• 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!

Read the bill: Obamacare socks middle class with $3.9 billion tax increase

Sandokan

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
5,217
Reaction score
747
Location
Los Angels, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
There is one more small detail they forgot to tell you about in the health care bill, says the Washington Examiner: Taxpayers earning less than $200,000 a year will pay roughly $3.9 billion more in taxes -- in 2019 alone -- because of health care reform, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper for legislation.

Consider:

• The new law raises $15.2 billion over 10 years by limiting the medical expense deduction, a provision widely used by taxpayers who either have a serious illness or are older.
• Taxpayers can currently deduct medical expenses in excess of 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income (AGI).
• Starting in 2013, most taxpayers will only be allowed to deducted expenses greater than 10 percent of AGI; older taxpayers are hit by this threshold increase in 2017.

This is worse than a tax on the middle class, says the Examiner. It's a tax on the middle class who are seriously ill. And what's the over/under on how many times Obama is going to break that "no taxes on anyone earning under $250,000 a year" pledge, anyway?

Source: Mark Hemingway, "Read the bill: ObamaCare socks middle class with $3.9 billion tax increase," Washington Examiner, April 12, 2010.

For text: Read the bill: Obamacare socks middle class with $3.9 billion tax increase | Washington Examiner
This is a tax on the middle class who are seriously ill. Clearly for the current leadership in Congress and the Obama Administration the ends justify the means. This tax will cause the Tea Parties to swell in rank.
 
WHERE in the bill does it say this?

Or is this just more BS hype against the bill?
 
Here is the underlying JCT report that the Examiner article uses as a source. It's from Nov. of '09, there may be an update. It's not clear on the incidence of the tax (i.e. "middles class" vs "rich" vs "everyone").

J
 
yeah, i'm sorry Sandokan, but the notion that this was actually in the final bill is pretty far fetched.

After all, Obama pretty-promised not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than 250,000 a year, and as we all know, he's a man of his word on important matters of state or matters of personal integrity.



so, based on what we know of Obama, and his devotion to capitalism, i have to say that he would have no doubt insisted this portion come out, as i am also sure that he read the entire bill before he signed it; in which case he would assuredly have come across such a travesty.
 
yeah, i'm sorry Sandokan, but the notion that this was actually in the final bill is pretty far fetched.
The beginning of the tax increase starts next year when the Administration takes away reimbursement for over the counter medications from your FSA/MSA/HSA account. On the following year they limit the amount you can contribute to the account to about $2500 which doesn't come close to covering the average of $3500 that people have had withheld the last year to cover medical expenses. So right off the bat millions will lose money.
 
This is a tax on the middle class who are seriously ill. Clearly for the current leadership in Congress and the Obama Administration the ends justify the means. This tax will cause the Tea Parties to swell in rank.

When you have non-partisan analysis, let us know.
 
Here is the underlying JCT report that the Examiner article uses as a source. It's from Nov. of '09, there may be an update. It's not clear on the incidence of the tax (i.e. "middles class" vs "rich" vs "everyone").

J

Yes, there were revisions after this report was published. I wish I'd saved a link to the latest CBO report, I think it would contain the information. Will see if I can dig it up and see if this is still true.
 
Deuce said:
Yes, there were revisions after this report was published.

Quite right, HERE is a report from March 18th the latest before the bill was signed by the President. Title threw me off originally; bill going Senate -> House -> Senate means a 'Reconciliation Act'. [1]

The major change from the report I first linked to is the delay in the "Cadillac plan tax" 'till 2018. (Line item 1) There are other small changes, but the quoted items from the OP are still the proper figures.

Clicking through the OP Examiner article to "The Hill" post, they report this change in medical expense deduction will affect ~15 Million taxpayers. "Once the law is fully implemented in 2019, the JCT estimates the deduction limitation will affect 14.8 million taxpayers — 14.7 million of them will earn less than $200,000 a year." [2] While the incidence of the taxes aren't in the report I link to, seeing as their other numbers are correct I find no reason to doubt the reporting. Given the 138 million taxpayers in the US [3], that's a little over 10% of the filers.

There's another $19 billion or so over 10 years in alterations to HSA type accounts. (Line items 3, 4, and 5) [1]

The infamous excise tax on tanning salons nets $2.7 billion over 10 years. (Line item 17) [1]

Again, I didn't find analysis of incidence but those are far from limited to "the rich". Also, notably absent is the "penalty" on not having insurance. I don't know if the questionable "enforcement" of that penalty is a factor. [4]

Some of the corporate taxes may pass through to individuals. Taxes such as the fee on health insurance providers and the excise tax on medical devices will likely wind their way to individuals in the form of higher insurance premiums. If all health insurance providers are taxed there's little to gain in terms of market share from being a hold out. If non-profit insurers are exempt from this fee then they have yet another cost advantage, and there is an incentive for for-profit insurers to not pass along the costs. Similarly excise taxes on medical devices will likely be passed on to doctors / hospitals and in turn onto patients, especially since there is increased reliance on third party payments for medical bills.

The health insurer fee nets $60 billion over 10 years. Really 5 years since it doesn't kick in until 2014. (Line item 10) [1]

The medical device tax nets $20 billion over 10 years. (Line item 9) [1]

Comparatively, "the rich" are directly targeted for $210 billion over 10 years. (Line item 15) [1] About half of the overall revenue. It will be interesting to see of the non-indexing survives or goes the way of the AMT.

hazlnut said:
When you have non-partisan analysis, let us know.

Not that you bothered to look the first time, but the JCT qualifies as non-partisan analysis.

J

[1] JCX-16-10
[2] JCT: Healthcare law to sock middle class with a $3.9 billion tax increase in 2019 - The Hill's On The Money
[3] [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States]Taxation in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[4] The IRS commissioner explains how he'll make you buy health insurance. - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine
 
What happened to Obama promise that no taxes would be raised on the middle class? I believe that is what they meant when they said we must "hurry up and pass the bill so we can find out what in it." Repeal of this disastrous bill is gaining popularity in the polls on a daily basis as the details are coming out. Didn't Pelosi promise we would all love this bill once we knew what was in it?

As the song says, "what love has to do with it?
 
hazlnut said:
1) Report in which estimates don't back up OP
2) Blog
3) Wiki article (not sure what this is for)
4) Slate Magazine article

Your lack of reading comprehension astounds even me.

1) The JCT report directly supports the OP. Line item 13 from the report is the AGI floor adjustment the OP talks about. The 2019 estimate is $3.9 billion, exactly as the OP claims. The 10 year estimate (2010-2019) is $15.2 billion, exactly as the OP claims. The November estimate I first linked to had the exact same findings. This would be the non-partisan analysis that confirms the OP. Indeed it is the analysis the OP is based upon.

2) The blog cites the JCT for incidence. As I clearly stated in my post (which you apparently didn't bother to read), there is no reason to doubt the incidence reporting since they accurately cited the JCT in regards to item #1. Do you have any evidence that the blog information is incorrect? Or are you going to rely on ad hominem argument?

3) Again, as is clear if you took the time to actually read my post, the wiki article is used as a source for the 138 million taxpayers claim. I used it in order to arrive at my estimation of 10% of taxpayers affected by the AGI floor adjustment.

4) Article where reporter sympathetic to the bill who has been following it's progress closely, highlights the dubious enforcement capabilities of the individual mandate (sourcing IRS representatives and other expert opinion). Again, do you have any evidence to the contrary? Or do you simply ignore things that don't agree with your worldview?

Would you care to address any of the other findings of my post? Instead of running your mouth with blinders firmly clamped over your eyes.

J
 
1) Report in which estimates don't back up OP
2) Blog
3) Wiki article (not sure what this is for)
4) Slate Magazine article

Still waiting on a non-partisan analysis.
The folks on the left side of the street need to work on their reading comprehension skills. The article makes it clear that the numbers presented by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) are from the "Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper for legislation." He is just passing along official figures compiled by the JCT. It also makes clear it is going to affect approx. 14.7 million taxpayers making between $88k $200k/year by raising the threshold at which they can start deducting medical expenses from the current 7.5% of Adjusted Gross Income to 10% of AGI. Rraising this threshold means more taxes taken in by the Federal Government. This will mostly affect older citizens who naturally spend more on health care.
 
What happened to Obama promise that no taxes would be raised on the middle class? I believe that is what they meant when they said we must "hurry up and pass the bill so we can find out what in it." Repeal of this disastrous bill is gaining popularity in the polls on a daily basis as the details are coming out. Didn't Pelosi promise we would all love this bill once we knew what was in it?

As the song says, "what love has to do with it?

the song says "what's love got to do with it?".

stupid song. and completely irrelevant. if the HC bill doesn't do what we would like it is because folks like you listened to the health insurance industry shills and gutted the bill that would do some good. folks like you helped save the extortion industry.

this bill was passed in order "win". and it worked. they won, we lose.

and it is all your fault.

geo.
 
This new law makes hospitals owned by doctors illegal. 60 doctors owned hospitals in 38 states will be closed. These hospitals provide jobs for 55,000 people. But none of the Democrats politicians that support the law cared about that. Fewer doctors, fewer hospital beds, much longer wait times (fewer providers), less medical research on devices and pharmaceuticals, higher insurance costs, and a much higher national debt.
 
obvious Child said:
Notice he ignored how with mandatory insurance, taxpayers won't have to have their premiums and taxes go to fund the uninsured.

There is no such savings from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

1) Federal and State governments provided $43 billion to treat the estimated 77 million uninsured in 2008. [1]
2) There is little evidence of hospitals cost shifting from uninsured to insured. [1]
3) PPACA raises $437 billion in taxes over 10 years; or roughly $43 billion per year. [2]
4) The CBO estimates that 32 million people will gain insurance as a result of PPACA by 2019. [3, page 9]
a) 24 million via private insurance. [3, page 9]
b) 16 million via public programs. [3, page 9]
c) 24 + 16 = 40 which is greater than 32 since some people would be shifting from one insurance source to another instead of going from uninsured to insured. [3, page 21]
d) 23 million would remain uninsured in 2019, (approximately 1/3 of which are illegal immigrants). [3, page 9]
In short, the taxes raised by PPACA are equal to what was already being spent by the government to treat the uninsured. The same amount of money that covered uncompensated care for ~77 million in 2008 would only buy insurance for 32 million in 2019. Furthermore, 16 million people would be added to public programs which would not reduce the use of taxes to pay for their care. There is no benefit to the taxpayer from PPACA in regards to "paying for the uninsured".

J


[1] http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7810.pdf
[2] JCX-16-10
[3] http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/Manager'sAmendmenttoReconciliationProposal.pdf
 
The President made it a point to vigorously campaign on the issue of not raising taxes on the middle class, and now look at what will happen after the healthcare bill was passed. Taxes will be raised for the group Obama promised not to raise taxes on, the middle class. Either he intentionally did this knowing that 2019 would be long after his first term and he would not be held accountable or he didn't even know what was in the 2700 page healthcare bill, either way we lose, unless in the November elections we change the actual course of the country.
 
To think taxation on the middle class is not going to go up under all the spending this administration is doing is pure folly. Most business passes the taxes to the consumer by raising the price of products and services. It is happening now and the middle class is already starting to pay more for a loaf of bread, bottle of milk, etc. Physicians and the like will be forced to accept what the government deems adequate compensation or retired/quit their profession.
 
This new law makes hospitals owned by doctors illegal. 60 doctors owned hospitals in 38 states will be closed. These hospitals provide jobs for 55,000 people. But none of the Democrats politicians that support the law cared about that. Fewer doctors, fewer hospital beds, much longer wait times (fewer providers), less medical research on devices and pharmaceuticals, higher insurance costs, and a much higher national debt.

Source this please.
 
Source this please.
PHYSICIAN-OWNED HOSPITALS FACE NEW REGULATIONS, LIMITS ON GROWTHSide Effects: Physician-Owned Hospitals Face New Regulations, Limits on Growth | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

For those who voted for Obama and the Democrats, this is the change you can believe in. Believe it or not, when they are done having their way with America, it will be such a change; you will not even recognize this country. Whether you like it or not, America was founded as a Christian Nation. Under those principles our nation has flourished. Since the progressives have been at work trying to rid our nation of those principles, a noticeable down ward trend has occurred in the economy, spiritually and morally. Their only answer is to keep throwing more money at every problem that crops up. Of course, there are more problems than there is money, so soon our nation will be bankrupt. And that is change you can believe in.
 
Sandokan said:
...when they are done having their way with America, it will be such a change; you will not even recognize this country.

Really? The earliest President that I can remember was Dwight David, so that makes 11 and while we have changed over the years, I still recognize it and believe me, I like now vs. then.

Some folks freak out without the steering wheel in their hands.
 
Back
Top Bottom