PDA

View Full Version : Whoopie! AHCA Upheld! W Individual MandateBRAVO!



Gayle in MD
06-28-2012, 08:15 AM
Romney must be doing what the dog did!

BWA HA HA HA!

Eat your hearts out Obstructionists!

Obviously your relentless BS RW partisan skewing of Constitution, was wrong.

Additionally, the entire BS Repiglican political story that the president wasted his entire first three plus years, has been b blown to smitherines!

This is supposed to be a ruling on this president's legitimacy, according to the Repiglican slander machine, and they LOST!

I knew they wouldn't overturn the ruling of the Washington D.C. District Court, the most conservative court in the country.


Hmmm....think someone here predicate this? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Some split on the States opting out, but overall, this is a win/win for President Obama, the court has ruled that Congress has the authority to legislate to cover everyone with affordable health care.

Medicare expansion is allowed, and that makes this legislation, doable. Full authority under the Constitution to tax under the madate, those who fail to get covered!

BRAVO!


G.

Soflasnapper
06-28-2012, 09:05 AM
I am surprised, not at its Constitutionality, but that this court held it was.

Maybe Russ Feingold was right when he justified his vote for Roberts by saying he'd talked to many law school people who knew Roberts and said he was actually a good guy who would do the right thing. His was the swing vote.

DiabloViejo
06-28-2012, 09:15 AM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/266179_10150933417925326_2109322771_o.jpg

Soflasnapper
06-28-2012, 09:42 AM
Both Drudge and CNN had headlines that the mandate had been overturned. ????

CNN shows the correct information now as a 'correction.'

Drudge just replaced the headline, not acknowledging any error.

Strange game to play. I guess they had both headlines in advance and just jumped the gun a bit?

Gayle in MD
06-28-2012, 10:04 AM
Huffingtonpost has a good coverage on the decision, including the actual finding, and with a link to all of the lies Republicans told about the AHCA, lol.



Roberts maintained the penalty under tax laws, but virtually every part has been clearly upheld....and it's great that the vote was confirmed under the Chief Justice's vote.

Seems the dissenting opinions have been suddenly pleasantly mild, lol....guess Scalia and Thomas decided to cool their partisan laden rants. Ya think they've been reading blogs?

Huffington post and Scotus blog:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28...html?1340894985 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-health-care-reform-ruling_n_1605393.html?1340894985)


http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/

Soflasnapper
06-28-2012, 10:13 AM
Now that Roberts is dog doo-doo in the eyes of the right, maybe there's a chance that Citizens United can be recast as a another horrible decision allowing the incursion of corruption, to pressure the high court's reversal?

No, what am I saying? Not likely.

Gayle in MD
06-28-2012, 10:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now that Roberts is dog doo-doo in the eyes of the right, maybe there's a chance that Citizens United can be recast as a another horrible decision allowing the incursion of corruption, to pressure the high court's reversal?

No, what am I saying? Not likely. </div></div>

One never knows...probably, sadly, not likely, but what if there are law suits gong forward over inappropriate contact and cronyism going on between the Pacs, and the politicians, which we've already seen, could the ruling be modified?

I wouldn't disagree with you though, probably not likely, since we are living in the times of Repiglican failed fascist policies, that always protect corporate crooks, poolluters, liars, and thieves.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

But to me, thhe improtant thing is that virtually ever political lie that Romney and the Repiglicans have launched agsint this president, is from now on, blown away.

He has accommplished what every president since Roosevelt, Republican and Democratic, has tried to accomplish, and failed.

How do they now continue to lie about his leadership? His statements about what is THE RIGHT THING TO DO, have now been supported by the Bush appointed, Chief Justice, of the USOA!

Romney's entire rhetoric slander, is gone. The lies and slander of the Repiglican party, blown away.

I think I sense a sea change coming.

No Repiglican high fiving today!

G.

Soflasnapper
06-28-2012, 10:43 AM
As the HuffPost link prefaces the 'lies' summary:

But, hey, some of those lies were pretty ambitious. Let's remember them all, shall we?

One thing mentioned there that I never heard was that Sarah Palin, she of the death panels lie, told the National Review in an interview that she never meant for that phrase to be taken literally. ??? It was a rhetorical gambit all along??? And her fans never read that admission (to be fair, I missed it as well).

SO. MANY. LIES.

Also, to be most accurate, there is no binding or settled part of the SCOTUS ruling that finds this to be Constitutional on the commerce clause. Or rather, the 4 liberals said it was ok on the commerce and tax clauses, and Roberts said no on the commerce clause reasoning, but ok on the tax clause reasoning. (The 4 dissenters on the conservative side denied either clause justified the personal mandate/penalty part.)

Soflasnapper
06-28-2012, 10:51 AM
“Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.”

Mark Twain

Gayle in MD
06-28-2012, 10:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am surprised, not at its Constitutionality, but that this court held it was.

Maybe Russ Feingold was right when he justified his vote for Roberts by saying he'd talked to many law school people who knew Roberts and said he was actually a good guy who would do the right thing. His was the swing vote. </div></div>

Well, at least in this case, although IMO he was waaaaaay off the mark with Citizens United.

In this case there was an issue of decency and morality involved.
And, IMHO, if there is one member of the Roberts Court that might be feeling some regret over the C.U. ruling, it is likely to be Roberts, and that wouldn't surprise me one bit.

I believe as well, that the Washington D.C. District Court's decision, was Constitutionally correct, and Roberts has already damaged The Robert's Court enough, with C.U., overturning a century of precedent.

He's have been forever labeled as politically partisan, by following that deciaion by ruling against the most conservative court in the entire country.

The bottom line, is that the AHCA, WAS Constitutionally legal. Universal coverage is on the way.

So do the Repiglicans want to make a move to repeal a constitionally legal Congressional Act which has been deemed the right thing to do?

They will blow smoke, waste time and money, launch threats, tell lies, and it won't go anywhere. All they will accomplish if they try to repeal now, is turn more people against them.


G.

Gayle in MD
06-28-2012, 10:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Both Drudge and CNN had headlines that the mandate had been overturned. ????

CNN shows the correct information now as a 'correction.'

Drudge just replaced the headline, not acknowledging any error.

Strange game to play. I guess they had both headlines in advance and just jumped the gun a bit? </div></div>

Wishful thinking by Drudge, and no surprise, without any accountability for their mistake.

G.

Gayle in MD
06-28-2012, 11:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/266179_10150933417925326_2109322771_o.jpg </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The individual mandate is about personal responsibility. </div></div>

Mitt Romney
2006


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Repiglicans are against personal responsibility, unless you are polluting the air and water, destroying the ecology, endanngering the planet, and forcing Americans into bankruptsey by allowing The American People to be gouged by corporations and banks.

Gayle in MD
06-28-2012, 11:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As the HuffPost link prefaces the 'lies' summary:

But, hey, some of those lies were pretty ambitious. Let's remember them all, shall we?

One thing mentioned there that I never heard was that Sarah Palin, she of the death panels lie, told the National Review in an interview that she never meant for that phrase to be taken literally. ??? It was a rhetorical gambit all along??? And her fans never read that admission (to be fair, I missed it as well).

SO. MANY. LIES.

Also, to be most accurate, there is no binding or settled part of the SCOTUS ruling that finds this to be Constitutional on the commerce clause. Or rather, the 4 liberals said it was ok on the commerce and tax clauses, and Roberts said no on the commerce clause reasoning, but ok on the tax clause reasoning. (The 4 dissenters on the conservative side denied either clause justified the personal mandate/penalty part.)

</div></div>

Bottom line, all of it was approved, since there was to be the tax remedy all along.

Romney is already out there lying his ass off about the law. Even lying about the CBO cost analysis, and pretnding that he can repeal it.

That's bull.

Would never fly, with so many Americans in a situation where repeal would remove all of the good things that so many people are happy about, in fact the majority of people do approve of what is in the Bill, they are just too stupid to know what is in the Bill, or to know that they approve.

Shows how stupid Romney is after yapping yesterday about how people in that White House weren't going to sleep last night, and then to come right out today, and tell colossal lies, when his relentless lies will be under even tighter scrutiny today, than on the average news day.

Dumbass!

No, he'd rather see Americans lose everything they have when they get sick, and end up living on the street.

Can't stand the sight of him.

G.

Gayle in MD
06-28-2012, 11:59 AM
Touching statements to the Kennedy fammily by former Speaker Pelosi, who worked so hard to help all Americans by getting the AHCA passed.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Millions of Americans have reason to rejoice after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Barack Obama's signature health care law on Thursday.

But the ruling also had a special meaning for the family of the late Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy (D).

Kennedy, who died in 2009, spent much of his career fighting for universal health care, which he called the "cause of his life" in an essay in the Daily Beast.

"Quality care shouldn't depend on your financial resources, or the type of job you have, or the medical condition you face," he wrote. "Every American should be able to get the same treatment that U.S. senators are entitled to."

He passed away before seeing Obama's Affordable Care Act signed into law.

Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) apparently thought of Kennedy right after the ruling, and called his widow, Vicki Kennedy.

According to an aide, the House Minority Leader reached Kennedy and said "Now, Teddy can rest."

Vicki Kennedy weighed in on the Supreme Court decision in a statement.

“We still have much work to do to implement the law, and I hope we can all come together now to complete that work,” she wrote, as reported by The Boston Globe. “The stakes are too high for us to do otherwise.”

“As my late husband Senator Edward Kennedy said: ‘What we face is above all a moral issue; that at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."

Below, more reactions to the Supreme Court ruling from around the political world:


</div></div>
View Clip:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28..._n_1634292.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/nancy-pelosi-ted-kennedy-health-care-supreme-court_n_1634292.html)

Gayle in MD
06-28-2012, 12:03 PM
The President's Fabulous Speech today!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-health-care-decision_n_1585131.html

Gayle in MD
06-28-2012, 12:11 PM
Small Businesses thrilled:

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif


1:59 PM – Today
Small Businesses Applaud Court Decision
A small business group representing over 150,000 firms and more than 300,000 entrepreneurs and investors applauded today's Supreme Court ruling that upheld most of President Barack Obama's health care reform law.

"The Court’s ruling means that businesses will continue to enjoy important provisions which have already reduced their health insurance costs, and enabled them to cover more of their employees. This will help businesses to expand and step up their hiring," said David Levine, CEO of the American Sustainable Business Council, in a written statement.

Although congressional Republicans have spent years portraying Obama's Affordable Care Act as a job-killing disaster for small businesses, many entrepreneurs and mom-and-pop shops have long supported the bill for reducing their health care costs.

"Today marks an extraordinary day for American businesses, which will continue to benefit from health care tax credits and reduced insurance costs," said Frank Knapp Jr., vice chair of ASBC and head of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce. "Not only does the ACA help small businesses to be more profitable, but it can level the playing field with big businesses that pay lower rates simply because of their size."

The National Federation of Independent Business, a Republican coalition of the nation's small business owners, has opposed the reform legislation and spearheaded the lawsuit against the bill. NFIB has dominated talking points about small business in Washington, but several other groups, including the Main Street Alliance and the ASBC, have significantly expanded their once-minor influence in recent years.

Tax credits provided by the health care law have already cut costs for many small firms. Once the full bill takes effect, major provisions like the individual mandate and the new system of health insurance exchanges are expected to enhance competition for insurance, drive down prices for all healthcare and thus result in lower costs for businesses.

Moreover, big companies with hundreds of thousands or millions of employees, have long been able to secure cheaper, better health care plans from insurance companies, simply by offering insurers a bigger pot of business. Small firms that employ a few dozen people or fewer must pay more for the same quality care or offer weaker plans to their workers. The new insurance regulations under the Affordable Care Act will require all insurance plans to offer a stronger slate of options for employees of any company, making it easier for small companies to attract talent.

-- Zach Carter

Share this:
1:56 PM – Today
Top AP Editor Praises Staff For Getting Court Decision Right
While CNN and Fox News initially misreported the Supreme Court decision upholding the individual mandate, the Associated Press got it right.

On Thursday afternoon, AP executive editor Kathleen Carroll praised her staff for their coverage in a staff memo obtained by the The Huffington Post.

All
The U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Obama administration’s health care law was going to be a huge story. The decision was also likely to be complex.

Our goal, as always: get the facts and get them out quickly.

For weeks, Washington Bureau Chief Sally Buzbee and the experienced SCOTUS team had prepared. Reporter Mark Sherman talked with legal analysts about possible scenarios and the legal arguments that might prevail.

Sally, Mark and Mark’s editor, Mike Sniffen, met frequently to discuss all the different ways the court might rule and how in each of those possible scenarios, we would write NewsAlerts that were accurate and easily understood by average people.

After that, it was going to come down to Mark reading and deciphering the decision itself, all the clauses and complicated language.

This morning, he was at the Supreme Court holding an open phone line back to Mike and desk editor Merrill Hartson, whose hands hovered above the keyboard, ready to fill in the blank FLASH on his screen.

Mark read the decision, talked to Mike and Merrill and at 10:07 a.m. this NewsAlert moved:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court upholds Obama law's requirement that most Americans have health insurance.

Then they kept working, explaining the court’s conclusions, how each justice voted and why, and so on.

As the day unfolds, AP and other news outlets will deliver extensive stories explaining the decision and its impact on American life, business and the current presidential campaign. That coverage will be rich, nuanced and informed.

But we should all be especially proud that that the AP’s coverage will be built on accurate and clear first word.

Once again, the enduring lesson prevails: Expertise and preparation are what make us fast and accurate.

Please join me in saluting Mark, Mike, Sally and the entire team involved in today’s coverage.

Kathleen


One AP staffer told The Huffington Post that some colleagues derived satisfaction from watching CNN -- which dropped the wire service a couple years ago -- have to correct itself on air. However, AP brass didn't want any Schadenfreude seeping out of the newsroom and warned staffers about taunting CNN on social media networks.

-- Michael Calderone

llotter
06-28-2012, 01:11 PM
The Republicans were kept in line by the Speaker and didn't spike the football.

Gayle in MD
06-28-2012, 01:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Republicans were kept in line by the Speaker and didn't spike the football. </div></div>

LMAO!

They have absolutely nothing to spike over, that's for sure, but you're wrong anyway, because some of them were too stupid to realize they had been blown out of the water, and were tweeting early on that the AHCA had been struck down....that's what happens when your too stupid for words, and always think that reality is whatever you wish it to be. They are tried to delete their tweets, but it was too late. Only the car thief was fast enough!

BWA HA HA HA! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

G.

Sid_Vicious
06-28-2012, 01:54 PM
I personally don't like the tax label with this plan. I am early-retired, just ahead of The Chimp's(BUSH) announcement that we were entering the next great Depression. Well, 401K and stock values caved, and the Repigs have starved this country from any progress for the middle class. Soooo, needless to say, I live on very limited income, and health care has become entirely unaffordable to me,,,a speedy way to the poor house when you realize that my rates went up EIGHTY-PERCENT IN ONE SWOOP. I never, ever filed one single HC claim, but they said the state had a lot of claims,,,damned illegal Mexicans! in the ER...so I decided to be a wet-back and go uninsured.

Back to the tax thing though and this Obamacare. It will hammer people like me. I just don't like it at all. sid

Gayle in MD
06-28-2012, 01:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I personally don't like the tax label with this plan. I am early-retired, just ahead of The Chimp's(BUSH) announcement that we were entering the next great Depression. Well, 401K and stock values caved, and the Repigs have starved this country from any progress for the middle class. Soooo, needless to say, I live on very limited income, and health care has become entirely unaffordable to me,,,a speedy way to the poor house when you realize that my rates went up EIGHTY-PERCENT IN ONE SWOOP. i NEVER EVER </div></div>

Then you are the very person that the AHCA will help the most.

You should read the information on Factcheck.org....

DiabloViejo
06-28-2012, 02:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Republicans were kept in line by the Speaker and didn't spike the football. </div></div>

LMAO! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

What planet are you on? I think you'd make the ideal poster boy for cognitive dissonance! Spike the football? Bwahahaha, all Republicans should go pound sand up their bungholes!

http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/why+the+fuck+cant+i+stop+laughing+at+this+_4fac3a0 ff8367f0c070737a24cf7f9e3.jpg

Sev
06-28-2012, 03:02 PM
The mandate was found unconstitutional. The commerce clause can not be used.
Also funding cant be cut from the states that dont join the expansion

It has been ruled a tax.
Welcome to the largest middle class tax hike in history.

For a family making 30,000 a year it will be over 2,200 dollars a year adjusted on a yearly basis.

So much for Obama not raising taxes.

Sev
06-28-2012, 03:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Small Businesses thrilled:

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif


1:59 PM – Today
Small Businesses Applaud Court Decision
A small business group representing over 150,000 firms and more than 300,000 entrepreneurs and investors applauded today's Supreme Court ruling that upheld most of President Barack Obama's health care reform law.

"The Court’s ruling means that businesses will continue to enjoy important provisions which have already reduced their health insurance costs, and enabled them to cover more of their employees. This will help businesses to expand and step up their hiring," said David Levine, CEO of the American Sustainable Business Council, in a written statement.

Although congressional Republicans have spent years portraying Obama's Affordable Care Act as a job-killing disaster for small businesses, many entrepreneurs and mom-and-pop shops have long supported the bill for reducing their health care costs.

"Today marks an extraordinary day for American businesses, which will continue to benefit from health care tax credits and reduced insurance costs," said Frank Knapp Jr., vice chair of ASBC and head of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce. "Not only does the ACA help small businesses to be more profitable, but it can level the playing field with big businesses that pay lower rates simply because of their size."

The National Federation of Independent Business, a Republican coalition of the nation's small business owners, has opposed the reform legislation and spearheaded the lawsuit against the bill. NFIB has dominated talking points about small business in Washington, but several other groups, including the Main Street Alliance and the ASBC, have significantly expanded their once-minor influence in recent years.

Tax credits provided by the health care law have already cut costs for many small firms. Once the full bill takes effect, major provisions like the individual mandate and the new system of health insurance exchanges are expected to enhance competition for insurance, drive down prices for all healthcare and thus result in lower costs for businesses.

Moreover, big companies with hundreds of thousands or millions of employees, have long been able to secure cheaper, better health care plans from insurance companies, simply by offering insurers a bigger pot of business. Small firms that employ a few dozen people or fewer must pay more for the same quality care or offer weaker plans to their workers. The new insurance regulations under the Affordable Care Act will require all insurance plans to offer a stronger slate of options for employees of any company, making it easier for small companies to attract talent.

-- Zach Carter

Share this:
1:56 PM – Today
Top AP Editor Praises Staff For Getting Court Decision Right
While CNN and Fox News initially misreported the Supreme Court decision upholding the individual mandate, the Associated Press got it right.

On Thursday afternoon, AP executive editor Kathleen Carroll praised her staff for their coverage in a staff memo obtained by the The Huffington Post.

All
The U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Obama administration’s health care law was going to be a huge story. The decision was also likely to be complex.

Our goal, as always: get the facts and get them out quickly.

For weeks, Washington Bureau Chief Sally Buzbee and the experienced SCOTUS team had prepared. Reporter Mark Sherman talked with legal analysts about possible scenarios and the legal arguments that might prevail.

Sally, Mark and Mark’s editor, Mike Sniffen, met frequently to discuss all the different ways the court might rule and how in each of those possible scenarios, we would write NewsAlerts that were accurate and easily understood by average people.

After that, it was going to come down to Mark reading and deciphering the decision itself, all the clauses and complicated language.

This morning, he was at the Supreme Court holding an open phone line back to Mike and desk editor Merrill Hartson, whose hands hovered above the keyboard, ready to fill in the blank FLASH on his screen.

Mark read the decision, talked to Mike and Merrill and at 10:07 a.m. this NewsAlert moved:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court upholds Obama law's requirement that most Americans have health insurance.

Then they kept working, explaining the court’s conclusions, how each justice voted and why, and so on.

As the day unfolds, AP and other news outlets will deliver extensive stories explaining the decision and its impact on American life, business and the current presidential campaign. That coverage will be rich, nuanced and informed.

But we should all be especially proud that that the AP’s coverage will be built on accurate and clear first word.

Once again, the enduring lesson prevails: Expertise and preparation are what make us fast and accurate.

Please join me in saluting Mark, Mike, Sally and the entire team involved in today’s coverage.

Kathleen


One AP staffer told The Huffington Post that some colleagues derived satisfaction from watching CNN -- which dropped the wire service a couple years ago -- have to correct itself on air. However, AP brass didn't want any Schadenfreude seeping out of the newsroom and warned staffers about taunting CNN on social media networks.

-- Michael Calderone

</div></div>

More like it will allow business to drop their health care to expand their bottom line and pay the cheaper fine.
Fewer people in the end are going to be covered and the middle class is taking a tax hit.
I cant wait for them to let the Bush tax cuts sunset on top of this.

Gayle in MD
06-28-2012, 03:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The mandate was found unconstitutional. The commerce clause can not be used.
Also funding cant be cut from the states that dont join the expansion

It has been ruled a tax.
Welcome to the largest middle class tax hike in history.

For a family making 30,000 a year it will be over 2,200 dollars a year adjusted on a yearly basis.

So much for Obama not raising taxes.


</div></div>

The mandate was upheld. There is nothing new about this effort to hold others to account for their failure to secure their own health care, and leave it to others to pay the price, as the chief justice pointed out.

It is a huge slap down on all of the "Socialism" accusations from the right.

And it was a huge slap down, by the Repiglican appointed, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The court has reaffirmed the power of the Federal Government.

You need to read the finding, since you are misinformed.

Then you should go to factcheck.org, where you will find all of the correct answers to your misinformation, since you don't understand the AHCA, nor do you know what is in it, or how it saves money, and lives.

There is zero chance that this law will ever be repealed.

G.

DiabloViejo
06-28-2012, 03:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The mandate was found unconstitutional. The commerce clause can not be used.
Also funding cant be cut from the states that dont join the expansion

It has been ruled a tax.
Welcome to the largest middle class tax hike in history.

For a family making 30,000 a year it will be over 2,200 dollars a year adjusted on a yearly basis.

So much for Obama not raising taxes.


</div></div>

Please provide links with factual evidence to back up your claim that everyone will pay.

I don't think you understand the issue.

The decision leaves in place the so-called individual mandate -- the requirement on Americans to have or buy health insurance beginning in 2014 or face a penalty -- although many are exempt from that provision.

In 2014, the penalty will be $285 per family or 1% of income, whichever is greater. By 2016, it goes up to $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income.

Of course, if you already have health insurance then you would not pay any penalty.

Sid_Vicious
06-28-2012, 03:49 PM
You know...I think it is halarious just looking at those bozos in their black robes. SERIOUSLY people, is it not a basic problem to see a bunch of lawmakers posing in robes? We ain't Brits. sid

Soflasnapper
06-28-2012, 04:34 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/06/everyone-on-facebook.jpg

DiabloViejo
06-28-2012, 04:38 PM
The right wingers need to have a cold drink and chill! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/548198_450904944927825_1867480631_n.jpg

LWW
06-28-2012, 05:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The mandate was found unconstitutional. The commerce clause can not be used.
Also funding cant be cut from the states that dont join the expansion

It has been ruled a tax.
Welcome to the largest middle class tax hike in history.

For a family making 30,000 a year it will be over 2,200 dollars a year adjusted on a yearly basis.

So much for Obama not raising taxes.


</div></div>

You didn't expect this group o get things right I'd you?

What actually appended was:

- The SCOTUS certified that Obama and the demokrooks lied to pass the bill.

- The TPM has been reborn.

- The demokrooks must now defend the largest middle class tax hike in history.

- The SCOTUS ruled that each of te states that used to stop te bill can de facto or out.

- All the lies about the IRS not being the enforcer of this have been exposed.

- The expansion of the commerce clause was struck down.

- The court de facto stated that the current regime be voted out.

- The court de facto stated the aw was legal, but a disaster.

Yet the O-cult was however was told this was a victory, so they will slavishly dance on the regime's grave.

What a bunch of tools.

LWW
06-28-2012, 05:56 PM
Everyone won't pay ... only the shrinking productive class.

The destructive class will continue to leach.

Soflasnapper
06-28-2012, 06:33 PM
Yes, I predicted this reaction, just two or three posts above.

Of course, you are about entirely wrong on everything you said.

This is not a tax hike on the middle class, let alone the largest tax hike on them (or anyone) in history. That title remains the Reagan/Greenspan FICA hike, and it will always be so.

- All the lies about the IRS not being the enforcer of this have been exposed.

Not at all. They have no mechanism by which to enforce it, except withhold a tax refund if you are due one.

The court de facto stated that the current regime be voted out.

You're trippin', again?

- The SCOTUS certified that Obama and the demokrooks lied to pass the bill.

B. S. 5 of them found the rationale and SCOTUS power used was faulty, but 5 found one that worked (4 said the ones that worked were the commerce clause and necessary a proper clause, as the administration claimed and argued in oral arguments).

eg8r
06-28-2012, 07:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is not a tax hike on the middle class, let alone the largest tax hike on them (or anyone) in history. That title remains the Reagan/Greenspan FICA hike, and it will always be so. </div></div>LOL, I guess the poor and middle class feel better now that sofla has cleared the air and made sure that this enormous tax increase isn't exactly the biggest ever. What a tool.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not at all. They have no mechanism by which to enforce it, except withhold a tax refund if you are due one.</div></div>Wow, first you say no then you say heck yeah.

eg8r

Stretch
06-28-2012, 08:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Everyone won't pay ... only the shrinking productive class.

The destructive class will continue to leach. </div></div>

You are right, that is what republicans do best. St.

Soflasnapper
06-28-2012, 09:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is not a tax hike on the middle class, let alone the largest tax hike on them (or anyone) in history. That title remains the Reagan/Greenspan FICA hike, and it will always be so. </div></div>LOL, I guess the poor and middle class feel better now that sofla has cleared the air and made sure that this enormous tax increase isn't exactly the biggest ever. What a tool.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not at all. They have no mechanism by which to enforce it, except withhold a tax refund if you are due one.</div></div>Wow, first you say no then you say heck yeah.

eg8r </div></div>

It's not a tax increase on the middle class, let alone a huge one. Anyone with insurance is exempt. About 84% of the people. Most of the middle class. Exempt. No increase. At all.

Here's some rough numbers on what this will cost families of four:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So the fine is small and the government can't do much to collect it anyway. But in practice, there's an even more important question: how many people would fail to buy insurance and be forced to pay the fine in the first place? On the left, a fair number of people think that ACA's subsidies are stingy enough that poor families simply won't be able to afford insurance even if they want it, which would mean paying the fine instead. But is that true?

What follows is back-of-the-envelope stuff, but I think it's in the right ballpark. Let's take a family of four where the policyholder is age 35 and has an income of $40,000. How much would insurance cost them? According to this handy calculator from Kaiser, here's what that family would have to pay (converted into a monthly premium):

Premium cost: $925
Federal tax credit: $760
Net cost of policy: $165

However, this overstates things because it's based on the cost of a "silver" policy. But you don't have to buy a silver policy. You can pay more and get a gold or platinum policy, and more importantly, you can pay less and get a bronze policy. Bronze policies don't provide great coverage, but they do provide the basics and they also cover health emergencies. It's a reasonable option for someone who just can't afford more. By my rough calculation, a bronze policy would cost about $125 less than a silver policy. This means that the net monthly premium for our family of four would be about $40. That's not much — and it's half the cost of the fine.

But how about a family of four with an income of $50,000? After subsidies, their cost for a bronze policy would probably come to about $166 per month. That's more than the fine ($166 vs. $100) but not a lot more. How many families earning $50,000 would forego health insurance for a net cost of $66 per month? Not too many, I'd guess, even if the insurance policy is mediocre.

As for families making more than $50,000, hardly any of them are uninsured in the first place. This paper estimates only about 1.6 million uninsured adults with incomes consistently above $50,000. It's just not a big number.

You can play with these numbers endlessly, and if you choose the worst possible set of circumstances you can always come up with an example or two of people who would be forced to pay a fair amount of money for health insurance they'd rather not have. But here are the basics for a family of four:

Under $30,000, families qualify for Medicaid and pay nothing for insurance.
Under $37,000 or so, most families can buy a bronze policy for free.
Between $37,000 and $45,000, the cost of a bronze policy is quite small, and certainly less than paying the fine.
Above $45,000, the cost of a bronze policy is a bit more than the fine.
Above $50,000, the cost of a bronze policy is significantly more than the fine, but there aren't very many uninsured families in this category.

The numbers work out differently for single people, but singles under 30 also have the option of buying only catastrophic coverage. We don't know yet how much policies like this are going to cost, but certainly substantially less than a bronze policy. For most under-30s, this means they have the option of free or nearly free coverage all the way up to a fairly high income level. </div></div>

More at Kevin Drum's site, here. (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum?page=1&search_block_form=Dark%20money&op=Search&form_build_id=form-bc8bd092f6c982a2a146350750a3706e&form_id=search_block_form)

Qtec
06-29-2012, 01:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not a tax increase on the middle class, let alone a huge one. Anyone with insurance is exempt. About 84% of the people. Most of the middle class. Exempt. No increase. At all. </div></div>

Strangely enough, its those WITH HC coverage who are against the ACA, even though it only benefits them at no extra cost!


On another note, I remember eg8r made a comment on UK 'socialized 'HC, can't remember the thread. Over here in NL, everyone has to be insured.

Recently I had an accident. I called the Doctor on the Monday and got an appointment for the next day. I waited 10 mins to be seen and got a prescription and a note for the hospital to be x-rayed. I went to the hospital which was only 10 mins walk away and within 20 mins I had the x-ray and was on the way home.
All told [ I live 10 mins from the Doc surgery /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif ] I had saw a Doctor, been to the Hospital for x-rays, picked up my drugs, did some shopping and got home in 90 minutes.

Oh yeah, I had a one time co-payment on one of the painkillers...it cost $10.

Would you be happy with that level of service for $160 a month?

Q

LWW
06-29-2012, 04:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, I predicted this reaction, just two or three posts above.

Of course, you are about entirely wrong on everything you said.

This is not a tax hike on the middle class, let alone the largest tax hike on them (or anyone) in history. That title remains the Reagan/Greenspan FICA hike, and it will always be so.

- All the lies about the IRS not being the enforcer of this have been exposed.

Not at all. They have no mechanism by which to enforce it, except withhold a tax refund if you are due one.

The court de facto stated that the current regime be voted out.

You're trippin', again?

- The SCOTUS certified that Obama and the demokrooks lied to pass the bill.

B. S. 5 of them found the rationale and SCOTUS power used was faulty, but 5 found one that worked (4 said the ones that worked were the commerce clause and necessary a proper clause, as the administration claimed and argued in oral arguments). </div></div>Your ignorance on the topic I only exceeded by ... well, I can't actually think of anything that exceeds it.

eg8r
06-29-2012, 08:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, this overstates things because it's based on the cost of a "silver" policy. But you don't have to buy a silver policy. You can pay more and get a gold or platinum policy, and more importantly, you can pay less and get a bronze policy. Bronze policies don't provide great coverage, but they do provide the basics and they also cover health emergencies</div></div>LOL, this is great, so how long till the poor say it is not fair that they can only afford bronze when the filthy rich get platinum?

eg8r

sack316
06-29-2012, 08:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... so how long till the poor say it is not fair that they can only afford bronze when the filthy rich get platinum?

eg8r </div></div>

You phrased that question as if it were a future possibility rather than a current event /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

eg8r
06-29-2012, 08:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Strangely enough, its those WITH HC coverage who are against the ACA, even though it only benefits them at no extra cost!</div></div>It doesn't benefit them at all if they already have coverage and it will turn into tax increases shortly down the road when the true expenses start rearing their ugly heads and taxes have to be increased to cover them.

Wake up people you cannot have HC coverage and not have tax increases. They are inevitable. Also, who on this board thinks this is the last we will hear of this? This bill is only the first step.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-29-2012, 08:50 AM
There are taxes in the bill, and they are called taxes. They don't hit the middle class, but the high earners, cadillac health plan recipients, etc. And sun tan salon taxes, iirc, which if you think about that one, is optional. Don't go to such a place, no tax due.

It's just that the penalty isn't one, isn't large, and will not apply to many people.

In Massachusetts, the number paying Romney's mandate penalty are about 1% of the population.

Why? Because if you can pay the same money roughly AND GET INSURANCE, most people find that a better bargain than paying the penalty and not having insurance. That would be my guess, at least.

eg8r
06-29-2012, 09:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's just that the penalty isn't one, isn't large, and will not apply to many people.</div></div>You are talking about of your rear at this point. You have no idea what will happen.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-29-2012, 11:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not a tax increase on the middle class, let alone a huge one. Anyone with insurance is exempt. About 84% of the people. Most of the middle class. Exempt. No increase. At all. </div></div>

Strangely enough, its those WITH HC coverage who are against the ACA, even though it only benefits them at no extra cost!


On another note, I remember eg8r made a comment on UK 'socialized 'HC, can't remember the thread. Over here in NL, everyone has to be insured.

Recently I had an accident. I called the Doctor on the Monday and got an appointment for the next day. I waited 10 mins to be seen and got a prescription and a note for the hospital to be x-rayed. I went to the hospital which was only 10 mins walk away and within 20 mins I had the x-ray and was on the way home.
All told [ I live 10 mins from the Doc surgery /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif ] I had saw a Doctor, been to the Hospital for x-rays, picked up my drugs, did some shopping and got home in 90 minutes.

Oh yeah, I had a one time co-payment on one of the painkillers...it cost $10.

Would you be happy with that level of service for $160 a month?

Q </div></div>

Why would any reasonable person think that by providing more preventive measures to keep people in the survivor categoris of diseases, including providng reasonable., recommended medical tests for those who can't afford it, will bring down overall costs? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Why would any reasonable person think that by preventing a for- profit, health care industry, from ordering up a range of un-necessary, costly tests, advised by for-profit doctors, for for-profit radiation clinice, through for-profit insurance corporations, and for-profit Medical Clinics, owned by for- profit doctors, would bring down costs for everyone? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Why would any reasonable person think that by creating a for health system, instead of a for profit system, would result lower costs for everyone and better care or that by legislating that all others who can afford to, pay into the system, instead of gaming it? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

What so many do not get, is that for profit health and insruance care, is not humane, period.

Why would any reasonable person think that we who pay for costs for the Federal Employees, wuch as congressmen and senators, should have the same medical advantages that we all pay for them to have?

Why would any reasonable person look at study after study that proves American's costs are the highest in the industrial world, but health results, are the worst, and think that we should join the rest of the industrial world, or that we should commit ourselves to a safer, results based, healthier, (better educated) next generation, to meet the challenges coming our way in the global market.

While I am not happy that Democrats couldn't pull off exactly what we need, single payer/public option, it is a beginning, and the goal is continuing improvement, better care, less waste, with reasonable plans about how we can bring that about.

I recall way back in the mid eighties, after reading a book about American Health Care, and its failures, how many women were being pushed into having induced labor, and C-sections, by male doctors, who simply chose for them what would most fill their own pockets, and additionally, not mess up their Tee Times for the weekend!

Happened to be fishing, that weekend, and heard someone on the radio, the boat was named, C-Section.

Yep, it was a doctor, I learned, after jumping on the radio damanding to know, and then giving him a piece of my mind regarding his blatant greed, dishonesty, lack of conscience and negligence....and to hell with what anyone thought, was my attitude.

Women all over the Bay were jumping on the same VHF Channel, calling me back, chiming in with their own horror stories.

This is what we call the best medical care in the world?

Not so much!

The reason why women are so much in favor of and aware of how lousy our medical health care is in this country, is because they are the number one victims of it. Mothers are the health care decision makers in their families, AND they are the ones who have to figure out how to save the life of a child, who is facing cancer therapy, and still have enough money left over to feed her other two chldren.

I find it more and more incredible, that the same defense contractors, who are costing this country a fortune in wasted money, and corruption, are so quick to wish for those of us who pay for their health coverage, to be thrown under the bus.

This argument about affordable health care for all Americans, is one of the most blatant examples of how the right changes their philosophies according to their own partisan, full of kool aid and propaganda, bulging bellies, which also run up the costs for the rest of us.

Pretty repulsive, if you ask me! But not surprising, when one considers they don't care about the health of their own children, nor of the planet, and live in denail over the all out war between human survival, and their beloved Corporat Fascist PIGS!

The Republicans were all for this entire plan, INCLUDING THE PUBLIC OPTION, AND THE MANDATE, until it was committed into fruition, by a Democratic President, and a Democratic majority.

Their swan song of personal responsibility for the benefit of America's future, has now been exposed as nothing but the usual RW BS!

As usual, they pretend that if THEY were the writers of this legialation, it would be cheaper, and better, in spite of the fact that every documented statistic, proves that that is NEVER the result of their policies, and it is just another Repiglican lie!

Heard the governor of Massasschusetts interviewed last night, with statistics, which of course prove all of the Reiglican talking points about potential costs, totally wrong.

G.

Soflasnapper
06-29-2012, 02:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's just that the penalty isn't one, isn't large, and will not apply to many people.</div></div>You are talking about of your rear at this point. You have no idea what will happen.

eg8r </div></div>

A semi-educated guess, based on the estimates of experts, and the now-7 year history of Romney Care.

As opposed to YOUR keen insight that proves you are right, that it will be huge, and apply all across all of middle class America, based on.... ? &lt;crickets&gt;

Or perhaps you have great evidence, which you simply refuse to mention? Or do you rely on what you hear on Fox as gospel?

As I semi-agreed with you, of course this takes taxes. They are explicit in the bill, however, not hidden as a penalty which probably more owing it will not pay then will pay it, and without legal consequence to themselves should they refuse.

So, if no one really has to pay, is it even a tax hike at all, even if the penalty is framed as a tax hike? If people do not have to pay, will they, in your view?

Gayle in MD
06-29-2012, 02:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You <span style='font-size: 14pt'>are talking about of your </span>rear at this point. You have no idea what will happen.

eg8r

</div></div>

An obviously brilliant statement.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Qtec
06-30-2012, 05:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It doesn't benefit them at all if they already have coverage ...</div></div>

Yes it does and in so many ways. These have already been explained to you but as usual, you choose to ignore them.

Q