WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 6 million Americans — significantly more than first estimated— will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.

The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.

The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are 50 percent higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed. The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected in 2016, when the penalty is fully in effect.

That's still only a sliver of the population, given that more than 150 million people currently are covered by employer plans. Nonetheless, in his first campaign for the White House, Obama pledged not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000.

And the budget office analysis found that nearly 80 percent of those who'll face the penalty would be making up to or less than five times the federal poverty level. Currently that would work out to $55,850 or less for an individual and $115,250 or less for a family of four.

Average penalty: about $1,200 in 2016.

Assuming these numbers are real, and not political grandstanding...

This tax policy is not hitting "the middle class". It's hitting people who have enough income to afford it, but refuse to obtain insurance, instead opting to wait until they have to go to an emergency room and then letting everyone else foot the bill.

Fuck em.

If you're making $55k a year and refuse to carry ANY health insurance, that's on you.

I don't understand Republicans bitching about this. You talk all that shit about forcing personal responsibility right?

Hypocrites.

duhhhhhh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Assuming these numbers are real, and not political
> grandstanding...
>
> This tax policy is not hitting "the middle class".
> It's hitting people who have enough income to
> afford it, but refuse to obtain insurance, instead
> opting to wait until they have to go to an
> emergency room and then letting everyone else foot
> the bill.
>
> Fuck em.
>
> If you're making $55k a year and refuse to carry
> ANY health insurance, that's on you.
>
> I don't understand Republicans bitching about
> this. You talk all that shit about forcing
> personal responsibility right?
>
> Hypocrites.


Pesronal responsibility means you pay the doctor's bill. It doesn't mean you pay a tax for not using any medical care whatsoever. That's a nice 1-2% tax hike on the back of the middle class from Obama. I thought he was a champion of the middle class.

duhhhhhh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Assuming these numbers are real, and not political
> grandstanding...
>
> This tax policy is not hitting "the middle class".
> It's hitting people who have enough income to
> afford it, but refuse to obtain insurance, instead
> opting to wait until they have to go to an
> emergency room and then letting everyone else foot
> the bill.
>
> Fuck em.
>
> If you're making $55k a year and refuse to carry
> ANY health insurance, that's on you.
>
> I don't understand Republicans bitching about
> this. You talk all that shit about forcing
> personal responsibility right?
>
> Hypocrites.
Attachments:

The problem is that Obama administration has defined health coverage to the point that it requires the health insurer to cover everything. It is not longer "insurance"--it is health care that you pay for whether you need it or not.

In the past you could choose a very high deductible and carry what was basically "catastrophic" coverage. Now, you must purchase a policy which covers EVERYTHING that Obama says you need: birth control;abortion;Viagara;etc.etc.

The result: "Affordable" health care prices have skyrocketed. Ex. since the health care law was passed a simple policy with Anthem has risen from $80.month to almost $130--for a single person with a significant co-pay (except, of course, for those necessities like birth control--but not blood pressure medication). However, if you get sick you still have a significant co-pay--it is not free. I imagine it will be quite a bit higher by 2016.

Remember: if you like your coverage, you can keep it? That was a fairy tale.

$1,200 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Pesronal responsibility means you pay the doctor's
> bill. It doesn't mean you pay a tax for not using
> any medical care whatsoever. That's a nice 1-2%
> tax hike on the back of the middle class from
> Obama. I thought he was a champion of the middle
> class.


So the theory is Republicans are against the insurance industry as a whole?

I mean, since personal responsibility is about paying the doctor's bill, having insurance would go against that right?

Lemme go look up Republicans with donations from the AMA & the insurance companies.

rofl

No, Republicans are in support of maintaining the status quo of businesses gouging customers to the point of individuals being forced to pay another business a protection fee to keep from getting gouged from the first business.

It's a pretty good scheme if you think about it. Of course, it only benefits big business/corporate america, but that's the point right?

insurance purchaser Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem is that Obama administration has
> defined health coverage to the point that it
> requires the health insurer to cover everything.
> It is not longer "insurance"--it is health care
> that you pay for whether you need it or not.
>
> In the past you could choose a very high
> deductible and carry what was basically
> "catastrophic" coverage. Now, you must purchase a
> policy which covers EVERYTHING that Obama says you
> need: birth control;abortion;Viagara;etc.etc.
>
> The result: "Affordable" health care prices have
> skyrocketed. Ex. since the health care law was
> passed a simple policy with Anthem has risen from
> $80.month to almost $130--for a single person with
> a significant co-pay (except, of course, for those
> necessities like birth control--but not blood
> pressure medication). However, if you get sick you
> still have a significant co-pay--it is not free. I
> imagine it will be quite a bit higher by 2016.
>
> Remember: if you like your coverage, you can keep
> it? That was a fairy tale.

The real problem in comparing prices is two-fold:

1. Prices were skyrocketing every year 5-6-7-8 years ago too, but nobody seems to remember that, or remember the degree to which they increased. My individual plan was well above $130 a month THROUGH MY EMPLOYER in 2003.

2. There are such drastic differences in plan coverage that it's very, very difficult to do direct comparisons. Between deductibles, co-pays, etc there are a lot of variables at play that all factor into bottom line costs.

Five years ago I looked into purchasing family insurance as I'm self-employed. 2 adults, 1 child. I couldn't find anything other than catastrophic care for under $500 a month in Virginia. Period. I think the lowest available at the time was $350ish a month.

In the $800-$900 a month range you had $2000-$5000 deductibles with $35 co-pays etc.

To keep coverage similiar to what I had in corporate American, we were looking at $900+ a month for health care.

I just did a search on eHealthinsurance.com for the exact same scenario and got the following:


We found 99 plans starting as low as $143.75 a month

The VAST majority of those 99 plans are under $500 a month (I stopped counting them when I got past 50).

That's 50 different health insurance plans for under $500 a month right now, today. That wasn't the case 5 years ago. More importantly, the right to take my money for 8 months and then deny me coverage & dump me has been significantly reduced so I can feel more confident that my insurance is actually going to insure me.

duhhhhhh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So the theory is Republicans are against the
> insurance industry as a whole?

No statement made would lead to such an insane conclusion. Unless, of course, one was completely devoid of any logical reasoning skills.

> I mean, since personal responsibility is about
> paying the doctor's bill, having insurance would
> go against that right?

No, not at all. The decision to purchase insurance should not be mandated by government. Conservatives participate in all sorts of activities that are not mandated by the government. Do you only do things mandated by the government? If I were as illogical as you, that would be the conclusion that would be reached. I purchase insurance for all sorts of reasons. Should te government mandate that the rest of the population do that as well?

> Lemme go look up Republicans with donations from
> the AMA & the insurance companies.
>
> rofl

Irrelevant.

> No, Republicans are in support of maintaining the
> status quo of businesses gouging customers to the
> point of individuals being forced to pay another
> business a protection fee to keep from getting
> gouged from the first business.

I didn't have insurance that would qualify under the new law for a few years in my 20s. I carried a catostrophic plan. Do you know how much the government had to pay for my health care? Zippy. Zero. Nada.

> It's a pretty good scheme if you think about it.
> Of course, it only benefits big business/corporate
> america, but that's the point right?

Right. We should just tax middle class earners 1-2% more for a service that they may or may not use.

BTW...

Health insurance premiums went up 4% last year, which is historically very low.

$1,200 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Right. We should just tax middle class earners who refuse to carry health insurance 1-2% more for a service that they may or may not use.

Fixed.

You keep trying to frame this as impacting all of the middle class when it is not. It's a nice try to incite some more fear-mongering but it is intellectually dishonest.

BTW.

Can you please point out your diatribes against car insurance?

I'll wait.

Family health care insurance premiums increased 4 percent to $15,745 in 2011, costing families $4,316 out-of-pocket. Meanwhile, single employees’ coverage went up by 3 percent to $5,615, with workers paying $951 a year.

Premiums rose less than half the 9 percent increase that Kaiser reported for 2010-2011. “In terms of employee insurance costs, this year's 4 percent increase qualifies as a good year,” Kaiser President and CEO Drew Altman said. “But it still takes a growing bite out of middle-class workers' wages, which have been flat or falling in real terms.”

While premiums are slowly improving, middle class families are still burdened by health care costs. Premiums for families nearly tripled workers' wages and general inflation over the past decade with premiums rising 97 percent, wages 33 percent and inflation 28 percent since 2002.

-the fiscal times

Here

duhhhhhh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> $1,200 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> Right. We should just tax middle class earners
> who refuse to carry health insurance 1-2% more for
> a service that they may or may not use.
>
> Fixed.

Not really. Maybe in your mind, which has been proven to be devoid of any logical capability.

> You keep trying to frame this as impacting all of
> the middle class when it is not. It's a nice try
> to incite some more fear-mongering but it is
> intellectually dishonest.

At what point did I indicate it impacted all the middle class? Be specific. You can't. In fact, the article I orginally posted clearly states: "
That's still only a sliver of the population, given that more than 150 million people currently are covered by employer plans."

> BTW.
>
> Can you please point out your diatribes against
> car insurance?

At what point do I need car insurance? When I decide to use my bicycle to commute? When I take the bus? When I hail a cab? When I take metro? When I walk to the local pub? Maybe it is when I get on a riding mower? Oh, you know what I didn't have a car all last year, but the government told me I had to buy car insurance, right?

> I'll wait.

And I'll wait for some sense to come from you. Something tells me it will be a long wait.

Like your preferred candidate, you have failed. Over and over again.

$1,200 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> At what point did I indicate it impacted all the
> middle class? Be specific.


Your thread title specifies "middle class"
Your second post in the thread specifies "middle class"
Your third post in the thread specifies "middle class"

In none of this instances did you specify "middle class who chose not to purchase health care" which is quite a different subset of people, particularly considering we are talking about 6M out of 156M people. Your insistence on not properly characterizing who would be affected by this penalty belies your attempt to trick readers into thinking it would be impacting all middle class earners.

Its common headline election trickery. Don't get mad because you got caught. It's cool, both parties do it.





$1,200 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> At what point do I need car insurance? When I
> decide to use my bicycle to commute? When I take
> the bus? When I hail a cab? When I take metro?
> When I walk to the local pub? Maybe it is when I
> get on a riding mower? Oh, you know what I didn't
> have a car all last year, but the government told
> me I had to buy car insurance, right?
>

You miss my point.

You are here complaining about the ACA on the ideological grounds that the government shouldn't force you to buy health insurance or risk a penalty. You argue that the ideology behind that is false.

Yet you've been forced to buy car insurance by the government your entire adult car owning life or face a penalty, whether you need to use that car insurance or not, or face a penalty.

(as needing health insurance but never going to the doctor is the same as needing car insurance but never getting in an accident)

You, and no one else who's arguing the ACA on this ideological premise of the government forcing you to buy something you may not even need RIGHT NOW has ever once been able to show where they have been historically fighting against the requirement for car insurance on the same grounds.

Because they haven't. This is just the ANGLE being taken in an attempt to ferment discontent, regardless of the logical fallacies involved. Its much the same as your mischaracterization of who's being impacted by the tax in that it relies on headline-based fear mongering with complete disregard for the details.

Look.

Republicans are openly pro-business.

Their legislation is designed, according to their ideology, to funnel money up to businesses because businesses will let it trickle back down to the individual if they are successful. They fully support trickle-down economics which calls for government-supported reduction in costs (via lack of oversight/regulation, removal of minimum wage, lowering of corporate taxes etc) and they are just fine ideologically with government mandated/encouraged purchasing (see the constant attempts at privatizing Social Security, car insurance, etc).

They are also perfectly fine with increases in federal spending (contrary to their deficit hawk stance right this second). Just go look at the spending habits of the last 6 Presidents and see who has consistently spent more federal funds.

My point being, it's all hypocritical bullshit.

Republicans are deficit hawks now, after running up the deficit at an unprecedented pace over the last 30 years. Republicans are against government mandated insurance now, without having EVER uttered a word about car insurance and the list goes on.

I don't expect any of this to make sense... after all, you are not a 1%'er and yet you still vote Republican, so sense is not something you are adept at finding in general, so carry on.

This is Bullshit. Obama would not lie to the American people.

duhhhhhh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> $1,200 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > At what point did I indicate it impacted all
> the
> > middle class? Be specific.
>
>
> Your thread title specifies "middle class"
> Your second post in the thread specifies "middle
> class"
> Your third post in the thread specifies "middle
> class"
>
> In none of this instances did you specify "middle
> class who chose not to purchase health care" which
> is quite a different subset of people,
> particularly considering we are talking about 6M
> out of 156M people. Your insistence on not
> properly characterizing who would be affected by
> this penalty belies your attempt to trick readers
> into thinking it would be impacting all middle
> class earners.
>
> Its common headline election trickery. Don't get
> mad because you got caught. It's cool, both
> parties do it.

Hey, it's not my fault if you can't read the attached article. I understand you want to deny the fact that this tax is going to hit members of the middle class, but the facts won't let you.

> You miss my point.

You didn't have one.

> You are here complaining about the ACA on the
> ideological grounds that the government shouldn't
> force you to buy health insurance or risk a
> penalty. You argue that the ideology behind that
> is false.
>
> Yet you've been forced to buy car insurance by the
> government your entire adult car owning life or
> face a penalty, whether you need to use that car
> insurance or not, or face a penalty.

That stale talking point again? You don't need to own a car. The ACA says I need to get insurance or pay a tax just to exist. When I engage in the purchase of a vehicle, build a vehicle, drive a vehicle, etc. I am engaged in the flow of commerce. Me simply existing does not mean I am engaged in commerce.

> (as needing health insurance but never going to
> the doctor is the same as needing car insurance
> but never getting in an accident)

Not the same at all.

> You, and no one else who's arguing the ACA on this
> ideological premise of the government forcing you
> to buy something you may not even need RIGHT NOW
> has ever once been able to show where they have
> been historically fighting against the requirement
> for car insurance on the same grounds.

Because the car insurance argument is a red herring. It is a piss poor analogy advanced by the left without any substance or intellectual rigor.


> I don't expect any of this to make sense... after
> all, you are not a 1%'er and yet you still vote
> Republican, so sense is not something you are
> adept at finding in general, so carry on.


Says the guy who makes poor analogies and can't read an article. Any more logical fallacies you want to engage in? Do you mean carry on as in posting a wall of text in a meaningless internet forum?

duhhhhh, do you understand that health care competes for one's disposable income with other industries, like nutritious food, or gym memberships? I think it's bad enough that you feel comfortable picking on $50,000 wage slaves, but how could you possibly make your case against $20,000 wage slaves with college debt, car and house payments, etc...? These people are young and healthy, and spend more on food and fitness than the average person. They don't want health care, don't need health care, and might even refuse health care if offered for free. Doctors have a terrible track record. They can't even induce weight loss in obese patients. The more health care we have, the more obese we become as a nation. The average person has more than a dozen prescriptions. The government tells everyone to eat grains, GMO grains if you want to be "green". This is what they feed to cattle to fatten them. Mainstream nutrition science is the exact opposite of that which is practiced by livestock industries, where profits demand results.

If you think these people are freeloading, then why shouldn't the solution be for you to sever your financial ties to them? A free market system would take care of the illegal alien problem as well. Obamacare does not apply to illegal aliens. They're still going to be jumping the border to loot you for expensive kidney dialysis. If in the past, such a treatment cost $1000, and so to make a profit, the hospital charged $1500, then a non-payer means they'd eat the $1000, and raise prices to offset the loss accordingly. Now, thanks to Obamacare, poor healthy people are the new workhorses, ensuring the hospital gets the full $1500, not just the $1000. There isn't a single incentive that won't be inverted. This cannot even be called socialization, since it isn't redistributed from the general fund. It's regressive, i.e. it cements a greater divide between rich and poor.

When you put crabs in a bucket, if one of the crabs tries to climb out and escape, the other crabs will pull him back down. That's you. Depressive personalities favor these types of laws which "equalize" us to the lowest common denomonator. Misery loves company.

Someone else mentioned that Obamacare mandates exotic coverage, and in the case of birth control, even charging a co-pay is banned. Obamacare also mandates that all plans include full mental coverage AT PARITY with physical coverage. Is mental health impairment actually a risk for anyone? Remember what Tom Cruise said? Psychiatry is a pseudoscience, and ritalin is a street drug. Do you really want a more drugged-up in-debt-to-the-rich society? Obamacare is the greatest American disaster since the loss of freedom of association with the Civil Rights act.

Duhhhnuts,
The Gov forces you to have car insurance so you can pay any related fees/costs that you may incur if you cause an accident and hurt someone else. If you have ever been hit by an uninsured driver.....well you know the rest of the story.

Car insurance and Health insurance are two different issues.

You can choose to not own a car.

A hospital cannot choose to refuse treatment.

Apples to Oranges.

$1,200 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Hey, it's not my fault if you can't read the
> attached article. I understand you want to deny
> the fact that this tax is going to hit members of
> the middle class, but the facts won't let you.

Headline trickery relies on the idea of passing an idea into collective thought specifically via headlines and repetition of specific phrases, regardless of the content of the text below the headline.

It relies on the fact that people are taught from an early age that a headline is the fact, the paragraph provides data to support that fact. Numerous studies have been done showing how people can read a headline, and a supporting article with competing details and the headline tends to have the most influence on the person's take-away from the article.

Studies have been done proving this to be the case and it is commonly employed at every level of discourse, including this one, and nearly continously when involving politics.

You write a headline implying one thing, have supporting text that maintains the same "structure" with a slightly more clarifying detail to it hidden in the middle of the paragraph and then follow that up with numerous other references specifically worded the same as the headline, without the clarifying detail.

It is designed on a very subconscious level to leave the reader with very specific impressions.

You can continue to deny it, but the proof is right here in your thread with your own words as I've already pointed out.


$1,200 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That stale talking point again? You don't need to
> own a car. The ACA says I need to get insurance
> or pay a tax just to exist. When I engage in the
> purchase of a vehicle, build a vehicle, drive a
> vehicle, etc. I am engaged in the flow of
> commerce. Me simply existing does not mean I am
> engaged in commerce.

Actually, in the sense of health care, yes, simply existing does mean you are engaged in commerce moreso than just driving means you are engaging in accidents. Actually, you are far MORE LIKELY to go to a doctor than a body shop, so actually the argument for maintaining health insurance coverage is probably even stronger than the argument for maintaining car insurance.

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y

Like complaining about people not paying their fair share of taxes while hiding all of your own millions in offshore accounts to minimize your tax liability.

ROFL

duhhhhhh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You can continue to deny it, but the proof is
> right here in your thread with your own words as
> I've already pointed out.

The proof is in the fact that members of the middle class will be paying higher taxes due to the ACA. You can't deny it.


> Actually, in the sense of health care, yes, simply
> existing does mean you are engaged in commerce
> moreso than just driving means you are engaging in
> accidents. Actually, you are far MORE LIKELY to go
> to a doctor than a body shop, so actually the
> argument for maintaining health insurance coverage
> is probably even stronger than the argument for
> maintaining car insurance.


Which federal statute mandates car insurance? And whihc one requires comprehensive? I can beat you up all day on the car insurance mandate analogy. You fail again.

6 Million = 1% of the country.....where have I heard that 1% thing before....ummmmmm

numbers are fun Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 6 Million = 1% of the country.....where have I
> heard that 1% thing before....ummmmmm


umm, it is actually more like 2%. You must be a Democrat

I forgot to mention medical savings accounts as another competitor for insurance. Insurance by definition exists only by paying out less than what it takes in. The average person is therefore a loser. Middlemen suck. If we can't have a free society, then we could at least be better off than we are now, financially, by OUTLAWING insurance. To support a mandate you'd have to be insane.

Imagine the damage done to the auto industry by insurance. Without it, people would not lose their need to protect themselves financially from crashes. They'd just have to go about it in a different way. They might be more demanding for cars with big rubber bumpers that can be removed with basic tools and replaced with cheap standardized parts off the shelf at Wal-Mart. People would be more thrify. Research would directed away from luxury components and towards the fundamentals.

Shouldn't there be a legal waiver for those with philosophical objections to gambling? Gambling is mostly illegal in this country, so what on Earth is this mandate all about? In the case of health care, not everyone ascribes a positive value to allopathy. Obamacare might as well be seen as a violation of monopoly laws.

apparently, numbers are hard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> numbers are fun Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 6 Million = 1% of the country.....where have I
> > heard that 1% thing before....ummmmmm
>
>
> umm, it is actually more like 2%. You must be a
> Democrat

Not if you use the correct number....but you must be a fact ignoring Republican.

alternate universe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> apparently, numbers are hard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > numbers are fun Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > 6 Million = 1% of the country.....where have
> I
> > > heard that 1% thing before....ummmmmm
> >
> >
> > umm, it is actually more like 2%. You must be
> a
> > Democrat
>
> Not if you use the correct number....but you must
> be a fact ignoring Republican.


Oh man, you are an idiot. You can't even solve this simple math problem: 6M/314M

I swear, public schools are churning out shit faster than a cows on a megafarm.

Iti sn't just that you are so stupid, it is that you are stubborn about it.

Wah wah wah

Suck it GOP the bill will remain and mittens is gonna lose. Just shut the fuck up and plan on your eventual moves to Canada or Australia (both of which have far more "socialist" health care systems than ours)

math hurts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> alternate universe Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > apparently, numbers are hard Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > numbers are fun Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > 6 Million = 1% of the country.....where
> have
> > I
> > > > heard that 1% thing before....ummmmmm
> > >
> > >
> > > umm, it is actually more like 2%. You must
> be
> > a
> > > Democrat
> >
> > Not if you use the correct number....but you
> must
> > be a fact ignoring Republican.
>
>
> Oh man, you are an idiot. You can't even solve
> this simple math problem: 6M/314M
>
> I swear, public schools are churning out shit
> faster than a cows on a megafarm.
>
> Iti sn't just that you are so stupid, it is that
> you are stubborn about it.


Actually it would be a higher percentage since it's on a tax unit basis. That is, the penalty is per taxpayer not individual. A family of 4 with a single earner or filing jointly would be a single unit. So it would be 6 million as a percentage of however many tax units. Not exactly correct because of some details in how the penalty is calculated but close enough.

Shut the front door Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wah wah wah
>
> Suck it GOP the bill will remain and mittens is
> gonna lose. Just shut the fuck up and plan on your
> eventual moves to Canada or Australia (both of
> which have far more "socialist" health care
> systems than ours)


It ceases to be a bill once it becomes LAW. Damn, Democrats really are stupid. They should all go back to school for basic math and civics courses.

Err Atta Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> math hurts Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > alternate universe Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > apparently, numbers are hard Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > numbers are fun Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > 6 Million = 1% of the country.....where
> > have
> > > I
> > > > > heard that 1% thing before....ummmmmm
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > umm, it is actually more like 2%. You must
> > be
> > > a
> > > > Democrat
> > >
> > > Not if you use the correct number....but you
> > must
> > > be a fact ignoring Republican.
> >
> >
> > Oh man, you are an idiot. You can't even solve
> > this simple math problem: 6M/314M
> >
> > I swear, public schools are churning out shit
> > faster than a cows on a megafarm.
> >
> > Iti sn't just that you are so stupid, it is
> that
> > you are stubborn about it.
>
>
> Actually it would be a higher percentage since
> it's on a tax unit basis. That is, the penalty is
> per taxpayer not individual. A family of 4 with a
> single earner or filing jointly would be a single
> unit. So it would be 6 million as a percentage of
> however many tax units. Not exactly correct
> because of some details in how the penalty is
> calculated but close enough.


Of course, but 1%er moron was trying to say as a population as a whole. No way in hell would he understand if the calculation was done on a per taxpayer basis.

Shut the front door Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wah wah wah
>
> Suck it GOP the bill will remain and mittens is
> gonna lose. Just shut the fuck up and plan on your
> eventual moves to Canada or Australia (both of
> which have far more "socialist" health care
> systems than ours)

I like the way you think and the cut of your jib
Attachments:

This thread is dumb. If you get a ticket for speeding does that mean Obama raised your taxes again?

Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This thread is dumb. If you get a ticket for
> speeding does that mean Obama raised your taxes
> again?

No but if you are a total failure in life it means some rich guy caused it to happen, probably Romney or Bain Capital

Hey fucktards its better than not having any HC reform so shut the fuck up and pay up. The cheap fucks bitchin about it are the first to go to the ER for a minor cold and shit jamming up the place for people that really need it. Get some insurance and go see a doctor.

Shut the front door, health care in Australia and Canada is not more socialized than in America. American governments spend far more per capita.

Obamacare isn't universal health care, and it should not be seen as a first step either. It's so bad, you're going to beg for socialist healthcare though, but they'll be able to placate you with reforms.

Someone tried to make an analogy of the 6 million to the 1%. What? Why not go with the more obvious (and accurate) analogy of the 6 million holocausted jews?

FU, you say these 6 million are cheap freeloaders. One of the justifications used to pass Obamacare was that up to 40 million people did not have health insurance. Obama made it very clear that those 40 million didn't have it because they couldn't afford it, not because they didn't want it. Why do you disagree with Obama? Is it because about 50 years ago, hardly anyone had health insurance even though it only cost a couple dollars? If so, then how could Obama have been so wrong in stereotyping those 40 million? After 6 of those 40 million are penalized, what happens to the other 34 million? What makes you think it's this particular group of 6 million out of 40 million that was doing all the freeloading? What about the illegal aliens? Why does it seem that 40 million are still going to be without health insurance? Does Obamacare actually help anyone who isn't already rich?

math hurts Wrote:

> I swear, public schools are churning out shit
> faster than a cows on a megafarm.
>
> Iti sn't just that you are so stupid, it is that
> you are stubborn about it.

He's a product of the public schools, where their main product is an idiot that doesn't know anything but has good self-esteem about it.

Nywdt