Skip to main content

As usual, serving their corporate owners, Republicans are trying to undermine President Obama's Affordable Care Act, now casting it as a tax increase, with Mitt Romney as usual sometimes sort of agreeing, except when he doesn't. Also as usual, the Republicans and Romney are factually wrong:

But instead of being a tax increase, Obamacare will provide millions of families with large tax credits to make health care more affordable. Only about 1 percent of Americans who could afford health care but don’t buy coverage would have to pay the tax, and the penalty would only be an average of $600.
The Center for American Progress offers this graphic (full version here):
CAP- Obamacare as tax cut
CAP- Obamacare as tax cut

While continuing to do absolutely nothing about the economy, Congressional Republicans once again will go through the motions of trying to repeal the ACA, knowing they won't succeed, and not caring that if they did succeed they would be taking health care away from millions of people who otherwise couldn't afford it or obtain it. But to make this so simple that even most Republicans can understand it, if the Republicans did succeed in repealing the ACA, they also would be effectively imposing a tax increase on millions of American families. It's the Republican way: take a vital social good away from people, while undermining their personal financial stability.

Originally posted to Laurence Lewis on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 10:39 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  reframe the RW message: Repeal = Tax Hike /nt (13+ / 0-)

    Präsidentenelf-maßschach"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Ensanguining the skies...Falls the remorseful day".政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:04:38 AM PDT

  •  Judging from the yahoo and cnn boards (7+ / 0-)

    it's not the mandate that the RW talking heads are meaning so far as the tax goes. They are talking about the .09% income tax increase on incomes over $200,000, they are talking about the housing capital gains tax, they are talking about the tanning tax, they are talking about the tax on medical equipment...

    Only they've inflated that to be taxes on EVERYONE not just those it is actually on, or more importantly they've inverted it to be taxes on people making under $175,000. I've been rebutting these posts with facts for several days now. It's not doing a lot of good with the RWingers, hopefully it's doing some good with the confused independents and low info moderates.

    "Madness! Total and complete madness! This never would've happened if the humans hadn't started fighting one another!" Londo Mollari

    by FloridaSNMOM on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:14:27 AM PDT

    •  But those have been in since the beginning (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      divineorder

      and the GOP did not say anything about them until after the SCOTUS ruling -- even though SCOTUS was not asked to consider, and did not consider, these taxes. They are clearly constitutional and were not at issue in the health care cases.

      And even now, the GOP is not talking about the 1%er tax or the Boehner Tan Tax or any of the other funding measures -- they count those as far as math so they get at the highest possible number, and then present it as 100% mandate related. So they are being disingenuous about that.

      (

      ad astra per alia porci

      by harrije on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 11:23:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You only get those tax credits... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder, SoCalSal

    ...if you aren't already getting insurance through your employer, so for most people, it's not a tax cut.  It's a decent tax cut for lower-income Americans who don't have employer-based healthcare.

  •  Amp this up. (11+ / 0-)

    I ran my family's numbers through the Kaiser Foundation calculator a while ago, and my family would get a $4000 - 4500 tax credit based on our 2011 numbers.

    It also would lower the rates, since both my wife and I have controlled or asymptomatic pre-existing conditions, and are unable to buy health insurance outside of my professional society's group plan.

    9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

    by varro on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 12:09:14 PM PDT

  •  medicare-for-all (7+ / 0-)

    Just to point out: we're already spending so much per-person on the tax refunds and the employer tax break that I wonder if medicare for all might be cheaper for the government than the current system.

    •  Research shows (6+ / 0-)
      Research shows the savings in administrative costs alone under a single-payer plan would amount to $400 billion annually, enough to provide quality coverage to everyone with no overall increase in U.S. health spending.

      How did the Supreme Court decision on ACA help the 23 million still uncovered? Ask the 18,000 Doctors of [url]http://www.pnhp.org[/url] -- they're not waiting, but working now to pass H.R. 676, the “Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act .

      by divineorder on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 11:37:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Music to my ears (0+ / 0-)

      I've been advocating that ever since ACA was being hashed over in congress.  

      We have very few "programs" the government runs that are efficient and well-administered.  I know someone here that works in some government area will argue his/her is also well-run...okay, fine.  My point is that Medicare for all is just one wonderful idea.  Ask a current Medicare recipient how he/she likes it.  A HUGE percentage will say it's wonderful.  Are there problems?  Yep..just like there are problems with private health insurance companies.  I mean, nothin's perfect.  Medicare-for-all.  

      Repubs wouldn't have any part of it because it's more "power" for government, but they won't have many truthful things to say against it either.

      The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

      by commonsensically on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 11:51:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes. Also Gov't Soldiers Are Cheaper Than Private (0+ / 0-)

      contractors, gov't prisons are cheaper than private prisons, gov't sold or generated electricity is cheaper than commercial electricity, and on and on.

      We're going with the privatization.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 12:31:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The point isn't to make (0+ / 0-)

      things cheaper for government.

      The point is to rescue a failed and largely reviled Healthcare Denial industry, while simultaneously keeping Reagan Revolution free-market, anti-government, anti-social dogma afloat in these trying times.

      The larger point (the point of Reaganomics if we're honest) is to transfer wealth from society upwards into private hands.

      Trust me.  Every single cost put onto 'the market' by government conditions/regulation under ACA, including costs for pre-existing conditions, costs to cover the indigent, etc, will be made up for (and more) by government payouts.

      Any progress achieved under ACA will be reached through this costly, extortive, non-market cashflow relationship.  Only the illusion of 'market solutions' will be maintained, when really what we have under ACA is government debased, pimping, punking and enforcing for private interests.

      Just like Reagan or the Heritage Foundation would have wanted.  And gotten great fascist horse-laughs out of.

      Is ACA efficient?  No.  Would a government run program be much more efficient?  Yes.

      But in that instance you wouldn't maintain 1) the all-important regressive cashflow and 2) rightwing dogmatic frame.

      Then we call it politics.

      Please don't feed the security state.

      •  Then we pretend it's the best we (0+ / 0-)

        can do, while squaking all the louder at our even purer (read more corrupt) consensus mates across the aisle.

        Threat resolved, the populace yawned, trillions were accumulated and the Reagan Revolution lurched onward to a glorious future.

        Partisanship is not the heart of politics.  Partisanship is the abdication of politics.

        •  ACA politicking in a nutshell: (0+ / 0-)

          Libruls squawk because Obama isn't appreciated for his saving structural and politicking efforts.

          I mean, what's a guy have to do to get appreciated?

          Right wingers squawk because they know they can get an even better deal from ever-pleasing, ever nurturing, ever stooging libruls liKe Obama (and apologists).

          Hell, ever suffering libruls will supply not only the Reagan Revolution rearguard apologetics, but will do the wonk work to boot if you give them half a chance.

          Please don't feed the security state.

  •  The right is saying "tax increase" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder

    From what I'm reading and hearing from the conserv/repub sites and pubs and so forth is that the they're saying that this money for credits and this money to offer up government-paid vouchers and so forth for people that are deemed unable to pay for their insurance is going to have to come from new taxation...from somewhere.  Of course, I'm pretty sure that if that's so, the source would be from that 1% that currently has so many ways to avoid being taxed in the first place.  

    I do see some of what they're saying, however.  More "assistance" will mean more expenditures by the federal government...and in some ways, I guess, states.

    Is this the case?

    The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

    by commonsensically on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 11:30:59 AM PDT

    •  Some taxes will increase, yes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nada Lemming

      The ACA included a tax increase of less than one percent (.9%) on incomes above $200k beginning 2013.

      In 2014:

      Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them.

      A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.

      A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.

      A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.

      The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.

      At some time, a tax begins on tanning salons. And I believe another tax on businesses.

      2018:
      A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).

      I pasted the above from this handy page. Unfortunately, I didn't bookmark a better description of the tax increases.

      The sh*t those people [republicans] say just makes me weep for humanity! - Woody Harrelson

      by SoCalSal on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 11:55:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What's ironic.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    asterkitty, Matt Z

    ..is that since the concept of Obamacare was created @ the Heritage Foundation, then a Republican governor installed in Massachusetts what the Heritage Foundation dreamt up,  Obamacare has been constructed in a manner that it is impossible for Republicans to attack via right wing ideology.

      Obamacare IS right wing ideology.

    Hence they are reduced attributing a non-existent liberal frame to Obamacare.

    As an act of desperation, they are playing their ace-in-the-hole of "higher taxes" as a deep flaw inherent to Obamacare,  but do you think the Heritage Foundation would create a healthcare plan that raised taxes?

    Every Republican congressman & senator should be asked that question.

    Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate. ~ Proverbs 22:22

    by wyvern on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 11:33:30 AM PDT

  •  What if you aren't middle class anymore? (0+ / 0-)

    What if you are barely getting by finacially and can't afford insurance? The penalty of 600 dollars and who knows what it will be in 2016.

    This is just more welfare for Health Insurance providers as far as I can see, and a good talking point for politicians to point at and say to the supports of Single-Payer to sit down and shut up because we've already addressed that problem and we aren't going to revisit it.

    When I cannot sing my heart. I can only speak my mind.

    by Unbozo on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 11:38:24 AM PDT

  •  Question... (0+ / 0-)

    Self-employed here, and well under the income limit, so I would be subsidized.

    Since my insurance would be subsidized in the form of a tax credit, does that mean I would need to lay out (pay in full ahead of time) the premiums for my insurance? How does this actually work?

    curious portal - to a world of paintings, lyric-poems, art writing, and graphic and web design

    by asterkitty on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 11:47:11 AM PDT

  •  Let's look at whatever (7+ / 0-)

    they effing want to call the mandate thingy.  I'm just going to give my personal accounting:

    1.  As of today I've saved over $1,500 in 5 months by not smoking.  That's more than twice I'd need for a "tax" or "penalty" and I'd prefer to use it for insurance that I may be able to get because of pre-existing conditions (I'm a woman -- that is a pre-existing condition);

    2.  I spend about $500 per year on coffee which is a necessity for me;

    3.  Don't ask what I spend on alcohol per year;

    4.  I never buy junk food except when I have to deal with people at the lake in the summer -- I just wasted over $200 for 2 weeks; and

    5.  I am in the subsidy range -- and if I were not, I'd still pay what I could to have health insurance.  The rec list diary today about the woman who had the 50 pound tumor removed only because she finally qualified for Medicare made me cry.  She is me.  I hope I make it to 65 -- and then am not to terrified to go to the doctor;

    6.  What can anyone "sacrifice" monthly to afford health care under ACA -- and I mean those who are not covered by Medicare or Medicaid.  There's a massive void in this country regarding good use of $$ for healthy eating and that's just one issue.

    And may I finish with how much I utterly despise every single Republican representative and voter who hates the least and lesser among us?  

    Vi er alle norske " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 11:48:25 AM PDT

  •  That is really very brilliant framing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    weinerschnauzer, Laurence Lewis

    That is right out of their own mouths.  No matter how temporary (Bush tax cuts) or awful (corporate jets) or in-actual-fact job-killing (tax breaks for offshoring), once a tax break is made law, any effort to repeal it is

    OMIGOD A NEW TAX TAX INCREASE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT

    Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh.  If only our guys would give this simple, elegant, most excellent answer to that nonsense about "Obama lied and impose the largest tax hike in the history of the universe on job-creating middle class Americans"

    Oh actually.  To the contrary.  ACA gives a substantial tax deduction to middle class Americans who purchase health insurance.  You know, the middle class Americans who are not Free Riders, as a certain Willard would phrase it.  Repealing the ACA, now that would be a substantial tax hike on the middle class.

    Where's Grover Norquist when you need him?

  •  This could be an effective approach (0+ / 0-)

    It will take careful preparation, though, and that graph is completely ineffective. The same symbol used to represent $200 is used to also represent $20 Billion. A quick glance reveals no insight, rather there doesn't appear to be much difference.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site