ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Phatscotty]

And the Dow Jones Index and the healthcare sector tanks....

See how great this will be for the economy!

[saxitoxin]

Patches70 raises an interesting point above. (I didn't read the last 100 pages so apologies if this has been mentioned.)

By ruling that Obamacare is a "tax" we have now entered an era where private corporations - multi-national conglomerates like Aetna and UnitedHealth - are now allowed to impose and collect taxes on people.

Also, the court struck down the Medicaid expansion. So anyone who can't afford to pay whatever Aetna, Inc. decides to charge for healthcare will still be without healthcare, now they'll just be fined on top of it.

[Woodruff]

Ok Woodruff. I read that whole post. While reading it I tried to pretend that somebody I actually liked came up with the idea, this is important because I can be bias that way.

I respect that. I try to do the same thing.

10% tax on tanning salons.
Did you know that women who go to tanning salons have a 70% greater chance of getting cancer?

I had heard it was worse. I didn't realize it was that significant.

It's good that I am a naturally swarthy individual.

[Woodruff]

So anyone who can't afford to pay whatever Aetna, Inc. decides to charge for healthcare will still be without healthcare, now they'll just be fined on top of it.

Incorrect.

[Phatscotty]

The Supreme Court did leave the door open for individual states to nullify Obamacare. Something about states rights...

[saxitoxin]

So anyone who can't afford to pay whatever Aetna, Inc. decides to charge for healthcare will still be without healthcare, now they'll just be fined on top of it.

Incorrect.

Correct.

[AndyDufresne]

The Supreme Court did leave the door open for individual states to nullify Obamacare. Something about states rights...

Think that would work though? The Court shot down Montana trying to essentially nullify Citizens United.

=========

So anyone who can't afford to pay whatever Aetna, Inc. decides to charge for healthcare will still be without healthcare, now they'll just be fined on top of it.

Incorrect.

Correct.

--Andy


--Andy

[Phatscotty]

The Supreme Court did leave the door open for individual states to nullify Obamacare. Something about states rights...

Think that would work though? The Court shot down Montana trying to essentially nullify Citizens United.


--Andy

Virginia already did nullify it

[AndyDufresne]

The Supreme Court did leave the door open for individual states to nullify Obamacare. Something about states rights...

Think that would work though? The Court shot down Montana trying to essentially nullify Citizens United.


--Andy

Virginia already did nullify it

It has? http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... aw/?page=7

By The Associated Press
June 28, 2012

...


VIRGINIA

NUMBER OF UNINSURED: Nearly 1.1 million state residents are uninsured, or about 14 percent.

WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Virginia has expressed its intent to create a health care exchange, but Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell has not acted on recommendations made by a gubernatorial advisory council. Virginia filed its own lawsuit challenging the health care law, but lost in federal appeals court.

--Andy

[Neoteny]

OBAMA WINS

FATALITY!!!

Obama: 1
Constertation: 0

[Neoteny]

Wow.

[Phatscotty]

Now that states know what they are dealing with, yes I think many states will try to Nullify Obamacare.

[rockfist]

Yes, liberals couldn't possibly understand nor respect the Constitution. Only conservatives do that.

Still not up on that self-reflecting thing, are you?

Liberals are the ones who believe in a "living document" interpretation of the Constitution and outright reject any "original intent" arguments.

I don't reject "original intent" arguments. However, I also recognize that the founding fathers absolutely wrote the Constitution in a vague manner precisely because they knew it would need to be re-interpreted as the future unfolded.

As an addendum, Obamacare would have NEVER passed if Obama and his democrats had not LIED to the American people.

I'm wondering why you never seem to complain about the Republicans lying. Why is that?

Because he is a died in the wool Republican, which means he drinks the coolaid versus someone like me who only agrees with them 75% of the time or so.

[patches70]

Patches70 raises an interesting point above. (I didn't read the last 100 pages so apologies if this has been mentioned.)

By ruling that Obamacare is a "tax" we have now entered an era where private corporations - multi-national conglomerates like Aetna and UnitedHealth - are now allowed to impose and collect taxes on people.

Also, the court struck down the Medicaid expansion. So anyone who can't afford to pay whatever Aetna, Inc. decides to charge for healthcare will still be without healthcare, now they'll just be fined on top of it.

Could you imagine, being forced to go to a car lot and buy a car. A crappy salesman who knows you have zero choice in the matter, heaps lemon after lemon upon you. After a while you say there is no car here that meets your needs. The salesman says that's ok, reaches into you pants, pulls your wallet and takes your money. "Since you aren't buying, it's a fine" and if you resist you are arrested, if you resist being arrested, you'd be shot by the cops. All because you didn't want to buy a car that didn't meet your needs....

LMAO. That's Obamacare for ya.

So anyone who can't afford to pay whatever Aetna, Inc. decides to charge for healthcare will still be without healthcare, now they'll just be fined on top of it.

Incorrect.

Those who cannot afford to purchase health insurance will be forced to go onto a government insurance plan which is promised to be "affordable". If it's "free" then it certainly will be affordable. However, such a program would become so costly, well, let's just wait and see shall we? It won't take long for that to get quite out of hand. It will be glorious to watch it cave in upon it's own excesses.

It will be interesting to see, companies with 50+ employees must offer insurance or pay a penalty. If the penalty is less than the cost of what the health insurance would have cost the business, then it would make economic sense to just pay the penalty and let your workers either buy insurance on an open market or go on a government plan.

Reports in the media state the there are no companies that are planning to drop their insurance with the caveat of "at this time". Of course, there are some 1,500 companies that applied and received a waiver for being forced to provide said "required" insurance. Of course, this is the same media sources that have continued to lie, obfuscate and mislead everyone about pretty much everything.

Yet another flaw of Obamacare. The individual citizen has no opportunity to apply for a waiver, yet business is. If the all important individual mandate is required, why not so the other parts of the bill?
In the end, we'll all end up on a government plan. I trust it is quite expected that most individuals won't get the same insurance that, say, our politicians have....

Still laughing at the folly of all this.

[GreecePwns]

The courts call it a tax.
Obama insisted that it wasn't a tax. Obama had to say it wasn't a tax, because he promised he wouldn't raise taxes on the "middle class" let alone raise taxes for poor people. Well, guess what, it's official, Obama certainly did raise taxes on everyone, including the so called middle class.



I'm laughing, actually. First, for the conservatives, who through narrow eyes see only sources that agree with their point of view and why this ruling may have come at such a surprise. You see, through media, we all get lied to. Conservative, liberal, Dem or Rep, screens are pulled over our eyes so that we may not see clearly.

I'm laughing at the liberals who embrace with joy this decision. I laugh because they are joyous now, but come later, when the bill comes, there won't be any laughing. I'm laughing because in their effort to "solve" the health care problems, they've just unleashed a whole slew of brand new problems that will require at the very least, a lot more taken from them by government. For your own good of course.

I'm laughing at the Libertarians because they see this for what it really is and still no one else seems to see or care. This is an example of pure government coercion, one of the primary ways that tyranny creeps into society. Right in front of everyone's eyes. "Buy this, or else" and is upheld by the SCOTUS. Hilarious. Resist the "tax" and be jailed. Resist arrest and be shot. It sucks, because after you are shot by government agents you won't have any health insurance because you tried to resist being forced to buy something you wouldn't have needed at that time, save for being shot by government forces that is.

Woodruff is quite correct, without the individual mandate the entire Obamacare is worthless. Like all things though, this will help some but won't help others at all and will instead cause great pains. Such is the business of "solving problems". Such societal problems cannot be simply "solved", only trade offs enacted.
Few can truly see the costs and effects of this latest rounds of trade offs.

We get what we deserve.

Yup. It's not only libertarians seeing this.

[saxitoxin]

Patches70 raises an interesting point above. (I didn't read the last 100 pages so apologies if this has been mentioned.)

By ruling that Obamacare is a "tax" we have now entered an era where private corporations - multi-national conglomerates like Aetna and UnitedHealth - are now allowed to impose and collect taxes on people.

[Phatscotty]

It sounds like the Providers will contact the IRS whenever anyone does not pay their "tax" bill or if it's not on time.

The IRS is enforcing this sucker. I refer peeps to the OP of this thread.

It's win-win-win

oh wait shhhh Emperor Obama is speaking

[Night Strike]

It will be interesting to see, companies with 50+ employees must offer insurance or pay a penalty. If the penalty is less than the cost of what the health insurance would have cost the business, then it would make economic sense to just pay the penalty and let your workers either buy insurance on an open market or go on a government plan.

Or companies that can't afford to provide health insurance will make sure they never have more than 49 employees, which will cause further stagnation in our economy. Speaking of the economy, although this ruling provides more certainty to the business environment, it's not the ruling that businesses will want. It will now be impossible for the economy to improve before the election because the businesses know that the only way to remove this weight from their necks is for a change in the government.

[Neoteny]

Omg this is so awesome. Facebook is quality too.

[AndyDufresne]

It will be interesting to see, companies with 50+ employees must offer insurance or pay a penalty. If the penalty is less than the cost of what the health insurance would have cost the business, then it would make economic sense to just pay the penalty and let your workers either buy insurance on an open market or go on a government plan.

Or companies that can't afford to provide health insurance will make sure they never have more than 49 employees, which will cause further stagnation in our economy. Speaking of the economy, although this ruling provides more certainty to the business environment, it's not the ruling that businesses will want. It will now be impossible for the economy to improve before the election because the businesses know that the only way to remove this weight from their necks is for a change in the government.

Nope.


--Andy

[Night Strike]

(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibility payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the appli-cation of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach, “[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its sub-stance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294. Pp. 33–35. (b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax.

This argument isn't even coherent. He's saying that because the law does not state it is a tax, then the lawsuit can be brought now instead of later (for those who don't know, taxes can't be challenged until the tax is actually paid and direct harm is caused). However, he then states that just because it's not labeled as a tax doesn't mean it's not a tax. He has literally defined tax in two different ways.

Now, not only do we not know what the definition of "is" is, we also apparently don't know what the definition of "tax" is.


EDIT: Wow, reading the Dissent sounds exactly like what myself and most other conservatives have been arguing for a long time. Apparently my views aren't that far from the true intent of the Constitution, Woodruff.

[Phatscotty]

Obama's brilliance comes through yet again. Pass ObamaCare as a mandate and reject that it is a tax, then have it upheld as a tax and not a mandate.

If ObamaCare is such a great thing, why did Obama have to lie about it?

See for yourself

[Phatscotty]

Omg this is so awesome. Facebook is quality too.

I agree about Facebook. Seeing lots of Romney haters donating money to Romney.

[AndyDufresne]

Omg this is so awesome. Facebook is quality too.

I agree about Facebook. Seeing lots of Romney haters donating money to Romney.

I see your flag, and raise you capitalism:




--Andy

[Phatscotty]

Ron Paul reaction

"I strongly disagree with today’s decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.


"Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a 'mandate.' The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don’t. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of “Obamacare” without paying a government tribute.

"Those of us in Congress who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national health care law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens. Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity today by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so."