Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

[Chico23231]

Time Is on His Side: Conservatives Feel Betrayed by John Roberts - Yahoo! News

Of course its Rush who fires the first shot. Love it

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Time Is on His Side: Conservatives Feel Betrayed by John Roberts - Yahoo! News

Of course its Rush who fires the first shot. Love it

Limbaugh said that if the ACA goes into effect, he's moving to Costa Rica. Costa Rica has universal health care. The hypocrisy in his statement is rich.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

In your mind Obamacare & Romneycare are the same, in evaluating the details they are different.

You can capitalize sentences and throw around your normal rhetoric, bottom line is a majority in this country don't want Obamacare, Romney is the alternative, and we'll see how this plays out in Nov.

This isn't going to be the main issue in November. Its going to be the economy.

Also if "America" doesn't want this then why did its elected officials, which represent the people, pass it?

Sounds like a cop out argument/response to me.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by saden1

You guys are just playing a game semantics. The fact of the matter is republicans thought of and inspired the individual mandate and Romney was the first politician to bring us closer to universal healthcare. I think reasonable can agree that Romney is not the ideal vanguard of the anti-obamacare movement. A simple message wins the day and Romney's messages is not going to be simpler than Obama's on healthcare.

It is not the second quarter, there 1 sec left in the game and one last hail marry play remains. The filibuster is a deadly play. Healthcare is here to stay move the **** on.

Didn't Gingrich, when in the House, propose the individual mandate?

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Premium Trends 2011


Here is 2010 data, and I imagine it'll be the same for 2011. I can do this all day long.



Nice try again. (no seriously not really)



How about you provide proof instead of me doing all your work for you. You want to paint that Mass is paying the highest rates, but fail to see they have the highest income AND that they actually pay less than most states as a percentage of income.

Crickets.

[12thMan]

NC_Skins, you have the correct source.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

NC_Skins, you have the correct source.

A more accurate picture is spending as % of GDP, as is mentioned in my link:

from the link:
Yes, it is true that in fiscal year 2012, under Obama, the anticipated federal spending of 24.3 percent of GDP is 3.6 percent less than the 25.2 percent the federal government spent in fiscal 2009, when Obama voted for President Bush’s $700 billion TARP and signed his own $831 billion stimulus.
But it is also true that the 24.3 percent of GDP that Obama’s OMB says the federal government will spend this year is 16.8 percent higher than the 20.8 percent it stood at in fiscal 2008--and a full three times as great as what federal spending was when Herbert Hoover left office.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

A more accurate picture is spending as % of GDP, as is mentioned in my link:

from the link:
Yes, it is true that in fiscal year 2012, under Obama, the anticipated federal spending of 24.3 percent of GDP is 3.6 percent less than the 25.2 percent the federal government spent in fiscal 2009, when Obama voted for President Bush’s $700 billion TARP and signed his own $831 billion stimulus.
But it is also true that the 24.3 percent of GDP that Obama’s OMB says the federal government will spend this year is 16.8 percent higher than the 20.8 percent it stood at in fiscal 2008--and a full three times as great as what federal spending was when Herbert Hoover left office.

What I will say does not invalidate your argument, Sammy, because it is just a side remark. But who would want to use Hoover as any kind of economic benchmark? That's like comparing the success (or not) of some boat with the Titanic.

One would hope that we are doing things differently than Hoover.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Lotus

One would hope that we are doing things differently than Hoover.

haha, agree.

[12thMan]

SS33, you sources about the costs are off, my man. The CBO this Spring projected the law would cut the deficit by $50 Billion more than they originally thought. I would suggest you take a gander at the real numbers.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...0Estimates.pdf

Ezra Klein gives a good breakdown of the numbers here.

CBO: Health reform to cut deficit by $50 billion more than we thought - The Washington Post

Also, you say that $500B in new taxes on ALL Americans. Well that's not true either. Without even breaking out the calculator the law doesn't affect ALL Americans, so how could it jack up taxes on ALL Americans?

You make no mention of these benefits, some of which have kicked in now. Some later when the law fully kicks in 2014.

No mention of $800 billion tax credits for lower income families.
Insurance companies can't drop you because of pre-existing condition.
No mention of closing the Medicare doughnut hole for seniors

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

SS33, you sources about the costs are off, my man. The CBO this Spring projected the law would cut the deficit by $50 Billion more than they originally thought. I would suggest you take a gander at the real numbers.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...0Estimates.pdf

Ezra Klein gives a good breakdown of the numbers here.

CBO: Health reform to cut deficit by $50 billion more than we thought - The Washington Post

Also, you say that $500B in new taxes on ALL Americans. Well that's not true either. Without even breaking out the calculator the law doesn't affect ALL Americans, so how could it jack up taxes on ALL Americans?

You make no mention of these benefits, some of which have kicked in now. Some later when the law fully kicks in 2014.

No mention of $800 billion tax credits for lower income families.
Insurance companies can't drop you because of pre-existing condition.
No mention of closing the Medicare doughnut hole for seniors

You are absolutely correct, after reading your link my numbers were off. I stated $ 700B added to the defecit....and per the CBO estimate the number is over $ 1T. My bad.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Also, you say that $500B in new taxes on ALL Americans. Well that's not true either. Without even breaking out the calculator the law doesn't affect ALL Americans, so how could it jack up taxes on ALL Americans?

Some taxes from Obamacare that affect ALL Americans:

Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013 | Fox News

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Some taxes from Obamacare that affect ALL Americans:

Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013 | Fox News

Dear god. Fox news again? Sammy, for the love of god stop reading that crap.

As usual, they distort and exaggerate the truth. Let's start with that first point.

1. The ObamaCare Medical Device Manufacturing Tax

This 2.3 percent tax on medical device makers will raise the price of (for example) every pacemaker, prosthetic limb, stent, and operating table. Can you remind us, Mr. President, how taxing medical devices will reduce the cost of health care? The tax is particularly destructive because it is levied on gross sales and even targets companies who haven’t turned a profit yet.

These are often small, scrappy companies with less than 20 employees who pioneer the next generation of life-prolonging devices. In addition to raising the cost of health care, this $20 billion tax over the next ten years will not help the country’s jobs outlook, as the industry employs nearly 400,000 Americans. Several companies have already responded to the looming tax by cutting research and development budgets and laying off workers.

Read more: Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013 | Fox News

Plastics Today

An article authored by Paul N. Van de Water states: "The House will soon consider legislation to repeal the excise tax on medical devices that was enacted to help pay for health reform. The provision is sound, however, and the industry lobbying campaign aimed at repealing it is based on misinformation and exaggeration."

In a head-on attack on the main industry criticisms of the tax, Van de Water says: "The tax will not cause manufacturers to shift production overseas. The tax applies equally to imported and domestically produced devices, and devices produced in the United States for export are tax-exempt. The tax will have little effect on innovation in the medical device industry. To the contrary, health reform may well spur medical device innovation by promoting more cost-effective ways of delivering care."

Excise Tax on Medical Devices Should Not Be Repealed — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

^^I suggest you all read that article in regards to the Medical Excise Tax.



At this point, Fox News should be treated much like The Onion when it comes to stories.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

snip

Those links really don't support your own positions very much:

From your own links:

All of that being said, there is room for improvement in how the medical device tax is assessed. Small companies that are often engines for important innovations need more protection from the tax. Any potential impact of the tax on R&D in the United States needs to be rethought and changed. Medical innovation is a powerful resource of the United States and a growing pillar of our economy.

Subsequent to posting this article, Thomas C. Novelli, VP Government Affairs of the Medical Device Manufacturers Association, pointed out to me: "There is no tiered-approach to the device tax and the tax applies to companies regardless to revenue. And since this tax is based purely on revenue, the smaller companies (which constitutes the majority of the industry) will bear the brunt of the tax. Many of these companies are either not profitable or have a very low profit margin. Both the Bloomberg article, and the corresponding articles that cite the Bloomberg article (including the CBPP) fail to consider this reality."

and

Tax Will Have Minimal Effect on Consumers

The effect of the excise tax on consumers’ costs for health care and health insurance will be minimal and will be swamped by other factors. Spending on taxable medical devices represents less than 1 percent of total personal health expenditures, so a small increase in their price would have an almost imperceptible effect on health insurance premiums.

"Swamped by other factors". Not very comforting. Especially since we all know out premiums are indeed going up, for all the "concessions" made by the health care industry to cover more people.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Those links really don't support your own positions very much:

"Swamped by other factors". Not very comforting. Especially since we all know out premiums are indeed going up, for all the "concessions" made by the health care industry to cover more people.

Not sure how they don't support my position when I didn't state a position. I stated that Fox News was exaggerating and distorting, which they were. They make it to seem that this tax is going to end jobs, stifle innovation, and make health care costs go up that much more. The stuff I posted (one being from somebody within the industry) says otherwise. Also, I really doubt companies are cutting back on R&D right now in response to any taxes. Many companies use stuff like this as a scapegoat so they can be cheap and make more money.

(articles on how employers use situations like these as a excuse)

Using the economy as an excuse to shortchange employees | Raoul Pop

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/fa...pagewanted=all

It's a cop out.