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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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...
And taxes were raised.......
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.
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:
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.)
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?
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?
what causes you to believe there is no way to estimateAs 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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?