FORBES: Don't Buy The GOP Narrative That Obamacare Is A Tax On Middle Class

[Nbadan]

This article, now appearing in Forbes, points out a very important distinction that must be made concerning the Supreme Court's decision:

Don't Buy The GOP Narrative That Obama-care Is A Tax On Middle Class-It's A Lie Designed To Mislead


<. . . >

In the opening paragraphs of Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion, he clarifies that the law specifically does not involve a tax. If it did, Roberts clarifies, the Court would have had no choice but to reject the case for lack of jurisdiction as a tax case cannot be brought until someone is actually forced to pay the tax. This is, as we know, not the case.

The fact that the Court found that the mandate was constitutional under the taxing authority granted Congress by the Constitution is an entirely different matter. This finding does not reduce the individual mandate to the status of a tax—it merely says that as the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance will fall to the Internal Revenue Service for collection, it was something Congress could provide for under its Constitutional authority.

While I grant you that this gets a bit into the weeds, the effort that is being made by the GOP to use the Court’s basis for decision as a weapon fails on its face and is completely disingenuous. There is a difference between the levying of a tax and the Court finding Constitutional authority for Congress under the taxing authority. But then, anything that is more complicated than your basic “See Spot Run” first grade reading primer has always been fair game and fodder for the GOP message machine which would prefer to base their arguments on misstatements than educating and enlightening its base.


Full article at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/06/28/dont-buy-the-gop-narrative-that-obamacare-is-a-tax-on-middle-class-its-a-lie-designed-to-mislead/

I would add that this is much like penalties assessed on people who fail to timely file tax returns. Such penalties are not taxes, per se, but the authority to assess those penalties arises directly from Congress' authority to tax. The penalty is a tax only in-so-far that the IRS collects the fine...

[Jacob1983]

Didn't the Supreme Court say it was a tax?

[Nbadan]

An international survey reveals that Canadians, compared to residents of other countries, are generally happy with our health care system.

The Deloitte survey, conducted in April and May of this year, queried 15,735 health care consumers in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Mexico, Portugal, Switzerland, the UK, and the U.S. with regards to their attitudes about their health-care systems.

When asked to grade the overall performance of their medical system, most Canadians, 50 per cent, gave a score of "A" (excellent) or "B" very good.

Systems in Luxembourg (69 per cent), Belgium (57 per cent), Switzerland (52 per cent), France (51 per cent), also earned an "A" or "B" score.

Conversely, 57 per cent of consumers in Brazil, 44 per cent in Mexico, 37 per cent in the U.S. and 33 per cent of consumers in Portugal give their health care system's performance a failing grade.

The study also charted the health care expenditures, as a percentage of GDP, of each of the 12 countries researched. Canadians, the report notes, spends 10.4 per cent of their GDP on health care compared to China at 4.7 per cent and the United States at 17.6 per cent.



http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/canadians-generally-happy-healthcare-system-195734829.html

Less than a quarter (22%) of U.S. consumers, 18% of Portuguese,
15% of Mexican, and 8% of Brazilian consumers grade
their country’s health care systems as “A” or ”B.”

[Nbadan]

Didn't the Supreme Court say it was a tax?

The law labels the assessment a “penalty” (see Section 5000A) and avoids using the term “tax.” But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the five justices in the majority, said the penalty can be considered a tax that is within the power of Congress to impose.

[johnsmith]

So will it cost the middle class more or less money?

[George Gervin's Afro]

So will it cost the middle class more or less money?

if you don't purchase insurance you will pay the penalty/tax. So no one knows for sure..

[vy65]

That's a shitty distinction.

[CosmicCowboy]

Of course it will cost the middle class more money because taxes will HAVE to go up to pay for it and the middle class is where the money is.

[DarrinS]

kag-nQRmqLQ

[scott]

Too nuanced of an distinction for the collective IQ of this nation.

Even though it isn't really a tax, I'm fine with it being called a tax. The arguing over what we call it is a good example of how petty and absurd the political debate has become.

The mandate is an effective solution to the problem of Negative Externalities. Conservatives, I have a legitimate question for you. Is your opposition to the Mandate because:

A) You have fundamental issue with the idea of this mandate
B) You don't have a problem with the mandate per se, but you have a problem with the rest of the ACA that goes along with the mandate
C) You're actually okay with the entire thing, but on the state level, not the Federal level
D) It was passed by Obama

I may have follow up questions.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's gonna be pretty funny when all the college age libs in here graduate and realize they are immediately going to have to start paying 10% of their income for health care they don't use.

Oh yeah, and that doesn't include the 30% co-pay when you actually have to use it.

[vy65]

Too nuanced of an distinction for the collective IQ of this nation.

Even though it isn't really a tax, I'm fine with it being called a tax. The arguing over what we call it is a good example of how petty and absurd the political debate has become.

I don't think I'm a conservative, so I'll sidestep the questions.

This is purely semantics, but I think the tax/penalty dichotomy is a distinction without a difference. The function of the mandate is to tax a particular behavior. Whether that is characterized as a penalty vs. a tax, and what the difference between a tax and a penalty, seems minor if not wholly inconsequential.

[CosmicCowboy]

What is hilarious is that there is the perception that this is "sticking it to" the insurance companies. They are gonna make out like bandits. It's sticking it to young healthy people that work.

[CosmicCowboy]

Remember, that "penalty" will keep going up until it is = to the cost of buying insurance.

[ElNono]

This is purely semantics, but I think the tax/penalty dichotomy is a distinction without a difference. The function of the mandate is to tax a particular behavior. Whether that is characterized as a penalty vs. a tax, and what the difference between a tax and a penalty, seems minor if not wholly inconsequential.

Agreed

[scott]

I don't think I'm a conservative, so I'll sidestep the questions.

This is purely semantics, but I think the tax/penalty dichotomy is a distinction without a difference. The function of the mandate is to tax a particular behavior. Whether that is characterized as a penalty vs. a tax, and what the difference between a tax and a penalty, seems minor if not wholly inconsequential.

Well, there are certainly some technical differences between a tax and a penalty, but I agree that the differences don't matter. And that they only matter to folks now is a tribute to the silliness of that particular debate.

[Spurminator]

This is purely semantics, but I think the tax/penalty dichotomy is a distinction without a difference. The function of the mandate is to tax a particular behavior. Whether that is characterized as a penalty vs. a tax, and what the difference between a tax and a penalty, seems minor if not wholly inconsequential.

Semantics is the currency that funds all political debate. Taxes are bad, this is a "tax"... mass hysteria.

[TeyshaBlue]

Too nuanced of an distinction for the collective IQ of this nation.

Even though it isn't really a tax, I'm fine with it being called a tax. The arguing over what we call it is a good example of how petty and absurd the political debate has become.

The mandate is an effective solution to the problem of Negative Externalities. Conservatives, I have a legitimate question for you. Is your opposition to the Mandate because:

A) You have fundamental issue with the idea of this mandate
B) You don't have a problem with the mandate per se, but you have a problem with the rest of the ACA that goes along with the mandate
C) You're actually okay with the entire thing, but on the state level, not the Federal level
D) It was passed by Obama

I may have follow up questions.

E) I would have much preferred a true, single payer system.

[EVAY]

E) I would have much preferred a true, single payer system.

I would have preferred that as well.

I am glad that Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, and

I am glad that there is not a lifetime limit on coverage.

Due to issues within my own family, those are of critical importance to me.

The rest of the law has some genuinely idiotic provisions.

[EVAY]

^^^^Given all the above, though, I am in favor of fixing this law more than I am in flavor of repealing it...mostly because the Republican alternative mostly seems to put the locus of power in their 'replacement discussions' to private industry, and my confidence in private industry these days is not exactly at an all time high.

[EVAY]

Moreover, since there is zero mechanism for enforcing this 'tax' or 'penalty', I'm not sure I see too much to get upset about.

[TeyshaBlue]

I would have preferred that as well.

I am glad that Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, and

I am glad that there is not a lifetime limit on coverage.

Due to issues within my own family, those are of critical importance to me.

The rest of the law has some genuinely idiotic provisions.

That's the main issue I have with the ACA. When you dictate non-exclusions, Insurance companies are no longer Insurance companies. They become Healthcare companies which is more or less where we have been forcing them to move for some time.
When allowed to function as they were designed, as tools to leverage risk across time, Insurance companies work well.

When you force them to become healthcare administrators, well, you get what we have now. A clusterfuck.

[scott]

E) I would have much preferred a true, single payer system.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a non-starter with the GOP in Washington?

[MannyIsGod]

Apparently with the Democrats too.

[TeyshaBlue]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a non-starter with the GOP in Washington?

I'm sure it is. You specified conservatives with the implied qualifier that the reader of the post was your population.
I qualified.:lol

[EVAY]

That's the main issue I have with the ACA.
When allowed to function as they were designed, as tools to leverage risk across time, Insurance companies work well.

When you force them to become healthcare administrators, well, you get what we have now. A clusterfuck.

Isn't the purpose of any insurance company primarily to enhance the wealth of its stockholders (as is the purpose of any capitalist-minded company - which is as it should be, imo) by providing a product or service that people want to purchase? The service, in this instance, is a promise to pay your medical bills (within constraints of your contractual arrangement) in exchange for you paying premiums even when you don't necessarily need any medical attention.

The problem I have with them heretofore is that none of the contracts that were offered were a pure example of their premise. IOW, they would promise to pay 'up to X' or would pay only if you never had a chance of a 'Catastrophic Illness'. Their business models, predicated on the need to return as much capital as possible to the equity investor (again, totally reasonable), made them actually not very good at managing risk over time for the consumer.

I agree completely that what we have now is a clusterfuck. That's before the ACA.

[TeyshaBlue]

Insurance was, classically, more akin to catastrophic coverage today. Not alot of options and cost-effective.
It wasn't intended to cover the day to day expenses. But by putting more inputs into the model, there's more opportunities for:

A) Acturarial gains.
B) SKU (Item) markup.

ACA just feeds the beast.

[CosmicCowboy]

Insurance was, classically, more akin to catastrophic coverage today. Not alot of options and cost-effective.
It wasn't intended to cover the day to day expenses. But by putting more inputs into the model, there's more opportunities for:

A) Acturarial gains.
B) SKU (Item) markup.

ACA just feeds the beast.

I take celebrex for my ankle that exploded and my insurance charges a $65 co-pay on name brand drugs. I have been begrudgingly paying it. Just for grins the other day I googled "buy celebrex" and found out I can pay cash for it and it costs $42.50.

Fuck Humana.

[elbamba]

Too nuanced of an distinction for the collective IQ of this nation.

Even though it isn't really a tax, I'm fine with it being called a tax. The arguing over what we call it is a good example of how petty and absurd the political debate has become.

The mandate is an effective solution to the problem of Negative Externalities. Conservatives, I have a legitimate question for you. Is your opposition to the Mandate because:

A) You have fundamental issue with the idea of this mandate
B) You don't have a problem with the mandate per se, but you have a problem with the rest of the ACA that goes along with the mandate
C) You're actually okay with the entire thing, but on the state level, not the Federal level
D) It was passed by Obama

I may have follow up questions.

I would like a system where I know or will reasonably know what my bill will be before I go to a doctor or to a hospital. The bill does nothing to make receiving medical care more transparent. Imagin the competition if we could choose which hosoital to go to knowing that one will charge me $15.00 to take my tempature even though I simply broke my leg and another one would not do that at all because I simply broke my leg and there is no real need to take my tempature.

[scott]

I'm sure it is. You specified conservatives with the implied qualifier that the reader of the post was your population.
I qualified.:lol

Touche!

[EVAY]

I take celebrex for my ankle that exploded and my insurance charges a $65 co-pay on name brand drugs. I have been begrudgingly paying it. Just for grins the other day I googled "buy celebrex" and found out I can pay cash for it and it costs $42.50.

Fuck Humana.

Be careful with Celebrex, CC.

I took it for ten years (high dosage prescribed by my rheumatologist) for my Rheumatoid Arthritis. Great result in that I felt great and it allowed me to continue sports activities that I would have had to give up long before.

Problem is: It utterly destroyed my stomach lining.

So it is a trade-off, but I always wonder if my doc had kept me on a lower dose if I might have done as well but been able to tolerate it longer.

Zantac is now my friend.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Insurance was, classically, more akin to catastrophic coverage today. Not alot of options and cost-effective.
It wasn't intended to cover the day to day expenses. But by putting more inputs into the model, there's more opportunities for:

A) Acturarial gains.
B) SKU (Item) markup.

ACA just feeds the beast.

It's going to be up to the states to actually do oversight on the rates as well as setup the exchanges but that is the mechanism where the cost controls are supposed to come from.

If a state implements rate controls through their insurance departments like they already do with liability coverage then it will have the opposite effect of feeding the beast. It's going to be a state by state thing. FWIW, the TIC used to be pretty good at telling insurers to fuck off and come back with new rate tables.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I would like a system where I know or will reasonably know what my bill will be before I go to a doctor or to a hospital. The bill does nothing to make receiving medical care more transparent. Imagin the competition if we could choose which hosoital to go to knowing that one will charge me $15.00 to take my tempature even though I simply broke my leg and another one would not do that at all because I simply broke my leg and there is no real need to take my tempature.

Have you ever asked a nurse what the cost of a service is before? next time try it cause they do not know what the billings are. I have had friends that have tried to find out and they are intentionally left in the dark.

Even when you check out and sign for services rendered those clerks do not know.

[scott]

Have you ever asked a nurse what the cost of a service is before? next time try it cause they do not know what the billings are. I have had friends that have tried to find out and they are intentionally left in the dark.

Even when you check out and sign for services rendered those clerks do not know.

This is a flaw of the system, IMO. I agree with elbamba

[ElNono]

I think it's what happened to the system because "insurance pays"... unfortunately, we've entrenched the insurance system even further without basic cost things like that. In the meantime, those paying out of pocket get fucked without lube.

[Capt Bringdown]

A) Acturarial gains.
B) SKU (Item) markup.

ACA just feeds the beast.

Not a fan of the bill, and I'd rather have single-payer, but the following bits from ACA are intended to reduce costs:



1. Expand the pool to include more healthy people through the individual mandate; this provides insurance companies more money to be able to cover folks with pre-existing conditions at lower cost.

2. Mandate the minimum medical loss ratios. This means that the insurance company can use only 15% or so for administration and profit. Payments to providers must account for 85% or so of the costs of premiums.

3. Subsidize state high-risk pools. This provides insurance coverage for folks with pre-existing conditions who cannot afford private insurance.

4. Benchmark costs to Medicare standard prices. This provides insurance companies with a measure to try to beat in order to claim that private insurance outperforms government plans.

5. Require preventive care to be without charge to the patient. This encourages patients to get preventive care, reducing the long-term cost by improving their health.

6. Cover primary care. This reduces the load on emergency rooms and uses less expensive procedures for treatment before conditions get out of hand.

7. Have a healthcare quality board that review medical research and reports on improvements to best practices so that physicians in one part of the country can benefit from improvements in other parts of the country.

8. Subsidize rural clinics to bring primary care closer to rural populations, reducing the incidences of catastrophic health problems.

Seems like some good things?

[LakerHater]

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/575878_320843731339306_1253930237_n.jpg

[The Reckoning]

It's gonna be pretty funny when all the college age libs in here graduate and realize they are immediately going to have to start paying 10% of their income for health care they don't use.

Oh yeah, and that doesn't include the 30% co-pay when you actually have to use it.



who's going to be wiping your ass in five years when you're in an old folks home?

[ploto]

It's gonna be pretty funny when all the college age libs in here graduate and realize they are immediately going to have to start paying 10% of their income for health care they don't use.

I get free health insurance at my job. Any full time employee gets that for himself or herself. Pay is less but benefits are good.

Those who find jobs without that benefit can NOW stay on their parents' work insurance to age 26. at my work that currently costs $200 per month.

[ElNono]

I get free health insurance at my job. Any full time employee gets that for himself or herself. Pay is less but benefits are good.

There's no such thing as "free health insurance". It might be that your employer decided to pay fully for the premium, but that's hardly the norm.

Depending where you look, there's about 40 million to 60 million Americans that are either uninsured and underinsured. About half of the non-business bankruptcies filed nowadays involve a person with a serious health problem.

Health insurance tied to employment has always been a terrible idea, IMO. If you happen to be unable to work for over 3 months for some kind of medical condition, you can lose your job and your coverage, exactly when you need it the most.

Count me in the boat of people that would prefer a single-payer system.

[Nbadan]

Count me in the boat of people that would prefer a single-payer system.

That is what the progressives in the Dem party wanted all along....Obama gave up too much for his bill when he gave up on single-payer....this is a shitty compromise bill....the mandate was necessary for this law to have any teeth at all...

[Nbadan]

Health insurance tied to employment has always been a terrible idea, IMO. If you happen to be unable to work for over 3 months for some kind of medical condition, you can lose your job and your coverage, exactly when you need it the most.

that is what Aflack is for MOFO.....

[Wild Cobra]

who's going to be wiping your ass in five years when you're in an old folks home?

yOU WILL BE, SINCE IT'S THE ONLY PLACE THAT WILL HIRE YOU.

[Nbadan]

Mandate the minimum medical loss ratios. This means that the insurance company can use only 15% or so for administration and profit. Payments to providers must account for 85% or so of the costs of premiums.

This is one way to control corporations and their political influence through citizens united...corporations have bought our political system... it is totally corrupt...maybe this is why John Roberts decided to side with the less wing-nut justices....his court has handed over the government to corporations and against the will of the people...

[The Reckoning]

yOU WILL BE, SINCE IT'S THE ONLY PLACE THAT WILL HIRE YOU.

must be opposite day

[Wild Cobra]

must be opposite day
dIDN'T REALIZE i HAD MY CAPS LOCK ON. tHAT'S ALL.


LOL...

Did it again.

I've been entering some things in a database, and it's easier with my caps on. Just forgetting to switch over for the few minutes I check in here.

[cantthinkofanything]

Have you ever asked a nurse what the cost of a service is before? next time try it cause they do not know what the billings are. I have had friends that have tried to find out and they are intentionally left in the dark.

Even when you check out and sign for services rendered those clerks do not know.

It's bullshit. I actually did ask one time. Had a severe pain in my neck that moved up into my head. Did some Googling and was convinced it was meningitis. It was late so went to one of those Care Now places. I was pretty sure my insurance wouldn't cover it so I told the girl at the counter that my insurance wasn't going to cover it so what's the estimated cost. She says it should be around $200 which would cover all the normal tests. But she also said she would try to run it on the insurance and took my card anyway. When I got out, I went to pay and she tells me "great news, it went through on the insurance". Great.

Then a few weeks later, I get a bill in the mail saying that my insurance would not cover it and the charge was almost $900. They charged me $180 for a pulse ox which 1) is ridiculous and 2) which they never ran in the first place. Also, the doctor literally spent only about 10 minutes with me.

I called to complain and they said that you get a convenience discount if you pay at the time of service. I explained that I was willing to pay at the time of service and they eventually referred me somewhere else. They eventually let me get away with paying around $350 because they said there was no way nurse at the front couldn't' have known what tests they were going to run when she gave the estimate.

[coyotes_geek]

Seems like some good things?

"Good" in the sense that more people will be given access to more care, but that's not the same "good" as costs coming down. Most of these items involve tangible spending up front based on the premise that we'll get that money back via intangible savings on the back end. Once you filter those potential back end savings through the giant government bureaucracy that's going to be required to implement this all, I don't see much of a reason to be optimistic that this bill will do much of anything to slow down the growth in healthcare costs. We haven't done anything to remove cost from the system, all we've done is change who and how the burden of those costs is beared.


1. Expand the pool to include more healthy people through the individual mandate; this provides insurance companies more money to be able to cover folks with pre-existing conditions at lower cost.

2. Mandate the minimum medical loss ratios. This means that the insurance company can use only 15% or so for administration and profit. Payments to providers must account for 85% or so of the costs of premiums.

3. Subsidize state high-risk pools. This provides insurance coverage for folks with pre-existing conditions who cannot afford private insurance.

4. Benchmark costs to Medicare standard prices. This provides insurance companies with a measure to try to beat in order to claim that private insurance outperforms government plans.

5. Require preventive care to be without charge to the patient. This encourages patients to get preventive care, reducing the long-term cost by improving their health.

6. Cover primary care. This reduces the load on emergency rooms and uses less expensive procedures for treatment before conditions get out of hand.

7. Have a healthcare quality board that review medical research and reports on improvements to best practices so that physicians in one part of the country can benefit from improvements in other parts of the country.

8. Subsidize rural clinics to bring primary care closer to rural populations, reducing the incidences of catastrophic health problems.

[boutons_deux]

"We have done anything to remove cost from the system"

"cost" is the health care system's revenue. And they own more than enough legislators to preseve their revenues while increasing them annually, for no additional benefit or care level, while lying about why they MUST raise costs.

[ploto]

There's no such thing as "free health insurance". It might be that your employer decided to pay fully for the premium, but that's hardly the norm.

Obviously I am talking about it being free to me. My employer pays the full premium. It is one of the things I like about my job.

I spent 7 years having to pay for my own insurance. The costs of a catastrophic policy were awful but I went without a lot of things to pay for it. I would welcome a single payer system, but in the meantime I chose my job partially for the health insurance benefits, not only for me but my kid.

[Capt Bringdown]

Once you filter those potential back end savings through the giant government bureaucracy that's going to be required to implement this all, I don't see much of a reason to be optimistic that this bill will do much of anything to slow down the growth in healthcare costs.

As I understand it, costs have not come down in Massachusetts, where this Heritage Foundation/Romney/Obama bill originated from. So yeah, I doubt this bill will bring down costs. The goal is to transfer wealth to the investment class. Affordable Health care for all is a reachable goal, as other nations have proven, but we've got to take care of the 1% first in the good ole USA.

As for the "giant government bureaucracy" I guess YMMV with the giant private private bureaucracy. My family experiences have not been so great. My father died at the hands of these capitalist monsters.

[boutons_deux]

When Gecko does it, it's a mandate. When Barry does it, it's a tax. :lol

Romney: Heath Mandate Is A Tax For Obama, Not A Tax For Me

In agreeing with the Court that it constituted a tax and not a penalty, Romney could be vulnerable to criticism that the Massachusetts health care law he championed — which was the basis for Obama’s effort — also represented a tax. But Romney appears to be calculating that voters will care far more about the Court’s findings about the federal law than his state effort.

…In a portion of the interview released by Romney’s campaign, he insisted that a similar levy imposed on those who chose not to buy insurance by the Massachusetts healthcare law he signed as governor was not a tax.

“The chief justice, in his opinion, made it very clear that at the state level, states have the power to put in place mandates. They don’t need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be constitutional. And as a result, Massachusetts’ mandate was a mandate, was a penalty, was described that way by the Legislature and by me, and so it stays as it was,” he said.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/07/04/511099/romney-heath-mandate-is-a-tax-for-obama-not-a-tax-for-me/

[boutons_deux]

Tax or penalty? Romney's evolving statements irritate conservatives

The Wall Street Journal, whose opinion pages are a highly regarded barometer of conservative thought, published an editorial Thursday that excoriated the Romney campaign for its “unforced error” on the tax issue and concluded that “the campaign looks confused in addition to being politically dumb.”

It was the latest sign of conservative unhappiness with the Romney campaign, which faces the difficult task of pivoting into the general election after a primary campaign fought well to the right of the general electorate.

Some of the complaints have been stinging. William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, went so far as to compare Romney with two other Massachusetts politicians who unsuccessfully ran for president: Sen. John F. Kerry and former Gov. Michael Dukakis.

Ouch.

“So,” Kristol wrote after invoking the dreaded Democratic names, “speaking of losing candidates from Massachusetts: Is it too much to ask Mitt Romney to get off autopilot and actually think about the race he's running?”

That may have been enough for some supporters, including those for whom the entire debate is esoteric and, let’s face it, a little boring. But to the Journal editorial page, it was a reflection of a campaign in trouble.

“This latest mistake is of a piece with the campaign's insular staff and strategy that are slowly squandering an historic opportunity. Mr. Obama is being hurt by an economic recovery that is weakening for the third time in three years. But Mr. Romney hasn't been able to take advantage, and if anything he is losing ground.

“The Romney campaign thinks it can play it safe and coast to the White House by saying the economy stinks and it's Mr. Obama's fault. We're on its email list and the main daily message from the campaign is that ‘Obama isn't working.’ Thanks, guys, but Americans already know that. What they want to hear from the challenger is some understanding of why the President's policies aren't working and how Mr. Romney's policies will do better.”

http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?m=b&a=rp&id=2371942&postId=2371942&postUserId=7&sessionToken=&catId=5217&curAbsIndex=0&resultsUrl=DID%3D6%26DFCL%3D1000%26DSB%3Drank%2523 desc%26DBFQ%3DuserId%253A7%26DL.w%3D%26DL.d%3D10%2 6DQ%3DsectionId%253A5217%26DPS%3D0%26DPL%3D3

[boutons_deux]

Obamacare Is A Major Tax Cut For Middle Class Families

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/obamacare_middle_class.jpg.png


http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/07/05/511486/obamacare-is-a-major-tax-cut-for-middle-class-families/

[CosmicCowboy]

Obamacare Is A Major Tax Cut For Middle Class Families

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/obamacare_middle_class.jpg.png


http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/07/05/511486/obamacare-is-a-major-tax-cut-for-middle-class-families/

LOL Thinkprogress

I notice they didn't mention that those "tax credits" will be paid directly to the insurance companies.

[boutons_deux]

If Barry hadn't yielded to the health care systems' extortion, there would be no ACA.

The point above is that Human-Americans are better off with ACA, and most of them will THINK that is PROGRESS

[CosmicCowboy]

If Barry hadn't yielded to the health care systems' extortion, there would be no ACA.

The point above is that Human-Americans are better off with ACA, and most of them will THINK that is PROGRESS

When they realize that they are going to have to fork over 10% of their income in premiums for insurance that only covers 70% of the cost they aren't gonna be so happy.

[boutons_deux]

that's better than nothing, which is what they have now.

Separate from ACA, employees with employer plans are paying more for less coverage, if not actually losing it comletely. And when they lose their jobs, they will have ACA there. That'll make them so happy.

[boutons_deux]

As RickyBobby refuse to implement health insurance exchanges and expand Medicaid:

Texas Has The Worst Health Care Services In The Nation, Agency Says

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/674890/thumbs/r-TEXAS-HEALTH-CARE-large570.jpg

A scorecard issued by a federal agency has ranked Texas health care services and delivery as among the worst in the nation.

The Agency for Health Care Research and Quality issued the ratings as part of a national review of state health care programs.

In nine out of 12 categories Texas rated weak or very weak. The only area where Texas ranked good was in maternal and child health care measures. A spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

Texas offers one of the most limited health care programs in the nation for the disabled and the poor, and more than 25 percent of Texans do not have health insurance of any kind, the highest in the nation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/05/texas-health-care_n_1652066.html?ref=topbar

[CosmicCowboy]

As RickyBobby refuse to implement health insurance exchanges and expand Medicaid:

Texas Has The Worst Health Care Services In The Nation, Agency Says

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/674890/thumbs/r-TEXAS-HEALTH-CARE-large570.jpg

A scorecard issued by a federal agency has ranked Texas health care services and delivery as among the worst in the nation.

The Agency for Health Care Research and Quality issued the ratings as part of a national review of state health care programs.

In nine out of 12 categories Texas rated weak or very weak. The only area where Texas ranked good was in maternal and child health care measures. A spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

Texas offers one of the most limited health care programs in the nation for the disabled and the poor, and more than 25 percent of Texans do not have health insurance of any kind, the highest in the nation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/05/texas-health-care_n_1652066.html?ref=topbar

Well, duhhh. We also have the largest pool of uninsured illegal immigrants.

[boutons_deux]

and TXans exploit/cheat/underpay those illegal immigrants to TXans' max profit.

[coyotes_geek]

LOL Thinkprogress

I notice they didn't mention that those "tax credits" will be paid directly to the insurance companies.

I also like how they say it's a big tax cut for the middle class, point out the 16 million people who will get the credits, but then don't bother to tell you how big the middle class actually is, or how many of those 16 million people will be lower class. An inquiring mind might also wonder where the $686 billion to fund those tax credits is going to come from and ponder the likelihood of those costs finding their way down to middle class taxpayers.

No suprise though. It's thinkprogress. They're known for putting out dishonest crap like this.

lol thinkprogress, lol boutons

[TeyshaBlue]

As RickyBobby refuse to implement health insurance exchanges and expand Medicaid:

Texas Has The Worst Health Care Services In The Nation, Agency Says

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/674890/thumbs/r-TEXAS-HEALTH-CARE-large570.jpg

A scorecard issued by a federal agency has ranked Texas health care services and delivery as among the worst in the nation.

The Agency for Health Care Research and Quality issued the ratings as part of a national review of state health care programs.

In nine out of 12 categories Texas rated weak or very weak. The only area where Texas ranked good was in maternal and child health care measures. A spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

Texas offers one of the most limited health care programs in the nation for the disabled and the poor, and more than 25 percent of Texans do not have health insurance of any kind, the highest in the nation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/05/texas-health-care_n_1652066.html?ref=topbar
If you bother to actually read the report, it states nothing at all regarding ranking. But, reading is hard. It's easier to have your thinking done by blogs.

lol bot.

lol low info blogs.

http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/nhqr11/nhqr11.pdf

[boutons_deux]

If you bother to actually read the report, it states nothing at all regarding ranking. But, reading is hard. It's easier to have your thinking done by blogs.

lol bot.

lol low info blogs.

http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/nhqr11/nhqr11.pdf

http://statesnapshots.ahrq.gov/snaps11/dashboard.jsp?menuId=4&state=TX&level=0

and

"The only area where Texas ranked good was in maternal and child health care measures."

.... which, in the (TX) Repugs War on (poor) Women (and contraception), maternal health care clinics all over TX are being gutted or closed.

[TeyshaBlue]

There are catagories where Tx has zero data sets. Yet these cats. are averaged into the overall metric?

Somebody help me out here. That and the newborn/women care metrics are almost certainly outliers and based on 3 - 7 year old data.

I guess it's an ok, approximate big picture graphic, but the info levels, again, are quite low until you start digging in the data tables and contextural factors. Once you've done that, it seems even shabbier.

[TeyshaBlue]

In addition, the “31 out of a possible 100 points” metic is bullshit when the top of the measurement is 67. When you drill into the data tables, you see that Tx is avg to above avg on outcomes. It was scored down substantially due to not performing as many “healthcare measures” .
It does measure spending fairly well, but that’s meaningless when outcomes are de-emphasized.

[boutons_deux]

TX Repugs have basically destroyed free health clinics, contraceptive handouts, with one estimate saying that TX abortions will jump from 80K/year to 100K.

[CosmicCowboy]

TX Repugs have basically destroyed free health clinics, contraceptive handouts, with one estimate saying that TX abortions will jump from 80K/year to 100K.

I estimate they will stay the same.

My estimate is worth just as much as yours.

Nothing.

[scott]

America complains about rising cost of health care while simultaneous complaining about things like Transfat bans.

This is what we're really dealing with. DON'T TAKE MY LIBERTIES! BUT ALSO DON'T MAKE ME PAY FOR THEM!!!

[TeyshaBlue]

TX Repugs have basically destroyed free health clinics, contraceptive handouts, with one estimate saying that TX abortions will jump from 80K/year to 100K.


Wait a sec. Defunding healthclinics = increased abortions?

And no, free health clinics have not been destroyed. Hyperbole much? Oh wait. I forgot who I was talking to.:lol

[TeyshaBlue]

America complains about rising cost of health care while simultaneous complaining about things like Transfat bans.

This is what we're really dealing with. DON'T TAKE MY LIBERTIES! BUT ALSO DON'T MAKE ME PAY FOR THEM!!!

You can have my butter when you pull it from my cold, dead hands!:ihit

[scott]

You can have my butter when you pull it from my cold, dead hands!:ihit

Your cold, diabetic fat fingers you mean?

[boutons_deux]

TX Repugs have basically destroyed free health clinics, contraceptive handouts, with one estimate saying that TX abortions will jump from 80K/year to 100K.


Wait a sec. Defunding healthclinics = increased abortions?

And no, free health clinics have not been destroyed. Hyperbole much? Oh wait. I forgot who I was talking to.:lol

yes, those health clinics gave out free counseling and contraceptives. Less pills and condoms obviously means, at very least, more unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

[TeyshaBlue]

Your cold, diabetic fat fingers you mean?

That's a given.:lol

[boutons_deux]

Judge Halts Defunding of Planned Parenthood in Texas

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/04/30/texas_planned_parenthood_granted_injunction_agains t_state_defunding_.html

"Some 130,000 low-income Texas women who get free exams and contraceptives through Medicaid could lose those benefits as a result of the dispute.
The program provides free birth control and annual exams to women of reproductive age who do not qualify for the regular Medicaid program for the poor. The federal government pays 90 percent of the cost and Texas puts up about $4 million a year."

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/10/10630430-feds-stop-funding-texas-womens-health-program-over-abortion-dispute?lite


Texas RR Groups Push War on Contraception

http://tfninsider.org/2012/02/14/texas-rr-groups-push-war-on-contraception/

[TeyshaBlue]

yes, those health clinics gave out free counseling and contraceptives. Less pills and condoms obviously means, at very least, more unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

They're gonna pay for an abortion after the free clinics didn't give them free condoms and free pills. Ok.:rolleyes

[boutons_deux]

paying for an abortion (backstreet abortions can be pretty cheap) is a lot cheaper than raising a baby, which of course Texas is also cutting aid to poor children (they only care about the kid until its born).

[TeyshaBlue]

paying for an abortion (backstreet abortions can be pretty cheap) is a lot cheaper than raising a baby, which of course Texas is also cutting aid to poor children (they only care about the kid until its born).

You're going to have a difficult time quantifying that abortion count, if you even care.

And your "study" you posted absolutely negates the second half of your post.

[boutons_deux]

The Conservative Misinformation Campaign About Obamacare Has Worked Really, Really Well

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_obamacare_questions_1.jpg

Andrew Sprung draws my attention to a Kaiser quiz about Obamacare from a few months ago, and you'll be unsurprised to learn that most Americans don't know much about it. I put the responses into graphical form, and what's most interesting, I think, is to look at the right side of the chart: the questions that were most frequently gotten wrong.

All of them are tied together by a single thread: the conservative misinformation campaign against the Affordable Care Act. The tea party folks have never spent much time talking about low-income subsidies or tax credits or Medicaid expansion or pre-existing conditions. And guess what? Most people know how the law works in those areas.1

But conservatives do spend a lot of time rabble-rousing about death panels and illegal immigrants and Medicare cuts. And they also spend a lot of time bewailing the "government takeover" of healthcare, which includes things like the public option ("a new government run insurance plan") and a supposed mandate that small businesses will all be required to offer health insurance for their employees. Sure enough, those are the areas where misunderstanding is highest.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/07/conservative-misinformation-campaign-about-obamacare-has-worked-really-really-wel?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

Repugs have NO HEALTH POLICY of their own (they want to REPEAL ACA, but have no REPLACEMENT defined), while spewing lies about ACA, which is the Repug/Gecko strategy on everything.

[boutons_deux]

Romney’s Provable Lie About the Mandate

http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2012/07/pinocchio-300x216.jpg

Mitt Romney, though, seems to engage in telling immediate provable lies. The type of lies that can quickly and clearly be labeled a lie – with solid evidence. The most recent example: in an interview with Jan Crawford Mitt Romney said the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act was a tax, but the nearly identical mandate he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts is not a tax. Romney, “They don’t need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be constitutional. And — and as a result, Massachusetts’ mandate was a mandate, was a penalty, was described that way by the legislature and by me. And so it stays as it was.”

The thing is that Romney acknowledged on the record that his mandate is a tax penalty or results in those without insurance “finding their taxes are higher.” In a 2009 op-ed he specifically described his mandate as a “tax penalty.” If not calling making you pay the government money as part of your tax returns a ‘tax’ is all it takes to make something ‘not a tax,’ than the ACA mandate would seem to be even less a tax than Romney’s mandate.

Romney may have been lying when he once called his mandate a tax penalty or he is lying now when he says his mandate is not a tax, but both can’t be true. Either way he lied at some point.

http://elections.firedoglake.com/2012/07/06/romneys-provable-lie-about-the-mandate/

[CosmicCowboy]

Romney’s Provable Lie About the Mandate

http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2012/07/pinocchio-300x216.jpg

Mitt Romney, though, seems to engage in telling immediate provable lies. The type of lies that can quickly and clearly be labeled a lie – with solid evidence. The most recent example: in an interview with Jan Crawford Mitt Romney said the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act was a tax, but the nearly identical mandate he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts is not a tax. Romney, “They don’t need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be constitutional. And — and as a result, Massachusetts’ mandate was a mandate, was a penalty, was described that way by the legislature and by me. And so it stays as it was.”

The thing is that Romney acknowledged on the record that his mandate is a tax penalty or results in those without insurance “finding their taxes are higher.” In a 2009 op-ed he specifically described his mandate as a “tax penalty.” If not calling making you pay the government money as part of your tax returns a ‘tax’ is all it takes to make something ‘not a tax,’ than the ACA mandate would seem to be even less a tax than Romney’s mandate.

Romney may have been lying when he once called his mandate a tax penalty or he is lying now when he says his mandate is not a tax, but both can’t be true. Either way he lied at some point.

http://elections.firedoglake.com/2012/07/06/romneys-provable-lie-about-the-mandate/

BFD

What you clearly missed was that Massachusetts was writing their health care law under the Massachusetts constitution and laws.

The ACA was written under the Federal Constitution and laws. The supreme court ruled. It's a tax.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol motherjones.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

BFD

What you clearly missed was that Massachusetts was writing their health care law under the Massachusetts constitution and laws.

The ACA was written under the Federal Constitution and laws. The supreme court ruled. It's a tax.

It can be considered a tax when reviewing constitutionality but it is a penalty from the vein of looking at laws. The court made that distinction clear.

Its a basic principle of review. When looking at government action in regards to the constitution or in the actions of people in regards to the law they do not have to look at labels. The reason should be obvious. If not for this then they could write laws change the words to appear to not be unconstitutional and get away with it.

People could write contracts using wording to try and circumvent the law in much the same way. The NFL tries to do it all the time by calling their restrictions of trade 'competitive balance' and for 60 years the court has been telling them they cannot just label things and have them ignore what their agreements do.

OTOH, as it pertains to legislatures writing laws and how they relate to other laws then the labels can be used. The laws are all their own creations so they can do with them as they please. The same holds true with any contracts that we may write.

The bottomline in this is that if you petition the court to review it in respect to the constitution then it can be viewed as a tax. You file the fucking 'penalty' with your tax return after all. But if you want to review it in respect to the law say the tax code then it's a penalty still.

So it is both a tax and a penalty at the same time.

[boutons_deux]

10 Things You Get Now That Obamacare Survived

1) Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime coverage limits on your insurance. Never again will you face the risk of getting really sick and then, a few months in, having your insurer tell you, "Sorry, you've 'run out' of coverage." Almost everyone I've met knows someone who had insurance but got really, really sick (or had a kid get really sick) and ran into a lifetime cap.

2) If you don't know someone who has run into a lifetime cap, you probably know someone who has run into an annual cap. The use of these will be sharply limited. (They'll be eliminated entirely in 2014.)

3) Insurers can no longer tell kids with preexisting conditions that they'll insure them "except for" the preexisting condition. That's called preexisting condition exclusion, and it's out the window.

4) A special, temporary program will help adults with preexisting conditions get coverage. It expires in 2014, when the health insurance exchanges—basically big "pools" of businesses and individuals—come on-line. That's when all insurers will have to cover everyone, preexisting condition or not.

5) Insurance companies can't drop you when you get sick, either—this plan means the end of "rescissions."

6) You can stay on your parents' insurance until you're 26.

7) Seniors get $250 towards closing the "doughnut hole" in their prescription drug coverage. Currently, prescription drug coverage ends once you've spent $2,700 on drugs and it doesn't kick in again until you've spent nearly $6,200. James Ridgeway wrote about the problems [12] with the doughnut hole for Mother Jones in the September/October 2008 issue. Eventually, the health care reform bill will close the donut hole entirely. The AARP has more on immediate health care benefits [13] for seniors. Next year (i.e., in nine months), 50 percent of the doughnut hole will be covered.

8) Medicare's preventive benefits now come with a free visit with your primary care doctor every year to plan out your prevention services. And there are no more co-pays for preventative services in Medicare.

9) This is a big one: Small businesses get big tax credits—up to 50 percent of premium costs—for offering health insurance to their workers.

10) Insurers with unusually high administrative costs have to offer rebates to their customers, and every insurance company has to reveal how much it spends on overhead.

UPDATE: Here's one more big benefit we've found out about since the ACA passed:

11) Free birth control [14] and other preventative services for women, unless you work for a faith-based organization that opposes birth control [15].

http://www.motherjones.com/print/183141