[excon]

Hello again,

Here's the deal.. We debated it way back when. It's the LAW of the land. It's Constitutional.. It won't be repealed. Get over it.

excon

[tomder55]

By the way... since it is now a tax bill ;there is only a majority vote needed in the Senate . All that is needed for repeal is a Mittens Presidency and the Repubics getting a simple majority in both Houses.Remember that "budget reconciliation" game ?

[talaniman]

QUOTE by tomder
Tal you know and I know that they still pick up the bulk of the cost. Again is there a mandate that employers provide this benefit (what your crowd calls "right ") ;or will cost analysis say it is more prudent for them to either drop employee coverage ,and pay the ummm tax ? Or perhaps even charge the employee more for all the premium increases that comes with freebies in the mandates ?

WRONG!! The law actually gives tax breaks and incentives for employers who offer health care. Health insurance is the reason some people stay at a company, at most businesses deduct a portion of the premiums from the employees pay check. Most people would rather have better insurance benefits than actual wages. Check it out companies have been doing this for decades to attract and keep workers. Of course unions have fought for that, and non union companies followed suit.

That what the Wisconsin battle was about. Walker wanted the public sector workers to pay as much as private sector workers, and they AGREED to the increases in their contributions to both insurance, and pensions.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...oyee-pensions/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wisconsin_Act_10

Here is the inconvenient Fact of Obamacare... After next year ;starting in 2014 all employers with more than 50 employees will be required to offer health benefits to every full-timer or to pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker .These requirements will increase medical costs for many companies. It’s a fact that the penalty for not offering coverage is significantly below these costs.

Companies don't pay medical cost, the insurance companies do, they pay a group rate for a plan, and employees contribute a percentage, and they can shop for the best rates and its been done this way for decades by most companies.

This will force employees to find their own coverage (or pay that... tax);or to sign up in one of these state insurance exchanges that are being formed with the Obamacare cuts in Medicare . I guarantee you that the States are not prepared for this influx of new beneficiaries ;even with this Federal Government transfer .

You don't know the folly of what Obamacare has wrought because it hasn't really begun yet .

The system is nothing more than an expansion of what's already been going on.

Now many employers plan on adjusting compensation and benefits in other ways. But the real issue is going to be the massive influx of the newly uninsured that the government programs will be responsible for. I think the ones that the States and National Government have already are on the death bed due to poor financing structures and future obligations to the entitled . Imagine a 10-20 % increase in the 1st year of these new exchanges. It's an approaching disaster .

That would depend on how companies and state government structure this expansion, BUT Medicare for all would solve all those problems and bend the cost curve greatly.

Everybody loves Medicare, even if you have insurance and Medicare is a supplement to what you have and like. That's a viable and workable plan to save individuals, and corporations and everyone has insurance.

LOL!! What's funny is everybody likes the parts they have seen of the ACA, even the right wing. It's the name that has you guys stuck ain't it. Heck judge Roberts even liked it.

Go ahead Righties, REPEAL IT!!

[excon]

btw ...since it is now a tax bill ;there is only a majority vote needed in the Senate . All that is needed for repeal is a Mittens Presidency and the Repubics getting a simple majority in both Houses.Remember that "budget reconciliation" game ?

Hello again, tom:

It's true. But, you forget that most people LIKE the good stuff - even right wingers. Recent polls find that strong majorities favor the laws individual provisions - including solid majorities of Republicans.

It's PAYING for it that you don't like. That poses quite a quandary for Romney. I'm telling you, that it will NEVER be repealed. Get over it.

excon

[tomder55]

Some people like some of the provisions because no one has had to pay for it yet . That's due to change next year. Add this massive tax increase with the massive tax increase coming when the Dems increase taxes when the current rates expire ;then we'll see how people like it.

But I'm more concerned with the lasting damage to the Constitution . What the Wickard v Filburn case did to the Commerce Clause ;Roberts v America has done to the Article 1 Sec 8 taxing authority. The bonds of restraint have been forever removed from the Federal Government .

[Wondergirl]

The bonds of restraint have been forever removed from the Federal Government .

That's good for Romney then if he becomes President! He will have a field day!

[excon]

Roberts v America

Hello again, tom:

I don't know. You LOVED him when he told congress that he was ONLY going to call balls and strikes.. But, when he DOES exactly that, you don't like it. You wanted him to be ACTIVIST, like Scalito, and he called a strike instead...

Roberts is a young man. He's going to be your Chief Justice for a LOOOOONG time. Get over it.

On second thought... Since YOUR choices for Supreme Court turn out soooo badly, maybe you shouldn't have another shot at it.

excon

[talaniman]

What part of people need access to quality heath care is it you righty, small government types don't get?

Pre Existing Conditions - Understanding Pre Existing Conditions

Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) | HealthCare.gov

This country has survived and thrived through high taxes before, will again. Relax, we might get a raise out of this. Well 14 million people will that HAVE health insurance.

http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=he...ates&FORM=EWRE

http://www.examiner.com/article/40-0...e-court-ruling

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1616204.html

This is happening all over the country because insurance companies have been over charging for premiums. Wonder how that happened? I'll ask Mitt. Maybe he knows why health care is so expensive.

Just a side note to make a point, most of the volunteers fighting those fires in Colorado, don't have insurance either, they can't afford it! Like we forgot the fiasco after 911 with treating first responders. Need a link or is the memory selective.

Just think of the saving we all can have if we didn't have to pay for ultra conservatives FEARS.

[tomder55]

You LOVED him when he told congress that he was ONLY going to call balls and strikes.. But, when he DOES exactly that, you don't like it. You wanted him to be ACTIVIST, like Scalito, and he called a strike instead...

Wrong ,I made no opinion of his referee comments .To me that was rhetoric to make it easier for the Dems to confirm. The fact is that a Justice of the Supreme Court cannot be both a referee and a player of the game.

In granting new taxing authority out of whole cloth ;he indeed became an activist... or please show me exactly what clause of the Constitution gives them to tax non-activity ,and cloak it in the language of "penalty "?. and don't give me the necessary and proper clause or the General welfare clause .They don't justify unconstitutional exercises of power.
The only expansion of the Congressional taxing authority before Thurday was through Amendment to the Constitution. Earl Warren when he described income: “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.”Is it an income tax ? No people not working can still be slapped with the penalty . Is it a direct tax ? Nope A direct tax under Art 1 Sec 9 must be apportioned among the States in proportion to their representation based on population .
.Is it an excise tax ? Excise taxes require some sort of action or activity on the part of the individual to be assessed. No . It is a “tax” upon individuals who purchase no product, realize no gain on investment, or receive no income from their labors. Is it a tax similar to FICA ? No... again that is clearly linked to income. (and the tax justification for Social Security was also a complete unconstitutional fraud ). Also the seizure of FICA has at the end of it a promise of income at a certain age ,or when they become disabled . This penalty promises nothing except the ability to purchase insurance at some later date with preexisting conditions.

If Congress wanted to pass a tax bill ,they would've done so . But in fact ,they and the President ran away from that definition . If this was a bait and switch ,then it is a fraud perpetrated on the American people. During oral arguments ,the government made a very weak defense of the law as justified under Congress' taxing authority ,and it was easily shot down . It was also destroyed completely in an amicus by Landmark Legal Defense.
And yet Roberts found a preposterous "it looks like a tax" justification for the worse biggest expansion in government power since Wickard . I find little satisfaction that he finally found a red line that Congress can't cross under the Commerce Clause . The result is the same ;an expansion of Federal powers well beyond intent ,or Constitutional restraints.

[TUT317]

Hi Tom,
As strange as this seems... I 'm sorry things didn't work out for you.

Tut

[tomder55]

Hi Tom,
As strange as this seems... I 'm sorry things didn't work out for you.

Tut

"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." James Madison.

[talaniman]

Your premise that the court is wrong is in error, and fails to account for the entire collective that does take your view of what the court did. They did in some was expand the power of government to tax, but they limited the scope of the tax.

But you guys got what you wanted, a constitutional hearing, it was heard, and a judgment rendered, so that's over, lets move on. We have Obamacare! Lets make it work! So far it has. Most people like what they have seen.

[Fr_Chuck]

I am waiting for when people can not afford the coverage, and can not afford the tax, will they start putting them in prison for not having health insurance?

And of course if they wanted everyone to have it, why not just universal health insurance provided free by the government.

[tomder55]

Your premise that the court is wrong is in error, and fails to account for the entire collective that does take your view of what the court did. They did in some was expand the power of government to tax, but they limited the scope of the tax.

But you guys got what you wanted, a constitutional hearing, it was heard, and a judgment rendered, so thats over, lets move on. We have Obamacare! Lets make it work! So far it has. Most people like what they have seen.

No such luck . Where I reallly despise the Court's stamp of approval ;what Roberts did right was to put it back into the political arena. By defining it as a tax ;that means... 1. repeal originates in the House of Reps. 2. The reconciliation process means that it can be repealed with a simple majority vote in the Senate .
When the people see ALL the taxes in the bill realized ,they will be demanding repeal.

[talaniman]

You left out that it requires the signature of the president, and a majority in the senate cannot be gained without an election, so repeal depends upon the vote of the people in the next election, so as a practical matter, it ain't happening until then.

When the people see ALL the taxes in the bill realized ,they will be demanding repeal.


Or modifications that keep the parts they like. I doubt seriously if they go for going back to the way things were that was causing so much grief while the insurance industry and big pharmacy were writing rules and raising rates and getting fat!

Most of us don't mind paying for the things that give us service or meets our needs, and protects our interests. Its common sense to pay for consumer protection in today's world of corporate greed, and criminality. Consumers are as entitled to get more bang for their buck as corporations right?

[paraclete]

I don't get you guys' you are debating an issue that has been put to rest, now you hve some of the health care you should have enjoy it and strive to do better, take the vested interests out of service provision

[cdad]

i don't get you guys' you are debating an issue that has been put to rest, now you hve some of the health care you should have enjoy it and strive to do better, take the vested interests out of service provision

The reason for the debate is because it is still an open issue until at least after November (our election period). The decision is a landmark one at this point because of the how the ruling was made. The healthcare bill is still an unknown as its not even in affect yet. You may remember the phrase " we have to pass it to know what is in it".

So for now until it takes full affect its open as to what is really going to happen with it all. We still have no idea what this new form of taxation will bring.

[tomder55]

i don't get you guys' you are debating an issue that has been put to rest, now you hve some of the health care you should have enjoy it and strive to do better, take the vested interests out of service provision

I still debate the implications of the Social Security Court decision . This decision will impact the US for a 100 years (if we last that long) . It was not only about health care .It was also about the limits of Federal power. Apparently there is none so long as it can be couched the new broadly defined tax language.

[excon]

It was also about the limits of Federal power. apparently there is none so long as it can be couched the new broadly defined tax language.

Hello again, tom:

You'll forgive me for not feeling sorry for your crocodile tears... You tirade against federal power doesn't impress me when you SUPPORT the NSA in their SEARCH of our email and LISTENING to our phone calls... You CERTAINLY support a nation wide ban on abortions which WILL necessitate a federal COP in every doctors office across the land. You CERTAINLY support the federal DRUG WAR...

So, you can see why I think your outrage is misplaced.

excon

[paraclete]

. We still have no idea what this new form of taxation will bring.

Yes you do it is spelt out for you ; pay up or pay up. Now if you had a carbon tax you could truly say We still have no idea what this new form of taxation will bring.[