Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How to win the Obamacare argument with Obama supporters
Real Clear Politics ^

Posted on 07/02/2012 11:35:14 AM PDT by Mountain Bike Vomit Carnage

Lew: ObamaCare Isn't A Tax, Is A "Penalty" So You Pay Your "Fair Share"

Chris Wallace, "FOX News Sunday" host: "This is a tax increase on the middle class of $27 billion over the next ten years."

Jack Lew, White House Chief of Staff: "No, what this is is this is a law that says if you can afford insurance and you choose not to buy it and you choose to have your health costs be a burden to others, you'll pay a penalty so that you'll pay our fair share. That's what this law says.

"For the 99% of people who buy insurance or who get it through the tax cuts that are in this Act, they're not going to be affected. You keep your insurance, you don't pay any kind of penalty."

"For the very few people who decide to be free riders and not have insurance, but still have their costs go into the system so the rest of us pay it, there's a penalty. It is not a burden on the middle class."

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Political Humor/Cartoons
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: Buckeye McFrog

“I don’t think anyone actually likes Nancy Pelosi’s Frankenstein Bill.”

So does this make her the Bride of Frankenstein or the Mother of Frankenstein?

She looks like she could be both.

21 posted on 07/02/2012 12:11:24 PM PDT by History Repeats (If Obama had a son, he'd have his picture hanging on the wall of the Post office wanted board.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

Waiting until November?

It’s all TOOO close for comfort.

We’ve been to the edge and stared into the abyss... this is NOT representative government!

22 posted on 07/02/2012 12:14:20 PM PDT by SMARTY ("The man who has no inner-life is a slave to his surroundings. "Henri Frederic Amiel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

When they say the bill didn’t include the term ‘tax’, tell them Obama’s lawyers used the “it’s a tax” argument in the Supreme Court to defend Obamacare (in addition to the Commerce Clause) & Roberts obliged them by saying “ok, you want a tax, it’s a tax”. It’s not that Roberts picked the ‘tax’ out of thin air .... it was defended as such & he has called their bluff (so to speak). Just to clarify, I’m not defending Roberts in any way - I hate the ruling, but it’s fun to beat libs over the head with the ObamaTax. They can’t avoid it, not matter how they squirm.

23 posted on 07/02/2012 12:18:39 PM PDT by MissMagnolia (Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't. (M.Thatcher))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sport
That's why you have to explain it in the simplest of terms.

You pay $300 for your cable and cell phone and claim that you have nothing else.

Obama has decided that you need to use that money for your health insurance. You don't have a choice, no more cable, no more cell phone.

24 posted on 07/02/2012 12:18:40 PM PDT by Mountain Bike Vomit Carnage (Repeat a lie often enough you might get people to believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mountain Bike Vomit Carnage

What percentage of the “free-loaders” are people who can afford health insurance, but don’t have it? I bet it is a small percentage overall. Who can afford heath insurance. My family pays $7,500 in insurance a year, and that doesn’t count what the insurance doesn’t cover, or co-pays. Can someone earning $20,000 a year afford that? How about a young family earning $30,000 a year? Is there going to be a sliding scale that limits the cost of health insurance according to ability to pay? Well of course there will be, and an army of gestapo agents auditing everyone to levy taxes, and attach our incomes and bank accounts. The end result is that we will still be paying for the same “free-loaders” we pay for now, and we will a vastly expanded government to control that.

25 posted on 07/02/2012 12:18:53 PM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Hear, hear! I don’t associate with liberals anymore and haven’t for years. I despise them and yes, they are the most ignorant people I have ever seen. Don’t waste a breath on them.

26 posted on 07/02/2012 12:19:44 PM PDT by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mountain Bike Vomit Carnage

But if 0bama stays in office, he’ll make sure that WE take over paying for their cable TV and cell phones, so they don’t have to do without. Just to be “fair”. He’ll tout it in terms of human dignity, saving jobs, anything he can to put a spin on it of it being urgent and vital.

27 posted on 07/02/2012 12:42:28 PM PDT by NEMDF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

For all practical purposes it is single payer and they know it.

Businesses will give up dealing with all the grief of health insurance and pay the “fine” to not have to deal with it. That will turn it into single payer in short order.

28 posted on 07/02/2012 1:03:34 PM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DB

You are so right. This current version is just a dust-over to try and please certain centrists. His true supporters know in due time, that this farce will not work as it stands. They’ll write it off and blame conservatives just to usher in the single-payer version they wanted all along.

Communists have run the same play book for years.

29 posted on 07/02/2012 1:10:08 PM PDT by babyfreep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

What is the difference between Obamacare and Single payer?

30 posted on 07/02/2012 1:41:39 PM PDT by diamond6 (Check out: and learn about the faith.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pallis

Paying the premium is only the start, what about insurance deductibles, copays on office visits, prescriptions, etc? I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed when they find out there will still be expenses even with insurance. By the way my premium increased 8.5% in June for the same policy because they added birth control (I am 62 yrs old) and no lifetime maximums. (I have a 5000.00 deductible, 40.00 office copay for primary and 75.00 copay for specialist, 150.00 to walk into an emergency room to mention a few things that aren’t free as some expect).

31 posted on 07/02/2012 1:48:37 PM PDT by lilypad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: pallis
What about the 47% of "freeloaders" who don't pay any taxes in this country???

The libtards have made it their mission to create and attempt to sustain a "freeloader" class at the expense of hardworking taxpayers and now old bags like Pelosi have the rotten nerve to talk about "freeloaders?"

Even Nancy Pelosi slipped and almost called Obamatax a "tax." LOL

Here is your brain, Nancy. Now here is your brain on botox!

32 posted on 07/02/2012 4:52:33 PM PDT by Sons of Union Vets (No taxation without representation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mountain Bike Vomit Carnage; TurboZamboni

Help me out.
I was venting about obamacare (the usual stuff: govt intrusion into lives, sets a horrible precedent, most of it is being paid for by the middle class, it will result in less quality and choice, the deceptive way it was passed, the liberal friends that get waivers, ...)

...and a woman was saying:
I don’t care about all that. I’m just glad I’ll be getting birth-control medication for female issues (not birth control), and some other pre-existing condition covered.
She says she’ll “save” $850/year.

This is a woman that doesn’t care about politics....thinks nothing as bad as I state will happen.

I said (a) it will end up costing you more than that big picture, and (b) $850/yr is a small price to trade for individual choice.

But, what about the math? How could I have countered that better?

33 posted on 07/03/2012 6:07:57 PM PDT by Tigercap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tigercap

Report on health care spending shows government with 44% share

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services released its annual National Health Expenditure Accounts report Wednesday. The report contains “the official estimates of total health care spending in the United States.” In 2009, health care spending in the U.S. totaled $2.486 trillion, up 4% versus 2008. That equates to 17.6% of our nation’s Gross Domestic Product and $8,086 per person.

Federal, state and local governments disbursed nearly 44%, or $1.083 trillion, of all health care dollars spent while the amount paid directly by businesses and households was 21% and 28%, respectively.

In light of this data, liberals fussing about the various efforts underway to repeal ObamaCare are ignoring a few elephants in the room (and I don’t mean Republicans).

For one, the market that Democrats argue is the most broken is the one in which government meddles most. By its own account, the government already accounts for nearly half of the nation’s health care spending, even before ObamaCare takes effect. With that much government intervention, is it any wonder why the healthcare system seems in need of repair? All of that meddling has crowded out market forces and mucked-up this sector like no other in our economy. But what are the Democrats prescribing? An even bigger dose of what’s ailing us.

Second, word is that Democrats are preparing to parade out a long line of victims, ones who will claim to be personally devastated if ObamaCare is repealed. Some stories will be compelling, no doubt, and all will be anecdotal, but leaving that aside, won’t each of them, ipso facto, represent evidence that existing government-run healthcare schemes and programs — ones touted with great fanfare upon implementation — have failed? That is, what does it say about the massive government healthcare programs that already exist, like Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, the VA, and others?

Third, some say 17% or thereabouts of GDP is too much to spend on health care. Other countries’ lower percentages are cited to support this contention. I don’t know what the “right” percentage is but proffer that as long as spending on health care is between a consenting consumer and provider, what does it matter how much is spent (as long as I’m not coerced to pay someone else’s tab, and currently and admittedly, I am). Also, isn’t health care a “good” thing usually and that a sizable amount spent on it is an indicator of a society’s quality of life?

Michael F. Cannon at Cato Institute noted a few interesting aspects about the recently issued report. The government reclassified some “service and payer categories” since last year’s report was issued. As a result, the report issued yesterday shows the percent of government-paid health expenditures in 2008 as 41.2% rather than 47.3% shown in the 2008 report. Cannon wonders whether that key figure got too close to — or over — 50% in 2009, provoking a retroactive change in presentation. Cannon also noted that while total health care spending grew by 4 percent overall in 2009, “government health spending grew by 9.9 percent and private spending shrank by 0.2 percent.” Cannon quips, “And the feds are the guys who say they’re going to control health care costs!”

34 posted on 07/03/2012 7:57:14 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson