• 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!

Lawsuit over health care tax could kill ‘Obamacare’

Rocketman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2012
Messages
5,660
Reaction score
1,252
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
“Obamacare” looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system could pull the plug on the sweeping federal health care law.

A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House



Read more: Lawsuit over health care tax could kill 'Obamacare' - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
 
it probably won't be tossed. it should be replaced with universal health care, though. hopefully that's the way we'll go once the PPACA doesn't work.
 
“Obamacare” looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system could pull the plug on the sweeping federal health care law.

A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House



Read more: Lawsuit over health care tax could kill 'Obamacare' - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Did the House version of the ACA have the tax on wheelchairs and walkers?

And if you read the Time Magazine article on the cost of health care and profit margin on wheelchairs and the like, you'll understand why the tax is a good idea.
 
Did the House version of the ACA have the tax on wheelchairs and walkers?

And if you read the Time Magazine article on the cost of health care and profit margin on wheelchairs and the like, you'll understand why the tax is a good idea.

So far it has been nothing but bad with many people figuring out their healthcare will see increases like never before
 
it probably won't be tossed. it should be replaced with universal health care, though. hopefully that's the way we'll go once the PPACA doesn't work.
I agree with this, reluctantly, though I believe it will take at least 10 years to get done, as the gears of our political process grind slowly. All Obamacare will do, IMO, is delay the inevitable.
 
I agree with this, reluctantly, though I believe it will take at least 10 years to get done, as the gears of our political process grind slowly. All Obamacare will do, IMO, is delay the inevitable.

honestly, I'd be surprised if we have anything even resembling UHC in ten years. we couldn't even get a public option put into the Heritage Foundation bill. eventually, though, the middle class is going to tire of bankruptcy over health expenses and a de facto one hundred percent death tax in the form of end of life care for those not "fortunate" enough to die quickly.
 
honestly, I'd be surprised if we have anything even resembling UHC in ten years. we couldn't even get a public option put into the Heritage Foundation bill. eventually, though, the middle class is going to tire of bankruptcy over health expenses and a de facto one hundred percent death tax in the form of end of life care for those not "fortunate" enough to die quickly.
I fear you are correct.
 
it probably won't be tossed. it should be replaced with universal health care, though. hopefully that's the way we'll go once the PPACA doesn't work.

I think we should have single payer health care, and I find it shameful that the president of this country would willingly and knowingly put us in economic turmoil as the path to get there. The Democrats don't want single payer, they like to cater to big business just as much as the Republicans.
 
I think we should have single payer health care, and I find it shameful that the president of this country would willingly and knowingly put us in economic turmoil as the path to get there. The Democrats don't want single payer, they like to cater to big business just as much as the Republicans.

it was a major disappointment. the mistake was made at the outset : the goalpost should have at least been set at medicare for all. if it had been, a public option would have been the final compromise fallback position. instead, the bill was lobbied into near uselessness.

there is a silver lining, though. now that it's in place, it's a stepping stone, and hopefully the path leads to something that will work. however, it's unfortunate that we'll probably have to waste tons of money and another twenty years before we slowly evolve into a sane health care system when we could have just done it all at once.
 
“Obamacare” looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system could pull the plug on the sweeping federal health care law.

A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House



Read more: Lawsuit over health care tax could kill 'Obamacare' - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

What is your problem with the Affordable HeatlhCare Act, and please provide links to back up your facts.
 
I think we should have single payer health care, and I find it shameful that the president of this country would willingly and knowingly put us in economic turmoil as the path to get there. The Democrats don't want single payer, they like to cater to big business just as much as the Republicans.



No, the stumbling blocks by the republicans were formidable. They are lucky to get what they got.
 
No, the stumbling blocks by the republicans were formidable. They are lucky to get what they got.

There were no stumbling blocks by anyone. Single payer was never even proposed, let alone fought for. What we got, no one is lucky for that except the insurance companies.
 
Last edited:
No, the stumbling blocks by the republicans were formidable. They are lucky to get what they got.
I wouldn't wish a filibuster-proof majority on anyone. Hard to get anything done.
 
There were no stumbling blocks by anyone. Single payer was never even proposed, let alone fought for. What we got, no one is lucky for that except the insurance companies.

No stumbling block? Did you forget the Dick Armey bussed in tea baggers and the republicans not attending meetings and walking out? Sure you did.

PolitiFact | Obama statements on single-payer have changed a bit

In other statements, Obama has spoken favorably of single-payer in concept, but always adding qualifiers.

In February 2004, about a month before the primary election in the U.S. Senate race, the Associated Press reported the stance of all the candidates on universal health care. "Obama says he supports the idea of universal health care but does not think a single-payer government system is feasible. He says the government should be the health care provider of last resort for the uninsured." In a rundown of all the candidates' positions, the Associated Press summarized Obama's position as "Support, but 'probably not at this stage,' a single-payer government system."
In his book The Audacity of Hope , published in October 2006 when he was a U.S. senator, Obama described single-payer as the hope of the left, while those on the right wanted a market-based approach. "It's time we broke this impasse by acknowledging a few simple truths," Obama wrote, suggesting a system much like the one he supports today.
In April 2007, a few months after he declared his candidacy for presidency, the Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama has pledged that, if elected, all Americans would have health-care coverage by the end of his first term. He has said he is reluctant to switch to a 'single-payer' national health insurance system because of the difficulty in making a quick transition from the employer-based private system."
At his town halls as president, he routinely answers questions about single-payer by saying he would favor it if he were starting a system "from scratch." But he consistently adds that's not the goal of the current reform. "For us to transition completely from an employer-based system of private insurance to a single-payer system could be hugely disruptive, and my attitude has been that we should be able to find a way to create a uniquely American solution to this problem that controls costs but preserves the innovation that is introduced in part with a free-market system," Obama said in Annandale, Va., on July 1, 2009.


But the video strikes a very different tone from the remarks above.

To find out more about the video, we tracked down some of the people who worked on health care reform with Obama when he was a state senator in Illinois. Dr. Quentin Young said he has followed Obama's career since Obama first decided to run for state senator in 1995; he lives in Obama's Hyde Park neighborhood in Chicago. A longtime activist in health care matters, Young left his medical practice a few years ago to volunteer full time for Physicians for a National Health Program, a Chicago-based advocacy group for single-payer. The group features Obama as part of its Web site.

Young is an ardent supporter for single-payer, he said, because private insurers have an incentive to deprive people of care. "They do what they're supposed to do, which is maximize revenue, so they can pay their investors and their executives. Their profits are breathtaking and obscene" he said. "And you wonder why the health system is so costly."

We need the house and the senate and a majority of the senate with no fillibuster from the republicans.
 
No, the stumbling blocks by the republicans were formidable. They are lucky to get what they got.

The Republicans did not have a say in it. They were not permitted to add amendments to the bill and not allowed to do their own bills or proposals. The Republicans were not able to do any roadblocks beyond minor procedural rules the bill was made by the Democrat Leadership in both houses and by the Medical Tzars in the Whitehouse. The bill was promoted by Nancy Poloci as having "to vote for it to find out what it is." Do not blame the Republicans for any of the Obama Health Care since they did not have nor were allowed to have any hand in it.
 
Did the House version of the ACA have the tax on wheelchairs and walkers?

And if you read the Time Magazine article on the cost of health care and profit margin on wheelchairs and the like, you'll understand why the tax is a good idea.

So a tax that is passed on to people who need durable medical devices is a good thing? I hope you never need one.
 
“Obamacare” looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system could pull the plug on the sweeping federal health care law.

A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House



Read more: Lawsuit over health care tax could kill 'Obamacare' - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

That is quite brilliant, I am surprised that this didn't come up in the original ruling.
 
“Obamacare” looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system could pull the plug on the sweeping federal health care law.

A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House



Read more: Lawsuit over health care tax could kill 'Obamacare' - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

they will loose.

the bill was brought in the house first i believe.
 
No, the stumbling blocks by the republicans were formidable. They are lucky to get what they got.

Actually, the Republicans had very little to do with the creation of Obamacare. No, they didn't provide any stumbling blocks...it was the Democrat's own Party members who provided those. They all wanted to get their little piece of the action for themselves and for their States.

Face it...all the bad **** that's come and is coming due to Obamacare is all the fault of the Democrats. You can't blame the Republicans for this piece of crap.
 
Did the House version of the ACA have the tax on wheelchairs and walkers?

And if you read the Time Magazine article on the cost of health care and profit margin on wheelchairs and the like, you'll understand why the tax is a good idea.

Allow yourself to become a little bit better educated on the issue, and then come back and contribute.

5 Myths in Steven Brill's Opus on Health Costs--Part 1 - Forbes
5 Myths in Steven Brill's "Bitter Pill" -- Part 2 - Forbes
 
So a tax that is passed on to people who need durable medical devices is a good thing? I hope you never need one.

See, here's the problem, you don't even know who is being taxed. I guess Fox News doesn't like to get into the details.

Manufactures and importers of durable medical devices will be paying the 2.3% tax. Why? Because the government found out what an outrageous markup they typically charge their customers. The Times Magazine article broke down the durable medical device manufacturer's profit margin and showed how they should not have to raise their prices at all. Those using the tax as an excuse to raise prices are taking advantage of the sick and elderly who are unwilling participants in the health care market -- meaning no one wakes up and decides to go out and buy a durable medical device. When consumers come into that market, they have little choice but to pay the outrageous markup or suffer. Keep in mind that a lot of these elderly specific products are paid by.... dum-dum-dum... Medicare!! And even at the medicare price, they're still making a profit!!

Before commenting further, I suggest reading the Times piece and get a better understanding of how durable medical device manufacture's and importers make billions and can easily afford a 2.3% tax that will go, in part, to the purchase of their products.
 
Allow yourself to become a little bit better educated on the issue, and then come back and contribute.

5 Myths in Steven Brill's Opus on Health Costs--Part 1 - Forbes
5 Myths in Steven Brill's "Bitter Pill" -- Part 2 - Forbes

Some fair criticisms on the overall tone of the Brill piece and valid points about possible overreaction to the numbers, but NOTHING at all about the 2.3% durable medical device tax.

So, it seems like you wanted to seem like you were making a point/comment about my post, but actually said nothing at all specifically related to my post and the 2.3% tax.

I mean, anyone can google, and find a contrary opinion, but this Forbes article isn't even a debunking, just more context and background with some sources to POSSIBLE different numbers. The Forbe's piece was quite complimentary: Nevertheless, Mr. Brill has done a great public service in bringing this message to the attention of the general public with eye-opening concrete illustrations that left many readers shaking their heads in disbelief. The Forbe's piece serves to give additional perspective on the numbers in the Brill Piece. So, again, it seems like you only posted the links to seem smart, but didn't even bother to read them yourself. How embarrassing!!

And thank you for this: As I concluded in my first post, Mr. Brill has nicely codified much of what is wrong with American health care.

Yes, I agree.
 
“Obamacare” looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system could pull the plug on the sweeping federal health care law.

A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House



Read more: Lawsuit over health care tax could kill 'Obamacare' - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

I will surely be keeping my fingers crossed, but I don't have much expectation that anything can kill that monstrosity.
 
I will surely be keeping my fingers crossed, but I don't have much expectation that anything can kill that monstrosity.

this won't but something will. Next year, 300 million people who don't have standing this year will have standing to sue and I am betting 2 or 3 of them will.
 
Back
Top Bottom