• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758, 1205]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Sure ... uh-huh. :roll:

you missed the 15k new IRS agents authorized by Obamacare, right?

Cova yo head, yo.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

OK, let's have some fun.

By denying those 40,000,000 insurance, you want them to struggle/suffer [struffle] and/or die?

You don't need to be so sympathetical, NP.

Are you okay with the government Death Panels that come with this health care takeover?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Roberts really came out of left field, didn't he? I'm wondering if there isn't more to that decision than meets the eye. We'll see.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

as opposed to...?

You should send your money to Republicans running for Congress, but not Mitt "RomneyCare" Romney.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Ya know, it's funny ... that's the exact same thing righties said to me years ago when I asked, "where are the WMD?"

... I'm still waiting for that too.


Syrian mountains. You're welcome
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Roberts really came out of left field, didn't he? I'm wondering if there isn't more to that decision than meets the eye. We'll see.

Does it make it easier to repeal if it is a tax, rather than under the commerce clause?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

It showed how much I would have to pay for health insurance which is less than I'm paying now. Does that mean Obama cut taxes?

what are you talking about?.... you haven't shown anything.

you stated that obamacare was going to be paid for by "savings'... and now you are saying something about something showing you will pay less for a plan .

how can you compare plan costs?.... show us the plans and their costs that you used to compare to your plan... if you can.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

I feel ill. How the **** can Roberts go along with this BS?

Looks like its another case of a liberal activist judge throwing aside the Constitution and deciding law based on polit...

Wait a minute...

Roberts?!?

Hahaha, George. You screwed the Republican pooch on this one.
 
Today is Dependence Day.

The supreme court has undone the Constitution in one decision. So we have to fight this every single day. Every day we need to strip away some portion of the Obama Health Care Taxes. Every day. Every single thing that occurs between now and the election must go toward the destruction of the democrats and their evil law.

Drama Queen much?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Are you okay with the government Death Panels that come with this health care takeover?

Syrian mountains. You're welcome

I believe something could be said here about not accepting reality as an answer . . . . . .
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Jan. 1st, 2013 the tax increase on the rich takes effect.... 2 tax increases actually... both medicare surtaxes.
a 3.8% increase on investment income.. and a .9% increase on earned income.

google it if you think i'm full of it.
I already acknowledged it would be paid for in large part by individuals making over $200K and joint filers making over 250K.

Oh ... and those income levels are NET.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

you missed the 15k new IRS agents authorized by Obamacare, right?

Cova yo head, yo.

Ummm ... so far, you have failed miserably proving my taxes are going up.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Are you okay with the government Death Panels that come with this health care takeover?
More rightie lies. :roll:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Syrian mountains. You're welcome

You're saying Bush invaded the wrong country????

:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

You should send your money to Republicans running for Congress, but not Mitt "RomneyCare" Romney.

One thing about Romeny is...he ain't stupid. He represents those that pay him. If they want it, they get it....if they don't they don't. Obama thinks he knows better than you or I, so he gives us what's good for us....whether we know it or not.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

More rightie lies. :roll:


Is that so?....

The individual mandate isn’t Obamacare’s only unconstitutional provision, or even its most unconstitutional provision. That distinction belongs to the Independent Payment Advisory Board. A heretofore unreported feature of this super-legislature makes it even more authoritarian and dangerous than anyone knew.

IPAB consists of up to 15 unelected government “experts.” Its stated purpose is to restrain Medicare spending. If projected spending exceeds certain targets, Obamacare requires IPAB to issue “legislative proposals” to reduce future spending. Those proposals could include drastic cuts that jeopardize seniors’ access to care, leading some critics to label IPAB a “death panel.”

But the really dangerous part is that these are not mere “proposals.” Obamacare requires the secretary of Health and Human Services to implement them — which means they become law automatically — unless Congress takes certain steps to head them off. Congress may replace the Board’s proposal with its own cuts, at least initially. But Obamacare requires a three-fifths vote in the Senate to pass any replacement that spends more than the Board’s proposal. In other words, to override IPAB’s proposal completely, opponents must assemble a simple majority in the House and a three-fifths majority in the Senate and the president’s signature.

Advertisement

That makes IPAB more than an advisory board. It’s a super-legislature whose members are more powerful than members of Congress. If eight members of Congress propose a bill, all that’s necessary to block it is a majority of either chamber, or one-third of either chamber plus the president.
Worse, Obamacare forbids Congress to repeal IPAB outside of a brief window in the year 2017 — and even then requires a three-fifths supermajority in both chambers plus a presidential signature. Under Obamacare, after 2017 Congress could repeal Medicare, but not the board it created to run Medicare. Congress and the states could repeal the Bill of Rights — but not IPAB.

IPAB, Obamacare

Still lyin' I see.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Ummm ... so far, you have failed miserably proving my taxes are going up.

How can I prove it until they do? That won't happen until the next cycle, and even worse the one after that. But you go ahead and pretend it ain't gonna happen.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

More rightie lies. :roll:

Rightie lies. That's funny.


Obamacare survived the SCOTUS because of congress' right to tax....but it still ain't a tax, eh?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

I already acknowledged it would be paid for in large part by individuals making over $200K and joint filers making over 250K.

Oh ... and those income levels are NET.

Dude, really? The only people paying the tax are those that can't afford healthcare premiums. That ain't folks making over 200k a year.

Listen to your own rhetoric.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

So, upholding the individual mandate under Congress' right to impose a tax doesn't make the individual mandate a tax? Dude, really....are you that desperate? And here I though you a thinker....

btw...that article was in May...previous to SCOTUS' decision.

Straw men arguments are not good arguments, Hint: I never claimed it was not a tax.

So you are saying the SCOTUS ruling added taxes? Funny, I was unaware of that. The article did mention the penalty and the amount.
 
No. Not much. You keep your head in the sand much?

The supreme court has undone the Constitution in one decision. So we have to fight this every single day. Every day we need to strip away some portion of the Obama Health Care Taxes. Every day. Every single thing that occurs between now and the election must go toward the destruction of the democrats and their evil law.


Can you see it now?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

and he'll continue to fail, unless he has knowledge of your personal finances.


Levels of income don't matter to Obamacare...

ObamaCARE is now officially known as ObamaTAX. Everyone’s taxes will go up now thanks to the SCOTUS holding up ObamaCARE, and deeming the mandate a tax. If you earn $10,000 per year or $200,000 your taxes are going up in at least 12 different ways.
At least seven of these taxes directly affect health consumers regardless of income, such as the individual mandate to buy insurance, the employer mandate, the tanning tax, and limits and penalties on health savings accounts. In addition, Republicans argue that the tax impact of the law should include indirect taxes, such as the annual taxes on the health care sector that will be passed on to consumers.

Generally, a single person making $30,000 or more will have to pay a 2.5 percent penalty if they do not carry health insurance. A person making less than $30,000 will have to pay $695. This penalty/tax is found in Section 1501 of the bill for “requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage.

The government will also mandate that employers provide health insurance for their employees. This mandate would include small businesses with revenues below $250,000 per year. If the employer does not provide health insurance, the business will have to pay a tax of $750 for each full-time employee. For the employer who requires a waiting period of 30-to-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee and $600 per employee if the business takes longer than 60 days to comply. This is found in Section 1513 of the bill for “shared responsibility for employers.”

Under the new law, Americans would not be able to use pre-tax dollars from health savings accounts (HSA), flexible spending accounts (FSA), or health reimbursements accounts (HRA) to buy over-the-counter non-prescription medicines. This measure takes effect in 2011 and is supposed to bring in $5 billion dollars. This is found in Section 9003 of the law, under “Distributions for medicine qualified only if for prescribed drug or insulin.”

Further, the law increases the tax from 10 percent to 20 percent for non-medical early withdrawals from a health savings account for those under the age of 65. This measure takes effect in 2011 and is estimated to increase revenues by $1.3 billion. This is under Section 9004, “Increase in additional tax on distributions from HSAs and Archer MSAs not used for qualified medical expenses.”

The law also imposes a 40-percent tax on high-cost insurance plans reaching $10,200, but exempts union members unless the cost of their plan reaches $27,500. This is called the “Cadillac tax.” This tax is actually on the insurer. This goes into effect in 2018 and is estimated to raise $32 billion in revenue.

There is also a tax on insured and self-insured health plans for a patient-centered outcomes research trust fund. Boustany called this a slush fund for the Department of Health and Human Services to dole out grants.

At least 12 new taxes in ObamaCARE for people earning under $200,000 PER YEAR : Fire Andrea Mitchell!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom