Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Snake, (AP, Shryke, Lev, TP, Tracker), Okay, lets see if this works out right. Probably not and if that is the case those who know correct the errors.Say you owe 2000 dollars in taxes.Under the ACANo insurance = 2000 + fineInsurance = 2000 + premiumsUnder RyanCareNo insurance = 2000Insurance = 2000 + premiums - tax incentive.Is that close to right? Is anyone disputing that at the end of the day the cumulative effect of the two plans are the same? It's the mechanism used to achieve the same goal that is altered under the Ryan plan. You can call it semantics ten days from Sunday but in Constitutional law semantics matter. For example executing someone after a bench trial and after a jury trial will leave that person just as dead in either case. But one action is considered Constitutional and the other is not.That said I can point to another major difference between the Ryan plan and the ACA. Ryan was never on record claiming the tax credit in his plan was not a tax.http://blogs.abcnews...-not-a-tax.htmlPres. Obama's clear statement that the mandate is not a tax makes his Justice Department's claim that it is a tax more difficult for Court's to endorse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edda van Heefmstra Ruston Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Well damn, the Weiner thing came up one thread too early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Well damn, the Weiner thing came up one thread too early.I see what you did there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Jon Stewart lists a few of Fox News's most blatant lies of the last few yearsGood stuff as always, and Stewart makes Fox's stubbornness about admitting it's mistakes - let alone it's purposeful outright lies - by pointing out one of his own factually incorrect statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Is anyone disputing that at the end of the day the cumulative effect of the two plans are the same?Yes. They're not.It's the mechanism used to achieve the same goal that is altered under the Ryan plan. No, it's not just the mechanism. The ACA punishes you/taxes you more heavily if you choose not to get insurance. Ryan's plan does not.First, the status quo. Under the current system, the cost of employee health care benefits provided by your employer is tax free, via a deduction for your employer. That is an incentive for you to get insurance. However, unless your employer pays 100% of your premiums, there still is a cost to you to get that insurance. That's why some people eligible for insurance turn it down. Those are the "voluntarily uninsured", and those are the people against whom the ACA mandate is directed.Second, the ACA. Under the ACA, that employer deduction still exists. However, the ACA also imposes a direct penalty upon the voluntarily uninsured. That's the mandate, and I completely agree with your point that there is a constitutional difference between a mandate and a tax for which you can receive a compensating credit. However, that is not the only difference functionally between the ACA and Ryan's plan. Because under the ACA, not only do the voluntarily uninsured miss out on the value of the deduction, but they also get an additional penalty. It's that additional penalty that is the mandate.Third, Ryan's plan. Under his plan, the deduction is eliminated, but it is replaced by a partial tax credit. It is a substitute. The amount of the credit is essentially set to be equal in value to that deduction, though. The only difference between the employer deduction under the current system, and Ryan's replacement of the deduction with a credit, is that the credit can be used by the taxpayer on any health insurance plan, not just an employer sponsored one. But the amount of the credit is not equal to the full cost of premiums. So it's not "free money", you're not "penalized" for not buying insurance, and people who choose to remain voluntarily uninsured will find their take home pay completely unaffected by Ryan's bill. And, they will still save some money by not buying insurance for themselves. Incentive-wise, and specifically with respect to the voluntarily uninsured, the Ryan plan is no different from the status quo. Because unlike the ACA, there is no additional tax penalty that applies only to people who remain voluntarily uninsured. So the Ryan Plan does not contain a mandate, or even a different version of the mandate with the same effect. That's simply false, which is why the writer of the initial column is either an idiot, or deliberately mispresentating Ryan's plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Jon Stewart lists a few of Fox News's most blatant lies of the last few yearsGood stuff as always, and Stewart makes Fox's stubbornness about admitting it's mistakes - let alone it's purposeful outright lies - by pointing out one of his own factually incorrect statements.Maybe his own factually incorrect statements explain why the most recent survey on viewer knowledge of current events actually found that Glen Beck viewers are more knowledgeable that John Stewart's....And for the third time, particular Fox shows scored well. Hannity ranked fifth (just ahead of MSNBC’s liberal shows hosted by Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow) and O’Reilly ranked ninth. For the first time, Pew included Glenn Beck in its rankings, and the Fox host finished 12th -- slightly ahead of Stewart’s own Daily Show.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/20/jon-stewart/jon-stewart-says-those-who-watch-fox-news-are-most/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 I love Polifacts analysis: "Well, alot of polls show they are some of the least informed viewers, but not all of them, so we're going to rate it false".Also things like: "Hey, they are dumb, but they aren't the dumbest! People who never watch the news are less informed about who controls the House then them!"Then again, Polifact is kind of a joke alot of the time. These are the people who said Ryan's plan doesn't end Medicare because the completely different program he replaces it with has the same name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Maybe his own factually incorrect statements explain why the most recent survey on viewer knowledge of current events actually found that Glen Beck viewers are more knowledgeable that John Stewart's....And for the third time, particular Fox shows scored well. Hannity ranked fifth (just ahead of MSNBC’s liberal shows hosted by Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow) and O’Reilly ranked ninth. For the first time, Pew included Glenn Beck in its rankings, and the Fox host finished 12th -- slightly ahead of Stewart’s own Daily Show.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/20/jon-stewart/jon-stewart-says-those-who-watch-fox-news-are-most/So instead of commenting on your network's propensity for spouting outrageously false lies, you feel the need to turn it into a dick-measuring contest. Very Fox News of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Snake, (AP, Shryke, Lev, TP, Tracker), Is anyone disputing that at the end of the day the cumulative effect of the two plans are the same? Err, yeah. See below:Yes. They're not.Bear in mind that this is the same wingnut who earlier conceded that:a mandate occurs when people who do not wish to buy insurance are forced/strongly incentived to do so.Despite how much I try to think otherwise, conservatives still have to remind me on a daily basis how willfully blind, stupid, and ignorant they can get in these threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/sarah-palin-reportedly-quits-bus-tour-halfway-through.phpHalf-term hack former governor has to quit "family vacation" halfway through. At least she kept the British on notice that they weren't stealing our arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 I had to double-check that to see it wasn't The Onion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 22, 2011 Author Share Posted June 22, 2011 I did see a "Palin 2012" bumper sticker on my way to work this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 http://www.zerohedge.com/article/new-york-fed-refuses-disclose-data-largest-theft-funds-national-history-which-could-be-threeAt least $6.6 billion in cash stolen from Iraq rebuilding fund. Iraqi sources claim that $18.7 billion (nearly the entire fund) is missing. The Fed, of course, is refusing to discuss the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Someone should make up some Palin 2012-2014 bumper stickers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 A bit of basic math tells me the two plans are different:Say your forking over 4 grand a year in insurance bills, regardless of the plan (just a number by way of example, people)...With the ACA - if you have insurance, you are out the four grand. Adios, it is gone.With the ACA - if you do not have insurance, you are then stuck with forking over extra money to the IRS - again, I'll just pick a number and say $600. With the other plan - if you have insurance, you get at least some of that money you spent on that insurance *BACK*. Maybe something on the order of *half*, depending on just how the tax credit deal works.With the other plan - if you don't have the insurance, well, you don't gain the tax credit...but you don't pay a penalty either.So...with the ACA, no matter if you are insured or not, you end up loosing money, either to the IRS or to the insurance companies.With the other plan, you get what amounts to a seriously reduced insurance bill if you have insurance or if you do not have insurance you are in a 'break-even' situtation - no real gain, but no real loss, either.I can only conclude that the detractors of the other plan here are so blinded by ideology they have lost the ability to do basic math that might effect that ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi has a piece on Bachmann. Read it.This piece rather amazingly manages to be an example of precisely what it ends up warning against.I'm somebody who can't stand Bachmann and who has contributed to her opponents in the last two elections even though I live in Nebraska. But there are so many over the top unfair comments in this piece that it makes me cringe. Why did he have to say that her lying was "genetic"? That sounds like he's insulting not just her but her entire family -- maybe even all Norwegian-Americans. If someone on the right had written that Weiner's lying was "genetic", people would have accused the comment of being anti-Semitic. I think Bachmann is scary. But you don't fight her by putting out a piece that ends up implying that there's nothing that those of us who oppose her can do to stop her forward momentum, and by feeding in to her own paranoid delusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 With the ACA - if you do not have insurance, you are then stuck with forking over extra money to the IRS - again, I'll just pick a number and say $600. With the other plan - if you don't have the insurance, well, you don't gain the tax credit...but you don't pay a penalty either.Wrong ......... under Ryan's plan, you'll end up paying more taxes (compared to the penalty under ACA) if you don't have insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 "Genetic" was probably the wrong word on his part. I suspect that what he was trying to imply was that she may lie pathologically. Taibbi's style is pretty abrasive all of the time, but I think the article did give some good insights into where she comes from and what she's done. It also feeds my own ego by adding to the "Crazy, but not stupid" description I've been using for Bachmann for some time.I might go for "cunning but stupid". Like Palin really. She's an idiot and liar, but she knows enough to get attention and succeed in politics to some extent anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Wrong ......... under Ryan's plan, you'll end up paying more taxes (compared to the penalty under ACA) if you don't have insuranceAnd what sort of tax credit do you get for having insurance under the ACA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 And what sort of tax credit do you get for having insurance under the ACA?http://insurance.about.com/od/HealthIns/a/Small-Business-Tax-Credits-Under-The-Aca-Examined.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.