• 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]

Even then, now all politicians have to do is declare something a tax. Even *if* the intentions were to uphold the commerce clause dumb **** Roberts just green lighted a back door.


This is a real scary part to this whole bill being found constitutional. What's next?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Yes, and it is going broke. Good plan, let's all do that! See, the problem is that libs never seem to learn that what they want doesn't work, they just keep doing more of it.

But if you bring them all under the umbrella of obamacare...and kill medicaid it would save us all money...

Im playing devils advocate...the right wants to make this out to be the end of the country as we know it...and the left wants to make it out to be the savior of the country and I beliee the truth is right smack in the middle...ITS NOW THE LAW OF THE LAND lets all try to work it out to make it the best it can be...crying whining threatening isnt going to change a thing
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

What if your state doesn't participate?

Then you'll be eligible for a subsidy on the health insurance exchange when it takes effect.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

The blasé attitude about denying procedures needed for a decent quality of life to seniors is one of the things that scares me most about universal health care (and yes, I know that Obamacare is not UHC).

And yet you're perfectly happy denying procedures needed for a decent quality of life to people who can't afford health insurance. Can we please drop the pretense that conservatives are standing up for the little guy by opposing health care for all? :roll:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

I'm still screwed....

The $5,950 out-of-pocket maximum is for someone earning more than 400% of the poverty line. It's considerably less than that for someone with your income; you can get an overview of the subsidies, premiums, and out-of-pocket costs here.

At your income (if you have 4 people in your family), you'll be right on the cusp of getting free Medicaid and getting a large subsidy on the health exchange. If you do end up on the health exchange, your family's premiums will be capped at 3-4% of your family's income, and your out-of-pocket maximum will be $1,983.

You don't need to worry about Obama imposing some extra tax on you; it's designed to go after free-riders who can afford health insurance but choose not to get it. If for some reason you still aren't able to afford health insurance even with the subsidies, you can at least get a financial hardship exemption from the mandate and you won't be any worse off.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

makes me suspicious that he started with his result and worked backwards. Krauthammer has an interesting piece on this.

There's some pretty strong circumstantial evidence that Roberts originally sided with the conservatives, and Ginsburg's concurring opinion was originally the main dissent. If you read over Scalia's dissent in this case, it makes several references to "the dissent" (i.e. Ginsburg's concurring opinion) and uses the pronoun "we" (which is highly unusual for a dissent). It sure sounds like Scalia's opinion may have initially been the majority opinion, but Roberts changed his mind.

But I agree with Krauthammer that John Roberts views himself as the custodian of the court's reputation, in a way that most of the associate justices do not.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Wow! Another benefit for the elderly in the HC bill! If grandma falls and breaks her hip, not only is she now made to pay more for Medicare, but she'll be taxed on the "New Hip Replacement Device". Boy oh boy, can this get any better for the elderly?

I think I'm gonna invest in cat food because granny's gonna need to pay for that new tax on her hip implant and eat more cat food.
 
And it is semantics in the end. It can also be called a "fee".. Texas has no taxes after all.. just lots of "fees"... this is no different.

Texas has no income tax. It does have property and sales taxes.

It's not semantics. It's a new tax that the Obama administration promised it was not levying.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Are you aware that medicaid pays for and covers and COSTS far more than obamacare ever would....medicad pays for top of the line hearing aids 6,000 no private health insurers pay for hearing aids except military hospitals and clinics. They pay for full eyeglass' and dental care no other health insurance provides that except veteran care.
If obamacare trashs medicaid eventually it will be a huge savings...there is alot of waste and fraud in medicaid and medicare..medicare does not cover nearly as much as medicaid and theres copays and deductibles that medicaid does not share

Except that Obamacare doesn't take money out of Medicare/Medicaid by reducing Fraud - but rather through the (itself sort of fraudulent) claim that they will fail to pass the "doc fix" and that Medicare will then give up over $500 Billion along with also spending it.

Then it puts in place the IPAB to hold costs down through.... well they don't say explicitly. Apparently magic. Though, oddly, they are given the power to ration care, and their decisions are made effectively non-reversible by the Congress.... :confused: huh. Odd that. You'd almost think they are preparing to screw somebody over....
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Wow! Another benefit for the elderly in the HC bill! If grandma falls and breaks her hip, not only is she now made to pay more for Medicare, but she'll be taxed on the "New Hip Replacement Device". Boy oh boy, can this get any better for the elderly?

I think I'm gonna invest in cat food because granny's gonna need to pay for that new tax on her hip implant and eat more cat food.

Pay more for Medicare? Taxed for a hip replacement? Example #2,078,622 of someone criticizing the ACA without even understanding what's in it. There are no such provisions in the ACA.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Except that Obamacare doesn't take money out of Medicare/Medicaid by reducing Fraud - but rather through the (itself sort of fraudulent) claim that they will fail to pass the "doc fix" and that Medicare will then give up over $500 Billion along with also spending it.

This is false. The "doc fix" is an unfortunate preexisting condition of our political system; the ACA merely punts on it.

Then it puts in place the IPAB to hold costs down through.... well they don't say explicitly. Apparently magic. Though, oddly, they are given the power to ration care, and their decisions are made effectively non-reversible by the Congress.... :confused: huh. Odd that. You'd almost think they are preparing to screw somebody over....

If by "screwing somebody over," you mean "evaluating the effectiveness of various medical procedures and stop wasting billions of dollars on procedures that have no effect or little effect," then you would be correct. Conservatives sure are remarkably fond of wasting money in our health care system. Isn't conservatism about fiscal responsibility?
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Pay more for Medicare? Taxed for a hip replacement? Example #2,078,622 of someone criticizing the ACA without even understanding what's in it. There are no such provisions in the ACA.

The CBO scored a minimum of 510b over 10 years in revenue through taxes. The end user is going to pay that tax one way or another.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

The CBO scored a minimum of 510b over 10 years in revenue through taxes. The end user is going to pay that tax one way or another.

And this is relevant to what I said...how?
 
Texas has no income tax. It does have property and sales taxes.

It's not semantics. It's a new tax that the Obama administration promised it was not levying.

until Obama raises marginal FIT rates on the middle-class, he has kept his word.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Let me give you another side to the coin ok...Cosmetologists notoriously work or worked under the irs radar...much of what they made was cash tips...very little of their actual income was taxed. Same for waitress waitress and bartenders....most of them do not pay for their own health insurance and many can afford it...WE PAY when they go to the emergency room.
My wife had a long time manager a single gay woman...never married...who made around 80-100k a year and would not buy health insurance and every time she got sick she got around paying...she broke her leg skiiing and didnt pay a dime...theres two sides to every coin CP...there are financially secure people sucking off our teat its not just the "UNSUCCESSFUL or the poor...theres a whole swoop of people that can easily afford healthcare and refuse to pay for it...they think they should have it free.

So to make those people start "paying for their share" what do you do? Support a policy which will screw those that can't afford insurance. GOOD JOB! :2wave: :roll:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

But if you bring them all under the umbrella of obamacare...and kill medicaid it would save us all money...

Im playing devils advocate...the right wants to make this out to be the end of the country as we know it...and the left wants to make it out to be the savior of the country and I beliee the truth is right smack in the middle...ITS NOW THE LAW OF THE LAND lets all try to work it out to make it the best it can be...crying whining threatening isnt going to change a thing

Slavery was once the Law of the Land also. Along with many other things that never should have been. Yet they were gotten rid of. Now we have another POS piece of legislation to get rid of. Just how do you think we're going to achieve this if we don't cry out against it? Sorry Lpast but I WILL NOT shut up about this and just "make it the best it can be". Because the best it can be is still crap.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

So to make those people start "paying for their share" what do you do? Support a policy which will screw those that can't afford insurance. GOOD JOB! :2wave: :roll:

There are no such policies in the ACA that will "screw over those who can't afford insurance." You'll either get free Medicaid, or a subsidized policy on the health exchanges, or in the worst case scenario you'll get a financial hardship exemption from the mandate. And the fact that you continue this canard after I've already specifically addressed these concerns makes me suspect that you aren't merely misinformed about the contents of the law (like most people are), but are being willfully deceitful.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

The $5,950 out-of-pocket maximum is for someone earning more than 400% of the poverty line. It's considerably less than that for someone with your income; you can get an overview of the subsidies, premiums, and out-of-pocket costs here.

At your income (if you have 4 people in your family), you'll be right on the cusp of getting free Medicaid and getting a large subsidy on the health exchange. If you do end up on the health exchange, your family's premiums will be capped at 3-4% of your family's income, and your out-of-pocket maximum will be $1,983.

You don't need to worry about Obama imposing some extra tax on you; it's designed to go after free-riders who can afford health insurance but choose not to get it. If for some reason you still aren't able to afford health insurance even with the subsidies, you can at least get a financial hardship exemption from the mandate and you won't be any worse off.

This may be...we'll see. But it still does not change the fact that this POS legislation has set a precedent for Congress to enact any ole' law that they want all in the name of "health care" or hell...more than likely some other supposedly "good" reason.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions....ever hear that saying before? Well...you and those that want this POS legislation have just laid the foundation to hell.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

I wonder how many people felt the same way about Social Security and Medicare when they were passed by Democrats. Now they have become a ingrained part of our society, championed by both sides(up until recently at least). What makes you believe the HC bill is any different? How much do you want to bet that 10 or 15 years from now there is similar agreement that we are better off because of the reform?

As bitter and sad as you sound, take solace in the fact that there are many more that are relieved and content with the decision. We are not at war with each other but we won't let you stand in our way forever.

From a 2010 WAPO article

...numbers from 1962 on President John F. Kennedy’s proposal. In July of that year, a Gallup poll found 28% in favor, 24% viewing it unfavorably, and a sizable 33% with no opinion on it — showing an evenly divided public.

A month later, after JFK’s proposal went down, an Opinion Research Corporation poll found 44 percent said it should have been passed, while 37% supported its defeat — also showing an evenly divided public.

Also in that poll, a majority, 54%, said it was a serious problem that “government medical insurance for the aged would be a big step toward socialized medicine.”

Ezra Klein - Was Medicare popular when it passed?

Even the TeePee'ers love their Medicare.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

And this is relevant to what I said...how?

There is a 2.3% medical device excise tax, which is rolled into the cost of the unit.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

This may be...we'll see. But it still does not change the fact that this POS legislation has set a precedent for Congress to enact any ole' law that they want all in the name of "health care" or hell...more than likely some other supposedly "good" reason.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions....ever hear that saying before? Well...you and those that want this POS legislation have just laid the foundation to hell.

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

X Factor said:
Y'know that Medicare denies more claims than any private insurance, right?
Do you know why? Forms that were improperly filled out.

You are against Medicare fraud and the properly insured getting the proper treatment and the proper provider getting the proper payment, right?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

There are no such policies in the ACA that will "screw over those who can't afford insurance." You'll either get free Medicaid, or a subsidized policy on the health exchanges, or in the worst case scenario you'll get a financial hardship exemption from the mandate. And the fact that you continue this canard after I've already specifically addressed these concerns makes me suspect that you aren't merely misinformed about the contents of the law (like most people are), but are being willfully deceitful.

The bill currently has a shortfall of 1.1 trillion over 10 years assuming modest use of the subsidized policies and expanded medicaid(which is now optional). How much is the shortfall going to be if the usage of subsidies doubles?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

This may be...we'll see. But it still does not change the fact that this POS legislation has set a precedent for Congress to enact any ole' law that they want all in the name of "health care" or hell...more than likely some other supposedly "good" reason.

I'm OK with that. :2wave:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions....ever hear that saying before? Well...you and those that want this POS legislation have just laid the foundation to hell.

My responses to you last night were polite, my posts today (after you continue the same tired arguments) will be less so: Maybe next time, you should try learning the actual contents of laws before you decide to fervently oppose them merely because FOX News shrieks about it for 24 hours a day. Try thinking for yourself for a change. And don't tell me that you independently came to this conclusion, because you clearly don't even have a good grasp of what's in the law.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

This may be...we'll see. But it still does not change the fact that this POS legislation has set a precedent for Congress to enact any ole' law that they want all in the name of "health care" or hell...more than likely some other supposedly "good" reason.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions....ever hear that saying before? Well...you and those that want this POS legislation have just laid the foundation to hell.

Medical care is about 1/6th of the total ecomony, so it would follow that its cost, if spread evenly, would be about 1/6th of each person's expenses. The median annual income in the USA is $39,300 for an individual and $44,400 for a household. What many people SAY that they want, is for that cost to be spread "fairly". That would mean that $6550 for an individual or $7400 for a household would be spent on medical care each year. Put into monthly payment terms, that is about $546 for an individual or $617 for a household. The trick is to get that much paid for without actually seaming to require it. You can play with those numbers in many ways, but that is reality as I see it. ObamaCare seeks to use smoke and mirrors to hide the FACT that all current GOV'T medical care programs EXCEED the current national average annual per person cost of $7,400. There is a VERY good reason that ObamaCare was not made "live" during Obama's first term, that reason is its TRUE COST.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom