If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(US Supreme Court) NewsFlash Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is constitutional. The bland mask that is Mitt Romney's face twitches with something called "emotion"   (supremecourt.gov) divider line 3382
    More: NewsFlash, obamacare, supreme courts, Mitt Romney, supreme court ruling  
•       •       •

14913 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jun 2012 at 10:27 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

3382 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last
 
2012-06-28 11:03:14 AM

WombatControl: From now on, it's not "ObamaCare." It's the "Obama Health Care Tax". Let's have the President own his massive tax hike right through to November.


Given what this "tax" pays for, a lot of people might not object to paying for it. If it saves their lives, if it allows them to have medical coverage despite a pre-existing condition, if it actually makes it easier to get health care, then the benefits will outweigh the tax increase.

Bear in mind, if you already have coverage, this "tax" doesn't affect you. And I believe that there will be assistance for those who can't afford it.

So yes, it's a tax. Much like the taxes America paid so we could go fight the World Wars. Sometimes we have to pay for things that are necessary, and sometimes it means our taxes go up. I realize that the idea of actually raising taxes so we pay for a war ourselves is a bit of an anathema to conservatives these days, they'd rather borrow money from Communist China, but in the old days, taxes weren't seen as evil. They were seen as paying for America, because America was worth paying for.
 
2012-06-28 11:03:16 AM
What is this I don't even

/But seriously. I am so effing shocked right now. That this conservative court would uphold this, and that ROBERTS would be the swing vote.....just no words....
 
2012-06-28 11:03:19 AM

WombatControl: Lots of words


I've often noticed that you use a lot of words yet don't really say anything.
 
2012-06-28 11:03:23 AM

Tat'dGreaser: I apparently don't know everything about this whole deal. I hear some people talk about how health care is now guaranteed for everyone, then I hear you are now forced to purchase health care. Which one is it?


A little of both.

So, most of the law is about making it easier on people to get health insurance--making it affordable by capping profit margins, making sure the insurer can't deny you coverage because you were sick before you started paying their premiums, being able to stay on your parents insurance until 26, etc. All in all, things most individuals would consider reasonable moderation on an industry that makes its profits by denying service. Whether you agree or not, polls show most people liked the individual points.

The balancing factor in this was the individual mandate--a requirement that you either purchase healthcare of some sort (presumably with minimum standards of care) or you pay the government a fine come tax time. Not so many people liked this but the insurance companies were more in favor of it, as it makes a penalty for waiting until one is sick before purchasing insurance (which they'd be obligated to not deny you just because you're already sick). This was probably the most controversial bit of the whole thing, with a lot of conservatives saying the government can't (or shouldn't) force you to purchase something from a private company, and a lot of the liberals saying it's either covered by the interstate commerce clause and/or it's a tax on not carrying insurance.

The court has ruled that it's effectively a tax, despite some wacky wording on the part of the writers who didn't want to call it a tax.

So over the next few years, it will be significantly easier for one to get affordable health insurance, but one will also be obligated to purchase said insurance or pay a yearly fine.
 
2012-06-28 11:03:35 AM
If the law was overturned: "This shows Obama will lose in November!"

Now that it was upheld: "He owns this law now! Bad news for Obama!"
 
2012-06-28 11:03:37 AM

Itstoearly: unlikely: This is a surprise. I honestly expected the 6-3 conservative court to rule more in favor of "fark the poors because they smell"

You have no idea how the supreme court works. Their job is to judge if something is constitutional, regardless of how awesome or terrible an idea is. They do not judge value.


That may be the best troll of this thread. 9/10. One point lost for losing credibility by not capitalizing Supreme Court.
 
2012-06-28 11:03:38 AM
Obama's reelection is assured, major Republican victories in 16 and 18 likely as log term effects of bill become apparent. You read it here first.
 
2012-06-28 11:03:42 AM

king cranium maximus IV: [i.imgur.com image 234x216]
[i.imgur.com image 234x216]
[i.imgur.com image 234x216]


Wait... Roberts was the deciding vote?
 
2012-06-28 11:03:45 AM
"I'm still at a loss as to why "tax and spend" is a bad idea... Someone please explain it to me?"

Because a large portion of the population....let's call them "morons".... truly believe that "taxation is theft!"
 
2012-06-28 11:03:46 AM

palelizard: wxboy: So how exactly does this work? I've always thought the best way to encourage the purchase of health insurance was to either provide a large tax deduction or just allow the cost of insurance to be subtracted from the final income tax amount.

Is that essentially what will happen, or is it something else?

I admit I haven't been paying close attention to this case (or ACA for that matter).

The ruling seems to be more or less the former option: whatever they called it, it's a tax on not having insurance, so the net is the same as getting a deduction for having insurance.


It's a tax on everyone, for which buying health insurance is deductible.
 
2012-06-28 11:03:47 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: bulldg4life: You mean besides the subsidies already built in to the bill to help those who can't afford it?

Yes. Where will that money come from?


We're going to sell the organs of conservatives to Mexico for taco meat.
 
2012-06-28 11:03:59 AM

Headso: based on the comments in this thread it looks like "tax increase" is the talkingpoint people are being told to parrot.


I think it will be: "LARGEST TAX INCREASE EVA!!!"

/This is Obama's Whiskey Rebellion
 
2012-06-28 11:04:06 AM
Good bye freedom. I am soooooooo sick over this. It's like paying to breathe air (coming soon I guess now).
I am ashamed of this........................

At least people from overseas will stop coming to the US for healthcare. Ours will soon be as bad as theirs.
 
2012-06-28 11:04:08 AM
Teabaggers in a nushell:

-Republican raise taxes to pay for foreign wars? No Problem! Lets give our boys the best toys to pertect our freedums!

-Democrats raise taxes to pay for healthcare of American citizens? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!

(me? I'm against both parties. I just hate Teabaggers.)
 
2012-06-28 11:04:10 AM

ialdabaoth: El Hodor: ialdabaoth: Ok, look. This is simple.

If someone can't afford to stay competitive, why do they deserve to compete?

If someone can't afford to keep working, why do they deserve to work?

If someone can't afford to stay healthy, why do they deserve health?

If someone can't afford to stay alive, why do they deserve to live?

You get what you pay for. If you can't afford to pay, well... I suppose it's polite to pretend that it was nice knowing you, but you aren't much use anymore, are you?

And if you disagree with all of the above statements, great! Politics takes money. If someone can't afford a lobbyist or a campaign, why do they deserve to have an opinion?

Brilliant! 10/10! This, gentlemen, is how you troll!

Actually, I really *would* like an answer.


No, no, no, don't go fishing for more! Your original statement that a person's value as a human being is directly correlated to their ability to pay for things was perfect! It was like looking into the face of God. You know, if God was a d-bag. Don't spoil it now by over playing your hand.
 
2012-06-28 11:04:16 AM

MasterThief: From SCOTUSBlog: "The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause [arguments in favor of the ACA] should be understood as a major blow to Congress's authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code -- especially in the current political environment -- to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition."


Yeah, if someone on the Supreme Court doesn't retire while a Democrat is in office. Or Obama his next term..Otherwise you're shiat out of luck because 4 Justices said it fell under the Commerce Clause and Congress had that authority.
 
2012-06-28 11:04:19 AM
Sheeeeeit. Can't believe it.
 
2012-06-28 11:04:21 AM

Joe Blowme: So much for wanting to help special need kids


14. Flexible Spending Account Cap - aka "Special Needs Kids Tax" ($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389




Don't worry. We'll have a benefit concert for you.

/I think we can get Bono
 
2012-06-28 11:04:22 AM

Obama lied to the American people. Again. He said it wasn't a tax. Obama lies; freedom dies.

- Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) June 28, 2012
 
2012-06-28 11:04:24 AM

Ned Stark: Obama's reelection is assured, major Republican victories in 16 and 18 likely as log term effects of bill become apparent. You read it here first.


You also said it would be struck down as unconstitutional. Excuse me if I decide to disregard your prediction.
 
2012-06-28 11:04:26 AM

chimp_ninja: Thunderpipes: It is a loss for Obama.

WombatControl: This is the worst outcome for Obama.

It'll be about an hour before they're rolled up in the fetal position screaming "This isn't happening!", in between Silkwood showers.


It's just a repeat of the "This is bad news...for Obama" meme. They were wrong that time, too.
 
2012-06-28 11:04:31 AM
It's a proud day for homosexual illegal aliens with chronic, congenital disease!
 
2012-06-28 11:04:33 AM
I have a happy Link
 
2012-06-28 11:04:33 AM

WombatControl: Legally, this was a piss-poor decision. Yes, the Commerce Clause end of things was upheld, but the SCOTUS basically saved Congress by doing something that Congress never intended to do. That's judicial activism. If Congress had intended the mandate to be a tax, they could have done so directly. SCOTUS inferred that's what they did, which is not the proper role of a judge.

Politically, anyone who wants to argue this is good for Obama is kidding themselves. This is the worst outcome for Obama. (The best being the bill being upheld under the Commerce Clause, the second best being the bill being totally struck down.) Why is this the worst outcome?

1.) This just energized the living fark out of the GOP base. It was ObamaCare that motivated the Tea Party in 2010. Now it's going to do the same in 2012.

2.) It just took away their "RomneyCare" attacks. (Yes, the whole "RomneyCare" bit was incoherent to begin with, but it's less coherent now.)

3.) Obama is now responsible for a major middle-class tax increase. After saying that he wouldn't raise taxes. Repeatedly. This will be in every Romney attack ad through this election season. It should be in them now.

From now on, it's not "ObamaCare." It's the "Obama Health Care Tax". Let's have the President own his massive tax hike right through to November.


You're trending towards the derp a bit, but this is the kind of thing that will get spun exactly like you said and that thing recently caused what was more or less a popular president his job.
 
2012-06-28 11:04:42 AM

AngryPanda: Derek Force: So does this or does this not mean I have to wait in the ER for 3 hours because its filled with non-insured people who have the flu or a splinter?

You were doing that before!


Actually, it means there will still be an ER. Thanks to so many patients in ERs not paying their bills, most ERs would have closed if Obamacare had been overturned.

http://www.amsa.org/AMSA/Homepage/TakeAction/AMSAOnCall/11-05-18/Why_ a re_ER_s_Closing.aspx
 
2012-06-28 11:04:47 AM

kliq: America makes me proud sometimes.


Like a mature democracy, or like a drooling tard that manages to velcro his left shoe on his left foot without flinging poo for a change?
 
2012-06-28 11:04:54 AM

Sir Vanderhoot: AmazinTim: NowhereMon: Suck it cons, suck it long and hard

You must mean suck it everyone, now we'll never fix health care. We'll just keep patching scabby band-aids onto the issue, just like this bill.

I was really hoping it would get struck down, then force a complete overhaul single-payer plan. Make health insurance companies obsolete completely.

Oh well. Maybe in a few decades we can join the rest of the civilized world.


My sentiments exactly. Oh well.
 
2012-06-28 11:04:56 AM
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-28 11:04:57 AM

ialdabaoth: Ok, look. This is simple.

If someone can't afford to stay competitive, why do they deserve to compete?

If someone can't afford to keep working, why do they deserve to work?

If someone can't afford to stay healthy, why do they deserve health?

If someone can't afford to stay alive, why do they deserve to live?

You get what you pay for. If you can't afford to pay, well... I suppose it's polite to pretend that it was nice knowing you, but you aren't much use anymore, are you?

And if you disagree with all of the above statements, great! Politics takes money. If someone can't afford a lobbyist or a campaign, why do they deserve to have an opinion?


so what if you are healthy and simply pay for whatever doctor visits you need at the time you are penalized by the government for not buy a product/service?
 
2012-06-28 11:04:59 AM

Lucky LaRue: Barnacles!: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! "

[i98.photobucket.com image 610x368]

You should read the conservative blogs.. Roberts is, apparently, a direct descendant of Judas Iscariot..


thepatriotaxe.com
 
2012-06-28 11:05:04 AM

RichieLaw: What is this I don't even

/But seriously. I am so effing shocked right now. That this conservative court would uphold this, and that ROBERTS would be the swing vote.....just no words....


Yeah, I'm rather floored too. I really expected them to shiatcan the thing.

As I said in the other thread, though...

This is not a victory for liberals. This is a victory for Obama, the health insurance industry and their lobbyists.
 
2012-06-28 11:05:12 AM
Time to get out the Paul Revere hats and the misspelled signs.
 
2012-06-28 11:05:12 AM

Drexl's Eye: Congrats guys!

/Canadian


This. I would like to congratulate all Americans on this reform. You may not deserve a single-payer health care system but you deserve a hybrid/band-aid version of until you realize that you can do better.

/also Canadian
 
2012-06-28 11:05:28 AM

WombatControl: Legally, this was a piss-poor decision. Yes, the Commerce Clause end of things was upheld, but the SCOTUS basically saved Congress by doing something that Congress never intended to do. That's judicial activism. If Congress had intended the mandate to be a tax, they could have done so directly. SCOTUS inferred that's what they did, which is not the proper role of a judge.

They authorized the "fine" through the tax code. That seems direct enough


1.) This just energized the living fark out of the GOP base. It was ObamaCare that motivated the Tea Party in 2010. Now it's going to do the same in 2012.

They're already fully "energized".


2.) It just took away their "RomneyCare" attacks. (Yes, the whole "RomneyCare" bit was incoherent to begin with, but it's less coherent now.)

I'd argue it took away the "ObamaCare" attacks, without touching the complaints of Romney's nearly identical plan.


3.) Obama is now responsible for a major middle-class tax increase. After saying that he wouldn't raise taxes. Repeatedly. This will be in every Romney attack ad through this election season. It should be in them now.

The ACA also provides for assistance to those who cannot afford coverage themselves. If they do simply opt to not have coverage but can pass the means test, it's a tax. Good. I've seen enough people hauled through the ER with no insurance, knowing I'm already paying for it.
 
2012-06-28 11:05:35 AM

ignatius_crumbcake: If anything, it will increase conservative apathy cause the teabaggers don't think their Lord-and-Savior Mitt Romney (lol) can be trusted to do anything.


But what does Sarah Palin think about all this?
 
2012-06-28 11:05:36 AM

schattenteufel: -Republican raise taxes to pay for foreign wars? No Problem! Lets give our boys the best toys to pertect our freedums!


Raise taxes to pay for wars? When did that happen?
 
2012-06-28 11:05:40 AM

drgloryboy: zipdog: Derek Force: So does this or does this not mean I have to wait in the ER for 3 hours because its filled with non-insured people who have the flu or a splinter?

Yes

This will mean you will be waiting for six hours because now everyone will at least have Medicaid insurance that no primary care doctors will take. This means 20 million more people will be going to the ER for both non-emergent concerns and for emergent conditions that they normally wouldn't have gone to the ER before the mandate for fear of going bankrupt. As an ER doc I will no longer be required to provide government mandated charity care as we as a nation will pay for those unable to afford insurance and will require those who can afford insurance to have it. Looks like I won't be having a problem staying busy at work.


Soooo...no more "charity care".,..so it will be paid for, where in the past it may not have...so your hospital should be able to afford more ER doctors...
 
2012-06-28 11:05:46 AM
OK, So the HUGE Obama tax increase on everyone, including those who make under $250,000/yr. is legal.

I'd prefer that they decided against the HUGE Obama tax increase, but it looks like the HUGE Obama tax increase is here to stay.
 
2012-06-28 11:05:47 AM
so, who will be the first to call this a "Dark day for America" Palin or Hannity?
 
2012-06-28 11:05:54 AM

spentmiles: It's a proud day for homosexual illegal aliens with chronic, congenital disease!


I'm happy for you, too.

/?
 
2012-06-28 11:05:59 AM

bdub77: WombatControl: Legally, this was a piss-poor decision. Yes, the Commerce Clause end of things was upheld, but the SCOTUS basically saved Congress by doing something that Congress never intended to do. That's judicial activism. If Congress had intended the mandate to be a tax, they could have done so directly. SCOTUS inferred that's what they did, which is not the proper role of a judge.

Politically, anyone who wants to argue this is good for Obama is kidding themselves. This is the worst outcome for Obama. (The best being the bill being upheld under the Commerce Clause, the second best being the bill being totally struck down.) Why is this the worst outcome?

1.) This just energized the living fark out of the GOP base. It was ObamaCare that motivated the Tea Party in 2010. Now it's going to do the same in 2012.

2.) It just took away their "RomneyCare" attacks. (Yes, the whole "RomneyCare" bit was incoherent to begin with, but it's less coherent now.)

3.) Obama is now responsible for a major middle-class tax increase. After saying that he wouldn't raise taxes. Repeatedly. This will be in every Romney attack ad through this election season. It should be in them now.

From now on, it's not "ObamaCare." It's the "Obama Health Care Tax". Let's have the President own his massive tax hike right through to November.

Doesn't matter. Americans got health care. This is a win for the American people, not just Obama. Obama will now go down as the first president who got Americans health care. His legacy in that regard, not to mention countless other things he's done as president, will solidify him as one of the greats.

And yes I expect him to fully whip Romney's ass in November.


I'm not much of a political fan boy, but I have to agree in regards to Obama's legacy. He's managed to accomplish quite a bit in this term - and a fair bit more than I can recall any of the last 4 President's doing.
 
2012-06-28 11:05:59 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Where will that money come from?


Broaden Medicare tax base for high-income taxpayers: $210.2 billion
Annual fee on health insurance providers: $60 billion
40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $10,200/$27,500: $32 billion
Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs: $27 billion
Impose 2.3% excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices: $20 billion
Raise 7.5% Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction to 10%: $15.2 billion
Limit contributions to flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans to $2,500: $13 billion
All other revenue sources: $14.9 billion
Original budget estimates included a provision to require information reporting on payments to corporations, which had been projected to raise $17 billion, but the provision was repealed.[43]

-----

The CBO expected the subsidies to cost something like $350 through 2019
 
2012-06-28 11:06:12 AM

WombatControl: 1.) This just energized the living fark out of the GOP base. It was ObamaCare that motivated the Tea Party in 2010. Now it's going to do the same in 2012.


This won't energize anyone who wasn't already energized against Obama. Additionally, the Tea Party was an unknown in 2010; by now they've had two years of overwhelmingly negative public exposure, and the non-mandate parts of the bill are still very popular and will be difficult to run against.

WombatControl: 2.) It just took away their "RomneyCare" attacks. (Yes, the whole "RomneyCare" bit was incoherent to begin with, but it's less coherent now.)


I don't think they were ever actually interested in attacking RomneyCare directly, instead using it as an example of hypocrisy. There's plenty of other lines of attack on that.

WombatControl: 3.) Obama is now responsible for a major middle-class tax increase. After saying that he wouldn't raise taxes. Repeatedly. This will be in every Romney attack ad through this election season. It should be in them now.


Can't really argue with that (though most anti-taxers have been pointing out the tax increases in the bill for months already), but it will be difficult for Romney to sell Obama as guy who increases taxes on the middle class when Romney's tax plan calls for increased taxes on the middle class. The only difference is that Obama's tax increase helps people; Romney's tax increase pays for upper-income tax cuts and increases in defense spending. I think that Obama would be happy to get Romney to put his tax plan front and center and start talking about the relative merits of their tax plans.
 
2012-06-28 11:06:12 AM
 
2012-06-28 11:06:17 AM

PanicMan: My coworker just said "they can't do that because the founding fathers wrote the constitution based on the old testimate". Also, this is the end of the country.


You're kidding, right?

/I hope
 
2012-06-28 11:06:18 AM

make me some tea: We're going to sell the organs of conservatives to Mexico for taco meat.


Fair 'nuff. It sounds better than "increase your taxes" too.
 
2012-06-28 11:06:19 AM

ManicMechanic: Good bye freedom. I am soooooooo sick over this. It's like paying to breathe air (coming soon I guess now).
I am ashamed of this........................

At least people from overseas will stop coming to the US for healthcare. Ours will soon be as bad as theirs.


Thankfully for you, Obamacare will cover retarded individuals' special needs.
 
2012-06-28 11:06:21 AM
I'm not a very political person, and I haven't really kept up on this whole Obamacare thing. Can somebody explain to me just what the hell happened, or provide a link that explains it short bus style?

/thanks
 
2012-06-28 11:06:24 AM

ignatius_crumbcake: Two Free Republic headlines got the outcome wrong. The comments are hilarious as they go from smug to petulant as they realize it was wrong:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2900385/posts


"This thread has been pulled."

ignatius_crumbcake: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2900380/posts


"This thread has been pulled."
 
2012-06-28 11:06:31 AM

Jensaarai: Well, there ya go. We now have Democrats firmly cheering for a Republican healthcare bill, and Republicans can continue feeling persecuted.


wood0366: I'm still at a loss as to why "tax and spend" is a bad idea... Someone please explain it to me?


That's socialism. Now tax cut and spend, that's freedom.
 
Displayed 50 of 3382 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report