US Supreme Court Say NO NO NO to Obamacare!!

[BrianFromWA]

I think I would've been more interested in voting on the ability to use the "pass this bill, so that we can see what's in it" approval process.
[video=youtube;KoE1R-xH5To]

 

[3RA1N1AC]

lol

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I doubt anyone cares that Obama said it wasn't a tax and the supreme court ruled that it technically was (I mean, other than people who oppose it anyway). Who was in favor of Obamacare only because the penalty wasn't called a tax?

barfo

I see your point, but I think there are those who rarely vote, but who will make it a point to because of how this went down. And it is a new tax and some people feel very strongly about that. I also think the right will start really bringing out how this is to be paid for (all the various ways) that affect low & middle income people that may just stir up people a bit. Not a lot of people, but maybe enough to make a difference in a key state her and there.

 

[barfo]

I see your point, but I think there are those who rarely vote, but who will make it a point to because of how this went down.

Hard to imagine this being the issue that gets people up off their lazy butts. "Grr, congress passed a healthcare law a couple of years ago and now the supreme court has declared it constitutional! That really chaps my hide!"

barfo

 

[Ed O]

I doubt anyone cares that Obama said it wasn't a tax and the supreme court ruled that it technically was (I mean, other than people who oppose it anyway). Who was in favor of Obamacare only because the penalty wasn't called a tax?

Why did Obama bother arguing that it wasn't a tax, then?

Ed O.

 

[Minstrel]

Why did Obama bother arguing that it wasn't a tax, then?

Because the word "tax" doesn't play well when you're trying to pass a bill (and it's pretty much a matter of semantics as to whether you call it a tax, or a fee or a penalty). However, that battle was fought (and Republicans did their best to market it as a tax). It seems unlikely that the damage, whatever it was, hasn't already been priced into his polling numbers. The people who care about the hair-splitting difference between a tax and a fee probably already made up their mind on the issue.

 

[Ed O]

Because the word "tax" doesn't play well when you're trying to pass a bill (and it's pretty much a matter of semantics as to whether you call it a tax, or a fee or a penalty). However, that battle was fought (and Republicans did their best to market it as a tax). It seems unlikely that the damage, whatever it was, hasn't already been priced into his polling numbers. The people who care about the hair-splitting difference between a tax and a fee probably already made up their mind on the issue.

I agree that it's semantics, and I agree that none of us know the answer to this for sure, but I find it hard to believe that the SCOTUS decision yesterday was already priced into his polling numbers--no one knew the outcome, and of all the outcomes, this (finding it kosher because of a justification not offered by the supporters of the bill) was not a particularly likely one.

It's definitely possible that those who would have cared about it being a tax when it was passed don't care now, and if it were not an election year I don't know how long the irritation felt would have lasted, but given we're a few months away from the election, I think it's pretty likely that some energizing of the GOP base will occur and relatively likely that some anti-tax independents will be swayed against the Dems/Obama because of the ruling.

Ed O.

 

[Minstrel]

I agree that it's semantics, and I agree that none of us know the answer to this for sure, but I find it hard to believe that the SCOTUS decision yesterday was already priced into his polling numbers--no one knew the outcome, and of all the outcomes, this (finding it kosher because of a justification not offered by the supporters of the bill) was not a particularly likely one.

I'm not saying the Supreme Court decision was priced in...I'm saying the unpopularity of the bill already was. I don't think it being stamped constitutional by the court creates a new hostility toward Obama (though it may deepen existing hostilities in some toward Obama, which I'll address further down my post).

It's definitely possible that those who would have cared about it being a tax when it was passed don't care now

That isn't quite what I was saying either. What I was saying is that the people who cared about the difference between a tax and a fee probably made up their mind back at the time that the bill was being debated and passed. Nothing about the bill's fundamentals changed yesterday (other than a rather "inside baseball" issue of the Medicaid expansion being opt-out on the state level)...only that the "fee" or "penalty" terminology was replaced by "tax." People who resented the idea of paying money if they didn't carry health insurance presumably already disliked Obama before yesterday...the only people I could see changing their minds are people who were neutral/okay about a fee but not okay about a tax. And those people, I'd argue, already decided for themselves what they considered it.

I agree that it's possible that with one avenue to throwing out the ACA now closed (Supreme Court overturning), it may create an enthusiasm surge for people who badly want it repealed to vote for Romney. But while it's possible, a priori analysis of what will cause enthusiasm surges and gaps tends to be pretty unreliable. Every campaign, people talk about how this or that will cause a surge of young people or Hispanics or old people or whoever else to go to the polls for a certain candidate and it seems to be pretty random whether that actually happens.

 

[RayDavies]

The selfishness of cons cracks me up.

"waah, I don't want to pay for anyone's healthcare... I'm gonna be rich someday"

Guess what, ya already are paying for for poor folks to get treatment; the ACA just aims to reduce the bills we pay to make up for those who can't.

It's not a perfect system- far from it; that would be single payer healthcare. The ACA is a big giveaway to the private insurers- clearly a socialist program. LOL. I love that some of you think the republicons are going to be able to spin this in their favor... the empty suit y'all are running put this program into place as Governor... and guess what? It's worked great. Willard can't run against a program he invented without being seen as what he is-

governor etch-a-sketch.

 

[PapaG]

It's semantics whether you call it a fee or a tax increase. On this point, the comparison to auto insurance is perfectly appropriate (I'm not saying the entire proposal is the same as mandating auto insurance)...we don't call requiring auto insurance a "tax increase" even though there are usually penalties for not having it. I don't think a semantics war is going to be particularly devastating politically. Even if you do view it as a "tax increase" it's not going to affect all that many people in the middle class...most middle class people have health insurance and therefore won't incur the penalty/tax. Those too poor to be able to afford health insurance will get subsidies to hep them afford it.

I guess we'll see.

Auto insurance falls under the 10th Amendment. Unless I'm unaware of a federal mandate/tax for people to carry car insurance? That's a state issue, and even states don't claim it's a tax, nor is there a penalty if you choose not to own a car.

Pretzels.

 

[PapaG]

Congress hammered out and passed a law. SCOTUS found it constitutional...what part about "case closed" don't you understand?

It's not perfect by any means, but US citizens flat hated the mess that was in place before.

STOMP

SCOTUS re-wrote the law to make it constitutional. The Commerce Clause doesn't apply to the law, so it was re-written by SCOTUS into a tax, which Congress can authorize via a 50+ vote in both chambers.

Are you an idiot?

 

[PapaG]

Personally, I think the simplest explanation is probably the right one: Roberts was making no comment on whether it was good policy, he simply ruled on whether it was constitutional, as per his job.

That's not AT ALL what he ruled. He changed the penalty/mandate into a tax, and struck down the Commerce Clause argument.

Do you even pay attention? LMAO

He just shut down the Commerce Clause/Mandate argument, and now changed ObamaCare into literally the largest tax increase in US history, and it impacts the poor far greater than the rich.

 

[Minstrel]

That's not AT ALL what he ruled. He changed the penalty/mandate into a tax, and struck down the Commerce Clause argument.

None of that is at odds with what I said.

 

[Minstrel]

Auto insurance falls under the 10th Amendment. Unless I'm unaware of a federal mandate/tax for people to carry car insurance? That's a state issue, and even states don't claim it's a tax

Whether it's a "state issue" or a "federal issue" is irrelevant to the semantics argument of fee vs. tax. And the fact that states don't claim it's a tax means that you see things as I do. Levying a penalty for not having something that the government has decided you should is generally not considered a tax. Again, though, it's semantics, because you can rephrase "requiring people to pay money" as a tax pretty easily.

 

[barfo]

and now changed ObamaCare into literally the largest tax increase in US history

Not really. The tax/penalty only affects those that don't buy insurance. The estimate is that over the first 5 years, the tax/penalty will raise $120 billion total. Hardly the largest tax increase in history.

Even if you (incorrectly and rather absurdly) assume that the supreme court ruling that the penalty is a tax means the entirety of Obamacare is a tax, it isn't the largest in history.

Here's more data, in case you someday become more interested in facts than in repeating Limbaugh rants.

barfo

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Here's more data, in case you someday become more interested in facts than in repeating Limbaugh rants.

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Not really. The tax/penalty only affects those that don't buy insurance. The estimate is that over the first 5 years, the tax/penalty will raise $120 billion total. Hardly the largest tax increase in history.

Even if you (incorrectly and rather absurdly) assume that the supreme court ruling that the penalty is a tax means the entirety of Obamacare is a tax, it isn't the largest in history.

Here's more data, in case you someday become more interested in facts than in repeating Limbaugh rants.

barfo

You and PolitiFact are clearly missing the point. It's the largest tax increase ever by a black man. Rush understands this.

 

[Sedatedfork]

:MARIS61:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...pilepsy_medication_effects_his_cognition.html

Hmmm that makes sense... all those medications are damn pricey.. that's why he wanted Obamacare.

 

[Denny Crane]

I have a hunch.

Health Care premiums will continue to skyrocket. Barfo and Minstrel will be spewing the party line, that without ObamaCare, the premiums would be even higher. LOL.

The incentive for businesses is to stop paying for health care and to pay the $1200 per head TAX. Way cheaper than paying $10K per head, like they do now. The result will be govt. taking taxes and penalties from the middle class and paying the money directly to the insurance companies. Insurance company stocks look pretty good right now.

 

[Minstrel]

The incentive for businesses is to stop paying for health care and to pay the $1200 per head TAX. Way cheaper than paying $10K per head, like they do now.

Before the ACA, business could have stopped paying for health care at no penalty. Why would they do it now when it carries a $1200 penalty? They didn't offer health care because it was cost-effective or saved them money...they offered it because it's compensation to employees, like salaries. A company that cut health insurance would be at a competitive disadvantage in getting the employees they want versus a company that doesn't, both before and after the ACA. The difference is that with the ACA, companies will pay $1200 a head for the privilege of that competitive disadvantage.

 

[PapaG]

Before the ACA, business could have stopped paying for health care at no penalty. Why would they do it now when it carries a $1200 penalty? They didn't offer health care because it was cost-effective or saved them money...they offered it because it's compensation to employees, like salaries. A company that cut health insurance would be at a competitive disadvantage in getting the employees they want versus a company that doesn't, both before and after the ACA. The difference is that with the ACA, companies will pay $1200 a head for the privilege of that competitive disadvantage.

Correct. Companies offer health plans to separate themselves from other companies, and it's now expected for most professional jobs, and even McDonalds. The point is that now that companies can pay a much lower fee to offload employees to the 'government plan', that it will become the norm.

Before, if you didn't offer HC to employees, their only other option was to purchase their own plan. Under ObamaCare, there is a 3rd option, and employees will have a health plan. Sure, they're being taxed if they don't pay for it, but would you rather pay a $2k tax and go on a government plan, or pay up to $1k/month for a family plan?

 

[Minstrel]

Correct. Companies offer health plans to separate themselves from other companies, and it's now expected for most professional jobs, and even McDonalds. The point is that now that companies can pay a much lower fee to offload employees to the 'government plan', that it will become the norm.

Before, if you didn't offer HC to employees, their only other option was to purchase their own plan. Under ObamaCare, there is a 3rd option, and employees will have a health plan. Sure, they're being taxed if they don't pay for it, but would you rather pay a $2k tax and go on a government plan, or pay up to $1k/month for a family plan?

I don't understand why it matters to companies whether there was another option. Why do you feel that it's no longer an incentive? Under the ACA, middle-class citizens and above will still have to pay for their health insurance in the private sector if they don't get it from their employer...so companies cutting health insurance plans will still be essentially cutting their compensation packages, which should be as bad for hiring as it ever was.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't understand why it matters to companies whether there was another option. Why do you feel that it's no longer an incentive? Under the ACA, middle-class citizens and above will still have to pay for their health insurance in the private sector if they don't get it from their employer...so companies cutting health insurance plans will still be essentially cutting their compensation packages, which should be as bad for hiring as it ever was.

They could offer people $5K higher salaries and pocket the difference.

 

[Minstrel]

They could offer people $5K higher salaries and pocket the difference.

If the $5k higher salary covers (or more than covers) buying private health insurance of the same level as the health insurance the company was offering, that doesn't seem like a problem. In fact, that seems like a potentially positive outcome...I'm not sure it's the greatest system to have health insurance tied to employer. If it doesn't, then their employees will still correctly see it as a pay cut and we're back to "companies could have cut health insurance long ago if they were okay with the results of cutting compensation."

 

[Denny Crane]

If the $5k higher salary covers (or more than covers) buying private health insurance of the same level as the health insurance the company was offering, that doesn't seem like a problem. In fact, that seems like a very positive outcome...I'm not sure it's the greatest system to have health insurance tied to employer. If it doesn't, then their employees will still correctly see it as a pay cut and we're back to "companies could have cut health insurance long ago if they were okay with the results of cutting compensation."

Actually, no.

If you're healthy and just use insurance for a couple of office visits a year, which MOST people (and by far) do, they'll see it as $400+ a month extra pay and they'll still have "free" office visits.

 

[Minstrel]

If you're healthy and just use insurance for a couple of office visits a year, which MOST people (and by far) do, they'll see it as $400+ a month extra pay and they'll still have "free" office visits.

The point of health insurance is generally not the per-year money the individual consumes via health care. It's to cover them if they get something like cancer or suffer an accident that leads to extremely costly care/surgery and that sort of thing. What you're essentially claiming is that most people don't understand that and will look at the loss of health insurance and extra salary instead as "free money for nothing" which I think is way off-base and proven wrong by the fact that unions have often fought hard for health insurance as part of compensation. Unless the salary compensation is approximately the same as the cost of the health insurance being cut, I think most people will see it as an effective pay cut.

 

[PapaG]

Minstrel, I like you, but you lost the debate on the "semantics" approach.

Now that we're in the weeds, though, the real punitive nature of the HC bill will become obvious. I do give credit to Obama for signing onto a plan that will effectively destroy the private insurance industry in a bad economy.

No more doctors amputating feet for $50k!! Those greedy fucking doctors ... ifff .... ummm ... modify ... errr ...

[video=youtube;SG56B2et4M8]

 

[Minstrel]

Minstrel, I like you, but you lost the debate on the "semantics" approach.

I'm not really sure what you're claiming here, but you are, as ever, entitled to your opinion.

Also, I've always liked you, too.

 

[Denny Crane]

The point of health insurance is generally not the per-year money the individual consumes via health care. It's to cover them if they get something like cancer or suffer an accident that leads to extremely costly care/surgery and that sort of thing. What you're essentially claiming is that most people don't understand that and will look at the loss of health insurance and extra salary instead as "free money for nothing" which I think is way off-base and proven wrong by the fact that unions have often fought hard for health insurance as part of compensation. Unless the salary compensation is approximately the same as the cost of the health insurance being cut, I think most people will see it as an effective pay cut.

The cost of catastrophic (only) health insurance is the cheapest of all insurance available. It's even cheaper if you go with a $10K deductable (sizable, but not enough to make you lose your home or life savings).

 

[Minstrel]

The cost of catastrophic (only) health insurance is the cheapest of all insurance available. It's even cheaper if you go with a $10K deductable (sizable, but not enough to make you lose your home or life savings).

Yeah, I agree. I personally go with high deductible insurance for the lower premiums. For most people, catastrophic is what I think society should guarantee. There are, of course, people who aren't healthy (and often not through their own doing) and I think society should also guarantee the health care they need, whether they're rich or poor.

I still haven't seen any particular reason why it should be believed that companies will start cutting health insurance without a compensating bump in salary. I don't think the ACA makes that more likely...in fact, I think it makes it less likely due to the penalty for doing so.