HEALTH LAW TAXES: TO REPEAL OR NOT TO REPEAL?

Far West

Far West

Pursuit Driver
We are being taxed unconstitutionally...

It's a trillion-dollar dilemma - actually closer to $1.1 trillion. That's the 10-year price tag the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office puts on revenue the government would lose if the law's taxes on wealthy people, the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and others were eliminated.
<snip>
"We should do full repeal," said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a leading House conservative. "And full repeal means not taking the taxes" from people.

Yet voiding those levies erases a mammoth war chest Republicans would love to have - and may well need - as they try replacing Obama's law. Greedy SOB's
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-02-11-08-24-50
 
I'm not even wealthy, and for two years I had to pay a penalty tax because I did not have insurance for the "full year." I chose not to go on obama care, then later my employer offered a really shitty plan. I was without coverage from August to August.

I knew I had some medical I needed done, and the crappy insurance I could purchase from my employer would not pay for what I needed because it had a $15,000 out of pocket... then it only paid 60%... efff that. I chose use the $5000 I would have paid over the year on worthless insurance through my employer, to cover my medical care.

I paid for my medical needs with my own money. I paid more than $5000, but I could only afford to by not paying the $5000 in insurance payments which the government mandated we purchase.

Then the government taxed me for taking care of my own medical needs!

I am tired of being a responsible citizen, then having to pay for others who are gaming the system...
 
If 0bama care is repealed...
Another interesting article:

Claim #1: 20 million people will lose health care if ACA is repealed.
...among the purported 20 million who obtained health insurance through the ACA, 16 million are on Medicaid, and if ACA were repealed today, they’d still be on Medicaid,” <snip> ...75% qualified for Medicaid before the ACA. The only reason they didn’t have Medicaid before the ACA was because they hadn’t applied for it. Loosers?
<snip>“20 million” who would lose coverage if Obamacare is repealed is “more like four million.”

I think more than 4 million of us lost our healthcare with the change to 0bama care... I know I did. The number in 2013 was that 4.7 million had their plan cancelled.(Add the people who lost coverage when they lost jobs... and could find no job in the 0bama economy.)
Below a 2013 article that used that same 4.7 million:
This chart shows that at least 4.7 million Americans received the cancellation notices.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/policy-notifications-current-status-state-204701399.html


Read more... 4 other claims debunked
Claim #2: Healthcare is a right.
Claim #3: People go without healthcare if they have no insurance
Claim #4: 52 million people with pre-existing conditions could lose coverage if Obamacare is repealed.
Claim #5: People need health insurance to obtain routine healthcare.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-claims-government-run-healthcare-proponents/
 
It doesn't take 22,000 pages to decide how to handle this.

Question 1: Should we subsidize healthcare and coverage costs for the poor?

Question 2: If yes, define "poor" for the purpose of receiving a taxpayer subsidy - 100% of the poverty level, 125% of the poverty level, or 150% of the poverty level for the family size.

Question 3: What maximum percentage of a "poor" family's income (including other subsidies) should be spent on healthcare and coverage? - 15%, 20%, or 25%

Answer: Prebate a refundable tax credit to each household that meets all the above criteria in an amount equal to their anticipated costs based upon actuarial data minus their percentage of income contribution. Make them account for their actual expenditures on next year's taxes, and adjust accordingly every year.

Question 4: How do we pay for this program? X% payroll tax, X% income tax, X% retail sales tax, or a combination? X= the percentage required to pay for the entire program without borrowing. This tax may increase or decrease, but no other source of funding is allowed. Publicize how much each person will be expected to pay around tax time every year. Call it out on tax forms. No hiding the tax in corporate taxes of any kind. Make sure everyone knows that "free" healthcare is nothing like free. After a few years see if they still want government sponsored healthcare coverage.
 
lotstodo said:
It doesn't take 22,000 pages to decide how to handle this.

Question 1: Should we subsidize healthcare and coverage costs for the poor?

Question 2: If yes, define "poor" for the purpose of receiving a taxpayer subsidy - 100% of the poverty level, 125% of the poverty level, or 150% of the poverty level for the family size.

Question 3: What maximum percentage of a "poor" family's income (including other subsidies) should be spent on healthcare and coverage? - 15%, 20%, or 25%

Answer: Prebate a refundable tax credit to each household that meets all the above criteria in an amount equal to their anticipated costs based upon actuarial data minus their percentage of income contribution. Make them account for their actual expenditures on next year's taxes, and adjust accordingly every year.

Question 4: How do we pay for this program? X% payroll tax, X% income tax, X% retail sales tax, or a combination? X= the percentage required to pay for the entire program without borrowing. This tax may increase or decrease, but no other source of funding is allowed. Publicize how much each person will be expected to pay around tax time every year. Call it out on tax forms. No hiding the tax in corporate taxes of any kind. Make sure everyone knows that "free" healthcare is nothing like free. After a few years see if they still want government sponsored healthcare coverage.
Click to expand...
That killed that plan. Everyone knows the gov't doesn't push personal accountability and that if you receive a subsidy you don't have to be accountable for squat so that plan won't work. Good idea but not workable.
 
J-man said:
That killed that plan. Everyone knows the gov't doesn't push personal accountability and that if you receive a subsidy you don't have to be accountable for squat so that plan won't work. Good idea but not workable.
Click to expand...
It also won't allow illegals to receive the subsidy because they don't file taxes. The Dems would kill that for sure, right? Imagine making everyone who receives a subsidy file taxes to continue receiving it, and having to justify their tax credit just like you and I. That's probably racist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top