SUCKERS!… 75% of Obamacare Costs Will Fall on Backs of Those Making Less Than $120K a Year (Video)

Take Your Medicine, America…
Stephen Moore, Senior Economics Writer with the Wall Street Journal, told FOX and Friends this morning that nearly 75% of Obamacare costs will fall on the backs of those Americans making less than $120,000 a year.

“It’s a big punch in the stomach to middle class families.”

Obamacare: It’s not just a big f***ing deal… It’s a big f***ing tax.

Get news like this in your Facebook News Feed,
Gateway Pundit

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments

  • bigkahuna

    Obama and liberals lied…….freedom,old people,american ideals and healthcared died

  • TXPatriot

    If you, like a friend of mine live in a high cost of living area, make $40,000 a year and own a home, how do you buy your own insurance at $8,000-9,000 a year? If you don’t, you still owe over $1,000 in tax and you get NOTHING in return. You can’t get on Medicaid, you make too much. Your employer doesn’t provide health benefits…

    And I bet there are millions just like this all across the country. Add to this the end of the Bush-Era taxes at the end of the year and it’s Taxameggedon!

  • bigkahuna

    New ads should shout every day…..obamatax raising taxes everywhere on middles class and poor and kids…..then tax oncreases at end of year…. Massive tax increases are obamas legacy. War on freedom

  • john b

    See, this is where republicans/conservatives are playing a short game. The cost will not fall on the people making less than “whatever” — no for health care, not for energy, not for school. Why do I say this? Because the govt. will exempt these people and then put taxes on others (businesses, the wealthy) to cover them. These exempted people will then haave more “rights” than before, and can certainly never have those rights taken away. Watch. I guarantee this happens. (see for example free cell phones/internet for the “poor” as a condition for comcast to merge with another company.)

  • Larkin

    “…75% of Obamacare costs will fall on the backs of those Americans making less than $120,000 a year.”

    Of course it will. And many of us knew that all along, didn’t we?

    But owing to the perfidy of the establishment, liberal media, way too many Americans didn’t and still don’t

  • Pingback: WSJ Chief Economist: 75% of Obamacare Costs Will Fall on Backs of Those Making Less Than $120K a Year (Video) | Born Conservative()

  • kato

    It’s going to be great for all the Section VIII parasites who’ve been getting free healthcare all along (along with all the other handouts the parasite class gets). TXPatriot, that $9K a year you and I will pay will not only cover our own insurance, but our share of the parasite’s premiums.

    By the way, at a time when the population is aging and more medical care will be needed than ever before, one picks up the newspaper and sees this or that medical business cutting back or closing down. Roche just announced the closure of a complex in NJ that once employed 5,000 people. A few years ago, Pfizer closed a research facility in Ann Arbor that once employed 4,000 people. You can bet that the next research facility these companies open will be in China or Singapore. Government medical care means killing company profits and destroying rational business models. The government method for controlling costs will be denial of care.

  • SeniorD

    Obama’s extortion & shakedown ploy gets more and more Americans irked. Hopefully, the upcoming election will still be held and he will be cast into the outer darkness. Unless, of course, elections are cancelled due to ‘civil unrest’ over his criminal enterprise.

  • coolidgerules

    I was mad at the ruling on Thursday. Maybe, in 20 years we’ll be saying “Roberts, you magnificent bastard!”

    Anybody know what the hell happened to the Daily Caller? Hacked? FCC shutdown?

  • Pingback: WSJ Chief Economist: 75% of Obamacare Costs Will Fall on Backs of Those Making Less Than $120K a Year (Video)|PolitifreakPolitifreak()

  • dmandman

    to #8… I remember that in history that the “Civil Unrest” ploy does not work out to well for the player most of time. Of course, Obama does not believe in the wisdom of Churchill and he associated a morphism stating in effect that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

  • Patty

    Stephen Moore gets it.

    There is an upper Middle class and then there is a Lower one. Be ready Obama, those lines for food stamps are going to be longer and your wish to Dominate over your subjects is coming true.

    Obama rub that Jeanie Lamp and now, he is given his lower subjects THE RUB.

  • Patty

    The Most Deceptive Tax Increase in American History?
    “Obamacare could only be constitutionally salvaged as a tax, an expensive and complex new burden on the middle class that will only escalate with time.”

    Under the Act’s complicated shared responsibility payment structure, the minimum shared responsibility payment amount per year for each adult who lacks minimum essential coverage will be $95 for 2014, $325 for 2015, $695 for 2016, and $695 or more for 2017 or later, increased due to cost-of-living adjustments. . . . read more.

  • Patty


    And if both the premium and the penalty are considered a tax, the mandate becomes the largest tax increase in U.S. history.

    The median U.S. family income is about $50,000. Family health coverage can easily run $20,000 a year — and rising quickly. In that scenario, the coverage mandate is essentially a 40 percent tax on that family, which is now required by law to ensure that every family member has qualifying coverage.

    And because the cost of the coverage will be similar even though incomes vary significantly, the lower the income the higher the effective tax rate — in essence, the most regressive tax in U.S. history, too.

    And on another Note: I believe they are washing many sites that are proving this is a TAX. WOULDN’T PUT ANYTHING PAST THIS ADMINISTRATION

  • Pingback: » WSJ Chief Economist: 75% of Obamacare Costs Will Fall on Backs …()

  • Mitch Rapp

    No problem, obama will still be told what to say by his teleprompter. Budgets will still be undone and ignored. Vacations will be taken – Golf will be played and Obama will be praised by a loving, caring biased media.

    What could go wrong?

  • meximom

    While the right continues to spin in circles about “is it a tax”? “is it constitutional?”, “is Roberts a turncoat”? … the left are doing a bang-up job of using this time productively to promote the popular aspects of the bill, and all their other well-prepared talking points.

    JEEZ. No wonder the Dems keep leaving the GOP in the dust.

    Get over being hurt and indignant, it won’t help. In fact, the Dems are counting on the right to react this way, and to look like a bunch of bumbling, cry babies in the process.

    No surprise then that Obama’s numbers are UP since the ruling.

    The right got caught with their pants down; and whining about it is not how you fight back.

    Romney and GOP MUST roll out their vision for healthcare NOW, and it better be a damn good one, or they are toast.

  • how dumbed down are we bg


    makes the following all the more hypocritical,
    not to mention par their course deceitful.. :-(

    Valerie Jarrett makes unreported remarks in meeting with media

    [Prince reported that at the meeting Jarrett outlined “what
    she considered the Obama administration’s successes.”

    Continued Prince: “Among them funding for historically black
    colleges and universities; health care reform, which she said
    will disproportionately help African-Americans; and reducing
    disparities between penalties for possession of crack and for
    powdered cocaine.”]


  • onbe

    This is one of those rare occasions that a reconsideration of the SC ruling is valid.
    The court ruled that the ACA is Constitutional based on the idea that it is a tax and not a commerce clause issue. Obama and his crew are totally making the rounds refusing to call it a tax.Perhaps they are right however they cant have it both ways. A reconsideration needs to be filed with in 25 days of the opinion.

    Secondary the SC needs to revisit the issue for the possibility that this new tax is a direct tax which of course is also unconstitutional .

  • onbe

    Oh and one other thing -Roberts got it totally wrong when he wrote that it is not the job of the SC to intervene.-That is why they are there