Thread: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

Originally Posted by ObamacareFail

Agreed. Even if not outright repealed, Obamacare will eventually wither and die under it's own weight. At some point, after numerous future rate increases for those not on subsidies, Americans will revolt and say: "Enough is enough."

Am I mistaken or do not the more series levies etc. kick in after Obama leaves?

You see, can kicking governments forget the negative legacy may backfire, in this case as the dues, as they say, come due, there will be pressure for change. This is the first chance since "You can keep your plan" for Americans to make their wishes known to a presidential candidate. If Obamacare does NOT become a major issue in this run, the Republicans do not deserve to be a political party.

In the meantime, were I a GOP candidate I would be talking about "reforming" it in "fairness" from the core out, as opposed to repealing it, as "the way it was has now become unacceptable". They will have to have a well defined and well thought out alternative.

Originally Posted by ObamacareFail

Actually I think within the next few years, obamacare will become a very hot potato that even the majority of democrats want to get rid of. Even some of them now accept that it is a 900 lb gorilla on their backs. The American middle class that does not qualify for the subsidies are not going to accept too many more 34 to 70% rate hikes. Despite the insane Supreme Court ruling....I think obamacare's days are numbered.

I agree it will continue to be a hot potato, but rather than have the ACA rescinded and going back, it will be replaced or parts amended so that you move closer, not further away, to a single payer system. Your Supreme Court, in its two political rulings that ignored the constitution, has set in stone that you will not go back. And if a Republican wins the White House in 2016, which I hope happens, Republicans will own the problem.

Originally Posted by Fearandloathing

You are the first American in 20 years who has shown a true understanding of what it is. Kudos to you, you have done some homework. I would say any figure between 25 and 30% would be accurate in terms of initial outright savings. However, thew next step is to reduce the profit aspect in the delivery end, community owned, not for profit hospitals.

Having said that, we have a giant problem there with the type of funding, but its a side issue.

Now, you combine all the programs, bam, bye bye a whole lot of unnecessary bureaucracy.

What I have never understood is that the US more or less invented the public school system, community owned schools on a universal not for profit footing. But, you refuse to see the same benefits for something as important as health care.

As strange as this may sound, I believe Canada's "nice" reputation is in part due to our health care, our lower crime rate, indeed our community oriented culture our growing unity as a nation, all have been bolstered by health care.

Thanks for the compliment.

But in all fairness, I must admit my paternal grandfather emigrated from Calgary, I have relatives from Hull to Vancouver, and I spent chunks of my youth visiting them & ski-bumming across the country. If I were to retire expat, I'd very much consider Montreal or Quebec City (I love both).

The profit side of healthcare (incl insurance companies) speaks directly to the need for cost containment. And this then brings-up the much larger issue of how do we perceive healthcare on the spectrum from 'basic human right' to 'profiteering commodity' . There's a lot of lee-way between those two polar opposites, and unfortunately those that profit from healthcare have the most influence over those that regulate it and make those decisions for us as a society.

I particularly see the GOP attempting to roll-back government & institutions that bring us together or provide safety for us in the name of individualism & free-market capitalism, with the opposition to universal healthcare reflective of this. I believe they represent monied and corporate interests that are often at odds with our societal good.

In your last paragraph you speak of the more cooperative benevolent nature of Canadians, and attribute this in-part to universal healthcare, and I believe you are correct - though I believe the cause-effect axis is bilateral in this case. I see your universal healthcare & our respective lack of it as a societal/political result of the current political system and it's flaws. Worse yet, I see downward forces exerted from the political parties & their politician members to the citizenry, spreading disinformation and stoking the flames of anger & hatred - this is how we end-up with significant segments of our citizenry believing universal healthcare requires 'death panels', and 'Canadians are fleeing their country for American healthcare'. Indeed, 1/3 of the citizens that identify as Republicans believe President Obama was not born here, is not a citizen, and therefore is illegitimate - I find it hard to believe all these citizens came up with this idea independently. There is good reason why Canadian broadcast regulations allow 'Fox Entertainment' but not 'Fox News', and there is also good reason why Canadians have maintained their version of the 'Fairness Doctrine', rather than embrace the American 'right to lie' provision. This special interest/political party induced disinformation is (IMO) further dividing the citizenry, turning Americans against each other. And it works to the advantage of those that profit from an incohesive society.

In short, we have money at the top influencing our legislators where they thereby provide disinformation through a cooperative media in order to satisfy the special interests that finance their campaigns for them to remain monied & in power. It is the dark-side of the otherwise excellent system of free-market capitalism, and could be easily prevented with some basic financial regulation (Britain has excellent political regs, IMO) - unfortunately those that benefit from the lack-of regulation are the one's entrusted to provide them.

And this is how the most affluent country in the free-world fails to provide healthcare commensurate with her peer nations! (or even some of those below peer!)

Worse Than the Supremes: Obamacare Economics - Larry Kudlow, IBD

The judicial decision to uphold all of the president's health care subsidies may be very disappointing, but the economics of Obamacare are far worse than whatever constitutional mistakes have been committed by the Supreme Court.
The economics of Obamacare are very bad. The law is inflicting broad damage on job creation and new business formation. It ruins job incentives by making it pay more not to work, thereby intensifying a labor shortage that is holding back growth and in turn lowering incomes and spending.
And across-the-board Obamacare tax increases are inflicting heavy punishment on investment -- right when the U.S. economy desperately needs more capital as a way of solving a steep productivity decline.
Because of Obamacare, there's an additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on salaries and self-employment income, a 3.8 percent tax increase on capital gains and dividends, a cap on health care flexible spending accounts, a higher threshold for itemized medical expense deductions, and a stiff penalty on employer reimbursements for individual employee health policy premiums.
Each of these tax hikes is anti-growth and anti-job. . . .

Originally Posted by ludin

no one for this has shown me where the SCOTUS has the authority or the IRS for that matter to re-write the law.
which is what they did. that is unconstitutional. they do not have the ability to re-write a law or change the wording of a law yet they did it anyway.

there is a political will we are just going to have to wait till 2016 when Obama is gone in order to do it.

The SC decides final interpretation ludin, and they evaluate legislation in legal terms, not linguistic.

There's more to law, than specific phrases - there's context.

With all respects, and no specific prejudice to yourself, I'll trust the legal judgement of the Justices of the Court, before that an individual on the internet - though I'm happy for the discussion. But if we don't respect the Court, who do we respect?

I do agree the legislation can be re-written (within constitutional authority) if the political will is there (specifically, a GOP President & 60 count filibuster-proof Senate).