Skip to main content

The stuff in this video is the debate worth having—not stupid tax semantic arcana
Yes, there's no tax on the middle class, even though there is a tax penalty on would-be freeloaders.

And yes, if you insist on calling that tax penalty a tax on the middle class (which it plainly is not), then you are sliming Mitt Romney because he did the same thing in Massachusetts (and doesn't call it a tax).

But for crying out loud, can we take a step back for a moment and realize that to effectively sell Obamacare we need to spend more time talking about what Obamacare delivers—and the real people benefiting from it—and less time beating back Republican nonsense about what it doesn't do?

Sure, we need to battle Republican disinformation, but nobody in their right mind is going to support Obamacare merely because it doesn't impose a broad-based tax. Nobody is going to support it merely because it has a mandate enforced through a tax penalty on people trying to make everyone else pay for their health care.

The reason people will support Obamacare is because it will give every American access to affordable health insurance. It makes sure that insurers cannot screw over people who have the misfortune of getting sick. In short, Obamacare will save lives and make people healthier. Obamacare is just a start—there's more to be done on health reform—but for the first time in our nation's history our nation has accepted in its laws the moral obligation to ensure every American can get quality health care. And that's an amazingly good thing.

10:13 AM PT: As Greg Sargent reports, Republicans will keep on flogging the tax debate even though Romney's contortions on the issue makes them look foolish. They really would rather talk about nonsense than the real, tangible benefits that Obamacare will deliver.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Ignore the guy over there behind the curtain (10+ / 0-)

    Notice: This Comment © 2012 ROGNM

    by ROGNM on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 09:58:12 AM PDT

  •  It's a tax on middle-class Americans... (9+ / 0-)

    ...who want to make others pay for their health emergencies.  I have no problem taxing those people and shouting it to the rooftops.

    Maybe we should have a national "Let Me Die" list like the Do Not Call list.  That way the dogmatically selfish and risk-loving among us can have their way, and over time we'd presumably have fewer and fewer of them,  

    Romney '12: Bully for America!

    by Rich in PA on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 09:58:51 AM PDT

    •  we don't know WHO the 1% will represent (0+ / 0-)

      that will be taxed for not taking responsibility.
      Could be lower income anti-government rightwing militia types....

      "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

      by MartyM on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:19:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If it's a tax, then so is Romneycare (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, Tx LIberal, TofG

      That's one meme the Dems need to keep hitting...  but again the primary meme, repeated over and over, has to be that the ACA does good things for real people, not just that it's not a tax.

      Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

      by MJB on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:23:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Romoney's man says it 's not a tax (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bkamr, CrissieP

        I think Romoney needs to have a debate with the other Gopers like McTurtle and Boner.   (LOL)

        Mr. Boehner, where are the jobs?

        by Tx LIberal on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:33:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What difference does it make (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MJB, Mimikatz, mmacdDE, dfong63

        whether it's called a tax, a penalty, a fee, or or an advance payment on future emergency care?  Democrats shouldn't even respond beyond saying it's a payment required on a person who chooses not to buy insurance.  If Republicans insist on calling it a tax (thank you, John Roberts), let them.  Just shut down the argument by saying it makes no difference what you call it, it's assessed only against a person who refuses to buy insurance.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:36:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "whether it's called a... (0+ / 0-)

          ... tax, a penalty, a fee, or or an advance payment on future emergency care" such debate is, IMO, so much
          farting into the wind and I don't see where such debate has any real substance to it.
          The point for me is that regardless how one chooses to name it, IT IS NEEDED.

    •  Republicans want their cake and eat it too (0+ / 0-)

      They want to agree with the dissent that the ACA is unconstitutional, but they want the talking point from the majority decision that government has the power to impose a tax.

    •  Yeah, there is a "free rider" tax penalty. I (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mimikatz, Rich in PA, Russycle

      think we should just own it, and name it.  Damn straight, the law includes a "free loader tax penalty."  And, the "free loader tax penalty" will be deducted from their tax refunds until they pay their fair share.

      I think Pelosi almost got it, but it would be interesting to see if having even 10 Dems hit the air waves with this message for even 2 days might not get the whole things deep sixed as a supposed "issue."

      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:38:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Tax penalty on free riders so the rest can (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TofG, albo, bkamr

        enjoy the benefits of Obamacare, such as lower rates via exchanges, no preexisting condition exclusion, no lifetime caps, senior drug benefit, free preventive care, kids on policy until 26 etc.  Stress the benefits but couple with penalty on free riders just as Romney devised it.

        The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

        by Mimikatz on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:54:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The problem is that if they have insurance (0+ / 0-)

      already, then they don't care.  If their kid is already covered until he or she is 25 as long as he or she is a college student, then they don't care.  If they are healthy, they don't care.  If their kid is healthy, they don't care. If they like their gold plated Blue Cross/ Blue Shield and they never have to wait, then they don't care.  

      That's why this tax meme is so toxic.  Americans just hear "tax" and they freak out.  If they get no benefit from this law because their ass is alread covered completely....then all they hear is tax and they don't care about anything else.  They could give a damn about the 30 mil that are not covered.  

      Shame on them.

      •  That makes the tax meme non-toxic. (0+ / 0-)

        It's a tax you will never pay, Mr. and Mrs. of-course-I-have-insurance.  

        Romney '12: Bully for America!

        by Rich in PA on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:11:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well because now they are talking about the 21 (0+ / 0-)

          other taxes besides the fine for not having insurance.

            I still don't know where that number came from.  I only have heard about the tanning bed tax (who does that anymore anyway???....I never had to because God granted me ebony skin that is needs no lightbulb to enhance :) ) and a tax on over the counter meds???  

          •  I think some of those fall under closing (0+ / 0-)

            tax loop holes. Not sure about all.

            There are still people who do not have a beautiful shade of ebony skin that are willing to pay money to darken their too pale shade. The tanning bed tax could be part deterrent and part money for PSAs to deter the susceptible. Like cigarette taxes pay for PSAs, quit programs, etc.

            Bailey 2001, I'm glad you love the skin you're in. :)

            "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

            by Ginny in CO on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 11:54:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I proposed such a list in another context (0+ / 0-)

      A Modest Proposal for a Tea Party Utopia

      Of course, since it was meant to be for Libertarians, we couldn't actually have a list. But those who wanted the deal would have to self-identify somehow.

      I have an idea: let's take them at their word.

      Let's cut all the taxes and spending, and save real money.

      Just for them, I mean.

      The rest of us continue more or less as before, but without them in the way. Let's see how far they get with no individual government services at all, just whatever they can afford in the private market.

      Including no access to Slaver (non-Libertarian non-Free) courts and money.

      I also noted their essential principles, including Libertarianism itself:

      We can do anything that doesn't harm other people or their property physically, or by way of fraud. [Amusingly, this sentiment originates with Anarchist theorist Pierre Joseph Proudhon, who inspired Karl Marx].

      Hands off my ObamaCare[TM]

      by Mokurai on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:18:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not until DC Democrats are willing (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shoeless, TofG, Matt Z, wsexson, Bailey2001

    to say: "Well, sometimes we NEED to collect taxes."

    •  Yes. Sometimes we need to pay taxes. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MartyM, MKSinSA, TofG, Matt Z

      However, as Jed stated, the ACA is a way for the majority of Americans to have access to affordable health care. Those who prefer to take a risk that they will always be healthy will be penalized by paying a penalty. It has nothing to do with taxes or with the majority of Americans.

      Your left is my right---Mort Sahl

      by HappyinNM on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:11:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly. Until we reframe the whole idea of taxes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      as a bad thing...then we will always have to run when we are called tax and spend liberals.  

       You know what??  Call me that!  I won't run....I'll tell you why taxes and spending are needed for a just and fair society.  We need to make people understand and believe it too.

      •  Not spending. Investment. Never use a Frank Luntz (0+ / 0-)

        Newspeak frame.

        • Education? Investment
        • Infrastructure? Investment
        • Health Care? Investment

        On the other hand
        • Subsidies? Wasteful government spending
        • Wars of choice? Wasteful government spending
        • Tax cuts for the rich? Wasteful government spending
        • Running up the National Debt and paying interest on it?  Wasteful government spending

        Because to them, IOKIYAR.

        Hands off my ObamaCare[TM]

        by Mokurai on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:28:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Why don't the Democrats defend their achievement? (9+ / 0-)

    It is simply baffling to me how BHO, democrats, and advocates for health care reform generally have utterly failed to defend, or even explain, the affordable care act. The act, according to pollsters, is unpopular. The people know they're supposed to hate it, but they don't know why. They don't even know what's in it.

    When you ask them about specific stuff that is in it, they generally like each of the pieces, usually by a lot. What they mostly don't like is stuff that isn't in it. It is not a government takeover of health care. It does not include death panels, or rationing. It will not put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor. It will not restrict your choice of insurance plans. On the contrary, it will do exactly what Mitt Romney says he wants you to be able to do -- it will make it much easier, if you don't like your insurance company, to fire them and get a different one.

    It will make it possible for people who cannot under any circumstances buy affordable insurance now get insurance and get their medical needs taken care of. It will make insurance companies take less of your premiums for profit and marketing and executive salaries and paying people to figure out how to deny you coverage or specific benefits; and put more of your money back into your health care. It will make it easier to compare insurance plans and pick the one you like. It will guarantee you a minimum standard of benefits. If you have a low or moderate income, it will give you a subsidy to make insurance affordable. And on the whole, in total, in the long run, it will create the kind of system we need to actually save money. (Alright, what I want is a single payer system that will do that for real, and now, but this is Earth One.) And so on.

    Yes, apparently the majority of people don't like the individual mandate but it might help if somebody explained it to them. Right now, people who don't have insurance, if they get really sick or hit by a bus, show up at the ER and we all have to pay their medical bills. This is about personal responsibility -- the purpose is to put a stop to freeloading. That's conservative, and libertarian, and darn well right wing.

    So why can't people stand up in front of a TV camera and just say all this? There is some kind of weird collective aphasia in the Democratic Party.

    •  You might want to watch the video above. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MJB, MartyM, MKSinSA, Matt Z, Mimikatz

      President Obama spends the entire time describing all the positive parts of the Act.

      Your left is my right---Mort Sahl

      by HappyinNM on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:16:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe cause it's a crappy bill? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wsexson, Angry White Democrat

      It purports to do all those things President Obama lists in that video.

      But will it end up doing so?

      What about costs?  The raison d'etre for "Healthcare Reform" was fixing the rampant rise in health care costs.  ACA does nothing about that.  We have already seen a 9% average rise in costs just last year.

      We were promised by President Obama a $2500 per family lowering in insurance costs.  WTF?  ACA goes the opposite direction.

      Accessibility? Ha.  Accessibility in name only.  Theoretical universal accessibility is about as useful as a trapdoor in a lifeboat.

      Look at the costs to a low-income family of four even after subsidies.  If that family is currently doing without insurance, where will they come up with the thousands it will still cost them to purchase insurance?

      That's not accessibility.

      ACA is a giveaway to the insurance industry, pure and simple.

      •  Reality-challenged (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The provisions that you claim are ineffective have not gone into effect.

        I did look at the rates for low-income families. It's a deal. See the Kaiser Family Foundation Health Reform Subsidy Calculator

        Family of 4, head of household age 40, income $30,000--Medicaid

        Family of 4, head of household age 40, income $40,000

        Premium $10,108

        Subsidy $8,126

        Cost to family $1,982

        Which comes to $165.17 per month

        If you want to complain, complain at those who will not permit an increase in the minimum wage, who will not permit free quality education, who are trying valiantly to destroy our remaining unions, who have set out to bankrupt our government and our nation so that they can claim that we cannot afford to help anyone.

        Hands off my ObamaCare[TM]

        by Mokurai on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:39:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is exactly what I'm talking about (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Angry White Democrat

          I've seen the Kaiser calculator.. that is what I am basing my assumptions on.

          Take that family making $40k and are living paycheck to paycheck.. barely scraping by... with no insurance.

          Where the heck are they going to come up with $165 per month?  Where? Out of thin air?

          And there are families making one heckuva lot more than $40k who are also living month to month.. and the premium gap is thousands.

          This is a stupid system laid out in ACA.

          Let's do a little analysis here..

          $10,000 premium for this family.  However, it is a young family.. no major illnesses.. bumps and bruises and flu-like symptoms are all they see in any given year.

          $10,000 freakin dollars!  For what?  In case they need it?  In other words.. most of that $10 grand goes into insurance company pockets.

          A single payer system would have paid out the very small doctor's office fees the family actually used. Period.

          •  I had a call from the DSCC a couple nights ago ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jerry J

            Wouldn't I like to make a contribution?  Thinking back, I realize that I gave 5% of my 2008 income to help elect President Obama.  Approximately as soon as he was elected, he was converted to see the need for mandates, so I shall shortly be required to turn 9.5% of my income over to a health insurance company ... and, mind you, my neighbors will be taxed to add a significant amount on top of that ... though, up until now, my health care has never cost my neighbors one red cent.  I work very hard to keep myself healthy, I go to the doctor from time to time, and I pay my bills.  Oftentimes I have bills to pay which are not medical in nature.  Recently, for example, the 60-year-old pump that brings water up from the well had to be replaced at considerable expense.  I don't suppose that my neighbors are going to taking up helping me with these other expenses after they have mandated me to stop being such a "freeloader."  Ah, well, in any event, I told the man, No, I didn't anticipate contributing to any political campaigns this year.

          •  That's not even the worst part (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jerry J

            The insurance that that family is forced to pay $165/month (which they don't have) for, will have only a 60% actuarial value. In most places, that translates to a $5000 deductible or so.

            So if someone in the family gets sick, and requires medical care, they STILL have to come up with $5000 out of pocket before the insurance that they've been forced to pay for kicks in.

            So they're forced to pay $165/month, which they don't have, just for the privilege of having to pay another $5000, which they also don't have, when someone in the family gets sick.... And somehow this is a good thing?

            There was a very good reason that the left opposed the Heritage Foundation's health care plan in the 1990s. It is an absolute betrayal of the working class that they're cheering for it now.

            •  According to the KFF calculator (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jerry J

              The insurance for that household would be 87% actuarial value with an out of pocket max of 4,167.

              Not as bad as the bronze plan, but I still don't see how they are supposed to come up with the 2K for the premiums or the 4K for the "cost sharing".

            •  I think that's what makes me so angry.. (0+ / 0-)

              This cheering for this piece of crap..  All because it is a supposed "win" over the GOPers.. that may be, but you said it perfectly:

              It is an absolute betrayal of the working class that they're cheering for it now.
  •  They should embrace the wording (12+ / 0-)

    and just slightly change it.

    Yes, it's a tax. A tax on FREELOADERS. A tax on those who don't want to take RESPONSIBILITY for themselves. A tax on those who don't want to PAY THEIR OWN WAY.

    NOBODY else gets taxed. Only those who want to scam the system and NOT pay their own way.

    That would shoot this whole thing down in a minute.

    •  what i'm trying to add to that is... (9+ / 0-)

      ...that in order for people to WANT to have a tax on freeloaders, they need to understand the benefits that will flow from the system as a whole.

      just talking about the tax side obscures those benefits, which helps the laws opponents.

      imagine, for example, if Bush had sold the iraq war as "it won't lead to very many American deaths." ignoring the fact that he would have been wrong, the point is that there's a difference between knocking down a counterargument, and selling the core policy

      •  How about not dumping on those who are (7+ / 0-)

        afraid they can't afford health insurance, like by calling them freeloaders or free riders, and tout the subsidies that will allow them to pay for it? I'm sure most people would want health insurance if they thought they could afford it. Then the penalty won't even be a factor.

        Your left is my right---Mort Sahl

        by HappyinNM on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:20:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you lead with the "free loaders" bit, I've (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z, Mimikatz, mmacdDE, HappyinNM

          found that it's like a lock in a key that opens even Republicans up to talking rationally and openly about what the law has in it.  It's been a really amazing few days talking with some friends and family.  

          And the "free loader tax penalty" has NOTHING to do with poor or working poor people.  The subsidy situation is what people REALLY want to hear about -- and they LIKE it a lot.  The rebates are another very popular point with the 13,000,000 about to get checks being proof that the law is already working.

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:43:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Repukes have been employing the tactic (0+ / 0-)

            of pitting one group against another for years. I just don't think it serves us to feed into that. If you're finding that people like the subsidies, lead with the subsidies. Most people want to feel like they're pulling their weight. It's not beneficial to embarrass them because they don't have the money to buy health insurance. If someone asks you specifically about the "tax," try to explain it without using the term "freeloaders." It's important that we respect one another.

            Your left is my right---Mort Sahl

            by HappyinNM on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:09:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Use the lead that works for the audience. The (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              important thing is to get into what the ACA Law actual has in it instead of allowing the right wing crazy lies to win.

              I do NOT want another summer of Death Panel dellusions.

              Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

              by bkamr on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:41:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I tried it with a colleague and here's what I got: (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TofG, bkamr

            "So who is paying the free loader tax for the illegals?"

            I then got mad, and said a thing or two I guess I shouldn't have and left it there.

            Some people you just can't convince.

            •  I heard that one from my cousin too, but was (0+ / 0-)

              still able to get him to table it as a second issue until we finished with the first one.  I got him to go to the subsidy calculator to see how his family would come out.  

              Wow!  What a difference that made.  He realized he'd get a subsidy and be able to buy insurance.  Converted!!

              He totally forgot his nasty (false) what about the undocumented people crap.

              I'm going for them one-at-a-time.  

              Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

              by bkamr on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:32:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The illegals. Duh. (0+ / 0-)

              Although people are not illegal. Actions may be.

              Does your fact-challenged friend think that undocumented immigrants don't get dinged in their paychecks for income tax, Social Security, and Medicare?

              Does he think that he is not paying for those who can only get health care in he Emergency Room now? (Estimated at more than $1,000 per US family)

              Is he unaware that this cost pressure has led to the shutdown of ERs all over this country for more than twenty years, thus impacting his access to health care?

              I would wager yes to all three, and more.

              Hands off my ObamaCare[TM]

              by Mokurai on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:46:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Wait, if the goverment is paying all the premiums (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            for the 13 million, then it will be the goverment who gets the rebates, not them.

            •  The vast majority of people buying insurance (0+ / 0-)

              are the people buying it through an employer.  THAT is not changing.  The people buying insurance will get pro-rated checks based on the % they are paying for their insurance; the employers get the remaining %.

              Now, there may be situations where the administrative costs to send employees checks could eat away the benefit, and in those situations, plan administrators can use the rebates to invest in the next year's payments in order to reduce premiums for employees.

              In the Gov paying the subsidy situation:

              If the government is subsidizing the insurance cost for 95% and the citizen is paying for 5%, then the government would get 95% of the rebate and the citizen 5%.

              Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

              by bkamr on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:37:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Since the gov. is not yet subsidizing insurance (0+ / 0-)

              costs, this year -- by August 1 -- the 13,000,000 who get rebate checks will get a check based on what % they paid for the policy.

              Those with individual policies will get 100%.

              Those with employer subsidized policies will split the rebate based on who paid what %.

              Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

              by bkamr on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:39:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Yes as when you say freeloaders, even tbaggers (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shoeless, VirginiaBlue, MKSinSA, bkamr, Matt Z

      perk up and they hear that. They like that term , they are obsessed that too many people are freeloaders.

      And so therefore, some of those undecided voters who are rather conservative but not batshit crazy will like that terminology when used to talk about the mandate, a tax on freeloaders.  

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:10:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think you are absolutly right about this. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bkamr, Matt Z

      Own it, it is a tax, but one that many would applaud. It is actually a much fairer tax than Social Security or Medicare taxes, because rather than simply benefiting a select group, (seniors) it will benefit approx 99% of the American people. It is similiar to State Disabilty tax, you pay it so if you need it is there for you. The major difference is most people will opt to buy health insurance for themselves and their family because it is the right thing to do, the responsible thing to do, and will not be subject to this tax.
      I also think the right wing arguement about not taxing people when we are in the middel of a recession, also needs to be counterd, with the penalty, (tax) doesn't kick in until 2014, and since we are coming out of this recession daily, by 2014, we will be completly out of it.
      It is a stupid argument, but the right wing noise machine is ramping it up.
      I have seen the Sunday talk shows, and now I realize why President Obama feels he is the only one able to make this argument, all of his surrogates are not doing it well enough, even those who are good and decent people. They are not countering the bullshit from the right about lots of things, the 500 billion cut to Medicare which is not a cut to the reciepeints, but to the providers, needs to be explained, and explained quickly, and countered with the Ryan plan for Medicare. Maybe a press conference on this issue alone, not just the tax, but al lthings included in the ACA.
      It needs to be counterd and counterd soon, before it takes hold all over again. Yes, we need to move on, but sometimes you need to take a minute and give it back to them and give it back with all tht you have.

    •  Freeloaders? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shahryar, quince, wsexson, Jerry J

      So anyone who doesn't want to pay for CEO bonuses and corporate profits is now a freeloader?

      I simply cannot believe what has happened to the left since 2009.

      •  Do you like the 80/20 regulation part of the law? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        The billion dollars coming back in rebates that would have been profits and bonuses is a nice start in IMO.

        Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

        by bkamr on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:45:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think those individuals who cannot afford (0+ / 0-)

          to buy the ACA insurance will receive a rebate, since it's the taxpayer who purchased it for them.

          •  You don't seem to understand the law. (0+ / 0-)

            Those making less than 400% (about $44k individuals and $88K families) the poverty level will get either a subsidy to buy insurance or be covered under expanded Medicaid.

            (BTW) I used the calculator and those making minimum wage (@ 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year or $15,080) will be covered under Medicaid under the ACA Law.

            The subsidies are designed to make the insurance cost a sliding scale scenario where health insurance would cost between 3 and 9% of income ... (the lower the income the lower the percent of income/ the higher the subsidy).  In other words it's a progressive scale.

            The "free rider penalty tax" scales up over 3 years.  At the high point, it is $695 or 2.5% of income (whichever is highest) ...

            BUT there are 2 BIG buts in the law:

            1. There is no enforcement mechanism in the law. The only functional tax penalty is that those who choose not to buy insurance may have the penalty tax deducted from any tax returns they may be eligible to recieve or have it taken out of future SS benefits ... someday.

            2.  If the insurance cost (subsidized or not subsidized) is more 8% of income, you would qualify as being exempt ...oh and you're exempt if you don't make enough to pay taxes, it's against your religious beliefs, you are a Native American and on and on.

            In other words, the ACA Law has a whole field of big fat carrots for millions of people, and not even a wisp of a stick that could and might be used to not really whack maybe 1% of the population who are well above the poverty level.

            The Rebates does go to those who do choose to buy insurance, if the insurance companies try to gouge them for more than 15-20% profits.

            Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

            by bkamr on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:26:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Those rebate checks should go to the people (0+ / 0-)

          instead of employers.  As it stands now, most people won't get them, their bosses will, unless they pay all of the premium.

      •  We pretty much all wanted (still want) (0+ / 0-)

        single payer.  But this is what we got, for now.  If the repubs take it away we've got nothing.  It's worth fighting for.

        Was a cold and dark December when the banks became cathedrals...

        by althea in il on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:59:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Nice.. You call struggling families "freeloaders"? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The family making it from paycheck to paycheck who simply cannot afford insurance?  And maybe they make jsut too much to afford much of a subsidy?  Those are freeloaders?

      That will make them hop on board with their votes real quick!!!

      •  Jerry what happens to your hypothetical (0+ / 0-)

        family right now if they have a medical emergency?  What will happen to them if Romney is elected?  One side is trying to find a way to help them.  The other is not.

        Was a cold and dark December when the banks became cathedrals...

        by althea in il on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:10:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No. Those who can afford insurance but (0+ / 0-)

        refuse to buy are Free Riders, whom some call freeloaders.

        Those who cannot afford insurance now but have always been willing to pay something if they could, get Medicaid aka Single Payer or subsidies, depending on income.

        Hands off my ObamaCare[TM]

        by Mokurai on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:54:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  If/when... (10+ / 0-)

    the polling shows the majority of voters now support Obamacare, Romney will be the first one to take credit for it.

  •  Romneycare (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, shoeless, Matt Z

    Rick Santorum was, shockingly, spot on in his estimation that nominating Mitt Romney would be a fatal mistake for the Republican Party. The man who literally invented "Obamacare" and is now tasked with being the chief agent to destroy it has found himself and his campaign in a real pickle. How is Mitt supposed to embrace the overheated rhetoric of the right in slamming health care reform as "socialist" and a "tax" when his sole achievement in public life was the creation of Romneycare, the blueprint for the president's own signature legislative effort? What we're finding is that Romney's campaign is embarrassingly tongue-tied in attempting to explain this inopportune position to voters and to the GOP base. This will likely cost Mitt the election.

    •  I wonder what Santorum would say about (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the Stericycle investment?  What if Romneys lies and past started to blow up on him?  A fantasy about the Republican Convention has been bubbling in my mind all morning:

      I'm imagining Santorum going completely ballistic, storming the convention stage ... frothing at the mouth ... and screaming "I told you all so!  I told you all so!"  

      Secret Service agents run up to hold him back by his sweater vest, as Newt smirks slightly off-stage.  

      Seeing their moment, the Paulists, and take up the chant,  "We told you so, too!  We told you so, too!"

      With the situation quickly spiralling out of hand, the convention producer yells, "Quick!  Cue the Cain, Cue the Cain."

      Herman Cain gets pushed stage and begins obliviously singing, "God Bless America ..." as all hell continues to break loose on the convention floor.

      Looking to his right and his left, wondering what the fuck he should do, Romney grab a nearby flag and attempts to do a decidedly akward flag corp routine beside Herman ...

      Okay. Maybe not, but I can dream can't I?


      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:06:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Pawlenty 2011, Jindal 2012: Obamneycare n/t (0+ / 0-)

      Hands off my ObamaCare[TM]

      by Mokurai on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:57:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  BS report showed up in (0+ / 0-)

    the local paper today:

    Gotta love fact-free fact-checking.

    We already have death panels. They're called insurance companies.

    by aztecraingod on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:07:38 AM PDT

    •  AP idiots.... (0+ / 0-)

      for heavens sake:

      Nothing in the law ensures that people happy with their policies now can keep them
      No shit, and if the law doesn't pass that's also true.  They're deliberately misinterpreting what Obama said.  He never claimed that the law would enshrine your current policy in stone for all time.  He just said that the law won't effect you if you already have a policy.  No, it doesn't prevent your provider from changing your policy.  Can you imagine the whinging about "FREEDOM!!" from the wingnuts if it did?
  •  TOmato toMAto, POtato, poTAto. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Let's call the whole thing off.

    . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

    by 88kathy on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:08:06 AM PDT

  •  But But But......Obamacare is Un-American. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Stories, Stories, and More Stories! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet, mikidee, bkamr, althea in il, Mokurai

    We have a couple of months to move the polls for support of the Affordable Care Act. And there is a good chance as many people are actually undecided.

    We have stories about real people this has helped. My brother got his sight back when he was able to get on an exchange in Tennessee and get cataract surgery. Rather than be disabled he is back to work paying taxes.

    He has written his story up and sent it to the Tennessean. I'm writing it up for the Louisville Courier-Journal.

    All of you have similar stories either personally, family, friends, or coworkers. Flood newspapers, blogs, facebook, letters to Mom with these stories.

    The other side has no stories. They don't have stories of lives, careers, and homes saved for being denied health insurance. Those stories don't exist.

    Humanize this at every possible juncture. We have stories they have ideology.

    I don't know what consciousness is or how it works, but I like it.

    by SocioSam on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:09:23 AM PDT

  •  Who you yelling at, Jed? :) (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aquarius40, hulibow, MKSinSA, Matt Z, bkamr

    I've spent a lot of time on the comment sections of huff po and politico in the last few days and we are defending and explaining and giving specifics. There are lots of us!   The politicians may be caught in the repub tax talking point but the little dems in the trenches seem to get it.  I am well pleased!  If we venture outside of kos and spread the details far and wide, we can have an impact.  

    You're never gonna change the hard core righties, but others are reachable.  Get out there!!

    Was a cold and dark December when the banks became cathedrals...

    by althea in il on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:09:27 AM PDT

  •  Not much of a debate (0+ / 0-)

    It's not much of a debate when the winning statement can be shrunk down to a single paragraph, or maybe a single sentence:

    "If you already have health insurance, the tax does not apply to you."

    "Free market" simplified - if you buy a product and it kills you, you won't buy it again - no government needed.

    by tomwfox on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:10:00 AM PDT

  •  Obamacare = JOBS. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pollwatcher, MJB, MKSinSA, Matt Z

    Healthcare = jobs.

    Killing healthcare is killing jobs.

    So, so simple.

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:10:46 AM PDT

  •  THIS (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MKSinSA, Mokurai

    Thank you!  Everyday there should be a front page story here at the Daily Kos highlighting a specific feature of Obamacare and how it makes the lives of millions of Americans better.

    •  There will be (0+ / 0-)

      And also in newspapers and magazines, on TV and radio (except Fox/Limbaugh/Beck et al), and all over the Web.

      There will also be a steady stream of articles laughing at the posturing and bloviation of governors like Bobby Jindal and Rick Scott, who are about to get hit over the head, hard, by the AMA, AHA, pharma, and the rest of the medical-industrial complex for getting in the way of profit.

      No, if you want to talk about who understands business in the current Presidential contest, it is no contest. Only President Obama has the lobes for it. ^_^

      Hands off my ObamaCare[TM]

      by Mokurai on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 12:54:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We win this news cycle. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, not healthcare (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Keep your eye on the prize.  Even the latest CNN poll shows that only the bases are really interested in the ACA, everyone else wants jobs.  Concentrate on what the Repugs will do to the economy, Bain, lying, and let the Repugs try to run on repealing the ACA.

  •  The "Stupid" Tax Debate? I like that. We should (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MKSinSA, mmacdDE

    start calling it the "Stupid Tax" as in you have to be really stupid to pay a penalty when you could be getting health insurance.

    Because stupid people are so sure they're smart, they often act smart, and sometimes even smart people are too stupid to recognize that the stupid people acting smart really ARE stupid.

    by ZedMont on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:13:18 AM PDT

  •  Freeloader tax? Yes! (0+ / 0-)

    Keep pushing the "freeloader tax" phrase. It strikes me as a very good offset to all the "huge tax increase" rhetoric coming from the Repubs, and could result in shutting them down on that if Dems persist.

    "The Freeloader Tax, it affects the 1% of all Americans who don't buy health insurance, but it will reduce health care costs for all Americans."

    "We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other." ~ RFK

    by paz3 on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:14:57 AM PDT

    •  Freeloader tax (0+ / 0-)

      Just doing a little pragmatic thinkin' here.

      I am totally on board with those that can and don't get health insurance.  I mean, that's part and parcial to what this is about in the first place, isn't it?

      But, what about folks like my neice that just can't afford health insurance with her two kids in tow.  That's something "we" most certainly need to take care of...and a zillion other situations in that respect, isn't it?  If we are adding what...30 folks that are going to be "required" to get health insurance lest they pay a penalty, how is that going to be accomplished, exactly?  

      Certainly the government (taxpayers) are going to have to first of all establish an "insurance exchange" to get the most affordable health insurance that can be mustared up.  And, then when there's millions that don't have the means to actually take advantage of that, we (taxpayers) are going to have to pony up money for credits and so forth so that these people can, in fact, get the insurance.

      I'm wondering where that money is going to come from knowing that we're (taxpayers) are already having a tough time just keeping up with the cost of various entitlements in the first place.

      I see taxes increasing if for no other reason than having to make sure that those that don't have the means to meet the edict has a means to do so.

      Am I all washed up here?  

      The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

      by commonsensically on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:23:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Subsidies (0+ / 0-)

        I beleive that one little tweak in pushing the 'freeloader tax' meme is to be certain to point out that this penalty only applies to those who can afford to buy health insurance, but refuse to do so, as the ACA provides.

        That's one reason for the name of the lelgislation, "Affordable Care Act."

        I do want to see the subsidy charts and income lelvel in an understandable edit soon, though. That will help clarify the matter.

        "We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other." ~ RFK

        by paz3 on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:42:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Increase taxes to pay for healthcare (0+ / 0-)

        so that we can reduce other taxes used to pay for healthcare, particularly for those who now get ridiculously expensive care in the ER, and shuffle off the cost on all of us, while forcing ERs to shut down, reducing care for all of us.

        The poor pay what they can afford. The only freeloaders in question are those who can afford insurance but refuse to buy it. Unlike the millions who could not afford it, and now will be able to.

        Hands off my ObamaCare[TM]

        by Mokurai on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 12:59:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obama did a great job on June 28th. He needs to (0+ / 0-)

    repeat ...
    repeat ...
    repeat ...
    repeat ...
    and then he needs to do it AGAIN.

    "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry

    by BornDuringWWII on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:15:45 AM PDT

  •  I'm sure we'll use some right-wing talking point (5+ / 0-)

    to explain it.  

    Something like "Welfare Queen", but more politically correct.  

    It's sad how in this party the health care argument went from being a "human right that everyone should have access to", to "pay up you freeloader".  

    Good luck getting universal healthcare, when you've already embraced that right-wing framing of "fuck the poor".

    The Patriot Act: IOKIYAD!

    by Beelzebud on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:20:23 AM PDT

  •  Please stop calling it Obamacare (0+ / 0-)

    The most effective name for our health care model is its proper name:  ACA.

  •  We've only had 2 years to get the messaging.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MKSinSA, TofG

    straight. Clearly its not enough time to get an effective defense against bullshit GOP talking points.

    Pelosi is the only one who really nails it. Everyone else gets caught up in side discussions.

  •  Succinct rebuttals. We need'em. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, Mokurai

    I have learned one major lesson when talking to Republicans about this law. DON'T say the law will save lives. They don't care. This has to relate to a personal benefit for them, and only them. Everyone I've talked to who is upset about the law is incredibly selfish. They say they'll have to wait months for an appointment, or their taxes will go up or whatever nonsense they just heard on the teevee. It's always about them. We need fast, one concept rebuttals like:

    "I'm glad this will do away with freeloaders."

    "No company will have to provide insurance to employees."

    "That will be great if all kinds of people sign up to get mamograms and colonoscopies. They'll have to hire more x-ray techs."

    "Hey, my health insurance premium went DOWN this year for the first time ever. I love this new plan!" (And that's the truth. I have better insurance than ever before, with preventative care, a lower premium and a lower deductible.)

    Great explanations in clear English on the Kaiser Family Foundation site.
    After the Ruling: A Consumer's Guide.

    •  I wouldn't say "No company has to now pay for (0+ / 0-)

      insurance"  I am one of the lucky ones in which my husband's employer offers insurance to us, that is very good insurance, and we pay almost nothing for it.  If they dropped it and we had to start paying for it, that would be a big deal to us financially.  

      Now I don't believe that companies will be dropping coverage right and left, I think that is a republican scare tactic...but I wouldn't say that to people.  It would scare me, so I know it would scare others.

  •  Calling people who can't afford insurance (4+ / 0-)

    free loaders is absolutely disgusting.

    •  People who can't afford insurance... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG, mmacdDE

      ...don't have to pay the tax.  Those who can afford to pay insurance and opt not to are taking a gamble -- and if that gamble doesn't work out, they are leaving the rest of us to foot the bill.  That seems like freeloading to me.

      The reality is that I expect those who are able to pay into the system to be willing to do so.  In return, we should expect the government to chip in and support those who can't.  

      The ACA recognizes both sides of this formula, with a tax for those can afford insurance but choose not to get it, and subsidies (or Medicaid) for those who can't afford it.

      Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

      by TexasTom on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:41:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bullshit (3+ / 0-)

        That is total bullshit. There are LOTS of people that are going to be above the penalty threshhold who are still barely making ends meet. I know SCORES of them.

        If it seems like freeloading you might want to check your party registration. Oh wait, I forgot, we're all 90s republicans now.

        •  you'll have to be humiliated first to qualify (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Angry White Democrat, quince

          the government will want to be absolutely certain that you're poor enough to qualify for a subsidy. It's not going to be an easy process.

          And if you want good coverage will you get subsidies that get you a "good" policy or will you have to take the cheapest?

          If you're self-employed will it be harder to get a subsidy, since you might not have a weekly paycheck?

          Would the President have been elected if he had said, in 2008, "we have too many uninsured in this country. The solution is to make them pay up"?

          •  60% actuarial value (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            quince, Shahryar

            The insurance people will be forced to pay for will have a 60% actuarial value. That translates to a $5000 deductible or so, i.e., worthless junk.

            •  It will be embarrassing for some people (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              to look back at what they were saying this year after the exchanges and tax penalties roll out in 2014 and they find out who is actually falling through the cracks and who is actually being penalized, IMO. Though some will only dig in even deeper, sadly.

            •  Kaiser disagrees with you (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Whose talking point is that?

              Kaiser Family Foundation Health Reform Subsidy Calculator

              Projected income in 2014 $40,000 171% of poverty

              Unsubsidized health insurance premium in 2014 adjusted for age $12,130 (Based on an age factor relative to a 40 year-old of: 1.00)

              Maximum % of income the person/family has to pay for the premium if eligible for a subsidy 4.95%

              Actual person/family required premium payment $1,982 (which equals 4.95% of income and covers 16% of the overall premium)

              Government tax credit $10,148 (which covers 84% of the overall premium)

              Out-of-Pocket Costs    
              The maximum out-of-pocket costs the person/family will be responsible for in 2014 (not including the premium) is $4,167.

              That includes all deductibles and co-pays.

              Hands off my ObamaCare[TM]

              by Mokurai on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 01:20:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I disagree. The goverment has no better mechanisms (0+ / 0-)

            in place then they do now for determining who will receive the subsidy or not. You do know it's very easy to falsify documents of any kind?

      •  There will also be some people who refuse to (0+ / 0-)

        take the subsidies, even if they can't afford it.    Some people would starve before taking any help like that.

  •  Gah. It is easy, folks: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, mmacdDE

    The Supreme Court says that the government can use tax code to charge a fee to people who are trying to get everyone else to pay for their healthcare.

    • Have health insurance?  congratulations! Obamacare cost you nothing!
    • Poor? Congratulations! Obamacare gets you cheap or free healthcare till you can afford your own.
    • Whining freeloader tryng to scam honest taxpayers into footing the bill for your "man flu" when you drag your sorry ass down to the ER to get a motrin and a pat on the head? Congratulations, you still don't pay a tax but you get a nice annual fine for your scam to offset what the rest of us have to pay to keep you from dying in the gutter in front of our houses.

    I'm losing all sympathy here - I've lost a lot of respect for a lot of people who seem to have missed that first point.  I want the president to buy some prime-time TV and get REAL CLOSE TO THE CAMERA and say "You!  yes YOU!  Take your thumbs out of your ears or wherever you've stuck them and LISTEN UP: if you already have health insurance, "MeCare" isn't going to make you buy more!  REALLY!  No stop complaining and get back to work!  crap - what the hell are some of you people thinking?!"

    Never wear your best trousers when you go out to fight for freedom and truth. -- Henrik Ibsen

    by mik on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:30:26 AM PDT

  •  GOP message still infecting some. Was in Wegman's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    dining area in suburban Phila. today after some shopping (including 6-pack of German beer) and a woman cleaning up the area (probably on ss picking up some minimum wage coin) , saw me reading the newspaper---Philadelphia Inquirer's Monday edition has a good science/environment section, today a Fay Flame article analysing climate change deniers and creationists-and she mentioned (in a grandmotherly concerned way) how "Obamacare" would raise taxes, be a burden to uninsured people, etc. I tried explaining a few aspects, including people already being taxed for emergency ward costs, but it didn't seem to sink in. Amazing how3 so many people buy the GOP line.

  •  What else CAN they do? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    As Greg Sargent reports, Republicans will keep on flogging the tax debate even though Romney's contortions on the issue makes them look foolish.
    They're fucked!
  •  It's like Heritage has a guest blogger on Kos... (3+ / 0-)

    Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
    Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

    by The Dead Man on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:41:39 AM PDT

  •  this "freeloader" nonsense pisses me off (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    quince, Angry White Democrat

    There are so many things wrong with the American health care system. It's a fairly shoddy product for what it costs. There are rip-offs all over the place.

    That's what needs to be reformed. Instead some of you have latched on to this disgusting framing. It makes me ashamed to be a Democrat.

    If insurance costs $1000 when it could cost $100 then the solution isn't "everyone should pay $1000".

    Meanwhile there are alternative places to go for health care. A trip to the emergency room isn't free. I have no idea where any of you get this idea but it's sad because it's ignorant to believe it.

    Zoomcare is a good alternative. Similar businesses should thrive in a society where there's competition. We don't have to buy in (literally) to the hospital/insurance company scam.

    Still, the law has been passed and upheld so there'll be a penalty for not purchasing junk insurance in the hopes that we'll be lucky enough to get really sick.

    There's no need to make it worse by calling those who are unhappy with what they see as attacking this from the wrong angle, "freeloaders".

    •  Many ER paitients can't pay (0+ / 0-)

      Emergency room physicians say they have been particularly hard hit by the state's low Medi-Cal reimbursement rates. Unlike other doctors who can choose not to accept Medi-Cal patients, emergency room doctors are required by federal law to treat every patient who walks through the door, regardless of their ability to pay.
      •  Uhm (0+ / 0-)

        Those that can't pay and Medi-Cal patients are not the same people.

        •  Those who can only pay Medi-Cal rates (0+ / 0-)

          and Medi-Cal patients are the same people, however. Take your fingers out of your eyes and read what the comment actually said.

          Hands off my ObamaCare[TM]

          by Mokurai on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 01:24:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  BUT if those same doctors (0+ / 0-)

            got the Medi-Cal rate for EVERY patient they saw, they might be much better off.

            Remember, a lot of people who go to the ER not only aren't on Medi-Cal, they don't have ANY insurance or any money. So while they might bill them for $20,000 they're going to see $0.

            If I have 100 patients who pay me nothing, 150 patients that I get paid $150 for, and another 150 that pay me $250, but make me wait 6 mos for it, I would much rather have 400 patients who pay me $150.

            I still wind up with the same amount of money, and way less paperwork.

          •  I read what it actually said. (0+ / 0-)

            The comment was completely disjointed from the blockquote.

  •  This is another media creation. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Talking about what the ACA actually does is not a ratings grabber, so they move to the controversy du jour, the "debate" over whether or not the mandate is a tax.

  •  Here's my question to you Jed, (0+ / 0-)

    How is the government going to determine who is a "freeloader" and who isn't? (On the public side, that is..)

    •  What exactly is your problem with (0+ / 0-)

      "can pay for insurance" based on income reported to IRS, and "refuses to pay for insurance" based on no policy to show?

      Hands off my ObamaCare[TM]

      by Mokurai on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 01:26:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Based on income reported to IRS?? (0+ / 0-)

        Are you serious?! I highly doubt the IRS is going to request a copy of everyone's insurance plan to try to determine who can afford what.

        The IRS has enough difficulty trying to catch blatant tax cheats, and now the overarching expectation is they're going to catch insurance cheats too!?

        This I gotta see.

  •  Stupid Tax? (0+ / 0-)

    Now that would be the largest tax increase in history.  Of course it would mainly effect conservatives.

  •  Good news for McCain! (0+ / 0-)

    The political takeaway from this is how Romney squirms on this issue.    Everything to do with healthcare hurts Romney, most of us don't care if it is a tax or a penalty but to see the guy criticize Obama's as a tax and their exact same proposal as a penalty exposes their hypocracy for all but the smallest of intellects.

  •  They haven't proposed a stupid tax, have they? (0+ / 0-)

    The gop will never go for that.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:19:34 AM PDT

  •  is it a tax if the govt bans DWT (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Driving While Texting - another case of you either comply or have to pay a penalty.  is that a "tax"?  i guess just about any law the govt passes, good or bad, could be considered a "tax".

  •  Jed, where's the tip jar? (0+ / 0-)

    Very good post. This post is to concise and to the point.

    I think we could use the variant of "Chinese water torture" to defeat the GOP on this point by emphasizing the positive aspects of AHCA.

    Drip, drip, drip...

    You can beat somebody crazy even with a Nerf Bat.

  •  Rolandz had a similar diary yesterday. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    He provided a link with the focus on educating the public now.  That gets us away from the tax debate.  Knowing republicans, the ACA will go from Obamacare to a Death Tax now.

    I posted a nice bullet point list from David Kendall on the THIRD WAY website.  It is helpful to give us an easy list to pound into people's heads.


    WE WIN!
    SCOTUS Upholds the Law

    Our Advice:

    • Don’t take a victory lap. The fight is far from

    • But…stop selling the law. Start explaining it.

    • Use this decision as a way to help people
    understand how they can get help with their
    health care now and in the future.

    Your Message:
    1. This ruling means you have stable and secure
    coverage forever.

    2. The fight is now over. Congress debated, the
    Court decided—this is done.

    3. Now that the fight is over, this is how you are
    going to get stable and secure coverage :

    • If you have a pre-existing condition, you are
    assured of always getting health care.

    • If you have son or daughter without coverage,
    you will always be able to put them on your
    policy until they are 26.

    • If you become gravely ill, there are no limits
    on your benefits.

    • If you are a woman, you can’t be charged
    higher premiums (starting in 2014).

    • If you need preventive care, you won’t have a
    co-pay or deductible.

    • If you lose your job, you won’t lose coverage
    (starting in 2014).

    • If your employer doesn’t provide coverage,
    you will be able to buy affordable coverage (in

  •  Keeping it stupid is GOP's only chance... (0+ / 0-) keep the confusion high in order to better divide and conquer.

  •  Why isn't anyone pointing out (0+ / 0-)

    That the SC held that the mandate was not a tax under the anti-injunction act?

  •  What is the debate? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LansingDan, mmacdDE

    Looks like most of the comments are about whether it's a tax, ironically. This post is right. The tax debate is a red herring from the benefits of the ACA. Many of the benefits haven't even been publicized much.

  •  I can't think of a wiser use of Dem. campaign (0+ / 0-)

    money than to at long last explain what is in the ACA and how it positively impacts all Americans.  The Supreme Court decision gives the President and his party a rare second chance to highlight their signature accomplishment and prevent the Republicans from defining it once again.

  •  Is team Dem blowing the message war again? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    A rare second chance to make a first impression and we're talking about freeloaders.  Where are the ads with people who were screwed by ins co's and pre-existing conditions?  Ads aiming the for the 50 million without coverage?  Ads telling people that the GOPers want to keep you one health care emergency away from financial ruin?  We're doing ok for now because the GOPers are so loathesome,  but why are we not driving this message home?  When do we start playing offense.

  •  You know, I'm not that worried (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    about it anymore.  SCOTUS ruled, the law's not going anywhere.

    Once everything goes into effect, and people have had a chance to see how it benefits their lives, it will be much easier to sell Medicare for all because insurance is still going to be too expensive.  All we'll have to do is slip a public option into the exchange - and after the insurance co's have been regulated for a few years, the change won't be as much of a shock as it would have been in 2010.

    "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

    by La Gitane on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 01:10:21 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site