|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
204.133.178.218
a
Follow Ups:
A very sad day, indeed. A big victory for the police state and corporate greed. A big illusion to an ignorant public. Sadly, they had to go this way, since they decided to let Obie be a puppet corporate phoney for another term. Michelle and Barry still like dressing up and pretending to be somebody.
nt
~~~~~~~~~~~
... 99%'er
a
My daughter and i aren't rich and we have healthcare.
When problems become increasingly difficult,we can always rely on our collective knowledge and seek relief.
But my daughter doesn't: She just turned 26!
At least, not yet.
a
Of course its a big win for corporate greed.The insurance companies put a lot of money into political campaigns and this was nothing more than something to fatten their bank accounts.If people can't afford insurance,the govt steps in and buys it for them.The individual mandate was a GOP plan back in the late 80s and then of course Romney passed it so its hard for me to believe that GOP didn't want this even tho they pretended that they didn't.
When problems become increasingly difficult,we can always rely on our collective knowledge and seek relief.
You guys gotta make up your mind.
Corporations are just a vehicle to promote wealth for all.
Corporations are the fiscal expression of what our country stands for.
Profit is to be admired and appreciated.
Did you lose your right winger ID card?
You posted that stuff like a true liberal would!
;D
No
We just don't like cronyism..Nothing wrong with making money if its legal.
When problems become increasingly difficult,we can always rely on our collective knowledge and seek relief.
If not illegal you're all for it, right?
Its crony because the govt is shelling out more to the insurance industry but I have a feeling the govt gets a kickback in form a tax from the ins companies.
When problems become increasingly difficult,we can always rely on our collective knowledge and seek relief.
;D
Totalitarians, all.
Barryb must be suffering under the totalitarianism of the Candian military industrial health care complex.
I knew all along in my heart that both sides really wanted the mandate because its making the insurance companies richer which are big contributors to both parties.The bickering you saw was all show.One conservative Bush appointee voted with them.They probably argued which one was going to defect.
Anyway,look at my answer to you.
When problems become increasingly difficult,we can always rely on our collective knowledge and seek relief.
which is the big conservative mantra, and which was the basis for Romneycare in Mass, remained the basis for Obamacare.
So on general principles, I would have welcomed the striking down of the individual mandate, aka the enrichment of insurance companies.
But given the frothing at the mouth of all the far right, the Moobama nonsense and all that, I'm glad to see the ruling. Let them spin it as much as they want, let them now say it will be overturned the day Romney takes office.
It will not. It's here to stay. For better or worse. Live with it. Get health insurance like you should have anyway.
Does the verbiage in the Obamacare law already allow implementation of the individual mandate in the form of a tax?
(It seemed like the law only allowed implementation in the form of direct purchase, and would impose a penalty via IRS collection for those individuals who failed to conform to this mandate.)
If yes, the court ruling on the mandate’s constitutionality is accurate, thanks to the 16th Amendment, and cannot be undone without legislative repeal. (It really pains me to say this.)
If no, the court ruling could mean that congress would actually have to amend the legislation in order for the mandate to be implemented within the constitution. This would make the court ruling kill the mandate, in spite of the initial reaction that it was a victory for those in support of the law.
If I were a legislator, I would need clarification regarding whether the verbiage in the law, as currently written, does or does not allow implementation of the mandate in the form of a tax. (Which Obama himself once claimed to the contrary.) The court cannot bend a law’s verbiage to make it constitutional, only congress can do that. (And as currently constituted, I think congress would not have the votes to amend this law to make the mandate in the form of a tax.)
Presumably, you will have some proof. If not, you will be charged the penalty. It will be enforced as are your income taxes.
...only $95 a year.
Should be at least 10 times that much.
Still cheaper than insurance. I hope the penalty goes into the healthcare pot.
Starts small, gets bigger.
a
...as constitutional as a tax, rather than under the commerce clause as it was argued.
A tax by any other name...
Good observation Todd. You are correct IF the law was worded as a tax. BUT, Obabble went out of his way to say it was not a tax when asked about it by Geo. Stephenapolis. This is the rub. it was sold as one thing to the people and then argued in the SC as another. See vid at 55 seconds in and following.
=============================
There are two ways of getting something accomplished. By Force or Voluntary. The Govt. uses force. Force takes away Freedom.
Obamacare was not upheld. In the form it was in not even 24 hours ago, it was unconstitutional.
The SCOTUS has redefined it as a tax.
They wrote a new law and passed it today. Lots of abuse of power happening this month.
Come November, it's down to replace and repeal, or the next 4 years will see an expansion of government power that is unprecedented.
"Hope is a good thing. Maybe, the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."
Talk about spin. It remains the law of the land having successfully survived judicial review. It will remain so, like any other law, until Congress and the President change it.
I was shocked by the decision. I fully expected it to be overturned. I had not paid any attention to the tax aspect. It doesn't seem many others did either.
-Wendell
I take it you aren't aware that the other Judges said the very same thing in their dissent.
"Hope is a good thing. Maybe, the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."
They said what? Nothing the minority said changes the fact that it is the law of the land until congress changes it and gets a president to sign it.
The law is constitutional regardless of the Chief Justice's rationale for ruling it so.
I actually supported it being overturned but saying it ain't so doesn't change anything.
-Wendell
It would make the exchange more interesting for me if you did that.
"Hope is a good thing. Maybe, the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."
a
"Hope is a good thing. Maybe, the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."
a
the IRS has always been the designated strong arm for the legislation. There will be a change to W-2s to reflect that.
I made a modest proposal to Mike K. for the next healthcare related tax:
Now, the gubmint needs to fix obesity
RW
What might happen is this..Businesses will pay the fine on each as opposed to buying coverage and that will continually love people toward govt HC.The IRS can enforce this thing like someone who doesn't pay their income tax.
When problems become increasingly difficult,we can always rely on our collective knowledge and seek relief.
...let's check your blood for nicotine and other drugs, your blood pressure, lipid profile, PSA, recent diet history and sleep log.
We have ways to make you pay....
Listen to Obama explain the legislation in the video referenced by Artemus where he talks about not passing on your expense to others.
Where he also says Obamacare is "most certainly NOT a tax". :)
Ralf
Obama is lying because it is a tax according to the judge that defected.Anyway,the govt forces us to buy many things such as auto insurance,social security, and now heath insurance.
This is where its gets complicated tho.If you buy health insurance from the private sector,as mandated by the rule of law,where would the tax come in? The people that can't afford it will be supplemented somehow but I'm not sure how they will do that.
When problems become increasingly difficult,we can always rely on our collective knowledge and seek relief.
.
I agree..I bet they get a kickback from insurance on the many policies sold or will.
When problems become increasingly difficult,we can always rely on our collective knowledge and seek relief.
...for raising taxes.
He can't help it if Robert's called the penalty for not buying insurance a tax.
Roberts is the one who raised taxes, not Obama...
Roberts is the one who raised taxes, not Obama...
Or, quite obviously . ruled it unconstitutional.
Which would you prefer to acknowledge? Liar or unconstitutional?
(nt)
.
...no doubt besides obesity weigh-ins, you'd be in favor of vaginal and anal probes to determine more about your healthy life choices.
Hey, personal responibility.
Exactly which side of the fence are you arguing? What is different between Obamacare and the examples you've given?
they are inconsistent & irrational in what little bit of thought they can muster.
Now if you are trying to show his inconsistency & irrationality, it can be easily seen by myself and others who are rational. But kuller won't see it for one of two reasons. If he's an idiot (which is entirely possible) the subject is over his head. And if he's a liar (which is also very possible) even his acknowledgement will be suspect due to his untrustworthy nature.
=============================
There are two ways of getting something accomplished. By Force or Voluntary. The Govt. uses force. Force takes away Freedom.
...the Affordable Care Act which requires healthy choice probing.
There is a difference between suggesting to someone they carry health care and requiring it under penalty of law.
The same difference exists between suggesting healthy lifestyles and requiring it - which Obamacare most certainly does not.
...to be treated in the ER with no health insurance, not pay for it and have the cost passed on to me, then you should be forced to buy insurance.
With rights come responsibilities.
Correct, Mr. Personal Responsibility?
We've had this discussion before. It makes no sense to spend $100B per year to *fix* a $50B problem.
...applauding at the Republican debates when Paul said "let them die".
Obamacare is only a start - there still have to be a lot of changes in our healthcare system to control costs.
Requiring the insurance companies to spend 80% of the premium on actual care was only the beginning.
Medicare's overhead is less than 4%...
has to do with your comments to which I replied:
With rights come responsibilities.
Correct, Mr. Personal Responsibility?
when people die from complications related to lack of access to care. While it's technically "free" when someone dies, it's up to you if that's how you want to do your accounting.
Actually, it's more like $43B according to federal officials, but I rounded up!
Uninsured costs
We have Govt Gone Wild. It will either be reigned in or it will run over all of us.
=============================
There are two ways of getting something accomplished. By Force or Voluntary. The Govt. uses force. Force takes away Freedom.
... and it will require "an expansion of government power that is unprecedented" to make it work properly and at a decent cost. If you consider government-controlled health care to be a bad thing, take a hard look at how health care is delivered (mostly by government) with all the other modern democracies.
Private profit-motived health insurers are loath to provide health insurance at reasonable rates to patients with pre-existing conditions and those most likely to require expensive health care (e.g. the elderly); doing so has deleterious effects their bottom lines. Obamacare tries to address this by forcing more people to buy into health care coverage. However, I am not sure how well the current scheme will work. E.g. are there any kind of cost controls on what the premiums will be for each customer ?
"Hope is a good thing. Maybe, the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."
??
That's a tough one because they can be mutually exclusive!
I prefer to have both, my Liberal friend. And I do!
Without the private sector job, it's revenue, and the taxation of it, the answer to your question is that it won't matter what anyone wants because no one will get either.
Do you see how that works?
My guess is "no, you don't see how that works".
"Hope is a good thing. Maybe, the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."
Can't wait to read this response.
"Hope is a good thing. Maybe, the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."
You refuse to accept (IOW, deny) that "Obama Care" was essentially upheld by the SC by creating an alternate view of reality where the SC rewrote the law and then approved that. So it wasn't Obamacare that wad upheld, it was Roberts Care. Hey, if that's what you want to believe, be my guest. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Curiously, your spin on this is nearly identical to Limbaugh's as he approached the end of his show today. Since previously you stated you don't listen to Limbaugh, should we assume that you provide him with his show prep?
The one word that best describes my feelings at the moment is schadenfreude.
Because you didn't read the dissent of the other Judges.
They made it quite clear that they believe Robets "wrote law". People who understand how the process works all say the same thing. People who don't care how the process work, like yourself ("if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...I don't really give a shit as long as my side wins, etc.") say the same thing too.
But you don't see me suggetsing that because you have the same attitude as many Obama supporters that you got your opinion from some buffoon on MSNBC.
I was listening to Dom Giordano in my car on my way to a clients' home when the ruling came down. Within 5 minutes it was apparent that Robert's essentially reinterpreted Obamacare in order to pass it. It is not the job of the SCOTUS to write law, only to regard it for what it is and decide on it's constitutionality.
But hey, show me an Obama supporter who cares about that.
"Hope is a good thing. Maybe, the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."
You allow blind ideology to obscure the fact that like it or not the Supreme Court has ruled Obama care is the law of the land or maybe more specifically, "constitutional". It's not a case of how things should be but rather how they are. It's also not a case of "I don't give a shit as long as my side wins" because to me, the law as it appears to be written now is an unmanageable mess. I personally don't feel my side "won" as much as YOUR side lost. Yes, you and many on your side are in serious denial of reality. Buck up and accept it: the Supreme Court ruled against you and your ilk this time around.
See ya in November!
You seem to have a difficult time understanding my post. I didn't write that the ruling isn't the law of the land. You have got to be a clown to think that.
I stated quite clearly that Roberts changed the law into something it was not presented as.
Obama and his ilk repeatedly stated that Obamacare is not a tax.
Roberts stated it's constitutional because it's a tax. Why? Because the financial penalty for not paying into it will be collected by the IRS as a tax.
Now, do you understand why I state that Roberts re-wrote the law, or not? Do you understand why Roberts said it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL under the Commerce Clause, or not? Did you know that Obama thought the SCOTUS had struck it down, and he was watching the ruling in the Oval Office with 4 monitors LIVE in real time, and still didn't understand the ruling himself, and he's the President? That's right, the leader of your ilk needed someone to go into the office and explain to the Head Clown Prince that the bill was passed.
So I'm not surprised that you don't understand the decision. The POTUS is supposed to be a lot smarter than the clowns who voted for him, so if he didn't understand it, and he's a Law Professor (ahem), I know damn well you don't have a chance of understanding it.
"Hope is a good thing. Maybe, the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."
Maybe you can still justify denying women the vote.
Sufferage?
Merely a flesh wound.
A walking talking point you've turned out to be.
"Hope is a good thing. Maybe, the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."
Unless he somebody told him they have a comprehensive public system.
~~~~~~~~~~~
... 99%'er
An axiomatic fact
and to call the decision a MANDATORY tax is
intellectually dishonest.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
...to be treated in the ER with no health insurance, not pay for it and have the cost shifted to me, you should have to pay the tax.
No rights without responsibilities.
I have always had superb insurance.
Until the graft and corruption are removed with viable answers,
{ie. Bean counters having absolutely no say in medical decisions and Pharma lobbyists REMOVED}
I am content to adsorb the cost for those less fortunate then myself.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
They do this every freakin' day!
Medicare?
Social security?
Property tax? I mean really, the government can regulate my property ownership?
Using my money to fund schools? Who do they think they are?
What the government just did was require other people to cover their share of health care, so uninsured losers can't go screw the hospital out of a free bypass on your dime.
Or not.
;D
nt
~~~~~~~~~~~
... 99%'er
.... If you get run over by a truck with injuries requiring medical care for you to live; should folks let you die because you did not buy health insurance ?
...remember they cheered about letting the patient without insurance die during the debates.
Good luck with that. And if you're not a church goer or if you're an atheist, to hell with you.Does it mean that church membership is mandatory?
~~~~~~~~~~~
... 99%'er
Edits: 06/28/12
So, if it was single payer, would that take away your freedom? Single payer would be a better option, but . . .
So should medical facilities have the freedom to refuse service to you if you have no coverage? That would also be everyone else's freedom not to pay for your medical expenses.
Does this apply to spouses and children, too?
If you work, you have to pay into SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, etc.
What is freeing about being unable to get adequate medical care when you need it?
If you want to fly a plane, you need a pilot's license.
If you want to drive a vehicle, you need a license.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: