Obamacare easily survives supreme court

[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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

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...

[scottw]

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

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[scottw]

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

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

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????

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

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.