Affordable Care Act [Obamacare] upheld by Supreme Court Health Care Decision Today...

[TKshreve]

nope. he just raised taxes on people who choose not to get healthcare.

Why do people refer to it as a tax? Is it not in actuality a fine or penalty? Is the right just arguing semantics now?

OLADUB:
I'm going to add something new. When Congress gave Wall Street bonuses instead of putting those bankers in prison, I concluded that there had been a huge change in US politics. The corporations were now in control. This was voted on just weeks before the presidential elections and the majority of Congress members felt compelled rub there noses in it and vote for the bankers instead of their constituents. I view the ruling claiming that we can be taxed for not buying something as just another brick in the wall of corporate rule. What if Congress votes to make insurance companies to require that we buy one or two other things, for our own welfare of course? Bankers get bonuses and we get our pockets vacuumed.

Listen, I don't like the fact that greedy, selfish insurance giants are still a part of the picture. Let me ask you this....... do you think something as aggressive as single payer plan ever stood a chance of getting through legislation? I personally don't. The right did a pretty good job or organizing against the ACA. I'll give them credit, although they had the $$ backing of the insurance companies, and the key to the conservative safe. But imagine the level of aggressiveness that would have been on display if something even grander was on the docket. I picture burning cars and jets streaking through city centers.

I heard somebody say somewhere else, our country is not ready to make that leap yet. But in this case, we have to break an egg to make an omelet. And we also have a very sturdy stepping stone to make the next leap to something even better.

How can you discount all the good elements of the ACA? Specifically the ten items Whitehouse listed in his earlier post. Your unwillingness to champion ANY of those positive elements reveals a deeper personal motive regarding your disdain for the bill.

[Danny]

VICTORY FOR THE LIBERALS! VICTORY FOR OBAMACARE!

The Health Care Reform Act of 2010 IS DEFINATELY CONSTITUTIONAL. YES WE CAN! Universal Health Care and Socialized Medicine is here and the law has spoken. Thank you U.S. Supreme Court Judges for making your decision fair and just.

[rb336]

How can you discount all the good elements of the ACA? Specifically the ten items Whitehouse listed in his earlier post. Your unwillingness to champion ANY of those positive elements reveals a deeper personal motive regarding your disdain for the bill.

It's a combination of his hate for the Kenyan in the White House, his 10th Amendment fundamentalism and dogmatic devotion to a crackpot doctor

[Whitehouse]

Republicans have been at war against the ACA for 20 years now. The war started when President Clinton took office.

For GOP leaders like Mitch McConnell the battle to "kill it and start over" wasn't merely about ensuring that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." For twenty years, Republicans have feared not that health care reform would fail the American people, but that it would succeed. To put it another way, the GOP was never really concerned about a "government takeover of health care", "rationing", "the doctor-patient relationship" or mythical "death panels," but that an American public grateful for access to health care could provide Democrats with an enduring majority for years to come.
But what Utah Senator Orrin Hatch called a "holy war" to block health care reform didn't start when Barack Obama took the oath of office in January 2009, but instead when Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 1993. It was then that former Quayle chief of staff and Republican strategist William Kristol warned his GOP allies that a Clinton victory on health care could guarantee Democratic majorities for the foreseeable future. "The Clinton proposal is also a serious political threat to the Republican Party," Kristol wrote in his infamous December 3, 1993 memo titled "Defeating President Clinton's Health Care Proposal," adding:

"Its passage in the short run will do nothing to hurt [[and everything to help) Democratic electoral prospects in 1996. But the long-term political effects of a successful Clinton health care bill will be even worse--much worse. It will relegitimize middle-class dependence for 'security' on government spending and regulation. It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government."

And there you have the naked truth...

[oladub]

nope. he just raised taxes on people who choose not to get healthcare.

"Just"? The Supreme Court redefined 'penalty' to mean the same as 'tax' to make this work. Obama was probably right when he made the distinction between taxes and penalties. It turned out that Nancy Pelosi was right about not knowing what was in it until after it passed. The Supremes have ruled that penalty and tax are synonyms so Obama was right but now he is wrong but Nancy was right. Obama was also wrong when he promised that he wasn't going to raise taxes on folk earning less than $250K as 12 of the supposed 21 new taxes, not including insurance premium increases, will also apply to that demographic.

One opinion writer considered this ruling the largest expansion of federal power since FDR. It is just a camel's nose under the tent so far but the Supremes have opened the door to taxing everything they want you to buy if you choose not to.

There were a couple of holes left by this ruling that will probably have to be addressed in later rulings. How much of a [[penalty) tax can be imposed before the Court considers the tax unconstitutional? If the Court wants everyone to eat broccoli, it can charge a $10 tax on people who don't buy broccoli but can it impose a $1m tax? At some point a penalty tax would be the same as forcing people to by insurance or broccoli and the Court did rule that no one can be forced to buy insurance.

Another vacuum left by this ruling is that states do not have to comply with the Medicaid part because the Court ruled that penalties for not doing so are not permitted. Also, since it is so much cheaper for individuals to pay the penalty tax than buy insurance and they can almost always buy insurance if they need it as a preexisting condition, people will drop coverage until the day they need it. This will force insurance companies to pass higher costs on to their remaining policy holders.

[oladub]

TKshreve: Why do people refer to it as a tax? Is it not in actuality a fine or penalty? Is the right just arguing semantics now?

See my last post.

Listen, I don't like the fact that greedy, selfish insurance giants are still a part of the picture. Let me ask you this....... do you think something as aggressive as single payer plan ever stood a chance of getting through legislation?...

Repeat: Vermont was well on it's way to having it's own single payer plan with all it's major politicians in support. The Obamacare people put the kabosh on it. Massachusetts already has something very similar to Obamacare. Every state is free to create it's own plan. In Wisconsin, we have Badgercare for poor people.

I heard somebody say somewhere else, our country is not ready to make that leap yet. But in this case, we have to break an egg to make an omelet. And we also have a very sturdy stepping stone to make the next leap to something even better.

How can you discount all the good elements of the ACA? Specifically the ten items Whitehouse listed in his earlier post. Your unwillingness to champion ANY of those positive elements reveals a deeper personal motive regarding your disdain for the bill.

I don't discount some good elements of the ACA although any Canadian provincial single payer plan is better. I am not a fan of corporatism [[economic fascism). I prefer to keep huge insurance companies, big pharmacies, attorneys and bureaucrats out of the delivery system, with or without a single payer option to the greatest extent possible. I suggest that the most efficient way of doing so is at the state level and yes, doing so is consistent with the 10th amendment. Why don't you support the right of the people of Vermont to have a single payer plan as they have chosen?

[TKshreve]

I don't discount some good elements of the ACA although any Canadian provincial single payer plan is better. I am not a fan of corporatism [[economic fascism). I prefer to keep huge insurance companies, big pharmacies, attorneys and bureaucrats out of the delivery system, with or without a single payer option to the greatest extent possible. I suggest that the most efficient way of doing so is at the state level and yes, doing so is consistent with the 10th amendment. Why don't you support the right of the people of Vermont to have a single payer plan as they have chosen?

Easy there. I never said that, therefore you should not suggest I did. Right? Ok, good.

Vermont has requested a waiver from the Fed, and they should get it IMO since it passed state legislation with ease. Furthermore, Vermont citizens should be given the option to pick from either the Federal plan or the state option. Boy, tough choice.

And then there's this doozy of a line again.

I don't discount some good elements of the ACA although .........

You simply don't want to admit that this Bill is helping more people than its hurting. That's fine.

Nor will you admit either that the ACA is what it is because the right fought and cried every inch of the way, polluting the truth and obfuscating the facts so as to torpedo the final result of what [[I think) Obama was going for. If this is what we get when the two parties are forced to work together, I'd rather have one party "Ram it down our throats". At least in that scenario, the acting party is transparently responsible for their actions. Can't play the finger pointing game, know what I mean?

If, in fact, Obama had an ulterior responsibility to his corporate cash cows, I would most definitely think less of him. But somehow I feel you are unable to provide any real proof of that theory. Needless to say, if Obama quickly passed a single payer plan, haphazardly making hundreds of thousands [[guess) of private insurance jobs obsolete, what do you think would be the fallout there? Honestly. See the forest through the trees Oladub. If we're going to overhaul the system [[because it's out of whack) we need to tread carefully.

A mind is like a parachute. It only works when it's open.

[oladub]

TKshreve, My understanding is that Vermont can go ahead with a single payer plan but that it had to include obamacare at it's core which brings us back to big pharma, insurance profits, lawyers, and bureaucrats, Oh my. In other words, it will still have all the sludge.

I answered your previous questions. Either accept my answers or fantasize about what you imagine I otherwise think. I don't think obamacare will help more people than it will hurt. I suspect more jobs will move offshore, people will lose their private insurance, and costs will exceed estimates. Time will tell. I don't even think the federal government should be meddling in health care, housing, education, and some other things so why should I care about that stupid struggle leaving corporate America on top? That's about what I expected anyways. Are you justifying this bad plan because "there would have been fallout" had the plan been better?

Health care ruling could leave poorest Americans at greatest risk

[Gistok]

Oladub... don't you think that the health care industry isn't already looking at as many ways to offshore as many jobs as possible? Reading X-Rays, CAT Scans, et al... is just the beginning...

[oladub]

Oladub... don't you think that the health care industry isn't already looking at as many ways to offshore as many jobs as possible? Reading X-Rays, CAT Scans, et al... is just the beginning...

I hadn't thought specifically about reading X-rays and CAT scans but that seems logical. Some insurance companies are looking kindly at foreign much cheaper foreign surgery 'vacations'. Someone I know just got reprimanded at a fortune 500 tech company for not outsourcing enough company work to India so the same thing probably goes on in medical companies. The only exception I can think of in medicine are laws passed to prevent foreign pharmaceuticals from coming into the US cheaply although it's ok for pharmaceuticals to import those same medicines themselves. Also there are barriers to accepting foreign doctors. I can see that up to a point but considering all the underserved poor neighborhoods, it seems like something could more often be worked out - perhaps less than full doctor status until extra credits are earned.

Lawyers are my biggest target though. Get them out and the cost of any sort of medical care system goes down. They were locked in with obamacare.

[coracle]

Basic explanation how the Mandate works from lucianne.com



But of course if you just can't pay the Tax I'm sure it will be arranged that your neighbor will be made to pay it for you. [[or "fine" or "penalty" if you're Liberal. People that don't incur the tax will be paying it for those that do - basic Socialism)

[firstandten]

Many American's especially those that lean to the right want the benefits of good social welfare policy but don't want to pay for it. Folks like the benefits that the ACA offers but don't want to deal with the IM. People gloss over the fact that you don't get the benefits without the IM. And people also gloss over the fact that uninsured people going to ER increases the premiums on people who have insurance, which is the reason the right wanted to have the IM in the beginning when Romney inacted Romneycare.

People need to get over this, and get some insurance, get a waiver if you can't afford it or pay the tax.

Ezra Klein gives a good explaination of the IM and why its used in just about every health care system in the world.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...2/draft_1.html

[firstandten]

But of course if you just can't pay the Tax I'm sure it will be arranged that your neighbor will be made to pay it for you. [[or "fine" or "penalty" if you're Liberal. People that don't incur the tax will be paying it for those that do - basic Socialism)

There you go, going all "dog whistle" on us.

[Zacha341]

Hah! Many of the ramifications of Obamacare will not be not heard ala dog whistles to humans; dismissed as conservative 'talking' points. Some of it is.

We're going to have to go further into these 'plans' in order to see just what we've collectively been bound to. Then, as Nancy Pelosi says we'll see 'what's in it'... the election will be over and no longer a distraction of defense.

There you go, going all "dog whistle" on us.

[firstandten]

Hah! Many of the ramifications of Obamacare will not be not heard ala dog whistles to humans; dismissed as conservative 'talking' points. Some of it is.

Were going to have to go further into these 'plans' in order to see just what we've collectively been bound to. Then as Nancy Pelosi says we'll see 'what's in it'...

The stretch of seeing socialism out of this form of health care is about as long as the Nerd's new bridge

[rb336]

Basic explanation how the Mandate works from lucianne.com



But of course if you just can't pay the Tax I'm sure it will be arranged that your neighbor will be made to pay it for you. [[or "fine" or "penalty" if you're Liberal. People that don't incur the tax will be paying it for those that do - basic Socialism)

like you are currently paying for the uninsured through higher costs at hospitals, etc. further, you have shown yet again a total lack of understanding what socialism is

[Jimaz]

... basic Socialism)

which raises the issue of why Healthcare in Cuba is so surprisingly successful despite the best efforts of the U.S. embargo.

[Zacha341]

It's a bit early to make a full determination of what kind of social governmental structure this will resemble or initiate per the thousands of pages of rules, guidelines, processes, requirements, costs, services provided, directives, exclusions and other ponderous legal writ.

Like tax law, the details will be revealed over time specific to individuals and broad to the requirements of the program which will have certain mandates and obligations, fiscally speaking.

The stretch of seeing socialism out of this form of health care is about as long as the Nerd's new bridge

[Zacha341]

I hear and have heard health care is quite good in Cuba. Is it good for everyone? Did/ do Castro receive his health care services in Cuba or elsewhere? I am not being snarky or sarcastic. I am asking to know.

which raises the issue of why Healthcare in Cuba is so surprisingly successful despite the best efforts of the U.S. embargo.

[firstandten]

It's a bit early to make a full determination of what kind of social governmental structure this will resemble or initiate per the thousands of pages of rules, guidelines, processes, requirements, costs, services provided, directives, exclusions and other ponderous legal writ.

Like tax law, the details will be revealed over time specific to individuals and broad to the requirements of the program which will have certain mandates and obligations, fiscally speaking.

And I would agree with that. The problem I have are these knee jerk reactions every time a major piece of social legislation is passed. You heard the same stuff when medicare, social security the voting rights act etc was passed.

The same people who decry the advance of the socialist state as a result of the legislation are the first to take advantage of the benefits.

This like most legislation is a work in progress, there will need to be changes over time, improvements and there will be some unintended consequences as a result of the legislation as well. To holler socialism rather than deal with the nuances of the law does a disservice to the debate and thats why I made the reference to "dog whistle".

[Zacha341]

Well stated... it is going to be an interesting journey.

This like most legislation is a work in progress, there will need to be changes over time, improvements and there will be some unintended consequences as a result of the legislation as well. To holler socialism rather than deal with the nuances of the law does a disservice to the debate and thats why I made the reference to "dog whistle".

[coracle]

which raises the issue of why Healthcare in Cuba is so surprisingly successful despite the best efforts of the U.S. embargo.

I guess that explains why they all want to Occupy America. On the other hand if you want to live longer and enjoy embargoed socialized free health paid for by somebody else, move to Cuba. [[and take Thom Hartmann; whoever he is, and GoLeft TV with you)

[Wheels]

To call this affordable health care is a slap in the face to all working tax paying insurance buying Americans. Sure you can make the claim it will help more people then it will hurt because more people will opt for the government funded programs that are subsidized by the minority that work and pay there bills. You can call it whatever you want but it is still carried on the back of the working class. Eventually those backs will break!

[firstandten]

To call this affordable health care is a slap in the face to all working tax paying insurance buying Americans. Sure you can make the claim it will help more people then it will hurt because more people will opt for the government funded programs that are subsidized by the minority that work and pay there bills. You can call it whatever you want but it is still carried on the back of the working class. Eventually those backs will break!

Where did you get that from ? What government funded programs are you talking about ?


Look, you have two groups of people. The first group that has insurance most likely from there place of employment there will be no change. They keep what they have.

The second group with no insurance this is what happens :

Beginning in 2014, Americans without health insurance will be able to buy health coverage through state-based marketplaces called exchanges. The idea behind exchanges is to increase competition among insurers in a state and let residents compare and shop for affordable health plans. Those who can’t afford insurance may receive tax credits to help them purchase insurance if they buy it through an exchange. All health insurance plans offered through exchanges must offer essential health benefits.
Small employers will also be able to shop for and buy health coverage through exchanges. Small businesses with fewer than 25 employees may also be able to get tax credits to help offset the cost of providing health insurance to their employees. Right now, some small businesses qualify for tax credits that cover up to 35 percent of their cost [[25 percent for non-profits). In 2014, this tax credit increases to cover 50 percent of their cost [[35 percent for non-profits). Exchanges will also give small businesses the same purchasing power as large businesses

This is a market based plan, thats why some of us on the left don't like it.

Besides letting people go to ER without insurance in this present system is truly what I call breaking the back of the working class who will pay the cost.

[Wheels]

Where did you get that from ? What government funded programs are you talking about ?


Look, you have two groups of people. The first group that has insurance most likely from there place of employment there will be no change. They keep what they have.

The second group with no insurance this is what happens :

Beginning in 2014, Americans without health insurance will be able to buy health coverage through state-based marketplaces called exchanges. The idea behind exchanges is to increase competition among insurers in a state and let residents compare and shop for affordable health plans. Those who can’t afford insurance may receive tax credits to help them purchase insurance if they buy it through an exchange. All health insurance plans offered through exchanges must offer essential health benefits.
Small employers will also be able to shop for and buy health coverage through exchanges. Small businesses with fewer than 25 employees may also be able to get tax credits to help offset the cost of providing health insurance to their employees. Right now, some small businesses qualify for tax credits that cover up to 35 percent of their cost [[25 percent for non-profits). In 2014, this tax credit increases to cover 50 percent of their cost [[35 percent for non-profits). Exchanges will also give small businesses the same purchasing power as large businesses

This is a market based plan, thats why some of us on the left don't like it.

Besides letting people go to ER without insurance in this present system is truly what I call breaking the back of the working class who will pay the cost.

Tax credit tax credit tax credit. Who do you think is going to pay for these tax credits?


No chance to the people who currently have insurance? Do you really believe that? I have a bridge I can sell you.