Obamacare
Replies
-
The Republican party keeps calling Obamacare “the largest tax increase in the history of the world.” AHHHHHHH – the sky is falling! Everyone run for cover and vote Republican.
So – see if you can follow this logic …
Obamacare allows for A LOT of exemptions to prevent you from being eligible to pay a penalty (or tax) if you fail to purchase health insurance. The vast majority of people who can afford it already have it. Those who can’t afford it – will get it free or subsidized (you know SOCIALISM) … and after all of that – the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office believes that only 1.2% of Americans will end up paying the penalty. True story. (source)
Now Republicans would like Americans to believe that American’s taxes are about to go up. They use misleading language and … they just flatly lie about the facts that are at hand in this debate. I don’t like liars. We know that Obamacare isn’t even the largest tax hike in the last 20 years (source). Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton all passed higher tax increases than President Obama. Fun fact.
But while the Republican party talks about the 1.2% of Americans who are going to be hit with a penalty … they have made it abundantly clear that all of the tax credits and tax cuts and tax subsidies for middle class Americans do NOT qualify as tax cuts. Let’s just spell out that logic:
Tax penalty on 1.2% of Americans = Largest Tax Increase in the History of the World
Tax subsidies and cuts for a very large, untold amount of Americans = not a tax cut
Are you following me?
But as the infographic shows … the average American who uses these insurance exchanges to purchase health insurance will receive on average a $5,210 annual tax credit towards their health insurance costs. But – that particular tax credit should NOT be considered a tax cut for middle class Americans according to the GOP.
And Romney’s plan had the same penalty; he says – he increased fees. He says he did not raise taxes. He calls it a penalty even though he’s called it a tax historically as well. But under his plan which is identical … the actual model Romney used … Romney says his plan was not a tax increase but President Obama’s plan is. Makes perfect sense.0 -
The Republican party keeps calling Obamacare “the largest tax increase in the history of the world.” AHHHHHHH – the sky is falling! Everyone run for cover and vote Republican.
So – see if you can follow this logic …
Obamacare allows for A LOT of exemptions to prevent you from being eligible to pay a penalty (or tax) if you fail to purchase health insurance. The vast majority of people who can afford it already have it. Those who can’t afford it – will get it free or subsidized (you know SOCIALISM) … and after all of that – the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office believes that only 1.2% of Americans will end up paying the penalty. True story. (source)
Now Republicans would like Americans to believe that American’s taxes are about to go up. They use misleading language and … they just flatly lie about the facts that are at hand in this debate. I don’t like liars. We know that Obamacare isn’t even the largest tax hike in the last 20 years (source). Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton all passed higher tax increases than President Obama. Fun fact.
But while the Republican party talks about the 1.2% of Americans who are going to be hit with a penalty … they have made it abundantly clear that all of the tax credits and tax cuts and tax subsidies for middle class Americans do NOT qualify as tax cuts. Let’s just spell out that logic:
Tax penalty on 1.2% of Americans = Largest Tax Increase in the History of the World
Tax subsidies and cuts for a very large, untold amount of Americans = not a tax cut
Are you following me?
But as the infographic shows … the average American who uses these insurance exchanges to purchase health insurance will receive on average a $5,210 annual tax credit towards their health insurance costs. But – that particular tax credit should NOT be considered a tax cut for middle class Americans according to the GOP.
And Romney’s plan had the same penalty; he says – he increased fees. He says he did not raise taxes. He calls it a penalty even though he’s called it a tax historically as well. But under his plan which is identical … the actual model Romney used … Romney says his plan was not a tax increase but President Obama’s plan is. Makes perfect sense.
Are you saying the Tax penalty for not purchasing healh insurance is the only tax associated with Obamacare?0 -
I certainly did not 'benchmark' anything based on the performance of GWB. I was asked a specific question, "would I call BHO's first term a success?".If your benchmark for the job Obama has done is based on GWB's record you have already lost. Every time I see someone criticize Obama, supporters are quick to point out GWB did this or GWB did that or Obama inherited a mess and it's all GWBs fault. Here is a news flash for you. Everyone already knows Bush was a disaster. Everyone already knows that the economy sucked when Bush left office. One of the reasons Obama had so much support in the election was because Bush soured the country on another republican president. Obama got elected to show some leadership and fix the mess. Instead we've gotten excuses and blame on the previous administration.{{snip}}
My answer to the question is: Given the monumental disaster left by GWB,,, and the profound obstructionism, blind seething hatred and naked attempts at utter destruction by the opposition party - I think he's done as well as possible. If he has been unable to work with people who are congenitally incapable of acting in good faith for the good of the country - that is certainly not his fault. Nobody can turn this economy around when 48% of the congress - 5/9ths of the Supreme Court and over half of the Governors have proven time and again that they are willing to crash the economy (again) for electoral gain.
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
Mitch McConnell - Senate minority leader. He said it and he meant it, and he's done everything in his power to make it happen.
I was asked the question and I answered it. I can't answer it without framing the argument. The framework of the argument is GWB and the R's (and a few idiot Dems) massive, monumental screwup. Sorry.
The facts are the facts. In some people's minds, there seems to be a statute of limitations wherein past reality ceases to exist and can no longer affect the present.
Reality doesn't always fit neatly into election cycles.
The reality is that the seeds of the financial crisis and the current disaster we call an economy were sown in the Clinton administration and one can argue even before then. The fact is GWBs policies while he was president didn't prevent what was already in progress so I guess it became the Bush disaster and I don't disagree with that. BHO's policies have not improved what he inherited which whether he (or YOU) likes it or not will effect the election in November. Obama can speak all the spin he wants but in the end he has an awful lot of people in this country that are worse off now then they were on his inauguration day.
That's a different issue altogether. The original statement was something like " you can't blame george bush anymore for the economy", similar to those who were calling it the "Obama recession" on Jan 21, 2009.
Whether Obama's policies have "improved" things or not is a matter of debate. And, yes, that debate is going to shape what happens in November. Obviously "saving the country from financial collapse and another Great Depression" just doesn't carry the same cachet it once did.0 -
I certainly did not 'benchmark' anything based on the performance of GWB. I was asked a specific question, "would I call BHO's first term a success?".If your benchmark for the job Obama has done is based on GWB's record you have already lost. Every time I see someone criticize Obama, supporters are quick to point out GWB did this or GWB did that or Obama inherited a mess and it's all GWBs fault. Here is a news flash for you. Everyone already knows Bush was a disaster. Everyone already knows that the economy sucked when Bush left office. One of the reasons Obama had so much support in the election was because Bush soured the country on another republican president. Obama got elected to show some leadership and fix the mess. Instead we've gotten excuses and blame on the previous administration.{{snip}}
My answer to the question is: Given the monumental disaster left by GWB,,, and the profound obstructionism, blind seething hatred and naked attempts at utter destruction by the opposition party - I think he's done as well as possible. If he has been unable to work with people who are congenitally incapable of acting in good faith for the good of the country - that is certainly not his fault. Nobody can turn this economy around when 48% of the congress - 5/9ths of the Supreme Court and over half of the Governors have proven time and again that they are willing to crash the economy (again) for electoral gain.
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
Mitch McConnell - Senate minority leader. He said it and he meant it, and he's done everything in his power to make it happen.
I was asked the question and I answered it. I can't answer it without framing the argument. The framework of the argument is GWB and the R's (and a few idiot Dems) massive, monumental screwup. Sorry.
The facts are the facts. In some people's minds, there seems to be a statute of limitations wherein past reality ceases to exist and can no longer affect the present.
Reality doesn't always fit neatly into election cycles.
The reality is that the seeds of the financial crisis and the current disaster we call an economy were sown in the Clinton administration and one can argue even before then. The fact is GWBs policies while he was president didn't prevent what was already in progress so I guess it became the Bush disaster and I don't disagree with that. BHO's policies have not improved what he inherited which whether he (or YOU) likes it or not will effect the election in November. Obama can speak all the spin he wants but in the end he has an awful lot of people in this country that are worse off now then they were on his inauguration day.
That's a different issue altogether. The original statement was something like " you can't blame george bush anymore for the economy", similar to those who were calling it the "Obama recession" on Jan 21, 2009.
Whether Obama's policies have "improved" things or not is a matter of debate. And, yes, that debate is going to shape what happens in November. Obviously "saving the country from financial collapse and another Great Depression" just doesn't carry the same cachet it once did.
Maybe the seeds of "saving the country from financial collapse and another great depression" were sown during GWB's administration?! Or maybe things just settled down despite BHO. :happy:0 -
Seriously??? Even playing "devil's advocate" I can't imagine anyone saying that W "saved us from financial ruin." Not anyone sane and sober anyhow.
I certainly did not 'benchmark' anything based on the performance of GWB. I was asked a specific question, "would I call BHO's first term a success?".If your benchmark for the job Obama has done is based on GWB's record you have already lost. Every time I see someone criticize Obama, supporters are quick to point out GWB did this or GWB did that or Obama inherited a mess and it's all GWBs fault. Here is a news flash for you. Everyone already knows Bush was a disaster. Everyone already knows that the economy sucked when Bush left office. One of the reasons Obama had so much support in the election was because Bush soured the country on another republican president. Obama got elected to show some leadership and fix the mess. Instead we've gotten excuses and blame on the previous administration.{{snip}}
My answer to the question is: Given the monumental disaster left by GWB,,, and the profound obstructionism, blind seething hatred and naked attempts at utter destruction by the opposition party - I think he's done as well as possible. If he has been unable to work with people who are congenitally incapable of acting in good faith for the good of the country - that is certainly not his fault. Nobody can turn this economy around when 48% of the congress - 5/9ths of the Supreme Court and over half of the Governors have proven time and again that they are willing to crash the economy (again) for electoral gain.
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
Mitch McConnell - Senate minority leader. He said it and he meant it, and he's done everything in his power to make it happen.
I was asked the question and I answered it. I can't answer it without framing the argument. The framework of the argument is GWB and the R's (and a few idiot Dems) massive, monumental screwup. Sorry.
The facts are the facts. In some people's minds, there seems to be a statute of limitations wherein past reality ceases to exist and can no longer affect the present.
Reality doesn't always fit neatly into election cycles.
The reality is that the seeds of the financial crisis and the current disaster we call an economy were sown in the Clinton administration and one can argue even before then. The fact is GWBs policies while he was president didn't prevent what was already in progress so I guess it became the Bush disaster and I don't disagree with that. BHO's policies have not improved what he inherited which whether he (or YOU) likes it or not will effect the election in November. Obama can speak all the spin he wants but in the end he has an awful lot of people in this country that are worse off now then they were on his inauguration day.
That's a different issue altogether. The original statement was something like " you can't blame george bush anymore for the economy", similar to those who were calling it the "Obama recession" on Jan 21, 2009.
Whether Obama's policies have "improved" things or not is a matter of debate. And, yes, that debate is going to shape what happens in November. Obviously "saving the country from financial collapse and another Great Depression" just doesn't carry the same cachet it once did.
Maybe the seeds of "saving the country from financial collapse and another great depression" were sown during GWB's administration?! Or maybe things just settled down despite BHO. :happy:0 -
I certainly did not 'benchmark' anything based on the performance of GWB. I was asked a specific question, "would I call BHO's first term a success?".If your benchmark for the job Obama has done is based on GWB's record you have already lost. Every time I see someone criticize Obama, supporters are quick to point out GWB did this or GWB did that or Obama inherited a mess and it's all GWBs fault. Here is a news flash for you. Everyone already knows Bush was a disaster. Everyone already knows that the economy sucked when Bush left office. One of the reasons Obama had so much support in the election was because Bush soured the country on another republican president. Obama got elected to show some leadership and fix the mess. Instead we've gotten excuses and blame on the previous administration.{{snip}}
My answer to the question is: Given the monumental disaster left by GWB,,, and the profound obstructionism, blind seething hatred and naked attempts at utter destruction by the opposition party - I think he's done as well as possible. If he has been unable to work with people who are congenitally incapable of acting in good faith for the good of the country - that is certainly not his fault. Nobody can turn this economy around when 48% of the congress - 5/9ths of the Supreme Court and over half of the Governors have proven time and again that they are willing to crash the economy (again) for electoral gain.
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
Mitch McConnell - Senate minority leader. He said it and he meant it, and he's done everything in his power to make it happen.
I was asked the question and I answered it. I can't answer it without framing the argument. The framework of the argument is GWB and the R's (and a few idiot Dems) massive, monumental screwup. Sorry.
The facts are the facts. In some people's minds, there seems to be a statute of limitations wherein past reality ceases to exist and can no longer affect the present.
Reality doesn't always fit neatly into election cycles.
The reality is that the seeds of the financial crisis and the current disaster we call an economy were sown in the Clinton administration and one can argue even before then. The fact is GWBs policies while he was president didn't prevent what was already in progress so I guess it became the Bush disaster and I don't disagree with that. BHO's policies have not improved what he inherited which whether he (or YOU) likes it or not will effect the election in November. Obama can speak all the spin he wants but in the end he has an awful lot of people in this country that are worse off now then they were on his inauguration day.
That's a different issue altogether. The original statement was something like " you can't blame george bush anymore for the economy", similar to those who were calling it the "Obama recession" on Jan 21, 2009.
Whether Obama's policies have "improved" things or not is a matter of debate. And, yes, that debate is going to shape what happens in November. Obviously "saving the country from financial collapse and another Great Depression" just doesn't carry the same cachet it once did.
Maybe the seeds of "saving the country from financial collapse and another great depression" were sown during GWB's administration?! Or maybe things just settled down despite BHO. :happy:
IIRC, the seeds may have been scattered on the ground (TARP), but it was Obama and the Dems who did most of the sowing (just remembering the votes and which party acted like adults and which didn't).
And maybe the current weakness in the job market would be much, much worse without the actions taken by the Obama administration--we can play that game all night. :happy:0 -
As for the economy, I don't blame Bush and I don't blame Clinton. This goes way back to a time when America said, "Corporations, you will no longer have unsafe working conditions, child labor, or slave wages in America."
Oh, but you're welcome to take that business model overseas, then ship the goods back to the US and sell them all you want to. We'll even subsidize your disaster insurance and help you overthrow any pesky leftist foreign leaders who get in the way of your profit margin."0 -
This is an interesting twist:
Health Insurers Secretly Spent Huge To Defeat Health Care Reform While Pretending To Support Obamacare
No matter what your perspective on the Affordable Care Act, this shocking bit of news should concern—and disturb—you greatly.
According to the National Journal’s Influence Alley, at the very same time the American Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)—the health insurance industry super lobby—was cutting a deal with the White House leading to its stated support of the proposed Obamacare legislation, they were secretly funneling huge amounts money to the Chamber of Commerce to be spent on advertising designed to convince the public that the legislation should be defeated.
How much money?
A stunning $102.4 million spent over just 15 months.
While one would not think that so much money could be spent in secret, AHIP pulled it off by utilizing a completely legal process of funneling the cash to the Chamber under the radar while putting the giant expenditure on their books under the simple heading of ‘advocacy’.
According to the National Journal:
The backchannel spending allowed insurers to publicly stake out a pro-reform position while privately funding the leading anti-reform lobbying group in Washington. The chamber spent tens of millions of dollars bankrolling efforts to kill health care reform.
The behind-the-scenes transfers were particularly hard to track because the law does not require groups to publicly disclose where they are sending the money or who they are receiving it from.
For example, in its 2009 IRS filing, AHIP reported giving almost $87 million to unnamed advocacy organizations for “grassroots outreach, education and mobilization, print, online, and broadcast advertising and coalition building efforts” on health care reform. That same year, the chamber reported receiving $86.2 million from an undisclosed group. Bloomberg’s Drew Armstrong first reported the AHIP-chamber link. The $86 million accounted for about 42 percent of the total contributions and grants the chamber received.
The next year followed a similar pattern. In 2010, AHIP reported giving $16.5 million to unnamed advocacy organizations working on health care reform and the chamber reported receiving about $16.2 million from an undisclosed source, which the Alley has learned was AHIP. The $16.2 million accounted for about 8.6 percent of the total contributions and grants the chamber received that year.
So, why would AHIP try to secretly destroy a legislative scheme that would drive millions of new customers into their arms thanks to the mandated insurance provisions?
According to Neera Tanden, who served as the senior advisor for health reform at the Department of Health and Human Services and was a member of the Obama White House health reform team, it was all about the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR)—the provision of the ACA that not only requires the health insurance companies to spend 80 percent of your premium dollars on actual health care expenditures, but further requires that they refund to their customers any amounts they fail to spend as required by the MLR.
The total rebates under the law that will shortly be refunded to insurance customers are estimated to total $1.1 billion for 2011 alone—clearly motivation for the insurers to defeat the law although one wonders if it wouldn’t be easier for these companies to simply follow the law and spend according to the MLR.
Any industry group is free to take whatever position it believes to be in the best interests of its members. However, to present itself as being supportive of critically important proposed law while secretly spending over $100 million to defeat the very same legislation is the ultimate in duplicitous behavior and should make very clear just what the health insurance industry is all about.
Whether you support or oppose the Affordable Care Act, I cannot imagine that this type of behavior would be acceptable to any American and stands as a shining example of the corruption big money imparts to our political system.
If the insurance industry lacks sufficient spine to take a legitimate stand on a piece of legislation that is critical to its interests—and ours— how do you imagine they are going to behave when you find yourself depending on these people to come through for you during a medical emergency?
To borrow a phrase from Keith Olbermann (remember him?), these have to be the worst people in the world.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/06/25/busted-health-insurers-secretly-spent-huge-to-defeat-health-care-reform-while-pretending-to-support-obamacare/0 -
Now that ^ IS interesting! I wonder how many people realise they are due rebates from unspent insurance under the terms of this law, and if/how that would change their perspective of the law as a whole...
0
This discussion has been closed.