Originally Posted by The Rani

And I wonder where that tax money goes?
People like you still won't have health insurance, either.
In short, this pretty much sucks. If they want to have socialized medicine, let's just have socialized medicine already.

The thing that's actually been saving the Democrats up to this point is the fact that it hasn't been implemented, and there was a prospect of it being overturned. Once the monstrous complexity of a law passed on a party line vote in Washington hits the states one by one, many with Republican governors and legislatures, the thing will tie up the nation's entire political system from top to bottom for years. That's on top of the fact that it will wreck the economy and explode the federal deficit. Another, deeper, longer recession is inevitable.

A lot of the effects of this have been forgotten, which was part of the hope the Democrats had in delaying its implementation. But once it hits the fan, this is the thing that could actually sink this country in this 4T. It was a poorly conceived, convoluted product of ideological fanaticism and authoritarian hubris. Once it actually goes fully into effect, 2010 will look like nothing compared to what will happen to the Democrats.

In summary: passing that law the way they passed it was an act of political insanity. Passing it in the economic environment we have now was suicidal, for the Democrats and the country. Mark my words, the big crash is still to come if Obamacare is not repealed before it goes into effect.

The only thing they could have done that would have been worse (for them and us) was to pass "Cap and Trade". At least there were a few Democrats with enough sense to resist that onslaught.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The thing that's actually been saving the Democrats up to this point is the fact that it hasn't been implemented, and there was a prospect of it being overturned. Once the monstrous complexity of a law passed on a party line vote in Washington hits the states one by one, many with Republican governors and legislatures, the thing will tie up the nation's entire political system from top to bottom for years. That's on top of the fact that it will wreck the economy and explode the federal deficit. Another, deeper, longer recession is inevitable.

A lot of the effects of this have been forgotten, which was part of the hope the Democrats had in delaying its implementation. But once it hits the fan, this is the thing that could actually sink this country in this 4T. It was a poorly conceived, convoluted product of ideological fanaticism and authoritarian hubris. Once it actually goes fully into effect, 2010 will look like nothing compared to what will happen to the Democrats.

In summary: passing that law the way they passed it was an act of political insanity. Passing it in the economic environment we have now was suicidal, for the Democrats and the country. Mark my words, the big crash is still to come if Obamacare is not repealed before it goes into effect.

Yep, I'm applying to the death panel that is going to come to your door and take your freedom fries away and make you eat french fries instead.

That's part of the preventive medicine section of the Law

Then there's that hidden provision where we are coming to your home to remove your t-baggin brain and replace it with a pinko commie one. That doesn't take place until 2014 which is after, as you noted, the mass suicides and way way after the Mayan tell us we are all going to float off into space due to a shift in the earth's rotating axis.

In the meantime, have you been able to locate those posts with the reported pictures of lesbians?

In particular: businesses have not yet begun dropping health benefits and dumping people onto the government rolls. Once that starts happening, all hell is going to break loose.

Originally Posted by Ghost Echo

This decision puts people like me (under 130% pl) into a unique squeeze. The government dictates that everyone has to buy insurance, but doesn't provide for those like me who can't afford it.

Now that the states no longer have a mandate to cover those who can't afford it or state exchange, I predict either return of a public option, a federal exchange, a a type of federal medicaid or single payer option.

Or I'll have to start figuring on paying 700 a year for not being able to afford insurance.

Maybe people will start insisting on full employment at living wages instead of accepting pie-in-the-sky promises.

Originally Posted by Ghost Echo

Where are you finding this subsidy? When you make 3-4k a year, 58 dollars a month tax/penalty simply for not having insurance because you can't afford it is a lot.

I can't imagine this standing as it is. I predict that the feds will be pressured to step in for the states and implement a solution. (again a nation health exchange, subsidy, single payer, federal medicaid, etc.) Either that or we're screwed.

At this current stage, I just received a new tax for being low income.

Here are some relevant features of ACA:

• Impose an annual penalty of $95, or up to 1% of income, whichever is greater, on individuals who do not secure insurance; this will rise to $695, or 2.5% of income, by 2016. This is an individual limit; families have a limit of $2,085.^[24][83] Exemptions to the fine in cases of financial hardship or religious beliefs are permitted.^[24] On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that this penalty "must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance." According to the Supreme Court, Congress does not have the power under the Commerce Clause to levy a penalty for remaining uninsured. However, Congress does have the power to levy a tax in this instance.
• Expand Medicaid eligibility; all individuals with income up to 133% of the poverty line qualify for coverage, including adults without dependent children.
• Establish health insurance exchanges, and subsidization of insurance premiums for individuals in households with income up to 400% of the poverty line. To qualify for the subsidy, the beneficiaries cannot be eligible for other acceptable coverage.^{[93][84][94][95]} Section 1401(36B) of PPACA explains that the subsidy will be provided as an advanceable, refundable tax credit^[96] and gives a formula for its calculation.^[97] Refundable tax credit is a way to provide government benefit to people even with no tax liability^[98] (example: Earned Income Credit). The formula was changed in the amendments (HR 4872) passed March 23, 2010, in section 1001.

According to DHHS and CRS, in 2014 the income-based premium caps for a "silver" healthcare plan for family of four would be the following:

133%	3% of income	$31,900	$992	$10,345	$5,040
150%	4% of income	$33,075	$1,323	$9,918	$5,040
200%	6.3% of income	$44,100	$2,778	$8,366	$4,000
250%	8.05% of income	$55,125	$4,438	$6,597	$1,930
300%	9.5% of income	$66,150	$6,284	$4,628	$1,480
350%	9.5% of income	$77,175	$7,332	$3,512	$1,480
400%	9.5% of income	$88,200	$8,379	$2,395	$1,480

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Here are some relevant features of ACA:

Thanks for posting that (I know that's a hassle to get those tables in).

If I read that chart right, a family of four, just short of $32K income, can get pretty good coverage for a little more than $80 a month.

That is pretty darn amazing.

Of coures, according to JPT, this will unfortunately result in mass suicides.

Since it's a tax I wonder if you can pay it with gold from the river, jewels, or goats.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

In particular: businesses have not yet begun dropping health benefits and dumping people onto the government rolls. Once that starts happening, all hell is going to break loose.

Perhaps, just not in the way you think it will.

Let's say it does and it results in the federal deficit getting larger. And just like with the 2008 Bailout and the 2009 Stimulus, it will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on anything of any importance. No increase in taxes and no increase in inflation.

Slowly but surely, the masses will increasingly come around to the understanding that all the fearmongering over federal deficits have been exactly, and nothing more, than that - fearmongering.

Then all those people that have gone without health care, with being unemployed, with lack of teachers in the classrooms or cops on the beat, or burdent with student debt, why they might just get pissed off enough to come after people like you. There will be hell to pay; so you're corect, if that is what you meant by hell breaking loose.

Originally Posted by Linus

Since it's a tax I wonder if you can pay it with gold from the river, jewels, or goats.

Nope, the govt only accepts the currency that it issues. That is the real reason why they tax - makes everyone use the currency.

Whatever the reason, real or precieved, for the taxes you pay to the federal govt, here's where it goes -



or, at least the electronic version of sending into the ether from which it was originally issued.

Whenever the federal govt buys something or sends a payment, all it does is use keystrokes to credit bank accounts. For taxing, it uses keystrokes to debit those bank accounts. That's all it is.

I've sent Glick, JPT, and a whole host of t-baggers looking for the Trust Funds that are suppose to run out of cash some day. So far, none have gotten back to report any sightings.
Rather odd running out of something that doesn't actually exist.

They should of had in the Healtcare Act the mandate that everyone take the "red pill" and exit the Matrix of all this federal deficit bullshit.

I called it; I thought they had to rule the mandate OK, because it's really a tax.

ACA/Health Care Reform/Obamacare is a big start in the right direction. Medicare for All is the answer, but this is America, and given who the voters are, we'll probably have to wait 13 years for any further action on anything. Let's see: 2009-1993 = 16, + 2009 = 2025. Or maybe, with demographic shifts, by the 2020s America won't be restricted just to minor progress for only a year or two, and only once every 16 years. We can hope!

See, Copperfield/Justin/Brian, et all, I can do math!

Oh, now that the "uncertainty" about Health Care Reform is over, maybe these businessmen can start hiring again? Huh? Unless maybe they want to hold off another few months in hope they can elect Romney....

The whole point of the mandate is to lower costs by spreading them around; that is also the point of the exchanges. The public option would have worked even better. There need to be rules in place to control the wasteful spending on unnecessary procedures; I don't know what has been done about that. BUT, ACA was passed in order to SAVE money for business, not cost it more. Analysts have said ACA will reduce the deficit. The reason it was passed during the onset of depression, (JPT), was partly because it is part of the answer to the structural problems of our economy. Health care costs too much, and leaves many uninsured or poorly-covered people in bankruptcy. This is one reason why poverty is increasing.

There are many other factors to deal with (automation, free trade, costs of education, climate change/energy, trickle-down policies/deficits, etc.), although unless the people wake up and demographics change quickly, they won't be dealt with until 2025. That has always been the date I've had my eye on, in my crystal ball, when progress can resume after the stall it entered into the mid-1960s. And the Saturn cycle of about 15 years has been in effect for many decades. Given this and other factors, progress could also start again a few years earlier than 2025, to some degree.

Originally Posted by playwrite

They should of had in the Healtcare Act the mandate that everyone take the "red pill" and exit the Matrix of all this federal deficit bullshit.

I expect that would have been struck down as an improper expanse of the commerce clause. You know, forcing action rather than just regulating it.

Originally Posted by Joral

I expect that would have been struck down as an improper expanse of the commerce clause. You know, forcing action rather than just regulating it.

Yea, you're right, even that smuck Neo had a choice.

There is good reason why this law is so unpopular. In a nutshell, what it does is to attempt to provide coverage to the purported 15% who don't have it (overwhelmingly young people who don't want it), by making things worse for the 85% who already had insurance, including those on Medicare. Way back, three years ago, I was saying the only hope for the Democrats is that this law never goes into effect. If it does, it's going to destroy them for decades, even among people who have been Democrat-leaners. 2010 was just the beginning.

This law and all of its ill effects are now SQUARELY back on the front burner, and will be the #1 issue of the 2012 election, in tandem with the economy as a whole, because the two are so heavily related.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

]..Oh, now that the "uncertainty" about Health Care Reform is over, maybe these businessmen can start hiring again? Huh? Unless maybe they want to
hold off another few months in hope they can elect Romney....

Everyone should go outside or at least look out the window!

There are confidence fairies flying all over the place!!!


[note - it helps to take certain other pills or tabs of certain sugar cubes to see them clearly]

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

There is good reason why this law is so unpopular. In a nutshell, what it does is to attempt to provide coverage to the purported 15% who don't have it (overwhelmingly young people who don't want it), by making things worse for the 85% who already had insurance, including those on Medicare. Way back, three years ago, I was saying the only hope for the Democrats is that this law never goes into effect. If it does, it's going to destroy them for decades, even among people who have been Democrat-leaners. 2010 was just the beginning.

Let's do this -

You come up with some quantifiable means to measure the destruction of the Dems or suicide for the country that we both can agree on.

Next, let's set a target date.

Finally, a pact. If it comes true, I will become a card-carrying Rightee; if it doesn't, you will become a card-carrying Leftee. I trust you to follow-through on the pact.

Deal?

It's weird how Republicans were the ones who pushed Healthcare into a Supreme Court ruling, yet the Chief Justice (Republican) ended up being the deciding vote and the method of payment ended up being a tax. How much more of a backfire could there have been?

But personally, it's good for me. I'm on my parent's plan for 7-8 more years, meaning employers won't need to provide healthcare for me, making me (if only minutely) a more attractive applicant. The increase in taxes and premiums means that it's paid for. I guess a larger issue would be maintaining quality care and doctors while adding millions of more people into the healthcare system. That should be the focus.

Originally Posted by Cole94

It's weird how Republicans were the ones who pushed Healthcare into a Supreme Court ruling, yet the Chief Justice (Republican) ended up be the deciding vote and the method of payment ended up being a tax. How much more of a backfire could there have been?

But personally, it's good for me. I'm on my parent's plan for 7-8 more years, meaning employers won't need to provide healthcare for me, making me (if only minutely) a more attractive applicant. The increase in taxes and premiums means that it's paid for. I guess a larger issue would be maintaining quality care and doctors while adding millions of more people into the healthcare system. That should be the focus.

When I see wisdom like this coming from someone so relatively young, I can believe there's still a bright future for my country.

Thanks

- the morons keep coming out in droves

In a closed door House GOP meeting Thursday, Indiana congressman and gubernatorial candidate Mike Pence likened the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the Democratic health care law to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to several sources present.

What an a-hole.

After the Supreme Court validated the ‘Obamacare’ individual mandate under Congress’s power to tax, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was asked by reporters Thursday if he believes the provision is a tax.

“Ask Mitt Romney,” he said.

I made this prediction months ago about what will likely happen if the law is upheld: It will give the Republicans a boost in the elections, since anti-Obamacare people who were on the line before the ruling now have an incentive to vote Republican (maybe that's why Chief Justice Roberts decided to vote how he did, since although a temporary blow for the right it will help get more of them in for the next 2-4 years). On the other hand if the ruling had gone the other way neither side's clout for the election would've been affected much.

Originally Posted by Kelly85

I made this prediction months ago about what will likely happen if the law is upheld: It will give the Republicans a boost in the elections, since anti-Obamacare people who were on the line before the ruling now have an incentive to vote Republican (maybe that's why Chief Justice Roberts decided to vote how he did, since although a temporary blow for the right it will help get more of them in for the next 2-4 years). On the other hand if the ruling had gone the other way neither side's clout for the election would've been affected much.

I think Roberts caved to pressure. I suspect in his mind, he rationalized it as protecting the Supreme Court by avoiding a controversial action. The construction now is that it's a tax that's aimed at everyone, but you get an exemption if you have insurance. I wonder how even that is constitutional, but in practical terms it doesn't even matter now.

Originally Posted by Kelly85

I made this prediction months ago about what will likely happen if the law is upheld: It will give the Republicans a boost in the elections, since anti-Obamacare people who were on the line before the ruling now have an incentive to vote Republican (maybe that's why Chief Justice Roberts decided to vote how he did, since although a temporary blow for the right it will help get more of them in for the next 2-4 years). On the other hand if the ruling had gone the other way neither side's clout for the election would've been affected much.

Others, including this guy considered the best political polling expert around, disagree with your conclusion -

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...tional-wisdom/

In Health Ruling, Relief for Obama but a Blow to Conventional Wisdom
By NATE SILVER

- we'll see.

Originally Posted by playwrite

- the morons keep coming out in droves



What an a-hole.

*facepalm* Seriously though, instead of wasting 2 more years trying to repeal one law, it would be more productive for the other party to put their own improvements into healthcare.

On a video of Neil Howe on YouTube, I saw him say (similarly),"In the 90's when the amount of retirees was the least, that was when we should have reformed the healthcare system. But the excuse was "times are good, we don't need to focus on healthcare!", now people say "times are bad, we can't focus on healthcare", well how long are we supposed to wait?". I think the point was to have a good healthcare and social security system to hold up the 100 million retirees in the next 10-15 years. Maybe that could be one of the things that breaks the camel's back and sends us into another economic catastrophe?

Originally Posted by Kelly85

I made this prediction months ago about what will likely happen if the law is upheld: It will give the Republicans a boost in the elections, since anti-Obamacare people who were on the line before the ruling now have an incentive to vote Republican (maybe that's why Chief Justice Roberts decided to vote how he did, since although a temporary blow for the right it will help get more of them in for the next 2-4 years). On the other hand if the ruling had gone the other way neither side's clout for the election would've been affected much.

I don't understand why the ruling would move people from Obama to Romney. Regardless of whether "Obamacare" was constitutional or not, all of the voters (since 2009) knew that healthcare was a staple policy of the Obama administration.

Edit: I'm saying, the fact that Obama supported this healthcare policy, shouldn't have had anyone on the fence. He has had this stance since he came into the White House. I don't understand how the ruling changes anything, it was passed almost 2 years ago.

When a *win* is not actually a win.

If we consider ourselves progressives, we may want to look at who is actually benefiting, not only from this mandate, but the ones being proposed by Republicans. Everything isn't always as it might seem. It's imperative that we look behind the curtain to see who is working the smoke and mirrors.

"“Thus, both the Ryan plan for Voucher-Care, and the radical right’s ambition to privatize Social Security depend on individual mandates.”

Now there's much more about what today's decision holds for the future. And it isn't pretty.

“The Court’s cramped view of Medicaid expansion means that low income people will bear the individual mandate ‘tax’ disproportionately. Upholding the requirement that individuals buy private insurance while allowing states to opt out of Medicaid expansion is the worst possible outcome. Achieving universal coverage by compelling low income Americans to purchase private insurance may beef up health industry profits but at the expense of people most in need of health care for all.” ... Guewndolyn Mink

Not much of a win if your in that income bracket, is it?
************************************************** *********************

Roberts Upholds "Obamacare": Corportists United?

Executive director of Health Justice, Newhall is a doctor and a lawyer. He said today: “Interestingly, it was Roberts who voted to save 0bamacare from going down in flames. … The divide is not between liberal and conservative so much as it is between corporatists and everyone else. The current system is in effect a subsidy to the heath insurance industry. We should instead move to get rid of that industry, it is simply not sustainable. The individual mandate has been ruled constitutional as a tax. What that means essentially is that 0bama and Congress could require every American to buy a lousy product at an inflated price.”

Physicians for a National Health Program. The group released a statement today: “Although the Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act, the unfortunate reality is that the law, despite its modest benefits, is not a remedy to our health care crisis: (1) it will not achieve universal coverage, as it leaves at least 26 million uninsured, (2) it will not make health care affordable to Americans with insurance, because of high co-pays and gaps in coverage that leave patients vulnerable to financial ruin in the event of serious illness, and (3) it will not control costs. …”

http://www.accuracy.org/release/robe...rtists-united/