Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seeker1961 said:
Yeah…next thing you know they’ll require us to buy broccoli.

The government has had this kind of power for a long time, we GAVE it to them. People tried to warn us, but nobody wanted to hear it because they liked the party in power then. The problem is, once you give it to the people you like, you open up the door for people you don’t like to use that same power.
Click to expand...
BINGO!!! (One of the reasons I was one of the few conservatives in my circle who did not like the Patriot Act from the beginning).
 
jay29 said:
Republicans need to hammer home that this is the biggest tax hike in US history and Obama lied to us. The Supreme Court was all unnecessary because it was a tax and government can tax at it’s will.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Hammer that it will raise taxes.
 
jay29 said:
Republicans need to hammer home that this is the **biggest tax hike in US history **and Obama lied to us. The Supreme Court was all unnecessary because it was a tax and government can tax at it’s will.
Click to expand...
This is the key. Obama is a 1 termer.🙂
 
Seeker1961 said:
Yeah…next thing you know they’ll require us to buy broccoli.

The government has had this kind of power for a long time, we GAVE it to them. People tried to warn us, but nobody wanted to hear it because they liked the party in power then. The problem is, once you give it to the people you like, you open up the door for people you don’t like to use that same power.
Click to expand...
This is the most troubling aspect of this. The enumerated powers of the US Constitution, already on life support, died today and with it any semblance of limited government. Taxation is the new commerce clause. There is virtually nothing, incuding requiring us to eat brocolli, that cannot now be imposed by federal law simply by calling the penalties a tax.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Poll done this month by Ipsos-Reid, for Reuters says Independents are opposed to the mandate 73%

reuters.com/article/2012/06/24/us-usa-campaign-healthcare-idUSBRE85N01M20120624
Click to expand...
Given the chart I just saw in the NYT (link is on their home page, next to today’s story about the ruling), this law overwhelmingly benefits very poor people, in that the huge proportional shift from Uninsured to Insured will occur in the Medicaid segment. Medicaid coverage, as I read it (open to correction!) will be 133% of the federal poverty level. That breaks down (2012 figures) as follows:

Family Size 1 Individual = $14,856
2 individuals = 20,123
3 individuals = 25,390
4 … = 30,657
5 … = 35,923
6 … = 41,190

Raise your hand if you think this represents “the middle class.” In my region, these income levels equate to homelessness.

The rest of the NYT chart showed > numbers of middle class now being covered. It’s a token amount, particularly compared to the benefit for the above group. In the middle is the benefit to Exchanges. Indirectly, that could affect premiums in that it would introduce competition, albeit from gov’t sources (States). So that could have an eventual favorable benefit to the middle class who buys traditional insurance, but I question how immediate & how far-reaching that will be.

Correct if if I’m wrong: I thought that one of the central points of this ACA measure was to provide more affordable coverage options for the full-time working middle class, large numbers of which forego coverage currently because they cannot afford the $400+ premiums for individuals – never mind astronomical premiums for whole families. It was not my impression that very few middle class working families are currently not insured, whereas the bulk of the uninsured is overwhelmingly those in the statistical poverty level.
 
St_Francis said:
The health care system in this country really did need changing, and still does. Absolutely.

What these people are “for” is that they will be able to keep their children on til they are 26 *with no increase in cost, *which will not happen. There *will *be an increase…

Second, immediate coverage for pre-existing conditions will raise insurance premiums a lot. Moreover, people who don’t have insurance will be able to wait and pay the penalty tax, and then get immediate coverage… huge problem. People’s policy costs will skyrocket each year…
Click to expand...
Not if more people are in the system. Part of the reason this ruling came down the way it did was because the insurance companies are going to bring in MORE money this way. Now, if the plan had a public option like it was first proposed I could see that, but the math doesn’t work with more money actually being added in. Part of the concern for the market was that the mandate would be struck down and those people and their premiums would not be added to the insurance rolls.
 
Ridgerunner said:
What an ironic situation!

If, as a Catholic employer, you refuse to provide the mandated contraceptive/abortifacient coverage, you get fined, uh, “taxed”.

What do they call that in Islam? “Jizrah”; the special tax paid by “infidels”? I guess a whole lot of us are “infidels” now, from the perspective of the Obama religion of death.
Click to expand...
Confused, you do not have the option to refuse health insurance to your employees without a tax?
 
Rubio: IRS to ‘come after’ uninsured
Sen. Marco Rubio said Thursday that the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold President Barack Obama’s health care law means that the IRS will now “come after” Americans.
Click to expand...
“I hope people back home fully understand what this means, and here’s what this means: It is now unlawful for you not to buy health insurance, and if you do not buy it, you have an IRS problem,” the Florida Republican said on Fox News. “If you do not buy health insurance, the IRS is going to be on your back and chasing you. They’re going to take away your refund, they’re going to increase your fees, they’re going to come after you.”
Click to expand...
Rubio argued that millions of Americans will face being “out of compliance” with the IRS for not having health insurance coverage.
Click to expand...
“Somehow the Obama administration thinks that’s a victory,” he said. “That’s everything you need to know about that administration.”
Click to expand...
politico.com/news/stories/0612/77946.html#ixzz1z6abGw3e

Health care decision: House GOP to renew repeal effort

politico.com/news/stories/0612/77939.html
 
Ridgerunner said:
What an ironic situation!

If, as a Catholic employer, you refuse to provide the mandated contraceptive/abortifacient coverage, you get fined, uh, “taxed”.

What do they call that in Islam? “Jizrah”; the special tax paid by “infidels”? I guess a whole lot of us are “infidels” now, from the perspective of the Obama religion of death.
Click to expand...
Keen insight.
 
jay29 said:
Republicans need to hammer home that this is the biggest tax hike in US history and Obama lied to us. The Supreme Court was all unnecessary because it was a tax and government can tax at it’s will.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t passed as a tax. The POTUS said it wasn’t a tax. Is there a possibility the whole thing will have to go back before Congress and another vote taken? This time vote on it as a tax? Now that the sun is on it, what congressman in his right mind will be willing to give the American people the biggest tax hike in history.

Also Nancy P. said we don’t know what’s in it until it is passed. Well, now we know, IT’S A TAX.

Obama has been excellent in setting us up against each other in a fight between the haves and have-nots. The idea that it is the biggest tax in history will mean nothing to those who want a free lunch at the expense of those they envy. When the haves are gone, all will wonder what happened to the free lunch.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Given the chart I just saw in the NYT (link is on their home page, next to today’s story about the ruling), this law overwhelmingly benefits very poor people, in that the huge proportional shift from Uninsured to Insured will occur in the Medicaid segment. Medicaid coverage, as I read it (open to correction!) will be 133% of the federal poverty level. That breaks down (2012 figures) as follows:

Family Size 1 Individual = $14,856
2 individuals = 20,123
3 individuals = 25,390
4 … = 30,657
5 … = 35,923
6 … = 41,190

Raise your hand if you think this represents “the middle class.” In my region, these income levels equate to homelessness.

The rest of the NYT chart showed > numbers of middle class now being covered. It’s a token amount, particularly compared to the benefit for the above group. In the middle is the benefit to Exchanges. Indirectly, that could affect premiums in that it would introduce competition, albeit from gov’t sources (States). So that could have an eventual favorable benefit to the middle class who buys traditional insurance, but I question how immediate & how far-reaching that will be.

Correct if if I’m wrong: I thought that one of the central points of this ACA measure was to provide more affordable coverage options for the full-time working middle class, large numbers of which forego coverage currently because they cannot afford the $400+ premiums for individuals – never mind astronomical premiums for whole families. It was not my impression that very few middle class working families are currently not insured, whereas the bulk of the uninsured is overwhelmingly those in the statistical poverty level.
Click to expand...
The poor will not be able to afford the premiums of ObamaCare, they will get in to the debt or become bankrupt.
 
SeekNFind said:
Yes, so many people treat the ER like their doctor’s office. It is such a burden on the system. Hopefully this is a step towards a more equitable health care system for everyone.
Click to expand...
Equitable? All I can sayis:RATIONING…coming soon to a neighboorhood near you!:eek::eek::eek:
 
jay29 said:
I’m afraid most ignorant Catholics will still vote for Obama. They somehow sugar coat the abortion issue.
Click to expand...
Thank God there aren’t many of those 😃

Seriously, I believe he is currently losing the Catholic vote. And Catholics have voted for the winner in every race since 1960, IIRC
 
He_Man said:
For all the whining about the politicization of the court, does the left wing of the Court EVER break ranks on major decisions like this? Kennedy, Roberts, and Day O’Connor have many times.
Click to expand...
No the left always gets its way and the right is always selling out. That is why I’ve given up on politics and voting. The Republican party sells itself as useful because the SCOTUS will reign in liberal politics. In fact it was a Republican court that invented a right of abortion. History is Republican nominees have never stood in the way of the expansion of the state. This current court is 5-4 Republican appointees. A Republican court said the government can force you to buy health insurance.

The only way to stop the evil that is the US government is to withdraw consent which simply means ignoring these people who claim to have power over us. Why anyone would pay attention to the lunatics who happen to have seats on this court I dont know.
masondoggy said:
I can only hope that this will increase support for Romney. This mandate is NOT popular with voters.
Click to expand...
Hard to see how it could since Romney believes in mandates and signed it into law in his state. Romney’s campaign speeches make a claim that is at odds with his very recent past.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top