Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Generally the opposite is true. But, you must already be aware of that. Had you said privitization led to more wealth for, well we both know who for. Don’t we.

ATB
The general rule of thumb is

Big government = Big corporations = Big lobbyists = more corruption.

So, I can assume you like big corporations, lobbyists, and corruption?
 
Not that simply. Bush’s tax cuts were passed through reconciliation but with a stipulation – that it expires after a certain length of time, in that case 10 years. So they’re going to have to be creative. Personally I would like them to repeal that 10% floor (currently at 7.5%) on medical deductions. This is a tax increase on the middle class and would probably affect more than the mandate tax.

But more to the point it seems Ryan has conceded the entire bill can’t be repealed through the reconciliation process. Maybe some states can at least start setting up those exchanges which the politicians currently enjoy; that should put a lot of us IT people to work. 🙂
Ryan did not say entire bill can not be repealed through reconciliation, he said at least 85% can be repealed

Ryan said, ‘the guts of this bill are all fiscal matters, which are clearly included in reconciliation

ObamaTax has not been implemented yet, makes it easier to repeal

Mandate can be repealed, and the mandate is the foundation of the entire law, and like a house without a foundation the rest will fall and the subsidies for the exchanges go as a way to power universal coverage. Those are the two core parts, but it is possible to repeal all if there are 50 Republican senate votes and Romney president
 
ObamaTax has not been implemented yet, makes it easier to repeal
Any existing law (or part of the law) can be repealed whether it’s been implemented or not. Glass-Steagal, for example, was repealed 66 years after it was passed.
 
Poll: Obamacare Ruling Makes Voters ‘Less Likely’ to Vote for Obama
shows that — by a 15-point margin — the Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling makes voters less likely, rather than more likely, to cast their vote for President Obama. Twenty-seven percent of registered voters say that the ruling makes them “less likely” to vote for Obama, while only 12 percent say that it makes them “more likely” to do so. Only 9 percent of independents say that they are “more likely” to vote for Obama because of the ruling, compared to 27 percent who are “less likely.”

Among Catholics — a large percentage of whom are historically swing voters — 35 percent say that the ruling makes them “less likely” to vote for Obama, while only 10 percent say it makes them “more likely” to vote for him

Most voters (55 percent) say that the candidates’ positions on Obamacare will be “extremely” or “very” important in influencing their vote for president

The poll shows that, by a 6-point margin (49 to 43 percent), registered voters want to see Obamacare repealed. Independents favor repeal by an 8-point margin (49 to 41 percent). Catholics favor repeal by a 22-point margin (58 to 36 percent). Repeal is supported by men, women, those between the ages of 18 and 34, those between the ages of 35 and 54, those who are 55 or over, those who make less than $30,000 annually, those who make between $30,000 and $50,000, those who make between $50,000 and $100,000, and those who make over $100,000

This poll — and the past 100 repeal polls from Rasmussen Reports — shows that the House of Representatives was doing the people’s bidding when it voted yesterday to repeal Obamacare — by a 59-vote margin (244 to 185). Conversely, the House was not doing the people’s bidding when (then under Democratic control) it voted to pass Obamacare in 2010 — by a mere 7-vote margin (219 to 212)

weeklystandard.com/blogs/poll-obamacare-ruling-makes-voters-less-likely-vote-obama_648476.html
 
Poll: Obamacare Ruling Makes Voters ‘Less Likely’ to Vote for Obama

weeklystandard.com/blogs/poll-obamacare-ruling-makes-voters-less-likely-vote-obama_648476.html
Wow, there’s still a smidgeon of hope left to save this country…

Paul Ryan talks repeal and replace with Mark Belling
youtube.com/watch?v=ZhOzXhAmWww

“The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of this. We had 2 chances as of a few weeks ago to get rid of this law. We lost one, the Supreme Court, and to reassert the fact that this is in the hands of the people of this country through their elected representatives they can still repeal this law. We had the votes in the House of Representatives which we proved to do that. The stopping block, the blockade, is the Senate and the President.”
 
That was a mistake.😦
It had some very interesting consequences, to say the least. Some bordered on serious moral hazards. It’s a shame banks, arms of the Fed, got to short stocks of the very companies they lent money to with money borrowed from the Fed. A conflict of interest if there ever was one IMO. Investment bankers made out like bandits after 9/11. Even companies with healthy cash flows were forced to declare bankruptcy, wiping out investors. Some economists feel that our economy never really recovered after that.
 
The company I worked for didn’t get a bailout when its door closed. They weren’t union tho. They did employ 5000 ppl nationwide.
General Motors is “alive” only because of Obama’s pandering to the UAW. It should have gone bankrupt as did major airlines. THat would have allowed a restructuring, including the demise of the sugar cookie contracts of the UAW. Since Obama was paying off yet another group of cronies, he couldn’t allow it and took taxpayer money to keep the UAW happy. GM is “taking” our money only with the government’s power to tax and spend, not because GM took the funds from the citizens of America. This is not private enterprise.

You have provided not one bit of evidence that corporations are taking from the public…without the might of the government behind them. The whole concept is utterly ridiculous. Nor have you provided the slightest bit of evidence that the government forcing one owner to sell property to another owner is “privatization.” Without the government force the transaction would not have occurred. It would have taken a willing buyer and seller to have a valid contract. Mrs Kelo was clearly not willing and was forced to part with her property.

Finally this has nothing to do with the thread so this is my last foray down your rabbit trail.

Lisa
 
The company I worked for didn’t get a bailout when its door closed. **They weren’t union **tho. They did employ 5000 ppl nationwide.
Sadly, if you don’t lift a finger to help yourself…
 
Yup… if **we were union **we might’ve gotten some help from either the feds or the sate of cali… large employer and all. Ah well. 😦
Why lift a finger when you can align yourself with a corrupt political party and get taxpayer bailout money as a payoff for your vote?
 
The company I worked for didn’t get a bailout when its door closed. They weren’t union tho. They did employ 5000 ppl nationwide.
There have been hearings recently on the auto bailout particularly with respect to the companies that were related to GM’s operation but non-union and thus did not get a bailout. Clearly the Obama administration was keeping good on Biden’s promise “We owe you one” after the election.

Everything from stimulus to this healthcare bill has demonstrated an agenda of payback to friends, bundlers and various interest groups. For example it is clear there is significant pandering to “Big Feminism” through the mandates for birth control, the protection of abortion and its major provider Planned Parenthood. The sad thing is that Congress did have an opportunity to address the real problems in healthcare but instead structured a monstrosity that robbed Peter to pay Paul…as Jefferson said, thereby ensuring Paul’s votes in the next election.

I hope it is repealed through any means legal because it is like a field in Afghanistan, littered with land mines that blow up the minute they are touched.

Lisa
 
There have been hearings recently on the auto bailout particularly with respect to the companies that were related to GM’s operation but non-union and thus did not get a bailout. Clearly the Obama administration was keeping good on Biden’s promise “We owe you one” after the election.

Everything from stimulus to this healthcare bill has demonstrated an agenda of payback to friends, bundlers and various interest groups. For example it is clear there is significant pandering to “Big Feminism” through the mandates for birth control, the protection of abortion and its major provider Planned Parenthood. The sad thing is that Congress did have an opportunity to address the real problems in healthcare but instead structured a monstrosity that robbed Peter to pay Paul…as Jefferson said, thereby ensuring Paul’s votes in the next election.

I hope it is repealed through any means legal because it is like a field in Afghanistan, littered with land mines that blow up the minute they are touched.

Lisa
Are you implying that only Democrats are loyal to their supporters?
 
Yup… if **we were union **we might’ve gotten some help from either the feds or the sate of cali… large employer and all. Ah well. 😦
The good lord helps those what helps themselves. (Sorry Aesop.)
 
Obama Concedes Obamacare a 'Tax’
At a campaign speech this evening in Roanoke, Virginia, President Obama seemed to concede that his signature legislation, Obamacare, is in fact a “tax.”
“Six million young people who did not have health insurance can now stay on their parents’ plan and get health insurance,” President Obama said, touting Obamacare, according to a rush transcript. “Seniors are seeing their prescription drug costs go down and, by the way, if you have health insurance, you are not getting hit by a tax.”
The implication is obvious: Since those who “have health insurance … are not getting hit by a tax,” it seems to follow that those who do not
have health insurance will get hit by a tax under Obamacare.

The central tenet of Obamacare is the individual mandate, which requires all Americans to have health insurance

Last month the Supreme Court upheld most of Obamacare, and ruled that the individual mandate is a constitutional under Congress’s power to tax Americans

But, since the Supreme Court weighed in, President Obama and his team have mostly avoided calling Obamacare a tax, and suggest that it is instead a “penalty,” a semantic distinction that would allow President Obama, the thinking goes, to have kept his promise not to raise taxes on those earning under $250,000 per year

So either tonight was a slip up by the president, or it’s a signal that he’s ready to begin calling Obamacare what it is–a tax

weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-concedes-obamacare-tax_648551.html
 
Only 29 Percent of Independents Think Obamacare Is ‘Good’ for America
The latest polling by Rasmussen Reports shows that independents think Obamacare would raise (53 percent), rather than lower (16 percent), health costs. They think it would reduce (50 percent), rather than improve (13 percent), the quality of health care. They think it would raise (56 percent), rather than lower (13 percent), the deficit. And they think it would be bad (50 percent), rather than good (29 percent), for the country. Not surprisingly, by a 13-point margin (51 to 38 percent), they think Obamacare should be repealed
marks the 101st consecutive time that likely voters (from across the political spectrum) support the repeal of Obamacare. It also marks the 39th consecutive time, dating back to the spring of 2011, that likely voters favor the repeal of Obamacare by a double-digit margin

None of this bodes well for the architect of Obamacare. It’s bad enough when your $787,000,000,000 “stimulus” has stimulated little — if anything — besides the national debt, when the 40 worst monthly employment rates in the past 25 years have all been on your watch, and when your pledge to unite has degenerated into a pattern of division. It’s worse when your centerpiece legislation is this overwhelmingly unpopular — and when Americans and know that the only way to get rid of it, is to vote against you

weeklystandard.com/blogs/only-29-percent-independents-think-obamacare-good-america_648649.html
 
Gallup: 60 Percent of Americans Say Obamacare Will Make Things Worse for Taxpayers, Businesses
from Gallup finds that 60 percent of Americans say Obamacare will actually make things worse for taxpayers.

Another 57 percent say it will make things worse for businesses by increasing costs and adding bureaucracy.

Nearly half of all Americans also told Gallup they believe the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will make things worse for doctors (51 percent), for people who already have health insurance (46 percent) and for hospitals (45 percent).

In fact, 42 percent said the health-reform law will make things worse for themselves (“for you, personally”) – while only 38 percent predicted it will make things better.

Only 30 percent said that the health-care law will help taxpayers – with 3 percent expecting there to be no change because of the health-care reform law and 8 percent expressing no opinion.

Similarly, only 37 percent think doctors will be better off under Obamacare and just 33 percent said the Affordable Care Act will make things better for businesses – while only 36 percent think it will make things better for people with health insurance

Meanwhile, 45 percent thought hospitals would be better off, 55 percent said it would make things better for “people who get sick,” and 59 percent said they thought the law would make things better for “people who do not already have health insurance”

The results of the Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted July 9-12, with a random sample of 1,004 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia

Based on the total sample of national adults, the sampling error was plus-or-minus 4 percentage points with 95 percent confidence, according to Gallup

cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-60-percent-americans-say-obamacare-will-make-things-worse-taxpayers-businesses
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top