Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 44

Thread: Here's How Much The Obamacare Penalty Tax Will Cost You...

  1. -31
    JTC111's Avatar
    Lookin' for Lee Ho Fooks

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jul 2012
    Posts:
    2,417
    vCash:
    18378
    Loc:
    Kings Park, NY
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    It's funny watching Dems singing GOP talking points.
    Well, they're not GOP talking points anymore, are they? The GOP thought it was a great idea until the Democrats decided to get on board with it; then it became the deathknell of freedom, and the devil personified, and a trashing of the Contitution, and something Hitler would have done, and it's socialism, and communism, and all kinds of really really bad things. But it was none of those things when it was a Republican idea.
    Funny that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    Authoritarian nonsense.
    Hardly. It protects me from the irresponsibility of those who can afford healthcare insurance and decide not to carry it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    Making scapegoats of people who can't afford expensive insurance.
    There's a simple solution to that, isn't there? Universal National Healthcare.
    We'd all be paying it through our taxes and we'd all be covered. And personally, I'd rather have a government agency controlling the cost of healthcare than an insurance company. The insurance company's goal is to make piles of money and they do that by denying treatment (those are your death panels). The government doesn't have a profit-motive involved and that would make me feel a whole lot better about my chances should I get some very serious ailment.

    But regarding the bill, it hasn't been discussed much but there has been some mention of tax credits to put toward purchase for those that cannot afford the full cost of healthcare insurance, so some provision has been made for that group.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -32
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,076
    vCash:
    6807
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by JTC111 View Post
    Well, they're not GOP talking points anymore, are they? The GOP thought it was a great idea until the Democrats decided to get on board with it; then it became the deathknell of freedom, and the devil personified, and a trashing of the Contitution, and something Hitler would have done, and it's socialism, and communism, and all kinds of really really bad things. But it was none of those things when it was a Republican idea.
    Funny that.


    Hardly. It protects me from the irresponsibility of those who can afford healthcare insurance and decide not to carry it.


    There's a simple solution to that, isn't there? Universal National Healthcare.
    We'd all be paying it through our taxes and we'd all be covered. And personally, I'd rather have a government agency controlling the cost of healthcare than an insurance company. The insurance company's goal is to make piles of money and they do that by denying treatment (those are your death panels). The government doesn't have a profit-motive involved and that would make me feel a whole lot better about my chances should I get some very serious ailment.

    But regarding the bill, it hasn't been discussed much but there has been some mention of tax credits to put toward purchase for those that cannot afford the full cost of healthcare insurance, so some provision has been made for that group.
    It proves that Dems are no different than the GOP. From wars, liberties, corporatist handouts and power graps. Both these guys don't represent us at all and only represent those that give them the most money. As for Universal National Healthcare run by the government this bill is far from that. It was literally written by the profit-based insurance companies you rail against. Not to mention the sweet heart deal Obama gave the drug companies. This bill like all other corporatist bills that come out of Washington will favor the corporations that write the bills. Make no mistake about that.

    People who can't afford expensive insurance aren't to blame for the rising cost of healthcare. Making scapegoats out of them ignores many other factors involved in the rising high costs. Which is why Romneycare and the state of MASS. still has some of the highest costs of healthcare in the country.


    Which states rank highest in health care costs?

    http://jan.ocregister.com/2011/01/31...e-costs/53810/





    "Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
    Quote Quote  

  3. -33
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,076
    vCash:
    6807
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Here's a good interview....


    Supreme Court Sides with Corporatization of Medicine


    [youtube]mzfcOFc5xjY[/youtube]
    Quote Quote  

  4. -34
    JTC111's Avatar
    Lookin' for Lee Ho Fooks

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jul 2012
    Posts:
    2,417
    vCash:
    18378
    Loc:
    Kings Park, NY
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    It proves that Dems are no different than the GOP. From wars, liberties, corporatist handouts and power graps.
    There are corporatists in both parties, I won't argue that. There are some Democrats who aren't, but Obama is certainly not one of them. The Geithner pick confirmed that for me. However, I do think that problem is more prevalent in the Repubican party. But the corporatists are always going to be there as long as the rules allow the corporations to buy and sell candidates. There's a solution: public financing of campaigns (no private or personal money at all) followed by strict regulations of what Congresspeople can and cannot do once they leave office (no lobbying, for instance).

    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    Both these guys don't represent us at all and only represent those that give them the most money.
    I don't disagree. I wish Obama was really the socialist the crazies keep saying he is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    As for Universal National Healthcare run by the government this bill is far from that.
    And that's why Obama's support from the left is a bit shaky. He walked into the WH a bit naive and spent way too long trying to come up with ways to get the Republicans to support some part of his agenda. And it took him way too long to realize that even if he gave them everything they wanted, they'd still vote 'no' on everything he pushed because their agenda was not about improving the lives of Americans; it was always about limiting Obama to one term.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    It was literally written by the profit-based insurance companies you rail against. Not to mention the sweet heart deal Obama gave the drug companies. This bill like all other corporatist bills that come out of Washington will favor the corporations that write the bills. Make no mistake about that.
    If you knew me better, you'd know that I've often offered the same criticism but, as I'm new here, it hasn't come up until now. I don't know that it was the insurance companies actually writing the bill, but I agree they had too much influence, and I'm still pissed that the WH's first move was to negotiate a sweet deal with BigPharma. But I'll also add the starting point in political negotiations to my list of disappointments. Naively, the WH chose a starting point that offered concessions that they knew the GOP would ask for. I suspect the thinking was that if they gave the Republicans a bill that included many of the ideas they had been voicing up until that point, they'd reward the effort by getting on board and becoming constructive members of the process, eventually voting for a bi-partisan bill. Well, we all know what happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    People who can't afford expensive insurance aren't to blame for the rising cost of healthcare. Making scapegoats out of them ignores many other factors involved in the rising high costs. Which is why Romneycare and the state of MASS. still has some of the highest costs of healthcare in the country.

    Which states rank highest in health care costs?
    http://jan.ocregister.com/2011/01/31...e-costs/53810/
    And here's where you lose me because your logic is faulty. The list in that link is meaningless since you're comparing the costs of healthcare in states where there's actually an effort going on to make some level of healthcare available to all against states where there is an ongoing effort to limit healthcare availability, especially to the poor. If the states don't have the same goals regarding healthcare, comparing the costs in those states has little meaning.

    Also, I think you're way off base on the penalty/tax. First, I don't see anyone making a scapegoat out of anyone. Uninsured people are a part of the reason healthcare costs are high. They're not the only reason but it's not as if this bill only addresses that problem in our current healthcare system. The bill provides tax credits to help defray the costs for those who can't afford the full cost of health insurance. But more importantly, it addresses those people who actually can afford health insurance but choose not to have it. People who can afford insurance but don't have it are being irresponsible. If the effect of that irresponsibility was limited to themselves, I'd take issue with the mandate. But the truth is those people cost the rest of us a lot of money. Are you one of those people? I noticed in another thread that you said, "We just got a big tax increase with Obamacare." Who's "we"? I didn't get a tax increase, nor did anyone else who has insurance. And in actuality, no one is subject to the penalty this year or next year. It doesn't kick in until 2014 and that was done on purpose to give people time to plan for it. Also, I'll remind you again, your criticisms are not new. The same things were said when RomneyCare got passed in Mass. Today, only 2% of Mass. residents pay the penalty. I'd prefer universal healthcare and 100% coverage but if we can achieve 98% coverage, it would be good interim point.

    Here's something else you said in that other thread, "We have to cut government and spending to the point that we can have a balanced budget or pretty close to one."

    If you cut gov't spending as much as you're suggesting, you're going to have to lay-off hundreds of thousands of workers at all levels of gov't. That massive and widespread unemployment would bury our economy for decades. And that massive public sector lay-off would lead to massive private sector lay-offs as the spending power of the middle class is deflated. Remember, jobs aren't created because some rich person has a bunch of cash hanging around; jobs are created when their is a demand for goods or services. You lay off all those people and the money they used to have that supported the various businesses they gave business to disappears. When demand goes down due to those folks you laid off not having money to spend, those businesses that depended on those consumers are going to either downsize or close up shop.

    So now you're going to have less tax revenue coming into governments at all levels. We'll probably be okay militarily because we overspend so much in that area that if we cut the dollars in half we'd still be spending more than any other nation but our schools would fall even further behind the rest of the industrialized world. We'd see reductions in FBI staffing, CIA staffing, our courts would be even more overrun than they are now as cases will back up for years due to reductions in judgeships and the number of prosecutors. You like potholes? I hope so because local gov'ts will not be able to provide the same of maintenance. Get ready for once a week, or perhaps once every two weeks garbage pickup. That should make the neighborhood smell great. Home values would sink much further than they have in recent years due to a lack of buying power and limited potential buyers. Oh, and when that happens, we'll see another huge wave of foreclosures. More banks will close and further deplete US tax revenues when the gov't pays out FDIC guarantees to those who lost their money in those failed banks. I could list hundreds, if not thousands, of similar effects of drastic reductions in gov't spending but I think you can see my point. And if you don't think those things will happen, take a look at the European countries that have adopted austerity models.

    But here's where I really take issue with you... you claim to be very worried that people who can't afford insurance will have to pay a penalty. But at the same time, you're supporting budget cuts that would have a much more dramatic impact upon the lives of lower income citizens. Reductions in food stamps, reductions in access to medical care, reductions in child care, reductions in before and after school programs, reductions in heating oil assistance programs, reductions in health and social services for seniors, ...as before, I could go on and on with this list. But my point is that it's hard NOT to see your criticism of the penalty/tax as disingenuous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    Here's a good interview....
    Supreme Court Sides with Corporatization of Medicine
    I completely agree with her. Just to be clear, I don't like the PPAFA because I don't want for-profit insurance companies making health decisions for me or anyone else. There's a conflict of interest in that set-up that can literally kill me.



    I just found this article which contains a lot of information you might find interesting...
    Is the Obama health-care law a huge tax increase?

    Last edited by JTC111; 07-06-2012 at 01:43 AM.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -35
    phins_4_ever's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2008
    Posts:
    3,726
    vCash:
    649
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by JTC111 View Post
    There are corporatists in both parties, I won't argue that. There are some Democrats who aren't, but Obama is certainly not one of them. The Geithner pick confirmed that for me. However, I do think that problem is more prevalent in the Repubican party. But the corporatists are always going to be there as long as the rules allow the corporations to buy and sell candidates. There's a solution: public financing of campaigns (no private or personal money at all) followed by strict regulations of what Congresspeople can and cannot do once they leave office (no lobbying, for instance).


    I don't disagree. I wish Obama was really the socialist the crazies keep saying he is.


    And that's why Obama's support from the left is a bit shaky. He walked into the WH a bit naive and spent way too long trying to come up with ways to get the Republicans to support some part of his agenda. And it took him way too long to realize that even if he gave them everything they wanted, they'd still vote 'no' on everything he pushed because their agenda was not about improving the lives of Americans; it was always about limiting Obama to one term.


    If you knew me better, you'd know that I've often offered the same criticism but, as I'm new here, it hasn't come up until now. I don't know that it was the insurance companies actually writing the bill, but I agree they had too much influence, and I'm still pissed that the WH's first move was to negotiate a sweet deal with BigPharma. But I'll also add the starting point in political negotiations to my list of disappointments. Naively, the WH chose a starting point that offered concessions that they knew the GOP would ask for. I suspect the thinking was that if they gave the Republicans a bill that included many of the ideas they had been voicing up until that point, they'd reward the effort by getting on board and becoming constructive members of the process, eventually voting for a bi-partisan bill. Well, we all know what happened.



    And here's where you lose me because your logic is faulty. The list in that link is meaningless since you're comparing the costs of healthcare in states where there's actually an effort going on to make some level of healthcare available to all against states where there is an ongoing effort to limit healthcare availability, especially to the poor. If the states don't have the same goals regarding healthcare, comparing the costs in those states has little meaning.

    Also, I think you're way off base on the penalty/tax. First, I don't see anyone making a scapegoat out of anyone. Uninsured people are a part of the reason healthcare costs are high. They're not the only reason but it's not as if this bill only addresses that problem in our current healthcare system. The bill provides tax credits to help defray the costs for those who can't afford the full cost of health insurance. But more importantly, it addresses those people who actually can afford health insurance but choose not to have it. People who can afford insurance but don't have it are being irresponsible. If the effect of that irresponsibility was limited to themselves, I'd take issue with the mandate. But the truth is those people cost the rest of us a lot of money. Are you one of those people? I noticed in another thread that you said, "We just got a big tax increase with Obamacare." Who's "we"? I didn't get a tax increase, nor did anyone else who has insurance. And in actuality, no one is subject to the penalty this year or next year. It doesn't kick in until 2014 and that was done on purpose to give people time to plan for it. Also, I'll remind you again, your criticisms are not new. The same things were said when RomneyCare got passed in Mass. Today, only 2% of Mass. residents pay the penalty. I'd prefer universal healthcare and 100% coverage but if we can achieve 98% coverage, it would be good interim point.

    Here's something else you said in that other thread, "We have to cut government and spending to the point that we can have a balanced budget or pretty close to one."

    If you cut gov't spending as much as you're suggesting, you're going to have to lay-off hundreds of thousands of workers at all levels of gov't. That massive and widespread unemployment would bury our economy for decades. And that massive public sector lay-off would lead to massive private sector lay-offs as the spending power of the middle class is deflated. Remember, jobs aren't created because some rich person has a bunch of cash hanging around; jobs are created when their is a demand for goods or services. You lay off all those people and the money they used to have that supported the various businesses they gave business to disappears. When demand goes down due to those folks you laid off not having money to spend, those businesses that depended on those consumers are going to either downsize or close up shop.

    So now you're going to have less tax revenue coming into governments at all levels. We'll probably be okay militarily because we overspend so much in that area that if we cut the dollars in half we'd still be spending more than any other nation but our schools would fall even further behind the rest of the industrialized world. We'd see reductions in FBI staffing, CIA staffing, our courts would be even more overrun than they are now as cases will back up for years due to reductions in judgeships and the number of prosecutors. You like potholes? I hope so because local gov'ts will not be able to provide the same of maintenance. Get ready for once a week, or perhaps once every two weeks garbage pickup. That should make the neighborhood smell great. Home values would sink much further than they have in recent years due to a lack of buying power and limited potential buyers. Oh, and when that happens, we'll see another huge wave of foreclosures. More banks will close and further deplete US tax revenues when the gov't pays out FDIC guarantees to those who lost their money in those failed banks. I could list hundreds, if not thousands, of similar effects of drastic reductions in gov't spending but I think you can see my point. And if you don't think those things will happen, take a look at the European countries that have adopted austerity models.

    But here's where I really take issue with you... you claim to be very worried that people who can't afford insurance will have to pay a penalty. But at the same time, you're supporting budget cuts that would have a much more dramatic impact upon the lives of lower income citizens. Reductions in food stamps, reductions in access to medical care, reductions in child care, reductions in before and after school programs, reductions in heating oil assistance programs, reductions in health and social services for seniors, ...as before, I could go on and on with this list. But my point is that it's hard NOT to see your criticism of the penalty/tax as disingenuous.


    I completely agree with her. Just to be clear, I don't like the PPAFA because I don't want for-profit insurance companies making health decisions for me or anyone else. There's a conflict of interest in that set-up that can literally kill me.



    I just found this article which contains a lot of information you might find interesting...
    Is the Obama health-care law a huge tax increase?
    Awesome post.
    But I tried that 'cuts will be followed by massive layoffs' with him a long time ago. 9954 can't even say where and how he would cut the government budget. It is the same philosophy with GM. Giving a bail out (which will be paid back with interest) was the lesser of the two evils (closure, massive layoffs, domino effect = less tax revenue, more government spending).

    But it won't take any hold. People are just using talking points and snippets to make their case without thinking the process through. That's why 'heroes' like Ron Paul will never be President or come close to be a President because all they are doing is using 'talking points' and 'snippets' to appease their base.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -36
    JTC111's Avatar
    Lookin' for Lee Ho Fooks

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jul 2012
    Posts:
    2,417
    vCash:
    18378
    Loc:
    Kings Park, NY
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by phins_4_ever View Post
    Awesome post.
    Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by phins_4_ever View Post
    It is the same philosophy with GM. Giving a bail out (which will be paid back with interest) was the lesser of the two evils (closure, massive layoffs, domino effect = less tax revenue, more government spending).
    I liked that the GM bailout came with some caveats. It was a sharp contrast to the financial industry bailout which allowed that industry to pretty much carry on with business as usual. Dodd-Frank is a weak bill that doesn't go anywhere near as far as it should to create firewalls and binding regulations to protect money being held in institutions that we, the people through FDIC, insure.

    Quote Originally Posted by phins_4_ever View Post
    That's why 'heroes' like Ron Paul....
    Umm... don't mistakenly lump me into that group. I'm no Ron Paul fan, not even a little. Now if you had said Bernie Sanders....
    Quote Quote  

  7. -37
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,076
    vCash:
    6807
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by phins_4_ever View Post
    Awesome post.
    But I tried that 'cuts will be followed by massive layoffs' with him a long time ago. 9954 can't even say where and how he would cut the government budget. It is the same philosophy with GM. Giving a bail out (which will be paid back with interest) was the lesser of the two evils (closure, massive layoffs, domino effect = less tax revenue, more government spending).

    But it won't take any hold. People are just using talking points and snippets to make their case without thinking the process through. That's why 'heroes' like Ron Paul will never be President or come close to be a President because all they are doing is using 'talking points' and 'snippets' to appease their base.

    Really????

    I love how you always make the debate about me. There is plenty to cut and something we must do in order to survive. We can't go on much longer with these deficits and debt. "Heros" like Paul won't get to be president because they don't sell-out like your hero Obama. Guess who's the 2 biggest sell-outs of all time in politics??? Romney and Obama. Excuse me if I don't like both these guys. Go ahead and vote for your favorite war-mongering corporatist. I'm sure after the election things will change for the better.

    It's funny
    Quote Quote  

  8. -38
    phins_4_ever's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2008
    Posts:
    3,726
    vCash:
    649
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by JTC111 View Post

    Umm... don't mistakenly lump me into that group. I'm no Ron Paul fan, not even a little. Now if you had said Bernie Sanders....
    That wasn't directed at you. More like at the fans of Ron Paul.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -39
    phins_4_ever's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2008
    Posts:
    3,726
    vCash:
    649
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphins9954 View Post
    Really????

    I love how you always make the debate about me. There is plenty to cut and something we must do in order to survive. We can't go on much longer with these deficits and debt. "Heros" like Paul won't get to be president because they don't sell-out like your hero Obama. Guess who's the 2 biggest sell-outs of all time in politics??? Romney and Obama. Excuse me if I don't like both these guys. Go ahead and vote for your favorite war-mongering corporatist. I'm sure after the election things will change for the better.

    It's funny
    I didn't make it about you. Don't give yourself too much credit or put yourself on a throne. I mentioned you because I responded to a post which responded to you. If it would have been Jared or Langer the JTC111 responded to I would have mentioned them.

    There is so much to cut? Sure. But can you can't tell how and where and what you would cut and how you would be dealing with the immediate fall-outs (unemployment, decreased purchasing power, domino effect).

    Paul will not become President because he is in the safe corner of talking points. He has never made any suggestions and solutions to his cutting the budget. It's only "i cut here and there and there....'
    He can say that though because he never would run into the danger of actually becoming President and then keeping his word. Then he would have to deal with a Congress who makes the decisions about budget and budget cuts etc. Or do you believe in a dictatorship?
    Quote Quote  

  10. -40
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,076
    vCash:
    6807
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by phins_4_ever View Post
    I didn't make it about you. Don't give yourself too much credit or put yourself on a throne. I mentioned you because I responded to a post which responded to you. If it would have been Jared or Langer the JTC111 responded to I would have mentioned them.

    There is so much to cut? Sure. But can you can't tell how and where and what you would cut and how you would be dealing with the immediate fall-outs (unemployment, decreased purchasing power, domino effect).

    Paul will not become President because he is in the safe corner of talking points. He has never made any suggestions and solutions to his cutting the budget. It's only "i cut here and there and there....'
    He can say that though because he never would run into the danger of actually becoming President and then keeping his word. Then he would have to deal with a Congress who makes the decisions about budget and budget cuts etc. Or do you believe in a dictatorship?
    I don't know where you've been. But Paul has said many different times what he would cut. It's pretty easy to find. Just google it. Same with me. I've said on many occassions what needs to be cut. I've even had this same debate with you. Why you can't remember is beyond me. As for talking points.....Am I really listening to you attack Paul for talking points when your guy is the talking point teleprompter king of the world???
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Obamacare Cheerleader AARP Receives Obamacare Waiver
    By Dolphins9954 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-31-2011, 09:36 PM
  2. The Obamacare Writedowns
    By SnakeoilSeller in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 07-30-2010, 09:30 AM
  3. CMS Actuary Finds ObamaCare Bends Cost Curve Up
    By shula_guy in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-30-2010, 09:37 PM
  4. Obamacare: The Cost Control Illusion
    By SnakeoilSeller in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-14-2010, 08:04 PM
  5. MERGED: Cost of War/The Real Cost of War
    By Ferretsquig in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 10-11-2006, 11:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •