Obamacare is a Tax on the Middle Class to give to the Poor

Obamacare is like a tax on the middle class to give to the poor. In fact, it is more like a regressive tax because the burden will disproportionately fall on the lower middle class, many of whom are already hard pressed to afford comprehensive health insurance.

Meanwhile, all those minimum wage workers who do not even make enough money to be able to buy health insurance will get a free government hand out.

Proponents of Obamacare try to justify it with arguments about preventative treatment saving money, incentives for health outcomes rather than money, and helping those without access to health care. But the truth is that you do not need mandated comprehensive health insurance to address these issues, and Obamare would do a poor job of actually addressing these particular problems, while creating new problems for everyone else who can afford medical treatment. And Obamacare does nothing about the problem of poor people racking up huge bills for everyone else by going to the emergency room to get basic medical treatment because they do not want to pay $20-$40 to go to the county clinic.

 

been saying this for 3 1/2 years now..no one listens..they are too lazt to read the darn bill..just pass it and we will worry about it later..

 

I don't see the issue again its the big benefit of a Democracy the poor and working class can vote and get things they want from the government, we are just using our voting power to get into office people that give us things. I really don't care about the middle class at the upper end or the rich I care like most about myself. If we can afford to bomb other nations, maintain a huge war machine, give welfare to corporations, build roads to nowhere and on and one we can move money around to afford this.

As for your attack on those earning low wages if they are working and doing what they can why attack them its not their fault they might have modest abilities and only get a Walmart "28 hour full-time according to them" job or have the money to pay to go to a clinic so put it off. Sad but true that for most $40 plus the cost of tests is often to much when one needs to eat or buy school supplies for a child or pay for transportation.

 

So why doesn't the government just directly provide just the most cost-effective preventative health treatment for free to its citizens?
Wouldn't that be the most direct, least complicated, least expensive, and most effective way to reduce health costs and help the poor?

 

just a basic health plan for check up and minor injuries.. with a limit of lets say 5000 per year for a reasonable price..thats not what we were asking for for years but thats not what the left wants..

 

Rather than endorse a more moderate, practical, and reasonable approach, the Progressives are trying to utilise the current recession and healthcare problems as their opportunity to push a comprehensive government-dictated health plan on everyone.

My idea would just be to have the government pay for free basic health screenings for everyone, and heavily subsidise preventative treatments.
If the government wants to force everyone to buy insurance, it should only be high deductable insurance, and the government needs to drastically cut its list of mandated treatments on the insurance coverage to keep down costs. There also need to be limits imposed so that one person with severe chronic conditions doesn't end up running up an outrageous bill that will have to be paid by everyone else.

And the real problem lies in those emergency rooms... Stop forcing hospitals to provide free treatment out of their own pockets. That is one of the major contributors to high health care costs.

The government also needs to start allowing patients to pay out-of-pocket whatever fees their doctor demands and still collect Medicare reimbursements for the treatment - since they are entittled to get their Medicare taxes back without having to deal with some crazy attempted price fixing scheme by the government. If this is not fixed, more and more people are going to lose access to healthcare because they will not be able to find a doctor that accepts Medicare. (currently, doctors and hospital will lose their eligibility to be reimbursed by Medicare if they charge their patients more than 15% of what Medicare reimburses)

 

Because the republicans wouldnt let him.

To them, money is the ultimate seperator who who should get somethign, and who shouldnt get something. To them, being poor with a catastrophic illness SHOULD be a death sentence.

 

Please cite the tax provisions of the bill you claim will be a tax on the middle class. Thanks.

 

The simple fact that everyone will be forced to buy insurance from insurance companies, which are all in turn forced to lose money providing coverage to a subset of the population at government-fixed prices. And the fact that the lower class is (partially or wholly) exempt from such demands.

And like I said, since the price of mandated insurance will essentially be the same regardless of income level, it will be like a regressive tax and fall disproportionately on the middle class rather than the wealthy.

 

I'm sorry, "Please cite the tax provisions of the bill you claim will be a tax on the middle class" means I want to see the tax provisions, not your unsupported blather on what you think.

 

Because big business and the low income voters that get the ACA is good for them will not let them get off so easy and this is one time big business and the poorer voters are on the same page. Scary thought, huh?

 

Tax Penalty to Hit Nearly 6 Million Middle Class People Without Health Insurance

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

The numbers are dated but its pretty clear that is not correct, 75% of Americans get help under the Affordable Care Act with subsidies for premiums and out of pocket costs up into the Middle Class [0 to 400% of the Federal Poverty Line] so its not true in fact using the numbers the upper middle class and higher are the ones hit hardest. But this help covers the poor, working poor and a large section of the middle class.

 

Instead of subsidizing the payments for unisured emergency room care. Taxpayers will now be paying for premium assistance to those who are currently uninsured and unemployed. This will end up costing taxpayers and those presently insured higher premiums and much more than covering the cost of emergency room visits for the uninsured. I can say this after 35+ years in health care administration and after being married to a physician who has been in private practice for 30 years. Premiums will be going up not down.i

The only way to reduce the cost of health care is: 1. reduce coverage under policies to delete office visits and coverage of routine care and to allow people to cover only expenses they feel they need to be insured for.
2. increase deductibles 3. allow formation of large groups accross State Lines to cover those high risk people and those with high-cost pre-existing conditions. Allow for the purchase of hospitalization/surgical policies only.

Fees charged by physicians and surgeons are not the problem and decreasing medicare and medicaid reimbursements to these providers will result in them stopping their participation in these programs and requiring the patients to pay their fees if they want them to provide their treatment.

As far as Medicare goes, costs have increased as coverage has increased and more people enter the medicare program. Medicare premiums have not kept pace with the advacements in medicine that include high cost tests, surgical procedures and medical treatements.

 

We really have to be asking ourselves whether all these new tests and treatments are cost effective, and whether the government should be forcing everyone to pay for it. It may be likely that society just simply cannot afford some of these types of medical care.

 

Only if they don't get insurance and roughly 75% of the population will qualify for some level of government help, so the tax penalty should be rarely in effect for all but the upper middle class and upper economic classes in the US.

 

I highly doubt this. And exactly how much help will most of these people be getting to help pay for their mandated coverage?

What will happen if the assistance they are assigned to get in the legislation does not get funded? Will they still have to buy insurance or pay a hefty penalty?

 

Yes, it is a tax to pay for government subsidies for health insurance for low-income workers and for those with pre-existing conditions. It also disproportionately imposes this "tax" on low to middle income workers and I've noted this problem before.

At the same time Mitt Romney is also proposing the same subsidies for low income workers as well as to cover those with pre-existing conditions. While Mitt Romney hasn't stated how he will pay for these expendatures they would necessitate a tax as well. Who is Mitt Romney going to tax to pay for the identical subsidies?

Obamacare and Romneycare both require the same taxation to provide the same benefits and the only difference is that Obama has defined the tax source but Romney has not.

 

The expendature was already authorized by the ACA so Congress cannot withhold the funds. Romney would face the identical problem because under his proposals the same federal subsidies for low income workers and for those with pre-existing conditions would exist. Remember that Romney, as governor, created the identical penalities (tax) to fund subsidies for low income workers and those with pre-existing conditions.

 

This so true and so accurate. the reason is because America have developed a permanent "Lazy Class" that thinks this will work.

the caste system in America looks like this now:

Ultra Rich
Middle Class
Lazy Class
Poor Class

the Lazies aka Liberals have infiltraited the caste structure and have affected the working poor and makes them look bad. So it looks like the Middle Class money will be funnelled to the poor when in actuality it will be funnelled to the Lazy Class Liberals.

 

Then why is Mitt Romney stating he'll repeal "Obamacare" and replace it with virtually an identical program that provides private insurance with subsidies for low income workers and those with pre-existing conditions? The only thing that Romney's proposal lacks is a means of funding the subsidies. How's he going to pay for his national Romneycare?

 

The law at the various levels maxes the premiums to a percentage of income from 2% to 9.5% for premiums and out of pocket costs are subsidized from the low end 85% to the high end 70% its in the law from 0 to 400% of the Federal Poverty line funded by taxes in the law, although its unsure what will happen to those who qualify for Medicaid and states don't opt in. They could expand exchanges to them to I suppose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FilePACA_Premium_Chart.jpg

 

While you may disagree with Romney's proposal, at least his plan does not involve forcing everyone else to buy expensive comprehensive health insurance.

 

Romney imposed those conditions as governor and it is logical to assume he would do the same if he was president.

 

Romney imposed those conditions as governor and it is logical to assume he would do the same if he was president.