5-4 Decision Affirms Obamacare

[Epidemic]

Individuals likely will not see costs decrease. When we measure prices, we are doing it in terms of total healthcare consumed as a percentage of GDP. This is what has been said from the beginning. Don't try and make it out like you were promised a refund.

I have said nothing of the sort.

but now that you mention it, Shouldn't I expect a refund in the form of costs coming down. In the end individual premiums must come down as well. With everyone paying in now you must expect more funds available for health care and less costs that hospitals will have to shift to insurred patients.

Even if my premium does not drop, shouldn't I expect costs of health care to drop from a government stand point?

If prices don't come down then where are the savings going? What is the current health care cost as a % of GDP and how much do you expect it to drop?

[mad1]

So you are in favor of denying children coverage? You are in favor of allowing companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions?
These are the sorts of questions Theo is talking about. So of course the poll data you pulled up shows people are against "Obamacare" when they are questioned. That is exactly what Theo said.

Where did I say that?

Being a little melodramatic in order to play the sympathy card?

[MTAtech]

[MTAtech]

Actually, when you poll people on the individual provisions of the Affordable Care Act, they're overwhelmingly for them (with the exception of the mandate). It's just "Obamacare" they're against.

Republicans support Obama's health reforms as long as his name isn't on them - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

The new Reuters-Ipsos poll finds that Obamacare remains deeply unpopular; 56 percent of Americans oppose the law, versus only 44 percent who favor it. The poll also finds that strong majorities of Americans favor the individual provisions in the law -- the hated individual mandate excepted, of course.

[MegalosSkylaki]

And even that can carry the implication that the destruction is somehow evil. We tax items like alcohol and tobacco more heavily than groceries because we are in effect attempting to control some of the behavior. This is destruction from an economical perspective if it prohibits a single sale.

Governments require taxes to run and uphold a functioning society, so the whole point is basically moot. It is only valid as a reminder of an ethical obligation.

What Marshall's famous decision had to do with was the Division of Powers Doctrine wherein certain powers are assigned to the States and certain powers to the Fedral Government and more importantly, this was a clear statement of the supramacy of the Federal Government over the States at a time when this was not so clear. The State of Maryland tried to tax a Federally chartered Bank. The Supreme Court overturned this tax maintaining te States could not tax the instruments of the Federal Government.

Clarence B. Carson
The Power to Tax Is the Power to Destroy
October 1976 • Volume: 26 • Issue: 10 • Print This Post•


Chief Justice John Marshall was at his axiomatic best in the Supreme Court opinion set forth in McCulloch v. Maryland. He propounded several interesting and profound axioms in that decision.
...................[edit]
....................
The axioms in question are stated and appealed to in several ways in the course of the opinion. The most direct statement of them is contained in the following clauses: “That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create….”

The implications of the axioms had already been laid down a few sentences earlier:
These are,
1. That a power to create implies a power to preserve.

2. That a power to destroy, if wielded by a different hand, is hostile to, and incompatible with, these powers to create and preserve.

3. That where this repugnancy exists, that authority which is supreme must control, not yield to that over which it is supreme….

from >>>
The Power to Tax Is the Power to Destroy | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

There were only three Justices on the Supreme Court at this time and John Marshall , who served for three decades laid the foundation for much of American Constitutional Law.


MegalosSkylaki aka Justice DOOG

[tony_j15]

Where did I say that?

Being a little melodramatic in order to play the sympathy card?

Theo said people are for the individual components, it's just the complete package they are against.

You said the majority was in favor of repeal. That's the same thing, only your request for a link shows you wanted to deny the point Theo made that people favor the individual components.

I gave examples of situations relating to the individual components to clue you in.

You accused me of being melodramatic and trying to collect sympathy, which is completely unrelated to the discussion.

MTA posts the data proving you wrong.

And that's how that went.

[MegalosSkylaki]

If people don't want "the whole law" as such AND many don't want the law when Obama's name is attached to it, doesn't that argue, as I have, that the President would have been better off if the law had been struck down and he didn't have to run for re-election carrying the burden of it? Then add Roberts swing vote that allows people to call it the "Health Tax Law...the Supreme Court said so".

[mad1]

Theo said people are for the individual components, it's just the complete package they are against.

You said the majority was in favor of repeal. That's the same thing, only your request for a link shows you wanted to deny the point Theo made that people favor the individual components.

I gave examples of situations relating to the individual components to clue you in.

You accused me of being melodramatic and trying to collect sympathy, which is completely unrelated to the discussion.

MTA posts the data proving you wrong.

And that's how that went.

MTA did not post the data until after your post, read the time line.

You accuse me of going off topic, coming from you that is a good one.

[Theophylact]

I didn't post the polling date myself either. It's been widely reported, and I was in a hurry. But since you only read moonbat sources you wouldn't know that, would you?

[pickel]

Let me get this straight in order to enlighten myself and overcome my naivety concerning people getting the healthcare they need one way or the other.
I, reckon, I owe everyone one on this board some money, as well as the rest of the citizens of our country. The only reason that I am able to be writing this now, are the monies payed into Medicare which supplied 80% of the cost of dialysis, a kidney transplant and ALL associated costs for the past 10-12 years since my kidneys failed. Take it all out on me for being a leach on your hard earned dollars. What you guys paid to keep me alive is a debt I could never repay , however , when I go, I will send you all a pound of flesh if you could send your addresses in a PM.
With all the money pissed away on fruitless wars and the other make believe projects the crooks in Washington concoct, do not you think that these resources could have been spent to better our country's citizen health ????
Many of those who are the public teat, if they were in good health, could be an asset instead of a detriment. Healthy, happy people contribute instead of being a drag . Healthy people don't have to steal and wind up incarcerated, thus, creating more loss of productivity and cost to the State.
I hope, that in your future, these programs the Government has created are still here when your catastrophic illness hits and the guy at the admitting office doesn't say, while laughing " You're FUCKED" Buddy!!!!!!!!!

[tony_j15]

MTA did not post the data until after your post, read the time line.

Which is why that was paragraph 5 of my post. What I posted was is in accurate time-line order. Prove otherwise.

[MTAtech]

If people don't want "the whole law" as such AND many don't want the law when Obama's name is attached to it, doesn't that argue, as I have, that the President would have been better off if the law had been struck down and he didn't have to run for re-election carrying the burden of it? Then add Roberts swing vote that allows people to call it the "Health Tax Law...the Supreme Court said so".

A more accurate conclusion is that most Americans have no idea what the ACA does but they're against it. My sister is firmly against it because FOX has convinced her that a bill that's 2,000 pages long has to be bad.

Once the poll takers ask specifics like, "do you favor the ACA's provision that prohibits insurance companies from denying insurance for those with pre-existing conditions, like cancer," people say yes. The same goes for children 26 and under and so forth.

[MegalosSkylaki]

A more accurate conclusion is that most Americans have no idea what the ACA does but they're against it. My sister is firmly against it because FOX has convinced her that a bill that's 2,000 pages long has to be bad.

Once the poll takers ask specifics like, "do you favor the ACA's provision that prohibits insurance companies from denying insurance for those with pre-existing conditions, like cancer," people say yes. The same goes for children 26 and under and so forth.

I have studied enough psychology to understand that even the smallest variations in wording of questions can lead to vastly diffferent outcomes of questionaires. Even the location of a question in a questionaire can effect the outcome. Of course this phenomenon runs both ways and proponants and opponants of the law can take comfort in various outcomes.

There is one situation I believe is rather well recognized if you look at the dificulty within the Democratic Party in getting enough Democrats to vote in favor of the law. This caused an internal division witin the Party and probably resentment at the loss of the House and the seats of Democrats in marginal districts from which the party has not fully recovered.

People's resentment can be both conscious and unconscious and the political capital expanded to get a law passed that did little or nothing to boost the economy at a time of Deep Recession was a political error for a President facing an Election in three short years. At the least, this should have been considered and more pressing legislation should have been attacked first. This was a Second Term Bill -if there is a second term.

MegalosSkylaki

[The Real Bingo]

How is it that these supposed legal geniuses in the SCOTUS interpret a mandate to buy private health insurance a tax, and thus Constitutional?

[MegalosSkylaki]

How is it that these supposed legal geniuses in the SCOTUS interpret a mandate to buy private health insurance a tax, and thus Constitutional?

IMO because Justice Roberts wanted to interpret it to be a tax.

SEE>>>

5-4 Decision Affirms Obamacare

5-4 Decision Affirms Obamacare

MegalosSkylaki

[Taxmancometh]

I can't believe the court found this Constitutional. Bunch of monkeys we have working over there. Monkeys!

[tony_j15]

How is it that these supposed legal geniuses in the SCOTUS interpret a mandate to buy private health insurance a tax, and thus Constitutional?

My guess is because it is connected with a penalty tax for not participating, and with expanded/rebranded revenue streams used to pay for the system.

I suppose also you could read the decision for you self if you actually want to know.

[no1_vern]

Chart on what it means(PDF) :

http://healthreform.kff.org/~/media/...lowchart_2.pdf

[Taxmancometh]

This is more than a feather in Obama's cap. This is a feather to be worn in the cap of all Americans.

Congratulations U.S.A.!

What are you gloating about. Your system is so fucked up they send pregnant women to the U.S. !

Some Canadian mothers forced to give birth in U.S. | News | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News

[Taxmancometh]

Don't be too quick to celebrate . . . it still has one more hurdle to cross . . .

If Obama wins re-election in November, it will probably stand for at least 4 more years.
If Obama doesn't win re-election, it will probably be repealed rather quickly.

I guess you will need to wait to see the verdict in November.


Harder

Not unless the libs are kicked out of the Senate.