NY Times comes out with some hard data. For much of the middle class, the ACA is the opposite of affordable.
The health care law is a huge tax increase on the middle class.
The Post follows up with the biggest story of fail: the fact that on Jan. 1, there may very well be MORE uninsured than there were before the law passed.
Then you were responding out of context. I just repeated what the previous poster said. Both in the welfare scheme and in insurance scheme the healthy subsidize the sick. It is the method and the rules by which that happens that differ quite a bit.
BTW, given that the individual mandate was considered “essential” to the law’s working, and given that millions have now been exempted, shouldn’t SCOTUS revisit the mandate?
What, double jeopardy for the mandate?
In any case SCOTUS makes legal, not policy, decisions. Actually, the conservatives may be inclined let the individual mandate stand. Never interfere when your enemy is defeating himself. Believe that was Napoleon.
From the NYT article:
This is a fairly perverse incentive created by the law. Did anyone who authored the law have any business sense?
IANAL.
Perhaps the court would consider an equal protection, 14th Amendment argument, in light of the changing rules for who would be exempt from the [del]penalty[/del] shared responsibility payment.
The court already determined that Congress cannot make you buy the product, they can only tax you if you fail to purchase it. But now Obama is exempting some persons who had insurance which was cancelled while leaving the tax in place on others.
So picture two hypothetical individuals similarly situated (same income, family size, and available insurance offerings) as of the deadline date, both without insurance. One has to pay a tax. The other doesn’t. The difference is that one had previously purchased a product from a private company - an act which Congress could not compel him to do.
true. But it’s also obviously not essential if millions can be exempted from it. There are multiple excuses for Roberts to just put an end to that part of the law.
This isn’t GD so I can throw an anecdote out there as “proof” of… well, something. 
Here’s something I posted in another thread about the ACA:
So, NYT articles aside, their conclusions aren’t universal for everybody. And when did a 6-figure income become “middle class”?
Of course higher costs aren’t universal for everyone. If it was, the Democratic Party wouldn’t win a single Congressional seat in 2014.
But contrary to the promises, there do seem to be more losers than winners, especially among key voting groups, many of whom were in the Obama camp in 2008 and 2012, but are not particularly attached to the Democratic brand.
As for middle class, those making under $250,000 are regarded as middle class by the political class for the simple reason that there are a lot of voters in the $100,000-$250,000 range. Pissing them off is perilous. They had the power to defeat ACA had they known the truth that they would be paying more and losing their individual plans, and they have the power to punish those who screwed them.
Heck, there’s enough voters under $1 million that Democrats in places like New York wanted to protect them from tax increases through the repeal of the Bush tax cuts. Looks like repealing the BUsh tax cuts would have been a better deal for them than the health care law in terms of their finances.
Why is it perverse for someone to get less help from the government as they earn more? Progressive taxation works on that principle.
Haven’t you noticed? It’s become a core conservative principal that government help must rise along with income.
Was that part of the opinion that ruled the mandate constitutional in the first place?
When that 6-figure income is supporting a family of four with two kids.
Right, but the abrupt cutoff set forth by the ACA is illogical. It’ll likely lead to a) people slightly underreporting income as needed, b) resentment among people over the cutoff, as set forth in the NYT article, and c) uncertainty each year as insurance premiums may change. It’s arbitrary (way more so than progressively increasing tax rates among the income brackets).
I don’t know. Don’t think so now that I think about it. It simply survived as a tax. It was the administration’s main argument, but what they really wanted was the blank check that would come from it being ruled legal under the Commerce or Necessary and Proper clauses.
Megan McCardle made a great point in her Atlantic column. She said that obviously the administration thinks the law can still be repealed, because their changes to it aren’t designed to make it better, they are designed to perserve its political viability in the short term. Just keep it alive long enough.
And if what 2ManyTacos says is right, that we can’t even begin to judge the law until 2016 or whatever, then that means the law will remain politically vulnerable for one more Presidential election. A law that’s still not working that well in 2016 is a law Republicans can repeal if they win.
Obama has created plenty of precedents to show that Republicans do not have to repeal the law if they win the presidency. The President can just regulate it out of existence without even involving Congress.
Yep. The only thing the President can’t not do is spend the money. All other enforcement is up to his discretion. He can repeal the mandate and the insurance regulations by executive order.
Because they stack. The more policies like this you have in place, the less benefit the person gets for each dollar more they work to earn. Just between those two policies, the bakers in the example only get 50 cents of benefit for each additional dollar - they lose 25 cents to federal income tax and 25 cents to lost health insurance subsidies. Add in state income taxes and it gets even worse.
Unless, of course, the bakers pool their strength and get the government to allow special depreciation on ovens, or exemptions on part-time pay, or tariffs on foreign baked goods, or subsidies for purchasing icing, or reduced safety inspections, or whatever else they can think of.
That was the underlying meaning of my post. It is a political reality that groups can get governments to pass often technical and little publicized laws that help their businesses in any of an astounding variety of ways. Any set of groups can do this, and the poor do get government assistance. But it is a truism that the already rich and powerful are much more successful in this game. The 2008 collapse made very public the immense amount of help the financial community got both in bailouts and in reduced regulation and oversight. The war of words between the conservative and liberal camps is largely over who gets what help and what share of it.
Any set of incentives or penalties can be gamed by adroit players. It is again a truism that when lines have to be drawn, they will be arbitrary. Arbitrary lines will negatively affect someone, somewhere, at some times. That is not a good argument against lines: they are inevitable. Nor can their effect be judged out of the context of the system as a whole, which even the individuals affected seldom completely understand.
However, one aspect of your argument is dead wrong, even though it gets thrown around a lot. The bakers do not lose anything. Every dollar they earn over that $100,000 line results in a net gain. They may not net 100 cents for each dollar, but they never wind up with a net loss. You see this argument made in discussions of progressive taxation, and it is always wrong there as well in U.S. history.