-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
UPHELD!!! Obamacare
- Thread starter s2kNSX
- Start date
Now that it's an IRS law, the taxpayers are in big trouble. I'm going buy more ammo and get ready for the revolution.
What can't the government MAKE us do now?
I'm not crazy about the law, but I can't disagree with this ruling.
Roberts was the deciding vote and leaned left. I think that surprised everyone. The market is down today big time. This for sure will be a drag on the economy.
What I really don't get is all the waivers. McDonald's does not have to comply nor do the Amish and about 1200 other groups claiming a "way out"
We will be talking about this until the cows come home.
What I really don't get is all the waivers. McDonald's does not have to comply nor do the Amish and about 1200 other groups claiming a "way out"
We will be talking about this until the cows come home.
Mixed.
furious
Just a little "pre-emptive reminder" that should this thread degenerate into political rhetoric as others have it will pulled down so please keep that in mind so everyone can "enjoy" a civil, rational and polite discourse with respect shown toward those whose opinions may differ from your own.
As with every other decision the SC has made in the last 230+ years, the sun will come up tomorrow.
Compared to Brown vs the Board of Education, I say
Meh.
Miner
Compared to Brown vs the Board of Education, I say
Meh.
Miner
- Joined
- 25 February 2012
- Messages
- 2,165
Agreed. Healthcare is a red herring and a convenient distraction from the fundamental, conceptual, structural problems plaguing this country (and the entire 1st world really). It is not a make-or-break.
I have mixed feelings. I think the existing health care system is broken, and something has to be done to increase access and reduce costs. I like that it tries to spread out the cost of health care more evenly, and mandates coverage for preexisting conditions. I wish it placed more focus on reducing administrative waste and overhead though.
If you follow the court and are somewhat savvy with the underlying legal principles/issues, Roberts crafted a brilliant "true conservative" opinion.
He, as well as the rest noted that the Legislature can't use the interstate commerce broadly - hence Congress can't force you to buy anything (contrary to many who have argued that Obamacare now mandates it) - but, using the "conservative" judicial philosophy of not legislating from the bench, he noted Congress through its authority over taxation can impose new taxes which is what the ACA did irrespective of all the campaigns to the contrary by President Obama and the Democrats who argued for the ACA at the time.
By doing so, Roberts took the argument away from those who think the court is too conservative (given the decision on the Arizona case only a few days ago), made the court less of a political target in the next election (so much so that one liberal network host Adrea Mitchell noted that Roberts was an independent thinker now!). Roberts - whether by design or by default - may have galvanized the right/tea party to mobilize for November. Even perhaps hand the election to presumptive Republican candidate Romney with this decision.
Sadly, the outcome of this will be that your premium will increase, especially if you are employed by a small business group of 50+ since the penalty for the employer is far less than the cost of offering an insurance - which you will get a tax credit when you shop/purchase one. And this may indeed lead many small businesses to cut back on the number of their employees to get below the minimum 50 benchmark for the mandate.
[Part of the legal/political analysis is based on the interview that Megan Kelly/Fox had with the SCOTUSblog.com blogger Lyle Denniston.]
He, as well as the rest noted that the Legislature can't use the interstate commerce broadly - hence Congress can't force you to buy anything (contrary to many who have argued that Obamacare now mandates it) - but, using the "conservative" judicial philosophy of not legislating from the bench, he noted Congress through its authority over taxation can impose new taxes which is what the ACA did irrespective of all the campaigns to the contrary by President Obama and the Democrats who argued for the ACA at the time.
By doing so, Roberts took the argument away from those who think the court is too conservative (given the decision on the Arizona case only a few days ago), made the court less of a political target in the next election (so much so that one liberal network host Adrea Mitchell noted that Roberts was an independent thinker now!). Roberts - whether by design or by default - may have galvanized the right/tea party to mobilize for November. Even perhaps hand the election to presumptive Republican candidate Romney with this decision.
Sadly, the outcome of this will be that your premium will increase, especially if you are employed by a small business group of 50+ since the penalty for the employer is far less than the cost of offering an insurance - which you will get a tax credit when you shop/purchase one. And this may indeed lead many small businesses to cut back on the number of their employees to get below the minimum 50 benchmark for the mandate.
[Part of the legal/political analysis is based on the interview that Megan Kelly/Fox had with the SCOTUSblog.com blogger Lyle Denniston.]
- Joined
- 25 February 2012
- Messages
- 2,165
If only we actually taxed them. I don't think ACA stipulates that it be funded by a freshly-increased capital gains tax.
Last edited:
FYI, the "1%" is categorized, according to IRS data, as those with an income of $380,000/yr. Not exactly all millionaires and billionaires.....
The "1%" aren't the only ones who see dividends and capital gains. Raise it on them, raise it on everyone else.
It isn't, but it is one of the biggest burdens on the economy. I got sick with this nasty flu that wouldn't go away. I finally called the doctor who told me I'd have to wait 2 weeks as they were booked. I asked what I should do and they said go to the ER. So out of desperation, I went and my bill came to $1600 for a 20 minute visit with the doctor saying its a virus and I have to wait it out. Which I would have done anyway. So my insurance paid for $1500 of that $1600, but I was shaking my head at all the unnecessary charges. It is just NUTS.
Crazy question - Why is the government providing healthcare to anyone except veterans?
The entire system and its foundation is a JOKE and the joke is on us. The expeditures in medicare/medicaid are astronomical and completely out of control.
The entire system and its foundation is a JOKE and the joke is on us. The expeditures in medicare/medicaid are astronomical and completely out of control.
The 1% is a term, it's a way of driving home a point, not an actual group of people selected to pay a certain amount and the rest not affected. While the average income for the top 1% is roughy half a million a year, that same one percent's average net worth is about $25,000,000. As you go up the ladder even more, beyond 99 to 99.9 for example, the numbers become mind boggling.
Don't fool yourself. There is a giant gap between the ultra ultra wealthy and the rest. They own almost all of the wealth in this country and have tremendous influence over what happens. I will stop here and not get into further politics but I'm just saying you are trying to give this 1% some identity, and it is only an arbitrary number picked to make a point.
There are over 1 million veterans who currently have no health insurance. They are now going to have coverage.
- Joined
- 19 February 2008
- Messages
- 1,532
If you look at Canada who has this HC style in effect... there are two problems
1) everyone is taxed at like 60% or higher
2) We are now faced with quality of care issues... big time
Every day maintenance is good there... but those with chronic disease travel to the states for treatment and pay the large bill...
1) everyone is taxed at like 60% or higher
2) We are now faced with quality of care issues... big time
Every day maintenance is good there... but those with chronic disease travel to the states for treatment and pay the large bill...
Ross taxes are higher in Canada but thats because their entire system is different, it is not because they provide free healthcare to everyone. There are a whole host of other things the government pays for there. If it wasn't for those things and just being taxed 60% as you say, they would all be piss poor and they are far from it. There is just less separation there and a healthier middle class.
Also tell me, how is healthcare going to suffer now?
Also tell me, how is healthcare going to suffer now?
To an extent I understand that 1% is a term, though the 1% of worth $25 million isn't the same 1% with a $380k income. The stats on income and wealth are different. The thing about 1% as a term is that I think it targets individuals who otherwise wouldn't even fall into that proverbial category.
Yes, they're called our politicians.....
