Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My question is whether Robert’s act earns him the illustrious CAF nomiker “Self-Identified Catholic”, or is this reserved for those who lean left.
 
The chief justice Roberts said that the mandate is a tax to the surprise of the rest of the court, the president(who said it was not a tax)and everyone else. It’s like he just made it up.:eek: Since they upheld the entire mandate does this mean that Catholics will not have the religious freedom to decline selling things that are against their faith?
 
ringil said:
My question is whether Robert’s act earns him the illustrious CAF nomiker “Self-Identified Catholic”, or is this reserved for those who lean left.
Click to expand...
👍 My thumbs up as well to the ruling. And I haven’t read thru 900+ posts but Rachel Maddow tonight explained Robert’s idea of a tax this way. No one is forced to buy gasoline. But if you own a car you likely buy gasolne; And you pay a gasoline tax. Because you’re car causes wear and tear on the roads and it costs to repair. If you don’t purchase health insurance and go to the ER for care, it is costing everyone else to repair you. So you pay the penalty/tax.
 
onmyknees said:
The chief justice Roberts said that the mandate is a tax to the surprise of the rest of the court, the president(who said it was not a tax)and everyone else. It’s like he just made it up.:eek: Since they upheld the entire mandate does this mean that Catholics will not have the religious freedom to decline selling things that are against their faith?
Click to expand...
Roberts didn’t decide that it was a tax on his own. He just happened to be the one who wrote the opinion for the 5 judges who said it was a tax.
 
Dawnia said:
Roberts didn’t decide that it was a tax on his own. He just happened to be the one who wrote the opinion for the 5 judges who said it was a tax.
Click to expand...
Yes, but Dawnia, the other four were *known* enemies of the Constitution as written, and were foolishly confirmed as such. But Roberts knows better, and his intellect is, or was, superior to all of them. I am angriest at him, b/c in the past he has never shown himself to be a friend of a leviathan, intransigent federal leviathan. He is either a weak vessel, was blackmailed, or is losing mental competence. His ruling today was gibberish. As for me, I will never forgive him for his part in crushing individual rights. :mad: Rob
 
Dawnia said:
Roberts didn’t decide that it was a tax on his own. He just happened to be the one who wrote the opinion for the 5 judges who said it was a tax.
Click to expand...
The Cycle | Aired on June 28, 2012
Health care law survives, thanks to Justice Roberts
 
Joe_5859 said:
It looks like it got upheld 6-3, though the Individual Mandate has to be considered a tax on those who don’t buy insurance rather than a fine. 😦
Click to expand...
Joe,

The interesting thing is most of those who dont have insurance cant afford it So why would they slap tax on people just trying to make a living for themselves? I dont know of anyone who just doesnt want insurance. Its usually because they just cant afford it or are between jobs.

A lot of jobs these days make you wait 90 days before they offer you insurance. What will they do penalise you for the days of the year you cant find work? Prorate your tax penality?

I work at a non profit clinic I see it every day
 
JimR-OCDS said:
No it doesn’t.

If you have health insurance, you don’t pay the tax.

And why shouldn’t those who refuse to buy insurance pay the tax?
Click to expand...
Because it is an abuse of power for the government to tax people for not purchasing insurance.
After all, they’re the one’s who cost us who do, lots of money when they show up in ER’s without health insurance.
Click to expand...
No,it doesn’t work that way. One person’s hospital bill is not linked with another person’s lack of insurance. Hospitals don’t just get compensated by private insurance,
they are supported by government tax revenue. And lack of health insurance does not mean inability to pay.
 
seekerz said:
My beef is that you seem more concerned with accusing the authorities with what you term ‘stealing’ than with the happy fact that people who are indeed starving (by any objective measure) are being fed.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, your analogy presumes more than is evidenced.

Obamacare, as we have discussed, is destined to fail. Thus the poor are not being fed. It was never aimed at the poor, thus it was not the poor who would be fed by it. And it will cause many more to starve in the long run if it is not repealed. Ah, but the government now is a step closer to controling the graineries.

All of these “details” are lost to the gullible.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Obamacare, as we have discussed, is destined to fail. Thus the poor are not being fed. It was never aimed at the poor, thus it was not the poor who would be fed by it.
Click to expand...
If “it was never aimed at the poor,” why are those who will benefit most from it those who now qualify (or might qualify, depending on the Cooperation Factor of the State in question) for Medicaid? Even on the “progressive” Ed Show this evening, Howard Dean admitted that Medicaid qualifiers are by far the greatest beneficiaries (I assume he means in the short term). He also admitted misgivings about the practical funding for Medicaid (he must mean the option for the States).

I keep hearing claims on the news (from supporters of it) about all the supposed new advantages (lower premiums for everyone, greater efficiency of health delivery, and more), but in the last 3 years I haven’t seen the actual math laid out. The only way that truly everyone will be able to afford premiums (if not Medicaid) is (a) if everyone purchases plans, which is not guaranteed, and/or (b) if the rich greatly subsidize the poor via massive Medicaid expansion. There are many, many households & individuals that cannot afford more than ~$200/mo in premiums. If their premiums or out-of-pocket costs are more than that, who will pay those?

Maybe the math does add up, but if so, I think it’s been poorly laid out by the administration.
 
I don’t share in the outrage over the concept of universal healthcare, though I do share the bishops’ concerns and believe that some serious fixes are necessary.

I would rather see state-based, Massachusetts-style “RomneyCare” the norm, as I don’t have much confidence that the feds won’t screw things up. My 92 year old father lives in Massachusetts, and his health care is outstanding, despite numerous, longstanding medical issues. I think that Mitt Romney should be shouting from the rooftops the success of his Mass. program, rather than running from it.

I think that a move toward a “Geisinger” type of healthcare model is essential (moving away from the notoriously expensive “fee for service” model that is common now.) tinyurl.com/892te4s Our healthcare costs are outrageously expensive, and our life expectancy ranks behind Chile, for heaven’s sake.

While people can reasonably disagree about the means to achieve better results, it is abundantly clear that drastic measures are required. We need more primary care physicians, better preventive care, and more common sense in our lifestyle choices.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
If “it was never aimed at the poor,” why are those who will benefit most from it those who now qualify (or might qualify, depending on the Cooperation Factor of the State in question) for Medicaid? Even on the “progressive” Ed Show this evening, Howard Dean admitted that Medicaid qualifiers are by far the greatest beneficiaries (I assume he means in the short term). He also admitted misgivings about the practical funding for Medicaid (he must mean the option for the States).

I keep hearing claims on the news (from supporters of it) about all the supposed new advantages (lower premiums for everyone, greater efficiency of health delivery, and more), but in the last 3 years I haven’t seen the actual math laid out. The only way that truly everyone will be able to afford premiums (if not Medicaid) is (a) if everyone purchases plans, which is not guaranteed, and/or (b) if the rich greatly subsidize the poor via massive Medicaid expansion. There are many, many households & individuals that cannot afford more than ~$200/mo in premiums. If their premiums or out-of-pocket costs are more than that, who will pay those?

Maybe the math does add up, but if so, I think it’s been poorly laid out by the administration.
Click to expand...
In fact, as you alude, it is a huge, complicated Rube Goldberg device constructed upon many dubious assumptions but there are some very simple reasons to expect that it will ultimately collapse of it’s own dead weight (not least of which is that the tax for not buying health care is lower than the cost of health care insurance). And when it collapses you can be sure that those who foisted it upon us will be demanding more government to fix it.

It would have been merciful had the SC overturned it. Now it is up to Republicans to make good in their promise to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top