bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index bumrejects.myfreeforum.org
Open discussion on just about any topic
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Health Care Reform Act - court challenges
Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> National Politics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
coebul



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 3285
Location: Northwest USA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:52 am    Post subject:  Reply with quote

Quote:
That so-called "promise" is one of the most successful disinformation attacks by the anti-Obama people since 2008 when the Obama campaign platform first promised to push for health care reform.

It is a classic half truth straw man offensive maneuver - and stinks like most offensive things do.  
In other words... It was a lie!  


Quote:
First, the "savings" to the U.S. deficit/debt, i.e. to all U.S. federal taxpayers.  

The CBO, and every reputable think tank in America, confirm that the ACA decreases billions of dollars of federal deficit/debt over the 10-year and 20-year projections - the savings over what would have been expended under the current laws when the ACA was passed. Scroll back a bit and you'll find all the CBO's projections for most eventualities, including comparison to the current GOP budget proposal in the House. Earlier I posted links to the Kaiser Foundation's and other computations.
Accounting 101.  Shifting costs for one line to another can make the difference in profit, deprecation and losses.  You and all the others say the deficit/debt decreases billions over 10 years.  But I question is this a decrease in costs or shifting the burden from the tax payer to another?  Because if it decreases deficit/debt but shifts it to business and consumers nothing has changed for the tax payer.  It's like ending tax deductions for oil companies and have the cost of fuel go up proportionately....  Not all that impressive to me the consumer.  

One point about increasing cost and decreasing benefits (at least in my situation).  The premium for our insurance had gone up just like ever other premium over the last 10 years.  But since 2009 it has increased exponentially. You posted premiums went up 100% in the decade of 2000-10.  That is 10% per year.  How about 2009-2012?
_________________
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

coebul wrote:
Quote:
That so-called "promise" is one of the most successful disinformation attacks by the anti-Obama people since 2008 when the Obama campaign platform first promised to push for health care reform.

It is a classic half truth straw man offensive maneuver - and stinks like most offensive things do.


In other words... It was a lie!

<snip>

Accounting 101. Shifting costs for one line to another can make the difference in profit, deprecation and losses. You and all the others say the deficit/debt decreases billions over 10 years. But I question is this a decrease in costs or shifting the burden from the tax payer to another?

<snip>

One point about increasing cost and decreasing benefits (at least in my situation). The premium for our insurance had gone up just like ever other premium over the last 10 years. But since 2009 it has increased exponentially. You posted premiums went up 100% in the decade of 2000-10. That is 10% per year. How about 2009-2012?


Yes, the stated and implied propaganda spread by the anti-Obama and anti-ACA people, i.e., that everyones' insurance premiums would decrease and costs of medical procedures/drugs would decrease as a result if the ACA were lies.

I outlined the three areas of savings which the Obama campaign and the ACA supporters made in my last post - those were not lies.

The CBO data from the beginning has identified their projections of specific areas of greater costs and specific areas of savings.

One more time, the ACA is NOT an overall decrease in costs of medical care paid by federal funds, nor has anyone I'm aware of who promoted and supported the ACA ever said it would be. However there were anti-ACA propagandists who created that strawman lie.

It is a combination of spending LESS federal dollars than what would have been spent to subsidize medical care, and collecting MORE federal income from taxes.

That combination - spend less, collect more - decreases the annual deficits and slows down the increases in the federal debt.

I have no idea why your premiums have gone up and benefits decreased.

Here are the summaries of
2009, 2010 and 2011 - nationwide and state-by-state - there's a lot of variables including the different elements of the plans: http://blog.ehealthinsurance.com/...es-health-insurance-cost-in-2011/

... Excerpts from above URL ...

- On average, the increase in premiums [from February 2010 to February 2011] in each age group identified in the report is 3.6%.

- Half of all individual policyholders [in 2011] paid $149 or less per month in premiums, and half of all family policy holders paid $353 or less for monthly premiums.

- The range of average monthly premiums paid for individual plans [in 2011] across the United States fell between $119 in Iowa and $382 in New York.

- The range of average monthly premiums paid for family plans [in 2011] across the United States fell between $261 in Iowa and $932 in New York.
--- end excerpts from above URL ---

Monthly Medicare premiums:
2009 - $96.40
2010 - $110.50
2011 - $115.40
2012 - $99.90

Medicare premiums are computed at 25% of the entire cost of medical care to all recipients (75% is paid from the federal General Fund collected via FICA deductions).

The decrease in the basic premium rate from 2011 to 2012 reflects the decrease in the total cost of medical care for all Medicare recipients, and varies from year to year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
coebul



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 3285
Location: Northwest USA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SS was never suppose to cost what it costs.  66:1 Payers to Payees.  

Medicare was never suppose to cost what is costs.  The original cost was in the $60-$70 million range...

0bamacare was cast by CBO to cost $800 billion before being signed into law.  Now 2 years later that same group casts the cost at $1.7 trillion over the exact same time period.  

Save me your stats.  They are useless.  Universal health care will take us down the exact same road as Greece, Spain, France and several other European countries.  

That bieramar is not propaganda.... it is fact.  It is delusional to believe 0bamacare will do anything other then add more burden to the backs of the tax paying working person.    

Alexis de Tocqueville got it right!
_________________
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coebul wrote:
SS was never suppose to cost what it costs. 66:1 Payers to Payees.

Medicare was never suppose to cost what is costs. The original cost was in the $60-$70 million range...

0bamacare was cast by CBO to cost $800 billion before being signed into law. Now 2 years later that same group casts the cost at $1.7 trillion over the exact same time period.


And what caused the increase in the costs in all three examples?

The laws subsequently passed by the elected members of Congress which CHANGED THE TERMS on which the projections were based.

The additional costs of S/S have nothing to do with the law passed during FDR's administration, or with FDR himself.

Likewise with Medicare and LBJ.

Likewise with Affordable Care and Obama.

It is the elected Members of Congress, cooperating with each other and the wishes of the moneychangers who fund their campaigns, who have created the laws which have expanded and extended the costs of all the entitlement and subsidized programs.

Anyone can play the political propaganda game along with the Republicans and Democrats, and indulge themselves in the personality cult of presidents, but all that does is distract from the true and factual realities of the U.S. government, which so many love to hate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
coebul



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 3285
Location: Northwest USA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a disaster in the making.

CBO is not propaganda!  They project the cost to be double what it was sold at...  That is cold hard facts.  

Taxes are going up because of ACA.  

Premiums (except yours) are going up.

Quality of care is decreasing.  And will only get worse.  But the Tax is now the law of the land.  

Interesting the only way this works is as a tax.  Breaking another promise of 0bama's.  No new taxes on those under $250K incomes...
_________________
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tsiya



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 4017
Location: Cabbage Hammock

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obama in 2009: promises no Obamacare tax; middle class will not "be forced to pay for this"

http://youtu.be/O9m9TyS-dfU

_________________
Bob

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coebul wrote:
It [ACA] will be the single largest tax increase in history.


Not true, as promptly belied by every factchecking website after Limbaugh's false statement - which statement was/is still being repeated by true believers unaffected by facts.

Here's one chart:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blo...s/2012/07/Obamacare-tax-chart.jpg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tsiya wrote:
Obama in 2009: promises no Obamacare tax; middle class will not "be forced to pay for this"
http://youtu.be/O9m9TyS-dfU


Schieffer:  Have you promised too much, Mr. President?

Obama:  No I don't think I've promised too much at all. Look - first of all, everybody acknowledges this is a problem. Everybody acknowledges that the current path we're on is unsustainable.
Not just for people who don't have health insurance, but for those who do. We just had a study come out this week showing that premiums for families went up 130 percent over the last decade. Those costs probably went up even higher for the average employer and that's part of the reason why you're seeing each successive year fewer Americans having health insurance from their employers than they previously did.

Health care inflation went up 5.5 percent this past year when inflation was actually negative because of this extraordinary recession. So we know that standing still is not an option. Now what I've said is we can make sure that people who don't have health insurance can buy into an insurance pool that gives them better bargaining power.

For people who have health insurance we can provide health insurance reforms that make the insurance they have more secure. And we can do that mostly by using money that every expert agrees is being wasted and is currently in the existing health care system. So -- in fact what we've got right now is about 80 percent consensus on how we would accomplish that.

Now let me be honest: With a piece of legislation this complicated and a sector of the economy that's about one-sixth of our economy there's a reason why for the last 40 years people have been talking about this and it hasn't gotten done - it's hard. And there are a lot of moving parts. And so I appreciate fact that the American people are really cautious about this because it's important to them and the majority of people still have health insurance.

What I'm trying to do is to explain the facts, which are if we don't do anything a lot of Americans are gonna be much worse off and over time the federal budget just can't sustain it.

Schieffer:  Let me just ask you - the main concern that people seem to have is that this plan is somehow going to mean a tax on middle class Americans. Now you promised during the campaign--- Obama:  Right. Schieffer:  ---that that was not gonna happen.

Obama:  Right.

Schieffer:  No tax increase on people who made under 250,000 dollars.

Obama:  Right.

Schieffer:  No payroll tax, no capital gains?

Obama:  Right.

Schieffer:  No tax of any kind on Americans. Can you still make that promise to people today?

Obama:  I can still keep that promise because, as I've said, about two-thirds of what we've proposed would be from money that's already in the health care system but just being spent badly. And as I said before, this is not me making wild assertions. You know, you always hear about waste and abuse in Washington and usually it doesn't mean much because nobody ever finds where that waste and abuse is. This is money that has been directly identified that the Congressional Budget Office, that Republican and Democratic experts agree is there, that is not improving the quality of our health. So the lion's share of money to pay for this will come from money that's already in system.

Now, we are going to have to find some additional sources of revenue for the other third or so of the health care plan. And I've provided a long list of approaches that would not have an impact on middle class Americans. They're not going to be forced to pay for this. Insurance companies, drug companies are gonna have to be ponying up, partly because right now they're receiving huge subsidies from folks.

Schieffer:  But aren't they going to then pass it on to consumers? I mean that's what you know the Chamber of Commerce is saying. They're starting a big ad campaign right--- Obama:  Right. Schieffer: ---now, they're saying you're gonna put these taxes on these insurance companies on people that make things like X-rays and lab tests and all of that and they're just going to turn right around and pass it right on to the consumer.

Obama:  Here's the problem, they're passing on those costs to the consumer anyway. The only difference is---

Schieffer:  But this would be more---

Obama:  No, the difference is that they're making huge profits on it, Bob. I mean, let's take the Medicare HMO programs that are being run by insurance companies. It's estimated by everybody that they're overcharging by about 14 percent. This amounts to about $177 billion over 10 years. About $17 billion a year, $18 billion a year. That's just going to pad their profits, hasn't been shown to make Medicare recipients any healthier.

And in fact because those huge subsidies are going to insurance companies, Medicare recipients are not getting a good deal. Now if we are enforcing what should be the rules around Medicare and making sure the people are getting a bang for the buck, it's not going to be possible for insurance companies to simply pass on those costs to Medicare recipients because ultimately it's Uncle Sam that's paying for those services anyway.

Look, bringing about change in this town is always hard. When you've got special interests that are making billions of dollars, absolutely they're gonna want to keep as much of that, the profits that they're making, as possible. And by the way, those insurance companies even during these down years have been making terrific profits. We don't mind them making profits, we just want them to be accountable to their customers.
---

Full transcript: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-3460_162-5324077.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bieramar



Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 4441
Location: Taylor Ranch, NM

PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coebul wrote:
Taxes are going up because of ACA.

But the Tax is now the law of the land.

Interesting the only way this works is as a tax. Breaking another promise of 0bama's. No new taxes on those under $250K incomes...


It has become abundantly clear to me from scanning media op-eds that many commentators have not read the majority decision - or if they read it they don't understand it:

[First, why the Commerce Clause doesn't apply]

"Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.

"Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do.

"Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do notdo. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing.

"They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it.

"Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers.

"The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress's power to 'regulate Commerce.'"

[Second, why the penalty tax for not obtaining health insurance is constitutional under the Taxing Clause, emphasis mine]

"First, and most importantly, it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity.

"The Court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the regulated activity. But from its creation, the Constitution has made no such promise with respect to taxes.

"Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing health insurance, not whether it can.

"Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one.

"...the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax - read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance."

Source:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
===

The TAX to which Chief Justice Roberts refers is only the penalty tax which will be paid by those who choose not to purchase health insurance (that is, paid by those who are not exempted under the ACA).

In Massachusetts about 1% chose not to participate in the so-called "mandatory" health insurance plan.

The CBO is currently estimating that about 1.5% of U.S. residents (about 5 million) will not purchase health insurance, and thus pay/owe the IRS the penalty tax of a fixed amount or percentage of their income.

The other federal taxes on the wealthier Americans which are increased as part of the ACA (3.8% surcharge on taxable income $200,000 and above for single taxpayers, and $250,000 and above for joint returns) - and which resulted in a broken Obama campaign promise the day he signed the law - were not an issue in any of the Appeals, nor addressed in the SCOTUS decision as they clearly fall under the Taxing Clause.

It was only the penalty tax for not enrolling which constituted the constitutional legal challenges.

=========

In reviewing all the estimates from CBO and other thinktanks the total cost projections over ten years demonstrate two very important realities to me:

First, it is less federal expenditure than if no health care law had been passed; and

Second, the total cost over the ten years will be less than the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to the U.S. taxpayer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
coebul



Joined: 18 Nov 2010
Posts: 3285
Location: Northwest USA

PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bieramar wrote:


In reviewing all the estimates from CBO and other thinktanks the total cost projections over ten years demonstrate two very important realities to me:

First, it is less federal expenditure than if no health care law had been passed; and
Shifting the cost from the "Tax payer" to the ''Premium payer'' and enforcing this in the form of a penalty tax on the long view does only one thing.  It changes the line on the balance sheet from federal government to private sector.  The $$$ spent will continue to increase...

bieramar wrote:
Second, the total cost over the ten years will be less than the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to the U.S. taxpayer.
Yeah and wars are expensive.  The actual costs may not bear this comment out.  As posted before SS# was intended to be supported 66:1.  Medicare was to only cost $66 million (+/-)


And what occurs to me?  

If I have learned nothing about the founding of this nation I have learned this country was founded on "LIMITED" government.  That concept has steadily eroded over the last 200 years.


_________________
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> National Politics All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
Page 15 of 17

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum