Is the new health care law a tax on poor people?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

From what I have heard, poor people will be forced to pay a health insurance premium for a policy they can't afford to use. In other words, the health care bill is a poor tax.

Anybody know the scoop on this?

[FrenchieCat]

1. What I understand is that poor people would finally have access to health care!

Thanks goodness!


The cutoff level would be an income of four times the federal poverty level. For one person, that’s about $44,000 a year. For a family of four, the comparable figure is about $88,000.

Subsidies would be figured on a sliding scale, with those who make less getting a bigger boost and those nearer the top getting a smaller one.

The formula is pretty complicated. Basically, though, people who make three or four times the poverty level would get enough federal money so that they would not have to pay more than about 10 percent of their income for a decent health insurance package.

People who make less would have to pay a smaller slice of their income for coverage. For instance, individuals who make about $14,000, and four-person families with incomes of about $29,000, would not have to pay more than 3 to 4 percent of their incomes for insurance.

And those who make even less – under 133 percent of the federal poverty level – would be able to enroll in a newly expanded Medicaid program.

The federal subsidy would go straight to the insurer. It would look like a discount on the policy to the customer.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0320/Health-care-reform-bill-101-Who-gets-subsidized-insurance

[Admiral Loinpresser]

2. Looks like a poor tax to me.

I had access to health care before the bill was passed, I just couldn't afford it. Now I will be able to afford it even less, because I will have to pay hundreds of dollars (at least 3-4 per cent of my gross income) to a fucking health insurance company every year. Trying to squeeze that into our budget will certainly mean we can't avail ourselves of any policy "benefits" because they get to still charge me for a visit of for drugs, etc. I couldn't afford it before Congress decided to tax me and I sure can't afford it afterwards.

Poor people get it coming and going. There is no justice in this country and this bill is a disgrace.

[hfojvt]

20. you call yourself a poor person

How much do you make? I make about $17,000 a year and I pay $3,575.28 for health insurance. That's 21% of my fairly low income, and yet you think 4% is a total screw job? and "a disgrace"? 4% sounds pretty darn good from where I sit.

Health care is much more affordable with health insurance. I get about $500 of dental care at no cost. I get free eye exams and glasses for $25 (every 2 years). My hospital visit created a bill of $13,900 which cost me a mere $400. My EGD was completely covered, as was my knee surgery. An emergency room visit cost a mere $100 instead of $600. Although sometimes I wonder if I get enough benefits to cover the $3,500 I am spending every year. Even that hospital stay is covered with a mere 4 years of payments.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

30. If you are single income, I don't see how you make it.

say you take home $1,200 a month and then spend $300 a month on insurance premiums. That leaves $900/month for food, rent, utilities, transportation, and incidentals, not to mention additional healthcare costs you mention. I honestly don't see how you make it on single income. But I'm glad you have been able to get healthcare. Sounds like a great plan too.

But the plan is certainly a disgrace for most poor people. Health insurance companies under the new law, are not limited in how much profit they make and they are not subject to anti-trust laws. This means they can act the way all big business acted before Teddy Roosevelt, except for child labor laws. We shouldn't pay *anything* extra, especially those of us who are currently uninsured. While you and I discuss this issue they continue to rake in obscene profits, while people die.

I certainly agree, if somehow you are already getting by on a single income in those conditions, it is a good deal for you. But my best guess, based on living in a metropolitan environment, is that most people trying to survive on $1,200/month have no health insurance and couldn't afford to use it. I sure won't be able to. Good luck!

[prolesunited]

31. If you actually made $1200 a month

you would qualify for subsidies.

You are not asking a question. You are making a point (poorly).

[inna]

69. See this thread (it's one of the best explanations on the HCR I've read):

"Affordable" Health Care or the road to Neo-Feudalism?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7338574

[Oregone]

7. Yes, it expands access to purchase a health insurance policy

Everyone should be allowed to buy that and an LCD TV

[Romulox]

27. Let's solve homelessness by forcing the homeless to buy homeowner's insurance!

Remember, it is "access" to insurance that is important here, not care.

[bobbolink]

56. BRILLIANT!

[Admiral Loinpresser]

61. Wonderful avatar, btw n/t

n/t

[zipplewrath]

40. No, health INSURANCE

there is little to nothing to ensure access to health CARE. Folks who have insurance right now often cannot afford to use it. And depending upon what insurance you have, and where you live, there aren't always providers available. Little to nothing in the law to address that. And even the administration will tell you that after it has taken full effect, it will leave 25 million people uninsured.

Right in the law it is very specific about who is exempted from having to purchase insurance. Basically if you make too little, but your premiums will be too big, you are exempt from having to have insurance. You still won't get health care, but you won't have to pay a penalty for not getting it.

[mdmc]

59. Yet a single person making $13000 per year on disability cannot

get medicaid and would be required to purchase(!) health insurance!

You claim that someone making 14,000 would have to pay "a small slice" of their income for coverage. What you fail to mention is they would also have to pay "a small slice" for medication, "a small slice" for co-payments, and continue to pay "a small slice" for transportation to treatment et al.

[inna]

68. Here's some Hard Numbers:

Consider these two cases for a family of four making around $88,000 (gross annual income), i.e. just around 400% FPL (Federal Poverty Level for 2009).*
Note: subsidies end at 400% FPL = $88,200 (family of 4) or $43,320 (single individual).


---CASE #1: Above 400% FPL = uneligible for subsidies.
A family of 4 with the annual gross income of $88,421 (=401% of FPL) will have to pay $25,591 (that is, 28.9% of their entire income!) in PREMIUMS alone - that is, BEFORE any out-of pocket expenses, deductibles and copays.* None of it is subsidized.


---CASE #2: Under 400% FPL = eligible for subsidies.
Now, at 399% FPL = $87,980 (for a family of 4), the same family would get a break - they will pay only 9.5% of their income (= $8,358) in PREMIUMS. They will also be eligible for another subsidy: their cost-sharing (on TOP of premiums) will be capped at $7,973 (= two-thirds of the HSA limits). Thus, the maximum annual totals that this family will have to pay will be $8,358 (premiums) + $7,973 (max cost-sharing) = $16,331 (=18.6% of their total income). Still high, but WAY better deal than in case #1 above, where premiums alone are 28.9% of income!


---Conclusion: Subsidies make a huge difference. Just going over the 400% line makes a huge difference. Family 1 in the example above makes only $500 more a year than Family 2, but they will have to pay literally tens of thousands more in health costs. I.e., health insurance reform will be beneficial to those under 400% FPL who currently don't have employer-provided coverage and have to pay their own insurance.



*Note: All calculations based on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590) and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872) as passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. (See http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf (PDF) for summary.)

Premium subsidy calculator: http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx#tableLinkDiv

[EFerrari]

3. Yes, that could and probably will happen.

People will have health insurance that they cannot afford to use.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

4. In other words, Congress taxes poor people,

but instead of collecting the revenue, it goes directly to health insurance corporate profits. It's like something out of Catch 22.

Historic legislation? Yes.

Good legislation? Certainly not for poor people.

[EFerrari]

5. Poor people pay more for everything in this country, including insurance

we can't use, including money.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

6. So true.

I wish they would repeal the damn law, or at least the parts that mean money out of poor people's pockets.

What I need is what they have in civilized countries. Single-payer health care at no cost and subsidies for travel for poor people. Sicko really opened my eyes to how backward the US is on health care. Cuba, after a 50 year embargo has better health care than we do!!!

[Davis_X_Machina]

8. If by 'poor' you mean....

....below 133% of the Federal poverty level, no -- rather the opposite. You'll get Medicaid. The existing patchwork of vastly different state qualifying thresholds will be replaced with the single national level. Unfortunately it doesn't kick in right away.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

10. No, I have much broader concept of "poor."

For example, most people who live from paycheck to paycheck are poor, because they can't save and whenever they have non-periodic expenses, or whenever they have an interruption of income, they are screwed. Many such people would be over the laughable federal "poverty level" as it exists in the age of Reagan.

A single person making $11,000/year is not poor by federal standards, if I interpreted the CSN link properly. Why not $9,000/year? Or $2,000? I don't see much distinction, as all three figures would be laughable if they weren't obscene. Avoiding homelessness in America is an expensive proposition.

I would gladly trade jobs with Obama if I could also get his house, salary and servants. Hell, I'd even have free health care! And I guarantee you I would do a better job.

For example, I would have done something substantive about climate change at Copenhagen, we'd be pulling OUT of Iraq and Afghanistan and my health care bill would not have resulted in health stocks going up after it passed. And I would never have received one Republican vote in Congress, nor would I have given one quarter trillion in tax cuts favoring the rich in my stimulus bill.

[BzaDem]

23. You actually wouldn't have passed a healthcare bill

because Congress would have laughed you out of the room.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

46. Congress laughed at Clinton.

I remember. I heard it on the radio. But he still got a bill passed that made our tax system *more* progressive.

They also laughed at Obama, at least on twitter, while he was addressing them. And the "health insurance" industry laughed at him all the way to the bank when their stock values increase right after the bill was passed.

What I meant was I would have a chief of staff and congressional liasons who knew how to implement the hardball tactics of LBJ or FDR when they needed to pass highly controversial, *progressive* legislation. I don't think it is impossible to get progressive legislation passed, if one is able to understand that class warfare means you have to treat the GOP as the enemy.

Didn't happen here. This was more of a Neville Chamberlain deal. Universal health care in our time! My work here in Munich is done.

[Radical Activist]

48. You also would have failed to get a climate treaty passed in the Senate.

You're really naive if you think Obama can just order Senators around, or that all Democrats will vote for the progressive things on your list. There are enough conservative Democrats in Congress to block things that Obama supports, like more action on climate change and a better health care bill.

Even FDR didn't get a lot of what he asked for. There are no more LBJ's. Many of us don't want an authoritarian big brother to issue commands and then wait for a backlash.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

51. Naivete would be to assume

that not getting Senate ratification would mean failure. Kyoto did not get Senate ratification and yet it went into effect in the civilized world. When environmental standards go into effect widely, they have a de facto (as opposed to de jure) economic effect on US industry, because of globalization (i.e. trade with ratification countries). It's analogous to public education text-book standards established in California. Because California is a major text-book market, it has a de facto liberalizing effect on states with more "conservative" standards, but less buying power.

Obama didn't even try. Quite the opposite. Poppy Bush and Dubya sabotaged Rio De Janeiro in 1992 and Johannesburg in 2002, respectively. Obama just watched Copenhagen fail in 2009. Al Gore stepped up (against his advisers' counsel) and risked his presidential aspirations to salvage Kyoto and produce something that was perhaps as progressive as could be achieved. That was courage, comrade. Straight up.

I'm right with you on the authoritarian big brother thing. But that's precisely what we have today. Better a hard ball president than legislation which serves the interests of the ruling class.

[Radical Activist]

54. So many false statements here.

No, Kyoto didn't go into effect. Most certainly not in the US. That's why we're in such deep shit right now. Suggesting that it's acceptable to repeat Kyoto's miserable failure is ridiculous. That would be a death sentence for the planet.

Your claim that Obama didn't try is an easily disproven lie. Obama has already done more to stop climate change than Gore, Clinton and Carter combined. You can say Gore had courage to negotiate a treaty that never passed, but some of us want real victories that accomplish something rather than merely moral victories that allow us to proclaim our self-righteousness.

If you want Obama to pass more progressive legislation then we need to get rid of conservative Democrats like Blanche Lincoln who stop the best legislation from passing, such as climate change. You can't get your version of health care or a climate treaty passed with Democrats like her around.

If you were President, you would get a real wake up call when certain Democratic Senators told you to fuck off and you'd be left standing with nothing while you refuse to compromise. But hey, I guess simplistic demands that Obama "play hardball" (as if he isn't already) are much easier than taking the time to understand what's really going on.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

58. Give that bong a rest, brother.

I said that Kyoto went into effect in the *civilized* world. That no longer includes the USA for some time now. If you want to debate whether the US is a civilized country, I'll be happy to oblige. Just put up an OP to that effect and I'll bring the popcorn!

Almost all civilized nations became parties to the Kyoto treaty.

My claim about Obama may be an easily proven lie, but you offered no such proof. Surely you agree that the outcome at Copenhagen was unacceptable. What evidence will you offer to demonstrate that Obama tried for any other outcome?

Getting ratification of a decent climate change treaty is not realistic at this time because the Senate is filled with cowards, with a few notable exceptions. As to US climate change legislation, we either need effective WH leadership or to clean house in Congress, or both.

I don't claim that getting progressive legislation enacted would be easy. Since the time of FDR, at least, I can't think of one example where it was. Maybe a few things in the '60s, when it was cool to be liberal. But FDR and LBJ, even Clinton, got progressive legislation passed when it was hard to do. They used hardball tactics, not "bi-partisanship." The only thing we know is that Obama's strategy hasn't been effective, with the arguable exception of the stimulus package. Even there he gave away a quarter of a *trillion* dollars in wasteful tax cuts, predominantly for the rich, just to get one or two token Republican votes in the Senate.

I would love to be proven wrong about Copenhagen. You said it was "easily disproven." Show me some evidence.

[hfojvt]

26. isn't that kind of arbitrary?

I could make $40,000 a year and live paycheck to paycheck - if I wanted to live that way. I would get myself an expensive house and have huge house payments (and property taxes and insurance and utility bills). I would get myself a brand new car. I could get myself a cell phone and cable TV. I could buy lunch every day from a restaurant, including a soda. And so on. And you would consider that poor. I have been in the bottom quintile most of my life and I have never lived paycheck to paycheck even when I was in graduate school making $5900 a year. My life is not without luxuries either. Do I really NEED two bicycles and two dogs and two desktop computers and two beds and three laptops?

I see a fair amount of distinction between $1,000 a month and $200 a month. :shrug:

Also, the question is whether your stimulus bill would have passed. It took two Republican votes to get out of the Senate.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

35. No.

I said most people living paycheck to paycheck are poor. Not all.

My point about $200 versus $1,000 a month is that neither person can afford any out-of-pocket for this law.

How come when Dubya held power, they didn't need 60 votes to get anything done? If the administration had had the will, it could have passed the bill without any crazy tax cuts.

[hfojvt]

50. because the Devil has all of the good music

There are always a few Democrats afraid to face re-election and have an opponent say "he/she voted against a tax cut" or "he/she does not want to protect America from Saddam". For some reason they have easier sound-bites whereas we have to explain a complicated health care bill or cap and trade.

Also, when we do things like filibuster or use reconciliation, the media treats it like it's totally unprecedented.

Heck, it seemed like half of the people on DU wanted tax cuts instead of spending. I did battle on a couple of threads where the OP said "scrap the stimulus and send everybody $10,000 instead".

But back to paycheck to paychek, I still think there are lots of people living that way, not because they do not make enough money, but because they make bad choices and are bad money managers, especially if their income is 200% of the poverty level.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

52. I agree totally that it's harder to be a Dem

in the age of Reagan. You have to fight both the GOP and the SCMSM. It was hard for Dem reps who voted for Clinton's progressive tax bill in 1993. Some were defeated in 1994 but the people, even the working poor, were well served by having that earned income tax credit. Voting for the civil rights bill in 1965 is another example.

Being president is inherently a very tough job. It was even for a slacker like Reagan or Dubya. Doing the right thing is oh-so-much harder. But still easier than it is for those who suffer when POTUS doesn't do the right thing. For example, Americans who are maimed in Afghanistan, or the innocents who die because of the "health care" industry death panels aka "officials."

Let me get this straight-- a single person making $22,000 a year is living paycheck to paycheck because she is a poor money manager. Let's say she takes home $1,500 a month. Rent will be at least, say $700 a month, unless she lives with somebody to share expenses. That leaves $800 per month for public transportation (she won't be able to afford a car and a bike is, unfortunately, often not feasible or dangerous), groceries, utilities plus household and miscellaneous expenses. Not to mention unanticipated expenses, which often come up. We haven't even put health care on the table yet. If she wants to eat healthy food (e.g. organic produce) I think she will be a very smart money manager if she can make it paycheck to paycheck. Have you got a different concept for her budget?

[inna]

72. Here's what your hypothetical person grossing $22,000 will be faced with:

At $22,000/year = 203% of FPL (federal poverty level) she'll pay $1,410 (6.41% of her income) in premiums.

In ADDITION to premiums, her cost-sharing (same thing as out-of-pocket maximums ON TOP OF premiums, that is, deductibles and copays) will be capped at $2,975 (one-half of the HSA limits for 200-300% FPL).

Thus, if she actually USES her insurance, her maximum payments will be capped at $4,385 a year (the rest will be subsidized).
$4,385 is 19.9% of her income and a SHIT LOAD of money for someone who makes only $22,000 a year.

Affordable or not? Decide for yourself.


:nuke:

[Vinca]

9. The poor will get Medicaid. The rest will be delivered to big insurance.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

11. I reject the federal/corporatist definition of "poor."

See post above.

My guess is most of the actual poor in this country won't get Medicaid, because they aren't "poor" by the federal standard.

[Vinca]

12. Agreed . . . I'm one of them.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

13. Me too.

I hope someday America will honor our essential dignity as citizens, by providing a realistic safety net. Waging class warfare *on* the rich instead of *on their behalf* would also be nice. My current ambition is to live in a civilized country!

Good luck and hope to see you around.

[hfojvt]

29. are the millions who ARE poor by the federal standard

supposed to feel sorry for "the actual poor" who make more than the Federal Standard.

You seem to feel that the "actual poor" are those making 150-300% of the poverty threshold and you don't really care if the people making less than 133% of the poverty threshold get benefits. As if most of THEM are not "actually poor".

[Admiral Loinpresser]

37. Nice strawman.

Of course I want "poverty level" people to get health care. As far as I know, almost all were legally entitled to Medicaid before this bill was passed.

[hfojvt]

53. no, you said that "most of the actual poor" won't get medicaid

here are the stats I collected for income levels

below 50% of poverty - 17,075,000
below 75% - 10,277,000 (cumulative 27,352,000)
below 100% - 12,477,000 (cumulative 39,829,000)
below 135% - 19,599,000 (cumulative 59,428,000)
below 200% - 36,597,000 (cumulative 96,025,000)
below 300% - 52,285,000 (cumulative 148,310,000)

to me, "most of the actual poor" means the 59,428,000 people below 135% of poverty and not the 36,597,000 people between 135% and 200% of poverty. A single person making minimum wage, which is about $14,500 a year might be poor at about 130% of the poverty line, but I am less sure about a single person making $22,000 a year which is 196% of the poverty line, and even less sure about somebody at 250%, which is $28,000.

Those between 135% and 300% of the poverty line do out-number those below 135%, bur I don'r believe most of the are actually poor. I am more concerned about helping the person making $14,000 or less than I am with helping the person making $22,000 or more.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

57. Here is your strawman argument.

"You seem to feel that the 'actual poor' are those making 150-300% of the poverty threshold and you don't really care if the people making less than 133% of the poverty threshold get benefits. As if most of THEM are not 'actually poor'."

In fact I want *all* poor people to have improved health care, in direct contradiction of your strawman argument.

Now as to the substance of your last post, I would like to see a source for your data. Under whose administration was the data collected? The chances for Bush era data to be doctored is quite high, so I want to see the source. Also, these kinds of stats may be under-reporting inherently, because poor people are more often statistically invisible than the non-poor. For example the "unemployment rate" stats are a joke.

Such poverty stats may not include, for example, many Lakota people living on the Pine Ridge rez or Dine people in the Four Corners area or the children, born in the US, whose working parents happen to be undocumented, poor people in Detroit, etc., etc.

There is a lot more poverty in the US than the federal government cares to admit. It's not good for business.

Finally we have yet to see how the bill will be implemented. Will a lot of new people be added to the Medicaid rolls? God I hope so, but I'm skeptical. I think a lot more poor people will be screwed by this thing than will be helped by being added to Medicaid. That is the almost invariant pattern of legislation in the Reagan era, which continues to this unfortunate day.

Did you see Sicko? I haven't seen Michael Moore's reaction to passage of the bill, but I *guarantee* you his was less enthusiastic than Wall Street's. If this bill was not a massive transfer of wealth to the rich, why did "health insurance" stocks go up when it passed?

[TransitJohn]

41. Maybe if they cut off a leg or poke out an eye.

Medicaid for those who are poor AND disabled (at least in my state). Simply poor but able bodied? No Medicaid.

[HillGal]

47. Good Luck finding a Doctor who even takes Medicaid anymore, I know people

who have to go out of County to see a Doctor, and the same thing is starting to happen with Medicare, more and more Doctors are no longer taking Medicare patients and just continuing to see their current Medicare patients.

[MrScorpio]

62. Sounds like a great endorsement for socialized healthcare

I'd love to see a French of Canadian healthcare system in this country,

That way, you're friends can skip the travel costs for great care.

[LWolf]

14. I'm not poor, although 2 years of paycuts put my home at risk.

My insurance premiums are projected to rise 15-26% next fall. I already don't see doctors because I can't afford the deductibles after the premiums.

I don't know how it's affecting the poor. :(

[Coyote_Bandit]

15. The new health care law will

actually leave some folks in worse shape. Still lacking meaningful access to healthcare and now thanks to this clusterfuck legislation facing monetary penalties.

Having health insurance doen't mean much if someone can't afford the deductibles and co-pays to use it. The same is true for thos who no longer are denied coverage for pre-existing condiditons. Doesn't matter if they still can't afford to pay the premiums, the deductibles and the co-pays. And while those subsidies may help some folks they will not be adequate to make health insurtance available to everyone.

I have health insurance - high deductible catastrophic care coverage - and I haven't seen a doctor for over 15 years. Can't afford it. Can't afford to pay a higher insurance premium for better insurance coverage. And I don't expect one fucking bit of financial assistance from those government subsidies to make it possible for me to have meaningful access to healthcare.

Meaningful healthcare reform was and remains my line in the sand. I do not have the luxury of waiting another 20 years for the government to revisit the issue. I'll not be voting for any incumbent that voted for this clusterfuck. They could have done better and chose not to. They'd rather fund the military, finance a couple of wars, bail out the banks and guarantee the continued prosperity of their insurance company buddies than to make meaningful access to healthcare available to flesh and blood citizens. Fuck 'em.

[sinkingfeeling]

16. I suggest that you read the bill or a summary for yourself. Many more people will qualify for

Medicaid. There is subsidizing for the poor and caps on copays.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

44. Either it's free for me or I can't afford it.

I think I've been to the doctor maybe 2-3 times (when I had a job with a good co-pay, etc. For most of the Bush era, I simply couldn't afford it and still can't. If I have to pay anything out-of-pocket while big "health care" companies continue to earn rapacious profits, I think that is old-fashioned corporatism. I'm better off without the bill and I think millions of other Americans are as well. When the government says I am forced to take money out of my pocket and give it to an industry that intentionally murders innocent Americans, I call that a tax. Call me old fashioned.

There were all kinds of ways to pay for this thing without taxing working people. For example the rich could come a little closer to paying their fair share. A public option would have gone a long way toward reducing the insane per capita cost of health care in the US, more than double any civilized country on earth. How about making the "health insurance" industry subject to anti-trust laws. I guess that's just crazy talk. Sorry.

This bill probably helps some poor people. That mitigates the obscenity of the law. But for many its a terrible deal. And it is definitely a transfer of wealth to big corporations. Straight up

[inna]

71. You're exactly right -the fact that this bill helps some poor people mitigates its overall obscenity

It's much worse than a "tax", it's a corporate levy that by design targets the workers and spares the rich.

The rich are not affected at all (as they will continue to pay a miniscule, negligible fraction of their income for their superb insurance), while working people will be faced with a huge, massive burden (the struggling "middle class" will be particularly, disproportionately affected as they will be forced to pay 30%+ of their income for health insurance).

It would be GREAT *if* it were a tax paid to the government in exchange for health coverage - even a flat tax, say 2% across the board, would work. Instead, it is deeply regressive overall. The rich are let off the hook, the middle class is faced with huge, massive financial burden (unsubsidized), and those "at the bottom", with hardly any disposable income, are provided subsidies but are still forced to pay their every last remaining dollar for their "subsidized", inadequate insurance. (Oh, and they throw a few crumbs to those between 100 and 133% of federal poverty level by putting them on Medicaid. While defunding Medicaid at the same time.)

So, this is actually much, much WORSE than a "tax" (which is normally collected by the government for the common good). It's a corporate levy/tithe which places a massive financial burden disproporionately on the workers and funnels both - a) individual wealth from the middle class, and b) public money (in form of subsidies) - directly to the parasitic, for-profit corporations. Overall effect, like you pointed out, is an upward transfer of wealth.

:nuke:

[emulatorloo]

17. "Some people say" a lot of things that aren't true

Poor people who cant afford insurance will be subsidized.

[Tailormyst]

18. No- A tax would go back into the community pot

This is the forced payment from the lower to middle classes right into the golden plated bathrooms of CEOs. Welcome to the new feudal system. Pretty soon we will just be paying everything directly to the big corps.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. It will add millions of poor people to Medicaid

[NorthCarolina]

21. If by "poor" you mean people already living paycheck to paycheck, and without

any appreciable savings to fall back on, then yes, you could easily call it a tax on poor people.

[county worker]

22. Looks like you didn't get enough in during the year long lie fest leading up to the bill.

Why do you call it a tax? In order for there to be a big enough pool to spread the risk, everyone who can will be required to purchase health insurance. "Poor" people will get government assistance to purchase health insurance.

If everyone went to the emergency room for care because they didn't have health insurance it does become a tax on everyone since the cost are passed on to state and federal governments.


You state a false premise then build on the lie. How very misleading and self serving.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

60. Because that is the effect.

The government has mandated that I take money out of my pocket and give it to somebody else, namely the thieving, murdering health insurance companies. (When I call them "thieving, murdering" I do not mean that ironically, I mean it quite literally.)

A tax usually means mandating that people or other entities pay money to the government. In this case, they have seen fit to eliminate the middleman and have their corporate patrons receive my dollars directly.

Financially the effect is the same for me regardless of who the oppressing recipient is. So if the government mandates that I pay money, I consider that a "tax." But I understand the spirit of your question. Perhaps the phrase "class warfare tribute" would be more technically accurate.

[county worker]

63. I don't agree with you. If you were injured I would have to pay a real tax to take care of you.

You don't live in a vacuum. It's time people took a bit of responsibility for their health care if they can. I wish we had single payer but we don't. We have the insurance companies. I think that you will feel different over time.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

65. What don't you agree with?

Clearly, I want health insurance. I just can't afford to pay for it, just like millions of other Americans. The problem is systemic. The two root problems are: 1) the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes; and 2) there is essentially no effective regulation of "health insurance" companies because they are exempt from anti-trust laws. That is a major reason why the US pays more than double what any other major country pays per capita. That's why they are allowed to have Death Panels (aka bureaucrats), which deny coverage to customers when they are gravely ill. It's always easy to stick it to the poor in this country. It's class warfare and a massive transfer of wealth to big corporations.

Who should pay for this? Murdering, thieving "health insurance" companies making obscene profits or working Americans struggling to survive in a very bad economy?

[BzaDem]

24. The premise of this post is a falsehood of the first order.

People making under 133% of the poverty level get free Medicaid. Those above that get a sliding scale subsidy that makes health insurance cost between 0% and 9.5% of their income. If it costs more than 8% of your income you don't have any mandate.

This policy has an actuarial value of at LEAST 70% for all medical services, and FREE preventative care. In fact, there are subsidies for not just premiums but also deductibles/cost sharing, so the total actuarial value is really this:

100-150% poverty: 94%
150-200% poverty: 87%
200-250% poverty: 73%
250-400% poverty: 70%

Anyone who calls this a "poor tax" is either not educated about the bill or wilfully spreading falsehoods.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

34. Why is it a falsehood?

Millions of working people in this country are poor, i.e. they barely make it from paycheck to paycheck or worse. Our website is replete with stories of people who fell on hard times in the Bush era. The federal government does not categorize them as below the "poverty level," so they get little or no assistance.

So according to the federal government, if you make more than about $15k per year, you are *forced* by a Democratic law to take money out of your own pocket and give it to the literally murdering, literally thieving health insurance companies in the form of a "premium."

After that, you can take all that disposable income one has when making $15k/year and actually go get some health care. But the price for those goods and services will be set by an industry which is exempt from anti-trust laws. Oh, but wait! There's a 70% subsidy for that poor person making $15k. So she only has to pay $30% of the premium she can't afford. Sweet! That a 30% tax (oops, "premium") she pays with money she doesn't have. Now I get it. This is a really good deal. Now I'm glad that health insurance stock went up after this law passed. It's a good deal for everybody! And all this time I thought we were engaged in class warfare. What a dunce I am.

At least Congress could have kissed the American people before passing the law. A little foreplay or lubricant would have been welcome.

[Statistical]

38. The numbers aren't 100% thus poor will be forced

to spend money they don't have on a product they can't afford.

[zipplewrath]

42. Not free, no copays

The preventative care provision does not dictate that health CARE must be provided, only that there be no copays if you get access to it.

And you get a subsidy, but if that subsidy won't buy a policy to cover you, there is no mandate. You still don't get health insurance, but since you probably couldn't afford to use it anyway, small loss.

And the cadillac tax was going to disproportionally effect the middle class (who tended to have better policies in leu of higher incomes).

This was a very regressive plan on the revenue side.

[Radical Activist]

49. Thanks for the details. n/t

[Statistical]

25. Worse it is a transfer of wealth. At least with taxes the money goes to help overall country.

So poor do get some indirect benefit from their taxes paid (Police, roads, educational grants for their children, etc).

This money goes right into pockets of big insurance.

Those under 133% of federal poverty limit will get Medicare anyone over that gets thrown to the Wolves as a sacrifice to Big Insurance.

Of course some politicians (and some on DU) will try to tell you this is a good thing.

Reality is someone at say 150% of poverty level will get "insurance" and it will even be partially subsidized but they won't be able to afford the copays or deductibles meaning it is in essence a wealth transfer (meager as it is) from the working poor to those who have the most.

[county worker]

64. Give me a fucking break! It ain't a tax!

You are forced to take some responsibility for your health care. You are not giving money with no return. More than likely the care you will get will cost more than you pay in.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

66. I don't suffer fools gladly anymore.

So fuck you. You have no idea what I can afford or millions of other Americans. The point is I won't get any care. Even if I could afford it, there is a real chance the insurance company would not approve my claim. They are in business to rob people.

Private health care is way too expensive. If Obama wants to create at least a public option, then maybe we will start to get health costs under control. I am not responsible for the mismanagement of the federal government or the criminality of big business. They are.

I have a catastrophic health care plan. If I were really sick or hurt I would go to our community hospital. They don't refuse anyone treatment. Then I would probably pay them about $10/month for the rest of my life. You wouldn't have to pay anything in taxes.

[county worker]

73. The law has not even taken effect and you are sure you are getting screwed! Who's the fool?

[inna]

70. It's much worse than a tax actually. It's a corporate levy that targets the working class.

[Romulox]

28. Why do you think the President fought tooth and nail against Single Payer?

Like his bankster bailouts, the President's top priority is to oversee the transfer of wealth from working people to multinational corps.

[area51]

33. Yes, and what I find so amazing,

is that Obama saw what the rightwing, unregulated mafiosi insurance agencies did to his mother when she had cancer; now he wants us all to be their slaves.

[Statistical]

36. He has money now. Money and Power.

That will never happen to him or his children.

[Radical Activist]

55. LOL When did Obama have to "fight" single payer?

There was never any serious support or momentum in Congress behind a single payer system. In fact, I saw Obama speak about single payer in very favorable ways in public forums. He did more to spread public awareness about it than most progressives have.

If we want single payer then we need to organize at the local level, build support, and pressure members of Congress. Blaming Obama for not supporting a plan when most Americans have no clue what "single payer" even means is a cheap cop-out for the left's lack of organizing strength. On the plus side, the health care bill allows states to set up a single-payer system. Thanks to Obama keeping that in the bill, we have a realistic path toward achieving a single payer system, if that's what people want.

Obama is doing a lousy job if you're right about his top agenda item. The bailout money is being returned and he cut taxes for working people. Drop the ideological dogma and join the real world.

[blindpig]

32. Yes it is.

Not exactly what many of us had in mind but that's effectively what it come down to, and nothing to show for it either.

[Echo In Light]

43. +1

[ThomWV]

39. If we don't tax the rich then every service we provide is a tax on the poor.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

45. Amen, brother. n/t

n/t

[laughingliberal]

67. +1 nt