As it has been since this bill was first proposed, it seems that the only people who oppose the law fall into two categories (or both):
1. People who oppose anything President Obama does, no matter what it is and no matter how much better off they are as a result.
2. People who believe all of the lies about what's in the law, like death panels, government takeover of health care, pulling the plug on grandma, and the most recent lie, "biggest tax increase in history".
The more people have an honest picture of what this law accomplishes, the more they support it. Of course, the die hard Obama Haters are generally incapable of telling the difference between reality and fantasy anyway.
New poll indicates that support for Obamacare up 11% among Independents after Supreme court ruled it Constitutional.
Q
2012/07/02 19:54:04
According to a recent Reuters/IPSOS poll, 38% of Independents support the healthcare overhaul in a poll taken after the SC ruled it Constitutional. That was up from 27% in their poll taken days before the Supreme Court ruling.
Among all registered voters support rose to 48% up from 43% before the ruling.
I think we all know there will always be fierce opposition to the law among republicans who were probably going to vote for the republican candidate no matter what the Supreme court ruled. But will public opinion among Independent voters continue to rise leading up to the election in November?
We all know that its the Independent voters that both campaigns are going after since they'll probably be the deciding factor come November. The only question is since Romney has now made repealing health care reform his campaign platform's centerpiece is how the all important Independent voters will feel about the new reforms. Will their support flat line, roll back or continue rising with these voters? Even though overall support of the bill isn't that strong many polls indicate that portions of the law poll very high so just maybe the more they learn about the provisions of the law their overall support of the law will continue to rise as well?
Among all registered voters support rose to 48% up from 43% before the ruling.
I think we all know there will always be fierce opposition to the law among republicans who were probably going to vote for the republican candidate no matter what the Supreme court ruled. But will public opinion among Independent voters continue to rise leading up to the election in November?
We all know that its the Independent voters that both campaigns are going after since they'll probably be the deciding factor come November. The only question is since Romney has now made repealing health care reform his campaign platform's centerpiece is how the all important Independent voters will feel about the new reforms. Will their support flat line, roll back or continue rising with these voters? Even though overall support of the bill isn't that strong many polls indicate that portions of the law poll very high so just maybe the more they learn about the provisions of the law their overall support of the law will continue to rise as well?
Top Opinion
-
ProudProgressive 2012/07/02 23:11:58Yes Independants support of the reform will continue to rise.






















until now, most ppl only know that the rightwing media is telling them about it ... "death panels", "government take over of heath care", "its going to makes costs go UP"....
none of which are actually true.
As an Independent who is also a Medicare beneficiary, I wholeheartedly support the ACA & am thankful President Obama made it happen.
Most people are beginning to see through the GOP's misinformation/smear campaign...well the ones who aren't close minded on this issue anyway. That's just hope that this trend continues leading up to the November election.
The federal Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan committee of Congress with a professional staff of economists, attorneys and accountants, provided members a detailed breakdown of the tax impact of the health care law from 2010-2019.
• Starting in 2013, Medicare payroll taxes increase 0.9 percentage points for people with incomes over $200,000 ($250,000 for couples filing jointly). Also, people at this income level would pay a new 3.8 percent tax on investment income. The 10-year cost: $210.2 billion.
• Starting in 2018, a new 40 percent excise tax on high-cost health plans, so-called "Cadillac plans" (over $10,200 for individuals, $27,500 for families), kicks in. That's expected to bring the government a total of $32 billion in 2018 and 2019.
• Starting in 2011, there's a new fee for pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers. That's expected to raise $27 billion over 10 years.
• Starting in 2013, a 2.3 percent excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices starts. The 10-year total: $20 billion.
• Starting in 2014, a new annual fee on health insurance providers begins. Total estimated 10-year revenue: $60.1 billion.
• Starting in 2013, the ...
The federal Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan committee of Congress with a professional staff of economists, attorneys and accountants, provided members a detailed breakdown of the tax impact of the health care law from 2010-2019.
• Starting in 2013, Medicare payroll taxes increase 0.9 percentage points for people with incomes over $200,000 ($250,000 for couples filing jointly). Also, people at this income level would pay a new 3.8 percent tax on investment income. The 10-year cost: $210.2 billion.
• Starting in 2018, a new 40 percent excise tax on high-cost health plans, so-called "Cadillac plans" (over $10,200 for individuals, $27,500 for families), kicks in. That's expected to bring the government a total of $32 billion in 2018 and 2019.
• Starting in 2011, there's a new fee for pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers. That's expected to raise $27 billion over 10 years.
• Starting in 2013, a 2.3 percent excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices starts. The 10-year total: $20 billion.
• Starting in 2014, a new annual fee on health insurance providers begins. Total estimated 10-year revenue: $60.1 billion.
• Starting in 2013, the floor on medical expense deductions on itemized income tax returns will be raised from 7.5 percent to 10 percent of income. That's expected to bring in $15.2 billion over the next 10 years.
• Starting in 2011, a 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services. That's expected to bring in $2.7 billion over the next 10 years.
There also is money in the law going the other way. The plan includes government money, in the form of tax credits, to subsidize the cost of health insurance for lower-income people who don't get insurance through their employer. For the record, many Republicans and tax experts argue those shouldn't count as tax cuts. And there is a tax cut for some very small businesses that allows them to write off a portion of the cost of providing insurance to their employees.
Combined with various other revenue-generating provisions, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the health law will bring in more than $437.8 billion by 2019. The government's nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the additional revenues coming in to the government to be $525 billion between now and 2019.
Does that translate to the biggest tax increase in American history?
http://www.politifact.com/tru...
6:36 PM, Mar 18, 2010 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
The CBO’s most recent analysis is out, and it’s not likely to convince wavering House Democrats to jump to the Obamacare side of the fence. Even the Democrats are granting that the latest version of their proposed health care overhaul would cost $69 billion more than the previous version. According to the CBO, this version would siphon even more money out of Medicare, make even further cuts to Medicare Advantage, and levy even higher taxes and fines on the American people.
CBO: Obamacare Would Cost Over Trillion
President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and their allies, are cheerfully citing “ten year” costs of $940,000,000,000.00 — apparently believing this to be a far more palatable figure than $1 trillion. But even this colossal tally is like the introductory price quoted by a cell phone provider. It’s the price before you pay for minutes, fees, and overcharges — and before the price balloons after the introductory offer expires.
For a variety of reasons, this tally doesn’t remotely reflect the bill’s real ten-year costs. First, it includes 2010 as the initial year. As most people are well aware, 2010 has now been underway for some time. Therefore, the CBO would normally count 2011 a...
6:36 PM, Mar 18, 2010 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
The CBO’s most recent analysis is out, and it’s not likely to convince wavering House Democrats to jump to the Obamacare side of the fence. Even the Democrats are granting that the latest version of their proposed health care overhaul would cost $69 billion more than the previous version. According to the CBO, this version would siphon even more money out of Medicare, make even further cuts to Medicare Advantage, and levy even higher taxes and fines on the American people.
CBO: Obamacare Would Cost Over Trillion
President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and their allies, are cheerfully citing “ten year” costs of $940,000,000,000.00 — apparently believing this to be a far more palatable figure than $1 trillion. But even this colossal tally is like the introductory price quoted by a cell phone provider. It’s the price before you pay for minutes, fees, and overcharges — and before the price balloons after the introductory offer expires.
For a variety of reasons, this tally doesn’t remotely reflect the bill’s real ten-year costs. First, it includes 2010 as the initial year. As most people are well aware, 2010 has now been underway for some time. Therefore, the CBO would normally count 2011 as the first year of its analysis, just as it counted 2010 as the first year when analyzing the initial House health bill in the middle of 2009. But under strict instructions from Democratic leaders, and over strong objections from Republicans, the CBO dutifully scored 2010 as the first year of the latest version of Obamacare. If the clock were started in 2011, the first full year that the bill could possibly be in effect, the CBO says that the bill’s ten-year costs would be $1.2 trillion.
No thanks, I tend to trust a Pulitzer winning factchecking site to tell the truth on this issue over a conservative complaining that the CBO cost est. is wrong because it included 2010. Any way how does a difference between cost estimates of 940,000,000,000 compared to 1.2 trillion translate into the largest tax increase in history?
In no way does this column prove the case that Obamacare is the biggest tax increase in history.
So a right wing site takes issue with a couple of their sources, you act like because a right wing site disagrees with a couple of their findings that they should be dismissed as biased, not likely.
As my momma often said, "In the pig's eye!"
All you've done is try and discredit Politifact since you obviously can't support that whopper of a lie.
Good luck with that because that dog won't hunt.
A "socialist" is whatever a leftist wants it to be at any point in a
given political argument. Socialism is just another flavor of
totalitarian statism, along with fascism, communism, Naziism,
Progressivism and all the other variations of the same preposterous idea
that has plagued humanity for the past 100 years. That idea is
that society ought to be ordered by a group of elite "planners" who operate to implement their schemes through densely concentrated government power. Thus, a socialist is someone who is opposed to the very concept of human liberty.
A socialist is someone who thinks of himself as a "scientific" thinker, yet
refuses to recognize the easily observable fact that during the last
100 years, every variation of statism has failed miserably, bringing
economic collapse, hardship and death to every society that has tried
it. Even the impending collapse of Europe, and the economic peril
facing the United States, is not sufficient to inspire a glimmer of
self-doubt, a smidgen of question, in the mind of a socialist regarding
the viability of statism.
A socialist is someone who imagines
that there e...
A "socialist" is whatever a leftist wants it to be at any point in a
given political argument. Socialism is just another flavor of
totalitarian statism, along with fascism, communism, Naziism,
Progressivism and all the other variations of the same preposterous idea
that has plagued humanity for the past 100 years. That idea is
that society ought to be ordered by a group of elite "planners" who operate to implement their schemes through densely concentrated government power. Thus, a socialist is someone who is opposed to the very concept of human liberty.
A socialist is someone who thinks of himself as a "scientific" thinker, yet
refuses to recognize the easily observable fact that during the last
100 years, every variation of statism has failed miserably, bringing
economic collapse, hardship and death to every society that has tried
it. Even the impending collapse of Europe, and the economic peril
facing the United States, is not sufficient to inspire a glimmer of
self-doubt, a smidgen of question, in the mind of a socialist regarding
the viability of statism.
A socialist is someone who imagines
that there exists a big bottomless pot of money that belongs to nobody
in particular, and that the highest manifestation of statesmanship is
just to hand it out.
A socialist is someone who opposes human slavery only to the extent that the slaves are privately owned.
Nineteen million people will receive tax credits worth an average of 4800.00 each to help them afford health insurance resulting in millions of Americans getting health insurance. All too many working class Americans don't earn enough to be able to buy health insurance yet make too much to qualify for medicare and this addresses those people that slip through that crack.
And if you haven't seen it out yet here's an article/question you might want to check out?
http://www.sodahead.com/unite...