No related posts.

Read More...' />

Romney campaign undercuts Americans for Prosperity

The Romney campaign says that the penalty under the Affordable Care Act for not buying health care is not a tax. That’s not going to sit too well with the folks at Americans for Prosperity.

6 Comments

  1. Dallas Woodhouse

    July 2, 2012 at 11:14 am

    They said no such thing. He was talking about the Mass. plan. You are wrong on the facts here.

    FYI your own post (monday numbers) “percentage of tax increases in the Affordable Care Act that apply to corporations and wealthy taxpayers—couples who earn more than $250,000 (Ibid)”

    That means the POTUS did raise taxes on couples making under 250,000….and you just said so

  2. Chris Fitzsimon

    July 2, 2012 at 11:16 am

    “Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior campaign adviser for Mitt Romney, said Monday that he disagrees with the Supreme Court’s characterization of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate as a “tax.”

  3. Chris Fitzsimon

    July 2, 2012 at 11:19 am

    TODD: [Mitt Romney] agrees with the president that it is not [a tax], and he believes that you shouldn’t call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?

    FEHRNSTROM: That’s correct.

  4. Frank Burns

    July 2, 2012 at 11:36 am

    The fact that the Supreme Court determined that it is in fact a tax settles it. That determination is what justified not overtuning Obamacare. Sorry folks it is a tax and the middle class bears the burden.

    This will be a campaign issue, you can count on it, despite Obama attempts to keep it out of the election discussion.

  5. david esmay

    July 2, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    The middle class won’t bear the burden, those who can afford health insurance, but refuse to purchase it will. The law requires US citizens and legal residents to have qualifying health coverage, those without will pay a tax penalty. However, exemptions will be granted for those that the lowest cost plan option exceeds 8% of their individual income, and those below the tax filing threshold,(2009,under 65, $9350 ind.& 18700 for couples). Using cost data from the CBO report, singles with income below 9350 and between 24,000 and 64,000 (above the 8% test), are exempt from the mandate and penalty. For a family of four, those below 18,700 and between 55,000 and 176,000 are exempt. This is a large part of the uninsured, roughly 50%. For about 45% of the uninsured in lower incomes who are subject to the penalty,(singles between 9350 and 24,000, and a family of four between 18,700 and 55,000), the penalty shouldn’t be much of a concern because the subsidies available to them when they sign up for a plan in a new health exchange are very generous, it’s hard to why they would pass that up.
    For the remaining 5%, singles above 64,000 and a family of four above 176,000, the mandate penalty may be bothersome, but they have the financial means to pay it if they choose. Conclusion, the expressed concern about the mandate penalty/tax is way beyond it’s actual impact on the uninsured’s decision making. The right opposes it, even though approval ratings for the program are on the rise, because they didn’t implement their own damned plan, didn’t offer one, and don’t really give a damn about the majority of people that live in this country. If the issue isn’t the 30 million Americans who do not have affordable health care, what the hell is it then?

  6. david esmay

    July 2, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    How long will it take Romney to flip and make Fehrnstrom walk this back? Not long I suspect, if you asked Mitt what he had for breakfast, he’d say “let me get back to you on that”. He’ll claim both sides of an issue and shamelessly take credit for something, or deny culpability at the same time. He has the uncanny ability as George Orwell said,”The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing them,”