• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

SCOTUS' Decision on ObamaCare

What is the most likely SCOTUS outcome on ObamaCare?

  • They do nothing and leave the entire law intact.

    Votes: 23 21.3%

  • They sever the mandate but leave most other parts alone.

    Votes: 32 29.6%

  • They strike down the entire act.

    Votes: 36 33.3%

  • Planet X: I like frogs.

    Votes: 24 22.2%
  • Total voters
    108
AlBell said:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/helenw..._obamacare_contains_a_17_trillion_funding_gap


The scary to me thing here is that Obama thinks raising taxrates for high income taxpayers will increase revenues, while historically revenues rise when rates are cut or stay about the same as % of GDP. Per his historical statements, punish the wealthy.... "fairness". LOL.
Click to expand...

Historicly, the turds who cut taxes for the wealthy made it up by assessing "user fees" on services that the middle class used, or cut services that did not directly funnel money to the investor class.

FICA went up under Reagan. 'Nuff said.

Piddle-down is a cruel joke.
 
I didn't vote, but I am disappointed that we are now locked in to the most expensive health care system on the planet, and it will get even more expensive under the ACA.

I see health care stocks are up after the ruling in anticipation of mo money, mo money, mo money for health care providers whose gravy train just had more cars added.

We could have done so much better, not that either party was interested in doing anything for the good of the nation and instead only looked out for their narrow special interests.
 
At least the basic framework is there so that a public option will fly if we get a good enough Democratic majority in both houses.
 
DrBaltar said:
I'm not sure where this thinking comes from, but it definitely exists. In 2008 there were conservatives who complained that McCain wasn't conservative enough, so they were going to vote for Obama. I guess they're just trying to tell the world as boldly as they can, that they have no clue.
Click to expand...
I have never for a moment called the right wing in this country overly brilliant or too rational.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4qH7WJC7CI

The Supreme Court says the individual mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional. i.e. the government cannot force you to buy something. But then they go on to say that the government can enforce an individual mandate through taxes. You heard it through the horse's mouth. It is not a tax. The health care bill itself does not mention any tax. Congress voted on a bill that was not a tax. So it seems to me, that the only way for Obamacare to proceed is that if congress votes on it to allow it as a tax. Otherwise, wouldn't this be the first time in the history of the country that the Supreme Court has imposed a tax?
 
lol, only Congress can levy a tax. See the Constitution, Article I section 8.

Where did the mandate tax come from? Not the bill that Congress passed. It came from the lawyers arguing for Obamacare.

Could it be that the Supreme Court is simply saying that if Obamacare was funded with a tax, it would be constitutional?

So let's say the government proceeds to implement Obamacare. Then they start imposing a tax. What part of the bill describes how that will be done? Answer: None
 
Last edited:
DrBaltar said:
lol, only Congress can levy a tax. See the Constitution, Article I section 8.

Where did the mandate tax come from? Not the bill that Congress passed. It came from the lawyers arguing for Obamacare.

Could it be that the Supreme Court is simply saying that if Obamacare was funded with a tax, it would be constitutional?
Click to expand...
It seems pretty clear to me that it is exactly what it is. That's what I have been arguing for many months. I think the argument that it's not in effect a tax is political strategy due to irrational opinions about taxes. Thank you George H.W. Bush, Grover *** **** Norquist, et al.

Yes, it is in effect a tax. Yes it was levied by Congress. No, taxes are not per se evil or proof of the impending apocalypse (pardon my fallacious rhetoric). Everyone take a deep breath and stifle yourselves. It's going to be okay. I promise.
 
At first I couldn't understand the basis of the decision, given that there are so many mandates (no pre-existing conditions exclusion, etc) on Big Insurance. The fact is, SCOTUS has been all about reducing gov't regulation and requirements on big business in general.

Then I remembered why I didn't like the bill as formulated: it mandates that individuals buy private insurance from for-profit insurance companies, guaranteeing them a huge new captive market to extract premiums from.

The situation is like the Kelo decision: big business using government to force individuals to line it's pockets.

So this center-left person isn't celebrating. We still don't have price controls on Big Insurance, Big Pharma, etc. And now with the subsidy provisions, not only do they get to exploit a brand new captive market, but they get to pick the pocket of the taxpayers to do it.

Ultimately, this will do more harm than good. We need true UHC, not another Big Business ripoff of the public.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
It seems pretty clear to me that it is exactly what it is. That's what I have been arguing for many months. I think the argument that it's not in effect a tax is political strategy due to irrational opinions about taxes. Thank you George H.W. Bush, Grover *** **** Norquist, et al.

Yes, it is in effect a tax. Yes it was levied by Congress. No, taxes are not per se evil or proof of the impending apocalypse (pardon my fallacious rhetoric). Everyone take a deep breath and stifle yourselves. It's going to be okay. I promise.
Click to expand...

Not as bad as "TAXMAGEDDON!1!!11!"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...BuojrBQ&ved=0CFoQvwUoAQ&q=taxmageddon&spell=1
 
Juniversal said:
I believe some of the commentors were being completely facetious. Namely "I'm moving to Canada, the United States is entirely too socialist" comment. HAS to be a joke lol. Sadly I think most of them are being serious. :boggled:
Click to expand...

I like this one

"#SCOTUS holds up free healthcare for everyone?! Screw this commie country, I'm moving to #Canada"

I think that's a joke.
 
RandFan said:
Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. Canada has a disproportionate number of reasonable people. How exactly is that fair?
Click to expand...

LOL

A VERY good point!!!! The problem there is that we would need to get more people from that side to move here to really balance things out. Sending our worst to them just pee's in their pool and we get nothing in return.

:D
 
Muldur said:
At first I couldn't understand the basis of the decision, given that there are so many mandates (no pre-existing conditions exclusion, etc) on Big Insurance. The fact is, SCOTUS has been all about reducing gov't regulation and requirements on big business in general.

Then I remembered why I didn't like the bill as formulated: it mandates that individuals buy private insurance from for-profit insurance companies, guaranteeing them a huge new captive market to extract premiums from.
The situation is like the Kelo decision: big business using government to force individuals to line it's pockets.

So this center-left person isn't celebrating. We still don't have price controls on Big Insurance, Big Pharma, etc. And now with the subsidy provisions, not only do they get to exploit a brand new captive market, but they get to pick the pocket of the taxpayers to do it.

Ultimately, this will do more harm than good. We need true/I] UHC, not another Big Business ripoff of the public.
Click to expand...
I think this is a reasonable argument. Auto insurance exploded in California when it was mandated that a person must purchase private insurance. A public option would have been nice. I think we will eventually get "true" UHC (the kind without out the milk on the porridge :) )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom