Obamacare upheld.

[Mexican_Hippie]

Yeah, I wish it was true but I doubt it. Supremee court won't retry it.

McConnell even said it may be difficult to repeal, but since its a tax, they can use the reconciliation process and get just 51 votes (not super majority) - same way as it was passed - to repeal it.

 

[winchster]

No, it doesn't. It sounds like Kool-aid.

Oh well, one can always hope.

 

[bagged02]

there saying now it cannot be a TAX and has to be a "fine" due to the constiution.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

there saying now it cannot be a TAX and has to be a "fine" due to the constiution.

Who is "they"? The Supreme Court already ruled. Unless its the Supreme Court saying it, "they" don't matter.

Like it or not, it's now officially a tax - the largest ever. Those that passed it will now have to take their medicine.


Here's what the "they"s I know say: There's no way any of this BS is constitutional. The US Federal Government doesn't have the authority to regulate healthcare, provide social programs or interfere with insurance that is self contained and regulated within a state.

Unfortunately my "they"s , while correct, have no more authority than any other "they"s you mentioned.

 

[DaRedneck]

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius | I. M. Citizen

Here's a new slant I hadn't thought of:

"...If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?..."

I'm not sure if this is accurate or not.

The logic is that because the ruling allows states the choice to refuse the Medicare expansion w/o fear of losing the rest of their Medicare funding, that each state can likewise choose not to participate in the Obamacare programs without risking any current funding - i.e. they can run their shops like they do now with no new.

Now, does this mean an individual mandate can still tax you directly even if your state doesn't participate? I have no idea. This is such a stinky, runny pile of bullshit I'm having a hard time figuring out how to pick it up and examine it.

Interesting theory, I guess we'll see how this all plays out.

 

[winchster]

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius | I. M. Citizen

Here's a new slant I hadn't thought of:



I'm not sure if this is accurate or not.

The logic is that because the ruling allows states the choice to refuse the Medicare expansion w/o fear of losing the rest of their Medicare funding, that each state can likewise choose not to participate in the Obamacare programs without risking any current funding - i.e. they can run their shops like they do now with no new.

Now, does this mean an individual mandate can still tax you directly even if your state doesn't participate? I have no idea. This is such a stinky, runny pile of bullshit I'm having a hard time figuring out how to pick it up and examine it.

Interesting theory, I guess we'll see how this all plays out.

Perfect opportunity for a state to stand up and tell the fed to piss off completely.

 

[jtriron]

I tried to think of the silver lining, hoping there was a hidden win in the decision. Pretty sure I was deluding myself.

The more I look at it the more I'm convinced that we're just screwed.

I know we aren't supposed to get off into religion, but I'm going to pray daily for a peaceful political resolution to this. 'Cause as of now, I don't see how this doesn't get ugly, violent, over the next couple decades.

+1

 

[TrailDust]

To quote a recent letter writer to the Wall Street Journal regarding the healthcare ruling, which says it all for me:


It has finally become clear to me what the status of the Constitution is to most Americans. It has come to serve the same purpose as does the monarchy in Britain--revered in theory, exalted in speech, ignored in practice. The rule of law is now a quant anachronism, soon to be relegated to the dustbin of history.


The only remaining question is: How far down the road to serfdom are we?

 

[TrailDust]

In truth, if you mean, "a fact or belief that is accepted as true", then sure. Aside from that definition of the word, I have to disagree completely. I, and millions of other believe that tyranny and many other terrible qualities of man, are a product of society/civilization(hardly civilized), and a monetary system. I'm not looking for a debate because ones of this nature don't get far. Just offering a different perspective to such a pessimistic view of our "nature" that is unfounded. Don't take this as a challenge to your intelligence. Sometimes you just feel like you have to object. Ok, sorry guys, carry on...

Hey, no problem, nothing wrong with opposing opinions and healthy debate. I would simply respond that as a rule, almost every government that has ever existed on Earth has been tyrannical in nature, with an oppression of the majority by a ruling minority. Sure, there are examples of cultures that are peaceful, fair, and very free, but those are also almost exclusively primitive tribes.

I guess I have a more "primal" perspective on humanity than others do. Personally, like other species of higher ape or intelligent animals like whales and dolphins, the best, ideal size of coexistence for humans is the family group, and with anything beyond that tyranny increases and freedom decreases. The benefit of "civilization" is that we'd never enjoy the technological creations that make our lives long and comfortable today, but it does come with a price all its own.

History is replete with example after example of man subjugating his fellow man. Look at the Norks (among others) for examples. Ever since Genesis 3 mankind has wanted to play the role of god, desiring to 'rule' his fellow man. Just today they're more sophisticated in their methods.

Right on, so true!

 

[M. Sage]

Oh well, one can always hope.

No, not always...

 

[skinman]

The, "tax," is a penalty that only applies to the free loaders who refuse to accept personal responsibility for obtaining their own health care insurance so the rest of us don't have to keep paying for them to get free health care...which you would think would get total support from the no welfare "personal responsibility" conservative side...just more rightist hypocrisy...the Dems move away from entitlement and try to make everybody pay their own way and the right screams bloody murder and tag it "Obamacare" because it did not come from the GOP...

For-profit health insurance does not work...and our current piss-poor health care system is the proof.

 

[RetArmySgt]

Those of us that have comprehisive plans are going to be taxed 40% of our income because our insurance is above the government standard, so show me how this tax is to punish the "freeloaders".

The Act's provisions are intended to be funded by a variety of taxes and offsets. Major sources of new revenue include a much-broadened Medicare tax on incomes over $200,000 and $250,000, for individual and joint filers respectively, an annual fee on insurance providers, and a 40% excise tax on "Cadillac" insurance policies. There are also taxes on pharmaceuticals, high-cost diagnostic equipment, and a 10% federal sales tax on indoor tanning services. Offsets are from intended cost savings such as changes in the Medicare Advantage program relative to traditional Medicare.

 

[RetArmySgt]

What ObamaCare Means for Your Taxes - SmartMoney.com
Here Are The New Obamacare Taxes - Business Insider
The Not So Affordable Obamacare Taxes

Look at these taxes and show me where they target the freeloaders, i dont know many "freeloaders" making 400% of the poverty line ($19000x4= $76000) and surely dont know of any that make $250000 a year.

 

[skinman]

Those of us that have comprehisive plans are going to be taxed 40% of our income because our insurance is above the government standard, so show me how this tax is to punish the "freeloaders".

The Act's provisions are intended to be funded by a variety of taxes and offsets. Major sources of new revenue include a much-broadened Medicare tax on incomes over $200,000 and $250,000, for individual and joint filers respectively, an annual fee on insurance providers, and a 40% excise tax on "Cadillac" insurance policies. There are also taxes on pharmaceuticals, high-cost diagnostic equipment, and a 10% federal sales tax on indoor tanning services. Offsets are from intended cost savings such as changes in the Medicare Advantage program relative to traditional Medicare.

You are repeating unproved hypothetical talking points used by the right from day one to malign the Affordable Healthcare Act. The fact is that no one knows how this is going to affect those of us that currently have healthcare. The healthcare insurance industry is resorting to scare tactics by claiming that those of us who currently have healthcare insurance will have to pay more...but then again, they really do not want to insure those people who have a pre-existing condition or expensive health needs. They definitely do not like the 80% requirement and have paid millions lobbying against the legislation because it will most certainly curtail the excessive profits they now enjoy and they will not be able to cherry pick those they insure in order to maximize the profit margin.

There will be problems with implementing this legislation and there are some bad points that are going to be overblown by those who do not understand the problem and by those who just do not like anything coming from the current administration or the Democrats. There will need to be necessary changes, but the need for affordable health care and for everyone to step up and pay is very real and serious...even if it means implementing a tax to force them to be accountable for providing for themselves and not depending on the taxpayers and those of us who already pay for our healthcare to foot the bill.

The GOP had the opportunity to help craft the current legislation but they refused to even participate in putting it all together which forced the other side to push it through without their approval...Even today, we are not seeing anything coming from the right about how to fix the problem, just political posturing and nay-saying. If it is not good; if they do not like it, then they need to STFU with the whining and help fix the problems and stop being a part of the problem and become a part of the solution.

I also have decent healthcare through TRS but it isn't cheap. Also, because I am a Vietnam vet with a service related disability, I can go to the VA. I guess the VA healthcare is also on the taxpayer dime, an entitlement, but then I feel like I already paid that tax in blood and sweat, and earned that entitlement...many times over.

 

[scap99]

The only remaining question is: How far down the road to serfdom are we?

We've been on serfdom road for some time now.

 

[smtimelevi]

You are repeating unproved hypothetical talking points used by the right from day one to malign the Affordable Healthcare Act. The fact is that no one knows how this is going to affect those of us that currently have healthcare. The healthcare insurance industry is resorting to scare tactics by claiming that those of us who currently have healthcare insurance will have to pay more...but then again, they really do not want to insure those people who have a pre-existing condition or expensive health needs. They definitely do not like the 80% requirement and have paid millions lobbying against the legislation because it will most certainly curtail the excessive profits they now enjoy and they will not be able to cherry pick those they insure in order to maximize the profit margin.

There will be problems with implementing this legislation and there are some bad points that are going to be overblown by those who do not understand the problem and by those who just do not like anything coming from the current administration or the Democrats. There will need to be necessary changes, but the need for affordable health care and for everyone to step up and pay is very real and serious...even if it means implementing a tax to force them to be accountable for providing for themselves and not depending on the taxpayers and those of us who already pay for our healthcare to foot the bill.

The GOP had the opportunity to help craft the current legislation but they refused to even participate in putting it all together which forced the other side to push it through without their approval...Even today, we are not seeing anything coming from the right about how to fix the problem, just political posturing and nay-saying. If it is not good; if they do not like it, then they need to STFU with the whining and help fix the problems and stop being a part of the problem and become a part of the solution.

I also have decent healthcare through TRS but it isn't cheap. Also, because I am a Vietnam vet with a service related disability, I can go to the VA. I guess the VA healthcare is also on the taxpayer dime, an entitlement, but then I feel like I already paid that tax in blood and sweat, and earned that entitlement...many times over.

The health care system in the country is a mess and so is the government. The government forcing its will and ideals upon the populous without repercussion to create affordable health care is just more bull shit. Nothing the government ever does is affordable. Why do you ask? Its because they dont care, it's not their money they are spending... Who knows maybe the shit storm will blow over and all of this can work out so everybody is happy. I have a feeling it's going to be like car insurance but x5 more costly. People that are unemployed cant really afford that.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

The, "tax," is a penalty that only applies to the free loaders who refuse to accept personal responsibility for obtaining their own health care insurance so the rest of us don't have to keep paying for them to get free health care...which you would think would get total support from the no welfare "personal responsibility" conservative side...just more rightist hypocrisy...the Dems move away from entitlement and try to make everybody pay their own way and the right screams bloody murder and tag it "Obamacare" because it did not come from the GOP...

For-profit health insurance does not work...and our current piss-poor health care system is the proof.

You're basing your opinion on the premise that I'm responsible for other peoples' healthcare, and that everyone's entitled to it. It's not a right.

I don't care if they want to buy healthcare or not since I don't expect to pay for them if they show up empty handed. Its their decision to buy insurance or not, not mine. That's what you call "Personal Responsibility". YOU make a bunch of bad choices in life and don't buy healthcare then guess what, YOU are "Personally Responsible" the consequences.

I would likely chip in to a voluntary charity for poor and homeless (like I do now), but that would be my personal decision - not the government's.

When the solution is orchestrated by the government it always results in failure. The fact that you think healthcare right now is private or for-profit is laughable. Its hybrid public private system thats overregulated and bastardizedby the government. If we had real private healthcare it would work better.

 

[RetArmySgt]

You are repeating unproved hypothetical talking points used by the right from day one to malign the Affordable Healthcare Act. The fact is that no one knows how this is going to affect those of us that currently have healthcare. The healthcare insurance industry is resorting to scare tactics by claiming that those of us who currently have healthcare insurance will have to pay more...but then again, they really do not want to insure those people who have a pre-existing condition or expensive health needs. They definitely do not like the 80% requirement and have paid millions lobbying against the legislation because it will most certainly curtail the excessive profits they now enjoy and they will not be able to cherry pick those they insure in order to maximize the profit margin.

There will be problems with implementing this legislation and there are some bad points that are going to be overblown by those who do not understand the problem and by those who just do not like anything coming from the current administration or the Democrats. There will need to be necessary changes, but the need for affordable health care and for everyone to step up and pay is very real and serious...even if it means implementing a tax to force them to be accountable for providing for themselves and not depending on the taxpayers and those of us who already pay for our healthcare to foot the bill.

The GOP had the opportunity to help craft the current legislation but they refused to even participate in putting it all together which forced the other side to push it through without their approval...Even today, we are not seeing anything coming from the right about how to fix the problem, just political posturing and nay-saying. If it is not good; if they do not like it, then they need to STFU with the whining and help fix the problems and stop being a part of the problem and become a part of the solution.

I also have decent healthcare through TRS but it isn't cheap. Also, because I am a Vietnam vet with a service related disability, I can go to the VA. I guess the VA healthcare is also on the taxpayer dime, an entitlement, but then I feel like I already paid that tax in blood and sweat, and earned that entitlement...many times over.

Look at the third link i provided, it has the exact page and section each of the taxes is mentioned in the law.

 

[steve-o]

I wonder if Fred Loya is going to offer minimum coverage health insurance just like their minimum liability auto insurance?


I'm joking of coarse