Senate GOP repeals ObamaCare mandate

The Hill ^ | December 2, 2017 | Peter Sullivan

[Trump20162020]

Senate Republicans have approved the repeal of ObamaCare’s individual mandate as part of their tax-cut bill, a major step forward toward ending an unpopular part of the healthcare law.

“Families ought to be able to make decisions about what they want to buy and what works for them –not the government,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said, hailing the accomplishment.

“I believe if people don’t want to buy the Obamacare insurance, they shouldn’t have to pay a tax penalty to the IRS.”

The Senate tax bill must still be reconciled with House legislation that does not include the mandate’s repeal. But that is unlikely to be a major issue given support in the GOP conference for repealing the mandate.

[momincombatboots]

Wait until it goes through reconciliation! I smell a crap sandwich. I suspect amnesty and not one inch of the promised wall will be built.
Building the wall would be a real tax cut for every American and every future American. But they would rather steal, like this.

[usconservative]

When you respond like a lib’rul who ignores facts you don’t like, you get treated like one here on FR. Facts are facts.

[usconservative]

I smell a crap sandwich.

That's because it is one.

[Jonty30]

Obamacare should not have come to pass in the first place. The consequences of it passing meant it would hurt you when it got repealed.

It’s no different if Congress really got around to getting the US to stop running deficits, somebody is going to hurt when that happens. Buf it must happen anyway.

[lasereye]

The state I live in is #47. If you live in states 1-46, you're taking MY STATE's tax dollars. I live in a High GDP, Low Federal Government Spending state. That means I'm being taxed FOR YOU.

Your apology is expected.

I keep seeing this illogical argument. The amount you INDIVIDUALLY pay is based only on your income. Period.

You should stop implying that if you have lots of wealthy people or big corporations in the state then the money they pay in taxes is somehow your money.

Let's say your state got divided into two new states and your part of the state doesn't have many rich people. Would you then be instantly converted into someone who is a taker rather than a giver? The amount you are paying would remain exactly the same.

You are not being taxed for people in other states. Comparing aggregate state totals of money paid and received does not logically lead to such a conclusion.

Under the tax bill, your Federal income tax without deducting state/local taxes will be the same as it will be if you live in a low tax state. Currently it's lower.

That said I understand about paying taxes on money you've already paid taxes on (double taxation). But that's a different argument.

[Alberta's Child]

Your state does NOT send $40 billion more to Washington than it gets back. The TAXPAYERS of your state do ... and if yours is a blue state like mine with enormous state and local taxes then it's likely that most people in your state pay hardly any Federal income taxes at all.

The liberal politicians and media in my state have been railing against this tax bill for weeks, complaining that we're "subsidizing" other states. But we've been doing that for decades, and these same A-holes have been supporting every massive Federal spending bill that sends all our money to Washington.

[Redleg Duke]

Face it, Mom, you just hate.

You Hate the Tax Reduction Bill.

You Hate Israel.

You Hate Trump.

Every post I see of yours drips hatred and contempt.

Spare us the bile. You are a self-fulfilling prophesy of negativism.

[momincombatboots]

That’s ok because you lie! I am first out for Israel, make no mistake, liar! I hate More Spending and disregard for The Constitution. So you quit lying and I will stop criticizing people when they lie, steal from taxpayers, disrespect Israel or put American kids last!
Well, no I won’t and I am sure your habitual liar.

[usconservative]

Obamacare should not have come to pass in the first place. The consequences of it passing meant it would hurt you when it got repealed.

Wrong. I'm frankly happy Obamacare got repealed. That should've been done in January of this year.

[usconservative]

Your state does NOT send $40 billion more to Washington than it gets back. The TAXPAYERS of your state do ... and if yours is a blue state like mine with enormous state and local taxes then it's likely that most people in your state pay hardly any Federal income taxes at all.

You really don't know what you're talking about. When my state sends in $1 in Federal Taxes and gets approximately .60 of it back, we're net FedGov Tax PAYERS. It's simple math really.

[usconservative]

Your state does NOT send $40 billion more to Washington than it gets back. The TAXPAYERS of your state do ...

Just who do you think the state is?! Wow....

[usconservative]

You should stop implying that if you have lots of wealthy people or big corporations in the state then the money they pay in taxes is somehow your money.

The facts don't lie, just the people who refuse to accept them do.

[Yosemitest]

'Unless we forget ...

ANYTHING OBAMA SAYS is worthless.
Watch what he does, and not what he says.
The ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF wants ~ and is DIRECTING the policies that regulate ALL health care plans
in the United States ~ TO FAIL !
NEVER FORGET THAT !

Many of us have said for many years that Obama is doing this INTENTIONALLY.
He using the old Soviet Plan from 1934 or earlier.



Only idiots and the evil voted for Obama, or ANY of the Democrats.
AND NOW, WE CAN ADD "Establishment Republicans" TO THAT LIST, ALSO!
They've lied to us, constantly, and really are "Collapsing the System".
And now, these "Useful IDIOTS" who voted for them, are buying the LIES that "Obamacare was designed to work." ?
It was designed to fail from the start.
THEN ... THEY GO TO THE "SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM".

Flashback: Obama's Campaign to Transition to Single Payer Health Care (VIDEO)


obama master plan on health careover the years in his own words--SINGLE PAYER!!! ( 3:38 )

They've been sucking our wallets dry for over four years now on the "Obamacare" LIE.
AND NOW THEY WANT MORE TAXES ?
Our Founding Fathers would have hung them already!

Lets review:

Who was it that cut future funding for Medicare by $575 billion?

...the president and the Democratic Party successfully bamboozle voters... The 2012 election could turn on this falsehood.
The truth is that the Obama health law reduces future funding for Medicare by $575 billion over the next 10 years ...

Mr. Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius frequently make that false claim.
Indeed, even Medicare's mailings to seniors repeat the claim
that reducing spending on Medicare will make it more financially secure for future years.
The fact is that Mr. Obama's law raids Medicare.

"In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson [DEMOCRAT] made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." "

Who was it that expanded Medicare and Medicaid to cover many, many more people than it was originally designed to cover?

The History of Medicare

In 1965, the Social Security Act established both Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare was a responsibility of the Social Security Administration (SSA), while Federal assistance to the State Medicaid programs was administered by the Social and Rehabilitation Service (SRS). SSA and SRS were agencies in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). In 1977, the Health Care Financing Administration was created under HEW to effectively coordinate Medicare and Medicaid. In 1980 HEW was divided into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The first U.S. President to propose a prepaid health insurance plan was Harry S. Truman [DEMOCRAT]. On November 19, 1945, in a special message to Congress, President Truman outlined a comprehensive, prepaid medical insurance plan for all people through the Social Security system. The plan included doctors and hospitals, and nursing, laboratory, and dental services; it was dubbed "National Health Insurance." Furthermore, medical insurance benefits for needy people were to be financed from Federal revenues.

Over the years, lawmakers narrowed the field of health insurance recipients largely to social security beneficiaries. A national survey found that only 56 percent of those 65 years of age or older had health insurance. President John F. Kennedy [DEMOCRAT] pressed legislators for health insurance for the aged. However, it wasn't until 1965 that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed H.R. 6675 (The Social Security Act of 1965; PL 89-97) to provide health insurance for the elderly and the poor.

On July 30, 1965, President Johnson signed the Medicare and Medicaid Bill (Title XVIII and Title XIX of the Social Security Act) in Independence, Missouri in the presence of former President Truman, who received the first Medicare card at the ceremony; Lady Bird Johnson, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, and Mrs. Truman also were present. President Johnson remarked: "We marvel not simply at the passage of this Bill but that it took so many years to pass it."

Medicare extended health coverage to almost all Americans aged 65 or older. About 19 million beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare in the first year of the program. Medicaid provided access to health care services for certain low-income persons and expanded the existing Federal-State welfare structure that assisted the poor.

The 1972 Social Security Amendments expanded Medicare to provide coverage to two additional high risk groups disabled persons receiving cash benefits for 24 months under the social security program and persons suffering from end-stage renal disease.

...(continued at link)

So Democrats,

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE
FOR INSURING THE FAILURE
OF THE MEDICARE/MEDICAID PROGRAM,
and now YOU DEMOCRATS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION OF THE U.S.A. ECONOMY!!!

So DEMOCRATS ... SHUT UP!!!

You have no integrity!!!

And you "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" ...
You need to SHUT UP ALSO,
because y'all funded everything they asked for !

Sen Mark Kirk's statement Thursday, Dec 1, 2011 ...

"There are 55 million Social Security beneficiaries that will see little or no extra cash from this 2012 tax holiday;
instead, the dedicated payroll contributions meant to pay for future benefits are being diverted from the Trust Fund
and replaced with Treasury debt that does not even have a AAA credit rating.
Social Security was designed to be independent and free from the danger of Congressional manipulation,
and maintaining the firewall between the Social Security Trust Fund and general government funding is the best way to maintain the solvency of this important program.
Neither bill protects the Social Security Trust Fund
so I voted no. "

It's not our fault that DEMOCRATS raided the Social Security Trust Fund.
Let's remember ...

Not ALL are to blame for the empty lock box.

It's the Democrats Communists.

Let's take a deeper look.

Obama: "I Don't Want the Folks who Created the Mess to do a lot of Talking" "

Okay, then the DEMOCRATS, AND the "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS",
need to SHUT UP ! ! !

[Alberta's Child]

Your state doesn't send anything to Washington. The taxpayers of your state file their own individual and corporate tax returns.

The easiest way to deal with the imbalance you describe is to flatten the income tax brackets. A flat income tax rate would probably make your state a net "recipient" instead of a net "donor," in fact. But guess what ... the representatives your state sends to Washington in the House and Senate are some of the biggest proponents of a progressive income tax system you'll find anywhere.

[Alberta's Child]

Oh, and also ...

Look closely at the reasons why your state is a net "donor" of Federal taxes. You'll invariably find all three of these things at work:

1. You have a higher cost of living that drives wages and other compensation up, pushing middle-class taxpayers into upper-income tax brackets. This goes back to my last point about flattening the tax brackets as an effective measure to fix this imbalance.

2. You have very few military bases, Indian reservations, nuclear waste dumps, and all those things that nobody in densely populated states wants around them.

3. If Social Security and Medicare revenues and disbursements are included in the tax and spending numbers you're using for your state, then you're just on the wrong end of a problem that relates entirely to #1 above: You have lots of people in their prime earning years paying SS and Medicare taxes, but then moving to another state in retirement when they collect on these entitlements.

[MountainWalker]

There is a solution to that: leave your blue state cesspit for redder pastures

[usconservative]

High cost of living is driven up by TAXES in this state.

The state I live in also has a high GDP (which makes us net FedGov Tax PAYERS)

We have a fair number of military bases ..

And yes, living in ANY high tax state means people leave when they retire, taking their money with them.....

[usconservative]

There is a solution to that: leave your blue state cesspit for redder pastures

Don't think for a second I'm not thinking about that. The issue for me is, I'm a high income earner and finding a job like mine in another state is no easy task.

[Clean_Sweep]

You offer that as a proof? Lol.

[Redleg Duke]

Go peddle your hatred, elsewhere, you ignorant, illiterate whatever!

You don’t even know the difference between “your” and “you’re” and you feel you can lecture us on tax reform and economics!

Get lost!