• 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!

SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

This is all well documented, right? There are taxes on Cadillac plans, which as y'all have pointed out, will disproportionately be enforced against union members, unless they change their plans before it takes effect. There are fees on medical devices. There is the mandate penalty, already discussed ad nauseum. There is a Medicare payroll tax hike that affects those making more than $200,000. There's a hike in capital gains on home sales that affects those who earn more than $500,000 on the sale of a home, etc.

So generally the taxes and fees will affect upper middle class and wealthy folks.

WOW...'upper middle class and wealthy folks' are union members and the only ones who use 'medical devices'...and of course they will be the ones who will pay the mandate penalty.

Try again...
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

This is all well documented, right? There are taxes on Cadillac plans, which as y'all have pointed out, will disproportionately be enforced against union members, unless they change their plans before it takes effect. There are fees on medical devices. There is the mandate penalty, already discussed ad nauseum. There is a Medicare payroll tax hike that affects those making more than $200,000. There's a hike in capital gains on home sales that affects those who earn more than $500,000 on the sale of a home, etc.

So generally the taxes and fees will affect upper middle class and wealthy folks.


WTF are there even Cadillac plans? Ya want your own personal butler, chef, etc and pass that cost off on the insurance pool!
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

WOW...'upper middle class and wealthy folks' are union members and the only ones who use 'medical devices'...and of course they will be the ones who will pay the mandate penalty.

Try again...

Try to take off the partisan goggles for a second. The unions will renegotiate their insurance plans by the time the tax would kick in. At the end of the day it will only apply to those for whom the tax is a barely noticeable inconvenience. The medical device tax will have some impact on middle class folks, but it will be hugely outweighed by the benefit received.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Try to take off the partisan goggles for a second. The unions will renegotiate their insurance plans by the time the tax would kick in. At the end of the day it will only apply to those for whom the tax is a barely noticeable inconvenience. The medical device tax will have some impact on middle class folks, but it will be hugely outweighed by the benefit received.

My arguments are not partisan but rather those of a realist. As you know I have been incredibly skeptical on where the money is going to come from. The 'upper middle class and wealthy folks' do not make enough to pay for all the changes this administration desires, ACA included. Also, the adjusted CBO numbers released earlier this year were pretty significant revisions…up. Given the GDP growth and UE projections have been woefully inaccurate my skepticism becomes more founded as time passes. Hoping it will work out is merely dreaming…IMHO

ps. Since the CBO will score PPACA again since the SCOTUS has ruled wanna wager which way the 'costs' move?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

I can't believe you wrote that Tea. So what experience did obama have in running a govt. prior to being elected. Four years in the Senate. (whoopee).

Yet he had not experience prior. Using your logic McCain should of beat Obama hands down just in Senate experience.
Using your logic, then guess the only people who should run for President are past Presidents. They would be the only people who have the "President" work experience.

Of course not. However, its patently absurd to suggest that Romney or anyone else has better experience for the position of POTUS than the sitting POTUS. Anyone other than the sitting POTUS is going to have to learn the job. Yes, four years ago, Obama could only boast some experience in the US Senate. His inexperience was a valid issue. Now, however, he can boast four years experience as chief executive of the US... no one else (at least that is running and qualified to run) can make the same claim. Now, the issue of experience (or lack thereof) is an issue for Romney.

The issue for the American people is going to be who is the better leader and executive years 2, 3 and 4 of the job. Can Romney learn the position fast enough in 1 year to be more effective than Obama with 5 years experience?
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

My arguments are not partisan but rather those of a realist. As you know I have been incredibly skeptical on where the money is going to come from. The 'upper middle class and wealthy folks' do not make enough to pay for all the changes this administration desires, ACA included. Also, the adjusted CBO numbers released earlier this year were pretty significant revisions…up. Given the GDP growth and UE projections have been woefully inaccurate my skepticism becomes more founded as time passes. Hoping it will work out is merely dreaming…IMHO

ps. Since the CBO will score PPACA again since the SCOTUS has ruled wanna wager which way the 'costs' move?

The upper middle class and wealthy have most of the money in this country. The CBO report did not in fact adjust the cost upward, but rather downward, relative to previous estimates -- Fox News reporting notwithstanding. The bottom line projection increased, of course, because the new report was looking at a different 10-year span -- this one covering more of the time period when the bulk of the law would be in effect. Pardon my Meida Matters, but they are correct here: Right-Wing Media Falsely Claim Cost Of Health Care Law Has Doubled | Research | Media Matters for America
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Of course not. However, its patently absurd to suggest that Romney or anyone else has better experience for the position of POTUS than the sitting POTUS. Anyone other than the sitting POTUS is going to have to learn the job. Yes, four years ago, Obama could only boast some experience in the US Senate. His inexperience was a valid issue. Now, however, he can boast four years experience as chief executive of the US... no one else (at least that is running and qualified to run) can make the same claim. Now, the issue of experience (or lack thereof) is an issue for Romney.

The issue for the American people is going to be who is the better leader and executive years 2, 3 and 4 of the job. Can Romney learn the position fast enough in 1 year to be more effective than Obama with 5 years experience?

Yes, Romney can. Obama did. This line of looking at experience reminds me of past elections dealing with military experience for President. Doesn't account for much anymore now does it?

It is amazing that all Presidents have had a first term. Some were given a second term. Your right we need to look at who will be the best leader.

I voted for Obama the first time (and I am a registered Republican - who votes who I think is the best canidate. been registered democrat and independent). I doubt I will vote for Obama again.
-Obama stated in 2009 if my stimulas bill is passed, unemployment will be less than 6% by mid 2012. Nope
-He would close Gitmo. (bad idea), but nope


-It is too early to rate the Health Care Bill. My comment is my health care insurance has really become a tax. I have to keep it or pay a penality. What once was an elective, is now manditory by the feds. (i.e tax).
this is much the same way I feel about car insurance. it is a State tax is disquise.(except the IRS or State tax won't come after you for not having it.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Labels aside, explain who is being taxed. A word isn't equal to an action. Right now all that is law is that if you don't have insurance, you pay a penlty. No one else pays any tax. And for everyone to pay a tax, and new, separate tax would have to be established.

Now as for your list, you things that are there right now, that are paid for right now, that we all pay for right now, what exactly do you think is different?


I'd lay a bet right now, that this Obamacare "penalty" will become a TAX on the backs of the middle clase. It can't possibly be financed by the 40 million who will be using this program, nor the famous 1% gang.

If you beleive that our current HC system can take care of an additional 40 million people without needing more resources, i.e., doctors, nurses, etc. then you're dreaming.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

WOW...'upper middle class and wealthy folks' are union members and the only ones who use 'medical devices'...and of course they will be the ones who will pay the mandate penalty.

Try again...


Of course it's Grandma or Grandpa who are going to need medical devices. Grandma can go into a wheelchair when she breaks her hip and Grandpa can push her around until he goes down. Why? Because Obamacare has already cut $500 Million out of Medicare to buy votes from those younger voters who need to stay on Mom and Dad's HC bill.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

And taxes were raised.......


really? the massive clinton tax hikes took place before the GOP took office and that was one of two reasons why the GOP took over-and Clinton admitted that
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

I just love it when libertarian/conservatives try to argue against FACTS. :lol: And then they resort to lies and childish name-calling in the process.

If you were trying to disprove my point, you failed miserably. Try again. Disprove that all Americans will be forced to pay the mandate/tax. Oh, and while you're contemplating your response, contemplate that some people would be getting tax CUTS from the ACA, if the Repubs don't kill it.

You're an absolute ****ing genius. I think you missed this in your dem fed talking points but prosthetics are taxed more, heavy medical equipment is taxed more, and disposable medical equipment from syringes to tongue depressers are taxed more in bulk----all by this bill. What in the name of hell makes you think thats going to make costs go down?

Ignore the mandate for a moment, there are 26 other taxes hidden in this bill that dems are decidedly not talking about that are going to make every medical procedure and visit increase in price. Doctors are not going to just absorb those costs, they are going to pass them along to the consumer---US.

As for the mandate, a family of 4 with a good medical plan can conceiveably spend over 20k in premiums, thats 1700 a month, roughly, if youre doing the math. Once you pass that mark you are looking at immediately paying 40% more for your healthcare plan via tax. At the other end we have people that are paying 40 to 50 a month for catastrophic coverage because its all they can afford. Their plans go bye bye. HSAs? Gone. There are companies that are spending around 1k a year on health plans for employees. If this stays as law as concieved it will probably quadruple the costs to maintain the plan the government wants as the minimum accepted. Given that choice and the red tape that goes with it, I can see millions more uninsured as companies decide to pay fines rather than deal with it and individual plans skyrocketing as more people have to get them. I think this is actually going to do more harm than good for the very people its purported to help.

Unintended consequences are a bitch.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The upper middle class and wealthy have most of the money in this country. The CBO report did not in fact adjust the cost upward, but rather downward, relative to previous estimates -- Fox News reporting notwithstanding. The bottom line projection increased, of course, because the new report was looking at a different 10-year span -- this one covering more of the time period when the bulk of the law would be in effect. Pardon my Meida Matters, but they are correct here: Right-Wing Media Falsely Claim Cost Of Health Care Law Has Doubled | Research | Media Matters for America

Dude its media matters. They cherry pick data relentlessly, quote out of context etc etc.

If you believe them as a source material:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Dude its media matters. They cherry pick data relentlessly, quote out of context etc etc.

If you believe them as a source material:


Dude, that is ad hominem and it doesn't negate the truth of the matter, which I could substantiate with plenty of other sources if you'd prefer. For example, the MM link includes a direct quote from the CBO that disproves your claim.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The upper middle class and wealthy have most of the money in this country. The CBO report did not in fact adjust the cost upward, but rather downward, relative to previous estimates -- Fox News reporting notwithstanding.

Huh?

This report also presents estimates through fiscal year 2022, because the baseline projection period now extends through that additional year. 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; 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).

CBO | CBO Releases Updated Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act
(note not 'Fox news')...:lamo


But I'm sure your response will be 'different 10-year span' as you did in the previous post. Think about what that means...the bill was passed to recognize revenue 4 years before recognizing cost (full implementation in 2014). OF course moving the '10-year window' will affect the projections but what does that matter? If the cost projections were prepared from say 2011 thru 2016 (15yr) would you think the cost was more/less?

Also of interest:

Changes in the Economic Outlook. The March 2012 baseline incorporates CBO’s macroeconomic forecast published in January 2012, which reflects a slower recovery when compared with the forecast published in January 2011 (which was used in producing the March 2011 baseline).

So when they first prepared projections their baseline was 'rosier' than now. What happens when at the end of this year their predictions of 'less rosy' economic conditions are more optimistic than actual? Ultimately only time will tell whether this is economically sound but it seems to me the more the affects are known the more the numbers are adjusted...in the 'wrong way'.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Dude, that is ad hominem and it doesn't negate the truth of the matter, which I could substantiate with plenty of other sources if you'd prefer. For example, the MM link includes a direct quote from the CBO that disproves your claim.

Im not making the claim for starters. I have trouble believing anything media matters says. Partisan robots may like their particular brand of nonsense, and Id like to thank you for self IDing yourself yet again, but MM doesnt work as a source. Its not an ad hom when their partisanship is part of their brand and destroys their credibility with the contortions, cherry picking of data and out of context quotes they engage in to craft their stories.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Huh?



CBO | CBO Releases Updated Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act
(note not 'Fox news')...:lamo


But I'm sure your response will be 'different 10-year span' as you did in the previous post.

Um, no, my response is that your own link says that the CBO estimates that costs will be LOWER than originally anticipated. :lol:

The Estimated Net Cost of the Insurance Coverage Provisions Is Smaller Than Estimated in March 2011
CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period-about $50 billion less than the agencies' March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period. (For comparison with previous estimates, these numbers cover the 2012-2021 period; estimates including 2022 can be found below.)
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

My arguments are not partisan but rather those of a realist. As you know I have been incredibly skeptical on where the money is going to come from. The 'upper middle class and wealthy folks' do not make enough to pay for all the changes this administration desires, ACA included. Also, the adjusted CBO numbers released earlier this year were pretty significant revisions…up. Given the GDP growth and UE projections have been woefully inaccurate my skepticism becomes more founded as time passes. Hoping it will work out is merely dreaming…IMHO

ps. Since the CBO will score PPACA again since the SCOTUS has ruled wanna wager which way the 'costs' move?

Here's the problem I have with this argument: Even if it somehow, someway, panned out to be true, it's two years too late.

Where was all the helpful analysis from Republicans while the bills were being constructed? Nearly all of what we heard from the Right was this loud racket about death panels, job-killers, deficits, "Obamacare," socialism, government takeover, attacks on liberty, the Founding Fathers, and I know I'm forgetting a host of lines. Well, that was a decision they chose to make. What a rational, sensible Republican Party would have done is served as a realistic counterbalance to the Democrats' idealism: "OK, that proposal will work. No, that one won't, and here's why. Hmm, this one's tricky, let's discuss this." You know, kind of like the Founding Fathers did when they compromised about components of our government, such as the composition of the Senate vs. that of the House. Yeah, compromise. That thing that the Tea Party hates? They might wanna read ALL of what the founders did, not just the parts they like.

But compromise could only happen if the Republicans were a rational, sensible party. That hasn't been the case in decades.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

But compromise could only happen if the Republicans were a rational, sensible party. That hasn't been the case in decades.

And you think ad hominem attacks on Republicans is going to promote this compromise? Really?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

And you think ad hominem attacks on Republicans is going to promote this compromise? Really?

So I'm supposed to just sweep the truth under the carpet? Get real. NOTHING from outside the camp will encourage Republicans to compromise. That change can only come from within.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

obamacare_middle_class.jpg
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2



As there is no way to estimate how many people will lose their employer paid health care when companies choose to pay their penalty the numbers above regarding costs to families and the government may both be understated.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

As there is no way to estimate how many people will lose their employer paid health care when companies choose to pay their penalty the numbers above regarding costs to families and the government may both be understated.
what causes you to believe there is no way to estimate
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

I'd lay a bet right now, that this Obamacare "penalty" will become a TAX on the backs of the middle clase. It can't possibly be financed by the 40 million who will be using this program, nor the famous 1% gang.

If you beleive that our current HC system can take care of an additional 40 million people without needing more resources, i.e., doctors, nurses, etc. then you're dreaming.

What you're doing is saying I don't care what we have, I kow it'll be something else evidence be damned.

And those forty million will largely be paying their own insurance. Think about this for a moment.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

So I'm supposed to just sweep the truth under the carpet? Get real. NOTHING from outside the camp will encourage Republicans to compromise. That change can only come from within.

When Obama and the Democrats were ramming through Obamatax against the will of the American Public through reconciliation, can you show me where they compromised?

Thanks
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

What you're doing is saying I don't care what we have, I kow it'll be something else evidence be damned.

And those forty million will largely be paying their own insurance. Think about this for a moment.


You know Boo, I care that there are children who need HC. I'm all for helping those that can't help themselves.

But I'm sorry that I can't go along with the "the govt knows best". Look at the 2 biggest programs - Medicare and Social Security. The govt took programs that could have worked as designed, but because the govt decided to ADD extra people who shouldn't have been added. The govt has taken money from these "lock box programs" and put it in the General Spending.

The govt won't run this HC program any better than the others, IMO. They have a tendency to overload programs, and IMO, to BUY VOTES.

Just heard on my local news that there is a BIG rise in people filing for SS disability. It's already in the red, along with Medicare.

You can't convince me, with the govt in charge, that this Obamacare thing, won't become a burden on the middle class. It and all the necessities need to accomodate the additional people will have to be funded by the taxpapers. It's a TAX.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom