Anyone here know what goes good with crow? I'm eating a huge pile of it today.

I'm shocked. I didn't hear a single person. not even on MSNBC, expect that even the individual mandate would pass.

Shows you how much I know, which is not much.

Shows you how little anyone knows. Most of the pundits on both sides seemed to think it was going down, at least the indiv. mandate.

This was a difficult thing to predict... While it came out of a very liberal presidency, many of the ideas originated in right-leaning think tanks...

with crow I recommend a nice lowlands single malt....

I actually love one of the stated goals of Obamacare, which is to get more money into the system so that sick people don't go bankrupt because of health issues they did not cause.

If someone is born sick, or gets sick through no fault of their own, I don't see why they should be expected to pay one more cent for their healthcare than a normally healthy person, for this reason...they had no control over getting sick, they didn't "choose" to get sick, so why should they be punished? As a healthy person, if I have to pay more than my own fair share to help a kid with lukemia, I have no quarrel with that. As an aside, I think that if someone is unhealthy because they smoke, or because they sleep around, or because they choose to eat crappy food and not exercise, than every single cent o fthe cost of their care should be born by them. If someone chooses to smoke and gets emphezema, why should I have to sacrifice to pay for their care?

And it makes sense to me that the individual mandate levels the playing field. Healthy people are healthy because of pure luck. They don't deserve to prosper because of that luck, just as someone who unfortunately gets sick doesn't deserve to suffer financially.

So if the individual mandate is used to "level the playing field" so to speak, I think it passes my ethical litmus test. I'm just not sure about the constitutionality.

If Obama wins re-election (and I suspect it will come down to Ohio, where he seems to be polling well), Obamacare will stay. If Romney wins and the GOP controls Congress, the first thing Romney will do is repeal it.

How does this shake out politically? People who don't like Obamacare (from what I've seen, every poll suggests that most folks don't like Obamacare) will be more fired up about getting Romney in there. But Obama avoids looking like an idiot, which is what he would have looked like if the one thing he did when his party could do whatever they wanted, got deemed illegal.

the mandate did not pass the bar as a part of the interstate commerce act, but as a form of taxation.

I was completely shocked to have Roberts with the majority
Interested to hear the collective spin from either side

Examples of people against Obamacare:

People Who Say They're Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare (http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare)

One interesting aspect of all this...Obama went on, and on, and on, explaining why the individual mandate was not a tax increase, but rather an example of regulating commerce.

The majority opinion specifically said that the feds do not have the constitutional autority to regulate commerce in this way, but they do have the authority to tax this way, and they view this as a tax. The majority opinion specifically called it a tax, which Obama bent over backwards to say it was not.

Overall, this is a significant victory for Obama, but I don't see how anyone can say he doesn't look buffoonish in this respect.

The majority opinion specifically called it a tax, which Obama bent over backwards to say it was not.


Like Pelosie said, something like You'll know what's in it after it's passed.
Now that it's passed and ruled on, sure enough we find out one thing for sure,
it's another tax.

Overall, this is a significant victory for Obama, but I don't see how anyone can say he doesn't look buffoonish in this respect.

The SCOTUS said it was a tax in their interpretation.
Obama did not, how does this make him look buffoonish?

Nice regurgitation of the primary talking point on basically every news network today.

The SCOTUS said it was a tax in their interpretation.
Obama did not, how does this make him look buffoonish?

.

Obama sold this bill as something other than a tax hike. Obama got infuriated at anyone who said it was a tax hike. Then the liberal justices, plus Roberts, say that it's obviously a tax hike.

Obama threw a temper tantrum everytime someone called it a tax hike. Some impatrtial, intelligent folks called it a tax hike.

Shows that Obama may not fully grasp what a "tax hike" is, which in my opinion makes him a buffoon. Disagree if you wish...

I'm curious, I've not had time to read much but from what I have read and from what we were told which was that the individual mandate was the funding mechanism for Obamacare and that if it were struck down, the other parts, even if upheld, could not survive without the funding mechanism....

anyway...I did read that while the mandate was upheld, individual states retain the right to opt out of the individual mandate clause, if this is the case, are the states that choose not to opt out going to bear all of the burden of funding this monstrosity?

if so, this is pretty funny...except that I live in the bluest of blue states

Obama sold this bill as something other than a tax hike. Obama got infuriated at anyone who said it was a tax hike. Then the liberal justices, plus Roberts, say that it's obviously a tax hike.

Obama threw a temper tantrum everytime someone called it a tax hike. Some impatrtial, intelligent folks called it a tax hike.

Shows that Obama may not fully grasp what a "tax hike" is, which in my opinion makes him a buffoon. Disagree if you wish...

Obama was selling it by what it provided, the justices ruled on it based on how it is funded.

Only a buffoon couldn't understand that.

G. Will and the Kraut both have interesting articles on the why's and what for's


Chief Justice Roberts Provides Swing Vote To Uphold Health Care Law CBS DC (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-rules-on-obamas-health-care-law/)

The justices rejected two of the administration’s three arguments in support of the insurance requirement. But the court said the mandate can be construed as a tax. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” Roberts said.

Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/)

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?

OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.

OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…

OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…

OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…

OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

..................

my favorite part is where he says "What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore" Obama


really????? can we apply this to the rest of your programs and rapidly expanding welfare state....please????:uhuh:

at some point you will have a healthcare deduction on your pay stub right along with Social Security, Medicare and all the rest and whatever else they dream up...it's already in place, just need to send the money to a different address

So now the government can tax you for doing nothing. If I don't buy health insurance, I have to pay a tax! CNS new has a great analysis of Robert's ruling. At one point he says it is not a tax, and the later in his ruling he says it is....you can't make it up.

Chief Justice Roberts: It's Not A Tax, It Is A Tax; It's Law, But It's Not 'Unlawful' to Break It | CNSNews.com (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/chief-justice-roberts-its-not-tax-it-tax-its-law-its-not-unlawful-break-it)

So now the government can tax you for doing nothing. If I don't buy health insurance, I have to pay a tax! CNS new has a great analysis of Robert's ruling. At one point he says it is not a tax, and the later in his ruling he says it is....you can't make it up.

Chief Justice Roberts: It's Not A Tax, It Is A Tax; It's Law, But It's Not 'Unlawful' to Break It | CNSNews.com (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/chief-justice-roberts-its-not-tax-it-tax-its-law-its-not-unlawful-break-it)

Not only does he contradict himself, but his general observation that the Congress has the power to tax does not point to its specifec constitutional powers of taxation: the income tax, excise tax, or capitation. His phantom power to tax inactivity doesn't fall under any of the three categories. It sets a precedent and opens the door for the Federal Government to have unlimited powers of taxation. Which basically gives it back the unlimited power that was taken away by denying the government its commerce clause power to regulate inactivity. Very strange ruling indeed. But this has been the pattern by which the Federal Government has grown beyond the limits imposed by the Consitution and is becoming the very leviathan the Founders and their Constitution wished to prevent.

Obama was selling it by what it provided, the justices ruled on it based on how it is funded.

Only a buffoon couldn't understand that.

Obama said the way it's funded is not a tax hike. He sold the bill as something other than what it is. Since you chose to get personal here, allow me to retort. Only a brainwashed, unthinking Kool Aid drinker would fail to admit that.

When the federal government confiscates more money from its citizenry than it did previously, that's the textbook definition of a tax increase. Obama denied that to make the bill appear less objectionable. Is that the "change" we were promised? Only a buffoon would say "yes". Welcome to buffoonery.

Obama said it's not a tax hike. That means one of two things. Either he is a liar, or he doesn't know what a tax hike is. Those are the only two choices, there simply isn't a third choice. Only an ideologically-blinded buffoon would fail to see that. Try making that wrong.

Obama said it's not a tax hike. That means one of two things. Either he is a liar, or he doesn't know what a tax hike is.

No, it actually means one of three things, he's a liar, he doesn't know what a tax hike is, or he's a politician who's fleeced you.

But only a buffoon would be fleeced right?

No, it actually means one of three things, he's a liar, he doesn't know what a tax hike is, or he's a politician who's fleeced you.

But only a buffoon would be fleeced right?

Unless you're in on the take, you've been fleeced too. So you're either a buffoon or a crook.

Unless you're in on the take, you've been fleeced too. So you're either a buffoon or a crook.

It doesn't take either to have common sense.
And having actually done some reading.

Technically speaking the IRS collects more than just taxes, but, semantics, etc.

Calling it a tax just makes it constitutionally sound.

I'm gonna guess nobody realized that the "penalty" aka "tax" was collected by the IRS did they?

It doesn't take either to have common sense.
And having actually done some reading.

Technically speaking the IRS collects more than just taxes, but, semantics, etc.

Calling it a tax just makes it constitutionally sound.

I'm gonna guess nobody realized that the "penalty" aka "tax" was collected by the IRS did they?

On what basis is it constitutionally sound? Are you saying the Constitution places no limits on the fedgov to tax. It lists three types of taxes that are allowed. Taxing inactivity is not one of the those types. And, obviously, the Constitution, ORIGINALLY, limited the governments power to tax. That's why the progressives fought so hard for the sixteenth amendment and created the income tax. Inactivity is not income. Taxing inactivity is not an excise tax and the capitation was a direct tax levied proportionally on the States. Where does taxing individual inactivity fit in the three types of taxes constitutioinally allowed? It doesn't, and Roberts knew it. But his decision now erases the taxing limitations in the Constitution and gives the government unlimited power through its now undefined general power of taxation. This is classic legislation from the bench. Nor does the decision eliminate the other judicial legislation regarding unlimited power through misuse of the commerce clause, as some think it does. This is simple and pure trashing of the Constitution in favor of allowing the fedgove to do whatever it wishes, with occasional dissents when 5 judges decide not to like what it does. This is government by whim, not by law.

No, it actually means one of three things, he's a liar, he doesn't know what a tax hike is, or he's a politician who's fleeced you.

But only a buffoon would be fleeced right?

"or he's a politician who's fleeced you."

(1) Fleeced means tricked, which is pretty close to lying.

(2) When Obama was campaigning he promised change, bringing people together, and transparency. So if he "fleeced" anyone, that necessarily means he lied on the campaign trail, doesn't it? That doesn't sound like the "change" he promised.

(3) He didn't fleece me, because I don't worship at his altar. I didn't believe for one second he was going to add millions to insurance rolls, increase coverage for all of them, and lower costs. Only the Kool Aid drinkers got fleeced, not the people who live in the real world and act accordingly.

Yes, only a buffoon would allow himself to get fleeced by Obama. His opponents are obviously not the ones getting fleeced, however...his disciples are the ones getting fleeced. The people who buy into his liberal rehtoric are the ones getting fleeced. The ones who accept it when Obama says Medicare isn't going bankrupt, are the ones who are getting fleeced. The ones who accept it when Obama sas that Social Security isn't in serious trouble, are the ones getting fleeced.

Because Obama is tricking them into believing that all those benefits will still be there in 30 years. And they will not. The impact of the Baby Boomers is a mathematical guarantee that those benefits will not exist for subsequent generations, not at anywhere near current benefit and funding levels.

Unfortunately for liberals, arithmetic trumps ideology.

Likwid, I know Obama is full of crap when he denies that Social Security and Medicare are in serious trouble. Liberals don't question anything that comes out of his mouth, as long as he is promising to give them goodies. I know that 7-th grade mathematics means those benefits cannot possibly survive much longer, so I am planning accordingly. Liberals believe Obama's false promises. When the demographic earthquake of the baby boomer generation brings down the house of cards, those who believed Obama will be left with nothing but his empty promises. Those who use their brains will weather the storm.

I'm saving for retirement and my kids' education in post-tax accounts, and I'm almost done. When the house of cards collapses, and we realize that european-level income tax rates are the only way to pay our bills, I won't have much pre-tax income for you and your ilk to touch. Unfortunately, Obama is "fleecing", in your words, millions of saps into believeing that things are better than they are.

We'll see who gets fleeced, and who didn't.

I'm saving for retirement and my kids' education in post-tax accounts, and I'm almost done. When the house of cards collapses, and we realize that european-level income tax rates are the only way to pay our bills, I won't have much pre-tax income for you and your ilk to touch.

So tell me, since you're obviously on the up and up, who exactly is "you and your ilk"?

Republican idea to have the mandate and penalty. Why does that get ignored? If one is going to go without insurance and make everyone else pay, why shouldnt they get taxed to cover those expenses, which is what it effectively does. Also, why do the cons lie and call the law a tax increase? The tax is on those who choose not to be insured in order to cover the inevitable costs to others because of the lack of insurance. There is a penalty (what one justice called a tax), but the law is not "a tax. "

Do they really think people are that stupid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Republican idea to have the mandate and penalty. Why does that get ignored? If one is going to go without insurance and make everyone else pay, why shouldnt they get taxed to cover those expenses, which is what it effectively does. Also, why do the cons lie and call the law a tax increase? The tax is on those who choose not to be insured in order to cover the inevitable costs to others because of the lack of insurance. There is a penalty (what one justice called a tax), but the law is not "a tax. "

Do they really think people are that stupid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well put

Unless you provide free insurance to those that choose to scam the system or not work. This is just another entitlement program that will cost trillions and cost hardworking Americans more money.

LOL Buck, that pic says it all, it's worth a 1000 words. :hihi:
You always crack me up. :D

Republican idea to have the mandate and penalty. Why does that get ignored? If one is going to go without insurance and make everyone else pay, why shouldnt they get taxed to cover those expenses, which is what it effectively does. Also, why do the cons lie and call the law a tax increase? The tax is on those who choose not to be insured in order to cover the inevitable costs to others because of the lack of insurance. There is a penalty (what one justice called a tax), but the law is not "a tax. "

Do they really think people are that stupid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Republican idea to have the mandate and penalty. Why does that get ignored?"

I've heard this, but don'tr know the details. Zimmy, can you elaborate?

"why shouldnt they get taxed to cover those expenses, which is what it effectively does."

I agree it's a good idea to get freeloaders to pay into the system. here's the failure of Obamacare. It's still cheaper to pay the tax and forgo insurance. Then, because Obamacare also explicitly states that insurance companies cannot refuse someone with pre-existing cionditions, so here is what will happen...young, healthy people still have a financial incentive to not buy insurance until they get sick. And insurance companies cannot survive if people aren't signing up until they get sick.

Furthermore, a huge pecentage of the freeloaders are illegal aliens. Illegal aliens put significant financuial burdens on their communities. I'm not sure I see where Obamacare addresses this.

Every physician in America will tell you that their medical malpractice insurance is (1) insanly expensive, and (2) a cost that, naturally, gets passed on to the patient. Everyonhe agrees that some fair, compassionate tort reform would go a long way to reducing health care costs for all of us. Obamacare doesn't addres this, because Democrats are as beholden to teh Trial Lawyers Lobby as Republicans are to the National Rifle Association.

Finally, Obama's federal government is giving a lot of Obamacare waivers to businesses that are sympathetic to liberal causes.

Obamacare has some awesome stated goals. But Obama is going about it in a bad way, rewarding his political allies (at the expense of everyone else), and sllowing people to enroll in insurance only after they get sick.

"Also, why do the cons lie and call the law a tax increase?"

Zimmy, you are really off the deep end here. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor called it a tax increase. Are they conservatives who are lying?

Zimmy, in this very post, you said this..."why shouldnt they get taxed..." So, even you are calling it a tax. And since that is a tax that doesn't exist today, that necessarily means it is a tax increase. Are you a lying conservative?

So tell me, since you're obviously on the up and up, who exactly is "you and your ilk"?

You're damn right I'm on the up and up.

By you and your ilk, I mean liberals. The liberals that are responsible for the wonderful financial situations that every single blue state is in today...CT, MA, IL, CA...

Liberals like you who think it's sound economic policy to reward people to come to your state who don't want to work, and foce out people who want to work and be left alone. We are now learning that policy was short-sighted and stupid.

I agree it's a good idea to get freeloaders to pay into the system.

Yup, everyone no matter what salary they make should be taxed, and
anyone who is receiving stuff not paid for by the freeloaders should have
taxes taken out too.
This way they all have a horse in the race and may become more attentive
as to the Govt raising taxes.

Yup, everyone no matter what salary they make should be taxed, and
anyone who is receiving stuff not paid for by the freeloaders should have
taxes taken out too.
This way they all have a horse in the race and may become more attentive
as to the Govt raising taxes.

I am not sure what else Jim said other than your quote, but the bit you said about everyone should be taxed, no matter what salary? They are. The tax they may not pay if they make little enough is income tax. Saying they don't pay taxes is incorrect and a scam of the right in order to get people in an uproar so there is enough sentiment to keep the highest tax brackets effective tax rate at historic lows.

"The reality is that the income tax is one of a number of types of taxes that individuals pay, both over the course of their lifetimes and in a given year, and it makes little sense to treat it as though it were the only tax that matters. Some 82 percent of working households pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.[15] In fact, low- and moderate-income people pay a much larger share of their incomes in federal payroll taxes than high-income people do: taxpayers in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale paid an average of 8.8 percent of their incomes in payroll taxes in 2007, compared to 1.6 percent of income for those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (see Figure 2).[16]"

Some might find this link interesting, especially those who are duped into the idea that no federal income taxes equates they don't pay taxes.

Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505)

"The reality is that the income tax is one of a number of types of taxes that individuals pay, both over the course of their lifetimes and in a given year, and it makes little sense to treat it as though it were the only tax that matters. Some 82 percent of working households pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.[15] In fact, low- and moderate-income people pay a much larger share of their incomes in federal payroll taxes than high-income people do: taxpayers in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale paid an average of 8.8 percent of their incomes in payroll taxes in 2007, compared to 1.6 percent of income for those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (see Figure 2).[16]"

Some might find this link interesting, especially those who are duped into the idea that no federal income taxes equates they don't pay taxes.

Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505)

"those who are duped into the idea that no federal income taxes equates they don't pay taxes."

I don't believe that those who pay no income tax, therefore pay no taxes. I have not, therefore, been duped. But I can make a claim very similar to yours, and say that liberals have been "duped" into believing that evasion of federal income taxes is no big deal.

Millions and millions of people live and work in this country, and pay exactly $0 in federal income taxes. Does that mean they don't pay a cent in taxes? No. But it does mean they are getting a huge subsidy at the hands of those who do pay federal income tax.

People who pay no federal income tax still pay sales tax, property tax, cigarette tax, etc. However, those who do pay federal income tax ALSO have to pay those additional taxes. So no matter what liberal shovel you use to pile on the BS, the inescapable truth is that federal income taxes represent a significant burden, one which almost 50% of American households avoid. Some of those households can easily afford a modest federal income tax. Those people drive on highways, enjoy the services of the FBI and the military. There's no earthly reason why half the households in the country pay no federal income tax. Those people are not all poor. The poverty rate in this country is higher than I'd like it to be, but it ain't anywhere near 50%.

Liberals use these tactics to buy votes.

The individual tax deduction on the tax returns will be eliminated without showing proof of insurance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Zimmy, what I said was everyone should pay taxes no matter what
salary they make, meaning Fed and State income taxes, the largest
of the taxes we pay.
That way on April 15th they would be aware of the $$ they pay and
more interested in Govt spending so they keep more of what
they earn. Otherwise they could care less.

Many who pay income taxes now are Wowed by their refunds due to deductions
and EIC tax credits rather than even know how much they paid.

On another note it would be a good idea to have tax day on Nov 1st before elections to have fresh in our minds what we are paying before voting.

Justplugit: most of those who don't pay the income tax part of it feel the pain in many ways. All of the other taxes have much more impact on their bottom line than it does on other people. Think of how gas taxes or sales taxes impacts a married couple making less than 18,000 a year. You want the feds to take more money from them?

Oh yeah, because you think they don't feel the effects of taxes... like the poor guy who still has an after tax income of $1,000,000 does?

read this article, Justplugit, especially pages 2 and 3. Maybe you will find it interesting. One thing the tax yellers seem to forget is that rich guys get richer when that bottom 50% has some money in their pockets to spend to spur the economy. This recession is being held back by the lack of spending in the middle and bottom half of the economy. The wealthy stil have their Bush tax cuts and it han't trickled down.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/surprise-paying-federal-income-tax/story?id=14681815

Justplugit: most of those who don't pay the income tax part of it feel the pain in many ways. All of the other taxes have much more impact on their bottom line than it does on other people. Think of how gas taxes or sales taxes impacts a married couple making less than 18,000 a year. You want the feds to take more money from them?

Oh yeah, because you think they don't feel the effects of taxes... like the poor guy who still has an after tax income of $1,000,000 does?

"Think of how gas taxes or sales taxes impacts a married couple making less than 18,000 a year. You want the feds to take more money from them? "

You are missing (or dodging) the point.

49% of those who file pay zero federal income tax. I'm not concerned about the married couple making $18,000 a year,,,because there aren't many of those. I'm concerned about everyone in the top third of those who pay no taxes.

Zimmy, HLF of those who worek pay zero income tax. I couldn't find out what the income threshold is to pay no tax. But if 49% pay no tax, that means that someone making just below the average income, pay no taxes.

That is insane. I have no problem with the poorest of the poor paying no federal income tag. I have huge issues with 49% not paying federal incoime tax. That is not fair.

Zimmy, you also dodged another question...you asked why conservatives lie and call the penalty a tax? I asked you if Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg are lying conservatives, since they are also calling it a tax?

Your response? Hmmm?

Zimmy, you also dodged another question...you asked why conservatives lie and call the penalty a tax? I asked you if Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg are lying conservatives, since they are also calling it a tax?

Your response? Hmmm?

Did they?
I thought they decided it was OK as it was under Commerce Clause?
Roberts used the Tax angle to come to his assertion.

"The reality is that the income tax is one of a number of types of taxes that individuals pay, both over the course of their lifetimes and in a given year, and it makes little sense to treat it as though it were the only tax that matters. Some 82 percent of working households pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.[15] In fact, low- and moderate-income people pay a much larger share of their incomes in federal payroll taxes than high-income people do: taxpayers in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale paid an average of 8.8 percent of their incomes in payroll taxes in 2007, compared to 1.6 percent of income for those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (see Figure 2).[16]"

Some might find this link interesting, especially those who are duped into the idea that no federal income taxes equates they don't pay taxes.

Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505)

It is generally understood by those who say half the folks don't pay any taxes refers to the federal income tax. Or, as you say, "do you think people are really that stupid" to believe the no taxes stuff? But the article seems to be duping us with the separation of federal income taxes from "payroll taxes." The income tax IS a payroll tax. Further, the largest federal payroll tax other than the income tax, social security tax, is actually an income tax since the money collected goes into the general fund and is spent in the same manner as the supposedly different income tax. The scam is that the tax is an investment for retirement and everybody who contributes, regardless of "income," pays the same rate for this investment. Except that after a specified amount at the higher income level no more money can be invested because the return would be too great for the fedgov to pay back and would seem "unfair." So, yeah, those who pay social security tax do pay federal income tax. And this entitles them to a "pension" paid from the general fund contributed to by all income tax payers, some who pay higher rates than others. And defining income tax as other than a payroll tax attributes to the notion that some pay a greater percentage of their income to payroll taxes than higher income folks.

Justplugit: most of those who don't pay the income tax part of it feel the pain in many ways. All of the other taxes have much more impact on their bottom line than it does on other people. Think of how gas taxes or sales taxes impacts a married couple making less than 18,000 a year. You want the feds to take more money from them?

Oh yeah, because you think they don't feel the effects of taxes... like the poor guy who still has an after tax income of $1,000,000 does?

Where the hell are they driving on a married couple income of 18K ??

Walmart?

Question?? If they are using their EBT card to purchase stuff, who's paying the sales tax now??

Back to the subject of this thread? I would like to ask Spence, Likwid, Paul S, Zimmy, in particular, or anyone else on this forum, in general, the following seven questions:

Were you under the impression that the federal Congress had unlimited or undefined powers of taxation before this decision?

If not, do you believe that it now "constitutionally" has unlimited power of taxation?

Did you believe that the Interstate Commerce Clause gives Congress unlimited power to regulate individual behavior?

If not, would Scotus validation of the HCB under Commerce Clause power to regulate inactivity have given Congress unlimited power to regulate behavior?

Finally, does it matter to you if Congress has constitutional power to regulate all of your behavior?

And, if not, do you believe that it is irrational to worry that it might, so having those powers is no threat since it would never do so?

And, if the decision gives Congress unlimited power to tax you, is it irrational to worry about such power, since it will only use it for the benefit of society?

You want the feds to take more money from them?
l

No, I just want them to become aware and take an interest in who the big spending
politicians are, either party, and how spending affects them personally.

I would say very few pople, whatever their income, rich or poor, know how much they are paying in taxes outside their Fed and State income taxes.

Like I say, nothing gets a persons attention better then having a horse in
the hunt.

Back to the thread like Detbuch just said.

Did they?
I thought they decided it was OK as it was under Commerce Clause?
Roberts used the Tax angle to come to his assertion.
Jim, I don't see your posts except when quoted, so don't expect a response. Rockhound is right, Sotomayor and Ginsberg were going to pass it based on commerce law.The majority opinion written by Roberts said THE MANDATE can be upheld as a tax. I was specifically referring to the cons calling the entire bill a tax. The other 4 conservative judges said it isn't a tax, by the way. I really don't care either way. It is semantics. If a person who chooses not to have insurance pays penalty or a bit more in taxes to cover the cost we get stuck with when they go to the ER for a cold, so be it.

No, I just want them to become aware and take an interest in who the big spending
politicians are, either party, and how spending affects them personally.

.
I agree. That is why I find "Corn Subsidies** in the United States totaled $81.7 billion from 1995-2011" or the $10-50 billion annual fossil fuel subsidies to be pretty ridiculous. The mandate is estimated come in at about $2 to 3 billion per year and only applies to people who go uninsured. The cons typically love those big business subsidies. They also proposed those health mandates. But now that it was passed under Obama it is the end of the world. Horse hockey.

Showing results for “ If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance... Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.” Stuart Butler- Heritage Foundation, 1989
Search instead for “ If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance... Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.” Stewart Butler- Heritage Foundation, 1989


No results containing all your search terms were found.

Your search - “ If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or ... - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

•Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
•Try different keywords.
•Try more general keywords.
•Try fewer keywords.

No results found for “ If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance... Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.” Stuart Butler- Heritage Foundation, 1989.


Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate ? USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-02-03/health-individual-mandate-reform-heritage/52951140/1)


And make no mistake: Heritage and I actively oppose the individual mandate, including in an amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, the myth persists. ObamaCare "adopts the 'individual mandate' concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation," Jonathan Alter wrote recently in The Washington Post. MSNBC's Chris Matthews makes the same claim, asserting that Republican support of a mandate "has its roots in a proposal by the conservative Heritage Foundation." Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have made similar claims.

The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through "adverse selection" (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage). At that time, President Clinton was proposing a universal health care plan, and Heritage and I devised a viable alternative.

My view was shared at the time by many conservative experts, including American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholars, as well as most non-conservative analysts. Even libertarian-conservative icon Milton Friedman, in a 1991 Wall Street Journal article, advocated replacing Medicare and Medicaid "with a requirement that every U.S. family unit have a major medical insurance policy."

My idea was hardly new. Heritage did not invent the individual mandate.

But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.

If a person who chooses not to have insurance pays penalty or a bit more in taxes to cover the cost we get stuck with when they go to the ER for a cold, so be it.

How about, instead of rewriting the Constitution by, via Robert's decision, giving the fedgov an unspecified general power to tax that didn't previously exist in the Constitution, thus giving the government unlimited power of taxation--how about, instead, the person without insurance just PAYS THE BILL.

"Although an individual is 50 percent more likely to have a car accident in a year than to be hospitalized, the average bill for a hospitalization is over two and a half times higher than the average loss for a car accident. And, while the bill for a single hospitalization is about the same as the loss from an average house fire, a person is ten times more likely to be hospitalized than to experience a house fire."
"On average, uninsured families can only afford to pay in full for about 12% of the admissions to hospital (hospitalizations) they might experience. Even uninsured families with incomes above 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) can afford to pay in full for only 37% of their hospitalizations. "

The Value of Health Insurance:#^& Few of the Uninsured Have Adequate Resources to Pay Potential Hospital Bills (http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2011/ValueofInsurance/rb.shtml)

The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

DPM is likely the most intelligent guy to ever be in government. We could use a few (or 100) in the senate right now.

That all being said, with the health legislation as it is right now and the economy as it is right now (and likely will be for a while), do you really think we can afford this all right now? I think not.

Something to control costs needs to come first, like maybe tort reform and other.

Good. bad or otherwise, I am thinking the economy is way too close to the edge for the government to be changing things up too much right now. Looks like most businesses are sitting on the hiring sidelines waiting for the music to stop. It's not like they aren't making any money. Profits seem to be at an all time high for a lot if not most.

That all being said, with the health legislation as it is right now and the economy as it is right now (and likely will be for a while), do you really think we can afford this all right now? I think not.

Something to control costs needs to come first, like maybe tort reform and other.



That makes sense.

Recently I heard Tom Price MD, Rep Ga. speak on HC. Being a physician
and knowing the the ins and outs of medicine he made a lot of sense.
The 3 things he mentioned were Coverage, Insurance and Waste.

Coverage for all citizens through Tax Policy, tax deductions, tax credits similar to a 401 K and individual/ company/ plans.

Insurance, can become affordable by Tort Reform and allowing competitive Insurance across state lines.

Waste is around $600 because of the practice of defensive medicine.

Imo, the reason for the large increases in HC over the years is the need for Docs to
order every new test there is before diagnosis to prevent lawsuits. I bet there are
very few people over 65 that don't belong to the CAT Scan or MRI Club.
Limiting the lawsuites would go a long way in reducing costs and do away
with the high cost of Malpractice Ins. that is passed along to the patient.

All these things just make sense to do before a massive HC plan, that we
can't afford, is put in place. Anybody disagree?

"Although an individual is 50 percent more likely to have a car accident in a year than to be hospitalized, the average bill for a hospitalization is over two and a half times higher than the average loss for a car accident. And, while the bill for a single hospitalization is about the same as the loss from an average house fire, a person is ten times more likely to be hospitalized than to experience a house fire."
"On average, uninsured families can only afford to pay in full for about 12% of the admissions to hospital (hospitalizations) they might experience. Even uninsured families with incomes above 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) can afford to pay in full for only 37% of their hospitalizations. "

The Value of Health Insurance:#^& Few of the Uninsured Have Adequate Resources to Pay Potential Hospital Bills (http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2011/ValueofInsurance/rb.shtml)

Your article does not go into the reasons for the high costs, especially the most fundamental reasons. If most do not have sufficient assets to pay for a single hospitalization, how could the hospitals afford to stay in business? Big pockets of insurance or government are motives to raise prices to levels single payers cannot afford. Simply mandating that everyone is insured does nothing to relieve us of the higher costs, but may actually fuel the rise in prices and destroys one of the reasons to buy insurance--to have an advantage over those uninsured.

If most people were not "insured," would hospital costs be so high that they could not afford to access medical care? Or would innovative entrepeneurs seize the opportunity to tap the available market of that majority "uninsured" to provide "affordable" health care? And this applies to the entire "economy"--the competitive free market versus the planned, mandated, gvt. intruded market. The high and rising costs of life have much to do with gvt. regs, mandates, and redistribution, with market forces adjusting, thereby constantly inflating the price of life, but leaving the lower end of "earners" further behind as their power to adjust is weak, thus leading to more gvt. intrusion, and further rising costs and market adjustments, and a greater expansion of the number of those on the lower end and the ensuing greater need for government intrusion and redistribution.

I know it sounds brutal, but more free market and less government "works" better in keeping life "affordable" to a greater number of people. And the greater the government intrusion and regulation of prices and distribution, the larger the number of comparatively "poor" who depend on the government largesse and regulation and the greater the need for the unending cycle of government expansion--which can only lead to collapse or some form of dictatorship.

If, under the current cycle (in which charities actually pay for 80% of the costs "passed on" to others for the medical care of the uninsured) we insist that the uninsured pay for their care out of pocket or, as your article notes, "take out further loans, or sell their house or other non-financial assets to pay some of these costs," would that not motivate those, who are able, to buy insurance? And, if we just can't stand the idea of charities paying most of the cost of the rest, how about some gvt. programs (preferrably States) to pay for them rather than destroying the Constitution?

I agree. That is why I find "Corn Subsidies** in the United States totaled $81.7 billion from 1995-2011" or the $10-50 billion annual fossil fuel subsidies to be pretty ridiculous. The mandate is estimated come in at about $2 to 3 billion per year and only applies to people who go uninsured. The cons typically love those big business subsidies. They also proposed those health mandates. But now that it was passed under Obama it is the end of the world. Horse hockey.

you can thank FDR for providing Congress with the power to do these "ridiculous" things:uhuh::)

Things came to a head in the New Deal, when Congress imposed a tax on food and fiber processors and used those tax dollars to provide benefits to farmers. Though in U.S. v. Butler (1936) the court adopted a more expansive view of the taxing power—allowing Congress to tax and spend for the "general welfare" beyond the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution—it still held the ends had to be "general" and not transfer payments from one group to another. After President Franklin D. Roosevelt threatened to "pack" the Supreme Court in 1937, it accepted such transfer payments in Mulford v. Smith (1939), so long as the taxes were paid into the general treasury and not earmarked for farmers.

Paul Moreno: A Short History of Congress's Power to Tax - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304141204577508503320285454.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop)

In United States v. Butler (1936), the Supreme Court invalidated the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. Justice Owen Roberts, writing for himself and five other justices, held that the AAA "invade[d] the reserved rights of the states" by endeavoring "to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government." Specifically, the Court held that the AAA violated the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which declares: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Assuming that Congress could not directly compel farmers to reduce acreage or cull livestock, the Court held that Congress "may not indirectly accomplish those ends by taxing and spending to purchase compliance."
.................................................. .......

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/fdr-presidential/

In November 1936 voters gave Roosevelt a second overwhelming mandate at the polls. His New Deal policies, constitutional or not, had put millions of Americans back to work and given people hope. Now, mandate in hand, FDR would move to challenge the Supreme Court threat to the New Deal.

On February 5, 1937, with little or no warning, FDR announced what would become known as his "court packing" plan. Citing the inability of the federal courts to deal with an overwhelming caseload, he proposed judicial reforms, including the addition of one justice to the Supreme Court for every one who did not retire by age 70-1/2, with a maximum five justices added.

It was an uncharacteristic political mistake for the usually astute Roosevelt. His plan to influence the Court provoked outrage nationwide. Many perceived it as an attempt to rig the American judiciary system and give the executive branch almost dictatorial power. In a public speech in March, Roosevelt managed to turn American opinion his way, but when the Supreme Court reported that it had no problem keeping up with its caseload, support for his plan declined.

As Roosevelt worked on behalf of his "court-packing" plan, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor several times, further weakening the President's arguments for court reform. On March 29, the Court upheld a Washington State minimum wage law. In May, the Court upheld the Social Security Act. When Joseph Robinson, Roosevelt's last significant ally in the court-packing scheme died in July, the plan died too.

The attempt to influence the Supreme Court was one of the worst episodes of Roosevelt's presidential career

.................................................. ....

Emboldened by the apparent change in the Supreme Court's attitude toward the constitutionality of the New Deal, Congress passed a second Agricultural Adjustment Act, designated as the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Rather than using the proceeds from taxes on processors to motivate farmers to lower production in exchange for benefit payments, the 1938 act applied marketing quotas and overproduction penalties directly.

In Mulford v. Smith (1939), the Supreme Court upheld the 1938 act with little fanfare. Even though the marketing quotas imposed by the 1938 act intruded far more aggressively into the agricultural economy than the processing taxes at issue in the 1933 act, Mulford found no fault in the 1938 act. Just three years earlier the 1933 act had been condemned as an unconstitutional stratagem by the federal government to interfere in agricultural markets. Yet the ruling in Mulford blessed the 1938 act as a program "intended to foster, protect and conserve [interstate] commerce."

Your article does not go into the reasons for the high costs, especially the most fundamental reasons. And, if we just can't stand the idea of charities paying most of the cost of the rest, how about some gvt. programs (preferrably States) to pay for them rather than destroying the Constitution?

of course it doesn't:) when you believe that you can use the power of government to require participation, require the level benefits and all that they must include, set the price for those benefits including designating certain free benefits that must be provided(and probably require they be used...or else) and those that can be denied, arbitrarily tax and penalize based on your need to "provide" and maintain the bureaucracy that is doing the providing.....what do the actual costs and the drivers of those costs matter? you have the power to control everything....don't you?:)

The Dream of Command Economics - By Yuval Levin - The Corner - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/304823/dream-command-economics-yuval-levin)

of course it doesn't:) when you believe that you can use the power of government to require participation, require the level benefits and all that they must include, set the price for those benefits including designating certain free benefits that must be provided(and probably require they be used...or else) and those that can be denied, arbitrarily tax and penalize based on your need to "provide" and maintain the bureaucracy that is doing the providing.....what do the actual costs and the drivers of those costs matter? you have the power to control everything....don't you?:)

The Dream of Command Economics - By Yuval Levin - The Corner - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/304823/dream-command-economics-yuval-levin)

Yes, the fedgov now has the power to control everything, granted by the rewriting of the Constitution, not by Congress through ammendment or convention as prescribed by that Constitution, but by judicial "interpretation." Though, how could honest interpretation of a document conclude something that does not exist in the document and is opposite of what it intended? By learned scholars of the document, not by ignorant amateurs?

There is a tradition in all sorts of scholarship to change little things in original texts to make them "better"--more up to date, more understandable, more relevant, to improve even if by some sly little change of word or meaning that more suits the taste of the sholar than what he considers imperfect text. What follows are more "improvements" by others, even on the previous alterations. This might kindly be looked on as "evolution' of the document. If done with honest revrence to the original text, it rarely becomes a mutation that utterly destroys it. When that occurs, it was intention not evolution.

We have been deceived. The "interpretations" of our Constitution were not honest. Nor was there in the Constitution a mechanism to "interpret" the words as if they were a foreign language. Nor was there an expressed means to "interpret" what the words mean as though they changed meaning with every review. There is no article or provision to "interpret" with varying degrees of scrutiny, nor to expand original meaning to make it elastic so that powers denied become powers granted. Interpretation largely is to determine if the Constitutioin is applicable, and, if so, to apply it. The great difficulties in "interpretation" have mostly been in trying to make the Constitution bend to fit legislation, to make constitutional that which is not.

Which is what Roberts has done with the HCB. Which is what progressive jurisprudence has been doing for 80 years. The Constitution has become the elastic man that can touch all bases while remaining on first and create home runs out of errors. It is a fictitious and ungainly mutation of a once elegant expression of government of, by, and for the people, into a cumbersome, unpredictable license to rule the people.

And I am genuinely curious to know if those who approve of this new Constitution understand what has happened? The HCB and the massive fedgov bureacracy with all its programs and regulations can be repealed, but how do we fix the damage to the Constitution? Do we care? Do we truly believe what has happened is for the best? I ask Spence, likwid, Paul S, and Zimmy, once again:

Were you under the impression that Congress had unlimited powers of taxation before this decision?

If not, do you believe that it now does?

Did you believe that the Interstate Commerce Clause gave Congress unlimited power to regulate individual behaviour?

And, if not, would SCOTUS validation of the HCB under commerce clause power have given Congress unlimited power to regualate behavior?

Does it matter to you if Congress has the power to regulate all your behavior or has unlimited power to tax you?

the Progressive agenda has been moved forward for most of the last century through lies, distortions, threats and thuggery and always at some cost to our Constitutional Guarantees and Protections and through the misuse of power by elected and unelected(appointed) officials each who swear to uphold and defend the Constitution...this healthcare "reform" is no excepton if you consider the way in which it was passed....they justify, in their minds, doing the wrong(Un-Constitutional) thing by claiming that they are doing the "right thing"(increasing government dependence on one of their many social programs in an expression of "compassion") which appears to be the goal of nearly every major Progressive Agenda Point and implementing them always seems to require tricks, deception and excessive political pressure....you'd think that if you are doing the "right" thing it would be self-evident and not require such thuggery and the Constitution would not be such a frequent obstacle for you.....

the people that you mentioned will not answer questions of Constitutionality because I believe, like the officials who swear to uphold the Constitution and then trample it or seek to find ways around it in order to establish their agenda, the have little or no regard for the Constitution, it is evident from their comments that the fancy themselves above all of that and certainly not bound because their ideaology is far superior to....well...anything that has existed to date......not altogether different from a cult.....they place their leaders "philosopher kings" on high pedestals and regardless of how flawed(have you seen their "leaders"?), dangerous or overinflated their sense of self(and who can blame them because they are truly worshipped) might be, they can do no wrong and are to be defended regardless, because the ideaology that they share is more important than anything else(right, wrong, Constitutionality) and the source where each draws their own sense of self-importance, entitlement and feeling of superiority over and quite often, disdain for those with "lesser views"....if their idols, leaders or fellow thinkers fall...then so do they and their precious ideaology, better to go off a cliff (see Europe) than give up on the Utopian Dream....sadly, the Constitution suffers and will continue to until we go off the cliff and it can be replaced with whatever the Progressives have in mind(which no doubt includes many thousands of pages or regulations and taxes and fees), the early Progressives leaned heavily facist(some would say the European facist leaned heavily American Progressive, some form of mutual admiration society at the least) particularly regarding the Italian version in terms of mingling state and private enterprise, go read the words of Mussolini regarding these matters and his state visions and arguments and let me now if anything sounds familiar to you...we continue to move toward one contrived form of statism or another...or perhaps, Americans might wake up and fight for the Constitutional Guarantees and Protections that are our birthright..................

just as FDR was emboldened by re-election, this President would be frightening with a new mandate

Vote Results: House Passes Obamacare

The final vote tally for the Senate version of President Obama's health care reform legislation in the House was 219-212, with 34 Democrats joining all Republicans in opposition.

The key takeaway for opposition groups is that Speaker Pelosi needed to make a last-day deal with Rep. Bart Stupak and his small group of pro-life Democrats in order to achieve passage. That deal came in the form of an executive order from the White House



House repeals Obamacare 244-185

The Hill: The House voted again Wednesday to repeal the 2010 healthcare reform law. Members approved the bill in a 244-185 vote, after five hours of debate that stretched over two days. As expected, just a handful of Democrats supported the GOP repeal bill. Five Democrats, Reps. Dan Boren (Okla.), Larry Kissell (N.C.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.) and Mike Ross (Ark.), sided with Republicans in the final vote.


http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1774

July 12, 2012 - American Voters Say Health Care Law Is A Tax Hike, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Most Want Arizona-Type Immigration Law In Their State


The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a tax hike, American voters say 55 - 36 percent, but in a mixed message, voters agree 48 - 45 percent with the U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the law, while they say 49 - 43 percent that the U.S. Congress should repeal it, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.


RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Repeal of Health Care Law: Favor/Oppose (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/repeal_of_health_care_law_favoroppose-1947.html)