ACA success stories

[Revoltingest]

So the tax decreases and spending decreases were pro-capitalist, then.

We're not looking at any such decreases though. Games might be played with very short
term numbers, but government is imposing increases in spending, regulation, & taxation.
If they want the economy to generate enuf income for the taxes necessary to cover the
tab for all goals, they must be careful that policies don't interfere.

Obama has done both, we can agree or disagree about whether what he's done is a good thing but the false dichotomy of pro- vs. anti-capitalism is unhelpful at best.

I don't know what low productivity citizens are finding, but it's different for those of us who pay
the high taxes finance the bulk of gov spending. Planning with my CPA, we find big tax increases.

Your "false dichotomy" claim rings hollow. It would instead be helpful to try to understand how
capitalism works, since it not only is capitalism not going away, but is needed to fuel the nanny
state expansion we're facing.

 

[esmith]

And it's the above that makes it so hard to have any discussion with you as you're not putting things together properly (apples to apples, not apples to cartoons), plus your constant use of right-wing articles and blogs is simply just pathetic because they're opinions, not facts. And if anyone else reading this doubts this, just take a look at where these links take you.

Plus you really don't respond in any coherent way to what I posted. I'm sure you don't see it that way since you much prefer right-wing opinions over reality and common sense.

Sorry, but I really don't like wasting my time on posts like the nonsense above.

Are you saying that the data on Medicare is false?
And you seem to think that sources are nothing but blogs and opinions.
So, the article I referenced about the stock market from Forbes is nothing but an opinion. I do believe it is a highly respected "News" magazine. And the article from CNS News about the real Unemployment figures are fictional? Suggest you find out what the U6 unemployment data is. And the links to the articles about the EPA are "just right wing" opinions. Just because you do not happen to agree with them is your problem.
So, far all you have done is to say what has been referenced is nothing but opinion, yet you fail to present any information that proves or opposes those opinions.

 

[esmith]

I'm sorry I don't know what you're talking about. It wasn't his disability check, but his wife's.

It's a moot point. Even if these people were eligible for Medicaid before the ACA (which they clearly weren't, but let's suppose for the sake of argument) they were clearly signed up because of the ACA, namely this program to go out into rural areas and get people signed up. And 10,000 were signed up to private plans with federal subsidies thanks to the ACA. That's tens of thousands of success stories any way you slice it.

Then his and his wife's lack of income qualified both of them for Medicaid before the ACA.

52-year-old disabled master electrician . It would appear the he would then qualify for Social Security Disability. Of course he would have had to apply for it. Seems that that little piece of information was left out.
Lively said, and Fletcher pulled out documents showing that he and his wife live on about $500 a month in food stamps and her disability check.
It is not a moot point. It appears that their total income is from food stamps and his wife's disability check. Now did he and his wife ever apply for Medicaid? Seems that little bit of information is also left out. So, until you provide the missing information you do not have a case that the extended Medicaid was the reason they received Medicaid. Need the facts and all of the facts.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

We're not looking at any such decreases though.

I'm sorry do you mean "we" as in, Americans, or are you using the royal "we", as in, you personally? The facts seem to paint a different picture:

Tax rates for all filers have dropped since 2001, but have done so most precipitously for low-income households. The bottom 50 percent of filers paid 4.92 percent of their income in 2001, more than twice the rate they paid in 2010. In contrast, the top 1 percent of filers paid 27.6 percent of their income in 2001, which is about 4 points higher than their 2010 rate.

What Do Americans Really Pay in Income Taxes? | Tax Foundation

And another source says the historical average tax rate for all households reached its lowest in 2009 for all categories, except the top 1% whose rates were still lower than they were during the Bush years, at least until 2009 (the last year when they have data available): Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households

Individual results will vary from those averages, I'm sure.

I don't know what low productivity citizens are finding, but it's different for those of us who pay
the high taxes finance the bulk of gov spending. Planning with my CPA, we find big tax increases.

Ah, that answers my question. You were using the royal "we", as in, "we are not amused by our intolerable tax rates". So "capitalism" is when "our" (meaning His Highness, the Only Productive Man, Revoltingest's) taxes are lowered, and anything else is "anti-capitalism". Got it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Now did he and his wife ever apply for Medicaid?

It is a moot point esmith because even if they were ELIGIBLE for Medicaid, they were not SIGNED UP. They got processed and SIGNED UP by the health clinic which was opened in rural Kentucky by the ACA, for the exact purpose of SIGNING PEOPLE UP and making sure they get the benefits they are ELIGIBLE to receive. People signed up so far: 40,000 for Medicaid, including the disabled electrician, and 10,000 for private insurance with federal subsidies. Mission Accomplished.

Again that's an ACA success story no matter how you try to squirm your way out of it.

 

[esmith]

It is a moot point esmith because even if they were ELIGIBLE for Medicaid, they were not SIGNED UP. They got processed and SIGNED UP by the health clinic which was opened in rural Kentucky by the ACA, for the exact purpose of SIGNING PEOPLE UP and making sure they get the benefits they are ELIGIBLE to receive. People signed up so far: 40,000 for Medicaid, including the disabled electrician, and 10,000 for private insurance with federal subsidies. Mission Accomplished.

Again that's an ACA success story no matter how you try to squirm your way out of it.

I am going to get a little sarcastic here. The only way the ACA had anything to do with this situation is in that the Obamacare minions spread out throughout the land attempting to prove that the ACA is good for people and the country.

Now, once you have all of these Medicaid and subsidized insurance policies in place I have just one question for you. Where is the country going to get the money to pay for it?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sorry do you mean "we" as in, Americans, or are you using the royal "we", as in, you personally? The facts seem to paint a different picture:
What Do Americans Really Pay in Income Taxes? | Tax Foundation

Since I'm not a Limey, I use no royal "we".
Your source paints a slightly different picture from yours....

The average federal tax rate for all taxpayers rose slightly in 2010 to 11.81 percent, up from 11.06 percent the previous year.

And another source says the historical average tax rate for all households reached its lowest in 2009 for all categories, except the top 1% whose rates were still lower than they were during the Bush years, at least until 2009 (the last year when they have data available): Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households

The figures cited don't address changes in how income is calculated. As the IRS eliminates or amortizes deductions, taxable income is shifting from net income in the direction of gross income. (They do this by lengthening depreciation schedules, declaring non-income transactions to be income, etc.) Average rates may fall due novel income definition, but if compared to prior net income calculation methods, they can be higher than before. Business techniques to avoid this increase have harmful effects on the economy, eg, discouraging capital improvements, making loan renegotiations impossible (resulting in foreclosure).

Individual results will vary from those averages, I'm sure.

Mine sure do.
Moreover, your link fails to address imminent tax increases, eg:
- New 3.8% surcharge tax on investment income
(Interesting that the Tax Foundation doesn't even mention this one, but Huff Po does.)
- Tax increases which haven't yet been levied to pay for increased spending (% of GDP) due to Obamacare & other entitlements. If such spending goes up, then it must be paid for, therefore it's reasonable to expect tax increases.
File:GAO Slide.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your link also fails to address the full tax burden, eg, state & local tax increases. Here in MI, we saw a sales tax increase & we've seen the property tax rate greatly increase (as a function of taxes levied & actual property value).

So "capitalism" is when "our" (meaning His Highness, the Only Productive Man, Revoltingest's) taxes are lowered, and anything else is "anti-capitalism". Got it.

Now, now...let's not get snippy over a disagreement about tax rates. I'm being nice by not rubbing your nose in the fact that you personally consume more in benefits than you produce (as you've said). Without the likes of me producing more than we consume, how else would you survive? So it makes sense to understand how to keep the biggest taxpayers motivated & productive.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I am going to get a little sarcastic here. The only way the ACA had anything to do with this situation is in that the Obamacare minions spread out throughout the land attempting to prove that the ACA is good for people and the country.

Now, once you have all of these Medicaid and subsidized insurance policies in place I have just one question for you. Where is the country going to get the money to pay for it?

Before I hop on that merry-go-round with you yet again, where facts have no meaning, I must point out to you that logic dictates (to say nothing of facts) that you cannot simultaneously make both of these criticisms:

(1) Very few, if any, people are actually getting coverage due to the ACA
---AND---
(2) How are we going to pay for all these people getting coverage due to the ACA?!?!

So, do you have an actual view that is logically consistent? I.e. do you think the ACA will provide a lot of poor people coverage but at great expense ---OR--- do you think those people were already eligible for Medicaid, ergo, the ACA adds little additional expense?

Personally, I think you just throw a bunch of crap at the ACA hoping something will stick. But you've thrown way more crap than can possibly stick all at once.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Your source paints a slightly different picture from yours....

No, actually, it doesn't. You cited a 0.75% increase in the average tax rate from 2009--2010. But that's still 0.73% lower than it was in 2008, when Obama took office, as you can see in this breakdown of the data (Table 8). In other words, since Obama took office taxes went down, then up, but in total they've gone down more than they went up (at least until 2010, the most recent year for which we have data).

So again I ask, tax decreases under Obama count as pro-capitalist, right?

The figures cited don't address changes in how income is calculated. As the IRS eliminates or amortizes deductions, taxable income is shifting from net income in the direction of gross income.

Hmm but that objection seems to be in conflict with two observations:

(1) According to the methodology used for the figures cited, the figures do not depend on taxable income or changing IRS definitions thereof:

Effective tax rates are calculated by dividing taxes by comprehensive household income. Comprehensive household income equals pretax cash income plus income from other sources. Pretax cash income is the sum of wages, salaries, self-employment income, rents, taxable and nontaxable interest, dividends, realized capital gains, cash transfer payments, and retirement benefits plus taxes paid by businesses (corporate income taxes and the employer's share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes) and employees' contributions to 401(k) retirement plans. Other sources of income include all in-kind benefits (Medicare, Medicaid, employer-paid health insurance

(2) They explicitly take into account changes in IRS methodology and the way adjusted gross income is calculated, which is why they emphasize only the data going back to 2001 and warn previous data may not be strictly comparable.

Mine sure do.
Moreover, your link fails to address imminent tax increases, eg:
- New 3.8% surcharge tax on investment income
(Interesting that the Tax Foundation doesn't even mention this one, but Huff Po does.)

I think that's because when the article was written, Nov. 2012, the IRS had just released sufficient data from 2010 to calculate the average federal tax rate. My guess is in 2010-2013 Obama was "anti-capitalist" just as in 2008-2010 he was "pro-capitalist", as we have seen .... thus making the dichotomy false at worst, and unhelpful at best -- which was the picture I originally painted.

Your link also fails to address the full tax burden, eg, state & local tax increases.

Yes, that's because I was responding to your comment "Obama's pushing tax & regulation increases is anti-capitalist" and Obama isn't responsible for state & local taxes. Wait, you said they increased, right? Oh, well in that case Obama must be implicated.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Why do Liberals ignore that when taxes are lower the government collects more money than when taxes are higher? Is this about funding the government or attacking productive citizens?

We spend way to much time worring about how much money people make and not enough time considering how the government can pay for everything.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, actually, it doesn't. You cited a 0.75% increase in the average tax rate from 2009--2010. But that's still 0.73% lower than it was in 2008, when Obama took office, as you can see in this breakdown of the data (Table 8). In other words, since Obama took office taxes went down, then up, but in total they've gone down more than they went up (at least until 2010, the most recent year for which we have data).

I merely point out that your quote cited only the fluctuations which headed down.
That is an incomplete picture.

So again I ask, tax decreases under Obama count as pro-capitalist, right?

You're focusing solely upon federal tax rates, & ignoring regulation, other taxes, income definition, etc.[/quote]
But taxes will increase under Obama. Just watch the next decade as Obama finishes his final term, & entitlement spending continues to increase.
In 2023, you'll say, "Dang, Revolt...I see the light....you were right!".

Hmm but that objection seems to be in conflict with two observations:
(1) According to the methodology used for the figures cited, the figures do not depend on taxable income or changing IRS definitions thereof:
(2) They explicitly take into account changes in IRS methodology and the way adjusted gross income is calculated, which is why they emphasize only the data going back to 2001 and warn previous data may not be strictly comparable.

The income from "other sources" is the income being gamed by the IRS before it becomes household income. The text you cite does not address this.

I think that's because when the article was written, Nov. 2012, the IRS had just released sufficient data from 2010 to calculate the average federal tax rate.

This is another reason (ie, out of date) the piece you cited is inadequate in presenting a complete picture.

My guess is in 2010-2013 Obama was "anti-capitalist" just as in 2008-2010 he was "pro-capitalist", as we have seen .... thus making the dichotomy false at worst, and unhelpful at best -- which was the picture I originally painted.

It was a self-serving incomplete picture.

Yes, that's because I was responding to your comment "Obama's pushing tax & regulation increases is anti-capitalist" and Obama isn't responsible for state & local taxes. Wait, you said they increased, right? Oh, well in that case Obama must be implicated.

Obama is of course not the only one responsible. Past presidents & both sides of Congress are culpable too. But Obama has owned the bully pulpit for 5 years, & now owns Obamacare with all its subsequent effects. The net result of his stewardship looks anti-capitalistic (& crony capitalistic) to me.

 

[esmith]

Before I hop on that merry-go-round with you yet again, where facts have no meaning, I must point out to you that logic dictates (to say nothing of facts) that you cannot simultaneously make both of these criticisms:

(1) Very few, if any, people are actually getting coverage due to the ACA
---AND---
(2) How are we going to pay for all these people getting coverage due to the ACA?!?!

So, do you have an actual view that is logically consistent? I.e. do you think the ACA will provide a lot of poor people coverage but at great expense ---OR--- do you think those people were already eligible for Medicaid, ergo, the ACA adds little additional expense?

Personally, I think you just throw a bunch of crap at the ACA hoping something will stick. But you've thrown way more crap than can possibly stick all at once.

I will attempt to address the issues you bought up in your highlighted sections.
I do not ever remember or read anywhere that I said very few people were getting coverage under Obamacare. What I implied is that at the present time there are more people going to the website and being signed up for extended Medicare and subsidized health insurance than those that pay the full cost of the abomination(Obamanation?) known as Obamacare. Now whether that trend continues is not known. However, the idea that young healthy people will spend their money on what the government wants them to purchase vice what they want to do with their money is basically a lot of hope. But, again we will not know for some time. Now, with the additional people signing up for health care that haven't had health insurance; those of you who favor Obamacare say an additional 30-40 million people will now have health coverage. In addition there will be an additional unknown (at the present time) number that will have to obtain more expensive insurance than they had before due to the ill advised philosophy of "government knows what's best" of those that support Obamacare. Of those that have to get more expensive policies a certain percentage of them will qualify for subsidizes. What I am asking is how do those of you that support this plan intended to pay for it. We continue to see carve outs for various groups and organizations that remove monies that was supposed to help cover this new idea. We now know that there is a clause in Obamacare that guarantees insurance companies will not lose money through Obamacare at the additional expense of the taxpayer. There is documented information that many doctors will not accept Medicaid patients. In addition to keep cost down insurance companies have dropped many hospitals and by association doctors from the "network of providers". Some hospitals have cut staff to keep prices down. There have been many articles written that point to the observation that Obamacare will inhibit medical technology due to the "top down" philosophy of the federal government in matters of medical technology. Another interesting study is that insurance premiums will increase by 41%. Due to the construct of this plan it will result in 4 classes of people. The still uninsured, the insured who may or may not be able to find a doctor, the insured that will only be able to use the range of medical treatment from poor to good providers, and those that can afford to pay for the excellent providers. Somewhere within these groups you will find those on Medicare Part B with supplemental insurance and those rich enough to afford the individual "cadillac" insurance plans and the groups that also have the "cadillac" plans (oh yes some unions do not want to help pay for Obamacare by asking for a carve out for the tax on these plans..
What your Democratic party did was as both political parties tend to do is throw money at the problem instead of look at how to solve the problems. These Democrats, not knowing what they were doing, made the decision to jury-rig a health care system that has effected the entire country vice taking a small section of the problem and look at what could be done to correct it. In other words, "take baby steps" that could be easily modified vice attempting what they did that is almost impossible to "fix". The articles I have used for information
can be found here:

49-State Analysis: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Premiums By Average Of 41% - Forbes
ZYCHER: Obamacare inhibits medical technology - Washington Times

Now, I know you will not agree with them because it goes against every fiber of your beliefs.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I merely point out that your quote cited only the fluctuations which headed down.
That is an incomplete picture.

But it was sufficient to answer your objection. Recall:

Spinkles: So the tax decreases and spending decreases were pro-capitalist, then.

Revolt: We're not looking at any such [tax, spending] decreases though."

Emphasis added.

To be clear, I'm not saying Obama is "pro-capitalist", I'm simply saying the facts paint a more complicated picture than the overly-simplistic charge that Obama is "anti-capitalist". Notice that now you've retreated to the position that the facts don't paint a complete picture, at all. Oh, okay. So when you claimed that Obama is definitely "anti-capitalist" you did so based on incomplete facts. Which was my point.

You're focusing solely upon federal tax rates, & ignoring regulation, other taxes, income definition, etc.

Okay, so you're saying that if we take all those things into account, then they cancel out the tax decreases, and so Obama has been "anti-capitalist" even in the period 2008--2010 (?) I await comprehensive evidence from credible sources to back up your assertion.

But taxes will increase under Obama. Just watch the next decade as Obama finishes his final term, & entitlement spending continues to increase.
In 2023, you'll say, "Dang, Revolt...I see the light....you were right!".

Maybe. I just like facts, and data, rather than buzzwords.

The income from "other sources" is the income being gamed by the IRS before it becomes household income. The text you cite does not address this.

Can you back that up, or are you just fishing again? Because you previously claimed that "taxable income is shifting ..." but you were wrong that this affects the figures, because the figures don't depend on taxable income. In other words, you were guessing / hoping that this would invalidate the figures. Are you doing that again?

Actually, it's a moot point. At best, you're saying we don't know what the average tax rates were since Obama took office. Ergo, you do not have convincing, comprehensive data (e.g. on the average tax rate) to back up your assertions. Or, if you do, you haven't presented it.

If you have something more comprehensive and trustworthy than data from the Tax Foundation and the Tax Policy Center, by all means share it, I'm listening. In other words, if you say Obama has been "anti-capitalist" I'd like to see the facts which show, on a scale of 1 to 10, how "anti-capitalist" he has been. We already know he lowered average tax rates from 2008--2010 so we know he's not a "10". The data I provided was my good faith attempt to shed light on this issue.

It was a self-serving incomplete picture.

Interesting, that's precisely how I felt about your "anti-capitalist" charge.

Obama is of course not the only one responsible. Past presidents & both sides of Congress are culpable too. But Obama has owned the bully pulpit for 5 years, & now owns Obamacare with all its subsequent effects. The net result of his stewardship looks anti-capitalistic (& crony capitalistic) to me.

Perhaps. The most trustworthy and comprehensive facts I could find on the matter, namely the average federal tax rate, seemed to soften if not contradict that view, and now you say those facts are incomplete. Without complete or comprehensive facts it's tough to make a judgment, especially since so many Americans believed (falsely) that their taxes went up in 2010, and believe (falsely) that Obamacare increases the deficit, etc. Although I am sure you are correct on this particular issue to a degree, the question is, to what degree?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Now, I know you will not agree with them because it goes against every fiber of your beliefs.

I don't agree with the Forbes article because you posted it already in another thread, I read it, and the information contained in the article is very different from the information emphasized by the headline.

 

[Revoltingest]

To be clear, I'm not saying Obama is "pro-capitalist", I'm simply saying the facts paint a more complicated picture than the overly-simplistic charge that Obama is "anti-capitalist".

You confuse "simplistic" with "simple".
The distinction is important.

Notice that now you've retreated to the position that the facts don't paint a complete picture....

When I point out that your argument & sources lack scope & accuracy, this is not retreating.
In fact, it's somewhat aggressive...assailing your shoddy evidence.
Note that you utterly failed to notice the 3.8% surcharge on investment income.
Under Obama, capital gains tax (on some asset classes) went from 15% to 20% + 3.8%, which is a 59% tax increase.
(On some other classes, capital gains is the full income tax rate, so the 3.8% increase is a smaller percentage.)
You won't pay this tax, but I will.

....when you claimed that Obama is definitely "anti-capitalist" you did so based on incomplete facts. Which was my point.

Meh....and when you object to my characterization of Obama, you cite an obsolete & incomplete article.
You should keep up with tax changes as I do. (This is because taxes affect me greatly. I presume you're more
interested in entitlements.)

Maybe. I just like facts, and data, rather than buzzwords.

Really?

Can you back that up, or are you just fishing again?

"Fishing" would be if I asked questions of you. But I'm not.
As for back up, I base my claims on personal experience as a taxpayer. I have a fine CPA working
for me, we discuss strategy regularly, & I pay a whole lotta tax. So I know wherefrom I speak.
Doubt if you wish, but I'm not here to convert the unconvertible.

Because you previously claimed that "taxable income is shifting ..." but you were wrong that this affects the figures, because the figures don't depend on taxable income. In other words, you were guessing / hoping that this would invalidate the figures. Are you doing that again?

You really should carefully read your own sources first. Then we'll talk.

Actually, it's a moot point. At best, you're saying we don't know what the average tax rates were since Obama took office

Never said any such thing.

Ergo...

Useful advice:
Don't resort to Latin when jumping to an incorrect conclusion. It looks embarrassingly pretentious.

j....you do not have convincing, comprehensive data....

I don't expect to convince you of anything. We're each entrenched in our positions,
ie, I'm a reluctant provider of largess to others, while you're a net consumer of largess.

If you have something more comprehensive and trustworthy than data from the Tax Foundation and the Tax Policy Center....

This is empty carping from someone who presents out of date articles.

...so many Americans believed (falsely) that their taxes went up in 2010, and believe (falsely) that Obamacare increases the deficit, etc.

I can't speak for what other Americanistanians believe. But you're in no position to say that Obamacare won't increase
the deficit, since it isn't implemented yet, which means you have speculations rather than data (aka facts).

It seems you're trying to hard to be "right". Perhaps you think you are in sole possession of THE TRUTH.
Tis best to accept that people will have different values & beliefs. Then you won't get so snippy, & I
won't be tempted to be condescending.

 

[metis]

Are you saying that the data on Medicare is false?
And you seem to think that sources are nothing but blogs and opinions.
So, the article I referenced about the stock market from Forbes is nothing but an opinion. I do believe it is a highly respected "News" magazine. And the article from CNS News about the real Unemployment figures are fictional? Suggest you find out what the U6 unemployment data is. And the links to the articles about the EPA are "just right wing" opinions. Just because you do not happen to agree with them is your problem.
So, far all you have done is to say what has been referenced is nothing but opinion, yet you fail to present any information that proves or opposes those opinions.

All you did was to put up stuff that's a discussion stopper. Do you honestly expect that any one of us is likely to open and read every link you posted, and then come back and somehow comment on much of that which is inside them? Really?

Anyone can cut & paste a list of websites, but when I saw what what you posted, I just looked at where the links came from, saw the overall pattern, and simply felt, and still feel, it's just a total waste of time, especially since it expects way too much from the reader.

 

[metis]

Why do Liberals ignore that when taxes are lower the government collects more money than when taxes are higher? Is this about funding the government or attacking productive citizens?

We saw what happened during the Reagan years, and which G.H.W.Bush referred to as "voodoo economics", whereas he was proven correct as the national debt sharply ramped up.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why do Liberals ignore that when taxes are lower the government collects more money than when taxes are higher?

As I recall, Kennedy believed this.

 

[Uberpod]

Why do Liberals ignore that when taxes are lower the government collects more money than when taxes are higher? .

Maybe because it is not really accurate:

 

[Uberpod]

1981 tax cut - revenues go down.
1993 tax increase - revenues go up.
2001 tax cut - revenues go down.
2010 tax adjust - revenues go up.

And deficit does the reverse.