Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Tax Prof: ObamaCare Tax Increases Are Double Original Estimate

page: 4
31
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Indigo5
 

This is what makes debating with you interesting. Your logic is maddening at times, but almost always logical.


That is because I have strong opinions that I work hard to restrain with logic and facts...with various levels of success depending on who you ask



Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Yes.. It's a Republican committee chairman and I agree that has to be taken into account in these times of partisan showmanship for the press and public. I also notice you don't give that undue weight and neither do I. Just noted...


The W&M committee issued an "accurate" report, given the parameters and methods employed...the dishonesty comes with how it is spun...whether it genuinely reflects what they claim it does etc.

The original CBO also issued an "accurate" report...and as you said they operate on a non-bias, non-political....data in, data out way...and only "calculate" what they are told to. I think it was politically advantageous for the Dems to request "impact" of Obamacare for only the first few years.

Just as it was advantageous for the GOP to forecast out to 2022 to get a big number.

And there was a few hundred Billion thrown in to the W&M committee report that seemed questionable by independant sources.

I think both reports contained byass...niether were aimed at objectivity, both were designed to support one or the other side of the debate.

AND yes...You are right...give or take a few hundred Billion...a Trillion seems to be a number that is close.


Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I tend to say this one is fairly center to the accuracy line because the claims would have everyone from Pelosi to Obama himself publicly furious and talking about it if they were too far off base. I think we can both agree there too. The numbers are likely fudged to the degree they can be in favor of the interests of the authors, but only so much.


Agreed...It is the "spin" on those numbers by various parties that kind of lights me up here.

The "doubling" of the estimate is accurate more or less...but so was the original estimate...No one is outright lieing...just using different date ranges and formulas.

at least that is what I have gotten thus far without digging deeper into pretty deep calculations.

edit on 14-3-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Actually Government subsidized military the irony.

Got to feed the private insurance behind Tricare, after all we retirees do not seem to pay enough.

Actually the government changed companies, now they are forcing us to pay more and soon the prime part of it is going to be strip away.

The government wants us now to go around and shop for private insurance and dump tricare.

This is the word of mouth within military retirees right now. You can find all the changes and new policies in the military news.com including the change on the prime side of the insurance, without the prime tricare will be as good as Medicaid but still have to pay for it.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Meanwhile, the cost cutting continues in an effort to build up for Obamacare funding...

One way or another...

The Obama administration is planning new cuts to Medicare, a federal regulatory filing reveals, cuts that could mean higher premiums or seniors losing their coverage altogether.

The new cuts come in the form of a planned reduction in the reimbursement rates the government pays to insurance companies that operate Medicare Advantage plans, which are services administered by private for-profit or non-profit providers that offer additional services than can be found in traditional Medicare


Many rely on the advantage program to fill the massive voids that exist in standard Medicare coverage.


In a Feb. 15 regulatory filing, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the surprised rate cuts of 2.3 percent – meaning it would pay health care providers 2.3 percent less for providing services to patients.

Medicare Advantage provides coverage for approximately 28 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries, offering them higher-quality services and additional benefits, such as vision and dental care, than the traditional government program at slightly higher cost.

The Obama administration already plans to cut the Medicare Advantage program by $200 billion as part of Obamacare. However, the proposed reductions it announced in February are new, and will cut the program in addition to the planned $200 billion in Obamacare cuts, most of which are delayed in 2014.


Nothing like a little Russian Roulette with our nation's growing Senior Citizen population.


In other words, if the Obama administration continues with its proposed new Medicare cuts, some or all of the 14 million seniors who get health care through the MA program could be negatively affected, that is, paying higher premiums or possibly losing coverage.

This is because the proposed cut could make the program unprofitable for insurers, who would be forced to either stop offering MA plans or pass the increased costs on to seniors in the form of higher premiums.

One health insurance provider told its shareholders that the proposed rate cuts could mean the end of Medicare Advantage all together.


cnsnews.com...

www.cms.gov...



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 




Nothing like a little Russian Roulette with our nation's growing Senior Citizen population.

That's what the formerly nonexistent now real 'death panels' are for.

No really, that's what they're for!



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
In other countries healthcare insurance is a lot cheaper than in the US.

In Germany for example you pay 14% of your monthly pay or up to a certain amount if you have a high income.

You get all treatments whenever you want or need without any additional costs. Need a new heart or hip? Fine. Cancer treatment, no problem. You can always go to the doctor of your choice, you wil get forwarded to a specialist if you have serious problems.

If you don't like that, you can get private healthcare insurance, if you earn enough money.

My father needed an artificial knee and if he had to pay that on his own, because of any loopholes in his insurance contracts, he would have gone broke.

Sure there are also flaws in the system, but in general people don't care much about healthcare in germany, because it's there, for everybody.
We have different companies, you can switch if you want who all work under a government plan, so that they compete and offer better treatments to get custumers. Since you always pay the same amount and never lose insurance, even when you're unemployed they want as many custumers as they can get, so business is tight for them.

On the other hand, they managed to make billions in profit which is put into a fond for balancing out bad years with high unemployment.

Most atomic powerplants in the US are government driven, why not offer an affordable government programm, where the working people benefit and not some stockholders of pharma companies?



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by sonnny1

IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family

Do you think the poor or "working poor" understand the real implications of it all? I don't.



Please use the Search function at the top right of your screen.

That little nugget of propaganda has been soundly debunked on these boards.



It STILL doesnt mean that those buying into the "other" propaganda, knows its implications...........

Nothing is free.




Forced to be part of, is STILL Forced, regardless on how some want to spin it. Too bad the Search function doesnt lead anyone to that Reality......




posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   
I could debunk misinformation all over this thread but i'll stick to the subject. Ive previously pointed out that the two comparisons used are for different periods. Not sure how i missed it but the two periods are:

2010-2019
vs.
2012-2022

Not only are they going further out, but they are comparing a 10 year period with an 11 year period as well.

Blatant misrepresentation from the get go.

This thread should be in the hoax bin if ATS had any integrity.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 



So you deny posting this?


I know the game you're playing. Look bro, people get paid for all kinds of things. You are trying your best to distract and distort because you don't want to focus on the reality of Obamacare. People are suffering, every tax payer got screwed, and you want to change the subject.

I'm making less this year in the Obama-economy. Every day I learn of more wasted money and more future expenses that taxpayers will have to shoulder. We can't spend or promise our way out of debt, my naive friend. It's time to face reality.


This thread was made to pass along the assertion that Obama was way off about the cost of the plan for the first 10 years. I am simply debunking this premise:




Tax Prof: ObamaCare Tax Increases Are Double Original Estimate


I personally think Obamacare is profit giveaway to the insurance companies. If you followed the debate in Congress you would know that Obama did not want it this way.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


You must have missed your response to me, one of the claims
you have posted into this thread is false, misinformed at best.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical

Anyone who read the article saw this already. As far as I am concerned insurance companies shouldn't even make a profit. It is no coincidence that medical costs started sky rocking when they started taking mutual (policyholder owned) insurance companies private.

Yes it is true, not very many years ago most health insurance companies were non-profit entities or they returned their profits to the policyholders. Things worked much better back then. Anyone over 50 years old is not being very honest in the whole health care debate in my opinion. Either that or by not being able to remember the past they really don't deserve a voice. Propose this now a days and people thing you have gone full blown communist when it is really a return to our original values.

edit on 13-3-2013 by sligtlyskeptical because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-3-2013 by sligtlyskeptical because: (no reason given)



I was insured by a non-profit once and it was AMAZING. I have long felt that simply forcing insurance companies to be non-profit & prohibit things like "pre-existing conditions" would go a long way in fixing things. Or at least helping.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 



So you deny posting this?


I know the game you're playing. Look bro, people get paid for all kinds of things. You are trying your best to distract and distort because you don't want to focus on the reality of Obamacare. People are suffering, every tax payer got screwed, and you want to change the subject.

I'm making less this year in the Obama-economy. Every day I learn of more wasted money and more future expenses that taxpayers will have to shoulder. We can't spend or promise our way out of debt, my naive friend. It's time to face reality.


This thread was made to pass along the assertion that Obama was way off about the cost of the plan for the first 10 years. I am simply debunking this premise:




Tax Prof: ObamaCare Tax Increases Are Double Original Estimate


I personally think Obamacare is profit giveaway to the insurance companies. If you followed the debate in Congress you would know that Obama did not want it this way.











Oh, boo-hoo, he didn't want it this way?

He signed it though, didn't he? So that makes him and every other FOOL that voted for it responsible for its effects, GOOD or BAD. And you CANNOT DENY everyone was misled about the true nature of the "Affordable Care Act" and its pitfalls, so stop trying to defend those responsible.

They rushed because they wanted credit for something that Libs have been aching to implement for decades. They weren't thinking about the pitfalls. They didn't care. Most knew they'd be out of this job long before this monstrosity really sinks its teeth into us.

No matter how much the projections are off, they ARE OFF, and it vindicates those of us who warned others in some manner that the price would be higher than what was on the sticker, and to demand that our elected representatives do more than just settle for something. If you can't fix it correctly, then it isn't fixed.

-Mordeen



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by TFCJay
 

You're probably right on that. It's not fully implemented and the main parts won't even be fully online until 2014, isn't it? That's where it should get interesting for the states like mine which have outlawed the Exchanges entirely or any participation in them...among other aspects of it.



Obama didn't fully implement it immediately because he knew he would be tarred and feathered! As it stands, with the incremental implementation, he has time to blame others and stall the freaked out masses.

Can't wait to hear the cries from the idiots that voted for him inspite of all the facts in their faces that they chose to ignore.
edit on 15-3-2013 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   
And in case anyone gets the idea that I have hoped it would fail so I could say I told you so, way wrong. But I worked in insurance for years. I tried to tell people, this is about insurance and insurance rates, NOT health care. But people don't want to listen. Unfortunately, the people who voted this genius in aren't the only ones who will 'benefit' from him and his party's idiocy. I personally think he and Pelosi should be stripped naked and dropped off in the middle of some Fiji island with hungry cannibals for neighbors, gigantic crocs, super sized mosquitoes and concentrated poison ivy for their indigenous flora and fauna. I love them so gosh darn much, I want them to have the very best.
edit on 15-3-2013 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

This is not true! The Government cant run anything efficiently!

All one must do to see this is take a look...at....

Social Security
Fannie Mae
Freddie Mac
Medicare
Medicaid
Cash for Clunkers
Fair Housing....

on and on ad nausem.....

what is your agenda in promoting such false claims???
edit on 14-3-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)


Medicaid and Medicare are both administered by private insurance companies. Due to government oversight they are also more efficient than private insurance companies , although medicaid is less efficient than Medicare.
The VA beats the pants off everyone else as far as costs and quality of care. Social security has been run as it should be as well, still running at a surplus. Do you think the investment houses would have done it better or cheaper? Housing agencies? Administratively cheaper than similar outfits. The problem is the crooks in office. But don't think that they steal more than the people from private companies do.


A closer look at the data shows that, contrary to Goodman and Saving’s claims, Medicare delivers health care more efficiently than private insurers. Medicare’s public accountability and bargaining power give it the ability to drive system change and control skyrocketing health care costs, while profit-driven private insurers have offered no solution.

healthaffairs.org...
edit on 15-3-2013 by sligtlyskeptical because: quotes
edit on 15-3-2013 by sligtlyskeptical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Anybody who buys into this crap is a murderer.
I will not pay for obamacare which makes me a abortionist by concent,
There are many evils in this lie and funding abortion is no1 .
I will not, and never will be forced to pay .
If it means the end of life as i know it, so be it, when they come i will deal with it in my own way.
Life is precious and i will not be a part of funding abortion .
the feds are on slippery ground and soon to slide into hell and i will watch



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   

"....the more likely response by firms is to not hire employees who are likely to need subsidies to cover their costs because that will mean the firm has to spend more on providing insurance to employees. Who are those employees likely to be? Lower-income folks and especially those who need more expensive family policies. In fact, the penalties are higher if the subsidized worker has a family. A prediction would be that more single moms will find themselves out of work; Once again, government intervention produces not only results the opposite of its intentions, but harms the most vulnerable in the process.

So that's Obamacare for you. Hurting everyone, but low income women with kids the most.


Read more: atr.org...
Follow us: @taxreformer on Twitter


Obamacare forces even MORE people to be dependant on the government. He doesn't want to help people get ahead, he wants the poor pool to be even bigger.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


You know what I hate hearing, is the goverment telling me that health cost is paid for by the goverment. I pay my insurance myself, not the goverment. They have never paid one dime of my health care cost. The sick part is, my insurance just got reduced because of Obama care. I always got the best and most expensive insurance so my family would be covered. Now there are no top plans. There is only crappy, and slightly less crappy. Why the goverment has screwed up the health care system is beyond me. I have to believe it is part of somthing much bigger.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I always thought this video was quite informative both in subtext and information

Tax Provisions



posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   
This is how I imagine a dialogue when reading the OP.

Victim: b-b-but....Obama said he wasn't going to increase taxes!!!!

Obama hypocrite apologist: LISTEN! Obama inherited a complete mess! You criticize him one more time and I'll have to use the R word... (racist)



edit on 17-3-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join