Obamacare easily survives supreme court

[Jim in CT]

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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

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....

[Jim in CT]

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.

[likwid]

Examples of people against Obamacare:

People Who Say They're Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare

[Jim in CT]

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[striperman36]

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

[zimmy]

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[justplugit]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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.

[zimmy]

"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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

"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

"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.

[justplugit]

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.

[zimmy]

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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??

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

"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

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.

[Redsoxticket]

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

[zimmy]

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/surpr...ry?id=14681815

[detbuch]

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?

[zimmy]

"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

[scottw]

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

[rphud]

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by rphud

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?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

"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

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?