Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Is Obamacare about to raise taxes on the middle class by $1 TRILLION? Well, is it?   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 316
    More: Stupid, obamacare, middle class, income taxes, Debbie Wasserman Schultz  
•       •       •

16774 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Mar 2013 at 11:11 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



316 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-12 11:45:22 AM  
I am licensed to sell health insurance so I am getting a kick...

I stopped selling health insurance and I am focusing on life insurance right now.  With Congress not knowing what is in the bill they passed, we don't know what insurance plans that are legal to sell today will remain legal in October when this goes into effect.  And it is going to really hurt coworkers of mine who have been in the business for ten to twenty years or more, have over two decades of built up residuals coming in each month that congress will put an end to when Obamacare comes into effect.

One explanation about Obamacare that I read is that it is not just have some insurance and you won't be fined, but rather that Obamacare level insurance could run as high as $800/month for the average family.  But, with no pre-existing conditions, coverage beginning the moment you buy your policy, why should a healthy person buy insurance when taking the tax fine is cheaper?  Think of it this way: I am healthy.  I see a doctor less than once a year.  Mandatory health insurance is a waste of money for me, just pay the annual fine.  Now, let's say I broke my leg falling down the stairs.   All I have to do is buy insurance, which would take effect instantly, get fixed up, and as soon as the leg was healed, cancel the insurance.  And with no one being rejected for insurance, they can't legally stop me from buying insurance knowing that I was only going to cancel it the moment the cast came off.
 
2013-03-12 11:45:24 AM  

tylerdurden217: How about a a single non-profit payer system that covers basic healthcare for everyone in the US?


Socialism. Because you're cutting out insturance executives from their entitled profits. Because fr-profit insurance which denies claims isn't socialism.
 
2013-03-12 11:45:41 AM  
So, Americans are ok with spending a trillion dollars on wall street bailouts, the big 3 car company bailouts, the invasion of Iraq, and the aquisition of new nukes and military hardware. But. You're not ok with spending money on preventative medicine and a health care system that provides for everyone?

There's no tag that goes with that. It just leaves the rest of us using socialized medicine wondering why?

It's your country. Do with it what you want. I'm not judging.
 
2013-03-12 11:46:40 AM  
We must get rid of it before things kick in and you like it.
 
2013-03-12 11:47:59 AM  

spentmiles: I hope they calculated in the cost of treating millions of cases of malnutrition after everyone is reduced to eating cat food and drinking rain water.


I can only afford cat food made from real cats.  "Fancy Feast" indeed...
 
2013-03-12 11:48:39 AM  
Obamacare is about to raise a gigantic 13 inch cock on the American tax leader. The only thing real Americans can do in the face of this black dick is to act like little pussies. Little pussies sometimes get farked by African monster-dongs, and, sometimes they elect them. Only Hilary can save us now, 44-46.

Also, wait for the trickle-down. Because, God wants you to be successful.
 
2013-03-12 11:49:33 AM  

Bartleby the Scrivener: Reduced??? That's what I treat the missus to on special occasions, when we get to break out the styrofoam plates and use them eatin' tools.


Would you prefer not to?
 
2013-03-12 11:52:55 AM  
I_C_Weener:
Where is my public option?!!!!

Ironically a public option would have forced private providers to compete honestly for once and pushed the medicine/medical insurance market closer to a perfectly competitive, free market equilibrium. So a single payer/public option (which didn't happen because socialism or something) would have been a better free market solution than the increased regulation that the Republican party forced us towards by opposing a single payer option.
 
2013-03-12 11:55:36 AM  
img593.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-12 11:56:19 AM  
But if you,like, LIVE LONGER, doesn't it kinda just even out anyways?

(grunt,snarl)
 
2013-03-12 11:56:36 AM  
This is the kind of false equivalence that pisses me off about the liberal mainstream media.

They break it down and Johnson just completely lied about the entire point he was making. He specifically was saying that middle income Americans were getting a $1 trillion tax hike under Obamacare. Now they said that the $1 trillion figure didn't come from thin air.... but that it wasn't the new taxes on the middle class and that ALSO on the balance middle income Americans were going to have more in credits then new taxes so they won't have a tax hike at all... they'll have a tax CREDIT. The opposite of what Johnson was claiming.

Now Schultz on the other hand said that Johnson's claim wasn't true... but because in the middle of her rebuttal she didn't insert the words "middle class" when responding to his false claim they rate her statement as JUST AS untrue as his... even though she was correct that he was full of shiat.

WTF? Liberal media my ass.
 
2013-03-12 11:56:43 AM  
enry:  ....  1) OTC medications can no longer be paid out of my medical FSA ....

If Republicans really wanted to de-fund birth control, all they would have to do is make it over-the-counter. Millions fewer women would be able to afford it (as insurance does not cover OTC meds).... and now they wouldn't even be able to use the FSA to reduce costs.

But Republican voters are far too un-subtle to 'get' that, ensuring a backlash of titanic proportions if they actually took the single most effective step towards eliminating what they see as the greatest evil in society since universal suffrage. It's hilarious.
 
2013-03-12 12:00:11 PM  

LordOfThePings: Bartleby the Scrivener: Reduced??? That's what I treat the missus to on special occasions, when we get to break out the styrofoam plates and use them eatin' tools.

Would you prefer not to?


What?

I don't get it
 
2013-03-12 12:01:08 PM  

Enigmamf: enry:  ....  1) OTC medications can no longer be paid out of my medical FSA ....

If Republicans really wanted to de-fund birth control, all they would have to do is make it over-the-counter. Millions fewer women would be able to afford it (as insurance does not cover OTC meds).... and now they wouldn't even be able to use the FSA to reduce costs.


Some insurance does cover over the counter medications and I believe that the Affordable Healthcare Act requires insurance companies to cover birth control.

/also I'm pretty sure Congress can't just declare certain medications or classes of medicines to be OTC
 
2013-03-12 12:01:55 PM  
I heard it was $200 trillion per day.
 
2013-03-12 12:02:54 PM  

Bartleby the Scrivener: What?

I don't get it


There's nothing to "get". I'm just asking questions.
 
2013-03-12 12:04:58 PM  
Look,  all I want to know is if there is any way I can blame my sandy vag on Obama.
 
2013-03-12 12:05:30 PM  
Is it worth it to ensure that everyone in the US has access to some level of health care?  Oh yeah.

Everyone HAD access to medical care before Obamacare came along. Hospitals cannot turn patients away for lack of insurance or $$. In fact, states pay out millions every year to cover these people and hospitals lose money every year on these people.

And, in fact, people will STILL not have insurance with Obamacare. So what did we solve exactly? Sounds like we raised everyone's health insurance premiums, gave small businesses a reason to cut health insurance coverage, and made a lot of low-wage full-time workers into low-wage part-time workers--oh and we made everyone's tax forms a lot more complicated and intrusive. Not much of a solution, if you ask me.
 
2013-03-12 12:07:47 PM  

LordOfThePings: Bartleby the Scrivener: What?

I don't get it

There's nothing to "get". I'm just asking questions.


OK. Got it.
 
2013-03-12 12:07:52 PM  
Look; I'm the last guy who's going to claim the ACA was perfect.

But after the 'Baggers spend four years convincing the population that the bill was too complex to work, or even be understood by themselves or their constituents, and running on a platform of OVERTURNING IT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT WAS IN IT,*  how the hell am I supposed to believe anything any of them have to say about it?

*Seriously. That was Chip Cravaack's campaign in 2010 - "I haven't read it, let's overturn it."
 
KIA
2013-03-12 12:08:26 PM  
There is no miracle of the fishes and the loaves here people. Huge, expensive promises were made for prescription drug care and then expanded for general health care. Someone has to pay for that now and you, dear middle class, with your victimization and white guilt mentality hoped that any change would be good. You're wrong. Pay up.
 
2013-03-12 12:10:13 PM  
What is the definition of middle-class?  It seems middle-class to republicans is on the order of $250,000 to $500,000 a year.

But it is easier to invoke outrage when people don't all agree on what is defined as middle-class, because everyone thinks they are in the middle-class if they don't consider themselves as "rich"
 
2013-03-12 12:11:15 PM  

k1j2b3: Everyone HAD access to medical care before Obamacare came along.


Everyone had access to emergency medical care.

Start showing the symptoms of a long-running but manageable disease like MS and you're farked if you don't have insurance.

k1j2b3: So what did we solve exactly?


You mean apart from mandating that insurance companies not refuse people on the basis of pre-existing conditions?
Or that bit about them spending a large chunk on insurance and not on marketing and overhead?
Or that bit about expanding Medicaid?
Or that bit about letting children stay on their parents' plans longer - which is incredibly vital in this recession?

k1j2b3: And, in fact, people will STILL not have insurance with Obamacare.


And those people will pay a fine. Good.
 
2013-03-12 12:12:37 PM  

Voiceofreason01: I_C_Weener:
Where is my public option?!!!!

Ironically a public option would have forced private providers to compete honestly for once and pushed the medicine/medical insurance market closer to a perfectly competitive, free market equilibrium. So a single payer/public option (which didn't happen because socialism or something) would have been a better free market solution than the increased regulation that the Republican party forced us towards by opposing a single payer option.


I know.  I think single payer has some benefits, but a public option that consolidated Medicare, Medicaid together would have made some sense.  No need to have 3 groups doing the same thing.  And as you said, it would have offered subsidized competition for the health insurance companies out there.  They either compete to lower premiums or offer a better product for higher premiums allowing for multi-level options for all Americans.  It also would avoid the problems of single payer such as waiting lists to see doctors who would remain private employees, not employees of the government.

Basically, it would have allowed for innovation, and the best of what we have, but made it more affordable for all of us.  Basically, an improved version of Canada and Europe models.
 
2013-03-12 12:12:55 PM  

Great Janitor: I am licensed to sell health insurance so I am getting a kick...

I stopped selling health insurance and I am focusing on life insurance right now.  With Congress not knowing what is in the bill they passed, we don't know what insurance plans that are legal to sell today will remain legal in October when this goes into effect.  And it is going to really hurt coworkers of mine who have been in the business for ten to twenty years or more, have over two decades of built up residuals coming in each month that congress will put an end to


Good. Because that's the problem with insurance right there. I buy health insurance for 70 people every year. 5% of all the premiums for all my employees all year long goes right into the brokers pocket. And we wonder why health care has such an exorbitant cost. Well, to start with the 5% off the top does not pay for any medical treatments or benefit the subscriber whatsoever. So fark a bunch of schmucks still raking it in on a policy they sold twenty years ago.
 
2013-03-12 12:12:57 PM  

kid_icarus: [i76.photobucket.com image 360x202]


That seriously made my day better.  Thanks.
 
2013-03-12 12:16:52 PM  
Great another thread where only one or two people know what they are talking about but everyone else just regurgitates the talking points their party.


\Seriously Wasserman Shultz as an authority on anything but bad hair.  Really.
 
2013-03-12 12:19:13 PM  
enry:
Will this hurt some people?  Probably.  Has my employer taken steps to make sure that employees who don't make much are impacted less?  Yes.  Is it worth it to ensure that everyone in the US has access to some level of health care?  Oh yeah.


It will hurt us in the long run. the last thing we need is more people living longer. We need some form of population control.
 
2013-03-12 12:19:25 PM  

MattStafford: Obamacare will allow more people access to health care.  The only way to pay for this increase in health care is have other people foot the bill, as those doctor's aren't working for free.  As such, this will necessarily cause some people's bills to rise, either in the form of taxes or premiums.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as our country is wealthy and everyone should have access to health care, but to ignore that reality is disingenuous.

A better solution would be a guaranteed minimum income along with some sort of universal catastrophic coverage plan.  Let the market work for non life threatening procedures, but make sure health care costs don't bankrupt anyone.


Why don't we buy everyone a car too? Everyone needs transportation! We can just average out the cost to everyone!

It's bullshiat. I pay for my families healthcare and it takes a huge chunk of my check. So now my check has to be taxed more to pay for someone else's health care? Bullshiat.

If I'm paying for your healthcare, I should get something for it. Come mow my grass.
 
2013-03-12 12:19:37 PM  
i159.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-12 12:20:22 PM  

I_C_Weener: Well...if you squint a little...then the answer is sorta.  It is taxing the provider of "luxury" plans.  Which is being passed on to the end user in high premiums.  And it is raising taxes in lots of other areas...some related...like medical devices (not that every Middle Class person has them).

But, it might be safer to say, "Is this Obamacare costing some people more than before?"  And the answer is yes.  And it is making it more affordable for some to have health insurance.  But it really isn't lowering healthcare costs at all.

Where is my public option?!!!!  Let the government compete with private insurance with a subsidized plan or plans based on income and then you might see a reduction in costs of health insurance.  But I'm not sure how exactly you can lower the costs of healthcare in the 21st century.  The costs of new drugs is astronomical and there is no guarantee of a return, and even when you do get it patented and the right to distribute your drug it may take up to 20 years to recover the years of research and production involved in creating the drug.  Same with devices.   You might be able to cut into care costs like hospitalization, wages for medical staff, and stupid over priced stuff like $10 aspirin.  But a lot of medical care is expensive.  Otherwise, we'd all have an MRI machine in our basements.


I agree with most of this.  But 1) the previsions in Obamacare to encourage preventative health care are expected lower healthcare costs in the long run. It costs less to fix a health problem with prevention, such as prenatal care and care for children not currently covered than it does to fix the subsequent problems in the emergency room. 2) Another area of theoretical savings is as the medical review boards (NOT aka "death panels") move towards a model of compensating medical providers for results rather than procedures. 3)Big Pharma whines about their R&D costs but the cost of new drugs is further inflated by astronomical marketing expenses that are entirely unnecessary and unrelated to R&D.
 
2013-03-12 12:20:28 PM  

LemSkroob: enry:
Will this hurt some people?  Probably.  Has my employer taken steps to make sure that employees who don't make much are impacted less?  Yes.  Is it worth it to ensure that everyone in the US has access to some level of health care?  Oh yeah.


It will hurt us in the long run. the last thing we need is more people living longer. We need some form of population control.


I saw a story yesterday about a drug that will let us live until 150.  My first thought was that social security will be broke at 85.
 
2013-03-12 12:21:10 PM  
Headline is a question?
Dollar amount without a time reference in the title?

i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-12 12:21:40 PM  

JohnBigBootay: Great Janitor: I am licensed to sell health insurance so I am getting a kick...

I stopped selling health insurance and I am focusing on life insurance right now.  With Congress not knowing what is in the bill they passed, we don't know what insurance plans that are legal to sell today will remain legal in October when this goes into effect.  And it is going to really hurt coworkers of mine who have been in the business for ten to twenty years or more, have over two decades of built up residuals coming in each month that congress will put an end to

Good. Because that's the problem with insurance right there. I buy health insurance for 70 people every year. 5% of all the premiums for all my employees all year long goes right into the brokers pocket. And we wonder why health care has such an exorbitant cost. Well, to start with the 5% off the top does not pay for any medical treatments or benefit the subscriber whatsoever. So fark a bunch of schmucks still raking it in on a policy they sold twenty years ago.


Except that lawyers cost you more medical dollars on a day in, day out basis than Maury, "Salesman of the Month", in June 2003 ever will.
 
2013-03-12 12:21:53 PM  

Buffalo77: Great another thread where only one or two people know what they are talking about but everyone else just regurgitates the talking points their party.


\Seriously Wasserman Shultz as an authority on anything but bad hair.  Really.


Isn't that every thread?
 
2013-03-12 12:22:17 PM  

Twigz221: We really need to stop calling it Obamacare. It was written and passed by congress, not Obama.  Plus, before being passed it was so heavily altered by the Republicans due to demands by the insurance lobbyists that it hardly resembled what Obama proposed they do in the first place.


That's why Nancy Pelosi insisted we had to pass it to find out what was in it.
 
2013-03-12 12:24:07 PM  

CheekyMonkey: festoon: Best advice when you're trying to wade through all the complex political crap: If a Republican Politician says it, its a lie.

FTFY.


There's a big difference between Democrats and Republicans. A Democrat might steal candy from a baby, and then lie about it.

A Republican would steal candy from a baby, then they'd steal the baby. Then they'd try to convince you the damn socialist Demoncrats stole the baby, while they barbeque it, dice it up an serve it to you on a hoagie roll. And if you happen to recognize the baby on your plate slathered in BBQ sauce, with Republican fingerprints all over it, they'll try to blame it all on Obama.

At this point you can tell who the Tea Bagger is, because he'd be the one who'd dig in and start eating.
 
2013-03-12 12:24:47 PM  

Thats No Moose: k1j2b3: Everyone HAD access to medical care before Obamacare came along.

Everyone had access to emergency medical care.

Start showing the symptoms of a long-running but manageable disease like MS and you're farked if you don't have insurance.

k1j2b3: So what did we solve exactly?

You mean apart from mandating that insurance companies not refuse people on the basis of pre-existing conditions?
Or that bit about them spending a large chunk on insurance and not on marketing and overhead?
Or that bit about expanding Medicaid?
Or that bit about letting children stay on their parents' plans longer - which is incredibly vital in this recession?

k1j2b3: And, in fact, people will STILL not have insurance with Obamacare.

And those people will pay a fine. Good.


Guess who those people will be? The low-wage workers who just got kicked from full-time to part-time work!  Not those with good jobs and health insurance. So you are okay with fining someone who makes too much money to qualify for Medicaid and can't afford to buy health insurance that has now become more expensive?  Ok. Way to care for the little guy.

And I guess you are happy with dis-incentivizing people to buy health insurance by allowing them to pay a fine until they feel they suddenly need health insurance...which then they can buy (due to the pre-existing condition situation you mentioned) with no problems?  How does this help anything?

Should we now target any other business out there who spends more than 15% of its profits on things beyond its products/services?  What about your internet service? Your cell service? Gasoline? Electricity?

Why are we focusing so much on the health care industry and what we consider to be allowable profits?  And not other businesses that also cause hardship to many people with high costs?
 
2013-03-12 12:26:24 PM  

MattStafford: A better solution would be a guaranteed minimum income


Oh, look!  It's One Note Johnny, playing the only song he knows.

Again.
 
2013-03-12 12:26:49 PM  
Did Obamacare leave the toilet seat up again?

/goddammitsomuch!
 
2013-03-12 12:27:29 PM  

Molavian: [i184.photobucket.com image 370x343]


If you look closely, you can almost hear the sound of the NICU nurse taking care of that baby totally losing her shiat as the cellphone falls.
 
2013-03-12 12:27:49 PM  

k1j2b3: Is it worth it to ensure that everyone in the US has access to some level of health care?  Oh yeah.

Everyone HAD access to medical care before Obamacare came along. Hospitals cannot turn patients away for lack of insurance or $$. In fact, states pay out millions every year to cover these people and hospitals lose money every year on these people.


As someone else pointed out, they can't deny you emergency medical care. Then they'll send you the bill. A bill that (without insurance) will be gargantuous. Many people will ignore early warning signs (such as chest pains) until it's too late to avoid putting more financial burden on their family. Times had been hard enough after getting laid off from work last year. Then one day you find them dead of a massive heart attack and learn (much to late) that they'd been experiencing early warning signs for nearly a year and had been hiding it.

But yeah...that's totally the same as having real health insurance.

/RIP Aunt Nee
 
2013-03-12 12:28:03 PM  
I hate this number-fudging game that politicians play. Yes, I realize that future revenues and expenses are all estimates and we need to have something to plan by, but it always pisses me off how they present things. I think they often make it intentionally deceiving and manipulate a lot of factors to support whatever their position is (startling insight, I know!).

"Cutting X will save us eleventy bajillion dollars!!"*
"Policy Y raises taxes by forty gazillion dollars!!"*

*Over the course of the next 4,000 years, assuming the economy grows at 20% annually and everything else stays exactly the same
 
2013-03-12 12:28:28 PM  

kendelrio: It's bullshiat. I pay for my families healthcare and it takes a huge chunk of my check. So now my check has to be taxed more to pay for someone else's health care? Bullshiat.

If I'm paying for your healthcare, I should get something for it. Come mow my grass.


We're a wealthy country.  We should be able to take care of our own.  Also, instituting a GMI and allowing the free market to work for the majority of health care issues will dramatically drive down prices.
 
2013-03-12 12:28:28 PM  

Smidge204: This appears to be one of those cases where "Middle Class" is a euphemism for "People just scraping by on $200K+/year"

Also, FTA:

Moreover, most calculations show that middle-income Americans are expected to get more in tax relief , such as health-care subsidies, than in additional tax hikes. CBO, for instance, indicates that middle-income Americans would receive about $1 trillion in premium credits in this 10-year period. So on a net basis, most middle-class Americans should expect to come out ahead.


=Smidge=


Naw, as a percent of income the plan firmly sticks the burden up the keister of anyone who is not insured under medicare/medicaid.

The day after he signed the bill the insurance companies and employers started hiking up rates and deductibles.
 
2013-03-12 12:29:02 PM  

Thats No Moose: Everyone had access to emergency medical care.


Even that was questionable. EMTALA only states you have to have a medical screening exam to rule out life- and limb-threatening emergencies. Beyond that, a Hospital has to do nothing for you.
 
2013-03-12 12:30:21 PM  

Great Janitor: And it is going to really hurt coworkers of mine who have been in the business for ten to twenty years or more, have over two decades of built up residuals coming in each month that congress will put an end to when Obamacare comes into effect.


Speaking as a person who's been in healthcare for almost twenty years, I'd like to say that I certainly hope that does turn out to be true.
 
2013-03-12 12:30:48 PM  
I'm confused, I thought Republicans only cared about taxes on the Wealthy.
 
2013-03-12 12:30:55 PM  

Buffalo77: Great another thread where only one or two people know what they are talking about but everyone else just regurgitates the talking points their party.


I'm guessing that those are the ones that agree with you
 
2013-03-12 12:31:01 PM  

hdhale: Except that lawyers cost you more medical dollars on a day in, day out basis than Maury, "Salesman of the Month", in June 2003 ever will.


There's no "except" about it. If tort reform is part of the problem, fine, fix that too. Doesn't change that a substantial portion of health care funds buy boats for brokers and it's unnecessary. We used to pay travel agents to set up vacations - they got 10%. Now it's virtually a dead profession. I used to have to take my chances on god knows what with car salesmen - bought my last three cars without one. Realtors used to get 6% on home sales - that commission is rapidly dwindling and many escape it altogether these days. I am counting the days until the same is true with group health policies.
 
Displayed 50 of 316 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report