Just another sobering reminder that the President’s healthcare plan is a burden on people at every income level. While the administration would like to play semantics on calling it a penalty, the rest of the nation, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, recognizes the massive tax implications of Obamacare – and now we’re learning that the effects will be economically devastating on one class in particular that the President claims to be a champion for … the poor.
The Daily Caller reports:
The penalty imposed by the Affordable Care Act on citizens who elect not to purchase health insurance will be at least $1,000 for most people, and more than $12,000 for high-income earners, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.
“We can see that this is a big tax, particularly on the poor,” writes the Tax Foundation’s William McBride. “Higher income families generally pay a higher amount, but actually a smaller percent of their income, making this a regressive tax.”
For example, the penalty for a family of four earning $20,000 will be $2,085, more than 10 percent of its income, according to the Tax Foundation — whereas a family of four making $100,000 will only have two percent of its income taken away by the government.
A regressive tax for a regressive regime. Why the War on the Poor, Mr. President?
The report then goes on to say that implementation of the individual mandate would have a negative impact on the economy, with people trying to shield their income from the new tax by “working less”.
An unemployment rate at 8.2%, an underemployment rate at nearly 15%, and the implementation of the President’s healthcare plan is going to cause people to ‘work less’ to avoid paying more.
Aren’t people already working less because of the President’s economic policies?
Obama. Isn’t. Working.
Yesterday, Steve Madarasz, Communications Director for CSEA, joined the hosts of 810 WGY’s morning show to discuss the recall election in Wisconsin.
The interview started off with the pat union response for their defeat in Wisconsin – the election was bought.
Madarasz stated that, it’s “a very sad commentary on the role money plays in today’s political field”.
The premise is a false one, but one that those who supported the recall of Scott Walker have to make. Otherwise, they would have to admit that the embarrassing defeat was a referendum on their policies and platforms, something they can’t seem to come to grips with.
Madarasz continued to push that theory, bitterly stating that campaign cash was the only reason that Walker was victorious. But a report in the Wisconsin State Journal late last month indicates the contrary. The results of that report state that an “analysis of the money that has flowed into all state campaigns and political groups since Walker took office suggests backers of the two major political parties have competed on an unusually level playing field.”
What was even more interesting perhaps was when host Chuck Custer asked Madarasz if he could understand the public’s frustration with union representatives fighting the call for greater contributions to healthcare costs, something more in line with the private sector.
Madarasz responded thusly:
“Oh we absolutely understand that. We also understand that the public really doesn’t have a clue when it comes to the reality of what that’s all about.”
Madarasz himself didn’t seem to have a clue what the question was all about, as evidenced by this exchange:
Madarasz: “The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of our members do contribute to their health insurance and always have.”
Custer: “But I mean as much as the average person?”
Madarasz: “I think the sad commentary is that we have a real healthcare crisis in this country and part of this right-wing agenda that we’re seeing right now is going after the President on trying to have a plan that’s going to help people across the country.”
Nice use of the dodge right there. Instead of addressing the issue of union members paying into their healthcare – the specific topic of the question – Madarasz went off on an Obamacare and ‘right-wing agenda’ tangent.
That said, this is another example of the union leaders having to avoid facts and instead provide falsehoods, or in this case, simply change the subject.
The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research released a report last year showing that public employees not only contribute far less to their health insurance premiums than the private sector – 15% as opposed to 25% on average – but that their plans also provide more generous benefits, and require lower deductibles and co-pays.
But then, the public wouldn’t have a clue about that.