View Full Version : Exposing Latest Lie About Obamacare

06-30-2012, 09:36 PM
Taxes Are The New Death Panels: Exposing The Latest Lie About Obamacare
By Igor Volsky on Jun 29, 2012 at 11:10 am
ThinkProgress.org (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/29/508794/taxes-are-the-new-death-panels-exposing-the-latest-lie-about-obamacare/)


Republicans are responding to the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the individual mandate by constructing a new “death panels”-like lie. The law, they argue, imposes a burdensome tax (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/28/508062/fact-check-mandate-tax-hike/) on millions of middle class families who will have to pay a penalty for not purchasing health care coverage by 2014. The line originates in the majority’s decision, which found that Congress has the authority to require individuals to buy coverage under its taxing power, but it doesn’t mean what the Republicans are suggesting.

The truth is that the penalty for not buying insurance — $695 or 2.5 percent of household income — is well in line with other policies that are designed to encourage and promote a particular kind of economic behavior. On Friday morning, NBC’s Chuck Todd compared the penalty to a speeding ticket and asked House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) to distinguish between the two taxes. Cantor could not:

TODD: On the tax front quickly, is a speeding ticket a tax? By that same definition? You can avoid paying this tax if you get insurance. [...]

CANTOR: First of all, let me — I can’t respond to whether the speeding ticket would be considered a tax or not under the states’ authority any states’ authority. What I can tell you is the court came down on this issue decided that it was a tax to coerce some type of behavior.

Watch it: VIDEO (http://youtu.be/js1wua5ZsVc)

In the case of health care, the law is offering an incentive for younger and healthier Americans to purchase health insurance coverage before they fall ill and pass on the costs of their treatments on to the government and other premium payers.

Widespread take-up of coverage could cut government expenditures on uncompensated care in in half (http://www.urban.org/publications/412533.html) . As Mitt Romney explained in 2006, “I don’t think the free market ever envisioned an idea that people would be able to do something and make other people pay for it (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/26/451428/romney-policy-case-mandate/).” And after successful implementation of reform in Massachusetts, few are.

On the federal level, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting that 30 million Americans will enroll in insurance as a result of the law, millions more will receive a tax cut (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/29/508749/obamacare-middle-class-taxes/) to help them afford coverage, and of the remaining uninsured, “the majority of them will not be subject (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/individual_mandate_penalties-04-30.pdf) to the penalty“:

21 million nonelderly residents will be uninsured in 2016, but the majority of them will not be subject to the penalty. Unauthorized immigrants, for example, are exempted from the mandate to obtain health insurance. Others will be subject to the mandate but exempted from the penalty—for example, because they will have income low enough that they are not required to file an income tax return, because they are members of Indian tribes, or because the premium they would have to pay would exceed a specified share of their income (initially 8 percent in 2014 and indexed over time). CBO and JCT estimate that between 13 million and 14 million of the uninsured in 2016 will qualify for one or more of those exemptions. Of the remaining 7 million to 8 million uninsured, some individuals will be granted exemptions from the penalty because of hardship, and others will be exempted from the mandate on the basis of their religious beliefs. [...]

Real world experience suggests that Americans are more likely to purchase insurance than pay the penalty for going without coverage. For instance, in Massachusetts, the only state with an insurance mandate, less than one percent (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/06/in-mass-individual-mandate-sparks-little-outcry/) of the state’s residents paid the penalty in 2009. Surveys of the uninsured have also found that an overwhelming majority — 76 percent (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/08/30/307856/survey-most-uninsured-would-rather-purchase-coverage-than-pay-penalty/) of the uninsured — would rather comply with the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act and purchase insurance than pay the far less onerous penalty for forgoing it. Experts believe that “health insurance mandates differ (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21600) from some other requirements, such as the requirement to pay taxes” because “enrollees individually receive a tangible good–health insurance—that they value.”

After accounting for all of those factors, CBO and JCT estimate that about 4 million people will pay a penalty because they will be uninsured in 2016 (a figure that includes uninsured dependents who have the penalty paid on their behalf).

06-30-2012, 09:50 PM
Here's a couple more lies debunked for you...



07-01-2012, 01:21 AM
So what was the lie?

07-01-2012, 01:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what was the lie? </div></div>

Is there something wrong with you? It seems you can't understand even the most simple concepts.

Try reading the first paragraph again. Ask an adult to help you if you get stuck.


07-01-2012, 02:21 AM
So it was actually ThinkProgress that lied ... got it.

07-01-2012, 02:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So it was actually ThinkProgress that lied ... got it. </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style="color: #000099">Larry, it's never to late to learn! So with that in mind here is a lesson for you to ponder..</span></span>

07-01-2012, 02:40 AM
My Gawd you do know one from the other.

I'm impressed at your progress.

Within a few short years you might be able to pay the rooster to a draw in tic tac toe at the count fair.

07-01-2012, 02:45 AM
And there you have it folks, our boy has been reduced to arguing like a petulant little kid. LOL! It's just too darned easy! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

07-01-2012, 12:36 PM
If we want to go down that road, I and every American who isn't married and/or doesn't have dependent children, or doesn't own a home with a mortgage, bears a huge tax from that inactivity.

Why? Because money and revenue is fungible. The loss of revenues from all these tax preference in the code must be made up by the general public, as there is no free lunch. Someone, all of the taxpayers, including those getting these breaks, must make up the difference, somehow, some way. But those people start off with the extra money these preferences have paid them.

Is that a sensible way to look at it? Not sure, but it parallels their reasoning, so it is their burden to provide some distinguishing characteristics.

Otherwise, and very clearly, inactivity has been taxed, and to the tune of huge amounts, for decades.

07-02-2012, 02:24 AM
And the lie is ... .

07-02-2012, 10:29 AM
The lie is that because the mandate and penalty were upheld under the Taxation power, it has become a massive, even all time record high, tax increase on the middle class.

None of that is true. Not massive, not a record high tax hike, and it doesn't particularly hit the middle class much. So THREE lies, for the price of asking for one.

07-02-2012, 11:22 AM
This is what I know about all this health crises stuff: I cant afford to get sick because I cant afford to pay the medical bills because they would be hugh because I cant afford medical coverage because it is so expensive because it takes my whole paycheck to get by week to week so I certainly cant afford to pay a penalty because I did not buy something I cant afford and thats no lie for me and many other American citizens

07-02-2012, 11:30 AM
If you are under 133% of the poverty rate, you'd receive some health care insurance plan free of charge. Up to 400% of the poverty rate, you'd receive some subsidy for that premium cost.

I suggest you actually look into these details, as especially for someone in your income situation, it's pretty much all good.

07-02-2012, 12:16 PM
Well ... It hits those making under $120k for 75% of the bill, only passed the SCOTUS by being. Tax, and will be enforced by the IRS.

I give you credit however for actually being able to answer a question, unlike your Buddhist brethren.

Gayle in MD
07-02-2012, 12:19 PM
If only people didn't get sick anyway, even when they can't afford to pay for health care.

Sadly, it doesn't work that way.

Paying for Health Care Insurance, since their profits have consistantly broken records, over these last thirty years or so, it was a critical problem for many Americans, long before the Bush Recession crashed our economy, and brought documented statistics under more public scrutiny, statistics of people who were losing their homes, and actually dying, and going bankrupt, all because they could not afford health insurance, or were being dropped or refused any insurance at all.

Hospitals take those people wsithout coverage, into the emergency rooms, and then find out later, that they have no way to pay the bill.

That is when the bill gets left for all of the rest of us to pay, and we pay through higher costs for our own insurance, and health services, and have done so for decades, until finally, only the wealthy, or those who have good government contracting jobs, jobs with good benefits, and the independently wealthy, could survive a serious illness, without losing everything.

Since then, Republicanns have wiped more and more benefits off the slate, for everyone but the wealthy, lof course and those government contractors, linked to the Military Industrial/congressional complex....who have been robbing Americans for decades.

The best teachers, have left teaching, because as Republicans removed the rights to unionize, who would want to live on a teacher's salary, without the very benefits that made teaching a career in which one could have a home, and raise a family, and hence, our children suffered from that, as they are way down compared to other countries, in their education success.

While they are getting fatter and sicker, there is no money for phycsical education anymore, many schools have no playground that is safe for anything at all. Many programs of the arts, and music, are gone, as well.

Our emergency responders, also, have had their benefits slashed, and in fact, the only people who haven't had to sacrifice, are the millionaires and billionaires, who are cleaning up, corporate welfare at an all time high, while they are corrupting the very philosophies of our Founders, for WE THE PEOPLE!

Now they make us all ill, and poorer, with their pollution, their Fracking, their drilling spills, their outsourcing of jobs, and their overall GREED, while we pay their corporate welfare, with our tax dollars, and continue to contribute more and more to their lifestyles, of the rich and famous.

Any suggestions?

Any ideas how our country is supposed to deal with this, other than the obvious way, single payer health care for all Americans?

Ending the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich and famous, which have greatly contributed to our deficits?

Voting Republicans out of office, because they have taken an oath, not to raise taxes on those wealthy Americans, who crashed our economy, outsourced our jobs, pllluted our water, air, food and elections, and have generally taken over the world economy, with their money, power, influence, corruption and greed?

There is only one political party which refuses to raise taxes on the wealthies among us. How do you feel about that?


07-02-2012, 12:21 PM
Only was granted a certiori on the mandate/penalty part of the issue because it WAS NOT A TAX.

Read the four justices' dissent on how Roberts' gambit to take the tax position was completely mendacious and lacking in reason, slipping deep into sophistry (they used that word).

Apparently, the 'enforcement' (of the mandate/penalty) will be by billing people, and then taking no further action except perhaps re-billing them. Some may pay, but once word gets out that they cannot enforce it, my guess is that few will.

07-02-2012, 12:24 PM
So you prove that it didn't survive due to ring deemed a tax by demonstrating that it actually did survive by being deemed a tax.

07-02-2012, 02:15 PM
I'm not sure that Roberts' declaration has any force as 'an opinion of the court.' I think it was only his opinion, not joined by the other 4 in the majority.

Ginsburg's dissent (or separate majority opinion) surely made the point that it was fully allowable under the COTUS by the main CC argument, in her view.

So, as I said before, I think Roberts spoke only for himself as he struggled for a way to justify upholding the bill. And one vote doesn't make it the court's official view. Maybe, if the others in the majority didn't publish a separate opinion, you have FOUR on the court who said it was justified as a tax, but 5 who said it wasn't. How is that 'the court' saying anything? 4 is never a majority if there are 9 voting.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Roberts’ effort, wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in dissent, “carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists.” </div></div>