Politics Obamacare

I'm sorry you see it that way.

I dont claim to be an expert on the law, but I have followed it closely and have tried to explain it as best I understand it with facts, particularly in response to the gross purposeful (IMO) misrepresentation and fear mongering (like the 16,000 IRS agents, the death panels, the largest middle class tax increase in 50 years, etc.) that seem to be part of most every conservative reaction.

 

I don't see this as the flip side of "Democrat = Socialist" it's just pointing out that the right is turning more and more to lies and fear mongering than facts. I had a conservative friend send me this in a recent e-mail-




I went through it point by point, nearly everything in red is either misleading or a flat out lie. I have no doubt this is making the rounds to every tea bag in box in the US. Many will agree with it 100% when about 85% of it is complete bull shit.

 

I think my concerns is in regard to the unnecessary step of Obamacare. Everyone knows it is a hybrid system that is going to need major fixes, many even acknowledged that they wanted to get a bill passed and then fix it later as needed. A single payer system could have gotten a majority vote in both the House and Senate at the time Obamacare was passed. Democrats were not willing to fight for it for some reason, do you know why? Simply saying it would have been difficult to do is a b.s. response - saying there is opposition is a b.s. response.

People I talk to don't understand the law, why isn't anyone making an effort to clarify all aspects of the law - good and bad?

 

Ace....it is simply false that Democrats could have passed a single payer system. Sixty votes were needed to block a Republican filibuster and I can name at least 4-5 Senate Democrats against it - Lincoln in Ark., Landrieu in La.; Nelson in Fla., Nelson in Neb., Tester in Mont. and others.

Why do you persist in making bs claims that a tax of 2 cents on dollar (2.3%) on sale of medical devices would discourage innovation?

Why do others post bs about 15,000 IRS agents potentially harassing them?
--- merged: Jul 3, 2012 at 12:53 PM ---
The Democrats could have passed a single payer system? Sen. Bernie Sanders put it more bluntly than I did:

I would suggest he had a better sense of the positions of his colleagues than either of us.

 

I clearly did not say I know what could have happen, I asked why didn't Democrats fight for single payer. Obamacare passed 60-39, if single payer faced a 55/56 to 45/46 margin, I am thinking it can get done. We both know how votes happen, in some cases once enough votes are available those in a party needing cover can vote against the party leadership suffering no consequences. Otherwise face extreme pressure to support legislation that might hurt re-election possibilities. Isn't it simply true that Obama simply was not willing to fight for single payer? I know his views have not been clear.

Because if the tax cuts profits, that money will not be available for reinvestment and R&D. If the tax is passed on to consumers innovative products will be less affordable and people will be less likely to purchase. Wheelchairs range in price from about $400 up to $14,000. 2.5% of $14,000 is another $350. If a person needing a wheelchair faces up to $350 out of pocket (perhaps after deductible), that may become a real barrier for that person - how is the tax helpful???

In my view the game is to load the system up with what they think people will consider to be small meaningless taxes, and then continuously raise the rates over time - if 2.5% is ok, why not 3% - if 3% is ok, why not 3.5%, etc. I don't trust them - the lack of trust contributes to an environment of uncertainty. If I am a medical devise maker, given the fact that my industry gets singled out for a special tax, I play it real conservative realizing that investment and R&D is at risk on a new level with the government's unnecessary involvement.

 

So it sounds to me that what you are really saying is that Bernie Sanders was just wrong when he said a single payer only had the support of 8-10 Senators? He didnt think it could get done, but you do.

I'm pretty sure that the tax exempts wheelchairs and other medical devices that are "purchased by the general public at retail for personal use."

 

He has his view, I have mine...o.k., now what? Is Sander's next campaign slogan gonna be, "I can't get it done, vote for me"? If he has a defeated attitude he should resign! I really don't get the way you think.

Again you seem to miss the point.

Since you bring up retail sales for medical devices, seems to me with state and local sales taxes some with being paying about 10% in taxes for a purchase.

 

If you want to put your knowledge of the inner workings of the Senate and what is achievable over that of a sitting Senator, there is really nothing more to be said other than I think it either arrogance or ignorance on your part.
It is hardly a defeatest attitude to get the best legislation you can over no legislation at all.

I dont think I missed the point. You changed the goal posts again, after your point about adding to the cost of wheelchairs was made moot.

BTW, in many (most) states, medical/health related items are exempt from state sales tax.

 

I'm confused. Who is paying the tax on medical devices?
--- merged: Jul 3, 2012 at 10:35 PM ---

85%...really?

People are forced to buy insurance. If they don't, then they can't get their refund or have to pay extra tax. Its already happening here in MA. I have to supply my insurance info on my state tax returns. I basically can't file if I don't have any and we all know what happens if you don't file. I'd say that is "forced" and I don't see a difference with this new law.
As far as 10 million new people and no new doctors...that's not inaccurate. If you want to split hairs about how many millions, go ahead. Average time to train new physicians is about 12 years. So all these people with new found insurance will have a tough time finding a physician to be their PCP, so off they go to the ER, as they always have, and ring up high medical bills. Not making much traction there...
Congress didn't read it before it was passed. IIRC, it was Pelosi herself who said, to paraphrase, pass it then we'll read it. Congress did exempt themselves from it. I know that has since changed, but they did what they did... And why are all those big corporations getting a pass on this anyway? I seem to recall a lot of big companies getting exemptions, but no small ones seem to qualify.
The president does smoke and the surgeon general is fat.
Social security and medicare aren't officially bankrupt, but are pretty damn close.
The country is broke. Whats the deficit now?

Not 100% accurate, but no where near 85% BS.

I believe that it is perfectly reasonable to heavily question this new law. Its what...2000+ pages...or 1000+...I forget. The point is, we don't know what else is hiding in there. I'm not going to take it on blind faith simply because my party of choice says its a good idea.

Neither side has all the answers and resorting to name calling is the lowest common denominator. When it comes to the government, questioning everything is a good idea. Falling along party lines is a recipe for disaster.

 

The tax is on the manufacturers, but Ace suggested it would be passed on to consumers when in fact medical devices that are produced for personal use are exempt.

i would certainly put most of the Republican arguments close to 85% total bs or at the very least gross exaggerations.

The members of Congress not reading the bill is a one of those non-issues to me. Having worked in the Senate for two years, I know most Senators never read full comprehensive and complex bills. They are given detailed section-by-section summaries and briefings w/Q&A by staff who wrote the bills.

Why? Because, in fact, most major legislation is impossible to read because much of the wording simply amends existing US Code. Just to give one example this law...the provision ending the donut hole on Medicare prescription drugs:

Section 1904(e)(2) of the Social Security Act [40USC1396(e)(14)] as amended...by striking "No Type" and inserting subject to Paragraph 1:....​

You dont even want to read this entire paragraph.

--- merged: Jul 4, 2012 3:31 AM ---
On second thought, maybe posting the entire paragraph will make more sense.


Section 1902(e)(14) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396a(e)(14)), as amended by subsection (b)(1), is further amended—
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘No type’’ and inserting
‘‘Subject to subparagraph (I), no type’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
‘‘(I) TREATMENT OF PORTION OF MODIFIED ADJUSTED
GROSS INCOME.—For purposes of determining the income
eligibility of an individual for medical assistance whose
eligibility is determined based on the application of modified
adjusted gross income under subparagraph (A), the
State shall—
‘‘(i) determine the dollar equivalent of the difference
between the upper income limit on eligibility
for such an individual (expressed as a percentage of
the poverty line) and such upper income limit increased
by 5 percentage points; and
‘‘(ii) notwithstanding the requirement in subparagraph
(A) with respect to use of modified adjusted
gross income, utilize as the applicable income of such
individual, in determining such income eligibility, an
amount equal to the modified adjusted gross income
applicable to such individual reduced by such dollar
equivalent amount.’’.

When a new law has provisions that are counter to, or update, existing law, the US Code must be amended. It is not pretty, but that's how it works. It is all about "striking this from the Code and inserting this in its place."

 

I think that it is generally a safe bet that regardless of the details of a particular set of accusations, that the people who ostensibly benefit from the conservative media machine are all much more guilty of the things they accuse their enemies of doing than are any of their enemies.

 

Wow.
That is a stunning piece of...I don't know what it is but its beautiful.
Tax is on the manufacturers...check
Ace suggested it would be passed on to the consumers...check
but devices that are produced for personal use are exempt...huh?

So the manufacturers are required to differentiate between the items to be sold for personal use vs the rest of the stuff for tax purposes? So basically the stuff sold to hospitals, nursing homes and the like are subject to the tax and that helps bring health care costs in line exactly how? And none of this gets passed onto the consumer?

2000+ pages of this? For what, a dozen or so talking points mentioned in this thread? There is more in there than they are telling us and if they aren't telling us, its not good for us.

 

You asked where the revenue comes from and this is one piece of it. There are components to the bill that are to expand coverage, provide greater patient protections and constrain (and ultimately bring down) costs. And there are components to pay for it. If you think a tax of 2 cents on the dollar on a handful cf of companies (eg Johnson & Johnson is the largest) making healthy profits is too much, then we disagree.

Complex issues require complex solutions.

Questioning is good. So is reading the numerous objective sources that are available and not passing on gross misrepresentations, particularly of the fear-mongering type.

What I find frustrating and disingenuous is the refusal by some (and one here in particularly) to accept responses that are factual, and not just opinion, that are counter to their (his) rigid ideology.

 

I asked where the revenue is coming from and you gave a convoluted answer that made no sense. I don't care about what you wrote after the above quote.

Explain this statement please.

 

I honestly dont know how to explain it any better. It is not a consumer tax. It will not add to the cost of wheelchairs as Ace suggested.

As I said, if you think a tax on MRI equipment at 2 cents on the dollar will ultimately be a burden on consumers, I disagree. Consumers will also be getting coverage for pre-existing conditions, free (no co-pay) preventive care, no more recisions or of having their insurance canceled when they come down with a significant illness, no more lifetime limits, new medical loss ratios (no more than 15/20% of consumer premiums can be used for admin costs/profits)....

The bulk of the revenue in the bill is an added 0.9% Medicare tax on the top taxpayers. I am fine with that. You may not like it.

There is a 10 percent tax on tanning salons. Great. I am not a fan of artificial tanning. You may disagree.

 

Agreed. They also require full explanations is simple terms.

Again, agreed. Questioning is good. All questioning. Where are these "objective" sources you speak of? There are no "objective" sources in the media that I'm aware of. They all lean one way or the other.
Are they gross misrepresentations because they are uninformed or simply because you don't believe in them?

​

​

To be honest here, you aren't exactly being a paragon of open mindedness on this issue. Your insistence on calling opposition views fear mongering and the adherents practicing rigid ideology are ringing a little hollow at this point.

Now I have learned a lot about this law in the short time I have been participating in this thread and I thank all for your insights and explanations. I do believe there are provisions in this law that make sense. I also believe there is still much to learn about how this will affect the average person. I don't believe the D's have all the answers and the R's don't seem to be asking the right questions.
--- merged: Jul 4, 2012 at 2:27 AM ---

Its a tax. When in the history of this country did a tax not get passed onto the consumer?
--- merged: Jul 4, 2012 at 2:33 AM ---

That's a significant chunk of change. You know what those retail for? They ain't cheap. A burden, probably not. Its not like hospitals go through those like gauze.

Good

Personally, I think they should be banned but hey...its their bodies. People want to look well done, that's their business.

 

Start with the non-partisan CRS and/or CBO section-by-section summary of the law. Or reputable sources like the Kaiser Foundation (The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation - Health Policy, Media Resources, Public Health Education & South Africa - Kaiser Family Foundation).

Statements like death panels, govt rationing health care, socialized medicine, 16,000 IRS agents, biggest middle class tax increase in 50 years.... by otherwise informed people are factual incorrect, to say the least and fear-mongering to be more accurate.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think I try to focus on facts (see above re: fear mongering v facts)

By that measure, every corporate tax is a tax on consumers. I disagree.

 

Congress did not exempt themselves, that's merely another BS right wing talking point-

Congress Exempted From Obamacare? | We the People

The waivers issue was debunked last Dec._

FactCheck.org : Health Care Law Waivers

Social Security is not bankrupt-

Fact Check: Social Security, Health Care and More - NYTimes.com

How many bills pass through the Senate without being read? A shit ton. So that's a BS compliant unless you're just talking about the way the body does it's job in general and not just bitching about this bill.

Yes, the POTUS used to smoke but reportedly hasn't in the last year-


Yes, he did: first lady says Obama quit smoking| Reuters

So yes the Surgeon General is over weight. But if that's how we decide who to listen to on health issue we can ignore anything a bunch of folks on the right say. Christie, Rush.. these names ring a bell? At least the Surgeon General is actually a doctor. I trust her opinions on health issues before most of the folks spouting off right wing talking points.

I'd say that makes about 15% of the claims made to be accurate.

 

So it's a job creation program too.