Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS strikes down mandate in health law « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 6

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6893
Offline
« #15 : June 28, 2012, 10:04:34 PM »

OK, I gotcha, fair point. But, Romney has stated he will repeal it and was against it at a Federal level, and as hypocritical as it might sound, I am good with that. Maybe he "evolved?"

Speaking of irony, the President has argued vehemently that this was not a tax, yet the only thing that kept it alive is the fact it is a tax. Swings both ways does it not?

cyberdude558

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3932
Offline
« #16 : June 28, 2012, 10:19:34 PM »

Romney has said his healthcare program was meant only to work at the state level and only for Massachusetts. Each state would be different and have to pass their own systems that work for their populations and economies. That system was never meant to put put in force on the federal level.

The fact of the matter is history shows clearly in nearly all cases that the bigger the government gets the more inefficient it becomes. Especially when you already have a government as inefficient as the US government is right now. It is only going to get worse. The waste in federal programs across the board is enormous.

It's a good thing Obama is a president that has a lot of people fooled, because if he were a CEO instead, he would have been tossed out on his ass by the board a long time ago.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
« #17 : June 28, 2012, 11:27:27 PM »

Romney has said his healthcare program was meant only to work at the state level and only for Massachusetts.


Others have also said that a) the plan was implemented largely after Romney in a way inconsistent with the orgianl intent and b) that the system in Mass failed for a lack of cost containment (i.e. telling hopsitals and doctors to cut prices).  I don't know about the first comment ("a") but does anybody know where Obamacare stands on the second part, cost containment ("b")?

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
« #18 : June 29, 2012, 01:07:30 AM »

I think Republicans are overplaying their hand on the "Obamacare" stuff. Polls show that even though a majority of people oppose the legislation when it's tagged with the "Obamacare" mantra, when they are asked about what's actually in the legislation support for the individual provisions in the plan are through the roof. Heck, Republicans even support the provisions in the bill when they don't know that it's actually "Obamacare" that they are being asked about.

The biggest contention with the bill was the individual mandate which is apparently now not a mandate (it actually never was, but I digress). Without the individual mandate argument, the Republican boogeyman has essentially been eliminated from the discussion. I'm interested to see how this debate plays out going forward.


cyberdude558

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3932
Offline
« #19 : June 29, 2012, 03:06:54 AM »

Sure they like it now since it is written so all the good stuff goes into effect first. Then after the election, all the taxes and mandates go into play.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
« #20 : June 29, 2012, 12:01:23 PM »

I think Republicans are overplaying their hand on the "Obamacare" stuff. Polls show that even though a majority of people oppose the legislation when it's tagged with the "Obamacare" mantra, when they are asked about what's actually in the legislation support for the individual provisions in the plan are through the roof. Heck, Republicans even support the provisions in the bill when they don't know that it's actually "Obamacare" that they are being asked about.

The biggest contention with the bill was the individual mandate which is apparently now not a mandate (it actually never was, but I digress). Without the individual mandate argument, the Republican boogeyman has essentially been eliminated from the discussion. I'm interested to see how this debate plays out going forward.

That's an understandable (I might say predictable) response given your clear point of view, but elections are not thoughtful debates. Elections are sound bite wars.  Get ready for ad after ad after ad with Obama saying "this is not a TAX" and the Supreme Court saying we will not vote it down precisely because it is a TAX.  Look at McConnell's statement on the floor yesterday for how this will translate into the campaign.

Also, get ready for Romney to say he is uniquely qualifed to tell people why Obamacare is wrong, which is because he actually saw it in play out in Mass.  He will say that in Mass it expanded coverage BUT with an actual increase in premiums which makes it a transfer of wealth/tax. Hard to argue for something when there is a clear and simple example like Mass.

You also might be underestimating how much this will motivate a group of people who are dead against this kind of massive expansion of government.  Any conservatives that were lukewarm on Romney just became his biggest supporters ever.

This issue might not carry the day for Republicans, but  . . . .

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46013
Offline
« #21 : June 29, 2012, 12:55:25 PM »

If you want to wait and see something explode - the folks who have been showing up at hospitals for free care (as required by Federal Law) will not be chased down by the IRS for payment of the fine/tax/whatever term you wish to use.  And the fun that will break out about the cost of tens of thousands of government employees to manage and direct your health care is not too likely to slow the cost of HC - but I am certain the government will attempt to hide it. 

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46013
Offline
« #22 : June 29, 2012, 12:57:12 PM »

I think Republicans are overplaying their hand on the "Obamacare" stuff. Polls show that even though a majority of people oppose the legislation when it's tagged with the "Obamacare" mantra, when they are asked about what's actually in the legislation support for the individual provisions in the plan are through the roof. Heck, Republicans even support the provisions in the bill when they don't know that it's actually "Obamacare" that they are being asked about.

The biggest contention with the bill was the individual mandate which is apparently now not a mandate (it actually never was, but I digress). Without the individual mandate argument, the Republican boogeyman has essentially been eliminated from the discussion. I'm interested to see how this debate plays out going forward.
Yep, the good stuff most agreed to has been trotted out, not so much on the panels who decide who gets what treatment and whether of the value of that person will support the healthcare cost investment. 

Stuff like buy insurance or the IRS will get it from you, (should really impress middle class and young folks who previously had avoided the cost), and it will be a blast for families who will watch the elderly services.  Don't lose track of Barry's desire for single payer. 

And folks might notice their premiums are ALREADY tiered in Barrycare - not unexpectedly the tiers are annual - and increasing.
« : June 29, 2012, 01:28:13 PM dbucfan »

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46013
Offline
« #23 : June 29, 2012, 01:00:03 PM »

I can vouch personally that Romneys campaign got a bit richer today. I know I am against pretty much all of Obama's policies but was still pretty much on the fence about Romney. This forced me off the fence.
I understand the idea of voting for the platform, not the candidate, but you can't deny the irony of this situation.

Maybe, but you reap what you sow!
I think you misunderstand. 

Obamacare is Romneycare.  Irony is your anger at Obamacare convincing you to vote for the guy who came up with the idea in the first place.  This makes me chuckle.
I have heard this before, and while entertaining you certainly know the difference between Federal and State, and Tax vs Mandate.  I suspect you could find out the differences in scale, control, the changes made after Romney's term as governor ended if you wished to. 

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46013
Offline
« #24 : June 29, 2012, 01:59:58 PM »

And for someone smarter than me - especially in Constitutional Law (that is a wide ranging group).  What type of tax is is when one is forced against their preference to buy healthcare insurance or pay a tax penalty for not buying.  I am recalling adjustment of the Constitution to create the Federal Income tax - prior to that excise taxes were either all or a major portion of the Federal taxes included in government power.  I simply wonder if this new Tax, is even legal.  Well up until yesterday.

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46013
Offline
« #25 : June 29, 2012, 02:33:03 PM »

And here are the Barrytax (as opposed to Barrycare) new taxes

Comprehensive List of Tax Hikes in Obamacare

Next week, the U.S. House of Representatives will be voting on an historic repeal of the Obamacare law.  While there are many reasons to oppose this flawed government health insurance law, it is important to remember that Obamacare is also one of the largest tax increases in American history.  Below is a comprehensive list of the two dozen new or higher taxes that pay for Obamcare’s expansion of government spending and interference between doctors and patients.

Individual Mandate Excise Tax(Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following

 

1 Adult

2 Adults

3+ Adults

2014

1% AGI/$95

1% AGI/$190

1% AGI/$285

2015

2% AGI/$325

2% AGI/$650

2% AGI/$975

2016 +

2.5% AGI/$695

2.5% AGI/$1390

2.5% AGI/$2085

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS)

Employer Mandate Tax(Jan 2014):  If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees.  This provision applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013):  This increase involves the creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single).  This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income

 

Capital Gains

Dividends

Other*

2010-2012

15%

15%

35%

2013+ (current law)

23.8%

43.4%

43.4%

2013+ (Obama budget)

23.8%

23.8%

43.4%

 
*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations.  It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income.  It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans.  The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.
Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). For early retirees and high-risk professions exists a higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family).  CPI +1 percentage point indexed.

Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:

 

First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee

All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee

Current Law

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

Obamacare Tax Hike

1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed

Medicine Cabinet Tax($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)

HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka“Special Needs Kids Tax”($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap of $2500 (Indexed to inflation after 2013) on FSAs (now unlimited). . There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.  There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.  Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax.  Exemptions include items retailing for less than $100.

Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI).  The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI; it is waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.

Tax on Indoor Tanning Services($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons

Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D($4.5 bil/Jan 2013)

Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services

Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals(Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS

Tax on Innovator Drug Companies($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.

Tax on Health Insurers($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. The stipulation phases in gradually until 2018, and is fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits.

$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives($0.6 bil/Jan 2013)

Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2(Min$/Jan 2011): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting($17.1 bil/Jan 2012): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers

“Black liquor” tax hike(Tax hike of $23.6 billion).  This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel.

Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”(Tax hike of $4.5 billion).  This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed.

Posted by Ryan Ellis on Friday, January 14, 2011 6:00 AM EST


Printed from: http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-tax-hikes-obamacare-a5758

Likely to be the bucket of icewater folks will be hit in the face with as they find out this boondoggle is just that.

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

Uncle Stan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17314
Online
« #26 : June 29, 2012, 05:21:52 PM »

Not sure about this so I'm asking:

Does this apply to everyone, including the members of Congress?

Learn to disagree without being disagreeable-Ronald Reagan circa 1981

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46013
Offline
« #27 : June 29, 2012, 07:58:43 PM »

Not sure about this so I'm asking:

Does this apply to everyone, including the members of Congress?
IIRC - nope - they Congress and Executive Branch have their own coverage for life with the ultra super deluxe version of HC

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
« #28 : June 29, 2012, 10:59:35 PM »

And for someone smarter than me - especially in Constitutional Law (that is a wide ranging group).  What type of tax is is when one is forced against their preference to buy healthcare insurance or pay a tax penalty for not buying.  I am recalling adjustment of the Constitution to create the Federal Income tax - prior to that excise taxes were either all or a major portion of the Federal taxes included in government power.  I simply wonder if this new Tax, is even legal.  Well up until yesterday.

You don't need any help because your comments are right on point. It's as if the Court (or a few members of the Court) felt they had to pick their poison and decided to protect the Commerce Clause (a good thing) even though in doing so they opened up a potentially larger can of worms. It makes me wonder -- particularly with the Court emphasizing that this law is a TAX -- if the Court (or maybe just one Justice) said its an election year, this law was sold as NOT being a tax, so lets just make it clear that we only say the law survives because it is a tax and let the political process take its course.  I am no expert, but I believe the Court has a history of similar calculated rulings. Who knows?

ONEBIGDADDY

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4506
Offline
« #29 : June 30, 2012, 09:18:57 AM »

Horrible day for the Constitution and America.

Dark days are ahead if this disaster isn't repealed.
There will be no darker days than what Bush put us through...Doom & Gloom always follows staunch Republicans which has been their MO when they lose...Lets move on. like looking for the next Ronald Reagan....not the tea party tea cups...OBD

  Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 6
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS strikes down mandate in health law « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools