Posts Tagged ‘Affordable Health Care Act’

The Republican Party is about to determine whether or not it will become the biggest death panel since Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party tried to exterminate the Jews of Europe.

US House of Representatives leader Paul Ryan pulled out his new American Health Care Act last week, which he is hoping will be used to replace the Affordable Care Act. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) yesterday, within a decade as many as 24 million US citizens will lose their health care coverage and premiums will go up for the rest of us if Ryan’s plan is passed, and especially for low income people and the elderly. Many grandmas and grandpas will have to chose between starving to death, or not paying their overpriced healthcare premiums, thanks to the Ryan plan.

Obamacare has only added slightly more than 19 million people to the rolls of the health insured. That means another 4 million US citizens beyond Obamacare may lose their coverage with Ryan’s carefully thought out health care bill. And it has been carefully thought out.

March 8, 2017

The primary purpose of this bill by all appearances is to provide tax cuts to the rich, the only people who have been the beneficiary of thirty-six years of economic expansions, and deliberately so. Currently, there is a 0.9 percent tax on income over $200,000 a year to help fund Obamacare. There is also a 3.5 percent tax on capital gains for the same purpose, such as the profits from the sale of stocks and bonds. This is why Wall Street hedge funds and big investment firms want Obamacare gone.

Many Republicans are prepared to make the Republican Party and all it stands for into a giant death panel in order to make its billionaire masters richer. Herr Ryan is one of these. Yet, other Republicans want to get reelected.

Florida Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for example, said Tuesday that she wouldn’t be able to support Ryan’s health care legislation after the CBO score revealed the high number of people who would lose insurance.

“I plan to vote NO on the current #AHCA bill. As written the plan leaves too many from my #SoFla district uninsured,” the Florida congresswoman wrote in two consecutive tweets. “As #AHCA stands, it will cut much needed help for #SoFla’s poor + elderly populations. Need a plan that will do more to protect them.”

This shows several things. The legislation is not likely going to pass. The Republicans are going to find it difficult to give their billionaire masters tax cuts by replacing Obamacare. So they will likely try a different tack.

The most likely scenario is simply keeping Obamacare largely intact, but shifting the tax burden from the rich to the middle and lower classes, and then marketing this plan as replacing Obamacare. One thing is certain; replacing Obamacare and taking health insurance from tens of millions of people in the process is not going to be politically palatable.


Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Obamacare is Cost Effective

Read Full Post »

Obamacare has been designed to redistribute income from the 99 to the 1 percent. We should have expected this since the legislation was written by executives of publicly traded health care corporations whose stocks and bonds are bought and sold in the financial markets.

Take the case of a family of four in which the policyholder is fifty years old. We’ll call this family the Smiths. Say Mr. Smith is a college graduate. So is Mrs. Smith. Let’s assume they earn $93,699 a year in 2014, when all parts of Obamacare becomes the law. After taxes, that’s not a whole lot of money. The Smith’s might be in the lower middle class, maybe solidly middle.

The government is going to force them to purchase a health insurance policy whether they want to or not, or they’ll be penalized and compelled to pay a tax on something they don’t want to buy, which is ridiculous and clearly unconstitutional, as the insurance industries corrupt Chief Justice John Roberts of the US Supreme Court clearly knows. The Smiths, however, decide to purchase the policy to avoid the hassle.

The cost of that policy will be $16,858 a year, but the government will subsidize the family and the health insurance industry by paying $8,901 of that policy.

The Smiths, however, have neighbors, the Thompsons. Mr and Mrs Thompson have no insurance coverage and they too will be forced by an unconstitutional law to purchase a health insurance policy from a publicly traded, limited liability, corporation. The Thompsons earn $93,700 a year, which is one dollar more than what the Jones earn. Their insurance policy also costs $16,858 a year, but because they earn one dollar more, they’ll need to pay the entire premium under Obamacare.

This will suck the Thompson’s dry, but it will also push health insurance company profits higher, and send their share prices and dividends for the 1 percent surging. The rich will get richer, but what will it do for the Thompsons? After they pay their taxes, the Thompson’s aren’t going to have a ton of money to spend after the insurance industry (and the 1 percent) financially rapes them via Obamacare. The economy might even contract because of the Obamacare income redistribution scam since 70 percent of the economy is consumer driven and the consumers are going to get financially raped big time. The rich, however, will get richer by sucking the middle class dry with another piece of legislation. That’s precisely why Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden voted for the bill. He’s always looking for ways to redistribute income from the 99 to the 1 percent.

Don’t believe me? Click the following link. It’ll you take to Kaiser Permanente’s Health Care Reform Calculator. Plug in your numbers and see. http://healthreform.kff.org/subsidycalculator.aspx

By the way, this new law may encourage employers everywhere to opt out of providing their employees with health insurance. Target and Walmart have already cut employee hours to opt out of the law.

Read Full Post »

Apparently, the Federal government can make you buy stuff if you don’t buy it. For the first time in US history, the federal government can make you buy something you don’t want to, thanks to Chief Justice John Roberts. Anybody who believes the government is too big and powerful now have even more to worry about.

Roberts may have voted yes to the “mandate'” provision of the law, because corporate insurance companies will enhance their profits with the law more so than without the law. He tends to vote for whatever redistributes the most money from the 99 to the 1 percent, and his stance on this issue may have everything to do with corporate profits than the constitution, which is typical of the corrupt Koch Brothers/corporate wing of the court.

“If an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes,” Roberts writes. He adds that this means “the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning an income.”

In other words, Roberts thinks the government can tax you for not buying something. Where in the Constitution is this provision?

click the link below for more information.

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare!

Read Full Post »

A corrupt Koch Brothers funded economist has come out with Koch Brothers math that shows the Affordable Care Act will increase the federal deficit, even though the Congressional Budget Office uses the same figures and says the Act will reduce the federal deficit. There is one difference between the two. One is nonpartisan and one is funded by the Koch Brothers.

Click here for the full story of this new Koch Brothers Corruption

Read Full Post »

I’ve long said the Federal government forcing people to buy health insurance is the same as forcing them to purchase ketchup. I still think I’m right. The Interstate Commerce Clause doesn’t allow the federal government to do this. That’s why state government’s force buyers of vehicles to purchase car insurance. The states can, the feds can’t. FDR knew this and that’s why he made Social Security a tax.

However, there is a clever argument as to why the feds can compel people to buy health insurance and it’s not the same as forcing them to purchase ketchup. I disagree, but click on the link below for a convincing argument on the subject.

click here for the analysis

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »