It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obamacare Slaps $15,000 Annual Fee on Middle Class Families

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Politicians live by polls when they run for election. Why do they ignore the will of the people when polls like these come out is beyond me.

I hope Reid reaps what he sows(BS) and the voters of Nevada show him the door.


No worries, most will be kicked to the curb starting in 2010. You're going to be surprised how many Dems will be out of jobs when the elections roll around.

Obama will be pretty lonely when he's finally given the boot in 2012. Of course, by then, his mission to destroy the middle class will be complete.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by jerico65]




posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bugstomper
 



We know Americans would rather pay billions for useless wars than help someone get Universal Healthcare! LOL!


Is this your assumption? Many Americans don't want to pay extra taxes for the war either.

If this is about getting millions of uninsured covered than why wait 5 years?

Why not pass a simple bill putting all the uninsured on medicaid, chips, medicare, and congresses plan IMMEDIATELY?

I would be more than glad to pay so that this can happen right now.

But t pass a piece of garbage that basically bribes different members of Congress, doesn't guarantee reduce premiums, doesn't guarantee that healthcare costs will come down is careless and unethical.

The only thing this plans guarantees is that we will pay more in taxes and healthcare will be one big mess because the bill is so confusing and left to open interpretation.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ChrisCrikey
 


Is not going to lower anything, all the bill is going to have is that no private insurance will deny coverage for pre existing conditions, the bill will increase cost on premiums by a 13% and the only people that will be gouged out of it is those that work and pay taxes.

So read again, the health care bill will not cut cost on health care all the propaganda about afordable insurance is a lie.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidMirage

That is because hell-care is a tax on living. The bastards are actually taxing life now. If you are alive, you pay the tax or go to jail. Then they hit you with the death tax. You are not even safe from having liberals/progressives rob you blind after you croak!

Progressives are a disease that needs to be eradicated, just like any other disease.


Don't like paying for the infrastructure of the USA?
Don't let the door hit you on your way to one of these.

Andorra Bahamas Brunei Kuwait
Maldives Monaco Nauru Oman
Qatar United Arab Emirates Vanuatu

However, the quality of your life will drop slightly.

If you don't have enough money to make yourself happy;
Work harder and smarter; This is America!

Half of a fortune can still be a fortune. \~/

On topic, I suppose if a child was hit by a car and the family is uninsured you would turn them away from treatment?
Have a heart and live in the real world.

The US signed on to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. But we are the only country that did not ratify the social and economic rights sections, including Article 25's right to health.

Universal health care is implemented in ALL industrialized countries, with the exception of the United States. Why is the American Health System like this? I would venture that somebody (making a 7 figure salary) figured out that they could make "some" money from caring for sick people.
(but he only kept 50% of the 7 figure salary after tax, boo friggin hoo.)



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Absum!
 





Universal health care is implemented in ALL industrialized countries, with the exception of the United States. Why is the American Health System like this? I would venture that somebody (making a 7 figure salary) figured out that they could make "some" money from caring for sick people.


Show me how this is going to reduce that 7 figure salary.

Show me how this is going to reduce premiums.

Show me how this is going to reduce healthcare costs.

Show me how this will give everybody healthcare.

It isn't that Americans don't want affordable healthcare for all. We do.

We just don't want a bill that doesn't do all of the above.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Absum!
 


America is the only industrialized nation that health care is privatized, where the health care industry and big pharma run the system, is not rregulated and dictate what government can do and no do.

Private insurance and big pharma rank on the top three on campaign donations in the nation to buy whores in Washington.

Private health care will never allow for consumers rights and choices, they have been doing very well with our buy out government for years.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by ChrisCrikey
 

the bill will increase cost on premiums by a 13% and the only people that will be gouged out of it is those that work and pay taxes.


Got a source on that hard 13%?
Because the NY times is not seeing it.
NYTimes today



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bigvig316
 


Oh, this is free healthcare.

For the people they are trying to buy their votes from.

The indigent, and those below the poverty threshold.

The people will paying for their own personal healthcare, and that of the indigents, millions of which are illegals. Those that are working for employers that do not withhold the proper taxes, including Medicare/Medicaid, which many of these people will derive benefits from, simply because they are illegal, and do not have a SS number.

The fact that they will cover illegals still remains, though they will try to deny this by way of semantics, because with the amnesty bill which is sure to pass immediately after this, all illegals will be legal, so they won't be covering illegals, just millions of legal illegals... yeah...

Not to mention, a news story I saw 12-22 that Harry Reid wrote into page 1020 of the bill that Congress will not be allowed to *ever* repeal any of this bill. This in itself is unconstitutional and borders on even being illegal, but hey, who cares? They get what they want, right?

And, if you refuse to pay your share, you face 5 years in prison. The fees for not paying are handled through the IRS, who has the power to prossecute you.

Let us not mention the potential for horrendous abuse that, if you do not buy the insurance plan and pay the $750 penalty, then get sick, you buy the coverage, get insurance while you are sick, then drop it till the next time. This all seems to be ok with this bill.


Buried in the amendment is a bombshell; there will be no way to amend parts of Obamacare. Apparently, Reid wants to make this bill something like a royal decree where no one can change what has already been wrought.

Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:

there's one provision that i found particularly troubling and it's under section c, titled "limitations on changes to this subsection."

and i quote -- "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

this is not legislation. it's not law. this is a rule change. it's a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

i'm not even sure that it's constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. i don't see why the majority party wouldn't put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.

i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses.



Get that? No repeal, no amendments, no nothing. That part of Obamacare is as set in stone as the idea that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It is unalterable - which, of course, means the entire bill is off limits.

The goal is to guard against the possibility that the GOP may win back the House and Senate some day and may wish to repeal or drastically alter Obamacare. In the dead of night, Harry Reid has turned the United States from a constitutional republic into a banana republic monarchy.

www.americanthinker.com...


How's that Hope N Change workin' for ya?



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Absum!
 



The bill will significantly increase federal healthcare spending - by about $185 billion in 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It will involve a substantial increase in taxes - by about $100 billion in 2019. It will compel everyone to buy healthcare, even the young and healthy, which ought to reduce costs.

But the political classes seem to have brought forth a miracle: According to the CBO (congressional budget), the plan will actually increase healthcare premiums for individuals and small business by an average of 10% to 13% in 2016.

The American healthcare system is already the most expensive in the world, at a total cost of nearly 17% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). After the better part of a year of effort by the Obama administration and Congress, one would have hoped that one result of this healthcare-system makeover would have been a measurable reduction in costs. Instead, this bill increases it. It's only a modest increase, to be sure. But it's still an increase.


moneymorning.com...



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Jam321, I read your earlier post and agreed with your thoughts.
However, this might not be the bill we want, but it is something. I have a background in finance in the health industry and charity care. We are on the cusp of disaster with our current system. Something must be done, you must realize that because you can see who is at the table on this; Insurance companies, hospital systems, physician groups, and the scared government rats.

It might not be pretty but after 50+ years and it must change.

The keeping 1/2 of the 7 figures was a rib on the other post.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
Oh, this is free healthcare.

For the people they are trying to buy their votes from.

The indigent, and those below the poverty threshold.

The people will paying for their own personal healthcare, and that of the indigents, millions of which are illegals. Those that are working for employers that do not withhold the proper taxes, including Medicare/Medicaid, which many of these people will derive benefits from, simply because they are illegal, and do not have a SS number.


Kind of like, "Read my lips." or "Family Tax Credit" of $600 buys votes.
Middle class is cheaply bought when you compare the values; free health care vs. $600 in hand.


Remember YOU and I are ALREADY supplying their free health care.
This could allow for collection of some funds FROM the "indigents".



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Absum!
 


I concur with what your saying.

I just don't see this bill helping Americans as much as they say it will.
Too many deals were made to ensure that everybody was kept happy. Americans will pay for this happiness.

Your avatar speaks volumes. If only we had true politicians like that one.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 



Community rating is designed expressly to redistribute the financial burden of ill health from the chronically unhealthy to the chronically healthy.

Whether or not one considers that fair is a political call.

But if community rating is embraced as part of health reform, it will tend to raise the premiums paid by young and very healthy people above what they might have to pay in a market that rates premiums on the individual’s health status. That is because the healthy would be subsidizing, through their premiums, the health care of sicker fellow citizens.

What typically is not much mentioned by the critics of the reform bills is the flip side of this effect, namely, that the legislation would also tend to reduce significantly the premiums paid for health insurance by chronically ill people.

Thus one could also quite legitimately write a lead editorial claiming that the health reform bills will “lower costs.”
Times

They say lower, you say higher.
It looks like political spin on all sides.
So much spin we will need a good deep



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Absum!
 


The only way I can see a recouping of funds from indigents would be if they passed Fair Tax. The indigents will not be paying for anything, and still get the free health care, so I do no understand your reasoning?



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Absum!
 


edit to remove double post...

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Libertygal]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Not to drift from topic, but yes tax reform is needed.
That is if we can keep this ship afloat.
If I had to chose a method it would be flat tax (like a sales tax).
It takes in proportion to consumption.

And on top of that, we should maybe stop just one war a year.
That would save plenty of cash to close the borders and pay for this bill.

Cheers!



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Absum!
 


But you miss my point. They don't wish to close the borders, they want them open to welcome more illegals to become legals under the new amnesty laws they are wanting to pass, to get votes from them.

This is the largest growing populous, the vote they are trying to buy. (Democrats) They are going to lose a majority of the middle class vote with this bill due to taxes and self sufficient people that already pay for their own health insurance.

They will lose a majority of the seniors with this bill due to cuts in Medicare/Medicaid.

They have to move the focus to another large group, and this is the one they chose. The illegals and the vulnerable youth that seem to want the government teat to support them. It seems quite transparent to me.

I know we are already paying for their health care (illegals), this is why the bill makes no sense. We are now going to pay for their healthcare AND their shiny new insurance plan, both of which will now be funded by you and I. This is why your statement confused me in the prior post. Hence, why I made the comment about Fair Tax being the only way I see the recoup from illegals.

Fair Tax/Flat Tax, either one, would be one on the most balancing things they could do, because then no IRS, and we would all pay at point of sales. No more hiding income under the tables by illegals or anyone else. It would also return an order of fairness to wages.

That, IMO is a major point in the issue. We have millions of people making a *lot* of money with no Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security/Federal withholding tax. Some of the money stays here for their survival, but most is sent out of the country to their families back home. We are left footing the bill.

Abolishing the IRS alone would save billions of dollars a year. So whats a few million more unemplyed? The government seems to like that idea.

It would be far more efficient to go to a Canadian/European system, abolish the IRS and Medicare/Medicaid (which is nothing but a funding project for pork barrel projects because the government continues stealing these funds from the people), abolish Federal/State withholding taxes and go Fair/Flat Tax.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 

I totally agree with you and I'm a lefty! Imagine that. Too bad Ross Perot was such unbalanced. I think Ron Paul is too much of an extremist too but I love the idea of a flat sales tax, get rid of all these ridiculous and expensive bureaucracies and have universal health care for all. As you said we're paying for a lot of other people's health care anyway and yes, by all means make the UDAs pay too.....um, am I still a lefty for saying that?





posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ChrisCrikey
 


Yeah you are still a lefty lol.


I wish Libertarians had a front runner. I wish Fair/Flat Tax got more face time on TV, but someone else already has that prize.

But seriously, if we are gonna do it, then lets do it right.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Heh. Just saw this:

spectator.org...

Now They Tell Us: CBO Double Counted Medicare Savings
By Philip Klein on 12.23.09 @ 12:15PM

After allowing Democrats for weeks to argue that their Medicare cuts would both help finance the new health care legislation and extend the solvency of Medicare, the Congressional Budget Office explained today that the bill could do one or the other, but not both at the same time.

The new memo, released after Democrats have already secured 60 votes, reads:

The key point is that the savings to the HI (Medicare Hospital Insurance) trust fund under the PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs. Trust fund accounting shows the magnitude of the savings within the trust fund, and those savings indeed improve the solvency of that fund; however, that accounting ignores the burden that would be faced by the rest of the government later in redeeming the bonds held by the trust fund. Unified budget accounting shows that the majority of the HI trust fund savings would be used to pay for other spending under the PPACA and would not enhance the ability of the government to redeem the bonds credited to the trust fund to pay for future Medicare benefits. To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position.


Via Say Anything.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, after conversing with CBO director Doug Elmendorf, said that without the revenue from the Medicare cuts, the bill would actually increase deficts by nearly $300 billion, FoxNews reports.

"Either you've weakened the Medicare substantially or you're going to have no money to spend on the new program that's being created," Sessions said. "You cannot spend this money twice."




First we have the "Global Warming Trick", now we have the "Healthcare Trick".



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join