Quantcast

Will the recent Supreme court decisions regarding Obamacare backfire for the Liberals in this election year?

PEEPL 2012/07/02 01:53:47
Yes it might backfire on the Liberals
No it won't backfire on the Liberals
Other (details)
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Here's three reasons why it might.
(1) When asked the former Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, Austan Goolsbee, if the individual mandate in Obamacare amounted to a tax. He denied it.
(However, the Supreme Court just determined the individual mandate is a tax.)
President Obama
promised over and over again he would not raise taxes on the middle
class, yet the individual mandate is just one of 22 new tax increases in
Obamacare amounting to a $569.2 billion tax hike.
http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=348350&type;=news...
(2) The Supreme Court ruling has increased the amount of donations for the Romney campaign.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/romney-campaign...
(3) The Supreme court decision has energized the grass roots support of the Tea Party Movement.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_160/Health-Care-Ruling-Re-E...
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Mr. T 2012/07/02 01:59:16
    Yes it might backfire on the Liberals
    Mr. T
    +17
    GOP adds are already being aired how Obama just raised taxes on the middle class, you know, the ones who usually vote the president into office after telling us he would not raise taxes on the middle class one cent. Yes...his ass is grass and the middle class are the lawnmowers.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Aqua Surf BTO-t-BCRA-F 2012/07/16 03:41:13
    Other (details)
    Aqua Surf BTO-t-BCRA-F
    +1
    No ifs, ands or buts, it WILL backfire on Maobama and Congress, not to mention the poor economy, joblessness, foreclosures, etc. These Lefties have done themselves in.
  • txtumlinLovesGodMoreThanSH 2012/07/06 18:57:18
    Yes it might backfire on the Liberals
    txtumlinLovesGodMoreThanSH
    Count on it!!! :D:D:D The Dumbocrats biggest mistake is thinking that Americans are stupid.

    Big Mistake!
  • Hotcho 2012/07/06 17:27:41
    Other (details)
    Hotcho
    One can only Hope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • bob'45 2012/07/06 17:06:04
    Yes it might backfire on the Liberals
    bob'45
    I DAMN SURE HOPE SO!!!
  • belle 2012/07/06 16:54:18 (edited)
    Yes it might backfire on the Liberals
    belle
    It should, the bill didn't change still a piece of crap, ony now with a TAX.
  • debrarae POTL _ PWCM 2012/07/06 04:23:29
    Yes it might backfire on the Liberals
    debrarae POTL _ PWCM
    +1
    Especially since there over 13,000 pages of Penalties/REGULATIONS/Taxes.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politi...

    And yet there are so many exempt, while Debbie Wasserman_Schulz has the GALL to real her UGLY HEAD and scream FOUL because states are OPTING OUT!

    BTW the fact that 62% of the people are against ObamaDEATHCare, can not be ignored. And it certainly will NOT help Obama since he too is 100% EXEMPT from having to follow it's guide lines.

    http://hotair.com/archives/20...
  • Flash,aka,Mr.Lightning 2012/07/06 01:02:05
    Yes it might backfire on the Liberals
    Flash,aka,Mr.Lightning
    What working family likes more TAXES?
  • Red Branch 2012/07/05 22:38:48
    Yes it might backfire on the Liberals
    Red Branch
    +1
    It could, time will tell.
  • ETpro 2012/07/04 19:50:28
    No it won't backfire on the Liberals
    ETpro
    No, I think it will end up just the opposite. The GOP determination to end the popular provisions of the law with nothing better to replace it, to return to 50 million being uninsured and companies able to cancel policies when subscribers get sick, even if they have been paying for years, exposes the truth of GOP intentions. They are driven by would-be oligarchs who are billionaires already or millionaire CEOs of huge multinational corporations. Their every move is aimed at making the wealthiest Americans far richer, boosting corporate profits, and people be damned.
  • mach 2012/07/04 13:17:54
    No it won't backfire on the Liberals
    mach
    I believe there is a hidden phenomenon happening in this years race for the White House. As many people who claim they don't want Obama's health care, there are those who feel embarrassed to admit differently, but will support it in the privacy of the voting booth. At an approval rate at half the population now, it's gaining momentum as people learn the truth and the advantages of keeping it, and could well be the deciding issue, trumping the economy.
  • Catnip 2012/07/04 03:53:51
    Yes it might backfire on the Liberals
    Catnip
    +3
    Unless the voters "act stupidly".
    acted stupidly
  • paul 2012/07/03 12:48:46
    Yes it might backfire on the Liberals
    paul
    +3
    If Americans realize that they played into another bait and switch.
  • Sissy 2012/07/03 12:28:25
    No it won't backfire on the Liberals
    Sissy
    +1
    Nuff said.
  • bman~AVA~BTTB 2012/07/03 06:20:33
    Yes it might backfire on the Liberals
    bman~AVA~BTTB
    +5
    I sure do hope so.
  • jimmy bman~AV... 2012/07/03 13:35:04
  • bman~AV... jimmy 2012/07/03 19:03:44
  • jimmy bman~AV... 2012/07/04 14:12:49
    jimmy
    +2
    yepper
  • Dolly 2012/07/03 05:20:51
    Yes it might backfire on the Liberals
    Dolly
  • Centurion~PWCM~JLA 2012/07/03 02:21:19
    Yes it might backfire on the Liberals
    Centurion~PWCM~JLA
    +5
    I certainly hope so.

    boy praying
  • Kiosk Kid 2012/07/03 02:12:06
    Yes it might backfire on the Liberals
    Kiosk Kid
    +2
    It is not just money going to Romney; small business owners see the facts and are donating to a Super Pac. If Republicans can take the Senate, elect Romney as president, and keep the House, Obamacare can at least be gutted and all taxes can be repealed.

    Plus Romney can negate most of the other parts of the bill with executive orders. Republicans can also shut off all funding and stop the IRS.

    "What do concerns about regulations and policies mean for small businesses? Stalled growth. 80% of small businesses surveyed report the taxation, regulation, and legislation from Washington make it harder for their business to hire more employees. Nearly three-out-of-four (73%) of small businesses surveyed cite the recent health care law as an obstacle to growing their business and hiring more employees.”

    Do small businesses support Obama's policies?

    "Sixteen percent of small businesses approve of the job President Obama is doing."

    http://www.uschambersmallbusi...

    Obamacare is in striking distance with Robert's ruling.
  • jeane 2012/07/03 01:24:22 (edited)
    Yes it might backfire on the Liberals
    jeane
    +7
    It has so far - I think that it will carry into the Presidential election. Many people are voting today with their money.
  • Sissy jeane 2012/07/03 12:29:45
    Sissy
    +1
    You're right. And once people understand that billions of dollars will be saved because hospitals will no longer have to treat for free, more and more support will come.
  • jeane Sissy 2012/07/03 12:58:32 (edited)
    jeane
    +5
    Well today that money is flowing into Romney's coffers.

    It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.
    Thomas Sowell
  • Sissy jeane 2012/07/03 13:11:21
    Sissy
    +1
    Let me share just a little incident with you jean.

    Several years ago I had to make a trip to the ER. I was there for 2-1/1 hours and while it turned out to be of no consequence, the bill when it came was $7,300. My insurance company balked at the last $2,000 and I didn't blame them one bit. Thus began my journey of challenging this outrageous bill. While it went on, me challenging, they not moving an inch, or justifying the horrific costs, a clerk in the office admitted that to cover costs of the uninsured that the hospitals had to treat. When they have to take care of these people, who do you believe in the end, covers them?

    Each year billions of dollars are expended for the uninsured and if you would just take a minute and realize what this will mean for all of us, you might look at it a tad bit differently.

    BTW: I did have to pay the final cost because they ended up threatening our credit. I'm afraid I was foolish in that when I turned old enough to collect Medi-care, I didn't take Part-B because we have very good insurance. Were we not able to pay that cost, their threats of putting a lean on our house, trashing our credit rating, etc would have come to fruition.

    We simply have to do something and personally I have seen nothing, nada, zilch from the Pubs that even shows they give a fig about anyone who is struggling with these staggering health care costs.
  • jeane Sissy 2012/07/03 13:20:15
    jeane
    +6
    I agree - we do need to do something but - Obamacare TAX AND MANDATE is not the answer - nor is it backed by the majority of Americans. Also many people are OPTING OUT! What is up with that?
  • Sissy jeane 2012/07/04 11:14:21
    Sissy
    +1
    The talking point against this Bill from the likes of Boehner and Mitchell, "the largest tax increase in history" has alreadybeen thoroughly debunked by none other than Romney's campaign itself. Besides, Romney even said in the past "I love mandates." Considering the fact that now all citizens will have to take responsibilty for the costs will lighte the load for all of us.

    We're mandated to all carry car insurance. Can you imagine the debt and pure chaos there would be without it? A driver hits you and you find out he has no insurance, what do you do, especially if its not your fault?

    Once we get by the shrill hysteria, I cannot believe that in the end, this long overdue initiative will not be embraced, regardless who proposed it.
  • jeane Sissy 2012/07/04 15:48:56
  • jeane Sissy 2012/07/04 15:50:26
    jeane
    +3
    Obamacare: Impact on Seniors
    By Robert Moffit, Ph.D.

    According to surveys, no group of Americans is more skeptical of Obamacare than senior citizens[1]—and with good reason.
    While bits and pieces of the massive law are designed to appeal to seniors—more taxpayer subsidies for the Medicare drug benefit, for example—much of the financing over the initial 10 years is siphoned off from an estimated $575 billion in projected savings to the Medicare program. Unless Medicare savings are captured and plowed right back into the Medicare program, however, the solvency of the Medicare program will continue to weaken. The law does not provide for that. Medicare is already burdened by an unfunded liability of $38 trillion.
    Medicare Advantage plans,[2] which currently attract almost one in four seniors, will see enrollment cut roughly in half over the next 10 years. Senior citizens will thus be more dependent on traditional Medicare than they are today and will have fewer health care choices.
    Initial Provisions
    Under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, Congress deliberately created a gap in Medicare drug coverage (the so-called “donut hole”) in which seniors would be required to pay 100 percent of drug costs up to a specified amount. Obamacare provides a $250 rebate for seniors who fall into ...



















    Obamacare: Impact on Seniors
    By Robert Moffit, Ph.D.

    According to surveys, no group of Americans is more skeptical of Obamacare than senior citizens[1]—and with good reason.
    While bits and pieces of the massive law are designed to appeal to seniors—more taxpayer subsidies for the Medicare drug benefit, for example—much of the financing over the initial 10 years is siphoned off from an estimated $575 billion in projected savings to the Medicare program. Unless Medicare savings are captured and plowed right back into the Medicare program, however, the solvency of the Medicare program will continue to weaken. The law does not provide for that. Medicare is already burdened by an unfunded liability of $38 trillion.
    Medicare Advantage plans,[2] which currently attract almost one in four seniors, will see enrollment cut roughly in half over the next 10 years. Senior citizens will thus be more dependent on traditional Medicare than they are today and will have fewer health care choices.
    Initial Provisions
    Under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, Congress deliberately created a gap in Medicare drug coverage (the so-called “donut hole”) in which seniors would be required to pay 100 percent of drug costs up to a specified amount. Obamacare provides a $250 rebate for seniors who fall into the “donut hole” and requires drug companies to provide a 50 percent discount on brand name prescriptions filled in the hole.
    In 2011, Obamacare will also impose a new tax (a “fee”) on the sale of these brand name drugs in Medicare and other government health programs, ranging from $2.5 billion in 2011 to $4.1 billion in 2018. Meanwhile, the law will freeze payments to Medicare Advantage plans and restrict physicians from referring seniors in Medicare to specialty hospitals where physicians have an ownership interest. In 2013, the law eliminates the tax deductibility of the generous federal subsidy for employers who provide drug coverage for retirees. This could further undercut provision of employment-based prescription drug coverage for seniors.
    Fewer Plan Choices
    With the freezing of Medicare Advantage payments in 2011, Congress has set the stage for a progressive reduction in seniors’ access to, and choice of, the popular Medicare Advantage health plans.
    In 2012, the law will begin reducing the federal benchmark payment for these plans. In 2014, these health plans must maintain a medical loss ratio of 85 percent, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services is to suspend and even terminate enrollment in plans that miss this target.
    Enrollment in Medicare Advantage by 2017 is estimated to be cut roughly in half, from a projected 14.8 million (under current law) to 7.4 million.[3] Since there are serious gaps in Medicare coverage, including the absence of catastrophic protection, roughly nine out of 10 seniors on traditional Medicare already need to purchase supplemental insurance, such as Medigap. Without Medicare Advantage, millions more seniors will have to go through the cumbersome process of paying two separate premiums for two health plans.
    Less Access to Physicians
    In 2011, the new law provides a 10 percent Medicare bonus payment for primary care physicians and general surgeons in “shortage” areas. This is a tepid response to a growing problem.
    With the retirement of 77 million baby boomers beginning in 2011, the Medicare program will have to absorb an unprecedented demand for medical services. For the next generation of senior citizens, finding a doctor will be more difficult and waiting times for doctor appointments are likely to be longer. The American Association of Medical Colleges projects a shortage of 124,000 doctors by 2025.[4]
    Obamacare has not ameliorated the growing problem of projected physician shortages and has surely made it worse. Under the new law, physicians will be even more dependent on flawed government payment systems for their reimbursement. Moreover, the congressionally designed Medicare physician payment update formula, the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR), initiates cuts that are so draconian that Congress goes through annual parliamentary gyrations to make sure its own handiwork does not go into effect.[5]
    The new law also dramatically expands Medicaid, a poorly performing welfare program with low physician reimbursement rates, and this expansion will account for roughly half of the 34 million newly insured Americans.[6] Furthermore, the law creates an Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will recommend measures to reduce Medicare spending. Formally, the board is forbidden to make recommendations that ration care, increase revenues, or change Medicare beneficiaries’ benefits, cost-sharing, eligibility, or subsidies. For the board, reimbursement for doctors and other medical professionals seems the only target left. But payment cuts can effectively ration care.
    More Medicare Payment Cuts
    According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS):
    Over time, a sustained reduction in payment updates, based on productivity expectations that are difficult to attain, would cause Medicare payment rates to grow more slowly than, and in a way that was unrelated to, the providers cost of furnishing services to beneficiaries. Thus, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries).[7]
    Indeed, creating a real problem for seniors, the CMS Actuary estimates that roughly 15 percent of Medicare Part A providers—the part of the Medicare program that pays hospital costs—would become unprofitable within 10 years.[8]
    Higher Taxes
    Under the new law, seniors are going to pay higher taxes. The higher taxes on drugs (effective in 2011) and medical devices (effective in 2013) will affect seniors especially, as they are more heavily dependent on those very products. Older people, of course, have higher health costs than younger people. But the existing tax deduction for medical expenses will be raised from 7.5 to 10 percent of adjusted gross income in 2013. The reduced tax deductibility of medical expenses is waived for seniors only from 2013 to 2016. Likewise, older people have larger investments than younger people, and thus high income older persons will be more heavily impacted by the new 3.8 percent Medicare tax imposed on unearned or investment income (effective 2013).
    New federal health insurance taxes—both the premium taxes and the excise taxes—will also impact older workers and retirees. The federal premium tax (effective 2014) will be applicable to Medicare Advantage plans and health plans offered to federal retirees in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). Likewise, starting in 2018, there is a new 40 percent federal excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans (defined as $10,220 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage). This will also apply to FEHBP plans, which enroll federal retirees.
    A Better Policy
    Forcing doctors and hospitals to comply with new rules and shaving reimbursement for treating senior citizens is not real reform. If Congress is going to reduce Medicare and impose a hard cap on Medicare payment to restrain per capita cost growth, at the very least it ought to channel those savings right back into the program to enhance Medicare’s solvency and lay the fiscal foundation for real reform. Seniors deserve better than what Obamacare gives them.
    Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., is Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
    (more)
  • belle jeane 2012/07/06 16:58:18
    belle
    +1
    good points
  • jeane Sissy 2012/07/04 15:51:42 (edited)
    jeane
    +3
    Obamacare Facts & Figures
    Nearly one-quarter of all seniors rely on Medicare Advantage, the private health care option in Medicare. However, Obamacare makes such deep cuts to that program that half of those covered will no longer be able to keep the coverage they have.
    New taxes on drug companies ($27 billion) and medical device makers ($20 billion), as well as new reporting requirements and regulations imposed on physicians, will make access to health care and services more costly and difficult for seniors under Obamacare
  • jeane Sissy 2012/07/04 15:52:59 (edited)
    jeane
    +3
    THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION FACTS

    Abstract: The hodgepodge of new taxes that have already or will soon take effect as a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may not all show up in the income tax tables, but their huge cost is still very real. This cost will become most apparent in lost wages and international competitiveness, and it reduces middle- and low-income families' wages just as surely as an income tax hike would. These taxes break President Barack Obama's promise not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 per year.
    Now that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010 has been passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama, substantial tax increases can be expected in the near future. Combined, all of these tax increases (including those on employers that do not provide health insurance for their employees and on individuals who do not buy health insurance) will cost taxpayers $503 billion between 2010 and 2019.[1]
    These tax hikes will slow economic growth, reduce employment, and suppress wages. Further, in an act reminiscent of George H. W. Bush breaking his "no new taxes" pledge in 1991, the tax hikes in the PPACA will raise taxes on middle-income families in direct violation of President Obama's oft-sta...





































    THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION FACTS

    Abstract: The hodgepodge of new taxes that have already or will soon take effect as a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may not all show up in the income tax tables, but their huge cost is still very real. This cost will become most apparent in lost wages and international competitiveness, and it reduces middle- and low-income families' wages just as surely as an income tax hike would. These taxes break President Barack Obama's promise not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 per year.
    Now that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010 has been passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama, substantial tax increases can be expected in the near future. Combined, all of these tax increases (including those on employers that do not provide health insurance for their employees and on individuals who do not buy health insurance) will cost taxpayers $503 billion between 2010 and 2019.[1]
    These tax hikes will slow economic growth, reduce employment, and suppress wages. Further, in an act reminiscent of George H. W. Bush breaking his "no new taxes" pledge in 1991, the tax hikes in the PPACA will raise taxes on middle-income families in direct violation of President Obama's oft-stated pledge not to do so. And by delaying the effective date for most of these new taxes, the President and Congress have shown themselves unwilling to implement these taxes on their own watch, raising doubts as to whether future Presidents and Congresses will be willing to do so. This increases even further the likelihood that this bill will substantially increase the deficit, which would break another Obama promise.
    Major New Tax Increases in the PPACA
    Three major tax increases make up a majority of new revenue in the PPACA.
    A new 40 percent excise tax on health insurance plans. This will apply to plans valued in excess of $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. It will take effect in 2018 and is projected to raise $32 billion by 2019.
    The PPACA could have fixed one of the health care system's most serious flaws: the inefficient tax treatment of employer-sponsored health insurance. Done rightly, a serious reform of the federal tax treatment of health insurance could have expanded opportunities for Americans to own and control their own health insurance, created true portability of coverage, stimulated intense competition within the health insurance market, and reduced overspending on health care by making workers more attuned to their health care costs.[2] Instead, the new excise tax will make health insurance more costly and complex, while leaving the perverse incentives and inequities of the existing system in place. In addition, this hidden tax will do nothing to make costs more transparent.
    Many families that make far less than $250,000 a year have high-end health plans and will be subject to the excise tax when it goes into effect in 2018, breaking President Obama's pledge not to tax these families. The threshold above which an insurance plan will be hit by the tax is indexed to increase at inflation plus 1 percent, which is below the rate of medical cost inflation. This means that more and more health insurance plans that Congress never intended to tax will fall above the threshold in future years. Many of these plans will also belong to families making less than $250,000 a year, further shattering President Obama's pledge.[3]
    An increase in the Hospital Insurance (HI) portion of the payroll tax. This will increase the employee's portion from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent for families making more than $250,000 a year ($200,000 for singles). Combined with the employer's portion, the total rate will be 3.8 percent when the tax hike takes effect in 2013.
    There is a long-standing tradition that the payroll tax should be used exclusively to fund Social Security and Medicare. The increased HI rate not only breaks this principle, but also, and for the first time, will fund a new, separate entitlement. With this precedent broken, future Congresses will be tempted to use payroll tax increases to pay for other new programs that the tax was never intended to fund.
    The $250,000 threshold is not indexed for inflation, so in inflation-adjusted terms, families making less than $250,000 a year today will pay the tax when it takes effect in 2013. As inflation increases, more and more middle-income families will be hit by the tax. This tax hike also breaks President Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on these families.
    Payroll taxes on investment. The PPACA applies the new higher 3.8 percent HI tax to investment income, including capital gains, dividends, rents, and royalties, effective in 2013.
    For the first time, a portion of the payroll tax will apply to investment income--a sharp departure from the nature and history of social insurance programs and another dangerous precedent for future policy. This will discourage investment and lead to slower economic growth, fewer jobs, and lower wages.[4] Tax policy should work to reduce the growth-depleting tax on capital income, not to increase that burden.
    Together, these payroll tax hikes will raise $210 billion between 2013 and 2019.
    Mandates on Individuals and Businesses Raise Taxes
    In essence, the mandates on individuals to purchase health insurance will raise taxes on families. When fully implemented in 2016, the individual penalty for not complying will reach up to $695 per person (for up to three people or $2,085 per household) or 2.5 percent of taxable income.[5] Many healthy but uninsured individuals will now be forced to buy insurance plans under the PPACA. This added cost--whether as new premiums or as a penalty for not purchasing insurance--is a de facto tax increase for these individuals.
    Employers also have a new mandate to provide health insurance for their employees. Employers with more than 50 employees that do not offer coverage and have at least one full-time employee who receives a premium tax credit will pay a fine of $2,000 per employee (excluding the first 30) or $3,000 per employee receiving the premium tax subsidy.
    As with the individual mandate, families will feel the bite of these tax increases in two ways:
    If an employer begins to offer insurance, the wages of those employees to be covered will drop by the amount that the newly provided health insurance plan costs the employer.
    If the employer fails to offer coverage, it will pay the tax, and the employee's compensation will fall by that amount.
    Either way, workers' total compensation does not change; only its composition changes. But because workers will be forced to take more of their compensation in the form of health insurance, their cash wages will fall, and they will have less flexibility to use their earnings as they wish. Even though their total compensation will not change, lower cash income will negatively affect middle- and low-income families.

    Other PPACA Tax Increases
    The health legislation includes a myriad of smaller tax hikes, many of which will also fall on middle- and lower-income Americans. Many of them will not take effect until after Obama's potential second term. These hikes include:
    A reduction in the number of medical products that taxpayers can purchase using health savings accounts (HSAs) and flexible spending accounts (FSAs).
    An increase in the penalty for purchasing disallowed products with HSAs to 20 percent.
    A limit on the amount that taxpayers can deposit in FSAs to $2,500 a year after 2013.
    A requirement that corporations report more information on their business activities, the theory being that if corporations must report more about their activities, they will be less likely to try to avoid taxation.
    An annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs based on each individual company's share of the total market. The tax starts at $2.5 billion in 2011 and goes to $2.8 billion in 2012-2013, $3.0 billion in 2014-2016, $4.0 billion in 2017, $4.1 billion in 2018, and $2.8 billion per year thereafter.
    A 2.3 percent excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices.
    An annual fee on health insurance providers based on each company's share of the total market. Since health insurance companies stand to get more customers because of the individual and employer mandates, Congress forced them to share some of the revenue increase with the federal government. The tax raises $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015-2016, $13.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018. After 2018, it will raise $14.3 billion, indexed to medical cost growth.
    Elimination of the corporate deduction for prescription expenses for retirees. This provision has caused many large companies to announce write-downs of their future earnings.
    An increase in the floor on the deduction for medical expenses from 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income to 10 percent.
    A limit on the amount that health insurance companies can deduct from their taxes to $500,000 of compensation paid to officers, employees, directors, and service providers.
    Repeal of the special deduction for expenses related to claims adjustments and administrative expenses specifically for Blue Cross/Blue Shield organizations.
    A 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services.
    Exclusion of unprocessed fuels from the existing cellulosic biofuel producer credit. Some industries that do not make biofuels were able to claim the credit because of byproducts produced during their manufacturing process. This credit is an unjustified use of the tax code that encourages certain kinds of energy production at the cost of others. Congress might better have scrapped the credit altogether.
    A change in the definition of which business activities are for economic purposes and which are strictly to avoid taxation--many of which were perfectly legal--along with penalties for underpayments due to the latter.
    Broken Promises to the Middle Class
    President Obama repeated again and again during the campaign that he would not raise taxes on any family making less than $250,000 a year. He broke that promise early in his presidency when he increased cigarette taxes, and he has done so in a far grander way with this health care legislation. Not only will the higher HI taxes cost middle-income families jobs and suppress their wages, but the excise tax on high-cost plans will hit them directly.
    Several of the taxes listed above, while not targeting middle-income families, will ultimately be passed on to them through higher prices. These include the fees on medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health insurance companies and the new tax on tanning services.
    (more)
  • jeane Sissy 2012/07/04 15:54:24 (edited)
    jeane
    +3
    TAKE A LOOKSEE FOR YOURSELF PEOPLE- it doesn't get any plainer than this!!

    http://www.heritage.org/resea...
  • jeane Sissy 2012/07/04 16:51:32
    jeane
    +3
    Car insurance went through the roof and many people drive without it - that is why we have uninsured motorists insurance now so everyone else can pay. Many families just cannot afford car insurance.

    I do agree with you (we need to find a way to insure people) and I would like to see reform - but I just don't think that this is it.
  • 4dc 2012/07/02 22:52:43
    Other (details)
    4dc
    hopefully
  • RogerRover 2012/07/02 21:03:21
    Yes it might backfire on the Liberals
    RogerRover
    +7
    Obunglercare is not liked by majority. Now, it's simple : repeal Obama, and it all goes away. Tax haters are more energized. Roberts=genius.
  • Sissy RogerRover 2012/07/03 12:32:19
    Sissy
    I think after top Romney Aid admitted that it was "not a tax" and in looking further at the Mass law that Romney Care imposed, which Obama used for a model, that they will at last understand the tremendous benefits it will bring to all Americans.
  • RogerRover Sissy 2012/07/03 19:16:40
    RogerRover
    +3
    2600 pages. 21 taxes. Provisions and limitations and controls and defunding of senior benefits and huge underestimates etc. This monstosity is the clinker that is making a tremendous logjam in our entire economic recovery. Unaffordable, unrealistic and overpriced because it goes through the central government with all of it's graft, corruption and waste. Unworkable nonsensical boondoggle that will never fly.
  • Sissy RogerRover 2012/07/04 11:16:46
    Sissy
    +1
    No one said that the Bill was perfect and there couldn't be some tweaking. How unfortunate that instead of "pulling the Bill up by its roots", the leaders of the Republican Party didn't sit down and do just that....improve, "tweak" and most of all, think of the benefit to the whole country instead of to their own insatiable want of power.
  • RogerRover Sissy 2012/07/04 11:55:55
    RogerRover
    +2
    Nice thoughts..but..The many layers of administration, bureaus, decision making (who qualifies for what) implementation, insufferable delays, funding miscalculations, waste and fraud that always attends central government processes...forever messes up simple doctor/patient care. I wish it would work, but I know it can not.
  • Sissy RogerRover 2012/07/04 11:59:53
    Sissy
    +1
    Working together instead of fighting would be a start, don't you think? That's what our representatives are supposed to do. The Medi-care Bill was fought tooth and nail too nearly 50 years ago. "That will be the end of health care", "Doctors will leave the field enmass", etc. Now fighting this legislation with the same passion, even the tea party members say, "cut, cut, cut", BUT leave medi-care and social security alone". Go figure.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 12 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/28 06:15:11

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals