The gargantuan Obama tax increase...

[William Thornton]

...courtesy of John Roberts.

Interesting.

[Haruo]

Tax increase? What tax increase? Those are penalties, not taxes...

Overall I expect it to be a good thing for the country.

[KeithE]

Rush Limbaugh’s claim ("Obamacare is nothing more than the largest tax increase in the history of the world,”) has been rated as a “pants on fire" lie by PolitiFacts. They would no doubt call William’s “The Gargantuan Obama tax increase” (if that line originated with him) at best a “partial truth”.

In toto the tax increase for “ObamaCare” is 0.49% of the total GDP which is less than many other tax increases in US history (let alone world history) including one by Reagan.

that would mean the tax increases resulting from the health care law would be about the size of tax increases proposed and passed in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter, in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush and in 1993 by President Bill Clinton. The health care-related tax increases are smaller than the tax increase signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 and a temporary tax signed into law in 1968 by President Lyndon B. Johnson . And they are significantly smaller than two tax increases passed during World War II and a tax increase passed in 1961.

The tax increases in the health care legislation do reverse a trend of federal tax cuts and represent the first significant tax increases since 1993.

But they are not the largest in the history of the United States.

And -- despite what Limbaugh said -- that means they cannot be the largest ever in the history of world. Limbaugh's inflated rhetoric takes a wrong claim and puts it into the realm of the ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire.

And most of ObamaCare tax increases go to those making more than $250,000K (joint) or $200,000K (single).

To put that 0.49% increase in perspective I’ll repeat this chart:

That 0.49% is about 1/4 of the horizontal line spacing.

Truth is a Medicare-for-All (or other single payer system) is what is needed. ObamaCare is too little, too late, next to no attempt to reduce health care costs.

What would Medicare-for-All cost? An increase of our current deduction of 1.45% salary (employed) or 2.9% (self-employed) to 5%. Read Medicare for All Costs. Meanwhile you would not have to buy health insurance through your company and would be justified in asking for a raise (although there is a good possibility they will just skim more profit).

And if you assume a Medicare-for-All program will achieve the cost reductions of other free-market OECD countries, our true cost to us would be reduced 60% according to this probably overoptimistic estimate from a Medicare-for-All advocacy group. But it is reasonable for a 30% cost reduction - heck just administrative costs are expected to drop from 31% of costs to ~ Medicare’s admin rate of 3.6% of costs. This would outstrip the modest increase in taxes.

[William Thornton]

I appreciate my Favorite Rocket Scientist (a) shovelling out serious facts, and (b) using the phrase "obamacare tax increase" even if he eschews "gargantuan."

All the figures aren't in, haven't even begun to be in, on Obamacare. It is now officially a mess, partly because of the medicaid portion of the decision, and no one, not even rocket scientists or Baptist preachers, know where this thing is going.

[Dave Roberts]

I appreciate my Favorite Rocket Scientist (a) shovelling out serious facts, and (b) using the phrase "obamacare tax increase" even if he eschews "gargantuan."

All the figures aren't in, haven't even begun to be in, on Obamacare. It is now officially a mess, partly because of the medicaid portion of the decision, and no one, not even rocket scientists or Baptist preachers, know where this thing is going.

You are right on no one knowing where it will all head. Regardless of who controls the next Congress, I'm sure that it will have as many amendments as did Medicare in the beginning. Overturning it, as Romney has promised, doesn't seem likely. Republicans would need sixty seats in the Senate to overturn a filibuster, and there aren't that many Senate seats really in play this year.

[KeithE]

I appreciate my Favorite Rocket Scientist (a) shovelling out serious facts, and (b) using the phrase "obamacare tax increase" even if he eschews "gargantuan."

All the figures aren't in, haven't even begun to be in, on Obamacare. It is now officially a mess, partly because of the medicaid portion of the decision, and no one, not even rocket scientists or Baptist preachers, know where this thing is going.

The figures that are in show a modest tax increase and not much health care cost cutting. If you believe it is all yet TBD, why use such adjectives as gargantuan? Ideological-wish-it-were-so? I witness that a lot here on BL.

[Sandy]

I appreciate my Favorite Rocket Scientist (a) shovelling out serious facts, and (b) using the phrase "obamacare tax increase" even if he eschews "gargantuan."

All the figures aren't in, haven't even begun to be in, on Obamacare. It is now officially a mess, partly because of the medicaid portion of the decision, and no one, not even rocket scientists or Baptist preachers, know where this thing is going.

You are right on no one knowing where it will all head. Regardless of who controls the next Congress, I'm sure that it will have as many amendments as did Medicare in the beginning. Overturning it, as Romney has promised, doesn't seem likely. Republicans would need sixty seats in the Senate to overturn a filibuster, and there aren't that many Senate seats really in play this year.

You must also keep in mind that a solid 10 to 12% of the Americans in polls who register "opposition" to this particular legislation are from the far left, who think that this was a compromise bill, and wasn't the comprehensive reform they were seeking. So you have 51% of Americans opposed to this legislation, and out of that, 10% are probably hard core Obama supporters regardless.

All though this process, the Republicans have thrown some of the wildest fabrications into the rhetoric. From Sarah Palin's insistence that the legislation contained provisions for "death panels," which was proven to be a blatant and deliberately malicious lie, to the projected costs of " a trillion dollars" altogether, to gloomy prognostications of the cost of private insurance soaring, and a medical care holocaust, their leadership must have incredible contempt for the intelligence of their followers. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck had to have set records for the biggest number of lies told in a single program yesterday. And how quickly a man who was the darling of the religious right and the savior of the Supreme Court when Dubya appointed him has turned into Satan incarnate and the most evil man on the face of the earth. The voters are not as stupid as the Republicans think they are. Maybe they are basing their evaluation on the intellect displayed by their tea partier allies.

I didn't catch who it was, but the best analysis of yesterday's events that I heard was a statement made by some political analyst, that the Supreme Court's decision was a huge political victory for President Obama, and very likely made his re-election a certainty.

[Timothy Bonney]

Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck had to have set records for the biggest number of lies told in a single program yesterday.

If I heard Rush or Beck say "good morning" I'd assume it as likely to be midnight. They have become shameless in their lies.

I can't prove it. But I think for some making Obama out to be the Great Satan has racial overtones. When you think of the "birthers" and the some of the Tea Party folks who think he is a Muslim, I just can't help but believe if the President was a white guy they'd not be so shrill in their attacks.

[KeithE]

I didn't catch who it was, but the best analysis of yesterday's events that I heard was a statement made by some political analyst, that the Supreme Court's decision was a huge political victory for President Obama, and very likely made his re-election a certainty.

Not at all sure that this ruling will assure Obama’s re-election - that is a stretch, imo. It does assure that Health Care Reform will be a “gargantuan” topic in the election.

BTW, count me as one of those "10 to 12% of the Americans in polls who register "opposition" to this particular legislation are from the far left, who think that this was a compromise bill, and wasn't the comprehensive reform they were seeking”.

So why am I pleased with this ruling, if I don’t like ObamaCare? If the Supreme Court had ruled against the mandate, it would have been made single payer solutions a non-starter. So I’m pleased the conversation will continue. Also celebrating that many of the 45,000 death per year attributable in lack of health care can be avoided if ObamaCare is implemented effectively.

One other insightful comment comes from Susan Estrich:

You have to hand it to the chief justice. He saved the health care bill and with it, perhaps, the Supreme Court's reputation as something other than the third branch of a government that is hopelessly divided along party lines.

[Timothy Bonney]

Call it what you will, I have no problem with someone who can afford insurance being taxes for not buying since he will end up costing the government and me more money in the long run. When the person who could afford insurance doesn't get it and then he turns up at the ER it is you and I that pay for it and get "taxes" for his supposed free choice.

[Ed Pettibone]

Call it what you will, I have no problem with someone who can afford insurance being taxes for not buying since he will end up costing the government and me more money in the long run. When the person who could afford insurance doesn't get it and then he turns up at the ER it is you and I that pay for it and get "taxes" for his supposed free choice.

ED: Tim I think you meant "being taxed" not taxing. But what happens to the person who can afford neither the insurance or the fine?

[Haruo]

I suppose incarceration would be the most inexpensive solution. Kidding. It will be interesting to see how the lines will be drawn. My guess is it will still be much harder on the "working poor" than on the rich uninsured.

[Timothy Bonney]

ED: Tim I think you meant "being taxed" not taxing. But what happens to the person who can afford neither the insurance or the fine?

I believe there is a threshold income on the fine Ed. If you are below a certain income level I don't believe you are fined.

BTW a number of provisions on this bill have already saved people huge sums of money on preexisting conditions and insurance lifetime caps. The Republicans have focuses on one part of the bill, the penalty. They have not focused on the benefits.

[Timothy Bonney]

I suppose incarceration would be the most inexpensive solution. Kidding. It will be interesting to see how the lines will be drawn. My guess is it will still be much harder on the "working poor" than on the rich uninsured.

I don't know of many "rich uninsured." Rich people know the benefits of having good insurance and can afford it. There is no benefit to a rich person in not buying the very best insurance.

Of course if we had a single payer system and look at healthcare as a right rather than a right for the rich we'd all spend less money in the long run. But the current system encourages the highest possible costs. Obamacare is a step towards making it better. It is still far from a solution.

[Matto]

I can't prove it. But I think for some making Obama out to be the Great Satan has racial overtones.

People on the left love labelling those on the right as racists, it's an easy mud pie to throw.

If it's a race thing why is this black man so upset with Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlTgrMCxPg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

It's funny that the racist smear of the Tea Party happened like that, until a large number of prominent black people were shown in the Tea Party.
Timothy leaves my shark jumping in the dust compared that effort.

It's the same old far left trick.

' They are protesting Obamas policies, they must be racists ' What a joke.

[William Thornton]

I appreciate my Favorite Rocket Scientist (a) shovelling out serious facts, and (b) using the phrase "obamacare tax increase" even if he eschews "gargantuan."

All the figures aren't in, haven't even begun to be in, on Obamacare. It is now officially a mess, partly because of the medicaid portion of the decision, and no one, not even rocket scientists or Baptist preachers, know where this thing is going.

The figures that are in show a modest tax increase and not much health care cost cutting. If you believe it is all yet TBD, why use such adjectives as gargantuan? Ideological-wish-it-were-so? I witness that a lot here on BL.

Would you, Mr. Hard Facts, please put a dollar figure on the tax increase?

[William Thornton]

I suppose incarceration would be the most inexpensive solution. Kidding. It will be interesting to see how the lines will be drawn. My guess is it will still be much harder on the "working poor" than on the rich uninsured.

I don't know of many "rich uninsured." Rich people know the benefits of having good insurance and can afford it. There is no benefit to a rich person in not buying the very best insurance.

Of course if we had a single payer system and look at healthcare as a right rather than a right for the rich we'd all spend less money in the long run. But the current system encourages the highest possible costs. Obamacare is a step towards making it better. It is still far from a solution.

It is not a right, Tim, unless you believe you have a right to have medical services provided to you for free while someone else has a gun put to their head and is forced to pay your bill.

[William Thornton]

ED: Tim I think you meant "being taxed" not taxing. But what happens to the person who can afford neither the insurance or the fine?

I believe there is a threshold income on the fine Ed. If you are below a certain income level I don't believe you are fined.

BTW a number of provisions on this bill have already saved people huge sums of money on preexisting conditions and insurance lifetime caps. The Republicans have focuses on one part of the bill, the penalty. They have not focused on the benefits.

If you mean that many have "saved" expenses as a result of someone else being forced to pay their bills, then at least acknowledge that such 'savings' is not a net savings to the economy or to health care as a while.

[Timothy Bonney]

If you mean that many have "saved" expenses as a result of someone else being forced to pay their bills, then at least acknowledge that such 'savings' is not a net savings to the economy or to health care as a while.

No William you can have a net savings to the economy.

I pay nearly 3 times as much for my health insurance as I did just ten years ago while the insurance companies keep lowering the benefits. They are making huge profits. Regulations which require them to provide a certain level of benefits only makes sense.

No matter what we all pay for everyone's healthcare. But if someone goes to the ER because they can't see a doctor because of lack of health insurance it costs much much more than it would if they could have been seen in a reglar doctors visit or had preventive care. It isn't a zero sum game. Some forms of healthcare are way more expensive than others. And it so happens that the uninsured are forced to obtain healthcare in the most expensive way possible. When they don't have insurance it just contributes to you and I paying even more for insurance.

And we just don't pay more in insurance. In 2008 70% of all personal bankruptcies were due to healthcare costs. So when someone can't pay their medical bills and goes bankrupt because they didn't have healthcare all of their debts are spread out to the rest of us and we pay yet again.

The question isn't will the entire society pay for everyone's medical care. The question is will we do so equitably, fairly, and in ways that are more cost effective. What we've been doing for decades letting the insurance industry and medical profession run the costs is that we are all being financially run into the ground.

In the UMC right now the church I am in pays nearly $12,000 per year for my group insurance because the average age of a UMC pastor is 58. Additionally I pay over another $4,000 per year for my wife and daughter to be on my plan. I remember not many years ago when $4,000-$5,000 would pay my entire insurance for all three of us. Additionally while we are paying all this money (the UMC and I) we are getting lower benefits nearly every year.

The system is broken and the free market isn't going to fix it because the free market is based on highest profit and not the good of the country. The government needs to do even more than Obamacare to lead to some fairness in the system.

[Gene Scarborough]

I think we are dealing with a piece of legislation still "in the works."

The provisions which are now clear give me reason to see why there is such a great objection: it interferes with great profits made out of modern medicine.

My wife works in a hospital Physical Therapy practice. That hospital is constantly "under construction" with everything from new buildings to fairly new computers and carpet being replaced long before the old wears out. Some of the replacements remind me of military cost over-runs. The Administrators are superficially judged more by how much new stuff is done over how well the community and patients are served. Employees are constantly being pressed to do more with fewer people as one of the big "cost saving parts."

[Timothy Bonney]

Gene I've seen a fair number of very expensive hospitals built in Indianapolis and also in Des Moines over the years with opulent decore including marble floors, indoor fountains, waiting rooms with Starbucks, etc. It is all nice and I don't have a problem with hospitals building nice buildings. But it makes it ring pretty hollow when they act like the victims in healthcare.

I had a colleague post to Facebook just this week that a young person she is aquatinted with who has no insurance was forced to make a trip to the ER and in the space of a few hours racked up an over $5,000 bill. This individual has little income. What is she supposed to do?

[Dave Roberts]

I have talked with our local hospital, a for-profit corporate extension, about having a walk-in medical clinic staffed by a doctor and nurse and open on Saturday afternoon and Sunday afternoons when no doctor's office is open. They refused to discuss it saying that it would take away from the profitability of the ER.

[Haruo]

I have talked with our local hospital, a for-profit corporate extension, about having a walk-in medical clinic staffed by a doctor and nurse and open on Saturday afternoon and Sunday afternoons when no doctor's office is open. They refused to discuss it saying that it would take away from the profitability of the ER.

And to William (and much of the country), apparently, "the profitability of the ER" is a right, and health care is not. Go figure.

[William Thornton]

I have talked with our local hospital, a for-profit corporate extension, about having a walk-in medical clinic staffed by a doctor and nurse and open on Saturday afternoon and Sunday afternoons when no doctor's office is open. They refused to discuss it saying that it would take away from the profitability of the ER.

And to William (and much of the country), apparently, "the profitability of the ER" is a right, and health care is not. Go figure.

Well, yes. I would remove the gummit imposed obstacles to competition here, but don't think there are those that would prevent a clinic from being opened. If there are those who would be well served by such, you may expect to see the entrepreneurial factor at work.

I presume a shot is being taken at for profit hospitals above. Here is a tip. so called nonprofits have the same motivation and exhibit many of the same behaviors.

[William Thornton]

Gene I've seen a fair number of very expensive hospitals built in Indianapolis and also in Des Moines over the years with opulent decore including marble floors, indoor fountains, waiting rooms with Starbucks, etc. It is all nice and I don't have a problem with hospitals building nice buildings. But it makes it ring pretty hollow when they act like the victims in healthcare.

I had a colleague post to Facebook just this week that a young person she is aquatinted with who has no insurance was forced to make a trip to the ER and in the space of a few hours racked up an over $5,000 bill. This individual has little income. What is she supposed to do?

I'm picking on My Favorite UMCer but, Timothy, you deserve it because you are such a statist. You cannot see that when you have the gummit paying the health care bills that the system becomes an exercise in political power not delivery of health care to citizens. The gummit has no interest in the health of its citizens but does have interest in being elected and remaining in power; hence, interest groups may successfully lobby for pet projects and gummit directs insurance companies to fulfill these, winners and losers are picked, bureaucrats make health decisions.

Perhaps you and Dave should compare notes because he appears to have some point about for profit hospitals and you are doubtlessly speaking of nonprofit. Really, they both build sparkling facilities? How come? Because they are competing for gummit and insurance dollars.