Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Standards and training will be far less stringent under O care. Because it ain't gonna be no doctor deciding your treatment.........it will be a third rate buearocrat that makes medical decisions based on how much his office party hoopla-zoo vaca is gonna cut into his/her gov bonus that comes out of the new tax, uh, sorry, benefit penalty.
True -- the government will decide which tests can be ordered, how frequently a test can be ordered and then there will be a treatment plan and the nurse practitioner or MD will not be allowed to deviate from this plan.
That's already what's going on with Medicare -- you cannot have tests performed unless the government says you may.
Can you please point out where the politifact analysis went wrong?
Quote:
We then divided that number into the projected GDP for 2019, which according to the CBO economic forecast is $21.164 trillion. That would mean the tax increase provisions of the health care law would amount to .49 percent of total GDP.
Well, isn't that just convenient. Use an assessment from 2009 that says we'll have 4.2% as a baseline annual increases in GDP 2012 - 2019 then just compare using cost of the tax as a percent of GDP.
Why not use the updated projections that have 2.8% as the expected annual growth (which is more than likely rosy too)?
Because it doesn't make the tax increases look nearly as bad as they are.
It's all too confusing to me. Maybe the 2012 election will be a replay of 2010. If so, ObamaCare gets repealed. But then are the sleeping giants awakening really going to work to repeal all the goodies they get under ObamaCare? I don't know.
A tax is when the government confiscates the money you worked for and redistributes it as it sees fit. That's exactly what this is all about.
This is not "insurance" which means you choose to protect your assets by paying into an insurance plan as everyone will be entitled to the same health care whether they paid anything or not. If someone chooses not to work for a living, he will be entitled to exactly the same as the guy who worked for it.
Looks like the GOP's attempt to spin it as tax is taking hold.
Nobody called it a tax until CJ Robert's did. Next up? It'll be an Obama tax!
Quote:
As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895). The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read, for the reasons set forth below.
George Bush levied a "War or Terror" Tax which decimated this country in every conceivable way. His tax was IMPLIED.
Also, for 8 years, Republicans and Bush ignored the health care crisis. How much did this tax the country, by implication? An amount so large, it can't be measured.
Great job this President is doing.
8500 posts and never even one were you correct on anything... Give it up, obama is a corrupt loser who has four months left to try and finish his destruction of our country...
Thank god for President Romney...!
I never understand why people argue about this crap.
I wouldn't be surprised that in absolute numbers, this act will increase federal revenue by a larger amount than any other act in history. The Politifact website talks about increases relative to GDP, in which they state the ACA will only increase federal revenues by about .49% of GDP. But first, these are projections by a governmental budget office, which are always way wrong. And secondly, they are based on the assumption that a large number of people will just opt to buy their own healthcare premiums instead of paying the fee. So if we need to add up the extra revenues from the act itself, with the people who will feel obligated to buy a healthcare plan under the new program. With everything factored in, the total new expense to individuals/taxpayers will most certainly be much higher than .49% of GDP.
The sad situation is that, the whole bill in the long-run will be totally revamped.
The reason why is. The penalty fees are much too low. Under the current ACA mandate, the highest incomes will be paying very little to subsidize the lower incomes in regards to the public-option. The higher incomes will either simply buy their own health insurance and avoid the fee, or pay the fee, knowing that it is an insignificant amount compared to their total income.
Which effectively means, most of the cost of the public-option, will have to be paid for by the middle and lower classes, especially the young and/or self-employed.
This healthcare law is a total piece of crap. But its all they could get passed.
It is and always has been, single-payer or bust. You people need to stop being idiots.
Wasn't the public option taken out of the bill in 2010?
Can you please point out where the politifact analysis went wrong?
Its based on GDP and revenue estimates both notorious for their difficulty to predict.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
