Individual mandate upheld

[Guest]

they are saying the "law" was upheld, but I am not sure that is true as yet.

[Guest]

That is what I'm hearing. Sad day in America.

[Guest]

Supreme Court upholds health care laws individual mandate. Chief Justice Roberts votes with liberals.

[Guest]

Thank God two of the three branches of our government are functioning well. With the historic affirmation of the Affordable Care Act, our country, as a civilized, caring society takes a huge, courageous step forward. We are showing our concern for each other and the desire to do a better job taking care of each other and our national resources in the future.

Justice Roberts had to know the decision was in his hands and has the intellect and courage to realize that our society must step forward, not backward.

(Good news for BTK also: many more Americans will now be contributing through taxes.)

[Guest]

Justice Roberts put his political beliefs aside, this is obvious since he got sideways with POTUS early in the administration.

[Guest]

Thank God two of the three branches of our government are functioning well. With the historic affirmation of the Affordable Care Act, our country, as a civilized, caring society takes a huge, courageous step forward. We are showing our concern for each other and the desire to do a better job taking care of each other and our national resources in the future.

Justice Roberts had to know the decision was in his hands and has the intellect and courage to realize that our society must step forward, not backward.

(Good news for BTK also: many more Americans will now be contributing through taxes.)

Do you know what it will cost someone in your state to obtain insurance through the Medicaid/exchange pool in your state ijusluvit?

[Guest]

I AM STUNNED


:bigbow:SCOTUS

[Guest]

It appears states can bow out.

[Guest]

It appears states can bow out.

I'm hearing conflicting reports on that, hdh1470.

[Guest]

Do you know what it will cost someone in your state to obtain insurance through the Medicaid/exchange pool in your state ijusluvit?

Have you studied the clearly projected costs of health care without the Affordable Care Act; the rapidly increasing number who will not have it, and whose costs will be paid by you and me?
Believe me, I could go on and on asking you about the implications of continuing health care as we know it versus solving problems one at a time with the very good beginning structure which is is now provided.

[Guest]

I know you all know what "gut feeling" means.

My gut feeling on this is not good and I would bet that even those spiking the ball right now feel that little twinge also, if they could put their political beliefs aside.

I think this opens a door better left shut!

[Guest]

I know you all know what "gut feeling" means.

My gut feeling on this is not good and I would bet that even those spiking the ball right now feel that little twinge also, if they could put their political beliefs aside.

I think this opens a door better left shut!


I get those "hesitating" gut feelings too. Most of the time it's about having to do something which is hard, but right. I think that's the perfect analogy to the action of the Court today.

[Guest]

Thank God two of the three branches of our government are functioning well. With the historic affirmation of the Affordable Care Act, our country, as a civilized, caring society takes a huge, courageous step forward. We are showing our concern for each other and the desire to do a better job taking care of each other and our national resources in the future.

Justice Roberts had to know the decision was in his hands and has the intellect and courage to realize that our society must step forward, not backward.

(Good news for BTK also: many more Americans will now be contributing through taxes.)


It is a tax now according to the US Supreme Court though which could open it to an attack if the Republicans gain control of the necessary US Congressional voting blocks this November.

[Guest]

For the action he took on this decision, I would include Chief Justice Roberts in the "profiles in courage" group.

[Guest]

I get those "hesitating" gut feelings too. Most of the time it's about having to do something which is hard, but right. I think that's the perfect analogy to the action of the Court today.

The affordable healthcare act is new and the ramifications are largely unknown. As with everything, there are likely to be unintended consequenses. There are IMO, some very necessary reforms in this massive act, which was, in total, the veritable "horse designed by committee". There will be many changes made and amended as time goes on, and some of the provisions will likely disappear - that is the way things work. It may be struck down if Romney and the republicans win in November, but some of the provisions will pop back up because they are right.

[Guest]

It is a tax now according to the US Supreme Court though which could open it to an attack if the Republicans gain control of the necessary US Congressional voting blocks this November.

There is no possible chance that the GOP can gain a cloture-proof majority in the Senate. Current polls and projections have them gaining the majority, with 51 seats. That will give them the right to set the legislative agenda, get the committee chairs, and have their leader get most of the soundbites--Lordy, I hope it's someone other than Mitch McConnell. But like the Republicans do now to the Democratic majority, the Democrats can pretty much block any vote the GOP majority would like to put up for a full vote.

I'm afraid we might be looking at another four years of legislative gridlock. Except when it comes to more spending bills!

[Guest]

The affordable healthcare act is new and the ramifications are largely unknown. As with everything, there are likely to be unintended consequenses. There are IMO, some very necessary reforms in this massive act, which was, in total, the veritable "horse designed by committee". There will be many changes made and amended as time goes on, and some of the provisions will likely disappear - that is the way things work. It may be struck down if Romney and the republicans win in November, but some of the provisions will pop back up because they are right.
I sure wish the Democrats would stop patting themselves on the back, and the Republicans stop yelling about repealing the whole Act, and get together to design changes to some obviously weak and ill-conceived parts of the legislation.

Of course, what will stand in the way of that will be the partisan hatred each party has for the other. And more importantly, the lobbyists for various clients who want lots of the individual parts kept intact, even though they may weaken and make more expensive the bill as a whole.

[Guest]

Some parts are good.But look what it has done and is doing to working people now.Ask your children that are working how much their Ins payroll deductions have went up.In some cases 60% or more in last 2 yrs.Also ask them to check out of pocket costs those have went up a lot.Our er copay had been $75 a yr last went to $100 this year $250, The costs are hurting people who can least afford it.We will pay more and get less.Example my prostate surgery 3 yrs ago my out of pocket less then 1k.Shoulder out patient surgery 3 months ago more then 3k. And Prostate surgery was more then triple the amount billed to ins. co.My children and yours will never have the life style that all of us have had because we just pile more on them

[Guest]

Didn't Obama and the democrats argue profusely back in 2009 that the mandate was not a tax?

According to the court it is. A massive one at that.

Obama and the libs lie again...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/

[Guest]

If we can afford to give the wealthy two massive tax CUTS - and if we can afford 2 wars - and if we can afford spending billions and billions looking for non existent, imaginary WMD's, then we can afford health care for our OWN people.

:boxing2:

[Guest]

I have been paying Social Security taxes for years with no benefit to me personally. If I die before I will have paid those taxes any never receive any benefit. But the reason it works is that all of us have to participate in the program....

The system is broken mainly because the free markets have failed...the insurance companies want to minimize there risk and therefore maximize profits, US corporations want to unburden themselves of healthcare costs and the result is anyone with health issues cannot get affordable healthcare in the open market. This includes me.....

It has been argued, on this website, that "we" shouldn't have to pay for abortions, birth control pills and illegals. We also should also not have to pay for people who don't have health insurance and then seek services in the nations hospital emergency rooms.

[Guest]

The affordable healthcare act is new and the ramifications are largely unknown. As with everything, there are likely to be unintended consequenses. There are IMO, some very necessary reforms in this massive act, which was, in total, the veritable "horse designed by committee". There will be many changes made and amended as time goes on, and some of the provisions will likely disappear - that is the way things work. It may be struck down if Romney and the republicans win in November, but some of the provisions will pop back up because they are right.

In a little mini-debate this morning one sociologist suggested an unintended result of the Court's decisions today might be the increased size and resolve of militia and other far right radical groups. Their efforts to further polarize and resist government actions could become an increasing problem for the nation. The respondent suggested these efforts might be blunted by the increasing popularity of some of the health care provisions here and on the way.

[Guest]

How short sited and blind some can be. Aside from Obamacare, a precedence been set here.

The federal government can now mandate you buy whatever they say. If you don't, you get taxed.

Surly most people aren't dumb enough to believe it will stop with healthcare.

[Guest]

Why do some of us that have medicare HATE Obamacare!....So far, works pretty good!

[Guest]

How short sited and blind some can be. Aside from Obamacare, a precedence been set here.

The federal government can now mandate you buy whatever they say. If you don't, you get taxed.

Surly most people aren't dumb enough to believe it will stop with healthcare.

I'll bite, what else will we be madated to buy?

[Guest]

How short sited and blind some can be. Aside from Obamacare, a precedence been set here.

The federal government can now mandate you buy whatever they say. If you don't, you get taxed.

Surly most people aren't dumb enough to believe it will stop with healthcare.

... and just remember, it was a Junior Bush appointee as the Chief Justice who decided the individual mandate was a tax! Can't blame the liberals or the Democrats on that - it was one of your own! :boxing2:

[Guest]

That's why libs are such fools. I don't care who appointed him or what party he belongs to.

It was a bad decision.

Unlike Obama worshipers I don't blindly defend anything and everything just because they sit on my side of the isle.

Politicians are rats. All of them.

[Guest]

I'll bite, what else will we be madated to buy?

If they make me buy that broccoli they're talking about I'll pay the tax instead!!

[Guest]

Just before an election in a country that Vice President Biden just yesterday said is in a middle-class depression, The Supreme Court has ruled that ObamaCare is now ObamaTax, and literally the largest tax increase in the history of the world.

The largest tax increase in history in this failed Obama economy.

I would hold back on the cheering if I were you. You might want to think about this.

This November this ObamaCare/ObamaTax is all he's going to be running on. This and the collapsing economy.

[Guest]

Just before an election in a country that Vice President Biden just yesterday said is in a middle-class depression, The Supreme Court has ruled that ObamaCare is now ObamaTax, and literally the largest tax increase in the history of the world.

The largest tax increase in history in this failed Obama economy.

I would hold back on the cheering if I were you. You might want to think about this.

This November this ObamaCare/ObamaTax is all he's going to be running on. This and the collapsing economy.

The only people that will pay the tax, according to today's decision, are those that fail to get insurance, which hopefully will be a very small number.

[Guest]

Just before an election in a country that Vice President Biden just yesterday said is in a middle-class depression, The Supreme Court has ruled that ObamaCare is now ObamaTax, and literally the largest tax increase in the history of the world.

The largest tax increase in history in this failed Obama economy.

I would hold back on the cheering if I were you. You might want to think about this.

This November this ObamaCare/ObamaTax is all he's going to be running on. This and the collapsing economy.

Reference please for "the largest tax increase in the history of the world" I have not read the law, perhaps you can tell me what the "tax" penalty is for someone who does not obtain health insurance, how many Americans are projected to be paying that tax, and how that increase government revenue stacks up against such things as the increase in SocSec taxes signed by Reagan. A good place to start might be to look at the experience in Massachusetts where Romneycare has been in effect several years with it's identical individual mandate backed by a tax penalty for failure to comply. How is that working out for the citizens and taxpayers of Massachusetts? I am not arguing whether or not Romneycare has saved money, just interested in resolving the tax increase potential of the ACA.

[Guest]

Now its all the more reason to vote for Romney

[Guest]

I think the post that had"largest tax increase" is a lie and cannot be proven. Not everyone will even pay the tax. Please facts not lies!

[Guest]

Now its all the more reason to vote for Romney




Yea, ROMNEYCARE for the nation.

[Guest]

I have a question....simple one at this point.....if someone can help please...

1. How does this affect illegal immigrants who come to the emergency room? Who and how are they paid for ?

2. Can someone explain the "tax" that is imposed on business with 50 or more employees ?

Really not being political.....just trying to figure out how this thing ever gets paid for !!!!

Thanks to whomever

[Guest]

Have you studied the clearly projected costs of health care without the Affordable Care Act; the rapidly increasing number who will not have it, and whose costs will be paid by you and me?
Believe me, I could go on and on asking you about the implications of continuing health care as we know it versus solving problems one at a time with the very good beginning structure which is is now provided.

I know people who don't have health insurance NOW and can't afford the $270 per person/per month to get the cheapest insurance available in the state of Florida's Medicaid/mandated state pool. That $270 comes with a $2000 deductible, a $500 deductible for prescriptions, limited doctors who participate and other restrictions.

What part of that does this solve?

[Guest]

I know people who don't have health insurance NOW and can't afford the $270 per person/per month to get the cheapest insurance available in the state of Florida's Medicaid/mandated state pool. That $270 comes with a $2000 deductible, a $500 deductible for prescriptions, limited doctors who participate and other restrictions.

What part of that does this solve?

What is offered now has nothing to do with what will be available in 2014 when the law takes effect.

The mandate is not a "tax" within the meaning of the Anti-Injunction Act, according to the SCOTUS Blog.


http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/sometimes-labels-matter-why-the-anti-injunction-act-didnt-preclude-judicial-consideration-of-the-individual-mandate/

[Guest]

In addition to the questions already I cannot find answers, non political at least to, allow me to add this one.....this is from 2010 but to my knowledge this is still part of the bill.....can someone expound a bit...

"If you are an undocumented immigrant you will not be subject to the individual insurance mandate and you will not be fined if you fail to purchase health insurance, nor will you be allowed to enroll in Medicaid or buy insurance in the health insurance exchange, says Herrick.

However, hospital emergency rooms will not be able to deny you health care if you are in need. What makes this surprising is that the most common argument for an individual mandate is that the uninsured should have to contribute to their own health care instead of getting it for free in the emergency room. This is why U.S. citizens will be required to pay hefty fines if they do not obtain insurance. If you are here illegally, however, you get to escape that penalty, says Herrick. "

How Do Illegal Immigrants Fare Under ObamaCare? (http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19652)

[Guest]

What is offered now has nothing to do with what will be available in 2014 when the law takes effect.

The mandate is not a "tax" within the meaning of the Anti-Injunction Act, according to the SCOTUS Blog.


http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/sometimes-labels-matter-why-the-anti-injunction-act-didnt-preclude-judicial-consideration-of-the-individual-mandate/

What will be offered in 2014, janmcn? Will it be cheaper and better? I don't see how that would be possible.

[Guest]

What will be offered in 2014, janmcn? Will it be cheaper and better? I don't see how that would be possible.

Why not? What do you see happening?

[Guest]

I think the pool will stay the same or get more expensive. My understanding is that Obamacare is going to provide subsidies through taxpayer funding for people whom can't afford the premiums for the pool.

Why would it get better and cheaper and the coverage get better? What do you see happening that I don't?

[Guest]

Reference please for "the largest tax increase in the history of the world" I have not read the law, perhaps you can tell me what the "tax" penalty is for someone who does not obtain health insurance, how many Americans are projected to be paying that tax, and how that increase government revenue stacks up against such things as the increase in SocSec taxes signed by Reagan. A good place to start might be to look at the experience in Massachusetts where Romneycare has been in effect several years with it's identical individual mandate backed by a tax penalty for failure to comply. How is that working out for the citizens and taxpayers of Massachusetts? I am not arguing whether or not Romneycare has saved money, just interested in resolving the tax increase potential of the ACA.

All the costs of this, the biggest spending bill in history, are now validated as taxes the by the Supreme Court.

It's self explanatory.

[Guest]

I think the pool will stay the same or get more expensive. My understanding is that Obamacare is going to provide subsidies through taxpayer funding for people whom can't afford the premiums for the pool.

Why would it get better and cheaper and the coverage get better? What do you see happening that I don't?

I'm not schooled on it. Just looking for what people see or may actually know. Insight I guess is what I'm looking for. Thanks for yours.

[Guest]

BHO said no one making less than $250K/yr would have taxes increased. Now that lie is blown. He said you can keep your Dr. that lie is blown.

Companies will drop medical coverage as the "tax" is cheaper. Employees have to find some bargain basement insurance that their current Dr. probably won't accept, if he has not retired. Look what happened with Medicare D, companies dropped their retirees prescription coverage.

Medicare wiped out retirees employer provided health insurance.

All this is is a way to make people more dependendent on the Government.

Sell your health insurance stock!

[Guest]

What will be offered in 2014, janmcn? Will it be cheaper and better? I don't see how that would be possible.

That would be an excellent question for your congressman, and, as luck would have it, he or she will be on another week's recess all next week so you should be able he reach him/her in their home district with no problem.

[Guest]

I think the pool will stay the same or get more expensive. My understanding is that Obamacare is going to provide subsidies through taxpayer funding for people whom can't afford the premiums for the pool.

Why would it get better and cheaper and the coverage get better? What do you see happening that I don't?

From FORBES....

"Health premiums will go up. Fans of the law say it will cut costs, but by extending government-subsidized health coverage to millions of new customers it is far more likely healthcare costs will increase and that will be passed through to consumers."

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare: What It Means, What Happens Next - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-healthcare-law-what-it-means/)

And keep in mind that this bill, at least to all I can read, despite the Presidents promise...DOES NOTHING to address costs in anyway at all.

[Guest]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkcunningham1
What will be offered in 2014, janmcn? Will it be cheaper and better? I don't see how that would be possible.

Why not? What do you see happening?


Name one thing that government has taken over and is cheaper and better?????

[Guest]

BHO said no one making less than $250K/yr would have taxes increased. Now that lie is blown. He said you can keep your Dr. that lie is blown.

Companies will drop medical coverage as the "tax" is cheaper. Employees have to find some bargain basement insurance that their current Dr. probably won't accept, if he has not retired. Look what happened with Medicare D, companies dropped their retirees prescription coverage.

Medicare wiped out retirees employer provided health insurance.

All this is is a way to make people more dependendent on the Government.

Sell your health insurance stock!

What is your source? You seem to be convinced. Help me understand. Coach me to success please.

[Guest]

When Mitt Romney promises to repeal The Affordable Care Act, that will cause 30 million people to lose health care plus the other 20 million he promises to cut from Medicaid. If just half of those people vote against him, there's no way he can win the election this November.

Romney has never said how he will pay for his five trillion dollar tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

[Guest]

When Mitt Romney promises to repeal The Affordable Care Act, that will cause 30 million people to lose health care plus the other 20 million he promises to cut from Medicaid. If just half of those people vote against him, there's no way he can win the election this November.

Romney has never said how he will pay for his five trillion dollar tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

How will he repeal anything? He won't have that power.

[Guest]

How will he repeal anything? He won't have that power.

I heard on TV today that, because it is a taxing issue, it can be repealed with just 51 votes, and republicans are hoping to have that many after the election. They also said something about he could just cut off the funding for the law.

[Guest]

I heard on TV today that, because it is a taxing issue, it can be repealed with just 51 votes, and republicans are hoping to have that many after the election. They also said something about he could just cut off the funding for the law.

He can't do it day one like he says. Cutting off funding is not repealing.

[Guest]

Just found this on twitter which invalidates my previous post.


4 Reasons Why Republicans Won't Be Able To Repeal Obamacare | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/28/508503/4-reasons-why-republicans-wont-be-able-to-repeal-obamacare/)

[Guest]

Supreme Court Upholds President Obama's Health Care Reform | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-president-obamas-health-care-reform?utm_source=email168&utm_medium=graphic&utm_campaign=healthcare#health-care-checklist)

Here is the official word from the Admin.

This came in an email from The White House, that's their story.

[Guest]

Supreme Court Upholds President Obama's Health Care Reform | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-president-obamas-health-care-reform?utm_source=email168&utm_medium=graphic&utm_campaign=healthcare#health-care-checklist)

Here is the official word from the Admin.

This came in an email from The White House, that's their story.

Not mentioned in that email...

"The high court’s ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases in the health-care law costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years, according to the House Ways and Means Committee. Of those, 12 tax hikes would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year, the panel said, including a “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans, a tax on insurance providers, and an excise tax on medical device manufacturers."

Republicans: Ruling focuses election on Obama's health care tax - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/republicans-ruling-focuses-election-obamas-health-/)

I am still reading on this issue, but as much as I really like some of this stuff, we cannot afford this mumble jumble. Lots of work to do dealing FINALLY WITH HEALTH CARE COSTS !!!

[Guest]

Not mentioned in that email...

"The high court’s ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases in the health-care law costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years, according to the House Ways and Means Committee. Of those, 12 tax hikes would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year, the panel said, including a “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans, a tax on insurance providers, and an excise tax on medical device manufacturers."

Republicans: Ruling focuses election on Obama's health care tax - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/republicans-ruling-focuses-election-obamas-health-/)

I am still reading on this issue, but as much as I really like some of this stuff, we cannot afford this mumble jumble. Lots of work to do dealing FINALLY WITH HEALTH CARE COSTS !!!

The health insurance that House and Senate folks get is not Cadillac insurance I presume. Their insurance is less than the average workingman? Right?

[Guest]

It is DISGUSTING that EVERY act that is passed or proposed or ruled on by the SCOTUS, is simply used as fodder to beat the other side over the head and rattle sabres. Never any concern over what is really in the public interest. What has happened to statemanship. These politicians are disgusting and the public in general has followed their lead.

[Guest]

The health insurance that House and Senate folks get is not Cadillac insurance I presume. Their insurance is less than the average workingman? Right?

Nope, they are insured under one of the plans in the Federal Employees Health Benefits. Good healthcare that is available to all Federal employees and retirees. It is not free like a lot of companies give but is still a good deal.

I would think the state (oops, commonwealth) would offer good health insurance to their employees and retirees. Not so?

[Guest]

Nope, they are insured under one of the plans in the Federal Employees Health Benefits. Good healthcare that is available to all Federal employees and retirees. It is not free like a lot of companies give but is still a good deal.

I would think the state (oops, commonwealth) would offer good health insurance to their employees and retirees. Not so?

Very bad after you go. Terrible rates then. Decent while working.

[Guest]

It is DISGUSTING that EVERY act that is passed or proposed or ruled on by the SCOTUS, is simply used as fodder to beat the other side over the head and rattle sabres. Never any concern over what is really in the public interest. What has happened to statemanship. These politicians are disgusting and the public in general has followed their lead.

Mitch McConnell is a piece of work. Why he just doesn't wear his white hood on the Senate floor is beyond me. His war on the POTUS has put usually "thinking" folks on the road to stalemate and destruction of this Great Nation.

[Guest]

one thing "violators" of the new insurance law can count on and that is if they do not get insurance and they get a note from the IRS that they are being fined/taxed just throw it away....it won't be enforced just like so many other laws violated and not enforced. Gotta be careful to not tax a future vote ya know.

btk

PS the above assumes the law survives until 2014.

[Guest]

Mitt Romney is vowing to repeal and replace The Affordable Care Act on day one of his presidency. That means he has four months until election day to come up with the replacement. Considering that he would want to run on that replacement, shouldn't he be announcing what his plan is soon?

It took President Obama and congress 18 months to pass the ACA. It'll be interesting to see what Romney comes up with in the next few days.

[Guest]

It is DISGUSTING that EVERY act that is passed or proposed or ruled on by the SCOTUS, is simply used as fodder to beat the other side over the head and rattle sabres. Never any concern over what is really in the public interest. What has happened to statemanship. These politicians are disgusting and the public in general has followed their lead.

Let me, for me I am speaking, I am NOT politicizing this at all. I actually like some things in it as I said, but paying for it, from what I read and it little tentacles that get into so much of our life worries me. While some on here and around are "spiking the ball" I urge them to take a few minutes and really think about this thing. HEALTH CARE costs which we were told was the impetus for the bill WILL GO UP as I understand !

If it is the law, fine...but lets be up front exactly what we are doing.

[Guest]

It is DISGUSTING that EVERY act that is passed or proposed or ruled on by the SCOTUS, is simply used as fodder to beat the other side over the head and rattle sabres. Never any concern over what is really in the public interest. What has happened to statemanship. These politicians are disgusting and the public in general has followed their lead.

Statesmanship will be shown by opposing this unlawful and unconstitutional decision.

[Guest]

Mitch McConnell is a piece of work. Why he just doesn't wear his white hood on the Senate floor is beyond me. His war on the POTUS has put usually "thinking" folks on the road to stalemate and destruction of this Great Nation.

Not a classy statement Posh. McConnell has a right to his positions and views without being unjustly called a racist because of them. Not cool.

[Guest]

where are the republican alternatives? or are they for no changes? Fine repeal it then what? It's easy to criticize much harder to create. And finally McConnell is really a jerk. Even repubs should be ashamed of his spineless attitudes.

[Guest]

Statesmanship will be shown by opposing this unlawful and unconstitutional decision.

RichieLion - The Supreme Court decided the Affordable Care Act IS both lawful and constitutional - and the deciding vote was Chief Justice Roberts who was appointed by Junior Bush - and was introduced to the public by Bush as a strict constructionist.

[Guest]

Let me, for me I am speaking, I am NOT politicizing this at all. I actually like some things in it as I said, but paying for it, from what I read and it little tentacles that get into so much of our life worries me. While some on here and around are "spiking the ball" I urge them to take a few minutes and really think about this thing. HEALTH CARE costs which we were told was the impetus for the bill WILL GO UP as I understand !

If it is the law, fine...but lets be up front exactly what we are doing.

As I stated before, Bucco, if it survives to go into effect fully in 2014, it will most likely be amended and changed many times until most of the unintended consequences have been removed. It is not likely to remain intact for long. At the present time, I like most Americans, have little idea of how it will impact my life, or the lives of others over the long term. It was a mess in its construction for sure, but there are parts of it that were long overdue. As with most things, time will tell. A lot of people are for or against it because their party is for or against it.

[Guest]

This spells the end of employer provided healthcare. The fines for not providing insurance are a lot lower than insurance coverage for each employee, and that was done by design.

Employers will drop coverage, pay the fine, and employees will have to go to a government facility for coverage. This is the way it could all play out. The government directing you health care, just as everyone said.

There's no limit with this decision as to what the government can mandate and call it a "tax". The Supreme Court has decided that the government can indeed institute any tax for any reason and for any amount.

This is not going to sit well with anyone, even all you yahoos celebrating what you do not understand.

[Guest]

Statesmanship will be shown by opposing this unlawful and unconstitutional decision.

RichieLion - The Supreme Court decided the Affordable Care Act IS both lawful and constitutional - and the deciding vote was Chief Justice Roberts who was appointed by Junior Bush - and was introduced to the public by Bush as a strict constructionist.

Buggy, you are clearly correct.

[Guest]

RichieLion - The Supreme Court decided the Affordable Care Act IS both lawful and constitutional - and the deciding vote was Chief Justice Roberts who was appointed by Junior Bush - and was introduced to the public by Bush as a strict constructionist.

Ha ha, very funny. It's still bad law. Justice Roberts in a stupid decision said that the government has the right to do this. He didn't say it was good policy. That's not his purview.

[Guest]

This spells the end of employer provided healthcare. The fines for not providing insurance are a lot lower than insurance coverage for each employee, and that was done by design.

Employers will drop coverage, pay the fine, and employees will have to go to a government facility for coverage. This is the way it could all play out. The government directing you health care, just as everyone said.

There's no limit with this decision as to what the government can mandate and call it a "tax". The Supreme Court has decided that the government can indeed institute any tax for any reason and for any amount.

This is not going to sit well with anyone, even all you yahoos celebrating what you do not understand.

And of course YOU clearly understand it. You lost any credibility on this issue with your "illegal and unconstitutional" statement.

[Guest]

one thing "violators" of the new insurance law can count on and that is if they do not get insurance and they get a note from the IRS that they are being fined/taxed just throw it away....it won't be enforced just like so many other laws violated and not enforced. Gotta be careful to not tax a future vote ya know.

btk

PS the above assumes the law survives until 2014.

Maybe this morning's sociologist commentator is right saying the unintended result of the decision will be to strengthen extreme radical and militia groups.

The solution above is to willfully flaunt the law. Just what we need. Read my suggestion to DDoug - Really unhappy? Ready to break the law?
Seek asylum in Somalia.

[Guest]

Ha ha, very funny. It's still bad law. Justice Roberts in a stupid decision said that the government has the right to do this. He didn't say it was good policy. That's not his purview.

Bad law? Stupid decision? Those are open to interpretation, you said unlawful and unconstitutional, meaning you beleive yourself to be a more credible authority than Justice Roberts. It IS law and the Supreme Court declared it IS constitutional.

[Guest]

"This is not going to sit well with anyone, even all you yahoos celebrating what you do not understand."

I kind of prefer GMAIL to YAHOO.

Glad that you understand everything that is unconstitutional and unlawful about the Affordable Care Act. I know you could have been a great lawyer and judge - but ...

The checks and balances are what is great about this country. Even though you do not like a decision, respect the checks and balances of the 3 branches of government. Sure beats the heck out of Somalia, doesn't it? Maybe DDoug will send us a postcard from there when he seeks asylum.

[Guest]

That's why libs are such fools. I don't care who appointed him or what party he belongs to.

It was a bad decision.

Unlike Obama worshipers I don't blindly defend anything and everything just because they sit on my side of the isle.

Politicians are rats. All of them.Don't hold back, DK. But do you accept the decision of the Supreme Court as the law of the land? Or not?

Oh, I guess I don't care much whether you do or don't accept it--it IS the law of the land. And as far as where people sit, typically the Republicans on on the right side of the aisle, and the Democrats on the left. I can't figure out who might join you on your side of the isle.

[Guest]

Ha ha, very funny. It's still bad law. Justice Roberts in a stupid decision said that the government has the right to do this. He didn't say it was good policy. That's not his purview.

Yeah, you are so ticked off about the decision, then Buggy reminds you about who appointed Roberts. Easy to see why you have completely lost sight of the facts.
It's not bad law, nor a stupid decision. It is an obvious interpretation of the Constitution and recognition of hundreds of established precedents. Sure, arguing the matter's constitutionality in the light of the commerce clause is not crystal clear, but as a function of Congress' power to tax it's a slam dunk. That's right - hundreds of precedents. Insulate your home; get a tax credit. Pay tuition to improve job skills: get a tax credit. Mortgage a house; get a tax credit.
Got it yet?

[Guest]

Don't hold back, DK. But do you accept the decision of the Supreme Court as the law of the land? Or not?

Oh, I guess I don't care much whether you do or don't accept it--it IS the law of the land. And as far as where people sit, typically the Republicans on on the right side of the aisle, and the Democrats on the left. I can't figure out who might join you on your side of the isle.

would that be the Isle of Wight? ( bidip, bidip, that's all folks!)

[Guest]

Ha ha, very funny. It's still bad law. Justice Roberts in a stupid decision said that the government has the right to do this. He didn't say it was good policy. That's not his purview.You never cease to amaze, Richie. Oh, we all know that anyone that doesn't agree with your point-of-view is dumb, lazy or crooked. But for you to assert that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court made "bad law" based on a "stupid decision"--Richie, that doesn't do your reputation as a Constitutional scholar any good at all.

I know we'll never get the opportunity, but I'd pay good money to hear you debate Justice Roberts on the constitutionality of his decision.

[Guest]

BHO said no one making less than $250K/yr would have taxes increased. Now that lie is blown. He said you can keep your Dr. that lie is blown.

Companies will drop medical coverage as the "tax" is cheaper. Employees have to find some bargain basement insurance that their current Dr. probably won't accept, if he has not retired. Look what happened with Medicare D, companies dropped their retirees prescription coverage.

Medicare wiped out retirees employer provided health insurance.

All this is is a way to make people more dependendent on the Government.

Sell your health insurance stock!

What is your source? You seem to be convinced. Help me understand. Coach me to success please.

posh08 - i am a source! in january i lose my retiree state health benefits and am required to go on medicare by the state if i wish to retain medical insurance AND i must pay the entire premium for medicare a and b. i can continue to pay a premium to the state in order to keep that as supplemental medicare coverage. i also lose my retiree state health prescription plan and am forced onto the medicare program offered by the state health insurer for prescription coverage and i must pay that premium.

are you convinced yet? i know what bavarian is posting about - i am about to live it! hope my explanation aids your understanding.

[Guest]

posh08 - i am a source! in january i lose my retiree state health benefits and am required to go on medicare by the state if i wish to retain medical insurance AND i must pay the entire premium for medicare a and b. i can continue to pay a premium to the state in order to keep that as supplemental medicare coverage. i also lose my retiree state health prescription plan and am forced onto the medicare program offered by the state health insurer for prescription coverage and i must pay that premium.

are you convinced yet? i know what bavarian is posting about - i am about to live it! hope my explanation aids your understanding.

When a person retires and begins receiving Social Security benefits, Medicare Part A is automatic - and it is FREE. You can pay for Part B if you want it. So what? Everyone I know has to pay for Part B if they want the doctor coverage. Currently it is around $110 per month, I believe.

Medicare Part D is the prescription drug coverage. If you want coverage, you pay for it.

I do not see your complaint.

[Guest]

posh08 - i am a source! in january i lose my retiree state health benefits and am required to go on medicare by the state if i wish to retain medical insurance AND i must pay the entire premium for medicare a and b. i can continue to pay a premium to the state in order to keep that as supplemental medicare coverage. i also lose my retiree state health prescription plan and am forced onto the medicare program offered by the state health insurer for prescription coverage and i must pay that premium.

are you convinced yet? i know what bavarian is posting about - i am about to live it! hope my explanation aids your understanding.

How has the Affordable Care Act affected that? Has that not always been the case?

[Guest]

posh08 - i am a source! in january i lose my retiree state health benefits and am required to go on medicare by the state if i wish to retain medical insurance AND i must pay the entire premium for medicare a and b. i can continue to pay a premium to the state in order to keep that as supplemental medicare coverage. i also lose my retiree state health prescription plan and am forced onto the medicare program offered by the state health insurer for prescription coverage and i must pay that premium.

are you convinced yet? i know what bavarian is posting about - i am about to live it! hope my explanation aids your understanding.

When a person retires and begins receiving Social Security benefits, Medicare Part A is automatic - and it is FREE. You can pay for Part B if you want it. So what? Everyone I know has to pay for Part B if they want the doctor coverage. Currently it is around $110 per month, I believe.

Medicare Part D is the prescription drug coverage. If you want coverage, you pay for it.

I do not see your complaint.

How has the Affordable Care Act affected that? Has that not always been the case?

As I said before - the vast majority of people don't understand the act or how it will affect them or others.

[Guest]

posh08 - i am a source! in january i lose my retiree state health benefits and am required to go on medicare by the state if i wish to retain medical insurance AND i must pay the entire premium for medicare a and b. i can continue to pay a premium to the state in order to keep that as supplemental medicare coverage. i also lose my retiree state health prescription plan and am forced onto the medicare program offered by the state health insurer for prescription coverage and i must pay that premium.

are you convinced yet? i know what bavarian is posting about - i am about to live it! hope my explanation aids your understanding.I suppose depending on the benefits you received and the premiums you had to pay for them, it might have been cheaper for you as an active employee than it will be now that you're retiring, turning 65 and going on Medicare. For most people that would be unusual. But as far as what happens when you have to go on Medicare, it's no different than it has been for years. All of us that are over 65 have experienced the same thing. In my case it was even worse than you're experiencing--I had to pay $1,200 a month for health insurance for several years between when I retired and when I turned 65 and qualified for Medicare. When I qualified for Medicare was a great day--my monthly premiums were cut in half, even after paying for the Medicare supplemental policy offered by my former employer.

The numbers are likely different for all of us, but the situation has been the same for years. It has nothing to do with ObamaCare. It would have happened to you the same way whether or not the bill was passed three years ago.

[Guest]

And of course YOU clearly understand it. You lost any credibility on this issue with your "illegal and unconstitutional" statement.

Your post above loses any credulity as you have no clue.

You're good at insults though. I'll give you that.

[Guest]

Bad law? Stupid decision? Those are open to interpretation, you said unlawful and unconstitutional, meaning you beleive yourself to be a more credible authority than Justice Roberts. It IS law and the Supreme Court declared it IS constitutional.

No, I believe the constitutional experts I've listened to and not some insulting poster who is obsessed with everything I write.

[Guest]

Yeah, you are so ticked off about the decision, then Buggy reminds you about who appointed Roberts. Easy to see why you have completely lost sight of the facts.
It's not bad law, nor a stupid decision. It is an obvious interpretation of the Constitution and recognition of hundreds of established precedents. Sure, arguing the matter's constitutionality in the light of the commerce clause is not crystal clear, but as a function of Congress' power to tax it's a slam dunk. That's right - hundreds of precedents. Insulate your home; get a tax credit. Pay tuition to improve job skills: get a tax credit. Mortgage a house; get a tax credit.
Got it yet?

What the heck does it matter who appointed him. It has nothing to do with his wrong headed badly written decision. It's not the first time a Republican President has been betrayed by the person he thought was a constitutionalist and became a legislator from the bench instead. Justice Souter comes to mind very prominently.

Justice Roberts held the American individual in contempt today. He twisted the Constitution almost unrecognizable in terming Obama's mandate that an individual must buy a product as a "tax". It's absurd.

Even if the Congress eventually can repeal this monstrous legislation, he's done incredible damage to the liberties of Americans with this precedent of his decision as what can constitute a tax.

Republicans who are trying to twist this into some kind of blessing in disguise in maybe giving them the hammer to knock out Obama are short sighted.

Yes, that's important and maybe this law can be trashed, but that's not the tragedy of this decision.

How do we get our Constitution back?

Go ahead now all you who are obsessed with everything I write. You can now call be names instead of dealing with any issues here.

[Guest]

You never cease to amaze, Richie. Oh, we all know that anyone that doesn't agree with your point-of-view is dumb, lazy or crooked. But for you to assert that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court made "bad law" based on a "stupid decision"--Richie, that doesn't do your reputation as a Constitutional scholar any good at all.

I know we'll never get the opportunity, but I'd pay good money to hear you debate Justice Roberts on the constitutionality of his decision.

I'm through talking with you when all you do lately is bash me instead of comment on the thread at hand. You've got it into your head somewhere where thats OK.

For someone who holds himself out as intelligent, you don't show it here.

Why don't you read Justice Kennedy's dissent. Maybe you won't be so lame afterward.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/scalia-kennedy-thomas-and-alito-dissent-we-cannot-rewrite-statute-be-what-it-not_647952.html

[Guest]

No, I believe the constitutional experts I've listened to and not some insulting poster who is obsessed with everything I write.Ahh, it's those unnamed "experts" you've found again, Richie. Have you really found some experts who say that the decision by the five members of the SCOTUS and their opinions in voting as they did are unconstitutional or incorrect interpretations of both the Constitution and the precedents they used for their decision? Really?

From what you've said, we know that your experts disagree with the five justices who affirmed the decision in favor of the four who dissented. I'd love to read what they have to say, how they argue against the majority justices. Who are they, Richie?

[Guest]

Let me, for me I am speaking, I am NOT politicizing this at all. I actually like some things in it as I said, but paying for it, from what I read and it little tentacles that get into so much of our life worries me. While some on here and around are "spiking the ball" I urge them to take a few minutes and really think about this thing. HEALTH CARE costs which we were told was the impetus for the bill WILL GO UP as I understand !

If it is the law, fine...but lets be up front exactly what we are doing.

I agree Bucco. People are jumping up and down and high-fiving each other yet when you ask them what it is going to cost or ask for details, they don't have any answers. When you explain that the current cost in Florida for the mandated state pool is more than some people can afford, supporters of the law say that the POTUS has set up a plan to expand Medicaid and give money for people to subsidize their payments. They say that with their chests puffed out proudly telling you that it will put more people on Medicaid. It really confuses me.

[Guest]

All the costs of this, the biggest spending bill in history, are now validated as taxes the by the Supreme Court.

It's self explanatory.

No, the only part of the Law that Roberts used to find the ACA constitutional revolved around the issue of whether Congress could impose a tax penalty on those who did not purchase insurance. The rest of the Law does not have anything to do with the taxation authority of Congress. Keep in mind that the only persons who will incur this penalty are those who are financially able to purchase health insurance either directly from a carrier or from the individual state exchanges which are supposed to lower the cost of coverage by providing an opportunity to have more persons in the pool making a larger group. Florida has done nothing to get started on setting up their exchange.
Those that cannot afford to purchase coverage will get Federal assistance to offset the cost.
In Massachusetts 1% (one percent) of the citizens are seeing a tax penalty for not purchasing the mandated health coverage.

[Guest]

No, the only part of the Law that Roberts used to find the ACA constitutional revolved around the issue of whether Congress could impose a tax penalty on those who did not purchase insurance. The rest of the Law does not have anything to do with the taxation authority of Congress. Keep in mind that the only persons who will incur this penalty are those who are financially able to purchase health insurance either directly from a carrier or from the individual state exchanges which are supposed to lower the cost of coverage by providing an opportunity to have more persons in the pool making a larger group. Florida has done nothing to get started on setting up their exchange.
Those that cannot afford to purchase coverage will get Federal assistance to offset the cost.
In Massachusetts 1% (one percent) of the citizens are seeing a tax penalty for not purchasing the mandated health coverage.

blueash, what is this all about: https://www.pcip.gov/StatePlans.html

[Guest]

Not a classy statement Posh. McConnell has a right to his positions and views without being unjustly called a racist because of them. Not cool.

OK, I'll withdraw that. Try this on for size. Mcconnell's obsession with making BHO a one term President has over taken his ability to function as a Senator IMO. Now I have to go buy a new putter.

[Guest]

Ahh, it's those unnamed "experts" you've found again, Richie. Have you really found some experts who say that the decision by the five members of the SCOTUS and their opinions in voting as they did are unconstitutional or incorrect interpretations of both the Constitution and the precedents they used for their decision? Really?

From what you've said, we know that your experts disagree with the five justices who affirmed the decision in favor of the four who dissented. I'd love to read what they have to say, how they argue against the majority justices. Who are they, Richie?

I'll keep that to myself for now only to prevent you from changing the discussion to the constitutional experts I'm consulting instead of to the issue at hand, which obviously you seem not to be able to discuss coherently if all you can do is to bash me like the rabble you're associating yourself with on this forum.

If you can't speak to the issues of this decision it's not worth the time to speak in your direction.

[Guest]

I agree Bucco. People are jumping up and down and high-fiving each other yet when you ask them what it is going to cost or ask for details, they don't have any answers. When you explain that the current cost in Florida for the mandated state pool is more than some people can afford, supporters of the law say that the POTUS has set up a plan to expand Medicaid and give money for people to subsidize their payments. They say that with their chests puffed out proudly telling you that it will put more people on Medicaid. It really confuses me.

What's to be confused about. "Obama" is a cult of personality. It's Jonestown, to put it bluntly.

[Guest]

I'll keep that to myself for now only to prevent you from changing the discussion to the constitutional experts I'm consulting instead of to the issue at hand, which obviously you seem not to be able to discuss coherently if all you can do is to bash me like the rabble you're associating yourself with on this forum.

If you can't speak to the issues of this decision it's not worth the time to speak in your direction.

The CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS I'M CONSULTING! This has to be the most delusional post among many dilusional posts from you. Do you have a legion of consultants that brief you for your posts on TOTV? You are a gas!

[Guest]

I agree Bucco. People are jumping up and down and high-fiving each other yet when you ask them what it is going to cost or ask for details, they don't have any answers. When you explain that the current cost in Florida for the mandated state pool is more than some people can afford, supporters of the law say that the POTUS has set up a plan to expand Medicaid and give money for people to subsidize their payments. They say that with their chests puffed out proudly telling you that it will put more people on Medicaid. It really confuses me.

I cannot figure out how it gets paid for at all. When I look at some of the parts of the bill that cover how to pay, so much of it says....savings from this and that with no explanation or plan to get that savings. Then, I suppose it beomes tax #22 and up !!

Listen, I would love so many of the parts of the bill, but I do not see hw we afford it and it still has not addressed the COST of health care in any way...it has no tort reform.

As far as Florida, the medicaid thing...I THINK...requires the state to kick in and Florida cant afford that.

I am not trying to find fault because it is Obama...I said all of this from the beginning.....

[Guest]

I'm amazed at the folks that scream about the cost of the bill. We have a do-nothing Congress (except when its time to get out of town for holidays) that keeps passing spending bills. We need a Congress that will have the fortitude to pass some cuts.

[Guest]

For those that like to over think issues.

Q&A: What does the health care law mean for you? | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/29/qa-what-does-health-care-law-mean-for/)

[Guest]

Mmmmmmmm.....yummy Koolaid. :laugh:

[Guest]

For those that like to over think issues.

Q&A: What does the health care law mean for you? | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/29/qa-what-does-health-care-law-mean-for/)

I wish Fox always reported like that. That piece really was pretty "fair and balanced".

[Guest]

The CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS I'M CONSULTING! This has to be the most delusional post among many dilusional posts from you. Do you have a legion of consultants that brief you for your posts on TOTV? You are a gas!

I'm reading the opinions of those whose expertise I value; educating myself in the process and then posting. All you are doing is wasting everyone's time by bashing me instead of countering what I'm saying with any sort of intelligent or interesting comment. You are only showing yourself to be petty.

You're hardly worthy of me even writing this post.

[Guest]

Thank you Attorney General Pam Bondi and all the other Republican Attorneys General who filed this lawsuit that ended up in the Supreme Court. Without your action, there would always be doubts that the individual mandate was constitutional. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled, The Affordable Care Act is once again in the news and being openly debated, as well it should be. President Obama gets a second chance to explain the law to the American people, and Mitt Romney now has a chance to explain how he would replace it.

[Guest]

I'm reading the opinions of those whose expertise I value; educating myself in the process and then posting. All you are doing is wasting everyone's time by bashing me instead of countering what I'm saying with any sort of intelligent or interesting comment. You are only showing yourself to be petty.

You're hardly worthy of me even writing this post.

I am humbled and honored that you took valuable time away from your consulting, not to mention the time of your consultants, to attempt to educate me. You are the greatest of the great and will, no doubt, be the first inductee to the TOTV Hall of Fame. PLEASE reply to this post or my fragile ego will destroyed.

[Guest]

No, the only part of the Law that Roberts used to find the ACA constitutional revolved around the issue of whether Congress could impose a tax penalty on those who did not purchase insurance. The rest of the Law does not have anything to do with the taxation authority of Congress. Keep in mind that the only persons who will incur this penalty are those who are financially able to purchase health insurance either directly from a carrier or from the individual state exchanges which are supposed to lower the cost of coverage by providing an opportunity to have more persons in the pool making a larger group. Florida has done nothing to get started on setting up their exchange.
Those that cannot afford to purchase coverage will get Federal assistance to offset the cost.
In Massachusetts 1% (one percent) of the citizens are seeing a tax penalty for not purchasing the mandated health coverage.

Since when does a Supreme Court Justice have the purview to rewrite a bill in order to deem it's provision "constitutional". The guiding principle of the Supreme Court majority in this instance was to "re-imagine" the bill in order to find it constitutional. This was not, and is not, their place in government.

When you pay a tax, where does this money go? The "taxes" for this bill go to insurance companies. Think about that for a second.

Imagine the next time you go into Publix the cashier assesses a charge of $3.00 for milk. You tell her "I didn't buy milk"; the cashier informs you that the "tax" for not buying milk is $3.00. The government now has the precedent in this new era of regulating the "absence of commerce" to actually do this.

(Oh don't be silly, they won't do this. Really?; what gives you that faith after what's happened......If you don't like the milk analogy, just make it any product you imagine a buttinsky politician thinking you should have to use for your health, or for any reason, and thus buy)
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

[Guest]

For those that like to over think issues.

Q&A: What does the health care law mean for you? | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/29/qa-what-does-health-care-law-mean-for/)

I wish Fox always reported like that. That piece really was pretty "fair and balanced".

Yes, good sumary Posh. Thanks!

[Guest]

I am humbled and honored that you took valuable time away from your consulting, not to mention the time of your consultants, to attempt to educate me. You are the greatest of the great and will, no doubt, be the first inductee to the TOTV Hall of Fame. PLEASE reply to this post or my fragile ego will destroyed.

My only response to this post would be to call you what you are. You have nothing worth saying except to bash me.

Do you really think you're looking good doing this?

I can't imagine why you think it's OK to do this instead of countering what I saying if you can.

[Guest]

I wish Fox always reported like that. That piece really was pretty "fair and balanced".

You realize that FOX News like many news sources just posted a story by the Associated Press.

I don't know why you find this refreshing that they would do so; it's pretty normal business.

[Guest]

That is what I'm hearing. Sad day in America.

Just what's sad about millions of people who are currently freeloading on the rest of us having their own insurance. What's sad about the millions of people (kids included) who will now be able to get care despite pre-existing conditions? What's sad about kids 21-26 being able to recieve benefits under their parents plans?

What's sad is that most of the naysayers don't have a clue what the Health Care Plan is all about, don't have a concern for the millions that will benefit and think it's a political battle issue instead of a good option for all of us. And by the way, if you think it's socialized medicine, take a trip to The UK or Canada which might open your eyes to reality!

[Guest]

Oh yea....like Cavuto & Doocey & Carlson just report the news? How stupid do you think we are?......and I am sure you will tell us. :laugh:

[Guest]

Just what's sad about millions of people who are currently freeloading on the rest of us having their own insurance. What's sad about the millions of people (kids included) who will now be able to get care despite pre-existing conditions? What's sad about kids 21-26 being able to recieve benefits under their parents plans?

What's sad is that most of the naysayers don't have a clue what the Health Care Plan is all about, don't have a concern for the millions that will benefit and think it's a political battle issue instead of a good option for all of us. And by the way, if you think it's socialized medicine, take a trip to The UK or Canada which might open your eyes to reality!

What's sad is the damage done to The Constitution's protections.

[Guest]

The only Fox News "Journalist" is Shep Smith. He will tell it like it is.

[Guest]

if we don't have car insurance!!!??????



What's sad is the damage done to The Constitution's protections.....What is the difference!

[Guest]

For those that like to over think issues.

Q&A: What does the health care law mean for you? | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/29/qa-what-does-health-care-law-mean-for/)

When it comes to policy making you can bet the farm that what was "intended" and what is "expected" will never transect. In otherwords policy gets lost in translation or perhaps a better word is application. So before anyone goes jumping up and down and patting themselves on the back you miht want to go beyond the thinking suggested in this article. This is bad law and it is a disaster in the making

[Guest]

What's sad is the damage done to The Constitution's protections.

A perfect example of why you should give up the ghost as a potential Supreme Court nominee!

[Guest]

When it comes to policy making you can bet the farm that what was "intended" and what is "expected" will never transect. In otherwords policy gets lost in translation or perhaps a better word is application. So before anyone goes jumping up and down and patting themselves on the back you miht want to go beyond the thinking suggested in this article. This is bad law and it is a disaster in the making

"This is bad law and it is a disaster in the making" say you. Makes you wonder what the 30 million who have no insurance but will be covered under the Affordable Care Act have to say. This includes the firefighters fighting the CO fire, who don't get insurance because they are part-time employees of the forest service. Soon they will be able to buy insurance at an affordable price.

[Guest]

When it comes to policy making you can bet the farm that what was "intended" and what is "expected" will never transect. In otherwords policy gets lost in translation or perhaps a better word is application. So before anyone goes jumping up and down and patting themselves on the back you miht want to go beyond the thinking suggested in this article. This is bad law and it is a disaster in the making

What is the suspected disaster? Key word being suspected. Fear mongering is all I hear.

[Guest]

What is the suspected disaster? Key word being suspected. Fear mongering is all I hear.

Tell me specifically how this gets paid for...the disaster for me is we all talk about our government overspending, and yet we are happy that we have more that we cannot afford.

In addition, please be aware that this act does not even address HEALTH COSTS in anyway at all.....and there is no TORT REFORM, so what we will begin to pay next year in taxes and add more in 2014, you can rest assured it will go up and up some more.

This is a bad law because we cant afford it and it does not do what this man said he would do....that you cannot dispute. He said he was going to address health COSTS...this he did not do. He said we had to have tort reform to control costs...this he did not do. It IS a bad law, but it is now the law of the land !!

[Guest]

What is the suspected disaster? Key word being suspected. Fear mongering is all I hear.

Denial is all I hear.

[Guest]

if we don't have car insurance!!!??????



....What is the difference!

I have a feeling you don't realize what was done here if you're comparing it to having car insurance.

[Guest]

A perfect example of why you should give up the ghost as a potential Supreme Court nominee!

??????????? Are you threatening me??

Or are you just clueless to what you just said?

[Guest]

Denial is all I hear.

Denial of what? Please be specific.

[Guest]

Speaker John Boehner was correct about one thing. He promised that republicans 'would not spike the ball' after the Supreme Court decision was handed down. True, no republicans were spiking the ball.

And Mitt Romney said on Wed that people in the White House would probably not sleep too well that night. Guess what? They probably slept very well Thurs night.

[Guest]

Once again, RichieLion and some others do not "get it".

There is NO TAX involved for you who have health insurance now. The tax is for the people who choose (option is theirs) not to get health insurance.

How many companies give full health insurance to their employees? Not too many, I am sure.

[Guest]

Once again, RichieLion and some others do not "get it".

There is NO TAX involved for you who have health insurance now. The tax is for the people who choose (option is theirs) not to get health insurance.

How many companies give full health insurance to their employees? Not too many, I am sure.

And what becomes of these employees who don't have insurance coverage?

(I guess we're not talking about how InJustice Roberts rewrote a Congressional Bill in order to "save it")

[Guest]

Once again, RichieLion and some others do not "get it".

There is NO TAX involved for you who have health insurance now. The tax is for the people who choose (option is theirs) not to get health insurance.

How many companies give full health insurance to their employees? Not too many, I am sure.

Many companies have been eager for years to cut back their employees to under 40 hrs a week and not provide benefits. The term for that is underemployed. Started during the Bush years. The tax as they so love to call it (per instruction from Grover) is only for the dead beats that love to use the medical facilities and let us working stiffs pay the bill. So, what's the problem? The folks that lay about on welfare might have to pony up. I don't see why the right wing is getting up on their high horses about that.

[Guest]

Once again, RichieLion and some others do not "get it".

There is NO TAX involved for you who have health insurance now. The tax is for the people who choose (option is theirs) not to get health insurance.

How many companies give full health insurance to their employees? Not too many, I am sure.

1. Keep in mind that any business who wants to offer any insurance,that insurance MUST meet GOVERNMENT STANDARDS or they get taxed

2. If you are a good employer and offer your employees what is considered a great plan based on what they pay for it, they will need to pay another tax...a 40 % excise tax. This is a lot of large corporations and most will reduce the coverage to get below the number that the GOVERNMENT mandates and from memory it is about 27000 per year per emplyee which is not a lot. These plans were and are used to attract employees.

3. Starting next year if you make in excess of 200000 per year,you will pay more medicaire tax.

4. Also, starting next year, if you deduct medical costs from tax, it used to be all about 7.5%...that is now 10%

These are just off the top of my head, but keep in mind the CBO justified much of the cost of this based on savings to be had by the Government which heretofore has not a good track record on saving money.

More taxes to come but these are the starters I think

[Guest]

Most of you "retired" folks wouldn't be that way if ya hadn't paid taxes and dues. When did paying some taxes become such a hideous thing? Oh, when the next man wants to have what you have after they worked all their lives too. Some folks just wouldn't be folks I'd like to share a lifeboat with.

[Guest]

Another tax that does not kick in until 2014 is one that is hard to understand but it is basically is an additional tax on those who supply insurance....

"The 2010 health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), hits small business with a barrage of inequities. Among the most egregious is the health insurance tax (HIT) launched by the law’s Section 9010. Ostensibly a tax on insurers, its real effect will be hundreds of billions of dollars of taxation on people who purchase coverage in the fully-insured market – mostly small business employers and employees and the self-employed. These are the people who usually generate around two-thirds of America’s new jobs."

The HIT Hit: PPACA’s Health Insurance Tax | The Health Care Blog (http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2011/07/03/the-hit-hit-ppacas-health-insurance-tax/)

Trust me...no dont trust me...just read. In the next few years you will be getting taxed from many new arenas or you employer will be taxed....and bottom line is all these taxes are paid for by...US

[Guest]

Most of you "retired" folks wouldn't be that way if ya hadn't paid taxes and dues. When did paying some taxes become such a hideous thing?

NEVER WAS for me but as the number of americans that PAY NO taxes keeps increasing, it becomes a bit of a bummer each year and to know I always paid my share and those who do not get MORE from the government than I ever did. AND THAT NUMBER JUST KEEPS RISING.

What incentive is there to even look for a job anymore......so the number of folks paying nothing keeps going up as the motivation to work and pay taxes keeps going down.

When everyone paid taxes it was actually, as much as you want to scoff, but it used to be a bit of an honor but now....and then when you add what you pay is being stolen by illegal immigrants that our senate will not even vote on prosecuting, well, you may understand the cynicism.

[Guest]

NEVER WAS for me but as the number of americans that PAY NO taxes keeps increasing, it becomes a bit of a bummer each year and to know I always paid my share and those who do not get MORE from the government than I ever did. AND THAT NUMBER JUST KEEPS RISING.

What incentive is there to even look for a job anymore......so the number of folks paying nothing keeps going up as the motivation to work and pay taxes keeps going down.

When everyone paid taxes it was actually, as much as you want to scoff, but it used to be a bit of an honor but now....and then when you add what you pay is being stolen by illegal immigrants that our senate will not even vote on prosecuting, well, you may understand the cynicism.

Precisely, why can't either party take a stand on the aliens killing our treasury? The extended unemployment benefits are terrible. Train em to drive a truck instead.

[Guest]

Not aliens undocumented democrats

[Guest]

Precisely, why can't either party take a stand on the aliens killing our treasury? The extended unemployment benefits are terrible. Train em to drive a truck instead.

Bill, passed by house...sent to senate....REID will not allow discussion or vote on it to stop the scams !!

[Guest]

you don't realize what a struggle it is for a young couple trying to raise their children in todays economy and at the same time provide very very costly health insurance, especially if it is a pre-existing condition..Isn't it time to think about someone who is struggling and give them a hand-up....BTW car insurance is mandatory and also very very expensive...No one has a problem with that!




QUOTE=RichieLion;514393]I have a feeling you don't realize what was done here if you're comparing it to having car insurance.[/QUOTE]

[Guest]

you don't realize what a struggle it is for a young couple trying to raise their children in todays economy and at the same time provide very very costly health insurance, especially if it is a pre-existing condition..Isn't it time to think about someone who is struggling and give them a hand-up....BTW car insurance is mandatory and also very very expensive...No one has a problem with that!




QUOTE=RichieLion;514393]I have a feeling you don't realize what was done here if you're comparing it to having car insurance.[/QUOTE]

I can feel that.

[Guest]

you don't realize what a struggle it is for a young couple trying to raise their children in todays economy and at the same time provide very very costly health insurance, especially if it is a pre-existing condition..Isn't it time to think about someone who is struggling and give them a hand-up....BTW car insurance is mandatory and also very very expensive...No one has a problem with that!




QUOTE=RichieLion;514393]I have a feeling you don't realize what was done here if you're comparing it to having car insurance.[/QUOTE]

I think everybody, Democrat or Republican, understand what you are saying, but THIS PARTICULAR law is just bad for the country. My hope, as I had mentioned via PM with a few posters was that the SCOTUS would see the inherent bad policy and allow the bill in parts to stand IF the holes were filled. They did in fact see the bad policy if you read the quotes fromt the justices who upheld it.

If you do any checking you will find that the parts of what he proposed were taken from Republican positions....nobody who opposes this law lacks the understanding of the situation you describe !

[Guest]

Governor Rick Scott and other republican governors have vowed to do nothing about implementing the Affordable Care Act. They won't set up the exchanges nor will they expand medicaid. By so doing, these state's rights governors will now allow the federal government to come in and set up the exchanges.



http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/30/12503239-gov-scott-says-florida-will-not-comply-with-health-care-law-or-expand-medicaid?lite

[Guest]

Vote Republican in November. What other choice is there?

[Guest]

Denial of what? Please be specific.

Hi Posh 08: Obama/Dems talk on ObamaCare are only a head fake. The cost, abuse will be bad enough but now this law has given employers all the more reason to bow out. For those with health provided from their employer as employees or retirees can kiss those plans goodbye. They will all be stuck with this givernment plan and this government plan will be so excessively regulated and poorly managed that it will take you a week to get a band aid
Forget what you paid now in premiums your about to take the tax ride of your life. Your are going to see medical care decision based on some mathematical formula that will determine if monies should be spent such as in Britian. I don't know your age but the elderly, disabled or terminally ill medical care is going to fall upon decision being made by bureaucrats and not your local doctor. Read the bill like in a receipe its in there

[Guest]

Vote Republican in November. What other choice is there?

My choice is Obama!