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 703
    More: NewsFlash, obamacare, supreme courts, Mitt Romney, supreme court ruling  
•       •       •

14916 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?

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-06-28 10:29:34 AM
23 votes:
Tomorrow's headline: "Mitt Romney says Obamacare was his idea from the beginning."
2012-06-28 10:31:11 AM
22 votes:
What's best about this is the wingnuts planned the word Obamacare to be a derogatory term but now it will live for decades as a term giving a Democrat credit for something that they'll never be able to get rid of because people would go ape about it.
2012-06-28 11:57:05 AM
16 votes:
24.media.tumblr.com
2012-06-28 11:18:49 AM
13 votes:
Let me tell a story about why this is a good thing: 15 years ago my mother got cancer. She fought hard and won. Complete remission/surgery to remove lumps. Immediately after her surgery she was dropped from her insurance. Following her cancer, she continued to work (ran her own restaurant) but was not able to purchase health insurance. She tried everywhere, was willing to pay huge sums of money, but not a single insurer would give her a plan due to "preexisting conditions." 3 years ago she started to recognize the signs that something was wrong. She went for a blood test and boom, she had cancer again, but couldn't get it treated. Her only option was disability, something she had avoided last time because she wanted to continue to work. It took 2 years for her to get disability by that time her previously treatable cancer had become stage 4 terminal cancer. She is continuing to fight, about to start her 4th round of chemo/radiation. If she was able to get insurance before this happened not only would there be a good chance they could have cured it, but it would have been less expensive for the entire health care system. I'm telling that story to every idiot that says something stupid about the ruling today.
2012-06-28 10:31:05 AM
13 votes:
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?
2012-06-28 11:27:27 AM
12 votes:

Lernaeus: /looking forward to more "suck it" kindness and compassion from the left today


Keep hitting us with bricks and you expect hugs and kisses in return? fark you in the ass sideways with a screwdriver. How's that for kindness and compassion? Call us un-American, traitors, communists, and every other term you can think of to denigrate us? We're soldiers, nurses, police officers, emergency management officials and non-profit child welfare workers - and that's just in my damn immediate family.

WE'RE the ones expected to turn the other cheek? fark you. Your side clings to Jesus so much, where's the "turning of the cheek" that YOU'RE supposed to be so famous for? (also, didn't he have something to say about helping those less fortunate?)

Our kindness and compassion is reserved for those that actually deserve it.
2012-06-28 12:15:47 PM
11 votes:
www.macmeisters.com
2012-06-28 10:32:36 AM
11 votes:

TIKIMAN87: Obama has just destroyed this country.


This is America. If you can't support our President in a time of war you can just leave.
2012-06-28 10:30:51 AM
11 votes:
Awwww. I was hoping for single payer during my lifetime.
2012-06-28 12:07:53 PM
9 votes:
I'm an Australian, my dad fell off his bicycle a few months ago and was in hospital for two months, ICU for a week and a brain injury recovery ward for six weeks. He had about four surgeries on his brain over that time, multiple scans and several operations on his broken bones as well as a dedicated nurse on hand while we was in ICU.
Total cost to my family? $400 in parking costs at the hospital carpark(my mum drove herself to the hospital daily, I took a bus) and probably $80 in total from the Subway they had downstairs.

My dad is home now, has a scan once a month so far and is going well. The scans are free.
The airfares of family members coming to check up on him was more expensive than the cost of actually being in hospital to us. The final bill for his time there would have been in the tens of thousands if we were in the US.

Socialised medicine farking rocks.
2012-06-28 10:45:47 AM
9 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org

I owe you an apology...After upholding Citizens united, I thought that you were a partisan hack. I thought you would vote party lines.

While I may disagree with you on alot of things, you have restored my faith in the court, which had been shaken as of late.
2012-06-28 10:45:03 AM
9 votes:
Only in America will so many people get their panties in a bunch over something that will help so many in need.
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-28 10:34:59 AM
9 votes:

TIKIMAN87: Obama has just destroyed this country.


Yes, he has taken away our right to die from treatable ailments. The horror. The horror.
2012-06-28 10:40:56 AM
8 votes:
Three things:

1) Can we finally put to rest the notion that the Supreme Court was rigged for Republican initiatives? It's tiresome, and in reality the butthurt that usually comes from SCOTUS decisions is because it's your particular ox that's being gored, not because they're ideologically fixed and conspiring to fark Democratic initiatives.

2) The Congress could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by simply calling it what it is, a tax. It was always a tax, and calling it something else was always a big charade. We need to get over this tax-averse attitude we have in this country if we wish to maintain any semblance of the standard of living we currently have. We can't continue to live off of other peoples' largesse for much longer.

3) Congratulations to Barack Obama on his reelection. This essentially sealed the deal, the rest is just pro forma screaming.
2012-06-28 10:33:43 AM
8 votes:
Weird, Obama stated over and over this is not a tax. Now he argues it is.

At least they shot down the forced Medicaid expansion. That will throw a big wrench into his plans. 26 states can tell Obama and the Feds to suck it now, and they will.

Still scary. Means Congress can regulate your behavior via taxes. Vote Republican? Obama can impose a tax on you. Buy an American car? Obama can impose a tax on you. Christian? Obama can impose a tax on you.

Now liberals, if we get a Republican advantage, how about we implement a tax on the unemployed? No job? Fine, pay a tax. I know you think you just won, but you just screwed everyone equally with another erosion of individual rights.
2012-06-28 11:03:14 AM
7 votes:

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 10:59:41 AM
7 votes:
I'm still always shocked by how ridiculously stupid and uninformed most Americans are about their own health care.

A question: Would you tell the hospital to turn away someone dying because they couldn't pay?

If you answered yes, you're a sociopath. Seek help.

If you answered no, you believe in socialized medicine. Now we're just talking degrees of it. The American government spends more on health care than any other country in the world (per capita). Then of course you all have to pay for health insurance too. So fully socialized medicine would allow lowering taxes.
2012-06-28 10:32:42 AM
7 votes:
Booyah!

I'm STUNNED.

Would trade mandate for public option any day.
2012-06-28 10:32:18 AM
7 votes:
Man, this sucks. I figured this would go down, then the public works departments, then the streets and sidewalks, then the cops and firemen, then the teachers, then the schools.
Keep your unconstitutional programs away from me, you damn dirty apes! Damn you all straight to Hell!
2012-06-28 02:08:10 PM
6 votes:
ObamaCare - Explain It Like I'm Five by captainpixystick

Bob: Hi, insurance company. I'd like to buy some health insurance.

Insurance company: No. You had cancer when you were 3 years old, and the cancer could come back. We're not selling you health insurance.

Bob: It's not my fault I got cancer when I was three! Besides, that was years ago!

Insurance company: If we sell insurance to you, we'll probably lose money, and we're not doing it.

Bob: But I need insurance more than anyone! My cancer might come back!

Insurance company: We don't care. We're not selling you insurance.

Obama: Hey, that's totally not fair. Bob is right, he does need insurance! Sell Bob some insurance.

Insurance company: If we have to, I guess.

Mary: This is cool. Obama said the insurance company has to sell insurance to anyone who needs it.

Sam: Hey, I have an idea. I'm going to stop paying for health insurance. If I get sick, I can always go buy some insurance then. The insurance company won't be able to say no, because Obama's told them they have to sell it to anyone who needs it!

Dave: That's a great idea! I'm not paying for health insurance either, at least not until I get sick.

Insurance company: Hey! If everyone stops paying for insurance, we'll go bankrupt!

Obama: Oh come on Sam and Dave, that's not fair either.

Dave: I don't care. It saves me money.

Obama:(Facepalm) Oh for god's sake. Sam, Dave, you have to keep paying for health insurance, and not wait until you're sick. You too, Mary and Bob.

Mary:But I'm broke! I can't buy insurance! I just don't have any money.

Obama: Mary, show me your piggy bank.

(Mary Breaks it Open)

Obama: Oh, wow, you really are broke. Ok, tell you what. You still have to buy insurance, but I'll help you pay 95% of the cost.

Mary: Thank you!

Obama: I need an aspirin.

Insurance company: We're not paying for that aspirin.

**FLASHBACK after credits**:

All the People:
Wait! Won't this just mean we all give money to the companies and they keep it all?

Obama: No, they will be required to spend 85% of what they get paid in premiums on actual healthcare.

Cue: I got this.jpg

Now Comic Form!
2012-06-28 11:00:53 AM
6 votes:

Thunderpipes: RolandGunner: Well, in the long run it's the best possible outcome if the law was going to be upheld. By changing the mandate penalty to a tax and, ruling out the commerce clause justification, the bill is upheld without issuing a blanket authorization for the federal government to force the purchase of goods and services.

But it just did. If Obama wants you to do something, you do it, or the feds tax you. That is force. Just wait until Pubs in the states start pushing something you don't like and enforce it with a tax..... Will you like it then?


They already use my taxes to fight wars I don't agree with, and to give bailouts to failing companies. How about taxes actually being used for something useful once?
2012-06-28 10:57:20 AM
6 votes:

Joe Blowme: Lets look at al the awsome new and increased taxes in this fil
Taxes that took effect in 2010:
2. Codification of the "economic substance doctrine" (Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks "substance" and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113
.



Oh comeon, don't be such a horrible pied piper. Could you please give us an example of such a legal tax deduction that is now no longer allowed?

Because I can.

Let's say that I want to give 10,000,000 to my spoiled child, without paying gratuitous transfer taxes. So I create a corporation and issue 20,000,000 in stocks. I've put 20,000,000 into this corporation.l I give B-stocks, which have no control and cannot vote, valued at 10,000,000 to my lazy child. BUT WAIT! The IRS (used to) give me a discount. Since those b-shares can't vote, they get a discount. And since they can't control the company, they get ANOTHER discount. So that 10,000,000 only appears to be 5,000,000. So I'm only taxed on 5,000,000 dollars.

Of course, all of this is unnecessary, as this year you can transfer up to 13,000,000 gratuitously WITHOUT ANY FREAKING TAXES. But next year that goes away. These legal tax deductions you love so much are nothing more than a vehicle for rich people to transfer money without paying the requisite taxes, keeping them rich and us poor.

So go ahead, pied piper. Use a two sentence paragraph to get the plebians pissed off over another "tax hike." Don't even bother explaining what it is, how it will work, or any of that jazz. Which is a right shame, because those tax deductions are freaking amazingly inventive and genius.
2012-06-28 10:50:21 AM
6 votes:
On a more serious note, I'm kinda irritated by how all the reporting is told from a political perspective rather than a constitutional one. Why the discussion devolves to another commentary on the political horse race (how it benefits Obama, Roberts sides w/ the libs) rather than stay focused on the effects of the law & the constitutional arguments underpinning the opinion & dissent is just another example of how the media dumb themselves down.
2012-06-28 10:48:01 AM
6 votes:

Epicedion: Free Republic post headings:

Will John Roberts be remembered in history the same as Benedict Arnold?

Today is The Day U.S. Citizens Became Slaves of Their Government

ObamaCare ruling means Americans hostage to 70 years of Supreme Court madness


Only in America, where ensuring that citizens have health care is seen as tyranny.

You people are well and truly farked.
2012-06-28 10:36:21 AM
6 votes:
fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net
2012-06-28 10:34:45 AM
6 votes:

SphericalTime: Awwww. I was hoping for single payer during my lifetime.


I wouldn't rule it out. Single payer is going to be the reform for the reform.
FZ6
2012-06-28 10:32:53 AM
6 votes:
What's really sad is that rather than look at whether or not this thing is actually good or bad, people are more concerned about the democrat vs republican aspect. Yep - that always goes well...
2012-06-28 10:31:45 AM
6 votes:

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: John Roberts siding with the left wing of the court... MY GOD! THE MAYANS WERE RIGHT!


Roberts is a conservative but he tends to stick within the letter of the law of the Constitution, unlike Scalia and Thomas who like to legislate from the bench. Despite the pessimism, when I heard 19/20 constitutional scholars thought Obamacare is constitutional, I had a feeling it would survive.
2012-06-28 10:25:38 AM
6 votes:
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?
2012-06-28 10:11:44 AM
6 votes:
John Roberts siding with the left wing of the court... MY GOD! THE MAYANS WERE RIGHT!
2012-06-28 12:25:48 PM
5 votes:
Hell of a thread here.

I'm happy and sad. Happy because, well, honestly, f*ck the haters. Sad because I think we could have done so much better. Open medicare to everyone. Single payer IS the future.

What I don't get is why Republicans are SO angry. Every day you see people on here making arguments that the poor don't pay enough in taxes. Well, here's a tax they have to pay if they don't get health insurance. Here's your "skin in the game." The rich won't be paying this, they have health insurance. This falls on the 50% of the country or so you claim pay no taxes. This is something you want. Now WTF are you so angry about?
2012-06-28 12:14:46 PM
5 votes:
Everyone needs it, everyone uses it eventually, everyone should pay for it.

/Single-payer is still smarter, but so is the metric system
2012-06-28 11:29:33 AM
5 votes:

WombatControl: bdub77: 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.

WHISKY. TANGO. FOXTROT.

Really? Now Americans have health care? You mean no one in this country had health care prior to Obama? Is this what you really think?

Here's a clue: health insurance is not health care. All "universal" or "single-payer" systems work by rationing care. You want treatment for your rare cancer? Some government bureaucrat will determine that the treatment isn't cost effective, and you will either die waiting for it, or you'll never be given the chance. Not only do you end up dead in that scenario, but new and innovative treatments never get developed because said bureaucrat won't pay for them. Oh, but you have "free" health insurance - just not free health care.

Nothing is free. Health care is not free, and it can't be made free by government fiat. If the liberals got their way we'd have a system in which everyone but the ultra rich who could afford private insurace (or black-market care) is stuck waiting in lines for treatments they may never get.

If the statists got their way and we magically had an NHS-style system in the United States there would be riots in the streets because Americans do not take kindly to the government dictating to them what they can and cannot have. At least those Americans who still believe in the spirit of this nation's Founding, anyway.


What in the name of holy balls are you talking about? The NHS in the UK goes as far as to fly patiets with extremely rare conditions to specialist centres abroad, and covers everything.

Good luck getting an insurance company to do that. They're more likely to say that your tumour was growing when you started your insurance, so go die under a bridge.

I know of a child personally that was sent to a paediatric Proton centre in Jacksonville (she lives in Newcastle, England). The NHS even covered room and board for her parents in Florida.


So take your wacky lies and stick them right up your chuff-pipe.
2012-06-28 11:27:41 AM
5 votes:

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.


Now would be a good time for the meteor to kill us all.

I'm just glad my kids aren't going to be kicked off of my insurance. I feel like a big weight has been taken off of my shoulders.

But I guess I'm also glad that there are millions of people out there that won't have to worry about the dreaded "pre-existing conditions" clause again.

And I'm glad that women won't be charged more for insurance than men again.

So yeah, I guess I'm glad for a lot of things about this.
2012-06-28 11:19:29 AM
5 votes:
Why was this even a question? The government has required me to pay for Medicare for like the last 45 years!
2012-06-28 10:43:36 AM
5 votes:
Not surprising.

First SCOTUS ruled that the state can seize your property and turn it over to a corporation of its choosing.

Then it ruled that corporations can spend unlimited money to influence the political process.

Now it has ruled that the state can force you to buy a product from a corporation of its choosing.

If you object to any of this, there is a law on the books (which no one has "standing" to challenge) which allows the state to declare you a "terrorist" based on secret evidence that you are not allowed to see, and based on this to subject you to indefinite detention and/or extra-judicial execution.

Sounds like everything is in place now.
2012-06-28 10:39:23 AM
5 votes:

Thunderpipes: Still scary. Means Congress can regulate your behavior via taxes. Vote Republican? Obama can impose a tax on you. Buy an American car? Obama can impose a tax on you. Christian? Obama can impose a tax on you.


photos.imageevent.com
2012-06-28 10:37:59 AM
5 votes:
Yay! The United States enters the mid-twentieth century!
2012-06-28 10:37:28 AM
5 votes:
Roberts put his legacy and integrity over politics. Bravo.
2012-06-28 10:33:37 AM
5 votes:
Well, in the long run it's the best possible outcome if the law was going to be upheld. By changing the mandate penalty to a tax and, ruling out the commerce clause justification, the bill is upheld without issuing a blanket authorization for the federal government to force the purchase of goods and services.
2012-06-28 10:32:30 AM
5 votes:
I was kind of hoping that they would strike it down and we'd get a true public option out of it, but this is probably for the best. Baby steps.
2012-06-28 10:32:16 AM
5 votes:

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.
2012-06-28 10:30:30 AM
5 votes:
Silver lining based on SCOTUSBlog: The mandate was not a legit use of the commerce clause, but it was OK as a tax.

So yes, Obama and the Democrats did, in fact, raise taxes on the middle class. After repeatedly promising not to.
2012-06-28 10:30:05 AM
5 votes:

TIKIMAN87: Obama has just destroyed this country.


Feel free to leave! Take your bridge with you!
2012-06-28 10:23:30 AM
5 votes:

Local Man: Why does CNN have "Mandate Struck Down" tattooed on their front page...?

/which news agency has reading comprehension issues?!?


Because it was, technically. It cannot be upheld as lawful to force someone to buy insurance. But it can be upheld as a tax to encourage people to buy insurance
2012-06-28 10:22:16 AM
5 votes:
'Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it. '

Interesting decision.
2012-06-28 10:18:54 AM
5 votes:
I'm amazed it was Roberts. That's just something I was not expecting.

So goddamn it I guess we now have to care about our fellow man like Jesus said?!
2012-06-28 01:08:36 PM
4 votes:

SouthernFriedYankee: The end zone dancing is very much misplaced. The powerful will avoid shouldering any additional burden, while the powerless will not be able to do so. It's probably good news for welfare riders, but for the working poor it's going to be a disaster, economically. So much for hiring picking up. So much for economic recovery.

But hey, your team won, right? And that's all that matters.

Congrats.


Are you always this dense?

The 'working poor' don't make enough income to have to buy insurance under ACA.

As a small business owner, I base hiring decisions on sales, not overhead. Claims that ACA will stifle hiring are BS.

I and every other tax-paying American is already paying for health care for the poor and working poor -- the ACA won't change that one iota.

What WILL happen is that some 30+ million more Americans will start paying into the health care money pool, possibly reducing actual costs on average, but certainly helping offset current budget deficits.

"My side" didn't win...America won.
2012-06-28 12:03:05 PM
4 votes:
img836.imageshack.us
Boe
2012-06-28 11:46:45 AM
4 votes:

MasterThief: Silver lining based on SCOTUSBlog: The mandate was not a legit use of the commerce clause, but it was OK as a tax.

So yes, Obama and the Democrats did, in fact, raise taxes on the middle class. After repeatedly promising not to.


As a member of the middle class, I'd like to say...

imokwiththis.jpg

The people who are ok with allowing poor people to go without healthcare and middle class people to go bankrupt in exchange for not dying from cancer are Evil. Mother. Farkers.
2012-06-28 11:15:02 AM
4 votes:

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Sad how many people here are happy, not because the court ruling was good, but just because the Republicans "lost".

You guys really need to get a life.


The country still hasn't recovered from the Republican wins of the 2000's. I think we're entitled to cheer when they stumble, particularly considering that they were trying to declare their own health care plan unconstitutional just because a Democrat implemented it.
2012-06-28 11:05:12 AM
4 votes:

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 11:02:31 AM
4 votes:
All you conservative lunatics trying to spin this as bad for Obama and the Dems just know this: now, in order to get rid of the advances from HCR, the GOP will have to

1) Win the Pres election (will not happen)
2) Keep the house (okay, you got one probably)
3) Take the Senate (maybe)

Regardless, the Dems in the Senate can just filibusterer for years if they want to and nothing will happen that will overturn HCR.

It's over, you lost. The people won.
2012-06-28 10:56:00 AM
4 votes:
Poor America. Maybe now your babies will survive at rates higher than Honduras and your people will live longer than those in Egypt.
2012-06-28 10:49:01 AM
4 votes:
Congratulations to Governor Romney on the Supreme Court upholding the Constitutionality of his health care law!
2012-06-28 10:40:14 AM
4 votes:

NowhereMon: LOL free republic is melting down


Awesome. So farking awesome.

Maybe Obama won't spike the football, but I will.

*spikes it*

FU John Boehner and the Tea Party retards.

/Yeah I'll gloat about it
//Why?
///Because the RW in this country are filled with mental midgets
///And...fark you, that's why!
2012-06-28 10:39:12 AM
4 votes:

Robert1966: Yay! The United States enters the mid-twentieth century!


No kidding. I'm still amazed it's such a big farking deal and that everyone being allowed healthcare, regardless of income or social class, is something that people are actually fighting against.

That being said, I am so happy for the US. Congratulations you guys!
2012-06-28 10:36:21 AM
4 votes:
i.qkme.me
2012-06-28 10:36:09 AM
4 votes:
The best part is the sweet sweet tears of the ... people who will benefit from this law?



oh irony.
2012-06-28 10:35:50 AM
4 votes:
To all who opposed Obamacare: how does it feel to be on the wrong side of history yet again?
2012-06-28 10:33:53 AM
4 votes:
It's a trap! tax!
2012-06-28 10:31:25 AM
4 votes:
Fox News is PISSED


"see, see, see what happens when you let libruls in the court?!?! see!!??"

I love that the deciding vote was placed by a man Republicans put on the court. Just sweet sweet irony.
2012-06-28 10:30:20 AM
4 votes:
Congrats guys!

/Canadian
2012-06-28 10:29:45 AM
4 votes:

TIKIMAN87: Obama has just destroyed this country.


I would have gone with ALL CAPS for added impact.
2012-06-28 10:29:42 AM
4 votes:
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.
2012-06-28 10:22:48 AM
4 votes:
I doubt Mitt actually gives a crap one way or another.
2012-06-28 10:22:29 AM
4 votes:
This is a surprise. I honestly expected the 6-3 conservative court to rule more in favor of "fark the poors because they smell"
2012-06-28 02:37:37 PM
3 votes:

shortymac: /American living in Canada
//Single payer health care isn't scary


As an American living in America under a single payer system most of my life (military), I strongly agree with you. I have never lost a moment of sleep over how to pay for meds or medical treatment for me or my family.

People who whine about single-payer only do so because they've never lived under it.
2012-06-28 01:12:53 PM
3 votes:

SouthernFriedYankee: CPennypacker: SouthernFriedYankee: The end zone dancing is very much misplaced. The powerful will avoid shouldering any additional burden, while the powerless will not be able to do so. It's probably good news for welfare riders, but for the working poor it's going to be a disaster, economically. So much for hiring picking up. So much for economic recovery.

But hey, your team won, right? And that's all that matters.

Congrats.

Sounds like your team lost.

We all lost today. The oligarchs, specifically the insurance industry, are the only ones who won, which is not surprising, since they wrote the damn thing. Every time Congress ups the tax, they'll raise their rates accordingly. They've all got to be jizzing themselves right now.

Pyrrhic victory, folks. Believe it.


My 25 year old sister who can't get a job because of the NYS teacher hiring freeze and can stay on our parents' insurance won.

My neice with athsma who would have been turned down for insurance won.

Who lost? Are they fat rich people? Fark 'em.
2012-06-28 12:23:07 PM
3 votes:
Obama: "It should be pretty clear that I didn't do this because it's good politics. I did it because it's good for the country."
2012-06-28 12:16:38 PM
3 votes:

Actor_au: I'm an Australian, my dad fell off his bicycle a few months ago and was in hospital for two months, ICU for a week and a brain injury recovery ward for six weeks.... The final bill for his time there would have been in the tens of thousands if we were in the US.


The final bill in the US would probably have been close to a half million dollars. And about 20% percent of that, or nearly a hundred thousand dollars, would have been spent on bookkeeping and paperwork to keep track of the bills.
2012-06-28 12:15:09 PM
3 votes:

Mathematics of Wonton Burrito Meals: cameroncrazy1984: Some nutball congressman called it the largest tax increase on the poor and middle class in American history. Notwithstanding the fact that the poor already get healthcare and likely will not be taxed.

Wait, the poor already get healthcare? Then why did we need to pass Obamacare?


Because people get it irresponsibly by going to the ER and saying their name's Mister John Madeupname. Those charges get passed on to you, and (of course) there's all the paper shuffling that results in having millions of people do this. Which eventually helps this happen.

www.economicpopulist.org
2012-06-28 12:09:45 PM
3 votes:

lousyskater: I didn't really care which way this went, but man I need to get some popcorn for this one. DIS GONNA BE GOOD.


i1089.photobucket.com

Here.

I made enough for everyone.

: )
2012-06-28 12:05:24 PM
3 votes:
To all the whiny conservatives talking about how this is THE TAX INCREASE OBAMA PROMISED HE'D NEVER DO!!!, I have to ask you...

Do you understand that generally liberals and Democrats don't see taxes as fundamentally the worst possible thing ever? That, of all the promises that could be broken, this one broken in this way really isn't that troubling? That we understand we're part of a society, and that we'll get a greater benefit through the effects of the law and the mandate than we would through NO TAXES AGAIN EVER? That we don't worship Grover Norquist, and that we realize that there are more important things out there, like public health and health insurance and health care reform to improve the massive privatized sinkhole it has become in the last few decades?
2012-06-28 12:00:49 PM
3 votes:
Meh. We survived in Massachusetts after "Romneycare". The country will go on after "Obamacare".

Seriously, what's the big deal? Don't want insurance? Pay the tax! You are mandated to have homeowners/car/flood insurance, so what's wrong with health insurance?

In all honestly, when the Romney got his health insurance mandate passed in MA, I kinda freaked for a bit (b/c I had been working temp jobs which did not offer health insurance), but then realized I was just going to get back a little less when it came to my state tax refund. I eventually got a job where health insurance was offered and ended up bringing in less per year b/c the health insurance was more expensive than paying the tax. I was ok with that, b/c I would rather have health insurance than not.

Is it perfect? No. But will it eventually work itself out? Yes. And I truly believe that the pros outweigh the cons on this.
2012-06-28 12:00:26 PM
3 votes:
Either way this could have gone, my conservative in-laws would have been insufferable. At least with this outcome, I can smile to myself about their butthurt.

If only we had some kind of meaningful healthcare reform a couple of decades ago, I think my "uninsurable" sister would still be alive today.

/haz a bit of the sad now
2012-06-28 11:52:42 AM
3 votes:

The_Sponge: Here's the difference:

You don't have to drive a car.


You don't have to live.

No, seriously, you don't.
2012-06-28 11:48:55 AM
3 votes:
Sometimes I love my country. SCOTUS upholding the Affordable Care Act is one of those time. Other times, I hate my country. Seeing people pissing their shorts because they can't leave people to die poor in the streets is one of those times.
2012-06-28 11:27:17 AM
3 votes:

Weaver95: randomjsa: So all the people who thought that it being struck down would be the best thing ever for Obama are now going "holy crap now we're in trouble"?

which universe are you posting from anyway? do they have hot dogs in that universe?


They'll hammer on the "He raised your taxes" and the 85% of Americans that have health insurance already will say, "No he didn't, he raised someone else's taxes, not mine, and that's A-OK"
2012-06-28 11:22:18 AM
3 votes:
Because the original was asked to leave, I'll step in for the day.

img864.imageshack.us

Impeach Roberts.

*

Did Roberts wake up next to a horse head one morning?

*

America is gone.
The most horrendous monster of a law that the world has ever seen has now been cemented into place.
There may still be a nation named America but we can now kiss goodbye to prosperity as we used to know it.
Minimum 16% extra tax, and that's just for starters.
If only "the poor" would be asked to pay their fair share, but I suspect that will never happen.
Everybody pays for everyone else = "the rich" (anybody who pays taxes) pays for everyone who don't.
In order to "save" 30 million uninsured (allegedly) the other 280 million are now to be strangled, slowly.

*

Look on the bright side.

At least we can now run ads until the election saying Obama and the Democrats have imposed the largest tax increase in American history.

They can now run ads of death panels.

They can now run ads of legislation that will increase premiums.

They can now Throw Grandma off the cliff and blame the Democrats.

*

We are all now officially slaves owned by and for the U.S. Federal Government.

*

This just in on the News Wires:

"Supreme Court Consumes Bath Salts and in Zombie-Like Attack Eat the Constitution".


Anyone who has health care with an employer just lost it today. Your employer will pay the fine and you will be dumped into the health care pool. Your salary will go up little to none, but your taxes will go up big time to pay for all the deadbeats. The hard working poeple just lost big time! I just hope the unions also are subject to be dumped in the pool with the rest of us!

*

I have never been more ashamed of my country. Today my country is dead to me.

Long live Texas!

*

Roberts is a GD'd Traitor! Thanks for nothing, W.

*

Roberts betrayed us.
Kennedy wanted to strike the whole thing down.

Kennedy said the whole thing is unconstitutional which it is.

Bush should have picked Janice Rogers Brown.

We need a 2nd revolution. This is tyranny

*

John Robert's poison legacy: Mexican takeover of America, and Socialist dictatorship. IMPEACH this traitorous bastard.

*

This is why elections count. To all the imbeciles who stayed at home and allowed this socialist would be dictator to become president; how do you like the new taxes that are being crammed down your throat?

Nobody knows how hard they are being hammered by this outrage. We have been effectively raped by our own government.

*

The only problem that Liberals have with the history of chattel slavery in the America is that the slaves were privately owned.

*

The law was not written or constructed with the mandate as a tax. If the mandate is a tax then the law should have to be rewritten and sent back through the process. Written as a mandate the law is now invalid. Try to get it through as a tax.

If not, then slaves have risen up throughout history. It might be time for civil disobedience and whatever else needed to remove the entire population of politicians from their perches. Enough of this crap. If representatives no longer represent us then let them be removed.


This next one nearly killed me:

It's time to start viewing the federal government with hostility.

*

This is fascism. Welcome to the Fourth Reich.

*

The Confederate States of America doesn't look so bad now, does it?

*

"This is why elections count. To all the imbeciles who stayed at home and allowed this socialist would be dictator to become president; how do you like the new taxes that are being crammed down your throat?
They are as culpable as the blithering morons who pulled the lever to elect this dictator."

How about imbeciles who supported the architect of Obamneycare as the GOP nominee? They should be happy today. Their guy's ideas won.

*

This is going to bring about a revolution. Got your guns ready?

*

Roberts should say it like it is: congress passed the law, not me. Be mad at congress, not the court.
BULLshiat....he was a Stealth Marxist all along

IMPEACH ROBERTS

*

If the Constitution was not a dead letter before today, it is now. There are no longer any constraints whatsoever on the power of the government as against the individual, nor does it recognize any.

We are indeed, for all intents and purposes, slaves of our government, to dispose of as they see fit.

And I for one will act as any slave would; they will only get the bare minimum out of me. It's off to Galt's Gulch.

*

In shock. Who knew Roberts was a lib..and a coward.

*

No only disgusting, but this ensures Obama will win in November....
Roomey will win now

*

"...but this ensures Obama will win in November...."

On the contrary, this has awakened a sleeping giant. Now, anyone who does not get out and vote against Obama is officially an enemy of the United States.

*

OBAMACARE = SLAVERY

repeat often to everyone.

OBAMACARE = SLAVERY

that is out talking point.

now vote out every single democrat.

*

Will somebody please ping me wrt location, time, etc., of commencement of our rioting.

*

I will not vote ever again for the GOP rather I will vote for the most liberal/socialists/leftists etc candidate from now on.
Voting any other way will not matter as it will be a waste of time and a vote.....

Above post is totally emotional reaction....


This next one makes sense since their entire economic policy is based on the dreams of a 13-year old...

A 4th grader can see that this is not Constitutional.

If the government can do this, what the F can't it do to us?

*

When and Where is the first anti-slavery rally?

OBAMACARE = SLAVERY

*

If the GOP is smart...
I see a flaw in your statement.Ed: so do I

*

RIP America.

*

Could John Roberts have been "blackmailed"? It may not be as farfetched as it sounds!
I think my husband and I are going to sell our home and his business. We are going to buy a camper and become gypsies! I am NOT giving one more damn dime to any of these marxists!

*

We now have to demand of any elected Representative and Senator that they will not get our vote unless they promise to repeal this monstrosity...or our freedom is lost forever.

*

Sorry to say, if you think this is ever going away, you're tilting at windmills. There is no way this is ever being repealed.

*

"prepare yourselves.."

My fellow American, we have been preparing for a civil revolution since 2008!

The freeloaders will not give up theirs without a serious fight and God willing, the good American people will give them a fight they won't soon forget. the fighting won't end until the American people take back their Constitutional government.

The adverse decision from SCOTUS is exactly what our forefathers feared in creating another government when they wrote the Constitution in the first place. Their fears have come true, unfortunately, the American people will have to again pick up arms to repel another oppressive tyrannical government.

Prepared, you bet your a$$!!!!

*

So, the federal government CAN mandate commerce, they simply need to represent it is a negative tax: Do this or else get taxed. So much for the US Constitution.

Since the federal government refuses to obey the constitution we should too! REVOLT!!!
2012-06-28 11:21:52 AM
3 votes:

schattenteufel: 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.)


You got that wrong:

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

-Republicans lower taxes and try to fight two foreign wars off the books to try to hide the actual costs of those wars, and then try to cut social programs after the fact to cut down on the mountains of debt those wars caused -- WE'RE OKAY WITH THIS!
2012-06-28 11:19:07 AM
3 votes:

WombatControl:

Here's a clue: health insurance is not health care. All "universal" or "single-payer" systems work by rationing care. You want treatment for your rare cancer? Some government bureaucrat will determine that the treatment isn't cost effective, and you will either die waiting for it, or you'll never be given the chance. Not only do you end up dead in that scenario, but new and innovative treatments never get developed because said bureaucrat won't pay for them. Oh, but you have "free" health insurance - just not free health care.


How is this different from the insurance provider making those same decisions?
2012-06-28 11:13:29 AM
3 votes:

sweetmelissa31: Dancin_In_Anson: On the downside, it could be a "read my lips" situation for him.

Ah yes, the time when a President did something responsible and everyone got pissed because taxes bad.


Taxes good. Taxes for the wealthiest good. Taxes for healthcare good. I don't care if I'm taxed. When you start wars in other countries, you have to pay for them. You voted for Bush, you deserve the taxes that result from the failed policies of that administration.

This is what we call responsibility. It should be a core tenet of our country but it isn't. We have become way too fiscally irresponsible.
2012-06-28 11:04:42 AM
3 votes:

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 11:03:23 AM
3 votes:

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 11:02:01 AM
3 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: bulldg4life: Not if he has health insurance.

Just like a million other things he could do to receive tax credits.


And if he doesn't purchase insurance? And those that can't afford it? Who will pay for them?

The funny thing is that I was repeatedly berated here for calling Obamacare a tax. It will be interesting to see how this fleshes out. On the upside for Obama, he got his bill. On the downside, it could be a "read my lips" situation for him.


It's much like the taxes I pay for being childless, single and not owning my own home.
2012-06-28 11:00:53 AM
3 votes:

Phinn: Really, anyone with two brain cells to rub together can avoid all federal taxes. It's really not that hard.


Ah, finally the Cons show up to "love" their country with all of the respect and responsibility of enjoying a four course meal and driving away when the bill comes.

What models for society!
2012-06-28 10:57:10 AM
3 votes:

Propain_az: Here comes the law of unintended consequences. If you thought health care was bad before.............


....well it will pretty much stay at the same level, since doctors will still be highly trained and paid, hospitals will continue to exist, function, and profit, and insurance, drug, and other medical companies will still be making money hand over fist.
2012-06-28 10:54:42 AM
3 votes:

Thunderpipes: Most Americans are against the mandate, so you just pissed off a bunch of people who are independents.


Even if Americans aren't keen on the mandate, they like what the mandate pays for. They like that they can't be refused for pre-existing conditions. They like being able to keep their kids on their plans longer. They like many of the individual parts of the plan when they actually find out about it and realize it helps them.

This will not cost Obama votes, and in fact this could help shore up support, because the people who really benefit will now have a motivation to get out there and vote. If the Dems are smart, and who knows they might surprise us, then they'll make sure those pesky non-voting young people realize that letting Republicans take control will directly impact them. If Republicans make this a central issue, they might motivate a lot of voting against them.

And if you don't think people like the plan, then get a list of all the specific parts of this plan and ask people about the specifics. Tick off every part of the plan, and you'll find that people actually like it. Maybe not all of it, but more people than not are willing to deal with the parts they don't like for the parts they do. It's a net positive.
2012-06-28 10:54:28 AM
3 votes:
I'm not going to do more "celebrating" other than simply remind people how much the conservatard trolls were salivating all week over their chance to do an end-zone dance and really stick it to the libs.

Remember that? I do.

/that's all
//not a huge fan of this legislation, but it would be hard to challenge this decision
2012-06-28 10:52:43 AM
3 votes:

Thunderpipes: 26 states can tell Obama and the Feds to suck it now, and they will.


That will go over real well with the citizens in those states. When the citizens of those states that as you put it "tell Obama and the Feds to go suck it", talk to their family and friends in other states and find out how well they are doing health wise because of Obamacare, I don't think they will be too happy with their state leadership. You can't keep lying to people once they see that somebody is getting something that they are not.
2012-06-28 10:52:20 AM
3 votes:

Aphostile: Only in America will so many people get their panties in a bunch over something that will help so many in need.


NPR did a man on the street interview this morning with this guy saying he shouldn't be forced to buy health insurance, that he just wants to pay out of pocket for services when he needs it.

That stupidity pretty much sums up all the people against having the law.
2012-06-28 10:50:33 AM
3 votes:

m1ke: Yay more taxes to pay!!!!


Actually small business who provides health insurance get a big tax CUT under this law.
2012-06-28 10:45:01 AM
3 votes:
based on the comments in this thread it looks like "tax increase" is the talkingpoint people are being told to parrot.
2012-06-28 10:43:12 AM
3 votes:

Thunderpipes: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Thunderpipes: 26 states can tell Obama and the Feds to suck it now, and they will.

Oh yeah, the States just love turning away Federal money.

Read the ruling, moron. Feds cannot withold money if states don't expand their Medicaid. That was the ruling. They cannot be penalized and will retain what they have. They just don't need to accept a while bunch of new people and be saddled with the burden. Big win. Obamacare was counting on this use of force to drum up money.


Again: the States just love turning money away. "Oh, you're going to give us more money for a new program?.. no, no, we're fine... we'll just sit here with our thumbs up our butts until our constituents find out we're leaving money on the table."

/It makes for great political grandstanding, but ultimately the States never refuse this kind of money even if there are strings attached.
2012-06-28 10:42:47 AM
3 votes:
Awesome. Universal health care will catapult the American society straight into the 20th century!
2012-06-28 10:41:51 AM
3 votes:

valar_morghulis: To all who opposed Obamacare: how does it feel to be on the wrong side of history yet again?


Does it count if we opposed it because it was a bandaid rather than a true fix for the actual problems with our healthcare system, and a massive waste of money compared to actually fixing anything?
2012-06-28 10:40:13 AM
3 votes:
I got a breaking news alert on my phone from CNN that the individual mandate was struck down, then a correction 15 minutes later.

You suck so hard CNN. I hope people lose their jobs over this one.

CNN - The president has been shot.

Correction - The president has shot a personal best three under par this weekend.
2012-06-28 10:40:08 AM
3 votes:
YEA!!! Now i get punnished for working for a company that offers a good health care package!! YEA!! for the 40% tax on cadillac plans!!!! fark! nothing like punnishing those who work to pay for other lazy bastards.
2012-06-28 10:39:16 AM
3 votes:

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.
2012-06-28 10:38:51 AM
3 votes:
Damn activist court.

How dare they think they know more about the law and the Constitution than Republicans who've been biatching about this shiat since it was created (with help from Republicans)?
2012-06-28 10:38:35 AM
3 votes:
Great, now I get to buy health care insurance for another 16 million losers.

On the plus side, this now paves the way for the gubmint to force all people to buy a treadmill, because, hey, some people are fat, and everyone is already in that market, because all people would be less fat if they had a treadmill. Gosh, it makes me want to sing

...and the laaaaaaaand oooo----ooo---fff the freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee....

Reward the FAIL, America...what's the worst that could happen?

/worst decision since Kelo
2012-06-28 10:38:14 AM
3 votes:
Obama should land on a hospital roof in a Life Flight helicopter while wearing a paramedics uniform.
2012-06-28 10:37:41 AM
3 votes:
Fantastic news! I regret the fact that we can't just get fully nationalized health care in this country though; it would boost the quality of life of 99% of Americans.

Mitt Romney? biatch please
2012-06-28 10:37:26 AM
3 votes:
I like how this isn't about if the law is a good law and more a an exchange of hand-jobs for "fans" of the winning "side," using the losing "side's" tears for lube.

/if you're one of those people you should probably be ashamed of yourself.
2012-06-28 10:36:47 AM
3 votes:
farm3.static.flickr.com
2012-06-28 10:36:09 AM
3 votes:

mediaho: 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.

At least someone bothered with the band-aid when the wound has been festering open for nearly a century.


This. A baby step forward is still a step forward. And as conservative Boomers die off, we might actually get to make more of those steps, until America catches up with the rest of the civilized world.
2012-06-28 10:35:48 AM
3 votes:

Thunderpipes: 26 states can tell Obama and the Feds to suck it now, and they will.


Oh yeah, the States just love turning away Federal money.
2012-06-28 10:34:12 AM
3 votes:

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.


At least someone bothered with the band-aid when the wound has been festering open for nearly a century.
2012-06-28 10:33:35 AM
3 votes:

SphericalTime: Awwww. I was hoping for single payer during my lifetime.


I think the idea that single payer would have been a possibility if it had been struck down is pure fantasy.
2012-06-28 10:32:16 AM
3 votes:

St_Francis_P: I doubt Mitt actually gives a crap one way or another.


Actually, I think it's a net benefit for the Mittster

The right wing is going to go apeshiat over this ruling and come out in droves to make sure they get a president who won't put any more horrible liberals like Roberts on the Court

Plus, now he doesn't have to propose anything at all- he can just keep going with the "Obamacare is horrible, vote for me to kill it" without ever having to say what he'll replace it with

/Honestly shocked that Roberts was the swing vote.
2012-06-28 10:31:40 AM
3 votes:
This is just further evidence of the Obama Junta. Chief Justice Roberts is a member of the secret society of government officials hell bent on turning America into an effective nation.
2012-06-28 10:31:25 AM
3 votes:
Taxes, is there no sickness they can't cure?
2012-06-28 10:31:16 AM
3 votes:
Good.
2012-06-28 10:30:55 AM
3 votes:
Heh. The CNN news flash on my iPhone said they struck it down.

DEWEY DEFEATS OBAMACARE
2012-06-28 10:30:37 AM
3 votes:
Will need to read the decision and dissents before we fully understand what just happened.
2012-06-28 10:28:40 AM
3 votes:
Obama has just destroyed this country.
2012-06-28 10:20:50 AM
3 votes:
There is going to be some epic butthurt that is about to commence.
2012-06-28 10:17:37 AM
3 votes:

NowhereMon: LOL free republic is melting down


$10 says they call for Roberts to be impeached (or worse).
2012-06-28 10:15:43 AM
3 votes:
I don't believe it. I'm actually shocked.
2012-06-28 08:00:32 PM
2 votes:
i47.tinypic.com.
2012-06-28 05:01:28 PM
2 votes:
www.famousquotesabout.com
2012-06-28 04:26:12 PM
2 votes:
Obamacare isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative being offered by the Republicans.

Here's a car analogy: Suppose your old car is on its last legs, and you need to buy new one. So, you shop around for a while, and you decide on a five year old minivan with about 80,000 miles on the clock. It's not great, but it's safe and reliable. But your teenage son hates the minivan. He hates it so much that he's worked himself into an irrational rage, and one day he decides to go out to the garage and set the minivan on fire, in a fit of adolescent spite and stupidity. But John Roberts is driving by and puts out the fire last minute, and takes your son's matches away too. So now your teenage son is livid, and holds a press conference where he says that the day he turns 18 he's going to buy some more matches and burn that damned minivan and the garage it's in down to the ground, and then he's going to buy a newer more awesome car with all the money he makes at his part time job at gamestop.

And nearly half of America supports your son, because they hate the minivan too, and they would rather walk than ride around in a car driven by a black person.
2012-06-28 03:43:32 PM
2 votes:

The_Sponge: Lando Lincoln: The_Sponge: Rwa2play: I like how you and your brethren keep trying to push this as a talking point when, in fact, it's not.

But do keep farking that chicken.

You guys can't even admit that he broke that promise. At least keep it real by admitting that he did, but you don't mind because you like the end result.

If I promise my wife I'm not going to buy a blue car and I come home with a red car, and two years later my kid dumps a can of blue paint on the car and my wife screams, "BUT YOU PROMISED ME THAT YOU WOULD NOT BUY A BLUE CAR!" would I be allowed to punch her in the face like you deserve to be?

That is one awful analogy.

/So wonderful that some people in this thread are reduced to insults and childish behavior.
//Apparently disagreeing with Obama and pointing out a broken promise warrant a punch in the face.


Sponge, I'm mostly a lurker here. I'm also a registered Republican that favors fairly liberal social policies along with actually conservative economical policies (the kind we haven't seen since Dole). I'm not hugely happy with ACA as it currently stands, but this talking point is ridiculous in three ways and doesn't really help getting a republican in office in November as it's basically lying, and Romney has done so much of that he really has gimped himself in the future debates because of it.

First, the ACA is not Obama's plan. It was modified substantially by congress, including things brought in by our own side. To call it such is factually incorrect, and long term will only make Republicans seem venomous to the country as individually most of the parts of ACA that are really well liked are part of Obama's plan, and most of the parts people don't like, like the Mandate, actually were added by Republicans in congress.

Sticking to this will give Romeny a lot of vulnerabilities in the debates, at with this verdict the debates will be his primary way to get elected as he will be playing much more defensively now.

Second, this talking point is incorrect in that assuming that the ACA that was passed was Obama's version, it was not Obama that made it into a tax. The Supreme Court did. In that the car analogy is correct, as the original drafting of congress's ACA was not a tax until this afternoon. Similarly, this will be a vulnerability to exploit in the debates.

Third, this is the exact same system that Romney enacted in his own state, and him standing against it will only give Obama fuel to show him as a flip-flopper to public opinion, which, like Kerry back in the day, is his main weakness.

I would also say that at this point repeal is probably not possible, no mater how he campaigns. He would need to win the presidency and have a full house and senate dominated by Republicans. As McConnell has ensured we are seen as obstructionist, I would not expect us to hold on to as many seats as we currently have with the upcoming elections, though I doubt we will have the landslide losses we had in 2008.

The best thing we can do for long term conservative legislation is look for ways to improve ACA rather than shoot it down. The nation will have socialized medicine eventually. I see no reason why that can't be the foothold Republicans use to make their mark on the next decade in a positive way.

Though it would be completely out of character with the crazies currently running our party into the ground.
2012-06-28 03:15:41 PM
2 votes:

The_Sponge: Rwa2play: I like how you and your brethren keep trying to push this as a talking point when, in fact, it's not.

But do keep farking that chicken.

You guys can't even admit that he broke that promise. At least keep it real by admitting that he did, but you don't mind because you like the end result.


If I promise my wife I'm not going to buy a blue car and I come home with a red car, and two years later my kid dumps a can of blue paint on the car and my wife screams, "BUT YOU PROMISED ME THAT YOU WOULD NOT BUY A BLUE CAR!" would I be allowed to punch her in the face like you deserve to be?
2012-06-28 02:32:53 PM
2 votes:

Anti_illuminati: You already pay for it. Lard-asses are already receiving medical care and the fact they can't pay for it is reflected in your insurance premiums increasing and tax dollars rising. This is a very important point you seem to be overlooking. This act, while not ideal at all, seeks to limit premium increases and places a profit margin that health insurance companies can obtain, while also increasing the risk pool to off set increasing premium costs and healthcare costs.


You seem to be overlooking an important point -- I don't have health insurance.

I don't want it.

It's too expensive.

It provides me with a lousy cost-to-benefit ratio.

It's too expensive because government has had its corrupt fingers in the insurance business for so long that the product they offer is now outrageously over-priced for an unbelievably crappy product.

Now, I am forced to buy a product that is too crappy to be sold to people like me on a voluntary basis.

So, having failed to make something that appeals to me, that I would buy voluntarily, people like you resort to guns to compel me to "buy" it.

Anti_illuminati: If we follow this logic, we also have to exclude those with pre-existing conditions.


Forcing health insurers (i.e., their "customers") to pay for treatment of pre-existing conditions is like forcing homeowner insurers to pay to insure for the rebuilding of houses that have already burned down.

That's not "insurance" any more. It's just using a (nominally) private corporation as a proxy for giving welfare benefits to people. Fascism. Corporatism. Use the appropriate label.

Anti_illuminati: However, if you're just bigoted against unhealthy people and those with pre-existing conditions, then fine, I see where you stand on the issue and it has nothing to do with addressing the issue of cost-effectiveness.


I'm against paying for their self-inflicted expenses, just as I am opposed to being risk-assessed for life insurance with smokers, suicidal depressives and the terminally ill.

A free market for insurance would pool similar risks. People who are obese and sedentary are not at the same risk for some (extremely expensive) medical costs as those who are active, fit and eat well.

But being active, fit and eating well comes at a cost of effort and exertion that many people are not willing to make. They'd rather pass the costs of their leisure and dietary pleasure onto others.

I don't approve, morally or economically, of people who demand that they are subsidized so they can live at the expense of everyone else.

If you want to be a champion for institutionalized parasitism, go ahead.

You will not get my money, though. I will see to that.
2012-06-28 02:30:31 PM
2 votes:

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.


In a single payer health care system insurance companies don't disappear, they just pay for extras like natropathic medicine, acupuncture, or for private care. In Canada they also exist for dental and drug care.

The difference in cost to get extended benefits+drugs, total 125 a month for a family plan. Dental is 80 a month.

Single payer health care also spurs small business development, because it's far less scary to start your own business when you don't have to worry about health care costs.

My cousin's wife is working nights and paying most of that income to child care only because it provides health insurance, getting it on their own would cost 1000's a month. In Canada, she could quit and help my cousin at his business and cut back on the amount of day care they need.

Quite frankly, you already are paying for the poor through medicaid and long wait times at emergency rooms.

In single payer health care, you're paying for the middle class to survive and thrive, it's shocking that the vast majority of the American people haven't figured that out yet.

/American living in Canada
//Single payer health care isn't scary
2012-06-28 02:23:41 PM
2 votes:
I can see why some people are upset. I just got out of graduate school and from the time I was 18 to finishing my masters degree I was uninsured and unable to afford health insurance. Should I have gotten insurance? If I could have figured out how, of course. I guess people in my situation can now stay on their parents health insurance until 26 so that will cover a lot of young people. Some people just can't afford to buy private insurance and that will be a burden on them, but as a society this is a good thing. My mother would have been able to get cancer treatment in time to save her life if the ACA would have been passed a few years earlier. Millions of children can now get insurance who couldn't before. These are good things. If you fall into that category where this is a burden, that sucks and I'm sorry but later in life you'll benefit from this even if you don't see it now.
2012-06-28 02:22:25 PM
2 votes:

snocone: All I want for Christmas is the same farkin' health insurance Congress has seen fit to give itself at my expense.

/good enough for all their family, good enough for mine


All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
2012-06-28 01:29:25 PM
2 votes:
guys

you can choose not to have healthcare. all not having it does is subject you to a tax of 1% of your income. for most people this tax will be $500 or less and THOSE people tend to get refunds on taxes large enough that all it does is decrease by $500 or less what you spend on a new flatscreen television or whatever other irresponsible thing you do with your money

and really, thats all implying you don't qualify for a f*cking hardship exemption or are poor enough to be outright put on Medicare anyway

oh, and if you already have health insurance? THIS DOES NOTHING TO YOU.

biggest bunch of crybabies I've ever seen.

oh, and that tax? likely a f*cking PITTANCE in comparison to the f*cking ER bills the motherf*ckers are running up. i mean Jesus, guys. CALM DOWN.
2012-06-28 01:18:11 PM
2 votes:
If you all thought people were protesting before, just wait till you see what they do now that this has happened.

The problem with Obamacare is that it doesn't address the main fundamental issue with healthcare: That it is expensive. Simply mandating by law that people have health insurance of some sort under penalty of fine tax isn't going to change the fact that health care costs are ballooning.

The thing is this isn't a problem where we don't have a solution. Some very smart people spent several years researching this shiat and managed to find several sectors of the health care industry that were able to find ways of operating that drove costs of health care down to much more acceptable levels and were further able to derive a sound strategy for the healthcare industry to reliably lower the cost of care and still improve the quality of care delivered (mostly through decentralization and by making it much easier and affordable to get care for minor and easily treated illnesses via stuff like Minute Clinic and technology making it much easier to diagnose illness without needing highly trained professionals which lowers costs and turnaround).

"Mandated" health insurance doesn't work because it's not addressing the fundamental reason why healthcare is so expensive in the first place, and is only going to cause the problem to become worse over time, not better. Furthermore this is clearly a preemptive bailout for the health insurance industry, as they've mostly priced themselves out of the market, mainly because of rising health care costs, so if people think this is going to magically make their insurance more affordable (or significantly more so) or comprehensive, then I got a bridge in China I can sell you. And then of course there is the issue of "expanding" Medicare. How? With what money? Pretty soon Medicare will likely be as sustainable as Social Security is right now, which is to say, not very. I'm not attacking Medicaid or SS or the people on it, but these are all products of the Industrial Age and the Industrial Age is in its death throes right now as the chestburster that is the Silicon Era struggles to erupt free from its chest, just as the Industrial Age did to the Agricultural Age so many years ago.

To sum up, "Obamacare" fails because it doesn't address the fundamental issue that healthcare is too expensive and can't just be fixed by mandatory health insurance because a). the health insurance agencies are in a rock and hard place and can't really lower the cost of health insurance due to the nature of healthcare expenses at this time, but on top of that they are basically being given customers since more people are opting out of insurance because it's too expensive to have due to the expensive nature of healthcare in general, and b). Medicare is funded by the government and given the out-of-control nature of deficit spending will simply be unable to maintain as things worsen on that end.

The only real solution to our healthcare woes is through disruptive innovation via both technological disruptions/breakthroughs and business model reform.
2012-06-28 01:11:13 PM
2 votes:
Republicans -

"We hate everything you want, even when it was our idea."
2012-06-28 01:01:11 PM
2 votes:

SouthernFriedYankee: The end zone dancing is very much misplaced. The powerful will avoid shouldering any additional burden, while the powerless will not be able to do so. It's probably good news for welfare riders, but for the working poor it's going to be a disaster, economically. So much for hiring picking up. So much for economic recovery.

But hey, your team won, right? And that's all that matters.

Congrats.


The working poor are worse off because they lack health care. A majority of personal bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. Of those going bankrupt in 2007, the majority had insurance at some point, but they either lost it or the insurance company denied them. Obamacare is an attempt to fix these problems.

A monthly bill for health insurance, which can be budgeted and offset with vouchers, is doable for even poor families. A major health problem that comes out of nowhere and leads to a massive medical bill? Not so much.
2012-06-28 12:49:33 PM
2 votes:

Phinn: Here's an idea: Everyone pays for his own stuff.


So you pay for your police/fire/EMS service yourself, along with your power supplies, highways and other infrastructure? No? Then STFU. It's called society and yes, society has to provide for some things that individuals cannot afford themselves.

/deal with it
2012-06-28 12:42:52 PM
2 votes:
My mom had major surgery this year made possible by Obamacare - they were able to get her insured because of it. Parents are still voting for all of the people who want to overturn it, of course. It's a bit like trying to save someone who's drowning even though they're fighting tooth and nail to keep you away from them.
2012-06-28 12:35:23 PM
2 votes:
It'd be nice if this forced the Repubtards to come to the table and hammer out a single payer system. Instead, they'll just go full retard and try to repeal it.

4.bp.blogspot.com
2012-06-28 12:34:07 PM
2 votes:
I want to say congrats to Mitt Romney for being the catalyst (Romneycare) that ultimately manifested itself into this historical and unprecedented ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States to the citizens of these United States of America..
2012-06-28 12:33:38 PM
2 votes:
From the beginning, I thought that "Don't ask, don't tell," was a step, a necessary, imperfect step, toward gays serving openly in the military.

The Affordable Care Act is a similar, necessary (since Congress wouldn't pass single-payer), imperfect step toward our joining the rest of the developed world in providing universal (single-payer) healthcare for its citizens.

I'm good with that.
2012-06-28 12:26:45 PM
2 votes:
On an unrelated note, I cannot put to words how relieved I am about this. I didn't even realize how worried I was, but I feel infinetly better today, upon hearing this news.

Largely because this means it *will* be possible for me to find my future wife health insurance later on down the road, without having to worry about them trying to deny her for 'pre-existing conditions'.

/She had a medication-induced stroke a few years back, at the age of 23.
//She's fine now! There were no lingering problems whatsoever, save that she thinks she swallows slightly differently now.
///UNC-Chapel Hill Hospital's Neurology department is staffed by tiny gods.
2012-06-28 12:25:07 PM
2 votes:

justtray: What's the countdown before the outrage that we shouldn't call it Obamacare anymore now that it is constitutional? I doubt we go a week before the Right Wing hypocrisy comes full circle and starts complaining about how it shouldn't be called that.


The more people start actually paying attention to what's in this program (and many people are somehow just doing this now), the more Republicans will regret dubbing it "Obamacare." I find that hilarious.
2012-06-28 12:24:22 PM
2 votes:

DarnoKonrad: NeoCortex42: Obama: "The mandate has had support from both sides, including Mitt Romney."

Nice.

If it had went down, Obama'd be in pickle. But he's going to hammer Romney on this until November.


Either way, I just want Obama to pressure Romney into explicitly stating what he'd replace ObamaCare with. Hey, if Romney has some amazing solution that would fix things even better, I'm willing to listen to it.
2012-06-28 12:23:24 PM
2 votes:

SuperNinjaToad: 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"

what do you think this ruling is then when you really apply in IRL scenerios? it is exactly that... fark the poor and 'tax' them more for not having health insurance.


The poor still don't have to pay as much. They get it subsidized on a sliding scale, and if you're really, really poor, you're not subject to the fine.
2012-06-28 12:18:28 PM
2 votes:

groininjury: What does matter, is now the US Government can force you to engage in commerce against your will with a 3rd party (with no limits)


No, they can't. Did you skip the part where you can go without health insurance if you are fine with paying a bit more in taxes, much like you pay more in taxes if you don't have a mortgage?
2012-06-28 12:16:08 PM
2 votes:

Tenga: Tune in to Rush Limbaugh today at noon.


Not even at gunpoint.
2012-06-28 12:14:41 PM
2 votes:

Pincy: SandMann: So, any doctors thinking about moving their practices to another country? If so, which one? Early retirement? Career change?

Why would doctors be upset by this? It gives them access to more patients because more people will be able to go to the doctor now.


My wife is a dentist and pretty happy about this because pediatric dental is considered an essential benefit. That means all kids just became regular customers. Even if they government is only paying at cost, it's a benefit for her in terms of keeping the office busy. Also much better than the kids only coming in when the have a serious issue or as part of a charity thing.

/it's tough to get the lower income kids since their parents are resistant to the idea of taking charity to support the kids
//now though she'll tell the parents they're paying for it, so they might as well make use of it and that will get them through the door.
2012-06-28 12:13:09 PM
2 votes:

chiett: jso2897
"Along with Roe V. Wade and the Civil Rights Act, right, Cletus?
Yeah - any day now.
Keep telling yourself that"


The difference there Jethro is those laws did not take a chunk of change out of the average persons wallet. This will.


No, it won't, actually - and anyway, a lot of things take a chunk of change out of my pocket.
Like fighter planes that won't fly in the rain. And invasions of countries that haven't done anything to America. And rooting up pot farms. And cops and courts and jails.
Keep dreaming, if you must, that this horseshiat "tax" issue is going to be your "Obama killer". It isn't.
2012-06-28 12:11:54 PM
2 votes:
As a Canadian, I'm very happy with this result. Tech companies were already preferring to start up in Canada because the health care is taxpayer-funded.

Nothing has changed. In fact, more companies may prefer to outsource studios to Que? Nada because of the pressure to enroll employees in company healthcare in USA and the embarrassment if that's not an option.


That's just something to think about. That said, this is baby steps, and for the good of everyone, I really do hope this is one step towards a single payer system. You guys are baby stepping to letting teh gays get married, baby stepping to this too. It's a good thing.
2012-06-28 12:10:05 PM
2 votes:
Waldo Pepper - 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?


What f you simply pay for car repairs and medical bills out of your own pocket when you cause accident? You are penalized by the government for not buying a product/service?

It's the same principle. You're required to carry liability auto insurance if you drive because the risk to others is too great if you don't. We can't police everyone and make sure they have sufficient means and willingness to pay, so we simply require that they carry liability insurance so that if they cause an accident, the other person won't be left high and dry.

In this case, what if you, young and reasonably healthy though you may be, are suddenly diagnosed with Hodgkins disease? What if you break your neck snowboarding and can no longer work?

Making sure that everyone contributes spreads the cost across a larger pool and helps solve the free rider problem of people who gamble on not carrying insurance and then cause society to bear the cost when their decision goes sideways.

It may not be a flawless solution, but few things are.
2012-06-28 12:09:19 PM
2 votes:

Phinn: Serious Black: The free market has already said that sick people can't be covered because there is no way to make voluntary coverage for them actuarially sound.

Which free market was that?


The one that has us paying a lot more to insure 65% of our population than the citizens of 35 nations with higher rated healthcare pay to insure their entire populations. That "free market".
The "invisible hand" that seems to spend most of it's time stroking billionaire's dicks.
2012-06-28 12:09:02 PM
2 votes:

rigmort: My wife is an underwriting manager. She said that yes, they won't be able to turn you down or rider out for a previous condition or other reason.... but there's nothing that says they can't charge whatever they want. They are now being forced to "insure" against future problems AND current ones. Do you really think they won't cover their own asses?

PREMIUMS WILL GO UPBIGTIME FOR EVERYONE.


If they do that, they'll run afoul of the rate review and medical-loss ratio rules.
2012-06-28 12:08:56 PM
2 votes:
images.sodahead.com
2012-06-28 12:06:42 PM
2 votes:

WombatControl: In a system like the one Canada has, you couldn't get that care at all without going to the black market. Finally, the Canadian Supreme Court struck that system down as a gross violation of human rights.


You know how I know you don't no anything about the Supreme Court decision?

There is no "black market" in Canada. Effectively the Supreme Court ruled that you cannot ban private medical insurance for basic health care. The fear (of most Canadians) is that this will open the door to a two-tier health care system and it will become more screwed up like the US.

Canada's health care system:

1) longer lives
2) fewer infant moralities
3) less amenable deaths
4) half the cost
5) universal
6) we cling to it like a Southerner clings to the 2nd Amendment
2012-06-28 12:03:06 PM
2 votes:
Of course the ACA is a giant giveaway to private insurance companies and seen in that light calling it socialist is extra stupid. That said, it's still better than what we had before.

RolandGunner
Well, in the long run it's the best possible outcome if the law was going to be upheld. By changing the mandate penalty to a tax and, ruling out the commerce clause justification, the bill is upheld without issuing a blanket authorization for the federal government to force the purchase of goods and services.

That seems like a fair assessment. People were perhaps justifiably concerned about the implications if the commerce clause was sufficient to uphold the mandate. The decision threads that needle.

ps69
He just killed teh freedoms.

sigh... she is quite possibly the dumbest public figure in the country. She's going for the world title.
2012-06-28 12:02:21 PM
2 votes:
i301.photobucket.com
2012-06-28 11:59:23 AM
2 votes:
Well now, congratulations to the real Americans.

And for the rest of you treasonous neoconservatives who cry like little b*tches about paying your f*cking taxes like any other adult, you can go eat sh*t.

The only reason you're against Obama is because you're too stupid to know when you're working against your own best interests.

If you don't like what's going on in this country, then LEAVE.

Roberts. I'll be damned. Nice one, man.
2012-06-28 11:55:07 AM
2 votes:

Lorelle: *cries tears of joy*

/is pushing 50
//has a pre-existing condition
///can't afford a health care plan right now


This is what we were trying to accomplish. Americans help their fellow citizens, not throw them to the wolves.
2012-06-28 11:52:28 AM
2 votes:
It amazes me that so many of you think this is a great thing. It's just the government getting its foot in the door to have even greater power.

1. Government makes everyone have health care, and starts to pay for many more people's health care.
2. Government realizes this actually will increase the cost of health care. Needs to reign in costs.
3. Government tells people "We pay for your health care, so we can dictate your health".
4. Government bans Cheetos, DQ Blizzards, and King Size Candy Bars.

// this has already started with the large soda bans.
// so much for freedom of choice.
2012-06-28 11:46:42 AM
2 votes:
CNN reporter to Romney spokesman: What specifically is your health care alternative?

Romney spokesman: We don't need specifics right now.
2012-06-28 11:46:29 AM
2 votes:
"Somebody call for a Constitutional Scholar?"

writingjunkie.net
2012-06-28 11:46:11 AM
2 votes:
Jjaro 2012-06-28 10:30:51 AM

Kennedy went right and Roberts went left? That's surprising.

And are the liberals on Fark and the op-eds around America going to stop complaining about how biased and partisan the Supreme Court is now?


No.

One ruling has not changed that.
2012-06-28 11:44:59 AM
2 votes:

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


Which is fine... the whole act was worded in a way to get around using the word "tax" because people get so emotional about it. The whole argument for single payer, public option solutions derailed over it. Most reasonable people... when asked if they would rather have a $12000 p/y private health insurance policy, or a $7k p/y public option, SHOULD want the relief of a cheaper solution. But it gets framed as a $7k tax hike on working families, and the whole thing goes to pot.
2012-06-28 11:42:43 AM
2 votes:

MurphyMurphy: Here's a clue: health insurance is not health care. All "universal" or "single-payer" systems work by rationing care. You want treatment for your rare cancer? Some government bureaucrat will determine that the treatment isn't cost effective, and you will either die waiting for it, or you'll never be given the chance.


Sort of like what happens now with my insurance company?
2012-06-28 11:40:23 AM
2 votes:

Thunderpipes: PunGent: vernonFL: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the things that people don't like about Obamacare is that they'll be required to buy health insurance that they feel they don't need as they are in generally good health?

That is the whole issue. Say you're 25 and you say, "I'm young and healthy, I don't need insurance." So you don't buy any. Then, you get cancer and you try to get insurance, nobody will insure you because you have cancer.

One of my problems with Romneycare is that the young healthy 25 year olds can't just buy a bare-bones catastrophic coverage plan with a high deductible, which WOULD cover them for the long-shot cancer/car crash scenarios...they have to get comprehensive coverage. I guess the idea is to make the pool of insureds big enough.

Not sure if those type of policies would "count" under Obamacare.

They do not. High deductible plans like that are illegal under the ACA. They will need to be replaced. This will further burden companies that employ kids fresh out of college and the kids themselves. Sure, they can stay on their parent's plan till 26 (and then parents pay more) but then they are screwed. They need a very high cost, low deductible plan or they get taxed.


You should read Section 1301(g) of the bill before you talk about this stuff buddy. You can still get a plan with a $6,000 deductible.
2012-06-28 11:33:08 AM
2 votes:

WombatControl: bdub77: 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.

WHISKY. TANGO. FOXTROT.

Really? Now Americans have health care? You mean no one in this country had health care prior to Obama? Is this what you really think?

Here's a clue: health insurance is not health care. All "universal" or "single-payer" systems work by rationing care. You want treatment for your rare cancer? Some government bureaucrat will determine that the treatment isn't cost effective, and you will either die waiting for it, or you'll never be given the chance. Not only do you end up dead in that scenario, but new and innovative treatments never get developed because said bureaucrat won't pay for them. Oh, but you have "free" health insurance - just not free health care.

Nothing is free. Health care is not free, and it can't be made free by government fiat. If the liberals got their way we'd have a system in which everyone but the ultra rich who could afford private insurace (or black-market care) is stuck waiting in lines for treatments they may never get.

If the statists got their way and we magically had an NHS-style system in the United States there would be riots in the streets because Americans do not take kindly to the government dictating to them what they can and cannot have. At least those Americans who still believe in the spirit of this nation's Founding, anyway.


You know, our system also rations care. We just happen to ration it by telling people who can't afford it that they don't get anything at all rather than anything approaching sanity in terms of what care will actually, you know, help people.
2012-06-28 11:32:47 AM
2 votes:
The thing that most conservatives are forgetting is that it is extremely common to be fined aka "taxed", for not having insurance. Most states require people to have auto insurance, where is the outrage over that? I have to have homeowners insurance, where is the outrage over that? Many people have to have flood insurance, where is the outrage over that? you get the point.

And before babbling on about "OMG biggest tax increase EVAR!!!" crunch the numbers and see how many people are likely to get fined in 2014 and how many exceptions have already been given out and how many more applications for exceptions will now be flowing in due to this being upheld. If you have a year and a half to get healthcare insurance and don't, you probably deserve to get fined as there are many programs to help those who cannot afford it. I predict that the majority of those who will be fined will be the tea-bagging type who want a confrontation.
2012-06-28 11:30:55 AM
2 votes:
So when your company sees it cheaper to pay the fine and not offer you that HC package, will you still be dancing in the streets?
2012-06-28 11:30:07 AM
2 votes:
img600.imageshack.us
2012-06-28 11:29:43 AM
2 votes:

SuperT: So what about working poor whose employers don't offer insurance, they pay the tax that they can ill afford and what do they get in return? Do they get health care in return? Can someone fill me in on how this doesn't fark over the uninsured? I don't think we had a problem with people refusing or choosing not to have insurance, just unable to afford not offered or refused by insurance co.


Sure. Let me do my best.

Said employees will be directed toward the state-run exchanges for individual insurance. Mostly private providers, but at least Vermont will have a public option. The exchange plans will be community-rated and not subject to denial due to pre-existing conditions.

For anyone 'working poor' (let's say, under $50k family income), there are *huge* subsidies written in PPACA for purchasing insurance. Now, the actual funding for those subsidies is subject to the appropriations process each year, so that could get very dicey.

But, part of PPACA is that if a 'silver' plan (minus the subsidies) in the exchange costs more than 8% of your household gross income, you're exempt. If the subsidies are slaughtered, over half the nation would be exempt from the mandate.

This latter is an important point. Because you're exempt if your income is below a threshold, Roberts found that it is an income tax, not a capitation/poll tax in violation of the Constitution.
2012-06-28 11:28:53 AM
2 votes:
It's becoming further and further more difficult for me to comprehend how anyone could be believe that "Obamacare" and mandates are some Far Left Marxist Overreach when it was introduced into the national conversation by Conservative Republicans and the GOP in the 90s and now upheld by a Chief Justice, appointed by a conservative President, who votes along conservative lines the vast majority of the time
2012-06-28 11:28:37 AM
2 votes:

WombatControl: bdub77: 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.

WHISKY. TANGO. FOXTROT.

Really? Now Americans have health care? You mean no one in this country had health care prior to Obama? Is this what you really think?

Here's a clue: health insurance is not health care. All "universal" or "single-payer" systems work by rationing care. You want treatment for your rare cancer? Some government bureaucrat will determine that the treatment isn't cost effective, and you will either die waiting for it, or you'll never be given the chance. Not only do you end up dead in that scenario, but new and innovative treatments never get developed because said bureaucrat won't pay for them. Oh, but you have "free" health insurance - just not free health care.

Nothing is free. Health care is not free, and it can't be made free by government fiat. If the liberals got their way we'd have a system in which everyone but the ultra rich who could afford private insurace (or black-market care) is stuck waiting in lines for treatments they may never get.

If the statists got their way and we magically had an NHS-style system in the United States there would be riots in the streets because Americans do not take kindly to the government dictating to them what they can and cannot have. At least those Americans who still believe in the spirit of this nation's Founding, anyway.


so except for the part where we are buying health insurance from the same healthcare companies we always have been.

who said anything was free? why are you just making things up? Troll harder

the only bureaucrats that have tried to deny me healthcare in my life (yes, did the whole cancer thing) were the ones working at the healthcare company that I'd been paying for 10 years. it was cool that they took my money for a decade, but when i got sick and they tried to skip on the bill I had to fight them tooth and nail

thank god for the healthcare reform bill. the patient bill of rights will help keep any future cancer patients that have worked and payed for healthcare (like me) from trying to be kicked out the door when the fat cats decide they dont want to live up to their end of the bargain.

the only people getting free stuff around here seems to be the health insurance companies themselves. it's their constant fleecing of the public and their part in the ever climbing healthcare costs that made this bill necessary. conveniently enough they are also the ones that will benefit the most. (makes you wonder who this bill was really for)

you're whole post reads like a man living in a parallel world where things are kinda close to the way they are here, except where they are different in ever way shape and form.
2012-06-28 11:26:00 AM
2 votes:
*cries tears of joy*

/is pushing 50
//has a pre-existing condition
///can't afford a health care plan right now
2012-06-28 11:25:22 AM
2 votes:

WombatControl: All "universal" or "single-payer" systems work by rationing care.


The private insurance model rations care as well, they just do it based on the profit motive. I don't know about you, but I would like the profit motive as far removed from health care decisions as possible.
2012-06-28 11:23:11 AM
2 votes:
Now, the missing piece: the public option, like a Medicare for younger folks.

Then, people are all covered by something, at least, and then can opt to buy into a private insurance system if they want.

The best model for the public option? It's successful, expanding, and just sitting there waiting to be further implemented....
2012-06-28 11:21:42 AM
2 votes:

make me some tea: 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.


I would disagree. Even though it is not single-payer it has extended coverage to millions and gotten rid of that bullshiat pre-existing condition nonsense. That, in and of itself, is a victory for everyone.
2012-06-28 11:21:33 AM
2 votes:

Kuroshin: MasterThief: Silver lining based on SCOTUSBlog: The mandate was not a legit use of the commerce clause, but it was OK as a tax.

So yes, Obama and the Democrats did, in fact, raise taxes on the middle class. After repeatedly promising not to.

Not mine. I have health insurance.

So yeah, not really.

/a really weird way of doing things - punitive taxation...


uh ya, really

i have health insurance now through my employer. it is a small company, less than 20 people.

now they are going to drop our insurance cause they can't afford it.

so now i get to buy a product only where my government allows, or get taxed if i don't.

/the lib jack off fest here is priceless in it's ignorance.

//what's the lib equivalent of a tea-bagger??
2012-06-28 11:21:02 AM
2 votes:
Thunderpipes
Still scary. Means Congress can regulate your behavior via taxes.

Cue the paranoia. ZOMG, Congress is giving me a tax break for havign a child, now I have an irresistable urge to knock up every fertile woman in sight!

Vote Republican? Obama can impose a tax on you.

Secret ballots, how do they work?

Buy an American car? Obama can impose a tax on you.

As opposed to placing a tax on imported cars, like some kind of tariff?

Bonus: good luck defining "American car": A Chrysler built in Canada? A Honda built in Ohio?

Christian? Obama can impose a tax on you.

Taxes are on transactions, not ideas. You could start taxing churches, perhaps, but I'm not seeing how this ruling makes that possible where it wasn't before.

I love the simple-minded slippery slope arguments. "The gubmint is telling us we gotta have seat belts in our cars? Next thing you know they'll be telling us what we can drive. The gubmint is mandating background checks for gun purchases? Its the first step in takin' away all our guns, the ones the Constitution guarantees us!"

News flash: Before this ruling, the government had the right to tax you, and now they still do.
2012-06-28 11:19:41 AM
2 votes:

Phinn: The government can't force me to buy insurance, but they will try to tax me if I don't.

Eh.

For one, the Left has tried to get away from its Tax-and-Spend label ever since Clinton, but now it will have to own it. That's sorta nice.

But more importantly, the federal government is so inept at collecting taxes from people like me, I will NEVER have to actually pay it.

Really, anyone with two brain cells to rub together can avoid all federal taxes. It's really not that hard.


I've said it once, and I'll say it again.

Tax and spend is better than borrow and spend, and the reasons should be obvious.

Eventually, with borrow and spend, no amount of tax revenue will cover the increased cost of servicing the debt and the interest payments.

With tax and spend, you get some real motivation to cut spending, because you're actually paying for everything, everything! the citizens are demanding.

Borrow and spend is the ultimate in kick the can down the road policy making.
2012-06-28 11:18:33 AM
2 votes:
In one sense, it's a win that the PPACA isn't overturned, given that the current political environment is too toxic to try to get anything better and, while it's not great, it is an improvement.

In the other sense, this will just delay single payer or a public option by a few additional decades, keeping us behind the dozens of other industrialized nations who do have universal health care.
2012-06-28 11:18:14 AM
2 votes:
Romney: The mandate is a tax. You raised taxes.
Obama: Did you raise taxes on Massachusetts when you were a governor?
Romney: No, of course not, I...
Obama: *trollface*
2012-06-28 11:15:01 AM
2 votes:
~ Congratulations to Romney and Conservatives everywhere on the continued success of their healthcare plan! ~

6 Years Ago: Heritage Foundation Praised Romneycare For Building 'Patient-Centered' Health Care Market:

Link

MOFFIT (HERITAGE FOUNDATION): We've been honored by your request...to participate in giving our best advise and our technical assistance in designing a new and different kind of health insurance market. A market that is patient-centered and consumer-based, which will ease access to affordable coverage for thousands of Bay State citizens. This is new. It's a new market, where individuals and families will be able to own and control their health insurance and take it with them to from job to job... Nothing like it has ever been attempted anywhere else in the United States. So Massachusetts has raised the bar for every state in the union. And that's the applause you've given to your public officials here today is going to echo far beyond the hallow halls of this historic place.
2012-06-28 11:13:31 AM
2 votes:

Waldo Pepper:

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?


That would be fine if the vast majority of those without insurance paid as they went, but they don't. That costs all of the rest of us.

Obamacare isn't a great solution, but it's an attempt to solve a problem that the GOP has ignored.
2012-06-28 11:10:39 AM
2 votes:

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.


Umm, they upheld the law congress passed. How is that "doing something that Congress never intended to do"? They said it is legal when you look at it like a tax, but they changed nothing.

And taking away the "Romney Care" attacks? This makes them better.... If Romney goes coco-bananas over the law, Obama can point to Romney care and say "He thought it was a good idea before, why not now"

And it's only a tax if you don't have Health Care Insurance.
2012-06-28 11:10:20 AM
2 votes:
So Obama swore up and down this wasn't a tax, but it was obvious all along that it is.
So Romney says this is a bad law, but he was proud to sign it in Massachusetts.

shiat smells the same all over.
2012-06-28 11:10:07 AM
2 votes:

Anti_illuminati: fluffytuff: 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

If you don't have health insurance, when you file your taxes, you'll have to pay a bit more or receive a little less.


It's like not having a mortgage and not having children.
2012-06-28 11:09:57 AM
2 votes:

YoungSwedishBlonde: Holy farking shiat, Roberts upholds Obamacare? My mind is full of billions and billions and billions upon billions of f*ck.


It was originally a conservative alternative to more liberal policies.

i.imgur.com

The fact that people are in disbelief just shows how absurdly partisan the Roberts court has been acting of late.
2012-06-28 11:08:24 AM
2 votes:

SevenizGud: Great, now I get to buy health care insurance for another 16 million losers.

On the plus side, this now paves the way for the gubmint to force all people to buy a treadmill, because, hey, some people are fat, and everyone is already in that market, because all people would be less fat if they had a treadmill. Gosh, it makes me want to sing

...and the laaaaaaaand oooo----ooo---fff the freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee....

Reward the FAIL, America...what's the worst that could happen?

/worst decision since Kelo


Generally, you won't be buying squat. It just forced several million able bodied people to get insurance for themselves. If anything, it should reduce the load on you. If you're worried, invest in some health insurance companies to offset your tax loss.
2012-06-28 11:07:07 AM
2 votes:
Roberts? More like Robespierre, right Freepers?
2012-06-28 11:06:51 AM
2 votes:
I don't like this POS law, but I'm laughing my ass off! That sneering "Obamacare" label doesn't seem like such a good idea now, does it rightwingnuts?

Dumbasses. The Democrats beat you at your own game. They knew how to write the language so that the Commerce Clause would not be an issue to the Court. You tried to poison the bill and they beat you. You opposed the law based on grounds they had already beat you on.

All politicians suck.
2012-06-28 11:05:59 AM
2 votes:

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 11:01:36 AM
2 votes:

soporific: This will not cost Obama votes, and in fact this could help shore up support, because the people who really benefit will now have a motivation to get out there and vote. If the Dems are smart, and who knows they might surprise us, then they'll make sure those pesky non-voting young people realize that letting Republicans take control will directly impact them. If Republicans make this a central issue, they might motivate a lot of voting against them.


This. Anyone dense enough to use a Supreme Court decision upholding an act of Congress as a major motivation for voting against Obama was never going to vote for Obama in the first place.

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.
2012-06-28 11:01:06 AM
2 votes:

truthseeker2083: Good! Next step, single payer!


We can only hope. I consider myself more to the right of center, but single payer is the only real way to do this.

Now there is absolutely ZERO reason for a health insurance company to lower premiums. They know people will buy insurance (if it's cheaper than the tax), so they can keep their prices just high enough so the cost/benefit is to buy the insurance instead of paying the tax. That's the magic premium cost right there. And, that'll be for a super-high deductible plan as well. Everything else will cost more. All the other companies will do the same (effectively an oligopoly). This won't make insurance any cheaper.
2012-06-28 10:59:21 AM
2 votes:
Well, there ya go. We now have Democrats firmly cheering for a Republican healthcare bill, and Republicans can continue feeling persecuted.
2012-06-28 10:59:11 AM
2 votes:

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the things that people don't like about Obamacare is that they'll be required to buy health insurance that they feel they don't need as they are in generally good health?


That is the whole issue. Say you're 25 and you say, "I'm young and healthy, I don't need insurance." So you don't buy any. Then, you get cancer and you try to get insurance, nobody will insure you because you have cancer.
2012-06-28 10:58:28 AM
2 votes:

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).


My understanding is it's basically like a tax incentive, but in reverse...you get the "incentive" to buy health insurance by paying a surcharge on your taxes if you DON'T buy it. That's basicallly how Romneycare works in Mass, at least.

I was surprised at the ruling, was expecting a 5-4 shootdown, personally.

As for the "scabby bandage" analogy someone else used, I agree...but this particular scabby bandage was originally proposed by conservatives, then co-opted by liberals. Meanwhile, the original conservatives have neither come up with anything better nor summoned the intestinal fortitude to get rid of things like Medicare.

So, it's better than nothing...I hope.
2012-06-28 10:58:12 AM
2 votes:

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Thunderpipes: 26 states can tell Obama and the Feds to suck it now, and they will.

Oh yeah, the States just love turning away Federal money.


Y/es, didn't they all turn away the stimulus money? And Colorado, home of the teabagging bootstrappy self starting libertarians, they are totes fighting that fire of thiers without a single federal dollar or plane, right? Oh wait...oh ....ooohhhhhhhhh awwwkwarrrrd
2012-06-28 10:56:46 AM
2 votes:
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.
2012-06-28 10:56:33 AM
2 votes:
Woo-Hoo

This healthcare law wasnt' what I wanted but it is better than what we had, and I am happy with this decision.
2012-06-28 10:56:19 AM
2 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: And those that can't afford it? Who will pay for them?


You mean besides the subsidies already built in to the bill to help those who can't afford it?
2012-06-28 10:55:12 AM
2 votes:
Good! Next step, single payer!
2012-06-28 10:54:33 AM
2 votes:

RantCasey: And commence the Republican butthurt.....NOW.


Is butthurt covered under Obamacare?
2012-06-28 10:52:54 AM
2 votes:

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!
2012-06-28 10:47:57 AM
2 votes:
Ah, so a descendent of the conservative market-based health care plan designed by the Heritage Foundation that suddenly became "socialism" when the Clintons got interested in it finally got passed. What a dark day for conservatives who favor market-based solutions.
2012-06-28 10:47:25 AM
2 votes:
Step 2.

Take the supersaturates of diabetes inducing sugar out of our beverages.
The cardiovascular diesease inducing trans-fat out of our food.
The pink slime out of our meat.
The industrial food process out of our health-care costs.
2012-06-28 10:43:08 AM
2 votes:
I've been telling people all along that they already deal every year with having to pay out for government mandated private auto insurance and that this wasn't much different. I was told, "but, but...I don't have to own a car!" I laughed. "You can't get to work, run errands, or do much of anything without a car outside of perhaps a few major urban areas," I told them. "No, you do have to own a car and you have to buy insurance for it and the government tells you that you must carry it and bring them proof you did so, period."

Mind you, I think that "Obamacare" is a horrible idea, will make the problem worse, create more debt, and I have a sneaking suspicion that was done on purpose by some Liberals (not Obama, he just wants to look like he's doing something...) within Congress at the time to ensure that we'd have socialized medicine in a decade.

But Constitutional? Yes. Just because something is a really horrible idea doesn't make it unconstitutional. That's a different argument.
2012-06-28 10:42:54 AM
2 votes:
Lets look at al the awsome new and increased taxes in this fil
Taxes that took effect in 2010:

1. Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971

2. Codification of the "economic substance doctrine" (Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks "substance" and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

3. "Black liquor" tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

4. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies ($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980

5. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike ($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

6. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services ($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399

Taxes that took effect in 2011:

7. Medicine Cabinet Tax ($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959

8. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike ($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959

Tax that took effect in 2012:

9. Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Min$/Jan 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957

Taxes that take effect in 2013:

10. Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93


Capital Gains
Dividends
Other*

2012
15%
15%
35%

2013+
23.8%
43.4%
43.4%



*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.

11. Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax ($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:


First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee
All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee

Current Law
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

Obamacare Tax Hike
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed



Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93

12. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers ($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for
13. Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI ($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

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

15. Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D ($4.5 bil/Jan 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994

16. $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives ($0.6 bil/Jan 2013). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000

Taxes that take effect in 2014:

17. Individual Mandate Excise Tax (Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying "qualifying" health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following


1 Adult
2 Adults
3+ Adults

2014
1% AGI/$95
1% AGI/$190
1% AGI/$285

2015
2% AGI/$325
2% AGI/$650
2% AGI/$975

2016 +
2.5% AGI/$695
2.5% AGI/$1390
2.5% AGI/$2085



Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS). Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337

18. Employer Mandate Tax (Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

19. Tax on Health Insurers ($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993

Taxes that take effect in 2018:

20. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans ($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956



Read more: http://www.atr.org/tax-hikes-obamacare-scotus-rule-a6996#ixzz1z6D8OUVp
2012-06-28 10:42:41 AM
2 votes:
I can't help but think this will mean that I will end up paying more for my plan, or that my employer will drop the benefit.
2012-06-28 10:42:28 AM
2 votes:
Now let's take it back to what it would have been before it was watered down for the cons who said they would support it.
2012-06-28 10:42:25 AM
2 votes:
You know the best part about this? How many Supreme Court decisions get overturned? That's right - it's here to stay.
2012-06-28 10:42:24 AM
2 votes:

error 303: I got a breaking news alert on my phone from CNN that the individual mandate was struck down, then a correction 15 minutes later.

You suck so hard CNN. I hope people lose their jobs over this one.

CNN - The president has been shot.

Correction - The president has shot a personal best three under par this weekend.


Delete the CNN app and get the AP News app.
2012-06-28 10:42:02 AM
2 votes:

Thunderpipes: RolandGunner: Well, in the long run it's the best possible outcome if the law was going to be upheld. By changing the mandate penalty to a tax and, ruling out the commerce clause justification, the bill is upheld without issuing a blanket authorization for the federal government to force the purchase of goods and services.

But it just did. If Obama wants you to do something, you do it, or the feds tax you. That is force. Just wait until Pubs in the states start pushing something you don't like and enforce it with a tax..... Will you like it then?


Hasn't got anything to do with what Obama wants.

.
2012-06-28 10:41:38 AM
2 votes:
If the mandate had gotten struck down, we wouldn't suddenly be presented with a public option. We're decades away from that in this country no matter what.
2012-06-28 10:40:49 AM
2 votes:

PanicMan: Will need to read the decision and dissents before we fully understand what just happened.


Humanity won. With a giant push from John Roberts, no less.
2012-06-28 10:40:15 AM
2 votes:

ManateeGag: where ARE the normal crop of conservitrolls? can't take it when they lose one? they should come take their lumps like real men.


Problem is, after re-listening to the oral arguments last night, I am forced to agree with the decision of the court that, although Congress cant compel you to engage in commerce, they can tax you as they see fit.
2012-06-28 10:39:18 AM
2 votes:

St_Francis_P: Lsherm: I was kind of hoping that they would strike it down and we'd get a true public option out of it, but this is probably for the best. Baby steps.

Kind of what I was hoping, too.


The problem is Congress. If "Obamacare" had been struck down, we'd revert to the old, even-more-broken system, and wouldn't have a chance in Hell of any other reform until Democrats had another supermajority. And even then, they'd have to deal with the Blue Dogs.
2012-06-28 10:38:03 AM
2 votes:

EatenTheSun: So the Commerce clause actually has limits, but the Feds can create any sort of tax they want? This is great news!



and this is why we'll never have significant tax reform. congress will never give up this power.
2012-06-28 10:36:13 AM
2 votes:

SphericalTime: Awwww. I was hoping for single payer during my lifetime.


There's no way we would have gotten single payer unless all the Rs and Blue Dog Ds were gone.
2012-06-28 10:35:55 AM
2 votes:

RolandGunner: Well, in the long run it's the best possible outcome if the law was going to be upheld. By changing the mandate penalty to a tax and, ruling out the commerce clause justification, the bill is upheld without issuing a blanket authorization for the federal government to force the purchase of goods and services.


But it just did. If Obama wants you to do something, you do it, or the feds tax you. That is force. Just wait until Pubs in the states start pushing something you don't like and enforce it with a tax..... Will you like it then?
2012-06-28 10:35:35 AM
2 votes:
Does this mean we'll go back to calling it Romneycare?
2012-06-28 10:35:06 AM
2 votes:

Andromeda: I'm amazed it was Roberts. That's just something I was not expecting.

So goddamn it I guess we now have to care about our fellow man like Jesus said?!


Woah, let's not get carried away, alright?

GAT_00: I bet. I can't believe Roberts swung on it either. Did it go 6-3? Seems unlikely that if Roberts went for it that Kennedy didn't as well.


Justice Kennedy, I am disappoint...

From the Live Blog:
In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.
2012-06-28 10:34:47 AM
2 votes:

Lsherm: I was kind of hoping that they would strike it down and we'd get a true public option out of it, but this is probably for the best. Baby steps.


Kind of what I was hoping, too.
2012-06-28 10:33:00 AM
2 votes:
So much for that promise to not raise taxes on the middle class.
2012-06-28 10:32:23 AM
2 votes:
You KNOW Romney is going to beat his chest about Massachusetts health care law now.

Oh, and abandon his base?

HAHAHHA.....your move. Rmoney.
2012-06-28 10:31:32 AM
2 votes:

TIKIMAN87: Obama has just destroyed this country.


We knew he "owned" the Supreme Court when they wouldn't hear Orly's birth certificate case. This is just further proof, as if it was needed.
2012-06-28 10:30:36 AM
2 votes:
i.imgur.com
2012-06-28 10:30:00 AM
2 votes:
WHOOOOOOOOOO! Suck it, Republitards!
2012-06-28 10:30:00 AM
2 votes:
I couldn't believe everything in there survived intact. I expect some clauses here or there to get struck down. Especially didn't think the court would say "fark you, it's a tax, not interstate commerce, biatches. OK, pass".
2012-06-28 10:19:15 AM
2 votes:
Can't force you to have health insurance, but they can tax you for it
2012-06-30 06:20:39 PM
1 votes:

mgshamster: genner: mgshamster: Waldo Pepper: Surool: ...and yet you don't biatch about mandatory car insurance

Sit down, Waldo!
[img.photobucket.com image 320x240]

auto insurance is not mandatory. If I don't have a driver's license I'm to required to have auto insurance.

Health insurance is similar. If you don't have a human body, you're not required to have health insurance.

/For cats and dogs, health insurance is optional.

I can sell my car and take the.bus. I can't turn into an animal.

Humans are animals.


Then they should be exempt like dogs and cats.
2012-06-29 11:33:02 PM
1 votes:

Waldo Pepper:
I never said not having insurance is a wise choice, I simply said I should have that freedom of choice and not be taxed for not buying a service.

it is not personal responsibility if the government requires you to buy it.


How about this. Anyone can exercise their "freedom of choice" to not have health insurance. In exchange they must have a DNR/T (Do Not Resuscitate/Treat) chip implanted. This way they will not be gambling with other people's money.
When an EMT is called out, they will use their smart phone to scan for the DNR/T chip. If one is found, they will pack up and leave them their on the sidewalk.
If they are brought to the hospital by friends, family, or a bystander, they will need to post $100k bond before they can be admitted for treatment.

Does that work for you?
2012-06-28 11:56:18 PM
1 votes:

intelligent comment below: Phinn: Who was in charge of Somalia's government prior to 1991, and what were his economic policies?

So your argument is those policies caused Somalia to turn bad, not an assault by Muslim extremist terrorists who caused the government to disband and create a libertarian utopia?


It's not "my argument." It's objective fact -- socialist government destroyed the Somali economy over the course of a couple of decades (as all socialist government destroys economies, the only difference being the rapidity of socialist implementation and thus the rate of destruction).

The warlords then began vying for the grand prize of being the one that got to be recognized as the Official Warlord by the Grand Warlord of them all -- the US Warlords. The US presence provided an incentive and a focus for the war that followed, right up to the point it became a political liability for Clinton.

Having been reduced to below subsistence by socialism, Somalia was not a libertarian paradise on account of the eradication of capital investment and its attending features, such as the presence of markets, not to mention a population with little experience and cultural values favoring market activity. Nevertheless, in the years following the eradication of an entity that is sufficiently well-organized to be crowned as the local "government," the anarchistic nature of Somalia has enabled minimal market activity to return, which is why we see every measurable statistic on quality of life there (birth rates, death rates, infant mortality, etc.) to begin to improve.
2012-06-28 10:07:21 PM
1 votes:

mrshowrules: dlp211: cretinbob: I want to send Chief Justice Roberts a Constitution and ask him where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court should re-write legislation when the President lies to you?

I love those little nutbags

He'd probably just point to the decision he made today where he addressed this very point. But you know, keep crying moar.

I don't think a single Liberal tear was shed today.


I don't think so either. I reluctantly support PPACA and I am glad that it was found constitutional today, but the work is not done. We can have more affordable healthcare in this nation, but it is not easy, and we should do it because it is hard to do. But I forgot, we stopped doing hard things after we got to the moon.

In another time, I may have called myself a republican, but that time is not now. Republicans want all the benefits that the last generation paid for them but don't want to pay it forward for the next generation.
2012-06-28 10:01:38 PM
1 votes:

silgryphon: So now people have to pay for insurance. If you can't pay, you go to jail. That's wrong


No, no, no. If you can't pay for insurance, you do NOT go to jail. There are NO criminal repercussions from this.
2012-06-28 09:47:35 PM
1 votes:

neener neener: Can someone explain what this means in non-partisan language without all this screaming and flailing about?


For me, it means that my kids are not going to be kicked off of my health insurance plan. And for that, I am very glad.

And if my youngest gets a new job and gets his own insurance, the new insurance company that he signs with cannot reject him because he had a lot of asthma problems growing up. And for that, I am also very glad.

It also means that my insurance company must spend 80% of the money they get from their clients towards actually paying out money to heal people. If they don't, then they owe me a refund check.

It means that women are not going to be forced to pay more money than men on health insurance.

It means quite a few good things.

This law is not perfect by a long shot, but compared to what the healthcare industry was before the law was enacted, it's a great step forward.

Many of the parts of this law were originally Republican ideas, so Republicans should be proud of the law as well.
2012-06-28 09:24:24 PM
1 votes:

Rwa2play: mrshowrules: Two screen captures that basically summarize the awesomeness of today`s rulings

[i116.photobucket.com image 640x196]

[i116.photobucket.com image 640x170]

Has BillCo even posted today? Maybe he's too distraught over Roberts upholding the law.


Karnal, Tenpoundsoftard and BillCo have not shown-up. If they are 3 people or not is another question.
2012-06-28 09:00:03 PM
1 votes:
So the Republican talking point boils down to semantics and wordplay: it's now a tax and Obama's a lair.

That's pretty weak, guys. Pretty damned weak.
2012-06-28 08:56:10 PM
1 votes:

Gdalescrboz: As a healthy person who can afford my own insurance i dont care either way abotu this ruling. However, for the people that are going to be required to have it, i feel bad for you. Give it 10 years and you will be looking at certain criteria you have to meet in order to be on a health care plan the government requires you to have. Acohol consumption? Smoking? High risk activities? Burger king? Gambling? Not sure what it will be like, but shiat in your personal life is not going to be the same. For better or for worse, people on required gov't healthcare have lost a chunk of personal freedom. Americans could use big brother taking away their double stacker with double cheese since they can't put it down on their own



Huh?

This is exactly how insurance is today, before Obamacare.
2012-06-28 08:55:54 PM
1 votes:
This thread has restored some of my faith that the snark of fark, when directed at the right mark, can knock it out of the park.

/ark.
2012-06-28 08:31:13 PM
1 votes:
The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.
2012-06-28 08:02:23 PM
1 votes:
And the best one of all

i50.tinypic.com
2012-06-28 07:58:42 PM
1 votes:
i49.tinypic.com.
2012-06-28 07:50:47 PM
1 votes:

mr lawson: Question: Why do you think health care cost have been skyrocketing? (They have, but WHY?)


I'd say for many reasons, some of them being:

1. Artificially low number of doctors due to limits on medical school class sizes & residencies.

2. Uninsured lacking access to preventative care for chronic diseases. Chronic disease care is by far the most expensive part of medical care, and it's the area most open to prevention.

3. Lack of competition among insurers - most people can't afford any plan except their employer's so they can't really shop around.

4. Lack of focus on patient-centered care instead of episodic care; reimbursement schemes that reward doing more things rather than getting better outcomes.

I'd say the law addresses #2 and #3 adequately, with some promise of addressing #4 (via the emphasis on ACOs).
2012-06-28 07:40:54 PM
1 votes:

Keizer_Ghidorah: jigger: LockeOak: jigger: I can't imagine young contract workers being better off under this one. Oh sure, now they have health insurance because they have a new bill to pay, or they have a higher tax bill to pay. It's like someone said not too long ago, "If things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn't."

Perhaps those contract workers should get together into some sort of group so they can negotiate a better rate with their employers or the insurance companies. They could probably get a better bargain if they operated... collectively.

Holy shiat! That's genius! If they just used their own time and money to form an organization that charged them money, they might save money!

Nothing we do is the right thing to do! Let's all just commit suicide right now!

WorldKnowledge: [i1139.photobucket.com image 640x800]

Welcome to the USSA comrade!

Only evil people would think that helping others is the wrong thing to do.


Funny how fast Republicans/Conservatives take out their bibles to chastise others for certain policies(Sex Rights, Women Rights, Civil Rights, etc.) but when it comes down to basic healthcare for your fellow man/woman they suddenly go sacrifice a goat to worship Satan and discard Jesus and his teachings. Get ready to face your worst fear Conservatives. A Sense of Community and care for all people..
4.bp.blogspot.com

Y U HATE PEOPLE REPUBLICANS?!?!?!?!111
2012-06-28 07:27:00 PM
1 votes:

jigger: LockeOak: jigger: I can't imagine young contract workers being better off under this one. Oh sure, now they have health insurance because they have a new bill to pay, or they have a higher tax bill to pay. It's like someone said not too long ago, "If things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn't."

Perhaps those contract workers should get together into some sort of group so they can negotiate a better rate with their employers or the insurance companies. They could probably get a better bargain if they operated... collectively.

Holy shiat! That's genius! If they just used their own time and money to form an organization that charged them money, they might save money!


Nothing we do is the right thing to do! Let's all just commit suicide right now!

WorldKnowledge: [i1139.photobucket.com image 640x800]

Welcome to the USSA comrade!


Only evil people would think that helping others is the wrong thing to do.
2012-06-28 07:24:37 PM
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: Starting in 2014, the fine for not carrying insurance would be $95 a year or 1 percent of a person's income, whichever is greater. In 2015 that would jump to $325 or 2 percent of income and in 2016 the fine would be $695 or 2.5 percent of income.

2.5% What a coinkidink, the average American is also that same amount away from being homeless. Popcorn anyone?



And the chances of going homeless when you get dropped from coverage and have a health care bill you could never afford?

This lowers overall costs and makes people get coverage, a win win for everyone.

Unless you're just a pathetic greedy libertarian, then nobody gives a fark what you think.
2012-06-28 07:19:46 PM
1 votes:

hdhale: Actually, Obama has made even "W" look like an amateur when it comes to running up debt.



Oh, is that right?

cdn.theatlantic.com
2012-06-28 07:13:43 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: Those weren't free markets, and they weren't free long before Obamacare. They were highly regulated, as to both the insurers and the providers.



Ah yes. Every time the market fails, it wasn't "free" enough

How convenient it is to live in a moving goalpost world

Insurance companies dumped expensive patients, tell me all about the horrible regulatory burden on them.
2012-06-28 07:10:18 PM
1 votes:
jigger??

Somebody??

I'm worried.

jigger just sprung a leak or threw a rod or...something.
2012-06-28 07:08:26 PM
1 votes:

Grables'Daughter: mrshowrules: Grables'Daughter: lousyskater: I didn't really care which way this went, but man I need to get some popcorn for this one. DIS GONNA BE GOOD.

[i1089.photobucket.com image 640x423]

Here.

I made enough for everyone.

: )

That looks like socialist popcorn. There are people in this thread that would starve to death first. I thank you however.

IT's MITT ROMNEY APPROVED POPCORN.



He did approve it, but then found out some Democrats eat popcorn too, and now scheduled a press conference to explain how he has always been against it, and plans on passing an alternative once elected.
2012-06-28 07:07:31 PM
1 votes:

jigger: I can't imagine young contract workers being better off under this one. Oh sure, now they have health insurance because they have a new bill to pay, or they have a higher tax bill to pay. It's like someone said not too long ago, "If things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn't."


Perhaps those contract workers should get together into some sort of group so they can negotiate a better rate with their employers or the insurance companies. They could probably get a better bargain if they operated... collectively.
2012-06-28 07:07:13 PM
1 votes:
jigger, have you suddenly broken out in plaid? Are you feverish?
2012-06-28 06:35:19 PM
1 votes:

jvowles: what_now: MurphyMurphy: Here's a clue: health insurance is not health care. All "universal" or "single-payer" systems work by rationing care. You want treatment for your rare cancer? Some government bureaucrat will determine that the treatment isn't cost effective, and you will either die waiting for it, or you'll never be given the chance.

Sort of like what happens now with my insurance company?

Bingo, this is such a patently stupid argument.

**ALL** healthcare systems work by rationing health care, by providing incentives for healthful behavior, and by providing disincentives for unhealthy behavior,

I would rather the person making the call of whether I live or die is not making that call based on whether it will cause stock prices to dip. I would rather such decisions be based on actual science and be carried out by people whose jobs depend on a healthy populace rather than a profitable one.


To be fair, a healthy populace IS a profitable populace. If everyone's sick, deformed, allergic, obese, etc. then little work gets done and little money flows through the economy.
2012-06-28 06:33:04 PM
1 votes:

Corvus: AtlanticCoast63: ....Okay:

1. Card-carrying Republican here.
2. I didn't agree with the individual mandate - still don't - but the SCOTUS ruling was reasoned and clear.
3. They've spoken, and now we need to get on with it.

/If I'm supposed to be all kinds of butthurt about this, let me know

You're a good guy. It just seem to me a lot of good guys are there anymore in the Republican Party. Or maybe the assholes are being so loud they are drowning the good ones out.


But your team has the good guys with class, right?


patdollard.com


/despise politics SO freaking much.
2012-06-28 06:32:34 PM
1 votes:

what_now: MurphyMurphy: Here's a clue: health insurance is not health care. All "universal" or "single-payer" systems work by rationing care. You want treatment for your rare cancer? Some government bureaucrat will determine that the treatment isn't cost effective, and you will either die waiting for it, or you'll never be given the chance.

Sort of like what happens now with my insurance company?


Bingo, this is such a patently stupid argument.

**ALL** healthcare systems work by rationing health care, by providing incentives for healthful behavior, and by providing disincentives for unhealthy behavior,

I would rather the person making the call of whether I live or die is not making that call based on whether it will cause stock prices to dip. I would rather such decisions be based on actual science and be carried out by people whose jobs depend on a healthy populace rather than a profitable one.
2012-06-28 06:32:07 PM
1 votes:

BobBoxBody: how unsustainable and how damaging this legislation will be to the country's longterm economic health


Making sure people don't go bankrupt due to medical expenses is bad for long term economic health? Really?
2012-06-28 06:27:50 PM
1 votes:
I'm going to point something out. Being happy you won because it means the other side lost doesn't make you any better than your opposition.

I'm amazed how many people here really are more concerned with winning and losing than the relevant issues involved. OK, not amazed. Disappointed.
2012-06-28 06:19:04 PM
1 votes:
....Okay:

1. Card-carrying Republican here.
2. I didn't agree with the individual mandate - still don't - but the SCOTUS ruling was reasoned and clear.
3. They've spoken, and now we need to get on with it.

/If I'm supposed to be all kinds of butthurt about this, let me know
2012-06-28 06:16:36 PM
1 votes:
Ben Franklin would tell you to STFU and GTFO if you don't want to pay your fair share of taxes to the common good of the republic.

And then he would do something awesome, like invent bifocals.
2012-06-28 05:08:35 PM
1 votes:
24.media.tumblr.com
2012-06-28 05:04:26 PM
1 votes:
25.media.tumblr.com
2012-06-28 04:58:00 PM
1 votes:

JDAT: [www.catholicvote.org image 640x425]


i.imgur.com
2012-06-28 04:57:59 PM
1 votes:

Ninja_Pancakes: OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG
OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG
OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG
OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG
OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG

I'm not even american and I'm amazed they let it stand!


Look, I don't expect you or anyone else will notice this in a thread this large and busy. But it's not shocking at all. The problem with healthcare in this country is not that some people don't have insurance. The real problem is that the entirety of both the medical and insurance industries are utterly corrupt juggernauts. A massive for-profit vampire squid that moves more money every year than half the countries in the world combined. My father had to have a few shots for cancer treatment back in January. $1,200 for each shot. Each. Shot. That is farking BS, but that's what the hospital charged because they knew they'd have my dad's $100 out of pocket and probably another $700-$800 from the insurance company with no questions asked. They write off the other $400-ish and that's probably still 20x the actual monetary cost of the drug. Forcing everyone to buy insurance (or at least penalizing them if they don't) does not actually fix the problem. It really makes it worse by forcing even more people to participate in this utterly corrupt system, thus ensuring it will never get fixed.

I am surprised by the 5-4 decision. I really expected something more like 7-2, because at the end of the day this law is a huge giveaway to Big Insurance and Big Pharma on a recurring annual basis. What neocon Supreme wouldn't love that?
2012-06-28 04:56:06 PM
1 votes:
I think Roberts saw the writing on the wall: If he went with the conservatives, he put the court on an incredibly dangerous trajectory. Ultimately, the conservatives on the court are looking to dismantle the past 100 years of jurisprudence with regard to expanded Federal Government power. Frankly, I don't disagree that a lot of it should be dismantled, but for the Supreme Court to go down that path was to engage in direct warfare with the other two branches of Government. What would become of the court then?

Instead, Roberts suggested something I can't really disagree with: Given the wide reach of our tax laws, the Individual Mandate penalty isn't really anything exceptional. But within that argument there is a seed of dissent against those very tax laws in the first place. Roberts wasn't even subtle about the implication that he was doing his duty in upholding the law, no matter how horrible or disastrous he though the law was in the first place. I think his always-strategic mind hopes that he can do more good by playing the helpless public servant, and allowing the backlash to do the job of moving us against such laws in a less precarious fashion than forcing his court to move into the line of fire. Time will tell if he was right.
2012-06-28 04:55:21 PM
1 votes:
The Daily Show and Colbert Report tonight is going to be epic.
2012-06-28 04:52:19 PM
1 votes:

Keizer_Ghidorah: How has he made America into a dictatorship?


Isn't it obvious? A country where a law can be passed by Congress, signed by the President, reviewed by the courts, and eventually upheld by the Supreme Court is clearly a dictatorship.
2012-06-28 04:49:27 PM
1 votes:
www.catholicvote.org
2012-06-28 04:48:03 PM
1 votes:
i36.photobucket.com
2012-06-28 04:43:21 PM
1 votes:

Dog Welder: Keizer_Ghidorah: xanadian: Yes, he did, but that's not what I meant. I'm glad Obama got this victory. I'm just bemoaning the spin it could produce. ........ In hindsight, though, Obama could personally cure cancer and give everyone a pony and the GOP would find a way to give it a negative spin.

:-/

Of course they would. Nothing matters to them anymore except the complete and utter destruction of their perceived Antichrist. The GOP would sooner sacrifice America than allow Obama to do ANYTHING unopposed. Anything he does is the Devil's work in their eyes, and they've vowed to resist him at every turn, no matter what it is or the consequences of their bullheaded opposition.

And, as has been stated before, this plan they're bemoaning as The End of All Things America was conceived by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation and is pretty damn close to RomneyCare in Mass. I love how those little tidbits of information seem to be completely lost on Fox News and Wing Nut Daily. But, since Obama enacted it, it's clearly now evil.

WE WERE FOR THIS BEFORE WE WERE AGAINST IT!

Doesn't seem to be the most effective election year rallying cry, I guess.


They'll do anything, even flat-out lying and aggressive flip-flopping. This is deliberate misinformation meant to get people riled up against their sworn foe, and the sad thing is many people will go along with it because they're either too dumb to notice, too brainwashed to resist, or too agreeing with them to detect it.
2012-06-28 04:29:03 PM
1 votes:
For those of you just joining the thread:

EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE IS RUINED! FOREVER!!!
2012-06-28 04:22:45 PM
1 votes:
2012-06-28 04:17:10 PM
1 votes:

Kittypie070: Dance, cat, dance!


In fairness, the GOP came up with the idea as a way of punishing poor people. Now that it looks like it might help more people then it hurts, they feel like they've been duped.
2012-06-28 04:08:12 PM
1 votes:

Big Man On Campus: You might look at my hyperbole and be dismissive, but that's essentially the door that Roberts opened. He opened the door to most any individual lifestyle and/or individual financial decision to be taxable.


Read up on sin taxes and then get back to us.
2012-06-28 04:07:41 PM
1 votes:

The_Sponge: gimmegimme: Agreed. Single-payer works in every first-world, industrialized country in the world. Let's do that.


Do you honestly think our government won't screw it up? They can't even responsibly spend money now, why do you think they would do so in the future? How about we consider a single payer system AFTER the national debt is paid off?


Wow...how dare you imply the United States military (paid for by the government and run by civilians) is screwed up? Where, exactly, do you feel the military is wasting money? Veterans' affairs? The GI Bill? Bulletproof armor on the vehicles?

Just...wow.
2012-06-28 04:02:57 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: Who was in charge of Somalia's government prior to 1991, and what were his economic policies?


Mohamed Siad Barre, whose policies were based on and driven by tribalism, divide and conquer and kleptocracy. There was never even the whiff of socialism operating in that country.
2012-06-28 03:53:51 PM
1 votes:
It's a step in the right direction. Now can we please just have single payer?
2012-06-28 03:50:49 PM
1 votes:

Khellendros: Try again.


ok

Link

Cost estimates have doubled. Looks like we will have hard enough time meeting past obligations but yeah lets add a bunch more people to the welfare rolls.

What IS the penalty for not buying insurance? Serious.

The penalty for a small business dumping it's employees that it currently pays coverage for? Serious.
2012-06-28 03:49:59 PM
1 votes:
"As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts ..." - MittRomney.com.

This hasn't been taken down yet, it's still there.
2012-06-28 03:48:33 PM
1 votes:

oh_please: 10 years down the road, your insurance rates go through the roof because all the smaller insurers have been forced out of the market, and there's only a few insurers left.


I'm sorry, did you just wake up from a 20-year coma or something?
2012-06-28 03:47:27 PM
1 votes:
Coco LaFemme: Do it, you raging sack of quivering pussies. If this country you once loved oh so much is now a shell of its former self, and the only way to reclaim its glory is through bloodshed, then start shedding some blood, assholes. Come on, be men for once in your pathetic lives. Prove you have the biggest patriot boners in all the land.

Mr_Ectomy: You give me a socialist boner.


Remember, if it's a socialist boner, then you have to share.
2012-06-28 03:46:50 PM
1 votes:
Seriously, the tards from both sides in this thread are making my head asplode.

FarkConsTM: This is not the end of democracy, stop treating it like it is. Something has to be done about this problem, and I'm not sure what else we can do at this point, given what's in place.

FarkLibsTM: All of you waving your dicks around, saying "HAHA SUCK IT TEABAGGERS WE WIN" may feel differently when, 10 years down the road, your insurance rates go through the roof because all the smaller insurers have been forced out of the market, and there's only a few insurers left. Or a single-payer system that makes you wait months to get anything done.

I'm crossing my fingers on this one, I actually think it's a step in the right direction. How it turns out is anyone's guess.
2012-06-28 03:42:34 PM
1 votes:
YOU GUYS ARE RUINING THIS BEAUTIFUL DAY WITH ALL THIS ARGUING!
2012-06-28 03:39:48 PM
1 votes:
The_Sponge: //Apparently disagreeing with Obama and pointing out a broken promise warrant a punch in the face

Obama promised to deliver healthcare reform that would insure 30 million low income Americans access.

He delivered on that promise despite insane obstacles.

Romney and the GOP promised to crush the reform.

They failed.

Whiny talking point is whiny and hilariously ineffectual.

Keep it up. I still got popcorn.

/Epic thread is epic.
2012-06-28 03:38:40 PM
1 votes:

StoneColdAtheist: Then Uncle Sugar posted me to Mogadishu for 25 months. Believe me, there is nothing like living in a libertarian paradise to cure one of that disease.


Witnessing the effects of Somalia's 25 years of socialism should be enough to cure anyone of a delusional faith in socialism.
2012-06-28 03:38:00 PM
1 votes:

The_Sponge: And how sad is it that your side had a victory today, and instead of being happy, you get pissy when somebody points out that *GASP* Obama broke a promise.

STOP! Just stop. Let them try it out. Who knows? Maybe it will work out for the best. Stop being angry about it though. We lost. The deal is done.
2012-06-28 03:36:14 PM
1 votes:

The_Sponge: And how sad is it that your side had a victory today, and instead of being happy, you get pissy when somebody points out that *GASP* Obama broke a promise.


How did he break it? Obama has never said it was a tax. Hell, he specifically said in 2009 that it was not a tax. The Supreme Court called it a tax, not Obama.
2012-06-28 03:32:44 PM
1 votes:
And how sad is it that your side had a victory today, and instead of being happy, you get pissy when somebody points out that *GASP* Obama broke a promise.
2012-06-28 03:30:11 PM
1 votes:
If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual. - FRANK HERBERT
2012-06-28 03:29:42 PM
1 votes:

chiefsfaninkc: Do what ever the hell you want as long as you don't force me to do it. However you need to stay the hell out of my wallet and give me the courtesy to let me do what I want also. Which includes not using the governments monopoly on force to take from me in order to buy votes.


Sounds like someone read a bit too much Robert Heinlein in his youth. I did that, and ended up thinking I was some kind of libertarian.

Then Uncle Sugar posted me to Mogadishu for 25 months. Believe me, there is nothing like living in a libertarian paradise to cure one of that disease.
2012-06-28 03:28:01 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: qorkfiend: The people who are penalized are those who can afford it, and choose to go without.

Thank you for deciding what I can and can't afford.

Can you dictate my choices of toilet paper, please? I'm too busy working to subsidize other people's sloth and gluttony to choose between the 2-ply and the ultra-plush.


try sandpaper
2012-06-28 03:27:46 PM
1 votes:

The_Sponge: //Apparently disagreeing with Obama and pointing out a broken promise warrant a punch in the face.


www.myfacewhen.net

"Hearing the same stupid thing repeated over and over again can elicit frustration and annoyance from even the most mild-mannered of listeners."
2012-06-28 03:27:00 PM
1 votes:

Lord Dimwit: chiefsfaninkc: Fluorescent Testicle: chiefsfaninkc: Then your faith is misguided. Freedom died today. Congress can now make you buy anything they want and "Tax" you if you do not.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 316x400]

/I'm sure this has been posted already.
//Can't be posted enough.

Sorry I am a libertarian not a conservative. Freedom is the only thing that means anything everything else is a byproduct of freedom. Again freedom died today people that are celebrating its death are idiots.

I know tons of self-labeled libertarians. Why is economic freedom so much more important that social freedom? My libertarian friends talk about how they vote Republican because the Republicans want "freedom" - but what they mean is "economic freedom". The Republican Party doesn't want freedom of reproductive choice, freedom of religious choice, or freedom of marriage. If you vote for a Republican, you are implicitly saying that money-related "freedom" is more important than your freedom to do as you please with your own body or in your own bedroom. That's fine if you believe that, but own up to it.


democrats no more believe in freedom than the current incarnation of the gop. they believe in freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't conflict with the goals of the collective or how they think you should live your life. this is why true authoritarians like weaver feel so comfortable making the switch.

they want just want to slide what is morally acceptable open a bit, but don't for a second conflate that with true freedom. liberals definitely believe the government has the constitutional ability and more than that the obligation to restrict freedom as it sees fit to forward the goals of the collective.

they don't believe in any personal freedom whatsoever. the freedom to do with your body what you want only extends to things they deem moral. they don't have a problem with killing fetus, so you can do that. its got jackshiat to do with personal autonomy. that's why drugs are illegal, sex with your llama is illegal, sex with your sister is illegal. they don't want people to be free to marry anyone they want. they want people to be free to marry who they think is morally acceptable.

they have the exact same categorical failings as republicans, but at least some republicans in many regards can be said to favor the individual rights over the collective in all conflicts.

yes the republican party is dominated right now by the religious right who we need to dump on their asses, but democrats are inherently authoritarian and think all personal autonomy is up for regulation if it conflicts with the goals of the collective.

this is observable by everyone with a brain stem, and that is why true libertarians still side with conservatives more often than not. religious based moralism as practiced by the gop is abhorrent, but it is not immutable and there is the undercurrent of individualism still running through the party that will some day rise again; while collectivism can't exist under any other terms.
2012-06-28 03:26:46 PM
1 votes:

qorkfiend: The people who are penalized are those who can afford it, and choose to go without.


Thank you for deciding what I can and can't afford.

Can you dictate my choices of toilet paper, please? I'm too busy working to subsidize other people's sloth and gluttony to choose between the 2-ply and the ultra-plush.
2012-06-28 03:25:11 PM
1 votes:
The more I see Republicans gnashing their teeth over things that help their fellow man, the less I respect them as fellow humans. In fact, they only cheer things that they think will directly fark over their fellow humans.

Republicans are digging themselves into an ideological hole that they will not be able to crawl out of. They're not "like" comic book villains, they ARE comic book villains.
2012-06-28 03:18:10 PM
1 votes:

bongmiester: the democrats were the party of the KKK 100 years ago


when my state was ran by the klan 100 years ago, it damn sure wasn't democrats doing it.
2012-06-28 03:13:07 PM
1 votes:

I should be in the kitchen: ModernPrimitive01: Let me tell a story about why this is a good thing: 15 years ago my mother got cancer. She fought hard and won. Complete remission/surgery to remove lumps. Immediately after her surgery she was dropped from her insurance. Following her cancer, she continued to work (ran her own restaurant) but was not able to purchase health insurance. She tried everywhere, was willing to pay huge sums of money, but not a single insurer would give her a plan due to "preexisting conditions." 3 years ago she started to recognize the signs that something was wrong. She went for a blood test and boom, she had cancer again, but couldn't get it treated. Her only option was disability, something she had avoided last time because she wanted to continue to work. It took 2 years for her to get disability by that time her previously treatable cancer had become stage 4 terminal cancer. She is continuing to fight, about to start her 4th round of chemo/radiation. If she was able to get insurance before this happened not only would there be a good chance they could have cured it, but it would have been less expensive for the entire health care system. I'm telling that story to every idiot that says something stupid about the ruling today.

Thank you for sharing and I'm sorry to hear about your mother. My family went through a similar situation with my sister, who had the *gall* to get non-Hodgkins lymphoma at the age of 22. She passed away this past winter from a different condition (cerebral hemorrhage, out of the blue), but I have to wonder if she hadn't been denied coverage all those years, if she'd still be alive... If there were underlying issues that she could have taken care of... She always had a job, from the age of 16 until she died at 37, but her employer didn't provide insurance coverage and private insurers either considered her uninsurable or put her in the high-risk pool which there was no farkin' way she could afford.


My wife was diagnosed with thyroid cancer when she was 22. Long story short, she had to go on Kaiser HMO, who damn near killed her, the cancer came back 10 years later. She finally got on a good plan after a number of years and is in complete remission now, but that was really close. She's on all sorts of meds to keep her alive right now, but at least she won't have to worry about pre-ex and outright denial when she changes jobs.
2012-06-28 03:12:52 PM
1 votes:
Democrats: Dragging the Regressive-Republicans into the modern era for over 60 years.
2012-06-28 03:11:45 PM
1 votes:

Lord Dimwit: chiefsfaninkc: Fluorescent Testicle: chiefsfaninkc: Then your faith is misguided. Freedom died today. Congress can now make you buy anything they want and "Tax" you if you do not.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 316x400]

/I'm sure this has been posted already.
//Can't be posted enough.

Sorry I am a libertarian not a conservative. Freedom is the only thing that means anything everything else is a byproduct of freedom. Again freedom died today people that are celebrating its death are idiots.

I know tons of self-labeled libertarians. Why is economic freedom so much more important that social freedom? My libertarian friends talk about how they vote Republican because the Republicans want "freedom" - but what they mean is "economic freedom". The Republican Party doesn't want freedom of reproductive choice, freedom of religious choice, or freedom of marriage. If you vote for a Republican, you are implicitly saying that money-related "freedom" is more important than your freedom to do as you please with your own body or in your own bedroom. That's fine if you believe that, but own up to it.


Hey what ever you want to do in your private life is fine with me want to suck a "D" go ahead I don't care. Want to abort a child go ahead I may not like it but it is not my body. Do what ever the hell you want as long as you don't force me to do it. However you need to stay the hell out of my wallet and give me the courtesy to let me do what I want also. Which includes not using the governments monopoly on force to take from me in order to buy votes.
2012-06-28 03:09:49 PM
1 votes:
My question is- If this is such a great thing, why did Obama exempt the unions? Wouldn't he want them to get in on this great deal too?
2012-06-28 03:09:40 PM
1 votes:

Smelly McUgly: My mother-in-law got all up in arms about "COMMUNISTS!" the other day. I asked her to define what "Communism" was. She said it was a dictatorship where no one has any rights. I told her that if we only looked at the nations of central Asia and Africa "Democracy" would mean the same thing. She didn't understand.

People conflate communism and totalitarianism all the time, which is a damn shame. I think a completely communist economic system is about as much pie-in-the-sky fairytale bullshiat as a completely laissez-faire economic system, but lots of Marx's theories (base/superstructure or worker alienation from their own product) are prescient, and the actual economics MIGHT make sense in certain contexts.

Did you tell your mother-in-law that actually, true communism is bent on there being no government at all. In a sense, Marx was a libertarian! I bet that would have blown her mind!



why is it a damn shame? do me a favor and tell me about all those communist systems that were not totalitarian. you can't. because you can't implement it without totalitarianism. it's good that the average idiot inflates the two, because they are inseparable to a large degree.
2012-06-28 03:04:41 PM
1 votes:

Fluorescent Testicle: chiefsfaninkc: Then your faith is misguided. Freedom died today. Congress can now make you buy anything they want and "Tax" you if you do not.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 316x400]

/I'm sure this has been posted already.
//Can't be posted enough.


Sorry I am a libertarian not a conservative. Freedom is the only thing that means anything everything else is a byproduct of freedom. Again freedom died today people that are celebrating its death are idiots.
2012-06-28 02:57:42 PM
1 votes:

stvdallas: . Only, Obamacare means that something we can't afford right now is just going to cost even more...and continue to run our country into even more debt.


You know that isn't true, right?

CBO and JCT estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation-H.R. 3590
and the reconciliation proposal-would produce a net reduction in federal
deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period as result of changes in
direct spending and revenues
2012-06-28 02:47:48 PM
1 votes:
Just spent the last hour with the BofA, Merrill Lynch, and ING research teams. They presented their analysis of the health care law decision, its impact on the industry and break down on the positives and negatives.

Pretty much everything was neutral to positive, with the majority of the research finding it positive to the overall economy. The citizens all gained from the ruling. Merrill Lynch actually put out information last Friday correctly concluding the law would be upheld. BofA/Merrill Lynch Global Research was just ranked #1 by the Financial Times two weeks ago. I'd say that their assessment of this being positive is on the mark.
2012-06-28 02:42:55 PM
1 votes:

The_Sponge: Anti_illuminati: Oh come on. There's no need for this "beloved Obama" bullsh:t. You just make yourself look petty.

Fine....but I whipped out "beloved" because none of you can admit that he broke a promise.


You do realize that Democrats are OK with taxes, right? If it takes a little taxation to get health care, the Dems are fine with it. In fact, if this was the only promise Obama broke, the Dems would be thrilled beyond belief.

You are confusing Obama for the first President "read my lips" Bush who was a Republican. And Republicans are the ones who get bent out of shape about taxes. It was bush raising taxes that helped Perot split the Republican votes.

So while you *might* be able to spin this as "Obama raised taxes," and that's really not factoring in all the people who won't be affected because they have insurance or qualify for an exemption, this tactic only plays to the people already dead set against him.

To sum up, the Democrats are cool with a little tax increase if it means health care.
2012-06-28 02:41:45 PM
1 votes:

heap: netweavr: I'm tempted to suggest that if people don't have children then there's no point in subsidizing any education.

i hire from the local gene pool.

i have no children, yet am absolutely happy to keep paying towards educating the local populace. i depend on people being able to count past potato, and so do you.


big fat THIS
2012-06-28 02:39:05 PM
1 votes:

The_Sponge: Anti_illuminati: Oh come on. There's no need for this "beloved Obama" bullsh:t. You just make yourself look petty.


Fine....but I whipped out "beloved" because none of you can admit that he broke a promise.


No, we just don't consider it to have the earth-shattering importance you do.
2012-06-28 02:38:05 PM
1 votes:

HeartlineTwist: Sorry, I should have noted my sarcasm.


and i probably should have noted the original argument is so damned funny i can't help but continue to poke at it. all else fails, make up a criteria like 'positive action' that has no actual meaning, and can be bent to whatever contortions one wants. it's like magic!
2012-06-28 02:37:11 PM
1 votes:

ModernPrimitive01: The_Sponge: derpdeederp: netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...

Why should they?


Using up more services and resources.

Wait are you saying that people without children use up more resources? Because I'm pretty sure my dog and cat use up less resources than your little snot nosed kid.

/ I'll take animals over human babies any day
//don't mind paying taxes if it's for a good cause. Health care for the needy is a good cause


Society, by nature, builds upon itself. We provide public education in an attempt to build upon the previous generations knowledge and technological achievements. If you don't produce children to build upon your generation, then you're just leaching the system without putting back into it.
2012-06-28 02:36:56 PM
1 votes:

Anti_illuminati: Oh come on. There's no need for this "beloved Obama" bullsh:t. You just make yourself look petty.



Fine....but I whipped out "beloved" because none of you can admit that he broke a promise.
2012-06-28 02:35:54 PM
1 votes:

netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...


I agree. I'm trying to point out that the argument "Congress can't tax people for not buying health insurance because they can't tax inaction" is silly. Congress already taxes inaction, an example being that those who do not have children pay higher taxes than those who do.
2012-06-28 02:35:11 PM
1 votes:

The_Sponge: derpdeederp: netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...

Why should they?


Using up more services and resources.


Wait are you saying that people without children use up more resources? Because I'm pretty sure my dog and cat use up less resources than your little snot nosed kid.

/ I'll take animals over human babies any day
//don't mind paying taxes if it's for a good cause. Health care for the needy is a good cause
2012-06-28 02:34:07 PM
1 votes:

Rwa2play: I like how you and your brethren keep trying to push this as a talking point when, in fact, it's not.

But do keep farking that chicken.



You guys can't even admit that he broke that promise. At least keep it real by admitting that he did, but you don't mind because you like the end result.
2012-06-28 02:32:01 PM
1 votes:

heap: muck4doo: It's not time to get mad. It's time to adopt and change and hope for the best. If you see fake Libertarians like weaver for it, at least give it a shot.


are you 9 years old?

if not, what the hell is your excuse?


Truth is my excuse. But you go ahead and keep believing that liar is an actual libertarian. He spews all the crap you want him too.
2012-06-28 02:29:46 PM
1 votes:

muck4doo: It's not time to get mad. It's time to adopt and change and hope for the best. If you see fake Libertarians like weaver for it, at least give it a shot.



are you 9 years old?

if not, what the hell is your excuse?
2012-06-28 02:29:13 PM
1 votes:

netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...


I won't debate that people without children do pay higher taxes, but what argument do you have as to why they should pay higher taxes?
2012-06-28 02:26:03 PM
1 votes:

xanadian: Dog Welder: Why, the Fox News butthurt is unbelievable. Instead of leading with the headline of the actual news story (i.e. "ACA Upheld" or "Individual Mandate Upheld") or something a NORMAL news agency would run with, the Fox News main page:

Obama: "Mandate Absolutely Not a Tax." Supreme Court: "Oh, Yes It Is!"

Is that network capable of displaying any sort of actual integrity in their coverage?

/rhetorical question
//I know they're not

Except, based off of TFA MSNBC's article (almost screwed that one up), that's exactly what Roberts said it was, which he used as an excuse to say Obamacare is constitutional. "The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who held that the law was a valid exercise of Congress's power to tax. Roberts re-framed the debate over health care as a debate over increasing taxes. Congress, he said, is "increasing taxes" on those who choose to go uninsured."


You're missing the point.

EVERYBODY covering this except Fox News is running with an actual news headline and then revealing the details of the decision, of which we are now fully aware. (See my post for examples.)

Fox News is running with "FARTBONGO IS A LIAR!" as their lead story.
Ant
2012-06-28 02:16:47 PM
1 votes:

dognose4: So, the new tax on healthy people (that don't want or need health insurance) stands.


You don't want it or need it until suddenly you do. That's how insurance works.

Maybe you'll get lucky and never need it, but you never know.
2012-06-28 02:16:13 PM
1 votes:

hbk72777: But I am not paying the tax. I can't afford it. If I could, I'd buy farking health insurance in the first place.

See you in jail.


If you can't afford $700 in mandate penalty, you're almost certainly earning little enough to fall under the exemptions to the penalty. Depending on how much the subsidies are funded, up to half of the entire country could be exempt. So, mazel tov! You can continue to be 10 minutes from bankruptcy! No jail involved!
2012-06-28 02:12:59 PM
1 votes:

HeartBurnKid: The government has an explicit power to levy taxes. This is a tax. End of story.


Yes, we both know that. However, multiple SCOTUS judges think it's valid under commerce clause, which was my original point.
2012-06-28 02:06:54 PM
1 votes:
All I want for Christmas is the same farkin' health insurance Congress has seen fit to give itself at my expense.

/good enough for all their family, good enough for mine
2012-06-28 02:04:51 PM
1 votes:

HeartBurnKid: xltech: Well, I will be out of a job in the medical field within 2 years... thanks a lot libs. Small rural clinics like mine will be shut down because of the high cost of compliance. We were already worried about the mandidtory Electronic Records implementation to get reimbursement with Medicare/Medicaid. That alone was going to cost us over $50k. We will be closed within 2 years now.

What new regulations are imposed on clinics by the PPACA? AFAIK, pretty much everything in it deals with insurers, not medical practitioners. Including the mandate that was at issue.


RIght now, we do not have enough staff to take care of all the "prior authorizations" we are forced to deal with. Medicaid in our state is going to require us to prior authorize every procedure, among other things, (no matter how minor like clipping toenails) and we must meet criteria before said procedure can be done. With any more increases, we will need to hire at least one employee full time. We have one Doctor, one PA one nurse and I do all the lab work, EKGs and x-rays, 3 others work in the office for billing, insurance and coding. With reimbursements going down, costs going up and no big hospital sponsoring us... we will be closing. Then, maybe I can get free health care and not work.... let all you libs support me for once!
2012-06-28 02:02:51 PM
1 votes:
raise taxes on everything, cut way back on military expenditures and spend the money on universal healthcare for all Americans

problem solved
2012-06-28 02:01:30 PM
1 votes:
Since there's no way I'll ever reach the end of this thread from my mobile device, I'd like to say a couple of things before I give up and actually do some work here at the office...

As a liberal, socialist-leaning American progressive, I'd like to extend my gratitude to Chief Justice Roberts for making the right decision. I'm not even going to cynically assume that calling it a tax was throwing a bone to Republicans, but instead was an honest read of the Act's functional mechanism.

Even a lower-middle-class socialist like myself understands that to have things, they have to be paid for; and if government does it, I know I'll be on the hook to help pay the costs. Until I can sink my current monthly health insurance payments into a Single-Payer socialized plan like I want, I'm willing to play by the PPACA rules as protection against the denial-of-coverage whims of for-profit medical insurance companies. Maybe I'll go broke paying my deductibles one day, but at least I'll get treatments without being shafted with the whole bill.

I'd also like to congratulate you, John, on perpetrating the most epic troll of the sociopathic, small-minded conservatards; leaving them to STFU and stop using the word "Unconstitutional" before the word "Obamacare" when barking out their rote-memorized talking points. Even as the din of their roar toward you slowly drowns out the fact that you were the only one of the five Yeas who said "it's a tax" versus the others who said "it's interstate commerce," know that those of us who may hold a grudge for the wrong decision you supported on Citizens United, we're adult enough to appreciate the sober decision made here; one squarely to the advantage of America's most vulnerable citizens.

In conclusion, I just want to say thank-you in clearest terms. So, thank you. More decisions like this, please.
2012-06-28 02:00:48 PM
1 votes:

nickerj1: Bungles: If you are born, live, and die in the US, you will use healthcare. It may just be signing off your corpse, but you will.

The amount of people that entirely avoid healthcare of any sort could fit in phonebox.

So you admit: there are individuals that are subject to taxation under Obamacare, which Ginsburg alleges is valid under Commerce clause because ALL individuals are actors in the medical care market, and yet they aren't actors in the medical care market. Namely those individuals that just live in the US and don't use any medical care.

Close2TheEdge: If you are in a car accident, then what? Are you going to mumble to the EMT to give you St Johns Wort while you lie bleeding in the crumpled wreckage?

//Idiot

drewsclues: So, when you collapse in the street (not a threat, but an example) and someone calls the paramedics and they take you to the hospital for treatment, that hospital is NOT going to charge you because you didn't have an opportunity to partcipate in the "free market" of health care. Uh-huh....

Where'd you two get your GED in law from? Fark.com? You're addressing potential ramifications for not having the individual mandate, which is the wrong inquiry. The correct inquiry is whether Congress has the power to create the individual mandate.

As an example of how silly Ginsburg's line of thought is, replace "medical care" with "owning footwear".

"Unlike the market for almost any other product or service, the market for footwear is one in which all individuals inevitably participate." "Virtually every person residing in the United States, sooner or later, will own a piece of footwear." And then Congress has the power to make a law that: requires everyone in the US to prove they own footwear, and fines you if you can't prove you own footwear.

Boom, Congress would now have power to regulate anything that "virtually everyone" uses/does.


The difference is this. If you choose not to own footwear, it has no impact whatsoever on the price that I pay for said footwear. Footwear is not critcial to your survival under any circumstances. It may be stupid to not wear it, but that's your problem.

OTOH, medical care, especially EMERGENCY medical care is critical to your survival under many circumstances. And if you choose not to be covered, somebody else foots the bill when you use that emergency care. And that cost eventually gets passed on to those of us responsible adults who choose to live in society. As opposed to self-absorbed cheaters like you. You refuse to pay for the system, but will use the system when the need arises. Whether you like it or not.
2012-06-28 02:00:27 PM
1 votes:
My wife works in healthcare. Take it for what it is, but many older docs told her they were out if it goes through. Retiring early and what not. They do not want to deal with it...I'm not a big fan of young docs myself. The other day this douchebag doctor was texting while I was talking to him...I wanted to shove the phone down his throat..

Thanx Barry
2012-06-28 01:59:43 PM
1 votes:
So, let me get this right.
Republicans are against affordable healthcare.
They are against enormous improvement in access to health care for millions of Americans, including increased access to preventive care such as mammograms and birth control.
They are against young people staying on their parents health insurance.
Republicans are against prohibiting insurance companies from turning down people who have pre-existing conditions.
They are against prohibiting insurance companies from increasing premiums to unaffordable levels for families who have a child born with a birth defect.
They are against something that has been determined to be fully constitutional and legal.

And Romney's alternative plan is: ...

Are you sure this is a winning issue for you? Are you sure? Are you really, really sure sure? I just don't think Republicans thought this all the way through.
2012-06-28 01:58:43 PM
1 votes:

Dog Welder: Why, the Fox News butthurt is unbelievable. Instead of leading with the headline of the actual news story (i.e. "ACA Upheld" or "Individual Mandate Upheld") or something a NORMAL news agency would run with, the Fox News main page:

Obama: "Mandate Absolutely Not a Tax." Supreme Court: "Oh, Yes It Is!"

Is that network capable of displaying any sort of actual integrity in their coverage?

/rhetorical question
//I know they're not


can you imagine how depressing it must be to work there? they all can read other sites, they know their image, they know what the real discussions are but they must actively dumb down their base.

it is like a special ed teacher who, wanting to keep her job, goes around down poisoning babies with lead.
2012-06-28 01:56:58 PM
1 votes:

jevanpe5: CPennypacker: derpdeederp: Good for you Libs, glad you got a win.

Personally, I think it morally wrong to take money from one group of people to pay for anothers benefits, so single payer would have been better in my mind. But we get what we get.

Go team, lol.

Cool story bro. I think its morally wrong to let people die or go into life crushing debt because they can't afford medical care.

Morals are funny.


My Dad has cancer. It's a very aggressive cancer. After the first 3 months of chemo, they just did another pet scan the other day and found out that it is not shrinking... They're not sure what to do now because the insurance company doesn't want to pay for another scan like the first two... And it's costing him alot of the money that worked so hard for all of his life... Average cost is about $5000...
Since your so into all of this, could you please send me $5000 so I can make sure my Dad get's the scan that is deemed proper??? Thanks and glad you saved him..
Looking forward to your donation, lib...


This really sucks. I hope things go as well as possible. I lost my dad about 6 years ago I lost my brother to cancer 5 years ago. He was only 50 years old. He died in a Canadian hospital. Cancer survival rates in Canada rates are pretty much the same as the US but in this case the Canadian system couldn't save him but at least he didn't leave a financial burden to his wife and 4 children. He paid nothing. No bills, deductibles, no insurance compani to deal with or co-pays or anything like that.

Scans is one thing that is hard to get in Canada. There are long waits for MRIs but they give priority to people with greater need (cancer patients).

Take care.
2012-06-28 01:55:46 PM
1 votes:
OK, so there's all this debate about healthcare. I just have this to add. I'm on disability, but I don't qualify for medicAID (too much income - by about $50). According to existing law, I don't qualify for mediCARE until I've been on disability for 2 full years. And even then I'll need to have a supplement - Which I'll have to pay for out of the little I get for disability. Meanwhile, I'm out of pocket for everything until 2014. I've found some clinics that help, and base their fees on a sliding scale. Explain to me how this is supposed to help me? I know, big picture and all of that, but I'm still stuck in the middle, waiting until I can qualify to pay for a Medicare supplement on disability. Maybe I don't know how to work the system right, and there's not a person at the state or local level who knows how to get access to this. I'm just hoping I don't get really sick, or need any hospitalization before there is a safety net.

I didn't ask to be disabled, ya know, Try getting pain meds from a low-income clinic. They just laugh at you. I get to suffer until I can go to a real doctor in about a year and a half, taking over the counter NSAIDS that have cardiac or liver risks. Or I can buy something on the street and risk going to jail. Fun times.
2012-06-28 01:53:35 PM
1 votes:

jevanpe5: My Dad has cancer....


Your father has my sympathies on two counts.
For having cancer, and an imbecile for a son.
Go read the actual legislation.
2012-06-28 01:49:45 PM
1 votes:
Why, the Fox News butthurt is unbelievable. Instead of leading with the headline of the actual news story (i.e. "ACA Upheld" or "Individual Mandate Upheld") or something a NORMAL news agency would run with, the Fox News main page:

Obama: "Mandate Absolutely Not a Tax." Supreme Court: "Oh, Yes It Is!"

Is that network capable of displaying any sort of actual integrity in their coverage?

/rhetorical question
//I know they're not
2012-06-28 01:46:49 PM
1 votes:
Roberts surprised me. He surprised me in that he didn't read his own opinion. His opinion basically says that congress not only has the power to tax, but the power to tax individuals arbitrarily.

His decision seems to say that Congress decides what lifestyles are and are not fair to tax. Where does this line of reasoning end? "Oh, you haven't voted in the last election, that's another 1% on your tax bill."... "Oh, you didn't exercise regularly this year, that's another 1% effective tax rate."... "Oh you didn't purchase anything on Amazon this year, that's another 1%"

You might look at my hyperbole and be dismissive, but that's essentially the door that Roberts opened. He opened the door to most any individual lifestyle and/or individual financial decision to be taxable.

Very bad decision. I don't mind health care, I don't even mind government-run health care. Just for farks sake, let the individual opt-out of it, let individual freedom rule over this stupid legislation that wasn't even read.
2012-06-28 01:42:09 PM
1 votes:

BobBoxBody: The problem with Obamacare is that it doesn't address the main fundamental issue with healthcare: That it is expensive.


Correct. And it was never supposed to do so. All it's supposed to do is force people to either buy insurance or pay the government.

Same as it ever was...
2012-06-28 01:42:04 PM
1 votes:

intelligent comment below: inner ted: //would love it if the government mandated you had to buy my products.


Open a car insurance company

/waiting for conservatards to cry how that's un-Constitutional as well


your comment fails to live up to your handle.
2012-06-28 01:41:46 PM
1 votes:

qorkfiend: The problem is that people's "choice" to go uninsured was, in many cases, not a "choice" at all, but a necessity dictated by their financial situation. Additionally - and this is the part a lot of people seem to miss - the "choice" to go uninsured was actually a "choice" to have everyone else pay for your emergency room visits (yes yes, you're not sick now, congratulations, that doesn't hold for everyone, and won't hold for you forever).

What you really want is the "choice" to avoid your responsibility and the "choice" to saddle the rest of us with the cost.


The only reason the people are saddled with that cost is because the people chose to allow it. Tada, choice. And the only reason health care costs so much is because the regulation that allows it to even exist as it does. And it will not get cheaper, just more expensive, like my wife's premiums that jump 10-25% per year while coverage goes down.

Other countries have lower healthcare costs because they have things like single payer systems, sane regulations on the industry, consistent pricing, etc. There is no reason that I should be able to go in to a doctors office and pay $200 cash for the same thing they're going to bill my health insurance $2000 for, and then have no required pricing sheet that breaks down cost until after you are obligated to pay for the service(since they tell you they have to wait for insurance to come back with the claim before they can tell you what you owe and then they bill the wrong code or attach it to the wrong doctor in the process and your claim is completely denied because that code or doctor isn't covered by your plan).

All this law is doing is further perpetuating this. Putting more money in the pockets of insurance companies and taking more money out of the pockets of us, even before this tax goes in to place. Give me real reform, not something that makes it worse.
2012-06-28 01:40:49 PM
1 votes:

Lawnchair: RelativeEase: Victory for the poor and healthy, buy something you don't need or pay a tax penalty!!!!

For the 50th time, if you're poor you're probably exempt anyway. Read the bloody law some time.


Why? Congress didn't when they passed it.
2012-06-28 01:30:52 PM
1 votes:

Hyperbolic Hyperbole: oh, and that tax? likely a f*cking PITTANCE in comparison to the f*cking ER bills the motherf*ckers are running up. i mean Jesus, guys. CALM DOWN.


THIS. THIS. THIS.

In my city ER's are closing left and right from people who can't afford to pay their bills. People without insurance use them as free clinics.
2012-06-28 01:29:28 PM
1 votes:

hasty ambush: The court was our best shot and freedom took it on the chin in favor of being cared for.


Because 40 million uninsured Americans driving up the costs of health care=freedom
2012-06-28 01:26:56 PM
1 votes:

farkerofDOOM: I see your point. But seriously. What is the big deal. I'm still trying to figure out what all the wharrgarbl is about. You either choose to get insurance or you choose to pay the tax. Big whoop.


The point is this:

Taxes usually require some action to become applicable. Mere living is the action now. It sets a dangerous precedent. Also, since it is a tax, jail time is possible (albeit not very probable) if you don't pay your taxes you can go to jail.

There are also some good reasons why a person would not have health insurance. If your net worth is in the millions, and your health is good, it could be a wasted expense (1,000,000 at 4% in a CD would be 40,000 to take care of any medical issues definitely enough to negotiate with a health provider to satisfy their fees in most cases) . A young male (females are a different story with their reproductive issues males do not have) with no health issues, has very little reason to get health coverage. They just as easily could get an injury plan and have their problem paid for for less money than heath insurance. But the mandate is to have health insurance.

/I am not making a case for people to ignore their personal responsibility.
//I am making the case taxing a person for existing is not a good precedent and not all cases require health insurance.
2012-06-28 01:26:07 PM
1 votes:

mr lawson: Fail in Human Form: The bill limits the amount of overhead so if they raise the rates, or requires a rebate cheque to be sent to the policy holders, it'll be to cover the cost not to line their pockets.

Hey yoohoo. THAT is the problem. Just think for a second about this. .....What is stopping the hospitals and doctors from RAISING their prices? They know they are now gonna get paid, right? What is stopping them? Nothing is!
Well now Mr. Insurance Comp will just raise your premiums to cover this increase because, guess what? Ya' gotta have it by law. Let's say your premium was $1,000. well 80% has to be spent on care which leaves $200 for the insurance comp profit. Now your rate increase to $2,000 to cover the increased hospitals fees, 80% still has to go to care, but now the insurance comp profits are $400!
Think!


Prices don't just arbitrarily rise, as fewer people rely on expensive emergency services the cost should go down. Hospitals will still have to compete for coverage from various insurance companies since this bill keeps health coverage in private hands. That's part of what the exchanges that go into effect in 2014 will help avoid.
2012-06-28 01:23:58 PM
1 votes:

Biological Ali: Thunderpipes: those 30 million people paying in are 30 million that did not have to before and already took care of themselves.

There's no way you typed this with a straight face. Admit it.


By "taking care of themselves" he means "Use VERY expensive emergency rooms and forcing others to cover the bill when they can't pay".
2012-06-28 01:23:10 PM
1 votes:
Well, I will be out of a job in the medical field within 2 years... thanks a lot libs. Small rural clinics like mine will be shut down because of the high cost of compliance. We were already worried about the mandidtory Electronic Records implementation to get reimbursement with Medicare/Medicaid. That alone was going to cost us over $50k. We will be closed within 2 years now.
2012-06-28 01:22:49 PM
1 votes:

Chameleon: Did you tell him that what he was saying was not actually true?


Yep, I did. His response started with, "Well, Rush Limbaugh says..." I didn't push it any further because I have learned over the years (worked with this guy over 10 years) that there's little to no point. He honestly, truly, to the core of his being believes that Obama is the worst thing that has ever happened to this country, and that makes him very sad. He was a Santorum supporter. Hates Rmoney, but will hold his nose and vote for him anyway because he's not trying to force government in to our lives (just into my hoo-hah, apparently)

As a coworker, he's fantastic.... as long as we don't talk politics or religion, we get along fine!
2012-06-28 01:22:46 PM
1 votes:

Fail in Human Form: The bill limits the amount of overhead so if they raise the rates, or requires a rebate cheque to be sent to the policy holders, it'll be to cover the cost not to line their pockets.


Hey yoohoo. THAT is the problem. Just think for a second about this. .....What is stopping the hospitals and doctors from RAISING their prices? They know they are now gonna get paid, right? What is stopping them? Nothing is!
Well now Mr. Insurance Comp will just raise your premiums to cover this increase because, guess what? Ya' gotta have it by law. Let's say your premium was $1,000. well 80% has to be spent on care which leaves $200 for the insurance comp profit. Now your rate increase to $2,000 to cover the increased hospitals fees, 80% still has to go to care, but now the insurance comp profits are $400!
Think!
2012-06-28 01:22:42 PM
1 votes:

Anti_illuminati: Phinn: Anti_illuminati: So if you chose not to have health insurance, you get hit by a truck and rack up medical costs you cannot afford, who pays for that? We do. Those that currently have health insurance. Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad.

No one should be forced to pay for anyone else's goods and services.

But now that we all have skin in the game, what happens when you get fat and incur lots of medical costs? Who pays for that? We do.

So, when do we get a fat tax? A lazy tax? An exercise-or-pay-up tax? Why should the expenses of healthy people be higher just because some people want to smoke and play video games and eat Cheetos all day long watching Judge Judy?

Jesus Christ. You can't be serious. Did you work this statement through your head completely before typing? If you have medical insurance and you get fat and incur medical costs due to diabetes (for example) medical insurance pays for it. What the hell kind of point are you making? Are you really grasping at straws to try to show a "slippery slope" scenario?


What don't you understand, genius?

I am forced to buy a product whose cost is tied directly to the level of other people's fitness and health. When they are lazy, overfed lard-asses, that increases my costs.

Since I'm paying for it, I deserve protection against the out-of-control increases in costs resulting from people with crappy diet and general lard-assery.

I want some specific cost-cutting mechanism that keeps me from being forced to subsidize lay-abouts.

It's simple -- either allow insurers to sell low-cost insurance for the low risk that's posed by fit and healthy people (as demonstrated with objectively-measurable criteria such as BMI, blood profiles, athletic performance tests, etc.), or tax the living shiat out of the aforementioned lard asses who stuff their holes all day and laze about while benefiting from my productivity.
2012-06-28 01:22:36 PM
1 votes:
All those Freepers screaming for armed insurrection? I hope they do it. Pick up your rifles, pick up your bayonets, storm the Capitol. Demand Pelosi's head on a pike, then march down to the White House and start firing at the Oval Office windows. Do it, you raging sack of quivering pussies. If this country you once loved oh so much is now a shell of its former self, and the only way to reclaim its glory is through bloodshed, then start shedding some blood, assholes. Come on, be men for once in your pathetic lives. Prove you have the biggest patriot boners in all the land.

If you're unwilling or unable, then please......SHUT THE FARK UP.
2012-06-28 01:22:19 PM
1 votes:

bugontherug: From Tea Party Nation:

Okay, it's time to think about impeaching John Roberts and the liberal members of the Supreme Court. They're only allowed to serve during "good behavior." Ripping the Constitution to shreds for political profit is the opposite of what the Founding Fathers meant by "good behavior." Roberts is now officially the worst Chief Justice in American history, and a traitor to the conservative right.


IMPEACH ROBERTS. IMPEACH HIM NOW.


Please please pretty please impeach the Republican-appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court while a Democrat is President. PLEASE.
2012-06-28 01:22:04 PM
1 votes:
Dam, Dam Dam. I was hoping to be able to vote 3rd party for a couple of candidates in November but now I have to look at who to vote for to improve chances of getting this repealed.

Who am I kidding, once these types of programs get established it is easier to cure a reality show socialite of herpes than to kill the program.

The Dependency Class and their political minders have won another one. The court was our best shot and freedom took it on the chin in favor of being cared for.
2012-06-28 01:21:34 PM
1 votes:

snakedriver: So, I have health insurance already. And I had cancer a few years back. Im much better now, thankfully.
Every year, the price of my policy goes up significantly.
How will Obamacare help me?


by allowing you to shop around for a better policy without having that pre-existing condition thing hanging over you.
there's also a rule saying that they can't jack up your premiums just because you get sick
2012-06-28 01:19:42 PM
1 votes:
Honestly, I can't see anyone being upset by this, and if you are, what the hell is wrong with you? Seriously.
2012-06-28 01:12:58 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah:

If we are going to socialize the consequence of behavior, it is within our rights to regulate individual behaviors.


so does that mean you're calling for draconian regulation of wall street and bankers? after all, we bailed all those businesses out with public funds so by your logic, we have the right to regulate wall street very closely.
2012-06-28 01:12:45 PM
1 votes:

StoneColdAtheist: SouthernFriedYankee: The end zone dancing is very much misplaced. The powerful will avoid shouldering any additional burden, while the powerless will not be able to do so. It's probably good news for welfare riders, but for the working poor it's going to be a disaster, economically. So much for hiring picking up. So much for economic recovery.

But hey, your team won, right? And that's all that matters.

Congrats.

Are you always this dense?

The 'working poor' don't make enough income to have to buy insurance under ACA.

As a small business owner, I base hiring decisions on sales, not overhead. Claims that ACA will stifle hiring are BS.

I and every other tax-paying American is already paying for health care for the poor and working poor -- the ACA won't change that one iota.

What WILL happen is that some 30+ million more Americans will start paying into the health care money pool, possibly reducing actual costs on average, but certainly helping offset current budget deficits.

"My side" didn't win...America won.


My biggest worry will be those caught in a twilight zone of sorts. Not poor enough to get free medical aid (i.e. Medicaid, etc), but not rich enough to afford any of the health insurance plans. I don't know how wide that income gap will be, but those will be the people who will be sorely tempted to suck it up and pay the tax penalty. If it's a big enough gap, it could prove problematic for Obama.

Anyone know how big that gap might be?
2012-06-28 01:11:01 PM
1 votes:
SouthernFriedYankee: We all lost today. The oligarchs, specifically the insurance industry, are the only ones who won, which is not surprising, since they wrote the damn thing. Every time Congress ups the tax, they'll raise their rates accordingly. They've all got to be jizzing themselves right now.

you're just mad because we won't be able to pay for it all with one silver dime
2012-06-28 01:10:25 PM
1 votes:

SouthernFriedYankee: CPennypacker: SouthernFriedYankee: The end zone dancing is very much misplaced. The powerful will avoid shouldering any additional burden, while the powerless will not be able to do so. It's probably good news for welfare riders, but for the working poor it's going to be a disaster, economically. So much for hiring picking up. So much for economic recovery.

But hey, your team won, right? And that's all that matters.

Congrats.

Sounds like your team lost.

We all lost today. The oligarchs, specifically the insurance industry, are the only ones who won, which is not surprising, since they wrote the damn thing. Every time Congress ups the tax, they'll raise their rates accordingly. They've all got to be jizzing themselves right now.

Pyrrhic victory, folks. Believe it.


Why are their stocks plummeting today if they won?
2012-06-28 01:07:34 PM
1 votes:

Oreamnos: I would never imply that I really fully understand this bill/law/whatever and all of its ramifications. I'm generally left-leaning but I'm not sure I think requiring insurance or else facing a penalty is a good and just thing. But I do believe that our so-called "system" for health care and payment as-is is a huge clusterfark, and so some change, even bad, is needed. If it gets worse, at some point it will actually get better. It will take too long for a lot of people, but I believe this.



Yeah that basically sums it up for me as well. Romneycare is one of the top 1000 reasons I never liked Romney. I'm not sure it was ever a good idea on a state level. I am not sure it is a good idea on a national level.

But then, what we've had up to now wasn't working well for today's society either. So we'll see if this stirs the pot enough to come up with something that eventually works. I view this as a breaking through the inertial barrier of doing nothing, which is all that has happened up to now. It's like the poor idea that will eventually end up causing better ideas to replace it. Which is better than doing nothing.
2012-06-28 01:05:36 PM
1 votes:

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: What a boner that was! Can you believe that time GHWB pulled that huge boner?

That boner of his really cost him. He lost the race to Clinton who promised, "Read my lips, no new boners." But then sure enough, he made an even bigger boner.


www.redshirt.co.uk

Not impressed.
2012-06-28 01:04:39 PM
1 votes:

derpdeederp: Good for you Libs, glad you got a win.

Personally, I think it morally wrong to take money from one group of people to pay for anothers benefits, so single payer would have been better in my mind. But we get what we get.

Go team, lol.


Cool story bro. I think its morally wrong to let people die or go into life crushing debt because they can't afford medical care.

Morals are funny.
2012-06-28 01:04:34 PM
1 votes:

jayhawk88: Man I can't wait until my nutjob extended family members get home tonight and start tearing up Facebook.


sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net
2012-06-28 01:01:13 PM
1 votes:

ZoSo_the_Crowe: Anyone know what the numbers are in relation to how you prove a financial hardship to become exempt from the penalties? $695 minimum penalty in 2016... that's a lot of money for some people.


And now I reply to myself: "Subtract those who would have to spend more than 8 percent of their family income on the cheapest qualifying health plan; they're exempt because of financial hardship."

Derp.
2012-06-28 01:00:36 PM
1 votes:

Rwa2play: xanadian: *saunters into thread*

[narwhaler.com image 469x453]

Problem, GOP?

I can only begin to imagine the conservative butthurt today...

Believe me, it's bigger than you can imagine

/moar trollface


I haven't seen Butthurt so big since John Holmes plugged Bruce Villanch.
2012-06-28 12:58:41 PM
1 votes:

Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 453x314]


Cleaned up a bit.

s18.postimage.org
2012-06-28 12:58:23 PM
1 votes:

Brandyelf: Freepervillle is trying to spike the online poll at WCBV in Boston (about halfway down the page on the left).

Show them we can do better, Fark.

My VCOM (Very Conservative Office Mate) is flipping over today's decision. I asked him if he hated the freedom of insuring his kids (he has a lot) until they're 26. He said of course not. I asked him if my daughter, who has a pre-existing condition (asthma) should be denied insurance when she becomes independent because of that. He said of course not. I then asked what he objected to, and he told me we were all going to lose our insurance and be forced to buy government insurance and we wouldn't be allowed to see our own doctors anymore, but would instead have to go to whomever the government tells us to. Plus we would have to pay thousands more every year to pay for insurance for illegal immigrants.

This is how people "think".


Appropriate:
i.imgur.com
2012-06-28 12:57:10 PM
1 votes:

SouthernFriedYankee: The end zone dancing is very much misplaced. The powerful will avoid shouldering any additional burden, while the powerless will not be able to do so. It's probably good news for welfare riders, but for the working poor it's going to be a disaster, economically. So much for hiring picking up. So much for economic recovery.

But hey, your team won, right? And that's all that matters.

Congrats.


He's not wrong, folks. And it's the reason we're going to see an expansion of Medicare accessibility and eventually a public option. Someday sooner than you're imagining we're going to see single payer. It'll happen.
2012-06-28 12:56:44 PM
1 votes:
Freepervillle is trying to spike the online poll at WCBV in Boston (about halfway down the page on the left).

Show them we can do better, Fark.

My VCOM (Very Conservative Office Mate) is flipping over today's decision. I asked him if he hated the freedom of insuring his kids (he has a lot) until they're 26. He said of course not. I asked him if my daughter, who has a pre-existing condition (asthma) should be denied insurance when she becomes independent because of that. He said of course not. I then asked what he objected to, and he told me we were all going to lose our insurance and be forced to buy government insurance and we wouldn't be allowed to see our own doctors anymore, but would instead have to go to whomever the government tells us to. Plus we would have to pay thousands more every year to pay for insurance for illegal immigrants.

This is how people "think".
2012-06-28 12:55:10 PM
1 votes:

d3sertion: colon_pow: i can't argue with robert's reasoning, but he should have kicked it back to congress and make them pass it as a tax.

or try to...

There's nothing in the Constitution requiring Congress to cite which part of the Constitution they're using to pass a law. Although sometimes bills will throw a jurisdictional hook in there, failing to do so has never been grounds for overturning a law -- the vast majority of legislation makes no reference to the Constitution for authority. If it was passed it was passed. Nothing about the language of the bill would change to "pass it as a tax."


when it was up for the vote, it was not defined as a tax. this whole thing is history's largest bait-and-switch.
2012-06-28 12:54:59 PM
1 votes:

coeyagi: muck4doo: I'll say it. As a Conservative, yes, I'm not happy with this, but it isn't the worst news in the world. I hope this plan works now that it has been given the okay.

Thank you. I hope it does too. It's called compromise by all parties to make it better, not throwing it out or shooting it down because a certain black man was in office. Because that's what it has looked like to me. I mean, it was the GOP's plan, and they were butthurt because Obama decided to gun for it. But that's in the past, I really do hope everyone just gets down to making shiat work.


I'm right of center, all the butthurt pisses me off as well. Healthcare costs are a problem. We spent a big chunk of the GDP and don't get a lot in return relative to other countries. In fact it used to be the right recognized this when the Heritage Institute developed a replacement concept for our current system, a decent chunk of which ended up in the ACA.

The ACA is Round 1. You're not getting full healthcare reform through Congress in one go. It's too partisan and too many special interests. The ACA will be updated, amended, and adjusted at later dates. What the Republicans should be doing is agreeing that healthcare is not correct in its proper form, while also suggesting areas that the ACA is lacking, improperly structured, etc. Be proactive in providing a solution, as opposed to dragging the knuckles and demanding it be repealed.

Healthcare reform is happening, there are too many horror stories of pre-existing condition denials, too much money is spent for too little. Embrace it and contribute to it. Otherwise the moderates are just going to get pissed and ram whatever the Dems want down your throat. Refusal to change is not an option.
2012-06-28 12:54:52 PM
1 votes:

valar_morghulis: To all who opposed Obamacare: how does it feel to be on the wrong side of history yet again?


can I borrow your time machine?
/unintended consequences not yet known and all that.
//"wrong side of history" is yet to be determined.
2012-06-28 12:53:41 PM
1 votes:

asmodeus224: vegasj: Theres a shocker.

Healthcare stocks are up... market is crashing.

WTG Obammy... nice one to fark up this country

crashing...yea, sorry, what was the DJIA as of December 2008? 7000? What is it today? 12000? It is down what, 100 points today?

Please go on with your butthurt


100 points is called normal market fluctuation Market is barely down 1%
2012-06-28 12:52:56 PM
1 votes:
Remember when society collapsed and the world burned to the ground after Medicare was enacted?

Yeah, me too.
2012-06-28 12:52:20 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: Phinn: The Larch: It turns out that socialism works. The folks who gathered together in a community and shared the costs of things like city walls, irrigation ditches, and judges got rich and fat and rich and happy. The lone wolfs out in the wilderness eating berries died out.

Those things were built with slavery, actually.

By your logic, slavery works, too.

actually, yes - slavery DOES work. But you have to actually want to keep the bulk of your slaves alive and in working condition otherwise it falls apart.


Thanks for explaining the rationale behind Obamacare. Healthy slaves. Got it.
2012-06-28 12:52:19 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: Anti_illuminati: someonelse: Phinn: Here's an idea: Everyone pays for his own stuff.

Wtf are you talking about?

Apparently he doesn't own any credit cards or has a loan of any kind - nor does he think the rest of the country does too.

You no make-ah sense.

It's just a proposal. Let's have a general rule of life that says that you don't make me pay for the stuff you want to have, and I won't make you pay for the stuff I want to have.

You're not in favor of being an institutionalized moocher, are you? You're not seriously going to congratulate yourself for being moral and high-minded because of your generosity with other people's money?


So if you chose not to have health insurance, you get hit by a truck and rack up medical costs you cannot afford, who pays for that? We do. Those that currently have health insurance. Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad.

And get out of here with that institutionalized-moocher crap. It's a red herring and you know it.
2012-06-28 12:50:11 PM
1 votes:

bugontherug: Klippoklondike: I think the problem with health care costs should be solved by looking at the HEALTH CARE COSTS

What do you have in mind for addressing health care costs?


I say put a cap on the price of procedures and medication, though I know this will never happen. It if it did happen (it never will) Big pharma would still make a profit, just not a ridiculously huge profit.
2012-06-28 12:49:26 PM
1 votes:

Buffalo77: Can someone explain the benefits of single payer to me.

I see many of the posts on this thread talking about how this is a preferable method for paying for healthcare.

Isn't this similar to the prescription drug benefit passed by congress under Bush.

You pick and pay for what ever kind of insurance you want and the services are paid for by a single payer, usually the government.

Single payer is not universal healthcare.

Given most healthcare institutions survive based on people who pay their own way or negotiated rates with private insurance which are above cost, how would single payer allow hospitals to survive?




Well, look at Medicare.
95% of all monies that go into Medicare go towards paying healthcosts compared to health insurance which is just reaching 80% of the same (and only then because of the ACA).
It would also help hospitals and doctor's know exactly what's covered and for how much. Right now medical billing is so complex because there are hundreds of different insurance companies and policies and they all have their own way of doing things. What works under one plan doesn't work under another.

Hospital costs are often so high because so many people simply don't pay the total bill or at all. When you get a bill saying you owe $200,000, most hospitals will end up getting about 40% of that from your insurance. However that rate varies between insurances and people without it are stuck with the entire bill. Having one system would allow that single payer health insurance to get that rate down to a standard amount and hospitals would not have to worry about people unable to pay.
2012-06-28 12:48:40 PM
1 votes:

shower_in_my_socks: Where is Ball Sack? He was in the other thread this morning, spiking the football before he'd crossed the goal line. Weird that he wouldn't be here to enjoy his moment of triumph... HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAA


BALL SACK + EPIC FAIL = NEW ALT
2012-06-28 12:48:26 PM
1 votes:

Spaz-master: badLogic: "The Supreme Court isn't the boss of what's constitutional."
-Rand Paul

I think someone needs to re-read the Constitution.

Yeah,
you do
Judicial review didn't come about until 1804


Judicial review of federal laws did not come around until Marbury. Judicial review existed in state courts here before then, and in England (form where we imported the common law) before 1804 and before the Constitution.
2012-06-28 12:48:14 PM
1 votes:

Actor_au: The Larch: Actor_

You're kidding right? Half a million dollars for a head injury? I can't imagine my parents paying that. They just retired and their life savings are around that much. A lifetime of saving to pay for one accident... thats just wrong on every level.

/Parents had insurance anyway but the public hospital had a better head injury unit than the private one.


No joke. A week in the ICU alone would likely leave you with over $100k hospital bill. Add in six weeks of brain trauma care and you'll be paying the rest of your life.

Don't worry, though! Your parents may not have needed to pay that much. After all, it's highly possible that your insurance wouldn't cover the brain injury, which means that your parents wouldn't have had the money to even get him in the door of the clinic in the first place.

/I spent two days in the hospital for pneumonia last year. No ICU, no surgery, just an ER visit, a room, and IV antibiotics. My bill was over $6000 for just those two days.
2012-06-28 12:48:06 PM
1 votes:

Boxcutta: "Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right," - Sen. Rand Paul

Simply stunning.


Yeah, I may not be up on my Constitutional Law, but when I studied these sorts of things 20 years ago, I was pretty sure that when the Supreme Court declares something Constitutional, that means it's pretty farking Constitutional.

If the meaning of "Constitutional" has changed in the past 20 years, I apologize.
2012-06-28 12:47:19 PM
1 votes:

Purdue_Pete: Either have 100% socialized medicine... or stay out of our lives.


Many countries started by socializing the emergency care aspect. This is a natural extension to covering fire and police services. Covering people who can't afford private insurance is a natural extension to that. Ultimately, single-payer seems the next logical step because it is the most cost effective but more importantly helps you control the increases in health care costs which would be insane under a private insurance model.

Free-market works well for some things and bad for others. It has to with something having an inelastic demand. If people claiming to understand "free market" principles, they should actually understand this.
2012-06-28 12:46:15 PM
1 votes:

Buffalo77: Can someone explain the benefits of single payer to me.

I see many of the posts on this thread talking about how this is a preferable method for paying for healthcare.

Isn't this similar to the prescription drug benefit passed by congress under Bush.

You pick and pay for what ever kind of insurance you want and the services are paid for by a single payer, usually the government.

Single payer is not universal healthcare.

Given most healthcare institutions survive based on people who pay their own way or negotiated rates with private insurance which are above cost, how would single payer allow hospitals to survive?


This is a complex answer.

Part one is that the healthcare is set by the market value. That is to say, there is a dollar value on your illness or injury. Someone wants to profit off of it. May the best negotiator win! Better hope it's your insurer.

The second is that the infamous "death panels" are looking at the bottom line. Is it more profitable to keep you alive and fully functional to pay them more money, or more profitable to let you kick off?

Part three is where the government simply has deeper pockets than a private insurer. A government can be expected to be more interested in keeping you healthy. A corporate entity can tell you to fark off and try someone else. This is especially an issue as the boomers move through retirement, retirement homes, and graveyards. It's not going to be cheap. A government can download this debt onto the next generation, an insurer may not be able to.

But really, the bottom line is - for profit healthcare is putting a pricetag on your well-being. Your Constitution tells you that everyman has the freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Doesn't health form a part of that, as much as security from fire, robbery, or foreign invasion? The USA spends more dollars per result than any other Western nation. Those nations being compared all have socialized medicine.
2012-06-28 12:45:29 PM
1 votes:

SuperNinjaToad: the devil is in the detail.. as in the fine print. On the surface it appears that the 'poor' are exempt and 'should' actually be better off in terms of health care coverage/insurance BUT you and I know reality is anything but. In practice the this ruling will backfire and the poor will be actually be worst off than today w/o any sort of coverage.


First off, remember that 24 states have signed onto the Medicaid expansion already. Of the 26 that haven't, there will be internal political pressure not to turn down what amounts to a net increase in federal funds. Eventually, most or all of those states will sign onto the Medicaid expansion.

In those states that do not sign onto it, there's a) a strong argument that the mandate was not intended to apply to them without the Medicaid expansion, and b) if it does apply to them, there's going to be strong political pressure to amend the law to exempt them. Most poor people will be better off. The ones who are not will probably be no worse off in the long run.
2012-06-28 12:45:14 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: Here's an idea: Everyone pays for his own stuff.


Humanity made that decision about 7,000 years ago, and the libertarians lost.

It turns out that socialism works. The folks who gathered together in a community and shared the costs of things like city walls, irrigation ditches, and judges got rich and fat and rich and happy. The lone wolfs out in the wilderness eating berries died out.
2012-06-28 12:44:32 PM
1 votes:
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PLEASE LET THERE BE A

"HITLER FINDS OUT OBAMACARE IS CONSTITUTIONAL"!!
2012-06-28 12:43:34 PM
1 votes:

Buffalo77: Can someone explain the benefits of single payer to me.


One giant risk pool instead of hundreds of smaller risk pools = less cost for everyone in the giant risk pool because most people are healthy and never use their insurance, leaving premiums to pay for those few that have health issues.


Rosecitybeaver: And the spin is already on at Fox trying to show how this is really a republican idea and the preseident was against it from the get go...That's a hard sell even for Fox at this point...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/individual-health-care-ins u rance-mandate-has-long-checkered-past/


By November I full expect them to not be calling it Obamacare as well as claiming the mandate for themselves.

Hell, they may even be calling it National Romneycare by that point.
2012-06-28 12:43:10 PM
1 votes:

Joe Blowme: So when your company sees it cheaper to pay the fine and not offer you that HC package, will you still be dancing in the streets?


My company already sees it's cheaper to not take the tax credit and not offer me the HC package, and yet they do it anyway. Perhaps because it's cheaper than paying me enough extra to get my own package.

Funny how that works.
2012-06-28 12:41:55 PM
1 votes:
Those countries with socialized medicine are still around and doing just fine. Not sure what the big farking deal is?
2012-06-28 12:41:24 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2012-06-28 12:39:29 PM
1 votes:
To an outside observer, the rejection of the idea of government-mandated health care by average, working citizens who would be ruined financially from a relatively simple medical procedure seems utterly pants-on-head insane.

But, there just seems to be a real lack of critical thinking that result in ordinary people falling for the lies of the greedy Insurance Industry with their labyrinthine bureaucracy and the thousands of middle men who insist in getting their cut by charging $50 for a ten-cent band-aid. Oh, not to mention the utterly corrupt and amoral politicians (like Romney) who gladly accept BRIBES do the bidding of their puppet-masters who profit from the status quo.

You are circling the drain.
2012-06-28 12:39:23 PM
1 votes:

rufus-t-firefly: And, if insurance companies complain that they can't be profitable, they can shut themselves down and we can pass single payer.


I think that's inevitable. Call me crazy but I don't trust insurance companies to do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts.
2012-06-28 12:38:58 PM
1 votes:

you need help: bhcompy: you need help: I will never go to the doctor in my lifetime, so this is nothing but butthurt for me.

But if you chose to skip health coverage, it would be more than butthurt. I've opted out of healthcare previously simply because my company will pay me a special bonus for opting out, because they still save money after the bonus. Nothing has changed for them, but now I cannot do that anymore.

I dropped health coverage several years ago and planned to never pay for it again in my life. It sounds like my best option come 2014 is to make sure that I owe taxes at the end of the year so they can't take anything from me.


Works for me, as long as you decide never to USE health care services if you are sicker than you have cash to pay. Unfortunately, our society won't cast you on to an ice flow if you don't have insurance when (not if) you get sick beyond your means.

/thank a liberal
2012-06-28 12:38:28 PM
1 votes:
Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[25] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole.[7] To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.

Yeah. What they said. BTW, the Hamiltonian view has existed since the 18th century.

Bless Roberts for seeing the power of Congress through the General Welfare Clause. I still think the SCOTUS is corrupt but this is definitely an example of an independent judiciary correctly interpreting the constitution.

I'm kind of sorry it was upheld since it would have led to single payer but still it's best not to have to go through that mess right now.
2012-06-28 12:38:09 PM
1 votes:

badLogic: "The Supreme Court isn't the boss of what's constitutional."
-Rand Paul

I think someone needs to re-read the Constitution.


Someone needs to re-read Marbury vs. Madison.
2012-06-28 12:35:55 PM
1 votes:

IXI Jim IXI: The_Sponge: True, but his broad promise was made to EVERYONE making under $250K.

so if you're a broad making under $250k, WATCH OUT!


How many times have they told you, you don't call chicks "broads".

i36.photobucket.com
2012-06-28 12:35:43 PM
1 votes:

LordJiro: retarded: Good Lord, the freepers are having aneurysms:

"John Robert's poison legacy: Mexican takeover of America, and Socialist dictatorship. IMPEACH this traitorous bastard."

Oh lord, I would love love LOVE to see the Republicans impeach Roberts. Talk about not thinking their cunning plan all the way through.


These are the same people who wanted Obama thrown out immediately because of his "foreign birth." That would have given us President Biden. And if Biden was also thrown out for being in on the "conspiracy," we would have gotten PRESIDENT PELOSI.

They're not very smart.
2012-06-28 12:34:45 PM
1 votes:

SuperNinjaToad: 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"

what do you think this ruling is then when you really apply in IRL scenerios? it is exactly that... fark the poor and 'tax' them more for not having health insurance.


Unless that's what the whole "income test" part is about. I am not sure but I think it meant that if you can't afford it, you're subsidized.

I must be mistaken though since everyone says this is just fining the poor.
2012-06-28 12:34:24 PM
1 votes:

GhostFish: Years later, and the GOP is still getting farked over by Bush's actions.


The comments are Freeperville are lambasting him for appointing Roberts. I never thought it would happen, but the left and the right have come together on this glorious day and agreed that George W. Bush was a human shiatstain devoid of any redeeming value.
2012-06-28 12:34:09 PM
1 votes:

GBB: david_gaithersburg: Has anyone here ever opted to purchase the COBRA offered by their employer? Bwahahahaha! Its now THE LAW suckhars.

As a matter of fact, Yes, I have. Disney (WDW) offers some of the cheapest premiums of any employer that is not the Federal Government. I can't remember the exact amount, but damn, was it cheap!! Most of the time, when you are offered COBRA, you pay the full amount and then discover how much your employer has been kicking in for you. I can only assume that because of how many employees they have, and they are unionized, the premiums are so cheap that Disney (WDW) doesn't chip in at all.

A+++++ Will do again.

But, yes, I know what you are getting at; COBRA is an unaffordable option for someone that is no longer employed.


which is where the exchanges and such come in. Hopefully they have a cheap HSA plan in there somewhere to cover folks who don't have employer insurance, but don't get sick often enough to need a traditional health care plan.
2012-06-28 12:33:47 PM
1 votes:
stvdallas: "You know who wins with this decision? Illegal aliens who don't pay taxes."

I'm tempted to score you as a troll, but Poe's Law (and the fact that there's no shortage of people who actually believe this) compels me to respond:

That is some Grade A denial, my friend.
People without insurance -- illegal, legal, tax-payers or no -- *already* get emergency medicine when they go to the hospital.
We're *already* paying for it in higher premiums and hospital charges, making up for what they don't/can't pay.
They don't get anything more, or less, no matter what we do to reform or ignore healthcare.

And under this very flawed ACA, we will all still pay *less* every time they can get preventative treatment rather than emergency treatment.
The $40 catastrophic coverage that an otherwise-healthy twenty-something will 'have' to buy (as if they wouldn't anyway, if such plans existed) is massively, massively cheaper than the increased premiums they would be facing when they do become older, have kids and/or otherwise need to start paying for insurance.

Literally, the only people who "lose" under the ACA are the politicians who refused to allow Obama anything approaching a political victory and felt compelled to spread lies about it to justify their petty power play.
2012-06-28 12:33:34 PM
1 votes:

Lsherm: meat0918: There is no jail time associated with this. I think it's explicitly not allowed. They'll adjust your refund instead.

Just a note: not everyone gets refunds. And talk to Wesley Snipes about jail time for not paying taxes.


Correct, but there is still no jail time attached.

And with all the credits, those "poor and middle class that pay no taxes and get refunds all the time" are the very people that will have refunds adjusted.

I suppose one could spin it that less of a refund equals a tax hike, but Republicans have been repeating the mantra of "skin in the game" for a long time now.

This gets more "skin in the game" from the very people they want to pay more.

Congratz GOP!
2012-06-28 12:33:34 PM
1 votes:
Lsherm: meat0918: There is no jail time associated with this. I think it's explicitly not allowed. They'll adjust your refund instead.

Just a note: not everyone gets refunds. And talk to Wesley Snipes about jail time for not paying taxes.


As I recall, Snipes went to jail for tax EVASION.

If you owe taxes and file appropriately and simply don't pay, you usually end up with wage garnishment, not jail time.
2012-06-28 12:33:29 PM
1 votes:
(b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation.

For those afraid that the government now has the power to do anything they want through raising specialized taxes, this part of the ruling seems to be important.
2012-06-28 12:33:13 PM
1 votes:

D_Evans45: Republicans sound like such miserly douches.

"Can't work? Shrivel up and die then!"


It allows them to believe that they're important and did it all by their bootstraps. They don't have to think about how much of their success is built upon current and previous government programs that they yammer about, and that their usefulness is only because the people in power need breathing bodies to vote for them to make it look real.
2012-06-28 12:32:55 PM
1 votes:

rigmort: My wife is an underwriting manager. She said that yes, they won't be able to turn you down or rider out for a previous condition or other reason.... but there's nothing that says they can't charge whatever they want. They are now being forced to "insure" against future problems AND current ones. Do you really think they won't cover their own asses?

PREMIUMS WILL GO UPBIGTIME FOR EVERYONE.


Health insurance is cheaper in a large company than in a small one. With a larger pool, premiums should go down.

Of course, we may need additional regulations to keep prices down. And, if insurance companies complain that they can't be profitable, they can shut themselves down and we can pass single payer.

Win-win.
2012-06-28 12:31:55 PM
1 votes:
Obama should come out and say "I was initially reluctant to accept the Republican plan regarding the mandate and tax. They had been proposing this for over a decade, but I felt it was unconstitutional. We accepted the tax mandate in the spirit of compromise, and now the Supreme Court has held that it is constitutional".

I would enjoy the online commentary SO much more...
2012-06-28 12:31:27 PM
1 votes:
Years later, and the GOP is still getting farked over by Bush's actions.
GBB
2012-06-28 12:31:13 PM
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: Has anyone here ever opted to purchase the COBRA offered by their employer? Bwahahahaha! Its now THE LAW suckhars.


As a matter of fact, Yes, I have. Disney (WDW) offers some of the cheapest premiums of any employer that is not the Federal Government. I can't remember the exact amount, but damn, was it cheap!! Most of the time, when you are offered COBRA, you pay the full amount and then discover how much your employer has been kicking in for you. I can only assume that because of how many employees they have, and they are unionized, the premiums are so cheap that Disney (WDW) doesn't chip in at all.

A+++++ Will do again.

But, yes, I know what you are getting at; COBRA is an unaffordable option for someone that is no longer employed.
2012-06-28 12:31:04 PM
1 votes:

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.


You're a riot. You were hoping that the ACA would get struck down so that we can deal with this bullshiat of an insurance system while Congress dukes it out for single-payer for the next hundred years. Unconsciable. The ACA is better than this current fark up of an insurance system.
2012-06-28 12:30:52 PM
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: Starting in 2014, the fine for not carrying insurance would be $95 a year or 1 percent of a person's income, whichever is greater. In 2015 that would jump to $325 or 2 percent of income and in 2016 the fine would be $695 or 2.5 percent of income.

2.5% What a coinkidink, the average American is also that same amount away from being homeless. Popcorn anyone?


Isn't there also a provision to subsidize those costs for low income folks?
2012-06-28 12:30:44 PM
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: ignatius_crumbcake: Dancin_In_Anson: Good for you. Same here. I guess it just the other guy that will have to pay the tax.

Or, alternatively, he could get health insurance and pull his own weight.

.
.
Farking lazy poor people.


There are mechanisms built into the law to assist poor people. The people that hate this law are the business owners who now have to provide their employees with, gasp, benefits.
2012-06-28 12:30:16 PM
1 votes:
In related news, the #CNNHeadlines hashtag has been hilarious.
2012-06-28 12:28:55 PM
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: ignatius_crumbcake: Dancin_In_Anson: Good for you. Same here. I guess it just the other guy that will have to pay the tax.

Or, alternatively, he could get health insurance and pull his own weight.

.
.
Farking lazy poor people.


Yes, we keep getting that from you. Your contributions to the Farkosphere have thus far today been nothing short of legendary.
2012-06-28 12:28:54 PM
1 votes:

Dorf11: "The supreme court upheld Obama Care. That's it. I'm moving to Canada!"


cdnimg.visualizeus.com
2012-06-28 12:28:39 PM
1 votes:

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Open medicare to everyone. Single payer IS the future.


Yup...if you can now get rid of the insurance companies lobbyist.
2012-06-28 12:28:07 PM
1 votes:
I'll say it. As a Conservative, yes, I'm not happy with this, but it isn't the worst news in the world. I hope this plan works now that it has been given the okay.
2012-06-28 12:27:15 PM
1 votes:
Would this be a good time to remind ya'll that the GOP installed the mandatory clause in the Obamacare so that they can now biatch?
/chitheads
2012-06-28 12:27:15 PM
1 votes:

Parmenius: Rofl from Scotusblog:
By the way, the opinions collectively are a monster. The Chief's opinion is 59 pages, Justice Ginsburg's opinion is 61 pages, the four dissenters are 65 pages, followed by a short two-pager from Justice Thomas. You do the math.

LOLThomas


Clarence Thomas expressed his opinion by drawing a picture of a potato with a Band-Aid on it.
2012-06-28 12:26:52 PM
1 votes:

crazydave023: Nice speech. Insurance companies made out with a sweet deal.


Well, it's the true definition of compromise.

downside: They have to take many more people on the dole they didn't want to.
upside: They have a ton more customers.

My bet is while their income will skyrocket, their profit margins will take a hit.

All depends on how much money the government will throw at people they are 'meeting half way' on getting coverage (you buy a $20k plan because you had cancer 5 times and the government helps you by paying 75% of it)... it could end up being a win-win for insurance companies.... I just don't know.

I'm sure they and a few politicians have a good idea how this will all pan out, but likely we all just have to wait and see how this plays out over the next few years.

Provided democrats actually go vote in the next 2 elections. If they don't (like the last one) the argument is meaningless as (R) will erase this the first opportunity they get.
2012-06-28 12:26:46 PM
1 votes:

SuperNinjaToad: 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"

what do you think this ruling is then when you really apply in IRL scenerios? it is exactly that... fark the poor and 'tax' them more for not having health insurance.


No, not really. First off, most of those 26 states will eventually sign onto the expanded Medicaid rules. The pressure will actually come from doctors in those states who want the new business from clients who can't currently afford health insurance. Not only that, but since the federal government pays most of Medicaid costs, it's just too good of a deal to turn down. States who don't adopt the Medicaid expansion are turning down too much money. That won't stand for long.

Moreover, there's a very strong argument that application of the mandate to persons who would otherwise have been eligible for expanded Medicaid coverage was never intended.
2012-06-28 12:26:18 PM
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: kasmel: Thunderpipes: Still scary. Means Congress can regulate your behavior via taxes.

Look up gas taxes and why States have the same drinking age and mostly the same freeway speeds. This is nothing new.

Yes, it is. Driving, drinking, they are all voluntary. You can choose to not do it. Can't choose not to exist. Plenty of crunchies only ride bikes and get away with not contributing to the state transportation funds or the federal gasoline tax.

Now, if you start charging non-car owners a tax, bike riders a tax, etc, think that would fly?


I support the PPACA and I'm actually fully with you on this one. I think of it as duct taping a big mess because no one wants to call the plumber - it's a valid if hilariously imperfect method of dealing with the problem.

So, seriously now, given that healthcare is unavoidable, expensive, necessary and that the status quo leaves all but the luckiest* without adequate coverage, and given that you don't like Obamacare as it was upheld today, what solution would you propose to your Congresscritter(s) running in November?

This isn't a rhetorical question - I expect you to actually talk to your Congresspeople.

(*not necessarily the richest, though there is certainly a lot of overlap)
2012-06-28 12:26:18 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: Romney is blatantly lying again....


Romney lies because he genuinely believes it's ok to lie
Link

Romney routine lying -- His Big Lie strategy
Link

Link
2012-06-28 12:25:50 PM
1 votes:

ontariolightning: Does this mean US joined the rest of the civilized world? kicking and screaming?

Does this mean you wont have to pay for doctor appointments?


We'll still have a co-pay (depending on your plan, mine's $10), but now people who were being screwed by the system have a slightly better shot at a better life.
2012-06-28 12:24:44 PM
1 votes:

indarwinsshadow: Congratulations United States. You might actually be growing up and joining the rest of the world by recognizing that universal health care actually costs less in the long run then "for profit" care. Yeah, I know you don't believe it. Whatever, you're going to get health care no matter how much you biatch and whine about it so take the congrats and shut up.


Agreed. However, nothing wrong with privatized/free market health care. Canada has a mixture of public/private care. It is only privatized insurance for basic health care that is inherently stupid. The US has an amazing private health care and none of that would have to change. Replace the insurance model with single-payer and you would have one of the best health care systems in the world, certainly surpassing Canada's.
2012-06-28 12:24:17 PM
1 votes:

Sabyen91: HeartBurnKid: Sabyen91: drgloryboy: Medicaid doesn't pay well and most family docs don't accept it.

Interesting. When I was on Medicaid my family doc accepted it. And anybody else in network.

That was my mom's experience as well. Was. Until California privatized it.

You have to be in a PPO in Wisconsin so I guess it is semi-privatized. All Mercy providers take Mercy. All docs that take Unity take the Unity medicaid. Etc.


It's similar in CA, at least in Los Angeles County. She's offered a choice of HMO's between Health Net, L.A. Care, and a few more specialized ones. She was on Health Net before, and they only had a whopping 3 primary care doctors in my area that actually accepted it (and all of them were quacks). She switched to L.A. Care, and there's more (and better) primary care doctors available to her at least, but I still have to take her for a 1-2 hour drive any time she needs to see a specialist. And don't get me started on prescription coverage...
2012-06-28 12:23:02 PM
1 votes:

Benjimin_Dover: Glenford: Only in America, where ensuring that citizens have health care is seen as tyranny.

Everybody in America already has healthcare.


i.imgur.com
2012-06-28 12:22:56 PM
1 votes:
I'm really curious how GOP/Conservatives can spin Mandates as some far, far, far left overeach out of the playbook of Karl Marx when....

a) Their current Presidential Candidate is the American Godfather of Government Health Insurance Mandates.

b) The whole idea of Health Insurance Mandates was introduced into the national conversation by Conservative GOP members in the 90s.

c) A Chief Justice, appointed by President Bush and who rules along conservative lines the vast majority of the times just approved it as Constitutional.
2012-06-28 12:22:01 PM
1 votes:

Serious Black: Aetna's stock is down 4.3% today. WellPoint's stock is down 6.45% today. UnitedHealth's stock is down 3% today. You think they're happy about the ruling?


No, and that's a good thing,

Actor_au: The final bill for his time there would have been in the tens of thousands if we were in the US.


Ha, try millions. A severed finger costs 10's of thousands, multiple brain operations costs millions.
2012-06-28 12:21:56 PM
1 votes:

justtray: What's the countdown before the outrage that we shouldn't call it Obamacare anymore now that it is constitutional? I doubt we go a week before the Right Wing hypocrisy comes full circle and starts complaining about how it shouldn't be called that.


Give it about 6 months after the last of the provisions take effect and people realize it makes their lives better before the Republicans start trying to take credit for it.
2012-06-28 12:21:54 PM
1 votes:

NeoCortex42: Obama: "The mandate has had support from both sides, including Mitt Romney."

Nice.


If it had went down, Obama'd be in pickle. But he's going to hammer Romney on this until November.
2012-06-28 12:20:55 PM
1 votes:
The right-wing derp today is awe-inspiring. So wars in the middle east were freedom and healthcare is tyranny? oooookay nutbags.
2012-06-28 12:20:39 PM
1 votes:
Obama: "The mandate has had support from both sides, including Mitt Romney."

Nice.
2012-06-28 12:20:09 PM
1 votes:

mrshowrules: I've been arguing for years that single-payer is one of the best things the US could do to help small businesses.


Oh it absolutely is, but that's not the point. Baby steps. It's progress, and that's what counts. They'll get there, it's just a matter of time.

The next trick, and it's a toughie, is convincing Conservatives that the government could be more efficient than the corporate. And that's really gonna take some doing, unfortunately, there'll have to be some ugly, ugly foul-ups.
2012-06-28 12:20:07 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: Limbaugh: we're forced to pay a tax, insurance is now a tax, we're forced, we're forced. forcing is bad, bad, wrong, bad, wrong. tax tax tax. corporations taxing us...backing off that point, stealth tax. behavior modification, tax tax tax. government dictating what we do with private property, tax tax tax.


i.imgur.com
2012-06-28 12:18:30 PM
1 votes:

fisker: Let me get this straight.

It's understandable that if I am driving my car without insurance I may be pulled over and penalized for it because I am using my car and reaping privileges that I am essentially not fully covered for by law. It makes sense.

My question is this- If I am NOT getting regular medical care, hence never going to the doctor at all for anything, am I going to be essentially 'pulled over and penalized' for something I am not even doing?

I can see that if I WAS going to the doctor and receiving treatment but not paying for the overall insurance or just the basic cost of medicine, THEN I would be penalized for it, but a lot of people have never been to the doctor. Some people NEVER go. They just die. It happens.

IS THIS the equivalent of having to pay for car insurance simply because a majority of people own cars even if I don't have one?

Am I wrong in my understanding of what this Patient Protection Act is all about?


An important difference is that if you don't own a car, there's a 0% chance your car will cause an issue. Your body, however, WILL get sick or injured at some point. So while it's otherwise very similar - everyone who might benefit has to have it, because, frankly, its better than the results if you don't. Over the run of a human life, it's more efficient to have them have the insurance now than to publicly foot the bill for issues later.

Everyone will need medical care. Even those people who you say never went, then died. They probably needed to go, but just didn't.
2012-06-28 12:18:24 PM
1 votes:

groininjury: The healthcare thing doesn't even matter

What does matter, is now the US Government can force you to engage in commerce against your will with a 3rd party (with no limits), and cant take everything you own away from you, and throw you in jail forever, if you don't do it. There's also no legal recourse to contest it.

The US is now a Totalitarian State.


There is no jail time associated with this. I think it's explicitly not allowed. They'll adjust your refund instead.
2012-06-28 12:18:17 PM
1 votes:

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."


Big problem for conservatives on this point: since the mandate was upheld as an exercise of the tax power, that means any language to the effect that it was unconstitutional under the commerce power is non-binding dicta.

Granted, that doesn't mean this Court will permit much in the way of new legislation under the commerce power. But it does mean there's no stare decisis argument to uphold that part of Roberts' opinion in future courts. I.e., the claim that PPACA was unconstitutional as an exercise of the commerce power is no Roe v. Wade.
2012-06-28 12:18:04 PM
1 votes:
And all Obama has to do is read through the bullet points of the PPACA.

Good luck screaming about tax increases.
2012-06-28 12:17:57 PM
1 votes:

ignatius_crumbcake: Tomorrow's headline: "Mitt Romney says Obamacare was his idea from the beginning."


I am not sure if you are trolling or not since Romney did implement a similar healthcare plan when he was governor.
2012-06-28 12:17:52 PM
1 votes:

groininjury: The healthcare thing doesn't even matter

What does matter, is now the US Government can force you to engage in commerce against your will with a 3rd party (with no limits), and cant take everything you own away from you, and throw you in jail forever, if you don't do it. There's also no legal recourse to contest it.

The US is now a Totalitarian State.


If they can't take everything you own away from you, and throw you in jail forever, if you don't do it, where is the problem?
2012-06-28 12:17:15 PM
1 votes:
The Romney campaign has vastly overestimated the number of Americans who consider having health care insurance to be an attack on their freedom. They're about to find this out.
2012-06-28 12:17:10 PM
1 votes:

Olympus Mons: I fear tough that they will just go on a say NO to everything orgy from this point on.


Hasn't it been this way for 3 years now?
2012-06-28 12:17:03 PM
1 votes:

Actor_au: I'm an Australian, my dad fell off his bicycle a few months ago and was in hospital for two months, ICU for a week and a brain injury recovery ward for six weeks. He had about four surgeries on his brain over that time, multiple scans and several operations on his broken bones as well as a dedicated nurse on hand while we was in ICU.
Total cost to my family? $400 in parking costs at the hospital carpark(my mum drove herself to the hospital daily, I took a bus) and probably $80 in total from the Subway they had downstairs.

My dad is home now, has a scan once a month so far and is going well. The scans are free.
The airfares of family members coming to check up on him was more expensive than the cost of actually being in hospital to us. The final bill for his time there would have been in the tens of thousands if we were in the US.

Socialised medicine farking rocks.


Farking Commie.

/just kidding
//great story
//made even greater that dad is alright
2012-06-28 12:16:58 PM
1 votes:

d3sertion: inner ted: d3sertion: inner ted:
there is so much fail there, all in just two sentences.

/hint for you sherlock: most middle class will refuse it cause the CAN'T AFFORD IT.
//the stupid, it hurts. too bad i can't afford insurance to get it looked at.

What the hell are you talking about? Most middle class people don't have health insurance now? You need to check your facts, clown.

even fewer will have it now when their employer drops their current coverage and they can't afford to buy it on their own.

that's what the hell i'm talking about, clown.

I was pointing out that most middle class americans do have health insurance, idiot. The most liberal estimates put the number at 40-50 million people who are uninsured, that is not "most" by any measure. And furthermore, have you not noticed health care insurance stocks going through the roof in the market right now? You're about the only one on the planet who thinks people are going to lose coverage because of this law. Certainly people with money and investment acumen disagree, probably a large number of conservatives I'd imagine.

You need to read the bill and get briefed on the current situation in a bad way. Just because Obama did it doesn't mean it's bad for business.


read your own stupid pal. you contradict yourself in the next sentence you write. you make my point for me, so thanks for that.

and you point out with such genius that the stocks of insurance companies are going up... geeeeez can't imagine why that may be. could it possibly be that the government just mandated everyone buy their product???

this isn't just bad for business, it's bad for everyone. he had the opportunity to push a true national health care / single payer system, but showed he's only interested in bowing to the special interests of insurance companies.

and anybody stupid enough to believe "oh now we care for teh pooorz" is as thick headed as you appear.
protip: the poor could always get health care, the hospital CANNOT refuse them. and since they have nothing of worth (like a house or income) then all the rest of us that do pay our way, get to pay for them too.

/but keep farking that Obama chicken - cause we get it HE'S BLACK
2012-06-28 12:16:19 PM
1 votes:

starsrift: As a Canadian, I'm very happy with this result. Tech companies were already preferring to start up in Canada because the health care is taxpayer-funded.

Nothing has changed. In fact, more companies may prefer to outsource studios to Que? Nada because of the pressure to enroll employees in company healthcare in USA and the embarrassment if that's not an option.


That's just something to think about. That said, this is baby steps, and for the good of everyone, I really do hope this is one step towards a single payer system. You guys are baby stepping to letting teh gays get married, baby stepping to this too. It's a good thing.


I've been arguing for years that single-payer is one of the best things the US could do to help small businesses.
2012-06-28 12:16:10 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: Limbaugh: we all knew, taxes, taxes, forced to purchase, taxes. gloom/doom. Obama Obama, lies. Obamacare massive regressive tax on all americans, taxes taxes. lie. we were lied to, lies are bad. commerce clause, taxes, taxes.


That's the one that gets me. Aren't Republicans trying to abolish the income tax and force us to use sales taxes that are, by their very nature, regressive taxes?
2012-06-28 12:16:08 PM
1 votes:

Olympus Mons: Lets not forget that with more of us on, the cost should drop


ROFLMAO....no...your rates will INCREASE!
2012-06-28 12:16:06 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: muck4doo: Weaver95: mr lawson: LOL...... Premiums are going to go Through the roof!

/be careful what you wish for, ya might just get it

you mean that premiums weren't going to go up all on their own anyway?

As a fellow libertarian, I'm sure you must be cuming your shorts over news of more taxes. Isn't this an awesome day?

it's not like I could have done anything to stop it...and ACA is a valid step towards fixing what we laughingly call our health care system. is it perfect? nope. is it needed? yup.


You sound very Democraticy. When are going to admit you're a Democrat? There's nothing wrong with that. Yes, I'm libertarian/Conservative, but I see the important role Democrats serve. You had a change of heart, and are now a Democrat. There's nothing wrong with that, so just admit it. I used to be a democrat then changed to Conservative after I spent a few years in upstate NY. I'm just hoping you drop the "I'm a Libertarian" mantra, because you aren't a Libertarian at all.
2012-06-28 12:14:57 PM
1 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer: Don't dodge the question. You said I have healthcare now. Through whom?


I guess you've never heard of Medicaid? Or are you not actually poor, just "poor"
2012-06-28 12:14:14 PM
1 votes:

SandMann: So, any doctors thinking about moving their practices to another country? If so, which one? Early retirement? Career change?


The smart ones (me) have long ago signed up with Kaiser Permanente, where I don't get paid to do things to people. Instead, it's in the best interest of the company to keep people healthy with prevention. An apple costs less than an angioplasty, and patients like that approach as well.

(And, before the "rationing" argument starts: saving by scrimping turns into some pretty damned expensive outcomes and lawsuits, so it's against our better interests to not just do the right thing the first time. Less work that way, too.)

But those guys still in private practice with "fee-for-service" medical care? They're the ones driving up costs, riding their dinosaur for as long as they can. They're the ones panicking about this.
2012-06-28 12:14:02 PM
1 votes:
Lets not forget that with more of us on, the cost should drop. In other words we all are in a great big group plan. They forgot this in MA when Romney was just taking care of the big cats.

To me its like we have to pay for education, even if we don't have kids ourselves. The whole model of how we insure people here needs to change.

I am glad those d-bag republicans get it shoved back in the face... pick which of their two faces you want.... I fear tough that they will just go on a say NO to everything orgy from this point on. Party over country first, you know.
2012-06-28 12:12:50 PM
1 votes:

mrshowrules: Grables'Daughter: lousyskater: I didn't really care which way this went, but man I need to get some popcorn for this one. DIS GONNA BE GOOD.

[i1089.photobucket.com image 640x423]

Here.

I made enough for everyone.

: )

That looks like socialist popcorn. There are people in this thread that would starve to death first. I thank you however.


IT's MITT ROMNEY APPROVED POPCORN.
2012-06-28 12:12:40 PM
1 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer: cameroncrazy1984: Notwithstanding the fact that the poor already get healthcare and likely will not be taxed.

Really? What healthcare do I have, cameron? I'm REALLY curious to know.


Well now you most likely get a 95-100% subsidy. Thanks, Obamacare!
2012-06-28 12:11:23 PM
1 votes:
I'd like to welcome my American friends to the ranks of other developed countries. Seriously, the first time you need to go to the emergency room, you'll see what the rest of us have been talking about.
2012-06-28 12:10:31 PM
1 votes:

Stoker: [img836.imageshack.us image 500x510]


So, did you have a problem when Chase CEO Jaime Dimon gets his millions in salary even though he lose $2 Billion on what was, essentially, a bet?
2012-06-28 12:10:19 PM
1 votes:
More of the !% saddling the next 48.5% with carrying the bottom 48.5%.
2012-06-28 12:09:23 PM
1 votes:
I don't see what the problem is. Everyone just needs to start businesses, drill for oil, abuse loopholes and tax shelters, hire overseas and put your money in the Cayman Islands. That will save you from any additional taxes. Every American can do that, right?
2012-06-28 12:08:35 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: ACA is a valid step towards fixing


No...no it is not. lol
It is the WORST way.
Some markets do not work under "free market" conditions.
Health care via Insurance is one of them.
2012-06-28 12:07:59 PM
1 votes:

Sid_the_sadist: I'm going to quit my job and go on welfare now. fark you guys, you pay for my shiat from now on. Including my healthcare.


Umm, your profile says you were in the military, who do you think paid for that and your healthcare? Also, it says you live in Mississippi, you're already part of a welfare state so who cares?
2012-06-28 12:07:28 PM
1 votes:

SandMann: So, any doctors thinking about moving their practices to another country? If so, which one? Early retirement? Career change?


Why would doctors be upset by this? It gives them access to more patients because more people will be able to go to the doctor now.
2012-06-28 12:07:25 PM
1 votes:

inner ted: d3sertion: inner ted:
there is so much fail there, all in just two sentences.

/hint for you sherlock: most middle class will refuse it cause the CAN'T AFFORD IT.
//the stupid, it hurts. too bad i can't afford insurance to get it looked at.

What the hell are you talking about? Most middle class people don't have health insurance now? You need to check your facts, clown.

even fewer will have it now when their employer drops their current coverage and they can't afford to buy it on their own.

that's what the hell i'm talking about, clown.


I was pointing out that most middle class americans do have health insurance, idiot. The most liberal estimates put the number at 40-50 million people who are uninsured, that is not "most" by any measure. And furthermore, have you not noticed health care insurance stocks going through the roof in the market right now? You're about the only one on the planet who thinks people are going to lose coverage because of this law. Certainly people with money and investment acumen disagree, probably a large number of conservatives I'd imagine.

You need to read the bill and get briefed on the current situation in a bad way. Just because Obama did it doesn't mean it's bad for business.
2012-06-28 12:06:21 PM
1 votes:

WombatControl: And all this bullshiat being spewed about the "profit motive" is crap - free markets work because they assume rational self interest.


Sorry, but health care doesn't belong in a rational free market. Most people don't decide that they want to get sick, they just do. There is no self-interest involved because you don't get to choose if you want to get sick. Trying to apply free market principles to health care is ridiculous.
2012-06-28 12:05:20 PM
1 votes:

Aikidogamer: I find it interesting that sever-ability is now infered to be a part of legislation if it is not there...


Look up the SCOTUS ruling on Sarbanes-Oxley in 2010. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board

Also
The guiding principle is this according to a report on statutory interpretation from the Congressional Research Service quoting a ruling in Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678, 684 (1987) (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 108 (1976)). "Unless it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not, the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law." link
Precedent going back 35 years. Not exactly a new development.

There were a lot of right-wing bloggers blogging about severability. As usual, they were best ignored.
2012-06-28 12:04:47 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: Because of government mandates and restrictions on employer-based health insurance, along with a similar level of control over doctors and hospitals.


Yes, regulations and medical insurance premiums.

It doesn't have anything to do with the uninsured using the emergency room as a doctor's visit.
2012-06-28 12:04:34 PM
1 votes:

Serious Black: Aetna's stock is down 4.3% today. WellPoint's stock is down 6.45% today. UnitedHealth's stock is down 3% today. You think they're happy about the ruling?


Stock prices go up and down because of speculation. What you have is alot of people who bought based on the assumption that the ruling would be to overturn and prices would soar. The opposite is true and so now they are bailing.

What the insurance company thinks is irrelevant.
2012-06-28 12:03:44 PM
1 votes:

Daveism: Lernaeus: /looking forward to more "suck it" kindness and compassion from the left today

Keep hitting us with bricks and you expect hugs and kisses in return? fark you in the ass sideways with a screwdriver. How's that for kindness and compassion? Call us un-American, traitors, communists, and every other term you can think of to denigrate us? We're soldiers, nurses, police officers, emergency management officials and non-profit child welfare workers - and that's just in my damn immediate family.

WE'RE the ones expected to turn the other cheek? fark you. Your side clings to Jesus so much, where's the "turning of the cheek" that YOU'RE supposed to be so famous for? (also, didn't he have something to say about helping those less fortunate?)

Our kindness and compassion is reserved for those that actually deserve it.


Yep. Well said. "Oh, we're sorry we're so mean and scummy. No touchbacks!"
2012-06-28 12:03:34 PM
1 votes:
Anyone mention that SCOTUS completely ignored the argument of Obama's lawyer? Right choice, but it looks dumb.
2012-06-28 12:02:58 PM
1 votes:

the opposite of charity is justice: Romney "repeal and replace Obamacare" speech. Long on the former, no details on the latter.

Well, except that healthcare reform must include coverage for pre-existing conditions. Which Obamacare already has. Its like he is a logistics vampire and details are his garlic.


So, if nothing else, the health care act has nudged both sides toward some kind of universal coverage; there are lots of people who never would have moved toward that otherwise.
2012-06-28 12:02:03 PM
1 votes:

mr lawson: LOL...... Premiums are going to go Through the roof!

/be careful what you wish for, ya might just get it


They weren't already? DAMN YOU FARTBONGO!

Seriously, keep driving up premiums, and watch support for true single payer build.
2012-06-28 12:02:01 PM
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: Lorelle: *cries tears of joy*

/is pushing 50
//has a pre-existing condition
///can't afford a health care plan right now

.
.
Have no fear. Once we throw your lazy arse in jail for not paying your "tax" you'll have all of the coverage you could ever desire.


Thank you. All the jingoism of the Right without any of the facts they aren't known for.
2012-06-28 12:01:33 PM
1 votes:

muck4doo: w00t! More taxes! Hooray!


Are you outing yourself as one of the people whose ass we have to cover when you have an accident and expect treatment but didn't buy insurance?
2012-06-28 12:01:24 PM
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: Yes, it is. Driving, drinking, they are all voluntary. You can choose to not do it. Can't choose not to exist. Plenty of crunchies only ride bikes and get away with not contributing to the state transportation funds or the federal gasoline tax.


Wow you fail. Getting health insurance is still optional. It just costs money to avoid it. They can't force you to do the speed limit, but they can sure charge you money for going over it. The freeway speed limit actually has less to do with public safety than gas prices, so the Federal Government strong arming the states into conforming re: speed limits was more about price/market management than anything else. There are costs associated with behavior that the State or Federal government don't approve of. How is this new again?
2012-06-28 12:00:59 PM
1 votes:
I just got denied for individual health insurance because 3 years ago I went to a psychiatrist and took Zoloft for 3 months, so I'm getting a kick....

I got diagnosed with "Major Depressive Disorder", and apparently that is an automatic 10 year denial. Also, it doesn't help the depression to find out you have a "disorder" and that it's "Major". I lobby we change that diagnosis to "Sad for a little bit because my girlfriend is a cheating whore".
2012-06-28 12:00:48 PM
1 votes:

Joe Blowme: So when your company sees it cheaper to pay the fine and not offer you that HC package, will you still be dancing in the streets?


I wish the law would've eliminates employer health plans completely.
2012-06-28 12:00:22 PM
1 votes:

Coco LaFemme: Mitt Romney is currently lying his robotic ass off on my TV right now. YOU DID THE SAME THING IN MASSACHUSETTS, YOU SWIZZLESTICK. What did he think "Romneycare" was? The nickname Ann gave for his dick? For fark's sake.


I have disagreements with the president but that fark stick got me to goto the president's website and donate. So it served some purpose lol.
2012-06-28 12:00:19 PM
1 votes:
Obama Cares.
2012-06-28 11:59:25 AM
1 votes:

chiett: It WILL be repealed.



It's just a matter of time.


Oh you.

It's passed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government. It is a law. It's not going away.

I'm sorry that upsets you. I was pretty upset when we invaded Iraq for no reason.
2012-06-28 11:59:11 AM
1 votes:

Phinn: Paying for services to the indigent would have cost a lot less than this mess will cost.


uh...do you not know why health insurance and medical costs have been spiraling out of control for the past several decades?

/I'm looking forward to the forced exercise portion of the "tax," though.

I know! Look at all the other countries with such policies.
2012-06-28 11:58:48 AM
1 votes:
Mitt Romney is currently lying his robotic ass off on my TV right now. YOU DID THE SAME THING IN MASSACHUSETTS, YOU SWIZZLESTICK. What did he think "Romneycare" was? The nickname Ann gave for his dick? For fark's sake.
2012-06-28 11:58:08 AM
1 votes:

chiett: It WILL be repealed.



It's just a matter of time.


Along with Roe V. Wade and the Civil Rights Act, right, Cletus?
Yeah - any day now.
Keep telling yourself that.
2012-06-28 11:56:50 AM
1 votes:

From the ruling:


4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III-C, concluding that the individual mandate may beupheld as within Congress's power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33-
44.
(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the "[s]hared responsibilitypayment" as a "penalty," not a "tax." That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress's power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,"[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application." United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287,
294. Pp. 33-35.
(b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy healthinsurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36-37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress's choice of language-stating that individuals "shall" obtain insurance or pay a "penalty"-does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169-174. Pp. 35-40.


Fascinating.

Basically, what he's saying is, it's not a tax when you consider whether or not the government can be sued over it (Anti-Injunction Act), but it IS a tax when you consider whether or not the government can do it.
2012-06-28 11:56:42