It's Constitutional, Bitches

[i_went_poopie]

I wonder why the govt did not investigate what if anything it can do to cut the actual COSTS of health care so the PRICE could be lowered. All that was done was address insurance.

[okraslayer]

Honestly the president & congress chicken shitted out on this bill some ways. I think I have made my distaste for the lack of competition this bill provides quite clear. At one time the exchanges would have been competition but since that was neutered by the dems and made to just be another private insurance thing and guaranteeing them zero competition I am not seeing much hope for it.

With that being said thought I do have some friends that adhere to the " tea party" side of things and this is my suggestion to others here if they do as well.. If or when this exchange mandate gets done in your state/region by all means drop your current plan,if you have one, and sign up for the new stuff. Its a win win really for the repubs either they will crash the system early on and make this congress / pres a complete failure or if it works they get better health care for less... SO either way they get something out of it.

[infantrystud]

The hard core socialists want socialized medicine. They know they couldn't get that passed. This is a way point to what they want. Some will even admit that.

What I find interesting is the article saying Roberts played politics with this decision. I have a question. And, I honestly don't know the answer. But, it seems to me that the only flip floppers on the SCOTUS are appointed by Republican presidents and then they turn out to vote with the liberals. Has there ever been a Democrat appointed justice that has flipped to be conservative?

Originally Posted by i_went_poopie

I wonder why the govt did not investigate what if anything it can do to cut the actual COSTS of health care so the PRICE could be lowered. All that was done was address insurance.

[HoratioBrock]

Democratic appointees are more reliably liberal.

Souter, Kennedy, O'Connor, perhaps now Roberts are more inclined to break with the conservatives and vote with a liberal. That tells me that they like Governor Romney are really more liberal than they let on because they know the power players in the conservative movement won't allow them to succeeed if they are up front with them.

[okraslayer]

Originally Posted by infantrystud

The hard core socialists want socialized medicine. They know they couldn't get that passed. This is a way point to what they want. Some will even admit that.

What I find interesting is the article saying Roberts played politics with this decision. I have a question. And, I honestly don't know the answer. But, it seems to me that the only flip floppers on the SCOTUS are appointed by Republican presidents and then they turn out to vote with the liberals. Has there ever been a Democrat appointed justice that has flipped to be conservative?

I Don't think roberts really flip flopped in this instance... when being interviewed and later grilled via congress for the seat he was consistent in his beliefs and views on the constitution he was not as some would say "A Republican Judge" appointed by a GOP president..yes but that is about it.

[okraslayer]

Originally Posted by HoratioBrock

Democratic appointees are more reliably liberal.

Souter, Kennedy, O'Connor, perhaps now Roberts are more inclined to break with the conservatives and vote with a liberal. That tells me that they like Governor Romney are really more liberal than they let on because they know the power players in the conservative movement won't allow them to succeeed if they are up front with them.

So liberal judges vote more inclined with the party than what is best for the constitution ? Good to know

Nice to see that for the dems the Supreme court is just an exstension of the party pulpit...

[ShuGuy]

Originally Posted by okraslayer

So liberal judges vote more inclined with the party than what is best for the constitution ? Good to know

Nice to see that for the dems the Supreme court is just an exstension of the party pulpit...

Or that Republican-appointed judges realize how stupid their party's platform is after they reach the Supreme Court and act accordingly.

See? I can make a stupid partisan insult from the same info, too.

[okraslayer]

But you did nothing to address the pulpit part...

dam slacking hippie !!!

[sleepneat]

Did you know there are 21 new tax increases in the Obama law? Can you name them?

Here are the ones that will get me:

The first, and best known, of these seven taxes that will hit all Americans as a result of Obamacare is the Individual Mandate Tax (no longer concealed as a penalty). This provision will require a couple to pay the higher of a base tax of $1,360 per year, or 2.5% of adjusted growth income starting with lower base tax and rising to this level by 2016. Individuals will see a base tax of $695 and families a base tax of $2,085 per year by 2016.

Next up is the Medicine Cabinet Tax that took effect in 2011. This tax prohibits reimbursement of expenses for over-the-counter medicine, with the lone exception of insulin, from an employee’s pre-tax dollar funded Health Saving Account (HSA), Flexible Spending Account (FSA) or Health Reimbursement Account (HRA). This provision hurts middle class earners particularly hard since they earn enough to actually pay federal taxes, but not enough to make this restriction negligible.

The Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Cap, which will begin in 2013, is perhaps the most hurtful provision to the middle class. This part of the law imposes a cap of $2,500 per year (which is now unlimited) on the amount of pre-tax dollars that could be deposited into these accounts. Why is this particularly hurtful to the middle class? It is because funds in these accounts may be used to pay for special needs education for special needs children in the United States. Tuition rates for this type of special education can easily exceed $14,000 per year and the use of pre-tax dollars has helped many middle income families.

Another direct hit to the middle class is the Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle which is currently 7.5% of adjusted gross income. This is the hurdle that must be met before medical expenses over that hurdle can be taken as a deduction on federal income taxes. Obamacare raises this hurdle to 10% of adjusted gross income beginning in 2013. Consider the middle class family with $80,000 of adjusted gross income and $8,000 of medical expenses. Currently, that family can get some relief from being able to take a $2,000 deduction (7.5% X $80,000 = $6,000; $8,000 –$6,000 = $2,000). An increase to 10% would eliminate the deduction in this example and if that family was paying a 25% federal tax rate, the real cost of that lost deduction would be $500.

The fifth new tax on the middle class, and all Americans, is the Health Savings Account (HSA) Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% currently to 20% beginning in 2013. This provision actually sets these accounts apart from Investment Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and other tax advantaged accounts, all of which remain with a 10% early withdrawal tax.

Another regressive tax that is part of this law began in 2010 and that is the Indoor Tanning Services Tax, which places a 10% excise tax on people using tanning salons. While some may regard this as insignificant, the broader implication is that this act of taxation is a blatant move by the federal government to control the behavior of citizens. This provision, as does the Individual Mandate and as Justice Kennedy said during the oral arguments on the constitutionality of the law said, “….fundamentally changes the relationship between the federal government and the citizen.”

The seventh new tax that directly impacts the middle class, along with all citizens, is the Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans or the “Cadillac” Health Insurance Plan Tax. These are plans that provide extensive coverage and that are generally fully paid for, or largely paid for, by employers. This provision imposes a 40% excise tax on the employer-paid premium on taxpayers who are covered by such plans, beginning in 2018. The reason it begins in 2018 is because most unionized workers are covered by plans that fall under this definition and a deferral was made to spare union members from this tax for at least a period of time.

Who said "I won't raise taxes on the Middle Class"?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...even-new-taxes

Next question:

Since the law doesn't allow for Illegal Immigrants (yet) to take part in this law; how are they gonna know who is who? Will they check IDs? If the do check, why can't States have their own Voter ID laws? Voting is just as important as Health Care, right?

[12941]

Originally Posted by infantrystud

The hard core socialists want socialized medicine.

The absolute WORST are people with kids!


The desire for adequate and affordable healthcare for children is sickening!!!! It goes against everything the U.S. stands for!

[HoratioBrock]

Originally Posted by okraslayer

So liberal judges vote more inclined with the party than what is best for the constitution ? Good to know

Nice to see that for the dems the Supreme court is just an exstension of the party pulpit...

No one said that but you. What I said was that the republican appointees seem like they are saying that to be up front with the base is bad for business come appointment time. Which justice voted more for their party than the constitution since you brought it up?

Do you HONESTLY believe that for the R's the Supreme court is something other than just an exstension of the party pulpit?

Okra you are too smart to post stuff like that.

[infantrystud]

I'm sorry, I guess I'm missing your point. What does this bill do to make healthcare affordable for families with small children? Or for anyone?

Originally Posted by 12941

The absolute WORST are people with kids!


The desire for adequate and affordable healthcare for children is sickening!!!! It goes against everything the U.S. stands for!

[i_went_poopie]

Originally Posted by infantrystud

I'm sorry, I guess I'm missing your point. What does this bill do to make healthcare affordable for families with small children? Or for anyone?

it never did anything to address the cost of health services. They could of course nationalize it like other countries and then dictate what gets charged and what people earn. At that point, either wages all go down along with quality or taxes go through the roof to cover not just the providers of service but all of the beauracracy as well.

leftists suck

[okraslayer]

Originally Posted by HoratioBrock

No one said that but you. What I said was that the republican appointees seem like they are saying that to be up front with the base is bad for business come appointment time. Which justice voted more for their party than the constitution since you brought it up?

Do you HONESTLY believe that for the R's the Supreme court is something other than just an exstension of the party pulpit?

Okra you are too smart to post stuff like that.

That was more of just a jab at you... for your sly comment prior.

I think they both see it as a pulpit and its far too political to have the sort of power it has.

They sit on that thing for life & can even fall a sleep during arguments and never be reprimanded. I personally find that fucked up..

[12941]

Originally Posted by infantrystud

I'm sorry, I guess I'm missing your point.

Yeah you did.

[12941]

Originally Posted by i_went_poopie

it never did anything to address the cost of health services. They could of course nationalize it like other countries and then dictate what gets charged and what people earn. At that point, either wages all go down along with quality or taxes go through the roof to cover not just the providers of service but all of the beauracracy as well.

leftists suck

I'm calling your BS.

I know you're afraid, but making it appear that your fears are fact is BS.

How could you even make such conclusion when the full implementation isn't even near.

[okraslayer]

Originally Posted by 12941

I'm calling your BS.

I know you're afraid, but making it appear that your fears are fact is BS.

How could you even make such conclusion when the full implementation isn't even near.

Well technically he is correct... with the bill in its current form it does nothing to lower costs... All it does is require us to pay into the system and the system is still governed by the Private insurance companies and not the fed. Well unless you qualify for medicade or get a voucher that gets you into insurance exchanges.

[12941]

Originally Posted by okraslayer

Well technically he is correct... with the bill in its current form it does nothing to lower costs... All it does is require us to pay into the system and the system is still governed by the Private insurance companies and not the fed. Well unless you qualify for medicade or get a voucher that gets you into insurance exchanges.

Well, for those who are practically uninsured, it lowers the cost. From "Insurance Companies will absolutely not insure you for whatever money" to "Yeah, ok, I will insure you", the cost was lowered. To the people younger than 26 who can still be covered by their parents' plan, which would be lower than getting one on their own, yeah it lowered the cost.


If you read the past tense he uses, he is still wrong because it would be illogical for a bill that is still to be fully implemented to operate in the past, unless Congress has the duty to use the time machine it houses in the Library of Congress.

[okraslayer]

Originally Posted by 12941

Well, for those who are practically uninsured, it lowers the cost. From "Insurance Companies will absolutely not insure you for whatever money" to "Yeah, ok, I will insure you", the cost was lowered. To the people younger than 26 who can still be covered by their parents' plan, which would be lower than getting one on their own, yeah it lowered the cost.


If you read the past tense he uses, he is still wrong because it would be illogical for a bill that is still to be fully implemented to operate in the past, unless Congress has the duty to use the time machine it houses in the Library of Congress.

The on your parent doesnt really lower it for the person that is paying for it... since they still pay it.. True its free for you, unless you chip in to mom or dad for the money..

It grants access to many more but that doesn't in turn lower the costs its just now there are more that HAVE to pay into the system.

True its still early in the game to see how all of this will affect costs down the road, but by going on what information we have which isnt much ( failure of the dems) it isnt looking good.

You and others can ponder on maybe the congress will do this or that and go into la la land for that matter with all the possibilities. Yet Ill just go by what has been put forward and come before it, use that for my discussions...

[fluffybunny]

Does any of this has anything to do with veterinarians?