Tom, all you are doing is proving the point, which has little to do with party politics and a great deal to do with the failure of your constitution to live up to the promise of protecting the people. What it actually does is protect entrenched power.
You say Obama has usurped power and implemented something which advantages only the insurance companies. In reality the insurance companies have taken the opportunity to gouge the population because the constitution was never intended to protect against misuse of market power. Such a thing wasn't even contemplated in the eighteenth century and this tells us that eighteenth century thinking is not going to get the job done.
Tal you surely don't think the masses are satisfied, given the number of people who live on welfare

The constitution gives the congress the power to regulate trade and commerce. Now whether the congress acts and how is an entirely different issue. And no Clete, the masses are not satisfied at all.

and yet SCOTUS rejected the emperor's defense of Obamacare under the commerce clause of the constitution. Roberts twisted the pretzel to justify it under the taxing authority .
Here is Roberts opinion re: the commerce clause ....

Quote:

---

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”

---

" What the left is very good at doing is accusing others for doing what they are doing. I submit that it is the party that claims they are for the little people that demonstrate the elitism that you say I champion".

In exactly the same way you could submit that big business pretends to promote a conservative agenda. Is this what you mean Tom?

The commerce clause could be used to regulate pricing and access to the market but not mandate participation. Certainly a correct decision which will no doubt be used as precident in the future. Why mandatory participation was not struck down isn't clear, however the penalties are a form of taxation, fines are used to mandate compliance in many instances.

Tom unfortunately holds the view that the market provides the perfect vehicle to regulate human behaviour, but we know the market is manipulated and human behaviour will always gravitate towards the least cost option. What has been done here is to limit the options and that is a valid government action, even if it has been imperfectly implemented

Yes, and consumers gravitate to the lowest prices. A large chain store opened up in out own a year or so ago, in the middle of the main street It sold a large variety of goods. Many of the goods sold were the same as those sold by small business close by.

Electrical appliances were sold at reduced price, as was over the counter pharmacy products. Some small business (at least three) went out of business. Others are still struggling to stay afloat.

It becomes increasingly interesting to watch what happens when big business comes to town. A few years ago we had one hardware chain then another built out of town in a new development, this was followed by redevelopment of a franchise store closer to town and now another large chain is developing even further out of town whilst a small local store still thrives. We had one electrical appliance store, now we have three. What has disappeared is a large department store. I have observed that small speciality stores are disappearing, but these arn't selling the same products.

We pay much less for products today the result of the development of China but the price of services increases, all of this indicates that the market operates well when there is plenty of competition but this doesn't necessarily mean growth in local employment. Getting back to the subject, the ACA would have been better implemented by fully opening the market and giving incentives for participation, not penalties.

That's what the tax subsidies are.

yes the government givith and the government taketh away, I understood there are certain incentives for lower income

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41137.pdf

As you see a family of 4 can make $92,400 and be eligible for a tax credit subsidy that's applied immediately to your first premium payment.

Ok so there is a threshold and the level is higher than poverty level, So the question is, who gets the advantage; the families or the insurers? You see Tal I didn't think the problem is for the middle class but for low income people

Only in states that have chosen not to expand the Medicaid coverage Clete, do we find a lot of scrambling around to cover lower and no income people. Exclusively it seems in republican controlled states. There are 25 of them, including the one I am in. They will be on board eventually once they look at the drains on their local and state budgets and the hospitals scream foul for absorbing the costs of uninsured people.

Quote:

---

Medicaid

Although Medicaid is generally beyond the scope of this report, ACA's Medicaid expansion
provisions have the potential for affecting eligibility for premium credits if certain low to middle
income individuals and families seek health insurance through the exchanges. Under ACA, states
have the option to expand Medicaid eligibility to include all non-elderly, non-pregnant
individuals (i.e., childless adults and certain parents, except for those ineligible based on certain
noncitizenship status) with income up to 133% FPL.27 (ACA does not change noncitizens'
eligibility for Medicaid.28) States that choose to implement the ACA Medicaid expansion will
receive substantial federal subsidies. If a person who applied for premium credits in an exchange
is determined to be eligible for Medicaid, the exchange must have them enrolled in Medicaid.29
Therefore, any state that expands Medicaid eligibility to include persons with income at or above
100% FPL (or any state that currently includes such individuals) would make such individuals
ineligible for premium credits.24

---

Really poor people would pay nothing. Neither would the state. It should be noted that states that refuse to expand have their Federal funding frozen at 2009 levels, leaving many poor and lower income people uninsured.

those will be the states the lefties call on to bail out the other states when the Feds cut the funding they provide to the states ,and the states find out they are left with another Federal budget buster to finance on their own.

What's the other budget buster the states have to finance on their own?

There's plenty although Medicaid has always been the big fish. Many of them are unfunded mandates .
The EPA has plenty of them . Municipalities get rocked by them all the time . NCLB has them also. )see 'School District of Pontiac, Michigan v. Duncan' where SCOTUS decided insufficient federal funds were not a valid reason to not comply with a federal mandate.

How about links instead of broad vague inaccurate assertions?

It's ok Tal we too understand the concept of unfunded community service obligations

I'll give you an easy one. REAL ID is a mandate to standardize licenses that the Fed Gvt forced on the states that the states have to pick up the tab on. There are so many of them and Medicaid is the mother of them all . That's why SCOTUS decided that mandatory participation was unconstitutional .Medicaid spending doubled over the last decade before the Obamacare expansion , and for many states it consumes the first or second biggest share of state expenditures, threatening education, public safety, and transportation programs.

Tom Medicaid isn't unfunded. You are assuming the federal government will change the funding arrangements and leave the states with the bill. It is much easier if these programs are centralised in funding and rollout, just as it is much easier to have a single payer solution and a uniform set of entitlement rules.

Your structures add extra complexity and extra cost in just about everything. Bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Having the states involved doesn't make it more efficient or from recent event more effective

Quote:

---

You are assuming the federal government will change the funding arrangements and leave the states with the bill.

---

I'll guarantee it .

You can't guarantee anything, you have an opinion, is all

It's a fact that the 100% federal match will drop in 3 years to 90% while the states are required to pick up all the administrative costs, as well as its higher share of coverage for citizens who are not now enrolled but who will likely do so. As it is ,most of the enrollees in the exchanges are the ones applying for Medicaid coverage.
Medicaid spending was already increasing before Obamacare .... an increase of 250% since 1990 adjusted for inflation.

Quote:

---

While Medicaid spending accounts for
nearly one-quarter of most state budgets, in my home state of Pennsylvania, it is approximately one-third
of the entire state budget.
Should Pennsylvania choose to expand the program under the Affordable Care Act, over 60 percent of
the commonwealth’s budget will go to Medicaid, unfairly crowding out funding for roads, schools, and
public safety.
Medicaid costs to the state are expected to grow by nearly $400 million in the next fiscal year, and these
costs do not include any costs associated with an expansion.
Currently one in six Pennsylvanians receives Medicaid benefits. If the governor chooses to expand
Medicaid in the commonwealth, 1 in 4 Pennsylvanians will be on the Medicaid rolls.
And this is not just a problem for Pennsylvania.
The next ten years of federal Medicaid spending will be twice the amount spent in the last 45 years.
This is completely unsustainable.
Medicaid was designed as a safety net for our nation’s poorest and sickest people. States are already
struggling to serve this core population, and Washington certainly doesn’t have extra money lying around
either. For a system that is already under tremendous strain, how will adding millions of young, ablebodied adults to Medicaid affect our ability to care for our country’s poorest and sickest citizens?

---

Opening Statement of the Honorable Joe Pitts
Subcommittee on Health
Hearing on “Saving Seniors and Our Most Vulnerable Citizens from an Entitlement
Crisis”
March 18, 2013
http://energycommerce.house.gov/site...3-20130318.pdf

Raise taxes, close loopholes, and stop sending jobs overseas. Not increasing revenues to offset the devastating effects of the global economic crisis even on a temporary basis is fiscally unsound and doesn't address the leaving millions of potential workers (and their positive economic activity) out of the economy and dependent for great amounts of time unnecessarily.

The longer we perpetuate the sluggish growth and lack of economic expansion, the higher the cost of the safety net. If private money doesn't invest, then they get taxed. Even beyond that government should have the power to expand and get people off the safety net while the job creators figure out how they want to trickle their profits and fortunes down to the rest of the economy.

Lets repeat the positive outcomes of the Clinton example. Where we raised taxes and cut spending, yes military spending too, and balanced the budget. The right wing notion of cutting government and taxes is the revenue problem that has allowed for corporate expansion and cheap labor, to throw the balance way out of whack, and government's ability to serve it's own citizens both on the federal and local levels. I mean didn't we learn from the last shutdown that taking 25 billion out of the American pie ain't the thing to do?

Of course rational people did. Grow the pie, more will eat from it.

aspirational Tal but in order to grow the pie you need to change your attitude to international trade, making it worthwhile for manufacturing to return. the fact is , you are lieke the rest of us, you got nothing, your companies earn profits from manufacturing offshore and gouging the locals, and those profits don't trickle down to anyone

I guess some are not helping grow the pie, because the are too intent on hoarding more of it for themselves. That by definition is greed. A very human affliction. They are out of control and actions to protect citizens from such action need to be taken, NOT more enabling. Tax negative behavior, and reward positive.

Who is to determine this "negative behavior" you speak of?

great question dad, we know it exists because investment isn't happening dispite the flood of money, what is happening is investment is taking place in stocks and speculation, not in new assets. the QE needs to be stopped immediately, it is preventing investment. Why take risks when your capital is growing just by buying stocks. this bubble will burst and it will be worse than the GFC and you can thank the rediculous policies of Benanke

or the Chinese real estate bubble will burst big time ,and Chinese money will look for a place to invest ,and will find a willing market in the USA .

No the Chinese have plenty to invest in closer to home and the ability to control where their money goes, Your market offers too much risk. Chinese money has been finding it's way south, where economies are more stable and attitudes more ameniable. you can't have it both ways Tom, you bleated about the chinese holding your bonds and now you expect them to invest there in your crumbling economy

The American economy is far from crumbling, and the Chinese have and will continue to invest in it, so will the rest of the world (Australia too!).Even if they invest in other countries. Those are facts, no need for rhetoric or speculation, or LOL, wishful thinking.

I assure you it's already happening
Chinese Investment in U.S. Doubles to $14 Billion in 2013 - Businessweek

yes it is happening here too, which speaks more about the Chinese economy than it does about ours or yours.

yeah theirs sucks and is going to be a disaster in the near future

all economies are subject to cyclical boom and bust and particularly where there is expotential growth.

Obama finally got budget conscious, because well, that would require a little of his famous transparency on Obamacare performance and of all things, telling Americans of security breaches that could compromise their existence. I mean hey, why should we know if our identity may have been stolen?


White House stops short of veto threats on House healthcare bills | TheHill

Barack Obama discovers a leak under his sink, so he calls Joe the Plumber to come and fix it.

Joe drives to Obama's house, which is located in a very nice neighborhood and where it's clear that all the residents make more than $250,000 per year.

Joe arrives and takes his tools into the house. Joe is led to the room that contains the leaky pipe under a sink. Joe assesses the problem and tells Obama, who is standing near the door, that it's an easy repair that will take less than 10 minutes.

Obama asks Joe how much it will cost. Joe immediately says, "$9,500."

"$9,500?" Obama asks, stunned, "But you said it's an easy repair!"

"Yes, but what I do is charge a lot more to my clients who make more than $250,000 per year so I can fix the plumbing of everybody who makes less than that for free," explains Joe. "It's always been my philosophy. As a matter of fact, I lobbied government to pass this philosophy as law, and it did pass earlier this year, so now all plumbers have to do business this way. It's known as 'Joe's Affordable Plumbing Act of 2013.' Surprised you haven't heard of it."

In spite of that, Obama tells Joe there's no way he's paying that much for a small plumbing repair, so Joe leaves. Obama spends the next hour flipping through the phone book looking for another plumber, but he finds that all other plumbing businesses listed have gone out of business. Not wanting to pay Joe's price, Obama does nothing. The leak under Obama's sink goes unrepaired for the next several days.

A week later the leak is so bad that Obama has had to put a bucket under the sink. The bucket fills up quickly and has to be emptied every hour, and there's a risk that the room will flood, so Obama calls Joe and pleads with him to return. Joe goes back to Obama's house, looks at the leaky pipe, and says, "Let's see - this will cost you about $21,000."

"A few days ago you told me it would cost $9,500!" Obama quickly fires back.

Joe explains the reason for the dramatic increase. "Well, because of the 'Joe's Affordable Plumbing Act,' a lot of rich people are learning how to fix their own plumbing, so there are fewer of you paying for all the free plumbing I'm doing for the people who make less than $250,000. As a result, the rate I have to charge my wealthy paying customers rises every day.

"Not only that, but for some reason the demand for plumbing work from the group of people who get it for free has skyrocketed, and there's a long waiting list of those who need repairs. This has put a lot of my fellow plumbers out of business, and they're not being replaced - nobody is going into the plumbing business because they know they won't make any money. I'm hurting now too - all thanks to greedy rich people like you who won't pay their fair share."

Obama tries to straighten out the plumber: "Of course you're hurting, Joe! Don't you get it? If all the rich people learn how to fix their own plumbing and you refuse to charge the poorer people for your services, you'll be broke, and then what will you do?"

Joe immediately replies, "Run for president, apparently."

Not bad Smoothy, not bad.

It was the perfect analogy... and pretty darn funny too. Had to share it.

yes smoothy I think your analogy fits medicine perfectly. while it might be a reflection of the ACA, it is being enacted out in medicine today.

It is of course a twist on the tale of the man who charged $10,000 for a simple repair, $5 for the repair and $9,995 for knowing how to do the job.

Actually it describes EXACTLY how the ACA is structured to work. To make sure nobody has coverage better than the people on the bottom of society... unless of course one is part of the political ruling elite... who believe themselves too good to settle for what the unwashed masses are being forced to settle on.

Call me a cynic... but anytime one group tries to force something upon me they proclaim a better and for our own good... and then exempt themselves from it at the same time... makes the average thinking person believe an act of forcible sodomy isn't far ahead.

If its so great...Obama....The House, The Senate, the SCOTUS and all their staffs and families as well as all civil servants should be made to have it and only it equally. If its good enough for us...then its good enough for them too.