Obamacare is a tax cut

Icarus27k

Council Member
Apr 4, 2010
1,508
7
38
Note: In saying this, I'm using the same logic that critics have used in order to declare the health care law a tax increase. Or as Rush Limbaugh put it, "Obamacare is nothing more than the largest tax increase in the history of the world."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/limbaugh-bla
sts-biggest-tax-increase-in-the-his...



The truth is the Washington Post fact checked a claim by White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew wherein he claimed, "[M]ore middle-class people are going to get a tax cut in this law. There’s a tax cut of $4,000 for people who need help paying for health insurance.”

And they found this claim true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamacare-t
ax-hikes-vs-tax-breaks-which-is-gre...


More middle class Americans will get a tax cut from Obamacare than will get a tax increase ( from, for example, getting taxed a financial penalty under the individual mandate for not getting health insurance).
 

WJW

Nominee Member
Jul 6, 2012
56
0
6
I think it would be better if Congress amended the tax code to provide for a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for health insurance premiums. This would operate as a positive incentive for people to buy health insurance as opposed to a penalty for not doing so.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Can't imagine why people wouldn't want a health care system.
Obama didn't go far enough, most industrialized or civilized
nations have better systems when it comes to covering the
average citizen. Oh well the old revolution mentality still
exists. yes they need to cover everyone and everyone should
meet their responsibility in that regard.
Romney is dancing on a picket fence here by the way as he
had a system of his own once and now he is trying to condemn
it and defend it at the same time. He is not the problem the
tea party is his biggest problem.
Republicans these days have audio that sounds like the rantings
of mad men on a variety of subjects.
 

Toro

Senate Member
People should actually read what the article says.

For good measure, we compared all the tax hikes with the estimated tax credits and subsidies, using a combination of the CBO reports and a table from the Joint Committee on Taxation that breaks down the health law’s revenue hikes. Here’s what that looks like over a seven-year span:
New revenue: $459 billion (including $30 billion in penalties)
Credits and subsidies: $343 billion
(Note: These totals reflect only 2012 through 2019, since those were the only common years between the CBO and JCT tables.)
In this case, the tax hikes outweigh credits and subsidies.

IOW, tax increases will be $126 billion higher than tax credits and subsidies, i.e. it's not a tax cut.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Tax cut or not, doesn't matter, people are afraid of fear itself down there in the
Excited States. What ever happened to those people? Once they were an
optimistic group that made progress in society.
Now they cringe in their little hovels of fear, they are afraid at the airport, they
are afraid at the boarder, they are afraid of Obama because he wants to bring
this sagging nation into a new century.
Ever since the Republicans saddled up to ride with the evangelicals reason went
out the window.
If the asylum becomes the norm and the Republicans win America will set itself
back fifty years.
 

Toro

Senate Member
Tax cut or not, doesn't matter, people are afraid of fear itself down there in the
Excited States. What ever happened to those people? Once they were an
optimistic group that made progress in society.
Now they cringe in their little hovels of fear, they are afraid at the airport, they
are afraid at the boarder, they are afraid of Obama because he wants to bring
this sagging nation into a new century.
Ever since the Republicans saddled up to ride with the evangelicals reason went
out the window.
If the asylum becomes the norm and the Republicans win America will set itself
back fifty years.

That's silly.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
I think it would be better if Congress amended the tax code to provide for a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for health insurance premiums. This would operate as a positive incentive for people to buy health insurance as opposed to a penalty for not doing so.


I say just the opposite - eliminate the tax deduction for all medical costs including insurance from ALL tax forms. This way we are all on a level playing field. No favoritism to anyone who works for large corporations, or self employed, nor for anyone in Congress.

In my many years in the tax field I have seen more people go bankrupt because of health care costs than anything else. By eliminating the deduction, many privileged suburbanites who work for large companies which get this deduction will go broke and now see their family members die just like those in the inner cities, farms, and reservations. Once that happens to privileged suburbanites I guarantee that politicians will start to kiss their butts and make changes to the tax codes and bring in health care reform.

Just like the drug problem: when it was confined to the ghetto, politicians didn't give a sh1t about it. When it spread to the suburbs, then it became a problem to politicians. Do the same for health insurance ~ put everyone on the same level and make the consequences for not having insurance the same for all. Once that happens reform will take place. Guaranteed.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
That's silly.

It would be nice if it was silly. But the US currently has to rate as the most paranoid of the modern democracies. What other democracy has unofficial armed militias to protect the country against some as yet undefined threat? What other democracy is so full of gated communities in which armed citizens fearfully guard their wealth? What other democracy encourages its citizens to arm themselves against their fellow citizens, just in case? What other democracy has such an elaborate and undemocratic security apparatus? And then there is the media which are constantly alerting the citizens to yet one more threat, and if they can't find one then they make one up.
 

Toro

Senate Member
It would be nice if it was silly. But the US currently has to rate as the most paranoid of the modern democracies. What other democracy has unofficial armed militias to protect the country against some as yet undefined threat? What other democracy is so full of gated communities in which armed citizens fearfully guard their wealth? What other democracy encourages its citizens to arm themselves against their fellow citizens, just in case? What other democracy has such an elaborate and undemocratic security apparatus? And then there is the media which are constantly alerting the citizens to yet one more threat, and if they can't find one then they make one up.

Yes, and all Canadians play hockey and drink beer and have to wait two years to see a doctor and ride dog-sleds to work, etc.

Politically biased stereotypes viewed through a cultural lens is a poor way of understanding another place.

I feel much safer walking around the city where I live in America than walking around the comparable-sized city where I come from in Canada.

I say just the opposite - eliminate the tax deduction for all medical costs including insurance from ALL tax forms. This way we are all on a level playing field. No favoritism to anyone who works for large corporations, or self employed, nor for anyone in Congress.

In my many years in the tax field I have seen more people go bankrupt because of health care costs than anything else. By eliminating the deduction, many privileged suburbanites who work for large companies which get this deduction will go broke and now see their family members die just like those in the inner cities, farms, and reservations. Once that happens to privileged suburbanites I guarantee that politicians will start to kiss their butts and make changes to the tax codes and bring in health care reform.

Just like the drug problem: when it was confined to the ghetto, politicians didn't give a sh1t about it. When it spread to the suburbs, then it became a problem to politicians. Do the same for health insurance ~ put everyone on the same level and make the consequences for not having insurance the same for all. Once that happens reform will take place. Guaranteed.

Healthcare insurance is a cost to the company. It's a cost for employing people. It makes no sense to remove cost of labour from the income statement any more than it does to remove wages and salaries or depreciation or the cost of materials, etc. Removing the cost of healthcare as a deduction would increase the cost of business and cause businesses to employ less people. Separating people from their healthcare isn't a particularly good way of supplying more healthcare to people.
 

WJW

Nominee Member
Jul 6, 2012
56
0
6
Most Americans could not afford a major medical expense, even with health insurance - they will be bankrupt; and those unfortunate to need long-term medical treatment will end up on the street. If universal healthcare is not a right, then it certainly should be. What else is the purpose of government but to provide for such things? The greatest nation in the world should be able to afford the very best healthcare for all of its citizens.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Most Americans could not afford a major medical expense, even with health insurance - they will be bankrupt; and those unfortunate to need long-term medical treatment will end up on the street. If universal healthcare is not a right, then it certainly should be. What else is the purpose of government but to provide for such things? The greatest nation in the world should be able to afford the very best healthcare for all of its citizens.

Universal healthcare is not a right; it's a benefit.

Also, we have to define how far it is supposed to go. Medical tech is advancing each and everyday and I would wager that it would be possible to keep someone alive with the help of all this tech well beyond the capacity of the person's actual body would allow. That said, the bar gets moved higher and higher, the individual has to assume some of the responsibility in terms of the cost of all this tech and advancements as opposed to simply demanding that society pay the piper each time something happens.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
It would be nice if it was silly. But the US currently has to rate as the most paranoid of the modern democracies. What other democracy has unofficial armed militias to protect the country against some as yet undefined threat? What other democracy is so full of gated communities in which armed citizens fearfully guard their wealth? What other democracy encourages its citizens to arm themselves against their fellow citizens, just in case? What other democracy has such an elaborate and undemocratic security apparatus? And then there is the media which are constantly alerting the citizens to yet one more threat, and if they can't find one then they make one up.

That's even sillier.

Did you get up on the wrong side of the igloo today BS? Fur traps empty?
 
Last edited:

The Old Medic

Council Member
May 16, 2010
1,330
2
38
The World
Damgrumpy, have you actually read the Health Care law that was passed by the US Congress?

I have read it, and it leaves a LOT to be desired, to say the least. For one thing, it CUTS the spending for Medicare (the old age medical plan that the US has had since the 1960's) by $500,000,000,000.00! (That's 500 BILLION dollars for those that wonder.)

It also puts a LOT of government control of what can be, and what won't be covered. It essentially eliminates medical care for those that are not deemed worthwhile to get medical care (surgical care for the elderly, etc.).

It takes the very worst part of the Canadian Medicare system, and adds it on to an already messed up system.

It also saddles the States with billions of dollars in health care costs. It requires a massive expansion of the "Medicaid" system, and "sweetens" the deal by providing 90% of the funding for that expansion for the first 3 years. But then, the Federal subsidy drops to 40%, leaving the States with many billions in extra expenses.

It also continues to deny medical coverage to millions of people. It will interfere with Doctor-Patient relationships. It will require religious organizations to violate the teachings of their own religions (not just Catholics by the way, which is why Baptists, Jews and many other religious groups are fighting this).

It essentially puts a crappy medical program in place, at horrific expense, with a massive top heavy government administrators in place, and solves virtually nothing.

Without the "Individual Mandate", it essentially puts all private medical insurance out of business. The ONLY way they can enroll those already chronically ill into their systems is if everyone is required to be a part of it. But, the Individual Mandate is only partially going to be implemented, so Insurance Companies will be inundated with the very expensive chronic cases, and the cost will become totally prohibitive for their customers.

Before you begin to comment on laws, it would REALLY help if you (and some of the others around here) would actually READ THEM, instead of depending on the interpretations of your favorite leftist journalists.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63

I have read it, and it leaves a LOT to be desired, to say the least. For one thing, it CUTS the spending for Medicare (the old age medical plan that the US has had since the 1960's) by $500,000,000,000.00! (That's 500 BILLION dollars for those that wonder.)


Hmm, your reading of the bill leaves a lot to be desired. The bill doesn't cut the Medicare budget by $500 billion, it aims to slow the growth of Medicare by $500 billion. The two are not the same.

In fact the CBO still projects Medicare spending to rise from $499 billion to $929 billion in the 2009 to 2020 period.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Hmm, your reading of the bill leaves a lot to be desired. The bill doesn't cut the Medicare budget by $500 billion, it aims to slow the growth of Medicare by $500 billion. The two are not the same.

In fact the CBO still projects Medicare spending to rise from $499 billion to $929 billion in the 2009 to 2020 period. [/SIZE]

Easier to swallow if you just think $1500 per citizen! :lol:
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
People should actually read what the article says.



IOW, tax increases will be $126 billion higher than tax credits and subsidies, i.e. it's not a tax cut.

Seems to me that a small tax increase in exchange for universal health care is a small price to pay instead of people loosing their houses because they needed to see a doctor.
Note that if you are poor enough you would already get free health care. Only the middle class was getting screwed without health care. What is amazing is that so many of them were getting it up the a$$ willingly.

Universal healthcare is not a right; it's a benefit.

Also, we have to define how far it is supposed to go. Medical tech is advancing each and everyday and I would wager that it would be possible to keep someone alive with the help of all this tech well beyond the capacity of the person's actual body would allow. That said, the bar gets moved higher and higher, the individual has to assume some of the responsibility in terms of the cost of all this tech and advancements as opposed to simply demanding that society pay the piper each time something happens.

This is exactly where Canada's problem arises with free universal health. We can probably afford to provide what was available when health care was introduced. Anything beyond that will require some kind of a user pay system.
 

WJW

Nominee Member
Jul 6, 2012
56
0
6
The problem with healthcare is that it is like a chronic medical condition - it's not going away; and if left untreated, it will only get worse.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
This is exactly where Canada's problem arises with free universal health. We can probably afford to provide what was available when health care was introduced. Anything beyond that will require some kind of a user pay system.

Exactly, we have new diseases, new costly equipment and more people who don't take responsibility for their own health. A Carl's Jr. is under construction here now to add to the multitude of other places that sell deep fried death! :lol:
 

Toro

Senate Member
Most Americans could not afford a major medical expense, even with health insurance - they will be bankrupt; and those unfortunate to need long-term medical treatment will end up on the street. If universal healthcare is not a right, then it certainly should be. What else is the purpose of government but to provide for such things? The greatest nation in the world should be able to afford the very best healthcare for all of its citizens.

Of course most Americans couldn't afford a major medical expense. Most Canadians couldn't either. That's why there is health insurance. In Canada, it is provided by the government. In America, it is provided by private industry.

Universal taxpayer-funded healthcare is not a right, nor should it be. If societies want it, fine, but nobody should have a right over someone else's labour, which is what is what any "right" funded by the taxpayer is.

It should be noted that while there are certainly problems in the American system (just like there are problems in the Canadian system), polls have consistently shown that most Americans are happy with their own health insurance.

Poll Finds Large Majority Of Americans Happy with Their Health Insurance - Newsweek and The Daily Beast
Most Americans Happy with Health Care they Have Now | The Weekly Standard