Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > ObamaCare
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

ObamaCare Discuss ACA & your TAX Refunds, get it right. at the General Forum; Originally Posted by AZRWinger Selling health insurance across state lines without the heavy hand of Obamacare overseers, fosters competition and ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 10-02-2014, 08:56 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,316 Times in 1,842 Posts
Default Re: ACA & your TAX Refunds, get it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Selling health insurance across state lines without the heavy hand of Obamacare overseers, fosters competition and gives people choices of which policy suits their needs. As we saw with the limited Obamacare implementation so far the ACA one size fits all approach where bureaucrats dictate the policy you must buy caused a huge dislocation of around 6 million insured. When the Employer goes in that number will sky rocket. Allowing interstate competition would avoid the chaos.

Of couse none of this will work without reforming Obamacare by repealing it root and branch.
Working from memory the federal exhanges offered "bronze, silver, gold and platimum" plans each of which had dozens of possible choices under each. That's hardly a "one-size-fits-all" proposition. The ACA provided the person with numerous options for health insurance although I believe more should have been offered.

For example a high deductable insurance plan with a mandatory HSA where only limited withdrawals could be made to cover deductables would have been on my list but the combined costs for these (i.e. insurance and HSA) is roughly the same as purchasing high quality health insurance and paying cash for services. The only advantage is if the person doesn't need to use the HSA account as it can provide retirement income.

There has always been numerous insurance company selections in America to choose from with over 1400 different health insurance providers. It is true that nationally that only about four companies dominated but there has never been a shortage of insurance companies for Americans to pick from.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 10-03-2014, 07:16 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 19,751
Thanks: 13,323
Thanked 14,556 Times in 8,396 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: ACA & your TAX Refunds, get it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
I would suggest you study the history of Medicaid.



The History of Medicaid - GoMedicare.com

The historical problem with Medicaid was that it didn't cover all of those that could not "afford health services or insurance on their own" because the Federal and State governments did not adequately fund it.

The expansion of Medicaid under the ACA provided the funding necessary to provide health care to those that had not been previously able to pay for health care services or insurance and that, because of this, were not receiving those medical services.



Nor did the ACA attempt to do this. What would have done this was the single-payer system that House Democrats proposed in 2009. While I don't have an exact percentage I believe the ACA only addresses about 20% of Americans and perhaps less and most of those are covered by private insurance either based upon individual policies or by group insurance mandates under the provisions of the ACA.



The new Medicare/Medicaid tax of 3.8% on net investment income was imposed on Jan 1, 2013. This was based upon the 3.8% Medicare/Medicaid tax that "unearned income" was previously exempted from so it is merely imposing the same tax on "unearned income" that every worker, including minimum wage workers, have been paying in the past. The tax only applies to high income investment individuals and does not apply to low income investment incomes. While it does include some below the top 1% of income earners it doesn't include anyone below the top 5% of income earners.

http://health.burgess.house.gov/uplo...dicare_tax.pdf

I have stated that the costs of medical services are not linked to the funding for those medical services. In short whether a person pays for a medical service with Medicaid, Medicare, or private insurance doesn't technically affect the actual cost (but can affect the reimbursement for the cost).



So you start out with the claim that the number of people that will receive medical services increased with the ACA (including the expansion of Medicaid) after previously stating that no one was being denied medical services previously. Sorry but you can't have it both ways.

No, the ACA does not limit the number of doctors or medical professionals in America. Those numbers are limited by the available seats in our medical colleges and not by the ACA or any other government program. Logically if we want to expand the number of medical professionals we need more colleges that provide medical degrees and that requires more State and/or Federal funding. Do you support more government funding for colleges? It would also be highly helpful to fund college students seeking a medical career instead of our current "for profit" student loan program. If a bank can borrow money for about 1/2% then why can't a medical student borrow at the same interest rate?

A person can select any doctor they want based upon the provisions of their insurance plan and they had a choice of insurance plans under the ACA. A person on Medicaid can use any doctor they want that is willing to accept Medicaid.

"Political appointees" cannot deny medical services to treat an illness although they will be able to limit some Medicare treatments but only if another viable treatment option is available for the person. The limitations can only be imposed based upon clinic trials and are not arbitary decisions. There is no such thing as a "death panel" that Republicans have often referred to. Of course private insurance also limited possible treatment options in the past as well based upon the same criteria.

There are no "quotas" involved. Where do these silly ideas originate.

There have been no recorded cases of any significant delays in treatment based upon the ACA nor are any really anticipated. This was a myth created by Fox News I assume.

You keep complaining about Medicaid not covering everyone when there are about 4 million people eligible under the old guidelines who didn't sign up. Obamacare simply redefines the income level for Medicaid upward by 40% and offers a bait and switch funding scheme to states that accept, total Federal funding for 3 years after the hook is set the states must act as tax collectors for Uncle Sugar.

I had forgotten about the 3.8% disincentive to invest tax on the idiotic termed unearned income. That will not pay for Medicaid expansion over the long term especially if everyone signed up.

Obama repeated the claim the ACA would provide high-quality affordable health care to all Americans often. Now that it is obvious it will not, the acrimonious Democrats whine about single payer as if Democrats were not responsible for Obamacare. The ACA was passed on a party line vote, the reason it is not single payer is because Democrats would not support single payer.

The ACA has prompted a significant percentage of doctors to simply stop practicing medicine. It fists insurance with so called narrow networks on policy holders increasing the number of patients per doctor. It clogs medical facilities with people getting "free" screenings reducing availability for the sick. It imposes a new tax on medical devices. Fewer doctors available, longer wait times for facilities and tests, my what progress from the ACA.

Perhaps the most damaging lie of Obamacare is the claim politicians sitting on death panels cannot deny care. President Obama, with no medical expertise whatsoever, pronounced the pill for the pain superior to the operation. It is absurd to suggest the petty tyrants on the ACA board will do no less.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 10-03-2014, 11:06 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,316 Times in 1,842 Posts
Default Re: ACA & your TAX Refunds, get it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
You keep complaining about Medicaid not covering everyone when there are about 4 million people eligible under the old guidelines who didn't sign up. Obamacare simply redefines the income level for Medicaid upward by 40% and offers a bait and switch funding scheme to states that accept, total Federal funding for 3 years after the hook is set the states must act as tax collectors for Uncle Sugar.
It is true that there were millions of Americans that were eligible under the conventional Medicaid Guidelines and many of those did enroll because of the ACA and that's a good thing that the ACA caused to happen. At the sametime the expansion did increase the qualification requirements to include millions of others that also fit the criteria of "unable to afford health care services or health insurance" that was the original Mission Statement for Medicaid going back to 1965 but wasn't properly funded. In all cases those that were covered by traditional Medicaid or the expansion could not afford medical services or insurance, period.

The Medicaid Mission Statement of ensuring that all of those that simply can't afford medical services is something that even conservative Republicans always supported in the past so what changed? Why don't Republicans today believe that everyone should receive necessary medical services?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
I had forgotten about the 3.8% disincentive to invest tax on the idiotic termed unearned income.
Someone only receiving $97.20 as opposed to receiving $100 is not a disincentive to invest. Only an ignorant Republican would claim that an investor wouldn't want to earn $97.20 on their investment and would instead choose to earn nothing on their money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
That will not pay for Medicaid expansion over the long term especially if everyone signed up.
Probably true based upon social-conservative economic policies that are leading to increased poverty in the United States today. So long as Republicans advocate underpayment for labor by enterprise the level of poverty is going to continue to increase as more and more middle-income jobs are lost. Currently over 20% of jobs don't provide enough income for a person to live on and based upon "social-conservative" economic policies that percentage is increasing.

The only way of reducing the financial obligations to mitigate the effects of poverty is by reducing poverty but Republicans have never made any proposals that would reduce the level of poverty in the United States.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Obama repeated the claim the ACA would provide high-quality affordable health care to all Americans often. Now that it is obvious it will not, the acrimonious Democrats whine about single payer as if Democrats were not responsible for Obamacare. The ACA was passed on a party line vote, the reason it is not single payer is because Democrats would not support single payer.
I do not support Obama or the Democrats "single-payer" proposal but they are the only ones that offered any proposals in 2009 to provide health care insurance to those that couldn't afford insurance. The Republicans merely made proposals that would possibly reduce costs for those that could already afford insurance and no proposals to cover the uninsured.

If the ACA fails then we're going to get stuck with a single-payer system because that's the only other proposal out there that provides coverage for the uninsured. Is that what you want?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The ACA has prompted a significant percentage of doctors to simply stop practicing medicine.
"A significant percentage" of doctors have quit practicing. Mind providing a source for this claim?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Perhaps the most damaging lie of Obamacare is the claim politicians sitting on death panels cannot deny care. President Obama, with no medical expertise whatsoever, pronounced the pill for the pain superior to the operation. It is absurd to suggest the petty tyrants on the ACA board will do no less.
If you're referring to the the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, for Medicare (and Medicare alone) then you're way off base. This board is comprised of medical experts and not politicians. They also have a very limited authority and cannot deny any clinically proven procedure authorized by the doctor if no other viable options exist. Only if clinical trials show that one procedure is more effective and less costly than another can the IPAB choose to fund the more effective and less costly procedure. All of the IPAB decisions can be adjudicated under the law.

If you're referring to the "death panels" that Sarah Palin referred to then you're totally wrong as the following FactCheck.org article addresses Palin's claims.

Palin vs. Obama: Death Panels

Of course most Americans know that Sarah Palin is a nutcase like Michelle Bachmann so most of us ignore the stupid statements she makes all of the time.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 10-03-2014, 05:45 PM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 19,751
Thanks: 13,323
Thanked 14,556 Times in 8,396 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: ACA & your TAX Refunds, get it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
It is true that there were millions of Americans that were eligible under the conventional Medicaid Guidelines and many of those did enroll because of the ACA and that's a good thing that the ACA caused to happen. At the sametime the expansion did increase the qualification requirements to include millions of others that also fit the criteria of "unable to afford health care services or health insurance" that was the original Mission Statement for Medicaid going back to 1965 but wasn't properly funded. In all cases those that were covered by traditional Medicaid or the expansion could not afford medical services or insurance, period.
So then the poverty line is a fiction? The expansion increased income eligibility for Medicaid by a whopping 40%. It is ridiculous to claim the new group of people cannot afford any medical services simply by virtue of raising the line for eligibility.

Quote:
The Medicaid Mission Statement of ensuring that all of those that simply can't afford medical services is something that even conservative Republicans always supported in the past so what changed? Why don't Republicans today believe that everyone should receive necessary medical services?
Once again it is the same polemic, unless you support expanding the already bankrupt Medicaid program, you don't want people to have medical services. Medicaid strips away any assets from participants, reduces reimbursements to promote low cost, low availability care and promotes dependence on the Federal government. My, what progress.

Quote:
Someone only receiving $97.20 as opposed to receiving $100 is not a disincentive to invest. Only an ignorant Republican would claim that an investor wouldn't want to earn $97.20 on their investment and would instead choose to earn nothing on their money.
You betray a primitive partisan understanding of finance akin to that of President Obama. The Medicaid tax increase is an incremental tax, it is added on to the tax burden already in place. So, top earners pay 38% plus the 3.8% on short term investment income and nearly 19% on long term earnings. That means a short term investment must pay in excess of 41.8% just to break even and a long term investment over 19%. Those are steep hurdles to overcome, disincentives for investment for certain.

Quote:
Probably true based upon social-conservative economic policies that are leading to increased poverty in the United States today. So long as Republicans advocate underpayment for labor by enterprise the level of poverty is going to continue to increase as more and more middle-income jobs are lost. Currently over 20% of jobs don't provide enough income for a person to live on and based upon "social-conservative" economic policies that percentage is increasing.

The only way of reducing the financial obligations to mitigate the effects of poverty is by reducing poverty but Republicans have never made any proposals that would reduce the level of poverty in the United States.
The Republican House has passed more than 40 jobs bills the Senate Democrats refuse to consider, in addition they have passed more than 50 major Obamacare reform bills the Democrats act like they never existed. Democrats want more welfare, vote buying. Republicans want more jobs.

Quote:
I do not support Obama or the Democrats "single-payer" proposal but they are the only ones that offered any proposals in 2009 to provide health care insurance to those that couldn't afford insurance. The Republicans merely made proposals that would possibly reduce costs for those that could already afford insurance and no proposals to cover the uninsured.

If the ACA fails then we're going to get stuck with a single-payer system because that's the only other proposal out there that provides coverage for the uninsured. Is that what you want?
That is crap, Democrats rejiggered House rules to prevent any Republican amendments and Harry Reid engineered a straight party line vote in the Senate for a bill many of the Senators had not read that was filled with pork and payoffs for Democrats.


Quote:
"A significant percentage" of doctors have quit practicing. Mind providing a source for this claim?
From Forbes.

Quote:
A survey by health care provider staffing firm AMN Healthcare shows the vacancy rate for physicians at hospitals near 18 percent in 2013 while the nurse vacancy rate is 17 percent. That vacancy rate is more than three times what it was just four years ago when vacancies for nurses were just 5.5 percent in 2009 while vacancies for doctors were 10.7 percent.
Doctor, Nurse Vacancies Soar Amid Obamacare Rollout - Forbes

Quote:
If you're referring to the the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, for Medicare (and Medicare alone) then you're way off base. This board is comprised of medical experts and not politicians. They also have a very limited authority and cannot deny any clinically proven procedure authorized by the doctor if no other viable options exist. Only if clinical trials show that one procedure is more effective and less costly than another can the IPAB choose to fund the more effective and less costly procedure. All of the IPAB decisions can be adjudicated under the law.

If you're referring to the "death panels" that Sarah Palin referred to then you're totally wrong as the following FactCheck.org article addresses Palin's claims.

Palin vs. Obama: Death Panels

Of course most Americans know that Sarah Palin is a nutcase like Michelle Bachmann so most of us ignore the stupid statements she makes all of the time.
Name calling or the conclusions of a partisan "fact check" doesn't disguise the truth of death panels. Even Paul Krugman and Zeke Emmanuel recognize their existence. In Obamacare if the death panel members are not confirmed by the Senate, the powers devolve to the HHS secretary. Sebelius wasn't a skilled medical professional nor is her successor. Best to check your facts before name calling even if that is the Progressive way.
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2014, 09:16 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,316 Times in 1,842 Posts
Default Re: ACA & your TAX Refunds, get it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
So then the poverty line is a fiction? The expansion increased income eligibility for Medicaid by a whopping 40%. It is ridiculous to claim the new group of people cannot afford any medical services simply by virtue of raising the line for eligibility.
The "official poverty line" has never taken into account all of the necessary expenditures of the person or household and it never included the costs of medical services or insurance. Those added under the expansion of Medicaid could never afford the insurance or the medical services and, if we addressed the "subsidies" provided under Obamacare they would have required a 100% government subsidy to purchase private insurance. It wasn't the increase in eligibility that established the people couldn't afford the health services or insurance. It was their low income that established that and it existed before the criteria was changed.

It was their inabilitly to pay that drove the changes and not the changes that created their inability to pay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Once again it is the same polemic, unless you support expanding the already bankrupt Medicaid program, you don't want people to have medical services. Medicaid strips away any assets from participants, reduces reimbursements to promote low cost, low availability care and promotes dependence on the Federal government. My, what progress.
Medicaid is not bankrupt (i.e. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid have collected more in tax revenues than they've spent and are the only government programs that have not borrowed a dime or contributed to the national debt). If I recall correctly there's still about $2.5 trillion in the trust fund that funds Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid expenditures by the federal government.

The expansion of Medicaid was fully funded by the imposition of a 3.8% tax on investment income above about $250,000 that had never been taxed for Medicare/Medicaid previously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
You betray a primitive partisan understanding of finance akin to that of President Obama. The Medicaid tax increase is an incremental tax, it is added on to the tax burden already in place. So, top earners pay 38% plus the 3.8% on short term investment income and nearly 19% on long term earnings. That means a short term investment must pay in excess of 41.8% just to break even and a long term investment over 19%. Those are steep hurdles to overcome, disincentives for investment for certain.
Investment incomes were never subjected to any FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxation as those taxes only applied to "earned" income. All investment income should be taxed identically to "earned income" but it hasn't been. Of note the average federal tax obligation of the Top 1% of the Top 1% (i.e. one in one-thousand Americans) is only around 17%. Mitt Romney, that qualified as one of the "one in one-thousand Americans" with an income of over $22 million in 2011 had a total federal tax obligation of about 14% which was about 1/2 of my federal tax obligation for the same year (and I wasn't even in the top 10% of income earners). The wealthiest of Americans have never been "over-taxed" by the federal government and actually have the lowest tax burden relative to income in the United States that's even lower than an minimum wage earner when all taxation is accounted for.

Sorry if I don't jump on the bandwagon for the wealthy that have never paid their fair share of taxation even though they are most able to do so. I don't envy them but do believe they should carry at least the same tax burden that the rest of Americans have to carry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The Republican House has passed more than 40 jobs bills the Senate Democrats refuse to consider, in addition they have passed more than 50 major Obamacare reform bills the Democrats act like they never existed. Democrats want more welfare, vote buying. Republicans want more jobs.
Tax breaks for the wealthy don't create good jobs for Americans. As we've seen during the "economic recovery" a lot of jobs have been created but most of those jobs don't provide enough income to live on so the need for welfare assistance to working families increases. Only when jobs provide a "liveable wage" do they reduce the necessity for welfare assistance and Republicans oppose a liveable wage for workers.

The House GOP bills on Obamacare did not address any of the problems with Obamacare but instead merely attempted to repeal it (over 50 times the House GOP voted to repeal Obamacare).

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
That is crap, Democrats rejiggered House rules to prevent any Republican amendments and Harry Reid engineered a straight party line vote in the Senate for a bill many of the Senators had not read that was filled with pork and payoffs for Democrats.
I don't support Harry Reid anymore than I support John Boehner that refused to bring a vote to the floor on ending the partial shutdown of the government by the Tea Party Republicans in the House.

Senate Republicans could have participated in the drafting of the ACA, and should have considering it was overwhelmingly based upon prior Republican proposals for health care, but they fundamentally refused to participate in the drafting of the law. Sorry but a refusal to participate in the crafting of the law in the first place is really what you address. The Democrats really could have used Republican assistance on implementing Republican ideas as we can all see today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Excuse me but the Forbes article didn't mention anything about any doctors or nurses quiting the profession because of Obamacare. What it states is that Obamacare has created a huge job market for medical professionals. In short Obamacare is creating high paying jobs in the health care industry.

Are you opposed to high paying jobs that the article states are being created?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Name calling or the conclusions of a partisan "fact check" doesn't disguise the truth of death panels. Even Paul Krugman and Zeke Emmanuel recognize their existence. In Obamacare if the death panel members are not confirmed by the Senate, the powers devolve to the HHS secretary. Sebelius wasn't a skilled medical professional nor is her successor. Best to check your facts before name calling even if that is the Progressive way.
Please provide the link where Krugman or Emmanuel refer to death panels being created by Obamacare.

FactCheck.org is a non-partisan organization.

Why wouldn't the Senate approve qualified individuals to head the IPAB?

Kathy Sebelius, and her successor Sylvia Burwell (that was confirmed by an overwhelming bi-partisan vote of 78 to 17 in the Senate), don't need to be medical professionals. They need to be highly qualified adminstrative managers. Neither Sebelius or Burwell would select who would be on the IPAB but instead would delegate that selection process to experts in the field of medicine. If you don't know what the qualifications are for the heads of major departments in the US government I'd suggest you do a little research and become informed.

As noted though the IPAB only addresses Medicare which really isn't a part of Obamacare. None of the services provided by Medicaid or private insurance under Obamacare are subject to any decisions by the IPAB and the IPAB exists solely at the discretion of Congress which can change it or abolish it at anytime.

Final note: Referring to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann as "nut cases" isn't name-calling. It's a statement of fact. They've proven they're nut cases with their own statements of ignorance.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 10-08-2014, 06:58 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 19,751
Thanks: 13,323
Thanked 14,556 Times in 8,396 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: ACA & your TAX Refunds, get it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
The "official poverty line" has never taken into account all of the necessary expenditures of the person or household and it never included the costs of medical services or insurance. Those added under the expansion of Medicaid could never afford the insurance or the medical services and, if we addressed the "subsidies" provided under Obamacare they would have required a 100% government subsidy to purchase private insurance. It wasn't the increase in eligibility that established the people couldn't afford the health services or insurance. It was their low income that established that and it existed before the criteria was changed.

It was their inabilitly to pay that drove the changes and not the changes that created their inability to pay.
Thank you for validating that the poverty line is a fiction. That means the Medicare expansion is simply vote buying.

Quote:
Medicaid is not bankrupt (i.e. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid have collected more in tax revenues than they've spent and are the only government programs that have not borrowed a dime or contributed to the national debt). If I recall correctly there's still about $2.5 trillion in the trust fund that funds Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid expenditures by the federal government.

The expansion of Medicaid was fully funded by the imposition of a 3.8% tax on investment income above about $250,000 that had never been taxed for Medicare/Medicaid previously.
The trust fund is stocked with unsecured promissory notes. The only way to pay them is a promise of current revenues. Like any Ponzi scheme, they worked as long as a sufficient quantity of new money came in to pay the investors and they did not ask for their investment back. The Obama economy doesn't provide enough revenue to make SS payments so currently general revenues are being siphoned off.

Quote:
Investment incomes were never subjected to any FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxation as those taxes only applied to "earned" income. All investment income should be taxed identically to "earned income" but it hasn't been. Of note the average federal tax obligation of the Top 1% of the Top 1% (i.e. one in one-thousand Americans) is only around 17%. Mitt Romney, that qualified as one of the "one in one-thousand Americans" with an income of over $22 million in 2011 had a total federal tax obligation of about 14% which was about 1/2 of my federal tax obligation for the same year (and I wasn't even in the top 10% of income earners). The wealthiest of Americans have never been "over-taxed" by the federal government and actually have the lowest tax burden relative to income in the United States that's even lower than an minimum wage earner when all taxation is accounted for.

Sorry if I don't jump on the bandwagon for the wealthy that have never paid their fair share of taxation even though they are most able to do so. I don't envy them but do believe they should carry at least the same tax burden that the rest of Americans have to carry.
The top 10% pay 60% of income taxes while the bottom 47% pay nothing. Sorry if I do not go along with the populist lie the rich do not pay their subjective fair share. Taxing A to pay for B's vote is income redistribution, part of Obama's fundamental transformation.

Quote:
Tax breaks for the wealthy don't create good jobs for Americans. As we've seen during the "economic recovery" a lot of jobs have been created but most of those jobs don't provide enough income to live on so the need for welfare assistance to working families increases. Only when jobs provide a "liveable wage" do they reduce the necessity for welfare assistance and Republicans oppose a liveable wage for workers.
Obama's failed economic policies do not create good jobs. Taxing more and more regulation are more of the same and will produce more of the same.

Quote:
The House GOP bills on Obamacare did not address any of the problems with Obamacare but instead merely attempted to repeal it (over 50 times the House GOP voted to repeal Obamacare).
The House reform bills would solve every problem created by Obamacare.

Quote:
I don't support Harry Reid anymore than I support John Boehner that refused to bring a vote to the floor on ending the partial shutdown of the government by the Tea Party Republicans in the House.
The government shut down because the Senate, cheered on by Obama, refused to consider any of the 4 CR passed by the House.

Quote:
Senate Republicans could have participated in the drafting of the ACA, and should have considering it was overwhelmingly based upon prior Republican proposals for health care, but they fundamentally refused to participate in the drafting of the law. Sorry but a refusal to participate in the crafting of the law in the first place is really what you address. The Democrats really could have used Republican assistance on implementing Republican ideas as we can all see today.
That is a complete partisan fantasy. Democrats shut Republicans out of the ACA drafting then rammed the bill through on a party line vote.

Quote:
Excuse me but the Forbes article didn't mention anything about any doctors or nurses quiting the profession because of Obamacare. What it states is that Obamacare has created a huge job market for medical professionals. In short Obamacare is creating high paying jobs in the health care industry.

Are you opposed to high paying jobs that the article states are being created?
Since Obamacare passed vacancies have skyrocketed patient loads have not increased proportionally and the ACA was only rolled out less than a year ago. Clearly skilled professionals are leaving the health care sector.

Quote:
Please provide the link where Krugman or Emmanuel refer to death panels being created by Obamacare.
There is this thing called Google that will help clear up the denials of death panels

FactCheck.org is a non-partisan organization.
Please

[/QUOTE]

I'll deal with the rest of your nonsense later.
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old 10-09-2014, 10:35 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,316 Times in 1,842 Posts
Default Re: ACA & your TAX Refunds, get it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Thank you for validating that the poverty line is a fiction. That means the Medicare expansion is simply vote buying.
Do we have an inablity to read or an inability to comprehend? The official poverty line never included health care or health insurance costs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The trust fund is stocked with unsecured promissory notes. The only way to pay them is a promise of current revenues. Like any Ponzi scheme, they worked as long as a sufficient quantity of new money came in to pay the investors and they did not ask for their investment back. The Obama economy doesn't provide enough revenue to make SS payments so currently general revenues are being siphoned off.
The Social Security Trust fund is backed by the "credit of the United States" just like the rest of the $17 trillion of national debt. This debt is Constitutional based upon Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 in case you're interested.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The top 10% pay 60% of income taxes while the bottom 47% pay nothing. Sorry if I do not go along with the populist lie the rich do not pay their subjective fair share. Taxing A to pay for B's vote is income redistribution, part of Obama's fundamental transformation.
We're not talking about the top 10% but instead were talking exclusively about high income investors and capital gains. While my information is dated in 2009 those in the 10% income tax bracket (far left column) paid over three-times the income taxes than "all of the investors" receiving income from capital gains (far right column). This doesn't even address the fact that the vast majority of Americans also paid FICA/Payroll/Self-Employment taxes where the "investors" didn't contribute a single dime in taxation in 2009.



Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Obama's failed economic policies do not create good jobs. Taxing more and more regulation are more of the same and will produce more of the same.
For the most part President Obama's economic policies have been blocked by the GOP in the house. The existing economic policies are, for the most part, based upon Republican economic policies that don't create good paying jobs. While I don't agree with it the Democratic proposals to raise the minimum wage would certainly result in far better paying jobs and a dramatic reduction in welfare assistance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The House reform bills would solve every problem created by Obamacare.
Possibly true but would they provide the means for insurance for the tens of milions of Americans that Obamacare will ultimately provide insurance for? You can't throw out the baby with the bathwater which is what the House GOP proposals would do. For decades "conservatives" argued that our health care system was broken and that it would require both a public (e.g. Medicaid and subsidies) and private (Individual and Employer Mandates) to fix but all of a sudden in 2009 the Republicans turned on the very fixes that they'd be proposing for decades. Can you explain that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The government shut down because the Senate, cheered on by Obama, refused to consider any of the 4 CR passed by the House.
The GOP House proposals had provisions that had absolutely nothing to do with the funding of the necessary government expenditures at the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
That is a complete partisan fantasy. Democrats shut Republicans out of the ACA drafting then rammed the bill through on a party line vote.
Please show me which Republican proposals were made that would have provided for the coverage of the tens of millions of those that didn't have insurance and couldn't afford it without government assistance at the time. I recall a lot of Republican proposals for those that could afford insurance but nothing for those that couldn't afford insurance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Since Obamacare passed vacancies have skyrocketed patient loads have not increased proportionally and the ACA was only rolled out less than a year ago. Clearly skilled professionals are leaving the health care sector.
That is not what has happened. Since Obamacare was passed the number of new job openings in the medical profession have soared. The last time I checked the job growth rate in the medical professions was over 20%/yr and it is the most robust job market in America today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
There is this thing called Google that will help clear up the denials of death panels
Well, I did a Google search and it didn't come up with any hits on Emmanuel referring to death panels. Krugman did reference to "death panels" in taking a swipe at Sarah Palin's use of the word. Klugman's point was that we're either going to have to create "death panels" or increase taxation for fund Medicare in the future. He did not state that "death panels" existed under Obamacare.

Paul Krugman Recommends 'Death Panels' to Help Balance Budget


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
FactCheck.org is a non-partisan organization.
Please
ROFLMAO

Quote:
FactCheck.org

Our Mission

We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.
Our Mission

FactCheck.org is equally critical of statements made by Democrats and Republican but generally speaking Republicans are found to be lying about the facts more often than Democrats. Because Republicans are caught in lies more often they claim that FactCheck.org is partisan and, of course, this is just another Republican lie.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old 10-09-2014, 11:48 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 19,751
Thanks: 13,323
Thanked 14,556 Times in 8,396 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: ACA & your TAX Refunds, get it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Do we have an inablity to read or an inability to comprehend? The official poverty line never included health care or health insurance costs.
Yet it is used for eligibility for a host of government programs or rather poverty line plus whatever is needed to buy votes at the moment. Do we have trouble with simple logic? The poverty line is supposed to represent the minimum income level for escaping poverty, increasing it for whatever is fashionable for buying votes at the moment renders it a fiction.

Quote:
The Social Security Trust fund is backed by the "credit of the United States" just like the rest of the $17 trillion of national debt. This debt is Constitutional based upon Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 in case you're interested.
Once again the ignorance issues forth, the SS debt is issued to the US Treasury not public debt. It can be wiped out with a stroke of a pen in case you are interested. Please explain the source of funds to pay the SS debt.

Oh, you are not entitled to one penny of SS benefits. It is a Ponzi schemers dream come true.


Quote:
We're not talking about the top 10% but instead were talking exclusively about high income investors and capital gains. While my information is dated in 2009 those in the 10% income tax bracket (far left column) paid over three-times the income taxes than "all of the investors" receiving income from capital gains (far right column). This doesn't even address the fact that the vast majority of Americans also paid FICA/Payroll/Self-Employment taxes where the "investors" didn't contribute a single dime in taxation in 2009.

Your claim was that the rich do not pay their fair share of taxes. I point out that in terms of gross tax revenues from income tax that is not the case unless you consider 60% while nearly half pay none to be not fair.

Quote:
For the most part President Obama's economic policies have been blocked by the GOP in the house. The existing economic policies are, for the most part, based upon Republican economic policies that don't create good paying jobs. While I don't agree with it the Democratic proposals to raise the minimum wage would certainly result in far better paying jobs and a dramatic reduction in welfare assistance.
Waa, poor widdle Barack is a victim of the mean old Republicans. He has been President for nearly 7 years when are you going to stop making excuses for his failure? Oh wait, never.

Quote:
Possibly true but would they provide the means for insurance for the tens of milions of Americans that Obamacare will ultimately provide insurance for? You can't throw out the baby with the bathwater which is what the House GOP proposals would do. For decades "conservatives" argued that our health care system was broken and that it would require both a public (e.g. Medicaid and subsidies) and private (Individual and Employer Mandates) to fix but all of a sudden in 2009 the Republicans turned on the very fixes that they'd be proposing for decades. Can you explain that?
Sorry, I cannot explain your fantasies. Can you explain why Democrats refuse to even discuss or vote on House reforms to Obamacare? Oh wait, it is partisan Democrat politics.

Quote:
The GOP House proposals had provisions that had absolutely nothing to do with the funding of the necessary government expenditures at the time.
That is complete malarky. Democrats were willing to shut down the government without debate in the Senate unless they got exactly what they wanted and they did. There was no consideration given to the House bills, Democrats proudly announced there would be no negotiation.

Quote:
Please show me which Republican proposals were made that would have provided for the coverage of the tens of millions of those that didn't have insurance and couldn't afford it without government assistance at the time. I recall a lot of Republican proposals for those that could afford insurance but nothing for those that couldn't afford insurance.
Don't want to talk about reforming Obamacare, passed by party line vote, so you just try to change the subject. Fact is the House reforms would fix Obamacare but the Senate Democrats refuse to even discuss them.

Quote:
That is not what has happened. Since Obamacare was passed the number of new job openings in the medical profession have soared. The last time I checked the job growth rate in the medical professions was over 20%/yr and it is the most robust job market in America today.
Another fantasy to try and mask Obamacare's failure. Vacancies expressed as a percentage is not the same as number of openings, it provides an equivalent measurement whereas number of openings is partisan spin.

Quote:
Well, I did a Google search and it didn't come up with any hits on Emmanuel referring to death panels. Krugman did reference to "death panels" in taking a swipe at Sarah Palin's use of the word. Klugman's point was that we're either going to have to create "death panels" or increase taxation for fund Medicare in the future. He did not state that "death panels" existed under Obamacare.

Paul Krugman Recommends 'Death Panels' to Help Balance Budget
Puleeze, Krugman's suggestion for controlling costs is to deny care. Emannuel's approach is to "prioritize" care based on expected outcome. Both scenarios have denial of care decisions made by politically appointed bureaucrats sitting on death panels.



Quote:
ROFLMAO



Our Mission

FactCheck.org is equally critical of statements made by Democrats and Republican but generally speaking Republicans are found to be lying about the facts more often than Democrats. Because Republicans are caught in lies more often they claim that FactCheck.org is partisan and, of course, this is just another Republican lie.
Well we have caught them in a partisan lie about death panels right here. How many more denials will you issue.
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old 10-09-2014, 06:42 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,316 Times in 1,842 Posts
Default Re: ACA & your TAX Refunds, get it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The poverty line is supposed to represent the minimum income level for escaping poverty....
And where did you come up with this absurd idea? Fox News.

Quote:
Poverty thresholds were originally derived in 1963-1964, using:

•U.S. Department of Agriculture food budgets designed for families under economic stress.
•Data about what portion of their income families spent on food.
How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty - U.S Census Bureau

In short if a family is mired in abject poverty do they have enough income to possibly eat while living in poverty? That is why most government assistance programs refer to a percentage well above the "official poverty level" because a person/household has to spend a lot more money on many other things that are unaccounted for by the calcuation of the official poverty level.

As a matter of fact "poverty" is an intermediate conditions and the official poverty level establishes the bottom level of those living in poverty. Below the official poverty level are destitute and/or indigent individuals or households. They don't even have enough income to qualify as living in poverty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Once again the ignorance issues forth, the SS debt is issued to the US Treasury not public debt. It can be wiped out with a stroke of a pen in case you are interested. Please explain the source of funds to pay the SS debt.
With a stroke of a pen the Congress could cancel all of it's debt obligations. It won't but it certainly could. General tax revenues are used to repay the borrowing from the Trust Fund as the money provided from the Trust Fund were spent on general expenditures made by the government.

The debt obligations to the Social Security Trust Fund represents 17% of the entire national debt and it is the highest single holder of the national debt. That money does not "belong to the government" but instead belongs to those that paid excess FICA/Payroll/Self-Employment taxes that began during the Reagan Adminstration. Prior to Reagan that SS and Medicare/Medicaid were "pay-as-you-go" welfare programs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Oh, you are not entitled to one penny of SS benefits. It is a Ponzi schemers dream come true.
The law states otherwise but leave it to a Republican to be ignorant of the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Your claim was that the rich do not pay their fair share of taxes. I point out that in terms of gross tax revenues from income tax that is not the case unless you consider 60% while nearly half pay none to be not fair.
That was never my claim because even the exceptional CEO that has a salary in the tens of millions of dollars in net annual income is paying "more than their fair share of taxes" because their income is subject to the 39.6% income tax because it's earned income. Only "investors" receive favorable tax treatment under our tax codes which is grossly unfair to the workers of America including the very highly paid CEO earning millions or tens of millions of dollars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Sorry, I cannot explain your fantasies. Can you explain why Democrats refuse to even discuss or vote on House reforms to Obamacare? Oh wait, it is partisan Democrat politics.
Because "Obamacare" had absolutely nothing to do with the reason part of our government was shut down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
That is complete malarky. Democrats were willing to shut down the government without debate in the Senate unless they got exactly what they wanted and they did. There was no consideration given to the House bills, Democrats proudly announced there would be no negotiation.
False. The Democrats refused to address spending authorizations that were completely unrelated to why the government was unable to pay authorized expenditures. Repealing Obamacare wouldn't have affected the payment of the authorized expenditures necessary to keep government operating because no significant amount of money was being spent Obamacare in 2013. Obamacare didn't go into effect until 2014 and did not affect year-end expenditures in 2013.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Don't want to talk about reforming Obamacare, passed by party line vote, so you just try to change the subject. Fact is the House reforms would fix Obamacare but the Senate Democrats refuse to even discuss them.
Which House proposals provided for the insurance for the tens of millions of people that don't have access without Obamacare? Please cite one GOP proposal that would have provided health care (insurance) for the estimated 30 million or so that will be covered by Obamacare in the next few years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Another fantasy to try and mask Obamacare's failure. Vacancies expressed as a percentage is not the same as number of openings, it provides an equivalent measurement whereas number of openings is partisan spin.
Vacancies can result from many causes the most healthy of which economically is an expanding job market. The job market in the medical professions was expanding before Obamacare and continues to expand under Obamacare. It is healthy job growth that is driving the job openings. More medical services being provided, which is what Obamacare does, results in more job openings to provide those services.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Puleeze, Krugman's suggestion for controlling costs is to deny care. Emannuel's approach is to "prioritize" care based on expected outcome. Both scenarios have denial of care decisions made by politically appointed bureaucrats sitting on death panels.
Klugman stated explicitly that a tax increase was inevitable to avoid death panels in the future. He never claimed that death panels existed today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Well we have caught them in a partisan lie about death panels right here. How many more denials will you issue.
The IPAB is not authorized to deny treatment for any illiness or condition. It can select between two equally effective treatments based upon clinic trials but it cannot deny a person treatment for an illness.

You should be aware (because I provided the source) that the term "death panel" refers to the authorization for "end of life consultations" for those facing terminal illness. It never referred to treatments being denied by the IPAB or anyone else but instead refers to an additional benefit of consultation for those facing a terminal illness.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
aca, and, get, refunds, right, tax, your

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0