http://danvillesanramon.com/square/print/index.php?i=3&d=1&t=3593


Town Square

Obromneycare, Part One: What is it, exactly?

Original post made by Tom Cushing, Danville, on Mar 22, 2012

The Affordable Care Act is (choose only one):

This story contains 732 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by spcwt
a resident of Danville
on Mar 30, 2012 at 7:50 am

Some additional points to consider:

Provides a tax credit to help people buy health insurance. The amount of the credit depends on your income, but should range between $5,000 to $10,000 per year. People earning up to $89,000 are eligible for the credit.

Imposes 21 new taxes. Some are immaterial, like the tax on tanning beds, black liquor, excise tax on charitable hospitals, etc. But here are the main new taxes:

A tax (penalty) is imposed on people who do not buy insurance. In 2016, the amount of this tax will equal 2.5% of a person’s adjusted gross income, capped at $695 for a single person, $2,085 per family.

If a company employing 50 people or more does not offer health insurance, it will be fined a $2,000 penalty per employee.

Imposes a new 3.8% surtax on investment income over $250,000 and a new 0.9% payroll tax on wages over $250,000. These taxes are not indexed for inflation, so eventually a lot more people will pay these taxes once inflation eats away at the value of the dollar.

Creates 159 new government agencies.

Prohibits people from purchasing low-cost catastrophic health insurance. Must buy government approved policies.

Expands federal power. Previously, Congress regulated existing interstate commerce only. Now it seeks to compel people to enter into commerce.

Despite the mandate, there will still be 27 million uninsured a decade from now, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Finally, there is the cost...$1.76 trillion over ten years according to the CBO. Like most government entitlements, that likely underestimates the true cost, of course. We currently have to borrow around $1.3 trillion per year to pay our bills. And that’s before baby boomers start retiring en masse. We need to dramatically cut spending and raise taxes just to make Medicare and Medicaid solvent. We could confiscate all of the income from the top 10%, cut the military budget to $0 and it still would not be enough to balance our budget. Where will we get the money to pay for it all?


Like this comment
Posted by TL Nelson
a resident of Danville
on Apr 29, 2012 at 12:36 am

I am hoping that the Supreme Court will save us from the devastating impacts of this legislation. It is not necessary to hurt 95% of Americans in order to help 5%. There are simplier ways to accomplish the same objectives without all of the downsides of this law ... alteratives that do not put the goverment in control of the heath care industry, that are fiscally transparent and responsible, and that do not violate our most basic rights under the Constitution. The 2010 Heath Care Reform law must be repealed.


Like this comment
Posted by spcwt
a resident of Danville
on May 12, 2012 at 4:03 am

The “savings” from Medicare you cite are largely supposed to come from cuts to the amount of reimbursements doctors receive for treating Medicare patients. At the time Democrats passed Obamacare, they knew they would never make these cuts, as these reimbursements generally do not cover doctors’ costs as it is. If they’re cut further, doctors have said they would be forced to drop Medicare patients in droves. Sure enough, when it came time to make the cuts, Congress and Obama passed temporary measures to avoid the cuts, the most recent being H.R. 3630, which avoids the cuts until (surprise) after the Nov. elections. They will do this again and again as they’ve always done.

Even if they made the Medicare cuts, how can we justify cutting benefits to the poor and elderly in order to give a $10,000 per year healthcare credits to people making up to $89,000? That’s what Obamacare does.

Similarly, the increased $1 trillion of new taxes Obamacare imposes over the next decade are taxes that cannot be used to make Medicare and Social Security solvent.

We need to prioritize where our government spends money. We have a moral obligation to take care of our poor and elderly. We shouldn’t shirk that duty in order to give $10,000 a year free money to the middle class.


Like this comment
Posted by Tom Cushing
a resident of Alamo
on May 12, 2012 at 1:01 pm

Most of this really responds to material in the Estimation sequel to this description of ObromneyCare, but your objections seem fairly faint -- esp. assuming that you see the advantages of many of the other features. In another era, you might even vote for it.

1 -- you complain about a subsidy on incomes "up to $89K," which includes all those poor and elderly. Okay, pick a lower threshold with fewer voters in it;

2 -- you complain that taxes (and penalties) used for one purpose cannot be used for deficit reduction. While true, that's the case with every expenditure for anything, including that south Asian sinkhole of Afghanistan. You believe deficit reduction is more important than Gramma. Okay, but lots of other people don't.

3 -- you know that ad about Prop 29 with the charletan doctor complaining about beside-the-point possibilities, and hardly mentioning the central anti-smoking theme? Ultimately, your laser focus on that lousy $10k suggests a similarly diversionary tactic.

As you know, in politics, perfect is the sworn enemy of good. I think ObromneyCare is good enough.