bill for understanding, and not for partisan games. ;0
 
Didn't see your post. Otherwise I would have replyed.

I'll take the second part first. Again, don't care what you call it, if you obey the law, there's nothing you have to pay. No different than any other similar law.

Now, those you mention are quite limited and don't apply to most. A large majority of people and business will see nothing. high income and cadillac policies will see increases. Some business will actually get tax credits, negating the overall tax burden.

Being disingenuous about the this is not helpful. There is no real tax burden and most simply won't see any tax increase. Again, read the bill for understanding, and not for partisan games. ;0

Well, yeah. if you're just going to minimize all of the new taxes contained in this bill, then I guess, at least in some alternate universe, you're quite correct. However, there are a whole lot of new taxes in this bill.

And I have no doubt the costs will be much higher than estimated by the CBO due to a variety of reasons (bad information, history of understimating medical, etc) which will require the government to come up with new ways to tax us. They'll obviously have to be creative with the taxes so that you can continue to carry their water and claim it's not a tax increase or whatever.
 
Well, yeah. if you're just going to minimize all of the new taxes contained in this bill, then I guess, at least in some alternate universe, you're quite correct. However, there are a whole lot of new taxes in this bill.

And I have no doubt the costs will be much higher than estimated by the CBO due to a variety of reasons (bad information, history of understimating medical, etc) which will require the government to come up with new ways to tax us. They'll obviously have to be creative with the taxes so that you can continue to carry their water and claim it's not a tax increase or whatever.

Some redistribution (of taxes and not wealth), not forgetting tax credits, but for most people, no new taxes at all. And I mean for the vast majority. Most upset will see no new tax at all. And if we're honest, that is what needs to be said, clearly.
 
Some redistribution (of taxes and not wealth), not forgetting tax credits, but for most people, no new taxes at all. And I mean for the vast majority. Most upset will see no new tax at all. And if we're honest, that is what needs to be said, clearly.

Everyone will be affected by the tax increases. For example, pharmaceutical and medical manufacturing companies will be passing their new higher taxes onto consumers by increasing the price of their goods. If you don't have insurance, you'll be paying higher prices. If you do have insurance, you'll be paying higher premiums. I know, I know... that obviously doesn't count because (insert excuse here).
 
That is only for those who don't carry insurance, if I understand you. So again, this is trying to make something into something it isn't.

No I am just correcting a statement that was made about taxes. I understand that the only way this plan works is for everyine to be insured. There are a number of people who choose not to be insured today. So making them buy insurance or pay a tax is an added expenditure for those folks. These are usually people in their 20's or 30's, healthy, few assets so they are willing to risk not have insurance.
 
No I am just correcting a statement that was made about taxes. I understand that the only way this plan works is for everyine to be insured. There are a number of people who choose not to be insured today. So making them buy insurance or pay a tax is an added expenditure for those folks. These are usually people in their 20's or 30's, healthy, few assets so they are willing to risk not have insurance.

Asking them to cover themselves should not eb a burden. Believe it or not, many of them simply guess wrong. Young people do have accidents and get sick and then become a burden on all of us. Since we cannot know which young people will fall into this category, it is proper that all plan for the possibility. And if they become something long term as a burden, it is even more important that they plan in advance. This is the theroy behind insurance to start with. It isn't just for the old.
 
Everyone will be affected by the tax increases. For example, pharmaceutical and medical manufacturing companies will be passing their new higher taxes onto consumers by increasing the price of their goods. If you don't have insurance, you'll be paying higher prices. If you do have insurance, you'll be paying higher premiums. I know, I know... that obviously doesn't count because (insert excuse here).

That's not different than before reform. Those taxes are also limited in scope and really should not effect much, but we have seen that these people raise prices anyway, and will do so without reform. This is why the public option made more sense, but scare tactics won the day. your side has more to blame on this aspect than anyone else. ;)
 
Asking them to cover themselves should not eb a burden. Believe it or not, many of them simply guess wrong. Young people do have accidents and get sick and then become a burden on all of us. Since we cannot know which young people will fall into this category, it is proper that all plan for the possibility. And if they become something long term as a burden, it is even more important that they plan in advance. This is the theroy behind insurance to start with. It isn't just for the old.

Again, look at my second sentence. I agree, however in a free society it is usually up to people to decide. If the HC plan was a single payor then we would not have to worry about this.
 
That's not different than before reform.
So, you're basically saying "medical inflation was going up prior to reform, so lets make it go up even faster". Very wise of you. :bravo:

Those taxes are also limited in scope and really should not effect much

$2.3 billion/year tax increase on pharma and $2 bill / year on the medical device industry and 6.7bill / year on health insurance industry (11bill / year) - yeah, very limited. It wont affect a thing.
 
Everyone will be affected by the tax increases. For example, pharmaceutical and medical manufacturing companies will be passing their new higher taxes onto consumers by increasing the price of their goods. If you don't have insurance, you'll be paying higher prices. If you do have insurance, you'll be paying higher premiums.

Prices go up or down for a variety of reasons, not just yours. Trying to pin everything that's wrong with business on a 2 percent tax cut doesn't fly, or even get off the ground.

ricksfolly
 
Prices go up or down for a variety of reasons, not just yours. Trying to pin everything that's wrong with business on a 2 percent tax cut doesn't fly, or even get off the ground.

ricksfolly

Never said the prices would go up due to "just taxes". For example, premiums will continue increasing due to the increasing utilization rates, new technology/R&D, reforms (such as children to 26, no recissions, no pre-ex) , etc, etc. However, an additional 11+ billion dollar tax on health care industries is going to be felt. To claim that the additional taxes "won't affect much" is silly.
 
Last edited:
an additional 11+ billion dollar tax on health care industries is going to be felt. To claim that the additional taxes "won't affect much" is silly.

All businesses pay taxes on their profits, including health care industries, been doing it long before I was born, so why is it an issue now?

ricksfolly
 
All businesses pay taxes on their profits, including health care industries, been doing it long before I was born, so why is it an issue now?

ricksfolly

Really? You don't say.

Taxes were just increased on the medical industry. Democrats are free to do so. I only have an issue when individuals that love the reforms begin to claim that no one will be affected by the increased taxes. Obviously those increased taxes will be passed onto the consumer in the way of higher prices for the product and higher insurance premiums.

Way to stick it to those evil corporations.
 
Again, look at my second sentence. I agree, however in a free society it is usually up to people to decide. If the HC plan was a single payor then we would not have to worry about this.

And I agree with your last sentence.
 
Which doesn't make it any less the law right now. How it will end up is debatable and we'll have to wait an see on. But, the fact is, if it stays the law, all you have to do is obey the law.
 
Which doesn't make it any less the law right now. How it will end up is debatable and we'll have to wait an see on. But, the fact is, if it stays the law, all you have to do is obey the law.

When obeying the law causes businesses to close down, because they can no longer afford to operate, then there is something seriously ****ed up with that law.

A scenario like that, or a scenario where products become to too expensive for people to purchase, or a scenario which includes mass layoffs and/or significant salary cuts, will have a negative effect on the economy.
 
When obeying the law causes businesses to close down, because they can no longer afford to operate, then there is something seriously ****ed up with that law.

A scenario like that, or a scenario where products become to too expensive for people to purchase, or a scenario which includes mass layoffs and/or significant salary cuts, will have a negative effect on the economy.

Fear mongering does equal fact. nothing in the law is making business close down. That's nothing more than hyperbolic fear mongering.

And health care has been too expensive for a long time now. You can't blame that on reform either.
 
Fear mongering does equal fact. nothing in the law is making business close down. That's nothing more than hyperbolic fear mongering.

Obamacare will cause the scenarios I just listed.

And health care has been too expensive for a long time now. You can't blame that on reform either.

And now, it's going to become even MORE expensive.
 
Obamacare will cause the scenarios I just listed.



And now, it's going to become even MORE expensive.

I see no reason why it would. I believe your claim is nothing more than fear mongering hyperbole. And while we could have done more to lessen the costs (public option anyone?), it is yet to be proven that it will have to be more expensive. But even if it is, covering more would justify that. remember, it was getting more and more expensive while giving less and less in retrun for the expense.

It can be better, and I hope our leaders keep working to make it better. But we need honest rational discourse and not the hyperbolic fear mongering that has been the staple of the debate so far.
 
I see no reason why it would. I believe your claim is nothing more than fear mongering hyperbole. And while we could have done more to lessen the costs (public option anyone?), it is yet to be proven that it will have to be more expensive. But even if it is, covering more would justify that. remember, it was getting more and more expensive while giving less and less in retrun for the expense.

It can be better, and I hope our leaders keep working to make it better. But we need honest rational discourse and not the hyperbolic fear mongering that has been the staple of the debate so far.

In order to have reasonable debate, both sides need to put aside the hyperbole. Are there good things in the bill, yes. To deny that these good things have no cost is silly and I think you know that. If you want to argue that the cost of let's say insurance for kids under 26 or no caps are worth it fine. I for one could agree with that. But to say it has no cost would be intellectually dishonest.

I think the reason this bill is causing so much angst is that it satisfies almost no one. Some think it is too much of an intrusion others think it was so weak that it missed the boat.

One thing I have not heard an answer to. Most of the lower income will fall into Medicade so the states will have to pay. Was the cost to states considered when the CBO scored. I doubt it as they were looking at the impact to the Federal budget.
 
In order to have reasonable debate, both sides need to put aside the hyperbole. Are there good things in the bill, yes. To deny that these good things have no cost is silly and I think you know that. If you want to argue that the cost of let's say insurance for kids under 26 or no caps are worth it fine. I for one could agree with that. But to say it has no cost would be intellectually dishonest.

I think the reason this bill is causing so much angst is that it satisfies almost no one. Some think it is too much of an intrusion others think it was so weak that it missed the boat.

One thing I have not heard an answer to. Most of the lower income will fall into Medicade so the states will have to pay. Was the cost to states considered when the CBO scored. I doubt it as they were looking at the impact to the Federal budget.

I don't think I've argued there will be no expense. It may well cost more, but i'm not sure that is proven with certainty. I have argued that we will almost certainly get more for the cost.

But I agree that this bill satisfies no one, and that is the problem. My biggest problem, however, was in the way it was demoized almost from the beginning, taken it from a rational discussion to the fear mongering we saw. From claims of socialims to death panels, the discussion went silly and this played a major role in the failing of the bill. It kept the discourse from being about what was best, and left us with getting something so improvement would even be possible.

I have some blame for both parties on this. But it has historically been the nature of the healthcare debate, and this saddens me a great deal.
 
I see no reason why it would. I believe your claim is nothing more than fear mongering hyperbole. And while we could have done more to lessen the costs (public option anyone?), it is yet to be proven that it will have to be more expensive. But even if it is, covering more would justify that. remember, it was getting more and more expensive while giving less and less in retrun for the expense.

It can be better, and I hope our leaders keep working to make it better. But we need honest rational discourse and not the hyperbolic fear mongering that has been the staple of the debate so far.

It's not fear mongering; it's fact.

Fact #1: businesses that do not provide health coverage--in accordance with the government's standards--will be forced to pay a fine of $2,000 per employee. A company with 100 empoyees--not a very big company at all--will have an additional $200,000 of overhead.

Fact #2: providing insurance--IAW the government's standards--will cost more than $2,000 a month, per employee.

And, you insist that this won't have a damaging effect on small businesses? The worst part, is that the working folks are going to be the ones to suffer most, with pay-cuts and layoffs.
 
Back
Top Bottom