5-4 Decision Affirms Obamacare

[The Real Bingo]

So how is it being funded if not everyone is being taxed?

[tony_j15]

Why are you attempting to debate this issue if you haven't done us all the favor of doing some cursory research?

Start here for funding.

[Chuckiechan]

Chuck: the economy is a topic for discussion in its own thread. Let's not go there here.

It is 1/5th of the economy.

Funding? No one knows how it's being funded, since it is now a tax when last week it was a penalty.

The short story is, because the republicans were shut out of the process, every roadblock possible will be put in place to kill it. The rejection of bipartisanship by Obama has created a single minded mission to kill it and start over.

And that is a good thing. Only an idiot would try to do something so big and ignore so many people.

[tony_j15]

I take it you don't like doing research or reading either? Read my above link. The funding sources have been known since the get-go.
Also, it's still a penalty. SCOTUS just said it was legal because it follows tax precident. They have much broader terms that they deal with.

[thephilosophizer]

So basically the answer is that the right to live in the USA is a taxable offense. Because, essentially, that's what this law is about. You being alive without any other attachments means you have to pay a tax. The simple act of being is taxable. I find that quite preposterous. One can choose not to drive and avoid those taxes for that privilege. Should one have to commit suicide to avoid the taxes levied for the right to life?

How is that preposterous? That's the foundation of civil society. What good are laws if there is no one to uphold them. What good is a country if we cannot prepare for common defense? If you don't want to pay taxes for anything go live in Africa somewhere like the DCR, or go to Afghanistan. The reason we have a country such as we do is that we cooperate. Your selfishness is the epitome of anarchy.

[The Real Bingo]

So there's no limit to taxation as long as we're living in a civil, benevolent society. Got it.

[The Real Bingo]

Why are you attempting to debate this issue if you haven't done us all the favor of doing some cursory research?

Start here for funding.

Taxes, then. Got it. Oh, and more borrowing.

You guys are geniuses.

[Theophylact]

Funding? No one knows how it's being funded, since it is now a tax when last week it was a penalty.

The tax/penalty/mandate/whatever is a tiny part of the funding. Basically, its only purpose is to prevent free riders from avoiding buying insurance until they get sick; if they want to do that, it'll cost them. A little.

Q. I’ve heard that I’m required to have insurance. When does that go into effect? And what sort of penalties will I face if I don’t comply?

A. Starting in 2014, most Americans will be required to have health insurance and could face federal penalties if they do not. Taxpayers will be required to indicate on their tax returns whether they have health insurance that meets minimal benefits standards, according to the Commonwealth Fund. If consumers do not have insurance by 2014, they would owe $95, or 1 percent of taxable income, whichever is greater. The penalty rises to $325, or 2 percent of taxable income in 2015, and then $695, or 2.5 percent of taxable income in 2016, up to a maximum of $2,085 per family.

[MTAtech]

I find the comparison to vehicle insurance to be a weak one at best. Driving is not something you are entitled to, it is a privilege and you must pay for that privilege. States do not require you to be insured for your benefit, but for the other dumbasses on the road you might end up hurting.

What we are saying here is that health care is, or at least should be, a right given to all United States citizens. Per Bingo's statement, what other _right_ are we forced to pay for? <- honest question since I have no idea, or at least I can't think of anything simple off-hand.

You have the right to be protected by the police and must pay for the privileged even if you don't want to. The same goes for the entire justice system and, of course, national defense.

HC should be a right to all -- but not only out of our liberal sense do-goodieness -- it also makes economic sense. It allows people who are afraid of leaving their status as an employee because of fear of losing HC; it lowers medical costs; it assigns the cost of hospital care to the people drawing on that care and not just adding their costs to overhead which gets paid by me and you; it reduces bankruptcies, as most are due to medical bills, etc., etc.

[MTAtech]

So there's no limit to taxation as long as we're living in a civil, benevolent society. Got it.

I'll let Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist address this:

Letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

[The Real Bingo]

So a man's personal health is "Property of the Publik"? How's that work?

[brandon184]

This thread is comical. Bingo has done no research, offers no solutions of his own, just armchair sarcastic remarks about how everyone else participating are "geniuses" as they attempt to spoon-feed healthcare reform information to him.

Go home, Bingo. Let the big boys handle the tough topics.

[Whir]

I haven't read that far yet, but I assume there's some kind of provision for impoverished families who still can't afford health insurance? Shit ain't cheap after all. I suppose I should put more time into researching it.

Wouldn't want to get called out by brandon after all.

[brandon184]

I'd settle for Bingo doing a 30 second scan of the Obamacare wikipedia article at this point.

[Whir]

The military has milWiki.

[pickel]

Taxes, then. Got it. Oh, and more borrowing.

You guys are geniuses.

Stop all the Congressional handouts, pork spending and the freakin' wars and everybody in the country could have great healthcare and be less of a burden on the system. In time, with a healthier
country, the costs would go down.

[Whir]

Military spending puts a lot of money into our already flogged economy. Things would get much worse before they ever got better. Too bad we can't slate some of that money for our primary educational system -- get more teachers on the payroll so there are less students per teacher and more specialized teachers instead of English teachers having to teach physics and phys ed. That would at least alleviate _some_ of the unemployment from losing military equipment production jobs.

Also more money for public safety, firemen, emergency medical workers (F those surgeons that already make a jillion dollars a year doing 1 surgery a day, meanfaces!). Jack our space program back into high gear, get our environmental agencies actually doing things that help the environment, subsidize health ca-- wait a minute, I see what you did there.

[sharder8]

Interesting breakdown . . .

Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Long-Term Decision With ObamaCare

Bert Atkinson Jr. June 28, 2012 3:59 pm

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.



Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

Brilliant. SOURCE

Harder

[Whir]

So what I get out of this articles is "stupid democrats, we're gonna win and Romney is awesome!" The writer just covered it up with some fact fluff before his real statement "Although he didn't guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded." Oops, you gave it away. Creditless.

[sharder8]

I don't know . . . I took it as looking at it from a different direction. Like the Dem's talking that Obama has it in the bag now and the Repub's pushing this thought . . . could get interesting come Nov.

I don't know who I'm voting for yet . . . but, I can tell you it won't be for Obama or Romney.





Harder