Obamacare is a tax!!

SCOTUS ruled on ObamaCare today.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf 


Chief Justice Roberts joined the four other left leaning justices to agree that Congress has the ability to mandate every American must purchase health care or risk being "taxed". All Justices, except for Ginsberg, agreed that the mandate fails and is unconstitutional based on the limited powers the Commerce Clause places on Congress.

A TAX! Back in 2009 in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, President Obama asserted that Stephanopoulos was making up words by calling the health care mandate a tax.

http://youtu.be/bg-ofjXrXio

During the three day questioning earlier this year, it was Justice Kagan had to help the Solicitor General through the tough questioning to get out the fact that the mandate is a tax.

What is next? What new tax will Congress place upon us to mandate us do something? Here is an example. Democrats fought hard to require health insurance companies to be required to provide free birth control to all women even if it violated ones religious beliefs or tenets. The Affordable Care Act also established a non-elected governance board that will make decisions on what will be covered and not. Environmentalists have argued that the worlds food supply is not enough to sustain the current population. What prevents Congress now from passing a "tax" for each additional child one has past the first born? Or What prevents Congress from passing a "tax" that requires all adults to be sterilized after the first or second child?

The Chief Justice's decision to consider this a tax has opened Pandora's Box of the use of a tax to mandate Americans to do or not to do something.

White House vs. Fox News: The insanity continues

Sen. Obama campaigned last year on the premise of Change, Hope, and bringing people together. The Nobel group awarded Obama with the Nobel Peace Prize, not for what he has done rather for what he stands for; Change, hope, and bringing people together. So why is it then that White House officials were on Sunday talk shows imploring other news outlets alienate Fox News? White House communications director Anita Dunn claimed Sunday that Fox News Channel is "opinion journalism masquerading as news".

David Axelrod, Obama's senior advisor, claimed on to George Stephanopoulos Sunday that Fox is "not a new organization" and added "other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way." The biggest target has been Glenn Beck as is evident by the ongoing fact check blog page on the White House home page. The White House declaration of war on Fox News smacks of the paranoia of the Nixon years. The catalyst of the attack on Fox News appears to be over "Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace's fact checking Tammy Duckworth this past August. Anita Dunn is aghast by the gull of Wallace to fact check since that is "something I've never seen a Sunday show do." The kicker in this tiff is that the White House never said the fact-checking that Wallace did was wrong; rather the White House is upset that Wallace did it in the first place.

Are we really living in an age where News channels cannot fact check anyone let alone an administration official? Although it does not surprise me because little fact checking was done by ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC during the 2008 Presidential election. With unemployment over 10%, 2% points higher than the White House said would happen if the Stimulus Bill was passed, why isn't the White House focusing their efforts on job creation? Our economy, as many economists have warned, is on the brink of a second recession and need a stronger effort in job creation. The "war" on Fox News Channel is pathetic and smacks of Chicago politics which is something, I thought, Obama campaigned against. Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff for Obama, said Sunday on "Face the Nation" when asked about Fox News Channel, "It is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective."

Since Fox News Channel has a prospective that disqualifies them as a news channel? On the criteria alone it would eliminate all "news" channels. David Axelrod explained, on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, that "The only argument Anita was making is that they're not really a news station. It's not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming. It's really not news. It's pushing a point of view." I think that the White House is missing the mark here. Granted Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly posses a conservative tinge that is just three hours of Fox News Channel programming. As I have been home finding a new job I have had the luxury of being able to watch programming on several news channels. The programming during the day on Fox News is no different than CNN.

At the end of the day the White House is attempting to exert their power to control the media. The White House has the majority of news channels in their hip pocket while Fox News chooses to fact check them. What happened to journalism? Isn't the journalist supposed to question, investigate, and report the facts of the situation? While true journalism has been going the way of the dinosaur for years, it fell off the cliff last year during the Presidential election cycle. Fox News Channel is reporting the news and their news commenter's – Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly – have a 1^st amendment right to question and fact check the White House while putting their conservative spin on it. If Americans are not intelligent enough to realize this, just as MSNBC & CNN put their liberal spin on the issue, it is not the job of the White House to wage a war on Fox News. Again, I thought Obama was going to come to Washington to be above petty politics and usher in a new era of transparency and bi-partisanship????

Baucus Bill increases taxes on all Americans

Today the Senate Finance committee will start their overhaul of the Baucus bill. At last report there are 500 plus amendments proposed to the bill. One of the hot button items in the Baucus bill to be discussing the 35% excise tax on insurers "Cadillac plans" they offer. The "Cadillac plan" is defined as policies with a yearly premium cost of $8000 for an individual and $21,000 for a family. The excise tax is expected to generate $215B over 10 years. Michael Tanner, a health policy analyst at the Cato Institute, warns, "They're assuming that everybody's going to keep offering and buying these Cadillac plans. A 35% tax is huge" (Los Angeles Times). President Obama and other Democrats have chimed the 20% gross margin that insurance companies enjoy and it is time for them to share the wealth. Are we naïve to believe that insurance companies will not pass along the 35% excise tax among all the plans they offer thus "taxing" low and middle class by increasing premiums on non-Cadillac plans.

There is optimism behind the Baucus bill as it moves the conversation forward. "While we each have outstanding concerns we wish to see addressed, Senator Baucus has taken an important and critical step forward with this legislation, which is budget neutral and reduces future health care costs," says a statement signed by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo), Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Me), Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Ct), and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb) (http://voices.kansascity.com/node/5937). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) does acknowledge the plan does reduce the federal deficit in the long term through revenue generated from the excise tax on "Cadillac plans" and savings in the Medicare program.

What if the revenue from the "Cadillac plans" does not materialize? Historically speaking when taxes are raised, i.e. capital gains, the government realizes less revenue. In the case of health care, the excise tax may see the elimination of "Cadillac plans" and an increase in premiums of lesser plans to spread the tax. The increase premium is essentially a tax on Americans. Many will argue that premiums will increase regardless if nothing is done. I agree with that statement but let's not make it worse. We all agree something needs to be done to reduce premiums and other costs within the system. But to place an excise tax on plans that insurance companies are offering does nothing but raise potential revenue for the government while not lowering costs.

During his one-on-one conversation with George Stephanopoulos, President Obama was pressed that having a health care mandate on Americans is essentially a tax. The president responded that it is "not true" that mandating individuals obtain health care is a tax, but as Politico.com pointed out that the president is wrong. The Politico points out that on page 29 of the Baucus bill states "The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax" and mentions later in the bill "The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed." Is it okay now to call the president a "Liar"? The H.R. 3200 bill also calls for a tax "on individuals without acceptable health care coverage". Both bills would violate President Obama's campaign promise that no one making less than $250,000 will see their taxes raised by one cent.

President Obama, in his conversation with Stephanopoulos, rebutted on the excise tax and mandate tax that "the first thing we've got to understand is you've got what is effectively a tax increase taking place on American families right now. The Kaiser Family Foundation report just came out last week. Health Care premiums went up 5.5 percent last year, at a time when the rest of the economy, inflation was actually negative. So that is a huge bite out of people's pockets." True premiums have increased and will continue to increase if nothing is done but none of the bill in Congress assist in stabilizing cost let alone driving them downward. To drive costs down we need competition. The public option and/or the Co-Op option do nothing to increase competition. To really increase competition is to open the borders of the states and allow people from one area of the country to purchase health care coverage from other areas of the country.

Instead the government feels mandating that all citizens obtain coverage along with the public option and/or Co-Ops is the answer. They are dead wrong. The mandate is a tax even though the president fails to realize that. George Stephanopoulos asked President Obama "Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?" To which the president responded with "Well, hold on a second, George. Here – here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average –our families—in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on." Stephanopoulos continued to press the tax issue by breaking out the Merriam Webster's Dictionary to define tax which ticked off the president. In the end President Obama said that "I absolutely reject that notion" in reference the mandate of health care coverage is a tax even though it states it both the Baucus bill and H.R. 3200.

Now that being said will President Obama sign a bill of similar fashion after his pledge not to increase taxes on those making less than $250,000. The rest of the week will be focused on the Senate Finance Committee. It will be interesting to see how the political games are played and what the Baucus bill looks like afterwards. Many say that the health care reform is not an easy task; yet I contend certain aspects are. Why doesn't Congress not act on those aspects?