E-Mail 'CBO: #ObamaCare tax penalty to hit 6 million middle class uninsured by 2016' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'CBO: #ObamaCare tax penalty to hit 6 million middle class uninsured by 2016' to a friend

Loading ...

6 Responses to "CBO: #ObamaCare tax penalty to hit 6 million middle class uninsured by 2016"

Drew the Infidel says:

September 19, 2012 at 7:37 pm

Once the voting public wakes up to the fact Obhammudcare is the largest tax increase in this nation’s history he could well join the ranks of the unemployed. Quietly, that may already be the case, especially when the Washington Examiner’s latest story “The Man Behind The Image” is published tomorrow (tonight on their website).
The Romneycare bill is not the poison pill some imagine in that it was never intended as a “one size fits all” approach in the first place. Like the old saying has it, “Will it play in Peoria?”.
tom says:

September 19, 2012 at 9:55 pm

Help me understand this argument that health insurance should not be compulsory.

Everyone requires health coverage- at some point – and it WILL be paid for. It will be paid for either by the recipient by requiring coverage beforehand (like RomneyCare does now), or by the hospital or federal government via the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) passed in 1986 as part of the OMNIBUS. It seems to me the only way to stop the moochers from getting free medical care is to require coverage or pay a tax penalty.
Carlos says:

September 21, 2012 at 12:08 am

The question isn’t whether “everyone requires health coverage – at some point – and it WILL be paid for…”, tom, the question is whether the federal government has either the right OR the responsibility to force such from its citizens.

And to those of us who think the writers of our Constitution meant what they said when they wrote that anything not specifically reserved to the federal government by the language of that Constitution SHALL be reserved to the several states, or to the citizens.

Not a whole bunch of wiggle room there, in my humble opinion, but what do I know? I’m just a dumb country boy who used to teach English…
tom says:

September 21, 2012 at 1:38 pm

Thanks for the reply Carlos. Presumably you oppose the Federal law requiring hospitals to give emergency care to the uninsured. I just wonder why I have never heard anyone railing against this law that forces one person or entity to provide services to another and without compensation.
Crabbyolebroad says:

September 21, 2012 at 8:48 pm

See, the thing that bothers me is we already have a national health care, in the form of Medicaid. I don’t understand why states couldn’t say ok, every person in our state will be insured. If you want a nicer plan, you pay xx amount of money. If you don’t have money you get the basics, just like normal. And if a person cannot afford to buy insurance how are they going to afford a penalty? I also think general health should govern how much you pay. My parents, who are hyperactive fitness buffs in their 60s, and with only my father having a chronic issue with rheumatoid arthritis, should not have to pay the same rates as someone who is morbidly obese and takes 80 different medications to control blood pressure etc, has 3 stents and continues to eat Burger King. Since my parents are very proactive in their health, they should get a break. That might be an incentive for others. The ERs are overwhelmed at times, but not as bad as in the UK, where the wait can be as long as a day for non-emergent care. One of the ways to make health care more affordable is doing away with the patient’s ability to sue for emotional distress, etc. If your feelings are hurt cause the doctor told you to put the cookie down, oh well. If you fail to tell the doctor medications or street drugs you took or that you are a raging alcoholic and you get hurt by a medication, that’s your fault. Doctors are paying 100,000 a year or more for malpractice insurance due to frivolous suits. Another way is not to allow a hospital to charge 20.00 for 2 Tylenol.
tom says:

September 22, 2012 at 6:41 pm

Crabby – what you’re saying makes sense. Medicare for all – essentially single payer. Under Romney or Obamacare if a person can’t afford insurance it is paid for them, so if someone can’t afford to buy insurance there is no penalty. There is only a penalty if you can afford it but don’t pay (moocher). Even after paying for free care for some, in the long run this is still cheaper for everyone because health maintenance is cheaper than ER care. I agree with your cost saving ideas including Tort reform and incentivizing healthy behavior. BTW, hospitals charge $2 Tylenols to recoup the ER costs of the moochers. This ER care is paid by someone, one way or another.

Comments are closed.