How does it feel to now be a taxpayer?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

meaning, Congress can offer Obamacare, what it can't do is penalize the states that won't expand medicaid, which is a part of Obamacare..The idea was to expand medicaid since it's cheaper to cover people under medicaid.. to force their hands, they threatened to penalize the states that wouldn't do this by taking away their medicaid funds.. SCOTUS said they can't..

nothing about medicare and nothing about not using the money for one to the other..

The money appropriated to Medicaid is for Medicaid, not Obamacare. The court was clear on that as well. But the funding of Obamacare, relied largely on the states participation, and that is now off the table. This leaves a huge gaping hole in the financing of the plan. Over $600 billion they had planed to use from the Medicaid funds, is no longer on the table, and the states can't be compelled to participate or punished if they don't. No funding source there! We're running into a bit of a dilemma here... seems the only way to generate the funds to support this boondoggle, is to dramatically raise tax rates and vote to gut Medicaid. I hope you and Obama roll out this proposal sometime before November, is all I can say.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I hope you and Obama roll out this proposal sometime before November, is all I can say.

Got a prediction?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Got a prediction?

Yes, I predict Democrats WON'T propose we cut Medicaid to fund Obamacare.

Instead, they will lie to people and say Republicans are knuckledragging racists who refuse to live by the SCOTUS ruling that Obamacare was glorious.

They will continue to lie and claim they haven't raised taxes, but there is no other way to pay for Obamacare.

And they will continue to insist that what 57% of the country DOESN'T want, they must ACCEPT.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Yes, I predict Democrats WON'T propose we cut Medicaid to fund Obamacare. Instead, they will lie to people and say Republicans are knuckledragging racists who refuse to live by the SCOTUS ruling that Obamacare was glorious. They will continue to lie and claim they haven't raised taxes, but there is no other way to pay for Obamacare. And they will continue to insist that what 57% of the country DOESN'T want, they must ACCEPT.

Noted.

 

[Althea]

The money appropriated to Medicaid is for Medicaid, not Obamacare. The court was clear on that as well. But the funding of Obamacare, relied largely on the states participation, and that is now off the table. This leaves a huge gaping hole in the financing of the plan. Over $600 billion they had planed to use from the Medicaid funds, is no longer on the table, and the states can't be compelled to participate or punished if they don't. No funding source there! We're running into a bit of a dilemma here... seems the only way to generate the funds to support this boondoggle, is to dramatically raise tax rates and vote to gut Medicaid. I hope you and Obama roll out this proposal sometime before November, is all I can say.

I appreciate your other post where you include the SC ruling


I thought I cleared this up days ago. You are conflating Medicare, with Medicaid.

The error I keep seeing here, is the flawed right wing talking points that claim 600 billion will be 'stolen' from Medicare to pay for Obamacare.

That's wrong on a few levels.

Further, there is no language that addresses tax dollars taken for Medicare being used to fund Obamacare.

The SC merely stated that those who refuse to expand their Medicaid rolls cannot have all Medicaid funding taken away, as Obamacare attempted to do.

Please refrain from muddying the waters by making claims about Medicare dollars.

I believe you aren't the only one here that is doing that.




Medicaid is for low income families.


Medicare is for elderly people.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I appreciate your other post where you include the SC ruling


I thought I cleared this up days ago. You are conflating Medicare, with Medicaid.

No, I'm not. Medicaid is a program under Medicare. Medicare is a program under Social Security, and all of it falls under special provisional laws governing Social Security, which was long ago passed by Congress. The Medicaid program was specifically funded to help people below the poverty level, not to benefit 48% of America, many of which, have no health care insurance.

The error I keep seeing here, is the flawed right wing talking points that claim 600 billion will be 'stolen' from Medicare to pay for Obamacare.

That's wrong on a few levels.

No, it's not wrong, really. You can argue semantics, but basically, they wanted to take $600 billion from other programs under Medicare, and transfer that to Obamacare... they CAN'T... it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL! They also said the states can't be compelled to participate with their Medicaid funds, and since something like 38 of them have filed lawsuits to keep from having to do so, I don't see where there are going to be many takers on the offer.

Further, there is no language that addresses tax dollars taken for Medicare being used to fund Obamacare.

Yes there is. It's in the very opening of the opinion, Medicare is regulated under the commerce clause, because of what it is. Obamacare CAN'T be regulated under the commerce clause. It has to be a tax. Now... Social Security is also, in essential form, a tax, but it has already defined and established parameters... remember, passed by congress years ago? You can't take money from that program and apply it to whatever you dream up...i.e.; Obamacare.

The SC merely stated that those who refuse to expand their Medicaid rolls cannot have all Medicaid funding taken away, as Obamacare attempted to do.

Yes, and that was the fundamental principle which caused them to rule this. Roberts pointed this out in the opening of his opinion, and I didn't bother reposting it here, because I really thought you were intelligent enough to understand the fundamentals. The money was intended to be used for Medicaid, not Obamacare.

Do you not comprehend that we can't allow Congress to pass a tax for "X" and then do "Y" with the money? Is that concept beyond your ability to reason or something? You know what... tellya what buddy, let's adopt your viewpoint! Let's all understand that whenever Congress passes a tax for something, they can then spend the money on whatever they want, and to hell with what they said the tax was for! I promise, that would be the END to ANY tax.

Please refrain from muddying the waters by making claims about Medicare dollars.

I've not muddied anything. You continue to act like a moron and pretend the ruling didn't rule the way it ruled.... stubbornly and defiantly, you stomp ahead with your idea that this can be funded with Medicaid dollars... it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Medicaid is for low income families.

CORRECT... Which is why it can't have it's funding taken and used to buy health care or insurance for people who are not low income under Obamacare.

Medicare is for elderly people.

Yes, I understand. SSI>>MEDICARE>>MEDICAID. All fall under the Social Security Act. In order to use ANY of the funds related to these programs, you will need to change the Social Security Act. You won't dare do that... what you will have to do, is pass an additional massive tax increase to pay for Obamacare.

 

[Althea]

No, I'm not. Medicaid is a program under Medicare. Medicare is a program under Social Security, and all of it falls under special provisional laws governing Social Security, which was long ago passed by Congress. The Medicaid program was specifically funded to help people below the poverty level, not to benefit 48% of America, many of which, have no health care insurance.

Medicare/Medicaid are two separate programs, with different methods of funding. Conflating the two, especially to make a flawed point, doesn't work.

No, it's not wrong, really. You can argue semantics, but basically, they wanted to take $600 billion from other programs under Medicare, and transfer that to Obamacare... they CAN'T... it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL! They also said the states can't be compelled to participate with their Medicaid funds, and since something like 38 of them have filed lawsuits to keep from having to do so, I don't see where there are going to be many takers on the offer.

Nobody is taking anything from Medicare to fund Obamacare. You can't believe everything you read on right wing blogs.

Yes there is. It's in the very opening of the opinion, Medicare is regulated under the commerce clause, because of what it is. Obamacare CAN'T be regulated under the commerce clause. It has to be a tax. Now... Social Security is also, in essential form, a tax, but it has already defined and established parameters... remember, passed by congress years ago? You can't take money from that program and apply it to whatever you dream up...i.e.; Obamacare

. Is it your claim that FICA money hasn't been used to fund other debts? That's pretty funny.

Yes, and that was the fundamental principle which caused them to rule this. Roberts pointed this out in the opening of his opinion, and I didn't bother reposting it here, because I really thought you were intelligent enough to understand the fundamentals. The money was intended to be used for Medicaid, not Obamacare

. Your argument makes no sense at all. Nobody was taking Medicaid funding to pay for anything. The feds wanted to strongarm individual states to expand Medicaid programs, in order to insure more currently uninsureds.

They were going to take away all Fed. funding, which SC deemed unacceptable. That has nothing to do with your flawed claims re. 600 Billion taken from Medicare. NO MONEY IS BEING TAKEN FROM MEDICARE.

Do you not comprehend that we can't allow Congress to pass a tax for "X" and then do "Y" with the money? Is that concept beyond your ability to reason or something? You know what... tellya what buddy, let's adopt your viewpoint! Let's all understand that whenever Congress passes a tax for something, they can then spend the money on whatever they want, and to hell with what they said the tax was for! I promise, that would be the END to ANY tax.

As has already been explained...tax money is routinely used to pay for anything the feds. deem payable.

I've not muddied anything. You continue to act like a moron and pretend the ruling didn't rule the way it ruled.... stubbornly and defiantly, you stomp ahead with your idea that this can be funded with Medicaid dollars... it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Clearly, there's only one moron in this discussion, and it isn't me. You're obviously confused. Perhaps you should read up on the subject. Start with Medicaid/Medicare funding.

.

Yes, I understand. SSI>>MEDICARE>>MEDICAID. All fall under the Social Security Act. In order to use ANY of the funds related to these programs, you will need to change the Social Security Act. You won't dare do that... what you will have to do, is pass an additional massive tax increase to pay for Obamacare.

You need to get your facts straight.

 

[apple0154]

Oh sure, apple, if a super-majority of Congress up and decides to tell the old people of America they want to kick them to the curb so they can fund Obamacare, that's FINE... I hope they can roll this idea out before November, that would be terrific! Medicaid is a part of Medicare... Medicaid funding can not be used for Obamacare. If you want to introduce legislation to cut Medicare, be my guest... it usually doesn't end well for politicians.

Cutting Medicare will not affect anyone IF ObamaCare picks up the service.

The budget has nothing to do with the Social Security program, and the money that has been paid into it. We've paid into the system under the assumption our money was going to fund a certain thing... Congress can't "decide" they want to use the money for something entirely different. It would be like, if Congress passed a law at the behest of the people, to raise taxes by 50%, but send every American $1 million... THEN, after the tax passed overwhelmingly by Congress, they come back and decide to send everyone a boiled egg instead, and use the money to have a big party and get stoned. Congress can't do that, they don't have that power. Once they passed the Medicaid bill under the auspices of helping specific poor an needy families, they can't come back later and lay claim to the funds for some other purpose, even if they claim it still helps some poor and needy families. They have to go back, and CHANGE the Medicare law... they won't touch this, trust me.

How many times do I have to say I'm not talking about the money already received?

Sorry... I do not support propaganda outlets and their internet presence, it's a thing I have. We've discussed this before.

I was hoping your attitude regarding remaining willfully ignorant would change.

You can DREAM all you want to, the Federal government has NEVER found us "the best deal" on any goddamn thing, and they won't start here. But this has nothing to do with what I said, or the fact that all you've done is shift the burden of cost from individuals to government. The "cost" remains unchanged, the burden of paying it, now rests with the taxpayers. And since you are going to offer it for nothing to certain people, they will use it more, and it will eventually cost us more. You din't pass a law that says Doctors get paid less, or any other medical service will cost less. You are increasing the demand for these services without adding new doctors or medical infrastructure, so the cost will necessarily rise and availability will decrease, as well as levels of quality. Insurance companies won't take the blow, they figure their rates based on payouts, and their CEOs and agents will still make the exact same amounts as always. Hospital administrators will still get their bonuses are raises, fountains in the lobby, leather chairs and painting in the halls... etc. Nothing changes with regard to the COST of health care. You've merely changed who is to PAY for it.

When the government pays the government decides how much it's going to pay. It's that simple.

I'll dumb it down for you. Doctor "A" charges $1,000.00. Doctor "B" charges $800.00 for the same procedure. Under a government medical plan the government pays $800.00. So, doctor "A" has a choice. He can charge $1,000.00 with the government paying $800.00 and the patient paying the remaining $200.00 or he can just charge $800.00. If you were going to have the procedure done which doctor would you choose? Which doctor do you think most of the other patients will choose?

The same applies to hospital costs, drugs, equipment, etc. The government is buying in bulk and when the government pays the patient does not have any out of pocket expenses.

I don't know why you have such difficulty understanding. Look at Wal-Mart. Their prices are low because they buy in bulk. If an individual purchased a toaster from a small store that had 3 toasters they would pay a lot more than if they purchased it from Wal-Mart. It's the same principal. It's capitalism, government style.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Apple, your argument is clearly invalid.

To make your debating technique legendary, you must capitalize lots of words, call your opponent "pinhead", and use many exclamation points.

 

[apple0154]

Apple, your argument is clearly invalid.

To make your debating technique legendary, you must capitalize lots of words, call your opponent "pinhead", and use many exclamation points.

Indeed. It's inexcusable as I've been shown the correct technique, over and over.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Medicare/Medicaid are two separate programs, with different methods of funding. Conflating the two, especially to make a flawed point, doesn't work.

If I am not mistaken, Medicaid is administered through Medicare, I could be wrong... it might be administered through Social Security. In either event, they are both part of the 1965 Social Security Act and NOT a part of Obamacare, according to SCOTUS.

Nobody is taking anything from Medicare to fund Obamacare. You can't believe everything you read on right wing blogs.

I know they aren't, the SCOTUS ruled they couldn't.

. Is it your claim that FICA money hasn't been used to fund other debts? That's pretty funny.

The court has been clear on this, you can't tax us and tell us it is for "X" then spend the money on "Y." As was pointed out before, Congress can DO pretty much anything they want to DO at any given time. It doesn't mean it's constitutional.

. Your argument makes no sense at all. Nobody was taking Medicaid funding to pay for anything. The feds wanted to strongarm individual states to expand Medicaid programs, in order to insure more currently uninsureds.

Obamacare was depending on states using their Medicaid funds to pay for this program. The SCOTUS ruled they could NOT do that, and the states had every right to refuse. This comes as a great relief to 38 of them who filed lawsuits challenging this. Now, comes the question of how the Feds can fund this, if they can't have the states pick up this huge chunk of the cost? There is no 'argument' to this, the 'argument' was settled in the SCOTUS last week. Where have you been?

They were going to take away all Fed. funding, which SC deemed unacceptable. That has nothing to do with your flawed claims re. 600 Billion taken from Medicare. NO MONEY IS BEING TAKEN FROM MEDICARE.

In addition to about a half dozen OTHER things the court ruled on... yes. Again, I know the program isn't going to take money from Medicare, it can't do that! You can't use Medicare funds or Medicaid funds, or Social Security funds, to pay for Obamacare. You thought you could... when you were parading around telling everyone this program would REDUCE the debt! THAT was how you and doe-eyed Nancy were going to pay for this thing... now you can't. Boo-hoo!

As has already been explained...tax money is routinely used to pay for anything the feds. deem payable.

Yep... a certain portion of tax goes into the general fund, and Congress can appropriate it as they see fit. Never have argued they can't. Once the appropriations have been established, they can also recall them, and use the money for something else... never have argued they can't do that. But when the Congress enacts legislation which tells us we have to pay a tax for the specified purpose of doing "X,Y, and Z" it can't just up and decide, after the fact, after the tax has passed, to use the money for "A, B, and C" instead. IT HAS TO BE USED FOR WHAT THEY PASSED LEGISLATION TO USE IT FOR! There is a BIG BIG difference between a legislatively-enacted program which is funded by a specific tax, and legislative appropriations made from the general fund in the budget. There is not enough money in the general budget to do this... that was why they needed to use Medicaid funds. They can't use them now, according to SCOTUS.

 

[Althea]

If I am not mistaken, Medicaid is administered through Medicare, I could be wrong... it might be administered through Social Security. In either event, they are both part of the 1965 Social Security Act and NOT a part of Obamacare, according to SCOTUS.

Medicare is a fed program, that we pay for through payroll taxes.

Medicaid is a state program, that is paid for by the states, with a matching contribution from the feds. Said fed funding comes from the general fund through appropriations. Each state's funding changes as their collective demographic changes. It's based on income. So how can you claim that Congress taxes us for medicaid?

They don't have a specific Medicaid tax. As well, each state chooses to fund their programs via taxes on services/providers.

The only issue w/Obamacare and Medicaid funding, was the failed attempt to cut off all Medicaid funding if a state didn't comply with the expansion.

Likewise, no Medicare funding is being taken away. In fact, the allocations will continue to grow each year....just not in the same percentages as they do now.

You don't really expect to get the truth from Right Wing media, do you?

The court has been clear on this, you can't tax us and tell us it is for "X" then spend the money on "Y." As was pointed out before, Congress can DO pretty much anything they want to DO at any given time. It doesn't mean it's constitutional.

Non issue.

Obamacare was depending on states using their Medicaid funds to pay for this program. The SCOTUS ruled they could NOT do that, and the states had every right to refuse. This comes as a great relief to 38 of them who filed lawsuits challenging this. Now, comes the question of how the Feds can fund this, if they can't have the states pick up this huge chunk of the cost? There is no 'argument' to this, the 'argument' was settled in the SCOTUS last week. Where have you been?

wrong on all counts

In addition to about a half dozen OTHER things the court ruled on... yes. Again, I know the program isn't going to take money from Medicare, it can't do that! You can't use Medicare funds or Medicaid funds, or Social Security funds, to pay for Obamacare. You thought you could... when you were parading around telling everyone this program would REDUCE the debt! THAT was how you and doe-eyed Nancy were going to pay for this thing... now you can't. Boo-hoo!

more wasted bandwidth.

Yep... a certain portion of tax goes into the general fund, and Congress can appropriate it as they see fit.

Excellent...you're almost on first base. Now you understand how 50% of Medicaid is funded.

Never have argued they can't.

Yes you have....repeatedly. Including this post.

Once the appropriations have been established, they can also recall them, and use the money for something else... never have argued they can't do that

Keep running! You're almost to first. Great job.

. But when the Congress enacts legislation which tells us we have to pay a tax for the specified purpose of doing "X,Y, and Z" it can't just up and decide, after the fact, after the tax has passed, to use the money for "A, B, and C" instead. IT HAS TO BE USED FOR WHAT THEY PASSED LEGISLATION TO USE IT FOR! There is a BIG BIG difference between a legislatively-enacted program which is funded by a specific tax, and legislative appropriations made from the general fund in the budget. There is not enough money in the general budget to do this... that was why they needed to use Medicaid funds. They can't use them now, according to SCOTUS.

Happens all the time...so tell me why SSI money is routinely misused.

 

[Howey]

One of the main reasons social security is in the shape it's in today is because of trust funds being used for other purposes...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Medicare is a fed program, that we pay for through payroll taxes.

Medicaid is a state program, that is paid for by the states, with a matching contribution from the feds. Said fed funding comes from the general fund through appropriations. Each state's funding changes as their collective demographic changes. It's based on income. So how can you claim that Congress taxes us for medicaid?

No, Medicare is a Social Security program just like Medicaid, but Medicare is totally funded by the Feds, while Medicaid is funded mainly by the states, but both are part of the 1965 Social Security Act... which doesn't happen to include Obamacare.

They don't have a specific Medicaid tax. As well, each state chooses to fund their programs via taxes on services/providers.

Yeah, they don't have a specific tax, but they have a tax, but it's not really a tax because they don't have a specific tax... do you even fucking listen to yourself? Stop babbling on about something you obviously don't understand. We pay tax, it funds Medicare and Medicaid. PERIOD.

The only issue w/Obamacare and Medicaid funding, was the failed attempt to cut off all Medicaid funding if a state didn't comply with the expansion.

This is incorrect, and you should read the entire ruling. They wanted the states to "comply with expansion" which means... FUND OBAMACARE!

Likewise, no Medicare funding is being taken away.

Your goddamn straight, because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

In fact, the allocations will continue to grow each year....just not in the same percentages as they do now.

No, they will continue to remain untouched and unaffected by Obamacare, according to the recent SCOTUS ruling.

You don't really expect to get the truth from Right Wing media, do you?

I certainly don't expect TRUTH from you and the Liberal Socialists. For the record, I have not had cable television for almost a year now... haven't seen anything on Fox News network about this case, or any of the issues being discussed here. All my info comes from reading the ruling itself.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

One of the main reasons social security is in the shape it's in today is because of trust funds being used for other purposes...

Sorry, but the trust fund hasn't been used for other purposes. They have "borrowed" money from the trust fund to do other things, with the promise the money would be paid back into the fund before it's needed... the money wasn't "used for something else" it was borrowed, and is supposed to be paid back at some point. The SCOTUS ruled they couldn't "borrow" from the fund to pay for Obamacare.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie: But when the Congress enacts legislation which tells us we have to pay a tax for the specified purpose of doing "X,Y, and Z" it can't just up and decide, after the fact, after the tax has passed, to use the money for "A, B, and C" instead. IT HAS TO BE USED FOR WHAT THEY PASSED LEGISLATION TO USE IT FOR! There is a BIG BIG difference between a legislatively-enacted program which is funded by a specific tax, and legislative appropriations made from the general fund in the budget. There is not enough money in the general budget to do this... that was why they needed to use Medicaid funds. They can't use them now, according to SCOTUS.

DumbFuck: Happens all the time...

Name one time! Come on now, if it happens all the time, it should not be that hard to reel off a few... Tell us when Congress has said, we're passing this tax to pay for [whatever] and then, after the tax is passed and the money collected, they turn around and say, HA...fooled ya! We're really going to spend it on something else! Let's have some examples of this, please?

You see, here's the thing... if this "happens all the time" as you say... we would never ever pass a new tax, because the FIRST argument against it would be... hey, who knows what the hell they are going to spend the money on? Could be booze and whores for all we know? Just because they SAY this is what we're taxing for, doesn't MEAN that's what we will spend the money for. No one in Congress could ever honestly vote for a tax increase of any kind, if they didn't know what the money was going to fund. Of course, with the Liberal blood lust for the rich, maybe we should pass a massive tax on the rich, and tell them we're going to save all the fuzzy kittens with the money, but then, send the money back to the rich people instead? Maybe this is what we should do to illustrate just how fucked in the head this is?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

LOL, Dick-see demanding proof...

how ironic, from the king of 'cite'.

 

[Althea]

Yeah, they don't have a specific tax, but they have a tax, but it's not really a tax because they don't have a specific tax... do you even fucking listen to yourself? Stop babbling on about something you obviously don't understand. We pay tax, it funds Medicare and Medicaid. PERIOD.

What specific tax do you pay that funds Medicaid?

And show me the language in the ruling that states Congress can't use this tax to fund Obamacare.


Face it...I've made an ass of you again.

Now you're trying to change the discussion.


Do some reading before you post next time. Hannity's been lying to you.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

is there any lawful reference to this 'tax' in the entire voluminous collections of the US tax code?

 

[Howey]

Sorry, but the trust fund hasn't been used for other purposes. They have "borrowed" money from the trust fund to do other things, with the promise the money would be paid back into the fund before it's needed... the money wasn't "used for something else" it was borrowed, and is supposed to be paid back at some point.

Wow...that's the craziest spin on words I've ever heard, even from a right winger. Fact is, the money was used for "something else". By George Bush.

A 5-4 Republican-appointed Supreme Court majority staged a stunning judicial coup d'etat that handed the White House to a right wing Republican who then used the budget surplus the Democrats gave to him to give a huge tax cut to the wealthiest Americans. Instead of using the surplus to shore-up Social Security, George W. Bush raided the Social Security Trust Fund instead to run his government, fight his unfunded wars and reward his supporters among the wealthiest Americans.