Obamacare Upheld 5-4

[Darth Do'Urden]

Unfreakinbelievable. (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28/how-will-supreme-court-rule-on-health-care-law/) And Nancy Pelosi is an idiot. (I don't follow her or hear much from her, so I wasn't aware until now.) I've never hated a President or Supreme Court as much as I do right now.

[Zach929rr]

Out of pure curiosity, have you even read the bill?

[#1Townie]

Yup sounds good to me. Fuck the constitution. As long as we are all safe I'm the hands of our government. I dont see this backfiring at all.

[JustSomeDude]

Yup sounds good to me. Fuck the constitution. As long as we are all safe I'm the hands of our government. I dont see this backfiring at all.

In all honesty, if there's something good to draw from this, it's the fact that the Administration is now forced to accept the individual mandate as a tax - which is what they argued it wasn't for the last two years.

In his 2008 campaign, Obama promised he would not raise taxes on the middle class. Now he just basically got forced into admitting that he's just implemented the single largest tax increase in American History on the middle class smack in the middle of a recession - months before the November elections. That's right, Barack Obama now is in the history books as implementing America's single largest tax.

He tried to have it both ways - increasing public entitlements without increasing "taxes". The Supreme Court just told him, "sorry bub - yer 'fine' is a tax - time to fess up."

How many middle income families do you think will be excited to hear that they just got clobbered with hundreds of dollars in new annual taxes, when they're already having a hard time paying the air conditioning bill? So much for campaign promises. :)

[Ted]

In the words of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr, "This is a big fucking deal"

by the way...

..... in before CM !

[Ted]

In all honesty, if there's something good to draw from this, it's the fact that the Administration is now forced to accept the individual mandate as a tax - which is what they argued it wasn't for the last two years.

In his 2008 campaign, Obama promised he would not raise taxes on the middle class. Now he just basically got forced into admitting that he's just implemented one of the single largest tax increases on the middle class smack in the middle of a recession - months before the November elections.

He tried to have it both ways - increasing public entitlements without increasing "taxes". The Supreme Court just told him, "sorry bub - yer 'fine' is a tax - time to fess up."

How many middle income families do you think will be excited to hear that they just got clobbered with hundreds of dollars in new annual taxes, when they're already having a hard time paying the air conditioning bill? So much for campaign promises. :)

How did you arrive at that estimate ?

[JustSomeDude]

How did you arrive at that estimate ?

It's in the law. And that's actually a modest estimate, it could be far more - as it's tied to the cost of insurance - which an individual is now required to buy. And if you don't, you must pay the penalty - excuse me - the tax, which could be even higher...

The tax for not purchasing health insurance under PPACA is $95 per person in 2014 (or 1% of taxable income, whichever is greater), $325 in 2015 (or 2%), and $695 in 2016 (or 2.5%). Thereafter, the mandate is indexed to inflation.

[Matrix]

I know I am going to be in the minority here, but I am glad it passed. Proponents of this will argue that the current model is not sustainable on multiple fronts and in my opinion, they are right. While I won’t argue any specific item, I will say that generally, something had to be done and to be frank, the mandatory portion of the bill had to be done in order to make anything above that work. Is it fair? Probably not, but neither is showing up at the emergency room with no insurance and expecting the rest of us to indirectly pay your tab.

[JustSomeDude]

I know I am going to be in the minority here, but I am glad it passed. Proponents of this will argue that the current model is not sustainable on multiple fronts and in my opinion, they are right. While I won’t argue any specific item, I will say that generally, something had to be done and to be frank, the mandatory portion of the bill had to be done in order to make anything above that work. Is it fair? Probably not, but neither is showing up at the emergency room with no insurance and expecting the rest of us to indirectly pay your tab.

I don't think "fairness" will be the issue. I think the problem, at least in the short term, will be with how Obama sold this to the public. It was all about "mandates" and "reforms" along with promises to keep costs low and never raise taxes on the middle class.

With the SCOTUS essentially reshaping tax law to require government "mandates" to be classified as as a tax, the presidential campaign will take a turn in a direction no one saw coming. Obama will now be challenged on one of his primary campaign promises of not raising taxes on the middle class - a promise which he has now clearly broken.

Remember what happened to Bush when he said "no new taxes"? Welcome to round 2. The Romney campaign will have a field day with this. And Americans should be upset for being deceived by their president with how this law was sold (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/), and rightly so.

[Ghosty]

How pissed off are Repubs and Liberts at John Roberts right now?...

[Darth Do'Urden]

Out of pure curiosity, have you even read the bill?

Sorry, haven't had the free time to read this:
http://www.cristyli.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/2.074-page-Senate-ObamaCare-Bill.jpg

I don't think the Supreme Court did either.

I know that I will now be required to either pay the "tax", or spend $8,000/yr+ (that I don't exactly have lying around).

Never mind that requiring someone to purchase something just ain't right. I don't feel I really need to know anything beyond that.


How did you arrive at that estimate ?

I read several months ago that the fine (oops, I mean "tax") is going to be upwards of $3,000/yr (perhaps higher, I don't remember exactly) beginning 2014.

[Matrix]

My employor sponsered health care went up $150 per month for my portion alone last year. I guess we should call that a tax too in order to compare apples to apples.

[JustSomeDude]

How pissed off are Repubs and Liberts at John Roberts right now?...

Have you read any of my posts? Republicans should be partying. This is a whole new ballgame. Obama just got cornered into authoring the biggest tax in American history. Welcome to it. :) Somewhere Roberts has a huge sh*t-eating grin.

Not only that, but the fact that the mandate is a "tax" means the commerce clause no longer applies. This now means the PPACA qualifies as a function of revenue, which means the law could be overturned via reconciliation (curiously - the same way it was passed). No need for a 60-vote majority in the senate.

wootsy.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Chief Justice John Roberts:
"If an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes," Roberts writes. He adds that this means "the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning an income."
WTF?? Ok, I can understand taxing us on what we purchase, but taxing us on what we do NOT purchase??? WTF????

Hey mother#ckers, I didn't buy any beer today, wanna tax me on that assholes???

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Have you read any of my posts? Republicans should be partying. This is a whole new ballgame. Obama just got cornered into authoring the biggest tax in American history. Welcome to it. :) Somewhere Roberts has a huge sh*t-eating grin.

Not only that, but the fact that the mandate is a "tax" means the commerce clause no longer applies. This now means the PPACA qualifies as a function of revenue, which means the law could be overturned via reconciliation (curiously - the same way it was passed). No need for a 60-vote majority in the senate.

wootsy.
Interesting point. I hope Romney jumps on that. :)

[JustSomeDude]

Interesting point. I hope Romney jumps on that. :)

You know he will.

Honestly - NO ONE saw this angle coming from the court. I think the Administration is caught with their pants down trying to figure out how to defend a monstrous new tax; and the Romney campaign just got handed a huge present.

[Vance]

Interesting point. I hope Romney jumps on that. :)
Obamacare is just Romneycare on a larger scale.
He best be careful how he attacks on this one or he'll end up looking like more of a two-faced jackass than he already does to John and Jane Q. Public.

[#1Townie]

I know I am going to be in the minority here, but I am glad it passed. Proponents of this will argue that the current model is not sustainable on multiple fronts and in my opinion, they are right. While I won’t argue any specific item, I will say that generally, something had to be done and to be frank, the mandatory portion of the bill had to be done in order to make anything above that work. Is it fair? Probably not, but neither is showing up at the emergency room with no insurance and expecting the rest of us to indirectly pay your tab.
Well in the great words of to big to fail have you heard the line to broke to pay? What about the people who simply can't afford it? What happens to them? Prison time? For what because they can't but something that they couldn't afford? Isn't this the kind of thinking we should installing on people? Hey I can't afford that....... Maybe I shouldnt but it. Sure if people thought this way I would be out of job but our country would be in much better shape.

I understand that the system was jacked cough still is, but you don't fix a broken bone by hitting it with a hammer.

[Matrix]

Well in the great words of to big to fail have you heard the line to broke to pay? What about the people who simply can't afford it? What happens to them? Prison time? For what because they can't but something that they couldn't afford? Isn't this the kind of thinking we should installing on people? Hey I can't afford that....... Maybe I shouldnt but it. Sure if people thought this way I would be out of job but our country would be in much better shape.

I understand that the system was jacked cough still is, but you don't fix a broken bone by hitting it with a hammer.

Today, you are paying for those people. They go to the emergency room, the most expensive of all care, and everyone paying into the system pays for it. Note my second comment in this thread about my increase in medical costs this year and that is with a generous employer. Doing nothing is only going to increase the costs to where more and more people can't pay it which exacerbates the rate of increase. While not perfect by any means, at least with this option, more people will be added to the system and if it does what it should , then costs should decline in their rate of increase.

[dirkterrell]

Have you read any of my posts? Republicans should be partying. This is a whole new ballgame. Obama just got cornered into authoring the biggest tax in American history. Welcome to it. :) Somewhere Roberts has a huge sh*t-eating grin.


Perhaps a temporary victory for one side that comes at a potentially devastating cost to our system of of government. I'm about a third of the way into reading the ruling. I just finished reading the dissenting opinion, and it is an impressive example of logic based on the Constitution. You may not personally like Scalia, but he is a brilliant thinker when it comes to constitutional law. I encourage you all to read it. The conclusion:


The Constitution, though it dates from the founding of the Republic, has powerful meaning and vital relevance to our own times. The constitutional protections that this case involves are protections of structure. Structural protections—notably, the restraints imposed by federalism and separation of powers—are less romantic and have less obvious a connection to personal freedom than the provisions of the Bill of Rights or the Civil War Amendments. Hence they tend to be undervalued or even forgotten by our citizens. It should be the responsibility of the Court to teach otherwise, to remind our people that the Framers considered structural protections of freedom the most important ones, for which reason they alone were embodied in the original Constitution and not left to later amendment. The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.

For the reasons here stated, we would find the Act invalid in its entirety. We respectfully dissent.

I see this as just another example of left versus right scoring what they think are victories for their chosen side, while liberty rots a little more.

[Ezzzzy1]

I will tune back in on page 27 when you guys get this figured out... :wait:

[#1Townie]

Today, you are paying for those people. They go to the emergency room, the most expensive of all care, and everyone paying into the system pays for it. Note my second comment in this thread about my increase in medical costs this year and that is with a generous employer. Doing nothing is only going to increase the costs to where more and more people can't pay it which exacerbates the rate of increase. While not perfect by any means, at least with this option, more people will be added to the system and if it does what it should , then costs should decline in their rate of increase.

you do understand that the people who are already doing this will still do it right? Hospitals are never going to turn anyone away. So you are still going to post for those and yourself.

[dirkterrell]

Today, you are paying for those people. They go to the emergency room, the most expensive of all care, and everyone paying into the system pays for it. Note my second comment in this thread about my increase in medical costs this year and that is with a generous employer. Doing nothing is only going to increase the costs to where more and more people can't pay it which exacerbates the rate of increase.


And why has this situation arisen? Because the Federal government forced all hospitals to provide care, irrespective of ability to pay, rather than leave it in the hands of charity hospitals. Then they made it legal to do cost-shifting, which in any other area would result in criminal prosecution, and would inspire outrage among the public (e.g. if you had to pay $20/gallon for gas while someone else got it for free).



While not perfect by any means, at least with this option, more people will be added to the system and if it does what it should , then costs should decline in their rate of increase.

I'll state right now for the record, that I believe it will do nothing of the sort. Costs will increase because we have moved even further from a free market. Now we get to watch it play out. Mark my words. We will come to regret this decision.

What we need is true healthcare reform: no cost shifting, no anti-competitive behavior allowed in the industry, de-coupling health insurance from employment, and going back to the idea that insurance is for protection from rare but devastating events, not day-to-day healthcare treatments. Put the spending decisions back into the hands of the people spending the money and these unsustainable 9% annual increases in healthcare costs will plummet. Keep moving to more towards having the government make the decisions and the collapse will come even sooner. (Scale Medicare spending by 9% per year and see how long it is before the government is spending everything it has on that one program. You might be surprised how soon it is.)

[#1Townie]

Dirk can I vote for you this year?

[JustSomeDude]

I'll state right now for the record, that I believe it will do nothing of the sort. Costs will increase because we have moved even further from a free market. Now we get to watch it play out. Mark my words. We will come to regret this decision.


Funny, well - maybe not funny - but interesting. I attended a finance seminar last night; the speakers were consultants who provide financial advice to large companies. One gentleman works extensively with Coors, and during the Q&A he was asked how he was preparing for the PPACA bill, should the SCOTUS uphold it today.

In short, he said the industry accepted models show it will exponentially increase healthcare costs in the coming years (compared to if the law were never passed), and companies are preparing in advance to handle the financial implications. Most of which include reduced benefits, pay freezes, less hiring, limited work hours, and even layoffs, to manage the costs.

The cost increases are expected, and I agree, Dirk, we will indeed regret this decision.

[Ghosty]

Have you read any of my posts? Republicans should be partying. This is a whole new ballgame. Obama just got cornered into authoring the biggest tax in American history. Welcome to it. :) Somewhere Roberts has a huge sh*t-eating grin.
Good points. Maybe this is all part of their (GOP) grand plan to help get Romney elected. But seriously, how two-faced can you blatantly be when your own Massachusetts system was supposedly a model for this huge national one, right?

(In advance, I have never read the bill, or even any major portions of it. I've only learned my info from layman's terms summaries online and the news, and threads like this on CRN & now CSC.)

I've always paid for health insurance since after the HS/college years when my parents covered me (like most people). I've always had reasonable rates because I got it cheap through whichever university I was attending at the time during my 20's, or my employer has paid for roughly half the monthly charges during my 30's.

Soooo, not to be insensitive to low-income bracket, but I don't understand the mindset (within all the other brackets) of some people CHOOSING to NOT allocate adequate budget for health insurance, then assuming if they get in a motorcycle wreck, no worries, "the responsible tax-paying & insurance-carrying society will pay for my ass".

I don't consider their budgetary priorities in the proper order. Just my opinion, no offense if you TRULY can't afford it. I know if I got layed off, I could get full coverage for myself for around $150 - $200 / month. I don't think that's a back breaker for something SO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. Now if you're in a minimum wage job, that might be a different story. As for the unemployed and under-employed, isn't there provisions to get those bottom-bracket on Medicaid or similar?

Guess I was just raised differently. My parents drove it into our heads that we should not EVER, not even for ONE DAY, go without health insurance, or drive one day without car insurance, because you should assume something bad might happen that ONE day, and they you and your family will be royally fucked forever if it's a critical incident with $100's of k's of bills.

[dirkterrell]

Dirk can I vote for you this year?

I don't think it would do any good. The politicians on both sides have so skillfully duped the public that I think a collapse is inevitable. Hopefully we can come out of it in a positive way, but history shows that to be a difficult task. It is far easier for tyranny to take hold. We have become so concerned about "our side" (Dem or Rep) "winning" that we have lost sight of the basic principles on which our country was built. Until that changes, I don't see a positive outcome for us as a country.

[JustSomeDude]

I don't consider their budgetary priorities in the proper order. Just my opinion, no offense if you TRULY can't afford it. I know if I got layed off, I could get full coverage for myself for around $150 - $200 / month. I don't think that's a back breaker for something SO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. Now if you're in a minimum wage job, that might be a different story. As for the unemployed and under-employed, isn't there provisions to get those bottom-bracket on Medicaid or similar?

(In advance, I have never read the bill, or even any major portions of it. I've only learned my info from layman's terms summaries online and the news, and threads like this on CRN & now CSC.)

I hear you, and I think a lot of people agree with your overall assessment. I think it's just the "solution" that people disagree with, and reasonably so. For the most part everyone one here is relatively cordial in their disagreements, which is good for the discussion.

As for Romney being two-faced, I understand the argument but think it's somewhat disingenuous. First, Romneycare was at a state level - what states do on their own is their business - it was never meant to be a national mandate. That said, Obamacare differs in that states cannot opt out. But now that it's a tax the point is somewhat moot, as the Commerce Cause no longer applies. A tax is a tax is a tax.

Furthermore, speaking of two-faced, how's it feel to be told by Barry O that he'll never increase your taxes, just to find out today that he authored the single biggest tax in American history?

[Ghosty]

I hear you, and I think a lot of people agree with your overall assessment. I think it's just the "solution" that people disagree with, and reasonably so.
Agree. Who was it that said: "The government could fuck up a wet dream without even thinking about it." I totally understand the feelings that the government is a giant ugly dumb & inefficient pig behemoth octopus that has it's tentacles too far and too deep into too many things.

Most of us have no crystal ball, which makes things like this (and decisions to bailout banks/AIG/GM/Chrysler, etc.) the tough choices. I'm just hoping their idea of producing insurance exchanges will indeed stimulate competition, or that may be a pipe dream? As for the lowest income brackets and impoverished, I don't have faith that there is ENOUGH charitable institutions available to handle them, so I think that this is a place where the government should have a hand. *eek, socialism*

[#1Townie]

Good points. Maybe this is all part of their (GOP) grand plan to help get Romney elected. But seriously, how two-faced can you blatantly be when your own Massachusetts system was supposedly a model for this huge national one, right?

(In advance, I have never read the bill, or even any major portions of it. I've only learned my info from layman's terms summaries online and the news, and threads like this on CRN & now CSC.)

I've always paid for health insurance since after the HS/college years when my parents covered me (like most people). I've always had reasonable rates because I got it cheap through whichever university I was attending at the time during my 20's, or my employer has paid for roughly half the monthly charges during my 30's.

Soooo, not to be insensitive to low-income bracket, but I don't understand the mindset (within all the other brackets) of some people CHOOSING to NOT allocate adequate budget for health insurance, then assuming if they get in a motorcycle wreck, no worries, "the responsible tax-paying & insurance-carrying society will pay for my ass".

I don't consider their budgetary priorities in the proper order. Just my opinion, no offense if you TRULY can't afford it. I know if I got layed off, I could get full coverage for myself for around $150 - $200 / month. I don't think that's a back breaker for something SO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. Now if you're in a minimum wage job, that might be a different story. As for the unemployed and under-employed, isn't there provisions to get those bottom-bracket on Medicaid or similar?

Guess I was just raised differently. My parents drove it into our heads that we should not EVER, not even for ONE DAY, go without health insurance, or drive one day without car insurance, because you should assume something bad might happen that ONE day, and they you and your family will be royally fucked forever if it's a critical incident with $100's of k's of bills.
I guess with my line of work I get to see the struggling american on a more personal level. I have seen some very sad situations. People that just a few years ago had everything going for them and now im there taking the last of their things.

Not sure if you know anyone who had every tried to very into some of those programs. They dont just hand out out. Making anything our any kind of money means no help. Maybe if you have a bunch of kids. This is another area that needs to be fixed. So much of this government is just broken.

Used to be that every couple of years another law came out to slowly take things and choices from us. They would hide it. Now days our government just does what they want and when they want to do it. This is just another example of the same.

[Snowman]

Sorry, haven't had the free time to read this:
http://www.cristyli.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/2.074-page-Senate-ObamaCare-Bill.jpg

I don't think the Supreme Court did either...
Yes, welcome to a government for the corporations, by the corporations in the 21st century. And you don't think 30 million new forced new customers isn't every CEO's wet dream... (You think they could have at least used an IPad... Ha)

[Snowman]

...
What we need is true healthcare reform: no cost shifting, no anti-competitive behavior allowed in the industry, de-coupling health insurance from employment, and going back to the idea that insurance is for protection from rare but devastating events, not day-to-day healthcare treatments. Put the spending decisions back into the hands of the people spending the money and these unsustainable 9% annual increases in healthcare costs will plummet. Keep moving to more towards having the government make the decisions and the collapse will come even sooner. (Scale Medicare spending by 9% per year and see how long it is before the government is spending everything it has on that one program. You might be surprised how soon it is.) And your opinions on what regulations (if any) you would want to balance an unregulated industry whose main priority is to make a profit off of your health? I know if I was in a coma, I would have full trust in these people to do the right thing to protect their company profits... (and you thought the idea of government death panels was bad one, compared to corporate ones?)

[Ghosty]

Not sure if you know anyone who had every tried to very into some of those programs. They dont just hand out out. Making anything our any kind of money means no help. Maybe if you have a bunch of kids. This is another area that needs to be fixed. So much of this government is just broken.
Agree, I understand what you're explaining here, especially about those that fall through the cracks. Most everyone agrees it's very broken, and I'm sure a lot more than half the country thinks the giant healthcare bill could be done in a much more efficient manner. Where that happy medium lies and understanding government's historically proven predisposition to screw things up, is what contributes to the big fight. I may be in the minority, but I actually have (a little) more faith in government to regulate this industry than I do in trusting big insurance companies to regulate themselves and costs. I classify the insurance & healthcare industry with big banks, and that's not a compliment.

[#1Townie]

Agree, I understand what you're explaining here, especially about those that fall through the cracks. Most everyone agrees it's very broken, and I'm sure a lot more than half the country thinks the giant healthcare bill could be done in a much more efficient manner. Where that happy medium lies and understanding government's historically proven predisposition to screw things up, is what contributes to the big fight. I may be in the minority, but I actually have (a little) more faith in government to regulate this industry than I do in trusting big insurance companies to regulate themselves and costs. I classify the insurance & healthcare industry with big banks, and that's not a compliment.

I agree with your comparison. Now how would you feel in being forced to do business w with a bank you don't trust?

Right now you still have a choice to ever use a bank. We dont have to have bank accounts. (i know we all do). You don't have to get a loan to get a house or car. We have choices. The idea of having choices is what I love.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Obamacare is just Romneycare on a larger scale.
He best be careful how he attacks on this one or he'll end up looking like more of a two-faced jackass than he already does to John and Jane Q. Public.
A bullet hole is just a pin hole on a larger scale. :)

We should just re-name it: ObamaTax

My real problem with it is people should be taxed for goods and services they BUY, not for everything they DON'T. On that single point it should have failed. By their thinking, now they can tax everyone for everything they DIDN'T buy today. Hey, I didn't buy cigarettes today, wanna tax me for that anyways?

Bullshit ruling.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

And why has this situation arisen? Because the Federal government forced all hospitals to provide care, irrespective of ability to pay, rather than leave it in the hands of charity hospitals. Then they made it legal to do cost-shifting, which in any other area would result in criminal prosecution, and would inspire outrage among the public (e.g. if you had to pay $20/gallon for gas while someone else got it for free).



I'll state right now for the record, that I believe it will do nothing of the sort. Costs will increase because we have moved even further from a free market. Now we get to watch it play out. Mark my words. We will come to regret this decision.

What we need is true healthcare reform: no cost shifting, no anti-competitive behavior allowed in the industry, de-coupling health insurance from employment, and going back to the idea that insurance is for protection from rare but devastating events, not day-to-day healthcare treatments. Put the spending decisions back into the hands of the people spending the money and these unsustainable 9% annual increases in healthcare costs will plummet. Keep moving to more towards having the government make the decisions and the collapse will come even sooner. (Scale Medicare spending by 9% per year and see how long it is before the government is spending everything it has on that one program. You might be surprised how soon it is.)
I agree. I've seen enough free medical (mostly emergency) care given to street scum and gang-bangers with no insurance, while for years I didn't have any and got NOTHING for free, even at a "free" clinic, while the illegals got the care they needed at our expense.

I have no problem with true, socialized health care, but not forcing citizens to by private healthcare OR be taxed on goods and services they AREN'T purchasing.

Scalia RAWKS!

[salsashark]

And why has this situation arisen? Because the Federal government forced all hospitals to provide care, irrespective of ability to pay, rather than leave it in the hands of charity hospitals. Then they made it legal to do cost-shifting, which in any other area would result in criminal prosecution, and would inspire outrage among the public (e.g. if you had to pay $20/gallon for gas while someone else got it for free).



I'll state right now for the record, that I believe it will do nothing of the sort. Costs will increase because we have moved even further from a free market. Now we get to watch it play out. Mark my words. We will come to regret this decision.

What we need is true healthcare reform: no cost shifting, no anti-competitive behavior allowed in the industry, de-coupling health insurance from employment, and going back to the idea that insurance is for protection from rare but devastating events, not day-to-day healthcare treatments. Put the spending decisions back into the hands of the people spending the money and these unsustainable 9% annual increases in healthcare costs will plummet. Keep moving to more towards having the government make the decisions and the collapse will come even sooner. (Scale Medicare spending by 9% per year and see how long it is before the government is spending everything it has on that one program. You might be surprised how soon it is.)

Couldn't agree more... Sums it up perfectly.


Yes, welcome to a government for the corporations, by the corporations in the 21st century. And you don't think 30 million new forced new customers isn't every CEO's wet dream... (You think they could have at least used an IPad... Ha)

Upon the outcome of the SCOTUS decision this morning, guess who's stock started to climb?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303649504577494220209973052.html?m od=rss_whats_news_us

Gives you an idea who had the largest hand in penning a 2500+ page bill.

And you're right, "We the people" are only as good as our ability to feed "They the Corporations".


And your opinions on what regulations (if any) you would want to balance an unregulated industry whose main priority is to make a profit off of your health? I know if I was in a coma, I would have full trust in these people to do the right thing to protect their company profits... (and you thought the idea of government death panels was bad one, compared to corporate ones?)

I don't necessarily agree with this. You have power over a corporation. You have the ability to close your wallet and walk away at any time. You do not have such options with the government.


I watched both Romney's and Obama's reaction to the decision this morning. The political spin machine was on overdrive. IMO, until the current system is scrapped, no amount of poking and prodding is going to do a damned thing. Forcing people to pay into a flawed system, or if they can't, to pay into a different flawed system is about the most F'd up thing I've ever heard.

[Snowman]

A bullet hole is just a pin hole on a larger scale. :)

We should just re-name it: ObamaTax

My real problem with it is people should be taxed for goods and services they BUY, not for everything they DON'T. On that single point it should have failed. By their thinking, now they can tax everyone for everything they DIDN'T buy today. Hey, I didn't buy cigarettes today, wanna tax me for that anyways?

Bullshit ruling.Where do I start?

(A) Just who exactly who are you trying to put a hole into, pin sized or larger?

(B) If people should only pay a tax on goods or services they buy themselves, we wouldn't have never been a country after 1812. A little thing called a military has been one of those non-purchases everyone has been making for a long time now. (Not to say anything about traffic lights)

(C) As for not buying those cigarettes and not paying for their cost, if you have insurance you just did.

[Ghost]

You have power over a corporation. You have the ability to close your wallet and walk away at any time. You do not have such options with the government.

Not really. You used to have power over a small, local shop/store etc. There, business was dependent wholly on the local market.

Corporations don't worry about any individual, only aggregate masses, they don't need you and thus you have no power or control over them. If you don't like them, tough, they've got millions of other customers.

And, when it's all corporations--whether it's Corp A, B, or C, you've no real power and no real choice.

CitiBank might be pissing you off, so you close your measly $30k credit line with them--and they don't even notice since they're too big to give a shit.

The idea that we have any power over any corporation fails to understand the massive power imbalance Corporations have over us as individuals, and over our entire country and its political structure.

[jbnwc]

My employor sponsered health care went up $150 per month for my portion alone last year. I guess we should call that a tax too in order to compare apples to apples.

The thing about this is no one is FORCING you to be employed. Heck, you aren't even required to take the company health insurance; I have employees who don't.

[jbnwc]

Never mind that requiring someone to purchase something just ain't right. I don't feel I really need to know anything beyond that.


This is all that matters. This isn't like anything else(e.g. car insurance). You don't have to buy car ins. because you don't have to buy a car. However, with this healthcare bs, you are forced to pay if you are ALIVE. There is something inheritly wrong with that.

There are major fundamental flaws with this whole idea of gov't healthcare. I love Bill Whittle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S9dwP-fV3o&feature=share

[CaptGoodvibes]

Screw it.

[rforsythe]

Most of us have no crystal ball

True, but most of us hopefully passed high school algebra well enough to see the stink from this one a mile away.


The thing about this is no one is FORCING you to be employed. Heck, you aren't even required to take the company health insurance; I have employees who don't.

Interestingly, my wife is *required* to pay for insurance through her employer (Jeffco Schools) whether she uses it or not. She's on my company plan as it's better and cheaper, but even with telling Jeffco that she doesn't want to be covered by them she still pays a mandated 50% or so of the cost. We still save a little money going this route, but it's bullshit IMO. And you wonder where the gov't gets these ideas.......

[jbnwc]

Not really. You used to have power over a small, local shop/store etc. There, business was dependent wholly on the local market.

Corporations don't worry about any individual, only aggregate masses, they don't need you and thus you have no power or control over them. If you don't like them, tough, they've got millions of other customers.

And, when it's all corporations--whether it's Corp A, B, or C, you've no real power and no real choice.

CitiBank might be pissing you off, so you close your measly $30k credit line with them--and they don't even notice since they're too big to give a shit.

The idea that we have any power over any corporation fails to understand the massive power imbalance Corporations have over us as individuals, and over our entire country and its political structure.

As the manager of the customer-facing team representing a huge corporation I have to disagree with this in my experience. Granted, one client pulls more weight if there are only a few clients and while what you say might be true to a certain extent and with certain companies, the truth is one customer is NEVER the only customer. The one who complains usually represents a large number of clients who keep quiet and simply cancel contracts. Ignore them at your own peril. Sure,there are always the occasional kooks, but any company, no matter how large, must cater to and take care of its customers or risk losing them to competition.

Unfortunately, with gov't healthcare, you lose one of the most important elements - competition.

I strongly disagree with the statement that with corporations you have no real choice. The only place that is even remotely true is in the telecom sector where you have AT&T, Verizon, and maybe a couple others, but there is still fierce competition in that sector.

[jbnwc]

Interestingly, my wife is *required* to pay for insurance through her employer (Jeffco Schools) whether she uses it or not. She's on my company plan as it's better and cheaper, but even with telling Jeffco that she doesn't want to be covered by them she still pays a mandated 50% or so of the cost. We still save a little money going this route, but it's bullshit IMO. And you wonder where the gov't gets these ideas.......

That is ABSOLUTE BS and should be illegal IMO. If a company tried to pull that instead of a gov't entity, everyone would scream bloody murder.

[Snowman]

This whole discussion boils down to a single question that you have to answer honestly.

Do we as a people, believe that if someone needs medical attention they should be able to get it even if they cannot pay for it?

How you answer this question is how you believe the health care system should be based. No is just as valid an answer as yes and both sides have justified arguments for it.

If you think a mother living in a shelter working a minimum wage job should be able to get treatment for her cancer, then who pays the doctors and hospitals?

If you think some gangster getting shot in a drug deal gone bad shouldn’t have his injuries paid for and thrown into the street to bleed to death, then where do you drawing the line with the first example?

Without an answer to this question any type of healthcare system private, government or otherwise will never work. Someone can always game the system, from corporations looking for ways to deny coverage to be more profitable to individuals knowing that if they just show up in an emergency room they can get care for free. Right now it’s the people who buy insurance that support both ends of the argument.

[jbnwc]

This whole discussion boils down to a single question that you have to answer honestly.

Do we as a people, believe that if someone needs medical attention they should be able to get it even if they cannot pay for it?



I disagree. That is a religious and moral question. I believe people SHOULD get medical attention regardless. That is a my moral and religious ideal. However, this is the real world, and in the real world someone has to PAY for the doctors, nurses, etc.

Do you have a right to shelter, food, water? If so, who pays for that?

[Ghost]

I believe people SHOULD get medical attention regardless.

That is a my moral and religious ideal. However, this is the real world, and in the real world someone has to PAY for the doctors, nurses, etc.

So, what's your solution? If you feel that they SHOULD get medical attention, but they cannot pay for it themselves, then who does?

[jbnwc]

This whole discussion boils down to a single question that you have to answer honestly.

Do we as a people, believe that if someone needs medical attention they should be able to get it even if they cannot pay for it?

How you answer this question is how you believe the health care system should be based. No is just as valid an answer as yes and both sides have justified arguments for it.

If you think a mother living in a shelter working a minimum wage job should be able to get treatment for her cancer, then who pays the doctors and hospitals?

If you think some gangster getting shot in a drug deal gone bad shouldn’t have his injuries paid for and thrown into the street to bleed to death, then where do you drawing the line with the first example?

Without an answer to this question any type of healthcare system private, government or otherwise will never work. Someone can always game the system, from corporations looking for ways to deny coverage to be more profitable to individuals knowing that if they just show up in an emergency room they can get care for free. Right now it’s the people who buy insurance that support both ends of the argument.


This is the perfect example of misguided Liberal thinking. Liberals are great at thinking about individual situations or examples, but have a hard time determining the big picture and whether or not something is fundamentally right or wrong.

Again, see here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S9dwP-fV3o&feature=share

[jbnwc]

So, what's your solution? If you feel that they SHOULD get medical attention, but they cannot pay for it themselves, then who does?

Sorry, too busy working.

[Matrix]

This whole discussion boils down to a single question that you have to answer honestly.

Do we as a people, believe that if someone needs medical attention they should be able to get it even if they cannot pay for it?

How you answer this question is how you believe the health care system should be based. No is just as valid an answer as yes and both sides have justified arguments for it.

If you think a mother living in a shelter working a minimum wage job should be able to get treatment for her cancer, then who pays the doctors and hospitals?

If you think some gangster getting shot in a drug deal gone bad shouldn’t have his injuries paid for and thrown into the street to bleed to death, then where do you drawing the line with the first example?

Without an answer to this question any type of healthcare system private, government or otherwise will never work. Someone can always game the system, from corporations looking for ways to deny coverage to be more profitable to individuals knowing that if they just show up in an emergency room they can get care for free. Right now it’s the people who buy insurance that support both ends of the argument.

+1

[Snowman]

This is the perfect example of misguided Liberal thinking. Liberals are great at thinking about individual situations or examples, but have a hard time determining the big picture and whether or not something is fundamentally right or wrong.

Again, see here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S9dwP-fV3o&feature=shareAh so you would let the mother die because she can't pay. That's an honest answer and I do respect you for it... Or is it that we should pay for the gang banger whose life in jail will have as much meaning.

The question was where is the line? This is not a liberal or conservative concept, it's called compromise.

[JustSomeDude]

The high court’s ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases in the health-care law costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years, according to the House Ways and Means Committee. Of those, 12 tax hikes would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year, the panel said, including a “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans, a tax on insurance providers, and an excise tax on medical device manufacturers.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/republicans-ruling-focuses-election-obamas-health-/

President Obama's Pledge Never to Raise Taxes on Anyone Making Less Than $250,000 a Year (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U)

Ruh-roh

http://i.qkme.me/5naj.jpg

[Ghosty]

Most of you will say this is a "sales pitch" by him, but at least it brings up some good points, imo:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/

And I fail to see the opposing side providing a quality compromise solution that addresses the biggest problems, as of yet.

[dirkterrell]

This whole discussion boils down to a single question that you have to answer honestly.

Do we as a people, believe that if someone needs medical attention they should be able to get it even if they cannot pay for it?


I do not believe that anyone can expect anyone else to pay for their care. Will I help those that I deem worthy of my help? Yes. This is a moral question and government is not the mechanism by which morality should be enforced. Some consider things like drug use, interracial marriage, homosexuality, etc. to be immoral, but it is wrong to use the power of government to enforce those beliefs.



If you think a mother living in a shelter working a minimum wage job should be able to get treatment for her cancer, then who pays the doctors and hospitals?

If you think some gangster getting shot in a drug deal gone bad shouldn’t have his injuries paid for and thrown into the street to bleed to death, then where do you drawing the line with the first example?


Again, those would be questions based on one's moral system and answered and acted upon by the individuals whose resources are to be used or not used for the sake of others. In my view, to take the fruits of the labor of one person to give to another in order to enforce morality based policies is a misuse of government. Where the politicians have skillfully divided us is in making us fail to see that, even if we agree with a policy, it is not necessarily correct to use the powers of government to enforce that policy.

[Ghosty]

Again, those would be questions based on one's moral system and answered and acted upon by the individuals whose resources are to be used or not used for the sake of others. In my view, to take the fruits of the labor of one person to give to another in order to enforce morality based policies is a misuse of government. Where the politicians have skillfully divided us is in making us fail to see that, even if we agree with a policy, it is not necessarily correct to use the powers of government to enforce that policy.
Excellent post, and points that I would definitely add to my data when weighing the pros and cons of issues like this.

[dirkterrell]

And your opinions on what regulations (if any) you would want to balance an unregulated industry whose main priority is to make a profit off of your health? I know if I was in a coma, I would have full trust in these people to do the right thing to protect their company profits... (and you thought the idea of government death panels was bad one, compared to corporate ones?)

Government's primary job is to ensure that the rights of people are not infringed by others. If you are talking about an insurance policy, that is a legal contract between you and the insurance company about what will and won't be covered. If there are disputes, that is what the legal system is for.

Now, maybe what ought to be considered is that an insurance policy might cover dollar amounts for medical treatment, rather than specific maladies, kind of like car insurance. Your car insurance covers a dollar amount, not whether you hit someone's door versus their bumper. If health insurance worked that way, and the cost of various procedures was advertised (rather than the current crazy system where the cost varies, by factors of many, depending on how you pay), you could decide what level of risk you wanted to protect yourself against. Then there would be competitive pressures to keep costs down if all these antitrust exemptions for the medical industry were rescinded.

[Snowman]

Now, maybe what ought to be considered is that an insurance policy might cover dollar amounts for medical treatment, rather than specific maladies, kind of like car insurance. Your car insurance covers a dollar amount, not whether you hit someone's door versus their bumper. If health insurance worked that way, and the cost of various procedures was advertised (rather than the current crazy system where the cost varies, by factors of many, depending on how you pay), you could decide what level of risk you wanted to protect yourself against. Then there would be competitive pressures to keep costs down if all these antitrust exemptions for the medical industry were rescinded. Agreed, however if you called this government regulation a "government regulation", people tend to freak and tell you how much of a socialist they think you are...

[Ghost]

I do not believe that anyone can expect anyone else to pay for their care. Will I help those that I deem worthy of my help? Yes.

In my view, to take the fruits of the labor of one person to give to another in order to enforce morality based policies is a misuse of government. Where the politicians have skillfully divided us is in making us fail to see that, even if we agree with a policy, it is not necessarily correct to use the powers of government to enforce that policy.

And here's where I think we disagree.

A country exists for the protection and betterment of its people, and the entire notion of a social contract is that I, as an individual, give up some of the ability to choose how my money is redistributed in order to support the common good writ large.

As a powerful First-world nation, all of our citizens ought to be covered/protected and be able to access needed medical care.

This is part of the way the government takes care of its people, it needs to protect them from all threats foreign and domestic and it needs to ensure adequate living standards that include access to health care (and education).

These ideals are part of the fundamental ethos of our country's mantra that we are "of the people, by the people, for the people" and health care and education are critical elements of underlying the Declaration of Independence's "unalienable Rights" of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Thus it is not so much an individual's beliefs, or "morality" at question, it is, instead, a matter that speaks to the very cornerstone of our country--and we must therefore provide the necessary components of society required for the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness for America's citizens.

So, we do need some form of national health care program. We need to care for those citizens unable to do so for themselves. Just as my taxes often go towards causes, programs and policies I may not personally agree with, we must sometimes pay for things we would otherwise choose not to in order to support the common good of all.

Now, do I like Obama Care?
No, I do not.

I dislike that the government is requiring/forcing citizens to pay corporations for health care under threat of fine as this is yet another example of government-corporate collusion and corporate influence run amok in the disguise of a political "solution" to a genuine social problem.

Obama Care will be a windfall for corporations, since they will be the benefactors of millions of dollars in mandatory health insurance policies from individuals who previous were not paying anyone as they had no health insurance at all.

And, just as I opposed "Too Big To Fail" Wall Street bail outs as the forcible redistribution of wealth from the individual to the corporations, I oppose the government mandating policy where the individual will once again be forced to feed corporations.

But, given that there was no viable alternative solution proposed or provided, and since no one wants "Big Government" to run a nationalized health care program similar to those in most other First World nations, then this seems to be what we're stuck with.

Romney pushed a very similar bill through his state, so Republicans should have little to bitch about (though I'm sure they will), and Democrats get the "universal" coverage that they want. So, in theory, both sides ought to be happy with this result--though, again, I'm sure neither will be.

I don't find Obama Care an adequate solution, but I don't see any other way to solve the health care issue being proposed, or as likely to succeed...

[Ghost]

And as everyone debates the issue, I'm quickly approaching my demise because I cannot get health coverage. My condition has me blackballed at present.


Doesn't ObC prevent insurance companies from denying you based upon existing conditions? I thought that was one of the main components of the policy.

[dirkterrell]

Agreed, however if you called this government regulation a "government regulation", people tend to freak and tell you how much of a socialist they think you are...

This idea wouldn't have to be a government regulation. Insurance companies could still write traditional policies if they like. People could decide whether they wanted one or the other. But I agree about the name calling. That's exactly the kind of "discourse" that the politicians have so skillfully pushed us into. We care more about ideology than ideas. Until that stops, the path to our country's demise is assured.

[Ghosty]

A country exists for the protection and betterment of its people, and the entire notion of a social contract is that I, as an individual, give up some of the ability to choose how my money is redistributed in order to support the common good writ large.
.
.
.
I don't find Obama Care an adequate solution, but I don't see any other way to solve the health care issue being proposed, or as likely to succeed...
I pretty much agree with 99% of everything you said in that big post, nice.

[JustSomeDude]

Mass email just sent out by my financial adviser to his client base. An interesting read:


Hello Friends,

As you know the Supreme Court handed down a monumental decision today. It is my opinion that this is a potentially disastrous decision for the US economy. For months now a majority of US corporations have been holding off on hiring new employees do to the uncertainty that has abound. The biggest source of that uncertainty has been healthcare and what benefits should be offered to new employees.

The fact is that this law is the single largest and most regressive tax ever implemented in the United States history. Massive tax increases have traditionally resulted in recessions.

It is my opinion that this law will result in dramatically higher health insurance costs to all Americans, that cost increase will have a dramatic effect on the US economy.

Let’s start with just the facts in the law. Any family that does not have a minimum qualifying health plan is subject to a tax penalty of $2,085. Those families making more than $83,400 would be subject to the greater penalty of 2.5% of income annually. For an individual that choose not to buy health care the penalty is $695 a year tax. This is truly a regressive tax because it disproportionally is paid for by the poor and those making the lowest incomes.

For all business owners there are two additional penalties they are subject to from the IRS. The first is if an employer does not offer a minimum qualifying health insurance policy the penalty is $2,000 per year per employee. Second if an employer does not offer an affordable policy the employer is subject to a $3,000 a year penalty. Both of these penalties are designed to discourage employers of both private and public employees from providing health insurance. Here is why.

My family gets its healthcare through my wife’s job at Justice Department for the Federal government. Our co-pay on that plan is $756 a month or $9,072 a year. With respect to the first penalty her employer is paying $9,072 a year for our healthcare of half the premium. Under the Obama Care her employer could save $7,072 a year by canceling the offering of healthcare to our family. If we extrapolate that out over the entire Federal government with 3.4 million employees, the Federal government could save up to $307 billion a year in salary costs by canceling health insurance and just paying the penalty. If I was the CFO of every company in the US I would be making that cost benefit analysis right now.

The second penalty that employers face is that of affordability. If the cost is deemed unaffordable then the employer is subject to a $3,000 per employee affordability penalty from the IRS. The policy is considered unaffordable if the cost is more than 9.5% of your income. In our case in order for her employer to avoid the $3,000 only employees making more than $95,494 a year could buy our health insurance policy. The cheapest family policy I recall being on the option list was around $400 a month. That means that the lowest paid employee in the Federal government would have to make $50,526 a year in order for the employer to avoid the affordability tax.

So, if you are normal business it means that the maximum your group policy rate could be in order to avoid the affordability penalty if that newest employee makes $30,000 a year is $237/ month. Otherwise your healthcare expenses per employee will more than double with the imposition of affordability tax. This is the biggest reason small business has not been hiring people. There was too much uncertainty about what the costs of that new employee are going to be.

As an employer, you really have to make the following analysis I am paying more than $166/ month per employee in healthcare benefits. If the answer is yes I can now save a great deal of money and headaches by canceling the healthcare insurance for everyone. Is that a worthwhile business decision? Depends on your business and the type of employees you have. McDonald’s which had been offering health insurance canceled their health insurance earlier this year for most restaurant employees. The answer for a lot of employers both public and private will be yes canceling the healthcare coverage makes sense. The political cover the business has is that they are still paying something toward that employee being able to get insurance through the exchanges. So there is no guilt.

This brings us to the real core of the problem and why I believe Obama Care can result in us going back into a real recession. Once the employers start dropping their health insurance coverage and individuals are using the state exchanges to buy health insurance here is where the problem begins. The exchange system as envisioned under Obama Care allows for individuals to get group rates. The problem is twofold. First Obama Care defines as a matter of law what is covered and how that insurance is provided. This gives private health insurance companies no flexibility in determining different policy structures for different price points. Second the law limits what the exchange can charge an individual based on that individuals income. So, an individual making $20,000 a year could be charge a maximum of $158 a month. While the individual making $120,000 a year would be charged $950 a month for the same policy. Remember that there is no employer in this case picking up the other 50% of the health insurance costs. So, who is going to pick up the other half of the cost? Federal government. Here is where things get interesting. The Supreme Court ruling, while upholding the individual mandate as nothing more than a congressionally imposed tax, struck down the provision of the law requiring the expansion of Medicare by the states. Those that argue this will result in a single payer system are basing that conclusion on the idea that if the Federal government does not subsidize the health insurance offered on the exchanges private insurance will go bankrupt and stop selling policies to anyone. That is a very reasonable conclusion. I am in the camp that there are enough self-serving politicians that insurance companies can convince (buy) to subsidies the program.

My belief is that the exchanges are going to overly populated with people in lower income brackets and that the government in the form of the state or the Feds will have to make up the short fall. The result is in a few years we can realistically have either a state tax or federal tax of 9.5% of income to pay for this new program. A massive regressive tax, which Obama Care is designed to become, would greatly curb the spending habits of all except the super wealthy. This will result in a massive slowdown in the US economy. Less spending is less growth. It is that simple.

My forecast for the summer before the Obama Care decision was made by the Supreme Court was that we will have very bad employment numbers for both June and July. It is entirely possible that the hiring number could actually show a job loss for either or both months. That I felt is not as negative as media would make it seem.

My forecast for the fall is this. If it looks like President Obama is going to win re-election those companies which would benefit by an effect doubling of Federal government will do well. Companies like Xerox, IBM, General Electric, Iron Mountain will do exceptionally well. Companies involved in energy production, coal, oil, natural gas, domestic utilities, and retailers should be avoided at all costs. If Romney wins energy producers, domestic manufacturing, financial services should prosper. Avoid all government contractors.

Either way we are going to have a lot of work to do this fall. I hope you are ready.

Sincerely,

(name removed)
Financial Advisor
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

I do not believe that anyone can expect anyone else to pay for their care. Will I help those that I deem worthy of my help? Yes. This is a moral question and government is not the mechanism by which morality should be enforced. Some consider things like drug use, interracial marriage, homosexuality, etc. to be immoral, but it is wrong to use the power of government to enforce those beliefs.



Again, those would be questions based on one's moral system and answered and acted upon by the individuals whose resources are to be used or not used for the sake of others. In my view, to take the fruits of the labor of one person to give to another in order to enforce morality based policies is a misuse of government. Where the politicians have skillfully divided us is in making us fail to see that, even if we agree with a policy, it is not necessarily correct to use the powers of government to enforce that policy.
Dood, you should REALLY run for president! My thoughts exactly. I'll give and help to the less fortunate if I CHOOSE to, not because some liberal tells me I HAVE to. And I CERTAINLY don't want my gov't deciding that for me. It leads to an "entitlement" mentality which the libs seem to be so fond of.

[big53lee]

I will tune back in on page 27 when you guys get this figured out... :wait:

Blahaha, o shit. Lol

[DorJammer]

For those of you against a socialized health care system, I propose you be honest to your opinions, and act responsibly.

As such, keep your bikes at or below the speed limit and drive them only as needed to get from work to home etc. None of this showing up at MoCo on a Sunday in full leathers and breaking the law riding on this states socialized roadways.

Keep your lawbreaking unnecessary transportation off the roads and highways that are paid for with taxes

Hypocrites, one and all

[Ghost]

Dood, you should REALLY run for president! My thoughts exactly. I'll give and help to the less fortunate if I CHOOSE to, not because some liberal tells me I HAVE to. And I CERTAINLY don't want my gov't deciding that for me. It leads to an "entitlement" mentality which the libs seem to be so fond of.

Yes, the Liberal "entitlement" which wants healthcare for all citizens as opposed to the Republican version where Corporations and Wall Street are Entitled to be bailed out by the everyman whenever those corporations make shitty business decisions that would put them out of business if it weren't for the taxpayer being forced to bail them out...

Tell me again which entitlement is worse?

[dirkterrell]

And here's where I think we disagree.

A country exists for the protection and betterment of its people, and the entire notion of a social contract is that I, as an individual, give up some of the ability to choose how my money is redistributed in order to support the common good writ large.


I don't disagree with this idea in general. But the crux of the matter is what we give this up for. I believe that we should be very, very careful of what powers we grant to the government.



As a powerful First-world nation, all of our citizens ought to be covered/protected and be able to access needed medical care.

This is part of the way the government takes care of its people, it needs to protect them from all threats foreign and domestic and it needs to ensure adequate living standards that include access to health care (and education).

These ideals are part of the fundamental ethos of our country's mantra that we are "of the people, by the people, for the people" and health care and education are critical elements of underlying the Declaration of Independence's "unalienable Rights" of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."


That is a horrifically mistaken view of inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are those outside the realm of government. They are not granted by governments. They can only be violated by them or other citizens. Refusal by other citizens to provide you with health care is not a violation of any inalienable right.



Thus it is not so much an individual's beliefs, or "morality" at question, it is, instead, a matter that speaks to the very cornerstone of our country--and we must therefore provide the necessary components of society required for the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness for America's citizens.


And I argue that health care is not a "necessary component" because a lack of it is not a violation of any basic right. Access to education (of the K-12 variety) could be (and was by some of the Founders, particularly Jefferson) argued to be a necessary component of a successful democracy.



So, we do need some form of national health care program. We need to care for those citizens unable to do so for themselves. Just as my taxes often go towards causes, programs and policies I may not personally agree with, we must sometimes pay for things we would otherwise choose not to in order to support the common good of all.


I personally agree that we need to take care of those who cannot do so themselves. Where I disagree is in the use of force by government to compel those of a differing opinion to do so. Again, a lack of access to health care because of one's own financial situation is not a violation of one's rights.

[kawasakirob]

For those of you against a socialized health care system, I propose you be honest to your opinions, and act responsibly.

As such, keep your bikes at or below the speed limit and drive them only as needed to get from work to home etc. None of this showing up at MoCo on a Sunday in full leathers and breaking the law riding on this states socialized roadways.

Keep your lawbreaking unnecessary transportation off the roads and highways that are paid for with taxes

Hypocrites, one and all

Wait wait wait.....sportbikes can go over 65? They make gear that has full body coverage? Where is this planet your on?:)

[dirkterrell]

As such, keep your bikes at or below the speed limit and drive them only as needed to get from work to home etc. None of this showing up at MoCo on a Sunday in full leathers and breaking the law riding on this states socialized roadways.

Roads are paid for by those who use them. How is that socialized?

[koop]

Justsomedude;

I'm not real bright and the letter was long and tedious so maybe I'm missing something but your financial adviser seems to be making arguing;

1. There are employers that offer health insurance currently.

2. They are offering this insurance at a substantial cost to the employer.

3. They are currently under no legal obligation to offer this insurance.

4. When they become legally obligated to offer insurance it will be cheaper to no longer offer insurance they don't have to offer now and pay the fine because the fine is less than what it is currently costing them to offer the insurance that they are under no legal obligation to offer.

If that's the argument, and I think it is, you should fire him. He's stupid.

[JustSomeDude]

Justsomedude;

I'm not real bright and the letter was long and tedious so maybe I'm missing something but your financial adviser seems to be making arguing;

1. There are employers that offer health insurance currently.

2. They are offering this insurance at a substantial cost to the employer.

3. They are currently under no legal obligation to offer this insurance.

4. When they become legally obligated to offer insurance it will be cheaper to no longer offer insurance they don't have to offer now and pay the fine because the fine is less than what it is currently costing them to offer the insurance that they are under no legal obligation to offer.

If that's the argument, and I think it is, you should fire him. He's stupid.

Why is this stupid? This was debated when PPACA was first proposed. It's going to be cheaper for many companies to drop insurance coverage completely, as the fine will provide a better bottom line to their financials - as opposed to increased costs for healthcare benefits.

Your point #4 misses the most important issue - the mandated insurance, for many businesses, will be far MORE expensive than current plans. So it's not just switching apples for apples, it's switching apples for far more expensive oranges. And not by choice - but because of incurred costs of government taxation. And in many cases, paying the penalty for offering no coverage will be a better business decision than paying for the increased costs of health coverage.

Think of it from a financial analyst's standpoint (or - anyone comparing costs really): why pay more for something that an employee can now get for "free", or at a much better subsidized cost from the insurance exchange? And the employee can no longer argue that they're losing a "benefit," since the government is now providing you lower cost health insurance coverage. That's what his reference to "no guilt" means; these corporations can drop thousands of employee's health benefit plans without feeling any type of repercussion.

If it helps the bottom line - you can bet yer butt it's going to happen. And if you don't think this will happen, I'd be careful about who you call stupid.

[JustSomeDude]

Koop,

This may explain it a little more simply than my adviser's tedious email:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/04/27/will-obamacare-cause-employers-to-drop-health-coverage/

Some think this was the intent of the law all along - to eliminate private insurance entirely and ultimately pave the way for a single payer system.

[koop]

ah, missed the guilt part

[CaptGoodvibes]

Doesn't ObC prevent insurance companies from denying you based upon existing conditions? I thought that was one of the main components of the policy.

Yes. Which is why I get angry when I read these threads. It's very close to home. But the gist of the argument against, is the individual mandate, which, without it, the pre-existing condition clause will be thrown out as well.

Ultimately, I'd just like to see some compassion from humanity as a whole instead of the constant us vs. them bs.

[Ghost]

Yes. Which is why I get angry when I read these threads. It's very close to home. But the gist of the argument against, is the individual mandate, which, without it, the pre-existing condition clause will be thrown out as well.

Ultimately, I'd just like to see some compassion from humanity as a whole instead of the constant us vs. them bs.

Compassion has to be learned, believed in, and actively pursued.

Us vs. Them is instinctual, inherent, and easy to both fall into and exploit.

[Ghost]

I don't disagree with this idea in general. But the crux of the matter is what we give this up for. I believe that we should be very, very careful of what powers we grant to the government.



That is a horrifically mistaken view of inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are those outside the realm of government. They are not granted by governments. They can only be violated by them or other citizens. Refusal by other citizens to provide you with health care is not a violation of any inalienable right.



And I argue that health care is not a "necessary component" because a lack of it is not a violation of any basic right. Access to education (of the K-12 variety) could be (and was by some of the Founders, particularly Jefferson) argued to be a necessary component of a successful democracy.



I personally agree that we need to take care of those who cannot do so themselves. Where I disagree is in the use of force by government to compel those of a differing opinion to do so. Again, a lack of access to health care because of one's own financial situation is not a violation of one's rights.


If you cannot access your right to education, or to employment, or to any other inalienable right because you are unable to be healthy enough to take advantage of those rights then they are empty rights and essentially meaningless. Thus, to guarantee and facilitate the individual's rights, there must be basic structures in place to provide those necessary social components--including healthcare.

Hardline Libertarianism is only one view, and it is not the model of, nor singular ethos behind the Founding Fathers' goal or plan for this country.

And, as a society, we may collectively have to pay into a system that helps everyone despite whether we would approve of each individual disbursement or not. Society is not solely a collection of individuals out for personal gain, it is an aggregate contract for the protection and betterment of all its citizens, and that may mean that sometimes we must pay for others' costs.

But, at least we'd be helping fellow citizens in need instead of being forced to feed corporate greed and cover their bad bets with our money.

[derekm]

feel free to close this thread now

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs4/i/2004/242/7/d/299_dumpster.jpg

[stubbicatt]

Compassion has to be learned, believed in, and actively pursued.

Us vs. Them is instinctual, inherent, and easy to both fall into and exploit.

+1

While the outcome of this controversy does not shock me or cause me alarm due to pre-existing conditions which have prevented me from obtaining quality insurance, I had sort of hoped to see a roll back of the commerce clause.

I find some aspects of our arguments interesting because they start from different "givens." One of the ironies I shake my head at is those whose "strict construction" theories of the constitution typically overlook the provision in the document for a navy, but no mention in the constitution is made of providing for a standing army. This omission is intentional. The drafters had in their lifetimes been subject to the British obligation of billeting of soldiers in the standing army... The drafters of the constitution instead provided for a "militia" as a cost saving measure and to alleviate an oppressive obligation of householders, and therefore tacked a provision into the bill of rights to assure that the manpower necessary to staff the militia were available and well outfitted. Perhaps it should have been placed elsewhere in the constitution, but the 2nd Amendment is indeed found in the Bill of Rights.

So. A huge standing army, one of the top recipients of federal expenditures, is, in a word, unconstitutional, or at very least not provided for in that document, and not due to some memory lapse on the part of the drafters, but quite intentionally to avoid what they saw as an expensive evil. This is one glaring example of a circumstance that the typical conservative would not blink an eye at. Most conservatives like a huge army, as they have invested heavily in death and destruction with such entities as Raytheon, et. al.

Yet folks tend to forget such intentionally omitted institutions which have given the federal government tremendous power when they talk about engrafting yet another, largely beneficial, institution of health care onto the government.

I guess death dealing and war profiteering is acceptable to some, while compassionate provision of some relief to their countrymen is not. People just starting from a different "given."

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Yes, the Liberal "entitlement" which wants healthcare for all citizens as opposed to the Republican version where Corporations and Wall Street are Entitled to be bailed out by the everyman whenever those corporations make shitty business decisions that would put them out of business if it weren't for the taxpayer being forced to bail them out...

Tell me again which entitlement is worse?
Easy: The liberal one. Don't tell me the (D)onkeys haven't been responsible for the same shit over the years.

I owe nobody else nothing, and resent the gov't handing out my tax dollars like that. If you want to contribute as a person, fine, go ahead and more power to you. Don't tell me I must contribute to YOUR charities. I have the right to choose, not you, or the gov't. I'm 1000% with Dirk on this one.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Doesn't ObC prevent insurance companies from denying you based upon existing conditions? I thought that was one of the main components of the policy.
That, is the ONLY part of that 1,000+ page monstrosity I agree with.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

+1

While the outcome of this controversy does not shock me or cause me alarm due to pre-existing conditions which have prevented me from obtaining quality insurance, I had sort of hoped to see a roll back of the commerce clause.

I find some aspects of our arguments interesting because they start from different "givens." One of the ironies I shake my head at is those whose "strict construction" theories of the constitution typically overlook the provision in the document for a navy, but no mention in the constitution is made of providing for a standing army. This omission is intentional. The drafters had in their lifetimes been subject to the British obligation of billeting of soldiers in the standing army... The drafters of the constitution instead provided for a "militia" as a cost saving measure and to alleviate an oppressive obligation of householders, and therefore tacked a provision into the bill of rights to assure that the manpower necessary to staff the militia were available and well outfitted. Perhaps it should have been placed elsewhere in the constitution, but the 2nd Amendment is indeed found in the Bill of Rights.

So. A huge standing army, one of the top recipients of federal expenditures, is, in a word, unconstitutional, or at very least not provided for in that document, and not due to some memory lapse on the part of the drafters, but quite intentionally to avoid what they saw as an expensive evil. This is one glaring example of a circumstance that the typical conservative would not blink an eye at. Most conservatives like a huge army, as they have invested heavily in death and destruction with such entities as Raytheon, et. al.

Yet folks tend to forget such intentionally omitted institutions which have given the federal government tremendous power when they talk about engrafting yet another, largely beneficial, institution of health care onto the government.

I guess death dealing and war profiteering is acceptable to some, while compassionate provision of some relief to their countrymen is not. People just starting from a different "given."
Intersting argument my friend. :) But, are they not responsible for the "common defense"? Which, though not specifically granted, include an army? And, since all the armed forces are voluntary, does that make a difference.

[Ghosty]

Hardline Libertarianism is only one view, and it is not the model of, nor singular ethos behind the Founding Fathers' goal or plan for this country.
THANK YOU! *sigh*

I hate how the Libert/RP set have taken to flying the "Don't Tread on Me" flag at every chance, as if THEY'RE the ONLY patriots in this country who love America, and everyone else is a liberal global hippy who wants the country to go down the drain. Just adds to their small-minded view, imo.

Some of these (survivalist type) people think we'd be fine reverting to a "Little House on the Prairie" community where everyone defends themselves with their stockpile of guns and farm equipment and all the kids are home-schooled. Yeah, that'll work out great!

[dirkterrell]

If you cannot access your right to education, or to employment, or to any other inalienable right because you are unable to be healthy enough to take advantage of those rights then they are empty rights and essentially meaningless. Thus, to guarantee and facilitate the individual's rights, there must be basic structures in place to provide those necessary social components--including healthcare.


I'm having a hard time imagining Jefferson, Madison, or even Hamilton arguing that if they contracted pneumonia that others should be compelled by the force of government to pay for their care. The Constitution is there to prevent others from taking away individual's rights, not to mitigate any natural (or god-given, if you like) limitation of a person's ability to enjoy those rights. Morally speaking, yes, I believe in giving my time and money to help the unfortunate. But that is my compassion to give, and I believe it is against the very founding ideas of this nation to force others to do so.



Hardline Libertarianism is only one view, and it is not the model of, nor singular ethos behind the Founding Fathers' goal or plan for this country.


I don't know what "Hardline Libertarianism" means exactly, but the author of the document you quoted on inalienable rights and the recognized father of the constitution were clear on the topic of what the federal government should and shouldn't be doing with regards to the "general welfare" clause:

Madison:

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.Jefferson:

The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed.
Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.So, two very important framers of this country's founding documents warned us to be very careful about government powers, lest we slide into tyranny "as before observed."



And, as a society, we may collectively have to pay into a system that helps everyone despite whether we would approve of each individual disbursement or not. Society is not solely a collection of individuals out for personal gain, it is an aggregate contract for the protection and betterment of all its citizens, and that may mean that sometimes we must pay for others' costs.


But "society" does not equal "Federal government" and forced taxation does not equate to compassion. We agree in the need to help those that cannot help themselves. We disagree in whether it is correct and necessary to use the force of government and the threat of the loss of freedom to compel that compassion.



But, at least we'd be helping fellow citizens in need instead of being forced to feed corporate greed and cover their bad bets with our money.

The entangling of government responsibilities with, for example, the financial industry has resulted in damage to the general welfare that you clearly recognize. The entangling of government with healthcare will surely have the same result. When the government is the master of your pocketbook and your health, your ability to resist it in matters of tyranny is greatly weakened, and we all suffer at its hands.

[TinkerinWstuff]

thanks for that post Dirk

[dirkterrell]

THANK YOU! *sigh*

I hate how the Libert/RP set have taken to flying the "Don't Tread on Me" flag at every chance, as if THEY'RE the ONLY patriots in this country who love America, and everyone else is a liberal global hippy who wants the country to go down the drain. Just adds to their small-minded view, imo.


I'm not sure that he was calling me a Libertarian, but I am not. I have some very big disagreements with their platform. They are extremists on the other end of the spectrum. Again, this is an example of how politicians divide us- by putting us in ideological boxes rather than having us examine individual ideas and work together. It appeals to a laziness of thought that is too prevalent in our society, and that is why I enjoy these conversations when they remain civil. I prefer to see honest debate rather than the cop-out of ignoring or belittling it. If more people cared enough to think and talk about these things, we'd be much less susceptible to the bullshit that politicians and their masters peddle.

[Ghosty]

My post wasn't directed at his response to you in particular, but rather the general feeling I've gotten over the last four years from the TeaParty and more extreme Libertarian sets. ;)

And I agree about civility, honest debate, etc.

[~Barn~]

I’m having a hard time envisioning colonial-era Americans picturing, (much less understanding), the complexities of current civilized society, medicine, and economics. And I use the term "civilized" loosely.

Quite simply, the inhabitants of this country back in that time all understood more clearly that survival of the people was a genuine struggle, as their daily lives were enveloped by it. Sure, a basic distinction could be made between the sick and the well, but even the affluent had a more-than-usual worry about disease, the ramifications of injury, and the terror of illness. That is obviously not necessarily the case today.

Science and “evolution” have moved us to a much more advanced time and space in the world, and although we may be occupying the same spatial area on the planet, make no mistake that we are not a more “advanced” American species in the year 2012.

As advancements in our tangible lives are evident (and inevitable), so must be the advancements in our philosophies. That is not to say abandonment of well-crafted ideologies mind you, but clearly progression must be the rule of the day.

[dirkterrell]

Quite simply, the inhabitants of this country back in that time all understood more clearly that survival of the people was a genuine struggle, as their daily lives were enveloped by it. Sure, a basic distinction could be made between the sick and the well, but even the affluent had a more-than-usual worry about disease, the ramifications of injury, and the terror of illness.

And yet, even then they did not specifically enumerate nationalized healthcare as a responsibility of the federal government.

[Snowman]

And yet, even then they did not specifically enumerate nationalized healthcare as a responsibility of the federal government.And yet the common accepted form of curing a fever back then was to bleed someone.

The point Barn makes is that yes, there are allot of good ideas and principles created 200 yeas ago, but we can't live in the past entirely. This country is a nation of today and we need to make choices in that context.

[Ghosty]

The point Barn makes is that yes, there are allot of good ideas and principles created 200 yeas ago, but we can't live in the past entirely. This country is a nation of today and we need to make choices in that context.
Case in point, our laws are STILL playing catchup with the Internet world, globalization and speed of communication, etc. Not to mention the prevalence of cellphone cams/recorders, personal access to technology which only "spies & criminals" USE TO have.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

I'm having a hard time imagining Jefferson, Madison, or even Hamilton arguing that if they contracted pneumonia that others should be compelled by the force of government to pay for their care. The Constitution is there to prevent others from taking away individual's rights, not to mitigate any natural (or god-given, if you like) limitation of a person's ability to enjoy those rights. Morally speaking, yes, I believe in giving my time and money to help the unfortunate. But that is my compassion to give, and I believe it is against the very founding ideas of this nation to force others to do so.



I don't know what "Hardline Libertarianism" means exactly, but the author of the document you quoted on inalienable rights and the recognized father of the constitution were clear on the topic of what the federal government should and shouldn't be doing with regards to the "general welfare" clause:

Madison:
Jefferson:
So, two very important framers of this country's founding documents warned us to be very careful about government powers, lest we slide into tyranny "as before observed."



But "society" does not equal "Federal government" and forced taxation does not equate to compassion. We agree in the need to help those that cannot help themselves. We disagree in whether it is correct and necessary to use the force of government and the threat of the loss of freedom to compel that compassion.



The entangling of government responsibilities with, for example, the financial industry has resulted in damage to the general welfare that you clearly recognize. The entangling of government with healthcare will surely have the same result. When the government is the master of your pocketbook and your health, your ability to resist it in matters of tyranny is greatly weakened, and we all suffer at its hands.
Exactly. Compassion should be VOLUNTARY at the INDIVIDUAL level, not ENFORCED at the GOVERNMENTAL one. ;)

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

And yet the common accepted form of curing a fever back then was to bleed someone.

The point Barn makes is that yes, there are allot of good ideas and principles created 200 yeas ago, but we can't live in the past entirely. This country is a nation of today and we need to make choices in that context.
The concept of "bleeding" is dated, the concept of our Constitution is timeless. These principals MUST be upheld.

[TinkerinWstuff]

And yet the common accepted form of curing a fever back then was to bleed someone.

The point Barn makes is that yes, there are allot of good ideas and principles created 200 yeas ago, but we can't live in the past entirely. This country is a nation of today and we need to make choices in that context.

But you fail to address the issue historians recognize and Dirk pointed out; making more people dependant on government policy and regulation will ultimately lead to an end.

Everyone wants the health care system fixed. Adding more people to the system without doing anything to address the real cause of rising costs is plain stupid.

[DorJammer]

My post wasn't directed at his response to you in particular, but rather the general feeling I've gotten over the last four years from the TeaParty and more extreme Libertarian sets. ;)

And I agree about civility, honest debate, etc.


screw cival discourse!

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQlclIL5ZuZpNri-yHfxbMpVFSNBBVUG7VjVQYfCARccxOX-FzJll02lRqy

This is what I'm talking about!

[Ghosty]

screw cival discourse!

This is what I'm talking about!
Hahaa, exactly why I said "TeaParty" and "Libertarian", and NOT teabaggers & Unabomber tinfoil UFO gun nuts.

:D

[dirkterrell]

The point Barn makes is that yes, there are allot of good ideas and principles created 200 yeas ago, but we can't live in the past entirely. This country is a nation of today and we need to make choices in that context.

Which, of course, the Founders recognized. That is why there is a means of altering the Constitution. If the people of this country want a federal government-run healthcare system, then let's propose an amendment and go through the process.

I just finished reading the part of the decision relating to its constitutionality under the Commerce Clause. It seems reasonable and well thought out. Now on to the "it's a tax" part...

[Ghost]

I'm not sure that he was calling me a Libertarian, but I am not.

For the record, my statement wasn't directed at anyone in particular.

[Ghost]

If the people of this country want a federal government-run healthcare system, then let's propose an amendment and go through the process.


Never happen, too much money/power in the pockets of the healthcare industry to ever let that be proposed, let alone happen.

One may as well propose nationalizing all the oil/gas companies...

[Snowman]

Which, of course, the Founders recognized. That is why there is a means of altering the Constitution. If the people of this country want a federal government-run healthcare system, then let's propose an amendment and go through the process.

I just finished reading the part of the decision relating to its constitutionality under the Commerce Clause. It seems reasonable and well thought out. Now on to the "it's a tax" part...So I guess the next question would be, would you be apposed to a constitutional amendment to support the right to basic health care? And if so what form should a basic health right take?

[dirkterrell]

So I guess the next question would be, would you be apposed to a constitutional amendment to support the right to basic health care?

No, I do not believe I have a "right" to force others to treat my maladies. I would no more believe it right to force others to pay for that treatment via the force of government than I would believe it right to force someone at gunpoint to hand over cash to pay for my treatment at a hospital.

[Vance]

So has Rush Limbaugh moved out of the country yet and kept his promise to flee?

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Which, of course, the Founders recognized. That is why there is a means of altering the Constitution. If the people of this country want a federal government-run healthcare system, then let's propose an amendment and go through the process.

I just finished reading the part of the decision relating to its constitutionality under the Commerce Clause. It seems reasonable and well thought out. Now on to the "it's a tax" part...
If it's truly a TAX, then I can;t see how that could possibly NOT be unconstitutional. You cannot be taxes for goods and services that you did NOT buy. Talk about a slippery slope. Hey, I didn't buy cigarettes and booze today, wanna tax me anyways? Talk about taxation without representation....

[dirkterrell]

Ok, having read the part of the decision on the idea that this is a tax, I am forced to conclude that there is some seriously tortured logic in there. They argue that it's not a tax with regard to the Anti-Injunction Act, but is a tax with regard to its constitutionality, and that leads this citizen to agree with the dissenters that this is nothing more than sophistry.

I, again, encourage everyone to read this decision. It will take a while at 193 pages, but this is an important decision about the future of our country.

[Ghosty]

So has Rush Limbaugh moved out of the country yet and kept his promise to flee?
He's headed to Amsterdam because he heard Oxy is legal OTC. :D

[Vance]

He's headed to Amsterdam because he heard Oxy is legal OTC. :D

I thought he already vacations there more than Mia Wallace does for just that reason! :)

[Snowman]

If it's truly a TAX, then I can;t see how that could possibly NOT be unconstitutional. You cannot be taxes for goods and services that you did NOT buy. Talk about a slippery slope. Hey, I didn't buy cigarettes and booze today, wanna tax me anyways? Talk about taxation without representation....When was the last time you sent a paycheck to a border guard?

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

When was the last time you sent a paycheck to a border guard?
Every day, as part of my taxes. And, for that, they could take a little more and I'd be happy. :)

But for making sure every illegal that slithers across the border has free emergency healthcare? Not a chance.....

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Ok, having read the part of the decision on the idea that this is a tax, I am forced to conclude that there is some seriously tortured logic in there. They argue that it's not a tax with regard to the Anti-Injunction Act, but is a tax with regard to its constitutionality, and that leads this citizen to agree with the dissenters that this is nothing more than sophistry.

I, again, encourage everyone to read this decision. It will take a while at 193 pages, but this is an important decision about the future of our country.
soph·ist·ry

   /ˈsɒfəstri/ [/URL]Show Spelled[sof-uh-stree] [URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html"] (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html)Show IPA
noun, plural soph·ist·ries. 1. a subtle (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subtle), tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.


3. Total Bullshit.

:)