Seven new taxes on those making less than $250K

  1. 1 While we were all debating the cost to our liberty due to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), we were ignoring the cost to our pockets. If there ever was a reason for bipartisan rage about this law, it should be on the twenty - yes, twenty - hidden new taxes of this law. Making matters even more relevant is that seven of these taxes are levied on all citizens regardless of income. Hence, Mr. Obama's promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 is just another falsehood associated with this legislation.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...even-new-taxes
    Last edit by Joe V on Jul 3, '12 : Reason: added summary of article
  2. Visit  tntrn profile page

    About tntrn

    tntrn has '34' year(s) of experience and specializes in 'L & D; Postpartum'. From 'Washington'; 66 Years Old; Joined Nov '99; Posts: 8,574; Likes: 11,217.

    26 Comments so far...

  3. Visit  TopazLover profile page
    2
    I did try to read that rag. I lost interest in trying to see it their way when they use $80,000 as an adjusted income for middle class. Maybe I come from a land not unlike Viva's where salaries are not sky high, when employment is still sketchy. Sure we have many people who make enough to have and adjusted income of that much. We call them upper middle class. I don't have a great deal of sympathy when the piece starts out with lies and continues in that vein.

    The items listed are not taxes except for the first which is a tax courtesy of the Chief Justice, not Obama. The rest are not taxes, they are limits as to how much and in what ways you can spend money and call it medical.

    Sorry, that was as far as I could get without emesis. I have little tolerance for right wing shenanigans to try to manipulate reality to fit into their mold.

    If you can find a legitimate press I will try again. I rarely present people with left wing verbiage and I would appreciate the same courtesy.
    Not_A_Hat_Person and BCgradnurse like this.
  4. Visit  tntrn profile page
    1
    Here we go again. Long before this i asked what "rag" we could all agree on that would be considered neutral and acceptable. To date, no liberals have made a suggestion.The tax on tanning is a tax. Fhe HUGE 40% tax on the socalled cadillac plans is clearly tax. Honestly i cannot understand why, when you want everybody to have health care they can afford, why does that not also apply to those who can afford better coverage?It would be nice to disagree without the derision.
    jeannepaul likes this.
  5. Visit  azhiker96 profile page
    5
    I guess this depends on what the definition of "is" is. Some folks might not consider these changes in deductions to be increases in taxes. I think a person or family that ends up paying more income taxes would consider them to be increases.
  6. Visit  TopazLover profile page
    2
    Not_A_Hat_Person and azhiker96 like this.
  7. Visit  TopazLover profile page
    2
    Not_A_Hat_Person and herring_RN like this.
  8. Visit  azhiker96 profile page
    2
    Great link. I was not aware that if insurance premiums would exceed 8% of income then the penalty is waived. The current law and penalty structure would encourage me to NOT purchase insurance if it were not provided through work. Here's my reasoning.

    For my family the premium for health insurance would be $1500/mo according to the letter I received from my old employer when I recently changed jobs. My income is above the level at which the government would subsidize insurance so there's no help from Uncle Sugar. The penalty would be less than one month's premium.

    Since we are pretty healthy it would be much cheaper for me to just pay my primary cash for annual visits and use $4 prescriptions which are available. If something came up such as a cancer dx, all I have to do is sign up for coverage and I cannot be denied. Even if I were in an accident, I can keep an agent on speed dial and give them a call from the ambulance or my DW can make the call. Perhaps our ERs could start working with implied consent to purchase insurance for unconscious arrivals.

    In other words, the penalty/tax is way too low to entice 4 million people (CBO estimate) to purchase their own health insurance.

    That's 4 million healthy people who are not paying into the pool. Everyone with expensive pre-existing conditions will certainly sign up. Those who grudgingly sign up will be sure to head to their doctors and clinics for any little thing since they'll want to get value for the dollars they pay out every month. Somehow, I don't see how this will do anything to lower the cost of insurance.
    Last edit by azhiker96 on Jul 4, '12 : Reason: fixed a math error
    jeannepaul and tntrn like this.
  9. Visit  Tweety profile page
    1
    Quote from azhiker96
    Great link. I was not aware that if insurance premiums would exceed 8% of income then the penalty is waived. The current law and penalty structure would encourage me to NOT purchase insurance if it were not provided through work. Here's my reasoning.

    For my family the premium for health insurance would be $1500/mo according to the letter I received from my old employer when I recently changed jobs. My income is above the level at which the government would subsidize insurance so there's no help from Uncle Sugar. The penalty would be less than one month's premium.

    Since we are pretty healthy it would be much cheaper for me to just pay my primary cash for annual visits and use $4 prescriptions which are available. If something came up such as a cancer dx, all I have to do is sign up for coverage and I cannot be denied. Even if I were in an accident, I can keep an agent on speed dial and give them a call from the ambulance or my DW can make the call. Perhaps our ERs could start working with implied consent to purchase insurance for unconscious arrivals.

    In other words, the penalty/tax is way too low to entice 4 million people (CBO estimate) to purchase their own health insurance.

    That's 4 million healthy people who are not paying into the pool. Everyone with expensive pre-existing conditions will certainly sign up. Those who grudgingly sign up will be sure to head to their doctors and clinics for any little thing since they'll want to get value for the dollars they pay out every month. Somehow, I don't see how this will do anything to lower the cost of insurance.

    You're presuming the worst in people. Most people will obey the law. That's what most Americans do. I'm too lazy to link but there's an estimate of only about 1.5 or something less than 2 million people will be so shady as to do what you describe. But it is an enticing idea. Personally, I'll keep my insurance, obey the law and sleep well at night.

    I wonder what's the worse of the evils...making people that can afford it when it's offered take it and seeing probably 75% of them do just that...or continue to allow them to be wards of the state when something catastrophic happens....or blow off bills say for something "simple" like a broken leg but gives them a bill in the thousands they have no intention of paying.
    Last edit by Tweety on Jul 4, '12
    TopazLover likes this.
  10. Visit  TopazLover profile page
    2
    healthy people can rack up some huge bills. My late DH had a knee replaced. Other than that he was in great shape. Three months later, almost to the day I took him to ER with difficulty breathing. 2 weeks later he was dead. His bills totaled about 1/3 million dollars. Healthy man, dead at age 51. If we did not have insurance I don't know what would have happened. I doubt they would have tried as hard or done so many tests. In the end he died but suppose he lived and insurance decided not to pay. Or we did not have insurance because after all we were both in good health so we did not need insurance. The cost of insurance is to cover those who do not think they need it, but do not want to burden anyone with a huge bill. I am thankful I choose to continue insurance. His death was enough of a burden. I certainly did not need bills I could not pay, nor would I have wanted to skip out on those bills. The hospitals did a wonderful job, the doctors and nurses were wonderful. If I did not pay, and you don't pay because you figure you are healthy, and others do the same you won't have to worry about the taxes. You will have bigger worries.
    Not_A_Hat_Person and herring_RN like this.
  11. Visit  azhiker96 profile page
    0
    Quote from Tweety
    You're presuming the worst in people. Most people will obey the law. That's what most Americans do. I'm too lazy to link but there's an estimate of only about 1.5 or something less than 2 million people will be so shady as to do what you describe. But it is an enticing idea. Personally, I'll keep my insurance, obey the law and sleep well at night.

    I wonder what's the worse of the evils...making people that can afford it when it's offered take it and seeing probably 75% of them do just that...or continue to allow them to be wards of the state when something catastrophic happens....or blow off bills say for something "simple" like a broken leg but gives them a bill in the thousands they have no intention of paying.
    The law says that people can either purchase health insurance or they can chose to pay the tax. I'm not suggesting that folks are going to break the law. They will do what makes the best economic sense to them. From the link in aknottedyarn's post, the CBO estimates that 1.2% of the population, 4 million people, will chose to pay the tax in 2016.

    Why do you think that many people would chose to pay a tax which provides no coverage versus just purchasing health insurance which does provide benefits?

    I'm just suggesting that people will game the system if it gives them an economic advantage. I think people should all have health insurance. There's just some problems with the law that the CBO recognizes.

    Here's the link again. CBO Estimates Only 1.2% of Americans Will Have to Pay Healthcare Penalty ‹ I Acknowledge Class Warfare Exists
    Last edit by azhiker96 on Jul 5, '12
  12. Visit  azhiker96 profile page
    0
    AKY, with the new health care bill someone could purchase health insurance online while waiting for the ambulance. I have health insurance through my job and have always paid my bills including paying for my daughter's birth when we didn't have insurance. Everyone should have health insurance but I can easily see why the CBO estimates 3 million people at or below 500% of poverty level will chose to pay the tax instead.
  13. Visit  Tweety profile page
    0
    Quote from azhiker96
    The law says that people can either purchase health insurance or they can chose to pay the tax. I'm not suggesting that folks are going to break the law. They will do what makes the best economic sense to them. From the link in aknottedyarn's post, the CBO estimates that 1.2% of the population, 4 million people, will chose to pay the tax in 2016.

    Why do you think that many people would chose to pay a tax which provides no coverage versus just purchasing health insurance which does provide benefits?

    I'm just suggesting that people will game the system if it gives them an economic advantage. I think people should all have health insurance. There's just some problems with the law that the CBO recognizes.

    Here's the link again. CBO Estimates Only 1.2% of Americans Will Have to Pay Healthcare Penalty ‹ I Acknowledge Class Warfare Exists
    Perhpas I'm confused then that's it's 1.2% rather than 1.2 million. Still in my mind a 98.8% compliance/or not applicable is still pretty good.

    As Romney says "all the Supreme Court said was it's not unconstitutional, but it's still bad policy."

    No matter how it plays out...as written or if Romney is elected and it's dismantled someone is going to get screwed, someone is going to be unhappy, someone is going to take advantage and profit.

    No one in my facility, that takes care of a lot of unfunded patients (unfunded means no funds...no insurance, no medicare/aide, doesn't quality for anything, no help from the county...we eat the cost) is getting a raise this year, so perhaps I'm leaning towards one direction whereas someone affected in another way will lean another. Not all of us are going to be happy, some of us are going to be helped, some of us are going to feel it the pocketbook, some of us are going to be hurt.
    Last edit by Tweety on Jul 5, '12
  14. Visit  Jolie profile page
    1
    Quote from azhiker96
    The law says that people can either purchase health insurance or they can chose to pay the tax. I'm not suggesting that folks are going to break the law. They will do what makes the best economic sense to them. From the link in aknottedyarn's post, the CBO estimates that 1.2% of the population, 4 million people, will chose to pay the tax in 2016.

    Why do you think that many people would chose to pay a tax which provides no coverage versus just purchasing health insurance which does provide benefits?

    I'm just suggesting that people will game the system if it gives them an economic advantage. I think people should all have health insurance. There's just some problems with the law that the CBO recognizes.

    Here's the link again. CBO Estimates Only 1.2% of Americans Will Have to Pay Healthcare Penalty ‹ I Acknowledge Class Warfare Exists
    Keep in mind that the law also waives the penalty (tax) for individuals and families that don't qualify for government subsidies but also don't make enough money to afford insurance. So there will be individuals who are uninsured and are financially incapable of making that phone call from the ambulance to purchase their post-accident or post-illness coverage, essentially a continuation of the same situation those folks are in now.
    azhiker96 likes this.


Nursing Jobs in every specialty and state. Visit today and Create Job Alerts, Manage Your Resume, and Apply for Jobs.

Top
close
close