MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Sunday, November 23, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 50.0° F  Fog/Mist
Collapse Photo Bar

Health Care Reform

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: Health Care Reform

Postby rabble » Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:56 am

If Romney keeps it up with his "I'll repeal it on my first day" tactic, I think there's a pretty good chance. There appear to be quite a few uninsured out there who don't like being that way.

It begins to look like Obama's best campaign staffer is Mitt.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6453
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Health Care Reform

Postby Crockett » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:02 am

rabble wrote:If Romney keeps it up with his "I'll repeal it on my first day" tactic, I think there's a pretty good chance. There appear to be quite a few uninsured out there who don't like being that way.

It begins to look like Obama's best campaign staffer is Mitt.


That's the easiest way to win any election. Promise people things they don't have. If I promised everyone would get a new 50" plasma TV I bet I could become mayor.

Not exactly a great campaign analysis...
Crockett
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1206
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:37 am

Re: Health Care Reform

Postby nutria » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:04 am

...with Roberts in the majority, no less. It will be interesting to see how that is spun in the right-wing media.
nutria
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:53 am

Re: Health Care Reform

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:05 am

So when will those totally opposed to the individual mandate start asking for the impeachment of Chief Justice John Roberts? When Republican Governor Earl Warren was appointed chief justice by Ike, and then authored "liberal" interpretations of our Constitution (especially about civil rights), these billboards appeared:
Image
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20146
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Health Care Reform

Postby johnfajardohenry » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:30 am

I was pretty well stunned by the decision. Dismayed as well.

I have to read it to see how they got to it being a tax after the law as written says it is not a tax.

If it is a tax, it is Constitutional on its face per Justice Stone in 1934. The Federal Govt has unlimited taxing authority, including a tax on income. This is what allows them to collect the SS income tax.

They also have pretty much unlimited authority to give out welfare payments. This is what allows them to pay SS "pensions" and Medicare (or is it Medicaid? I can never keep them straight)

So on that basis I would have been stunned to have them not uphold Obamacare.

What does stun me is that they found it to be a "tax" in the meaning of the Constitution.

I use unlimited above in the Constitutional sense. There are limits to what people and the political process will stand.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Health Care Reform

Postby johnfajardohenry » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:48 am

Meade wrote:Hot tip for Intrade traders: Sell short: Barack Obama to be re-elected President in 2012


You really think so?

How do you think people are going to feel about another 10% (or whatever) being taken from their paycheck?

The Supremes just ruled that this was a tax. How will people feel about what we can now rename "Obamatax" (instead of "Obamacare")

"Tax" sounds so much harsher than "care", doesn't it?

One more reason we have to stop Romney from becoming president. If he becomes prez, he will find some way to water the Obamatx down and get Congress to back off. We will wind up with 90% of it under Romney.

We need to repeal the whole thing, in toto, 100%. We need to focus on electing a veto proof Congressional and Senatorial majority.

Screw Romney. Now it is even more important to dump him.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Health Care Reform

Postby wack wack » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:52 am

johnfajardohenry wrote:The Supremes just ruled that this was a tax. How will people feel about what we can now rename "Obamatax" (instead of "Obamacare")

"Tax" sounds so much harsher than "care", doesn't it?


That's your goal, isn't it? Why else would you decide to call it that?
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3172
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: Health Care Reform

Postby johnfajardohenry » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:52 am

wack wack wrote:
Peanutbutter wrote:So Republicans flip-flop but Democrats compromise?

Uhm, yeah. Okay.

:roll:


When Romney becomes President, and the Republicans once again decide that an individual mandate is not only good but necessary, will that be a flip-flop or compromise?


It will still be a flip-flop but the Demmies will call it compromise. As will many Repos.

And Romney WILL flip flop and decide that it is necessary. Perhaps a little rounding of the edges but nothing of significance.

Dump Romney now.


John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Health Care Reform

Postby johnfajardohenry » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:57 am

wack wack wrote:
johnfajardohenry wrote:
That's your goal, isn't it? Why else would you decide to call it that?


It is not me who said it was a tax. Read my post from last night. I said that the law as written was not a "tax". Obama stood up on his hind legs and told us it was not a "tax".

The Supremes have said it is a "tax"

So are you saying that we should call it something else?

Maybe, to prarphrase Kahn, you should call it a banana. "Obamabanana" has kind of a nice ring to it don't you think?

It is a "tax".

We should call it by its right name.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Health Care Reform

Postby minicat » Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:00 am

nutria wrote:...with Roberts in the majority, no less. It will be interesting to see how that is spun in the right-wing media.


Well, the left is already calling it a "grand slam" for the right/corporate interests.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/06/28/ ... s-we-lose/
minicat
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4507
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2002 2:22 pm

Re: Health Care Reform

Postby fisticuffs » Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:01 am

We should call it by its right name.


The Affordable Care Act?
fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7849
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Re: Health Care Reform

Postby wack wack » Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:02 am

johnfajardohenry wrote:
wack wack wrote:
johnfajardohenry wrote:
That's your goal, isn't it? Why else would you decide to call it that?


It is not me who said it was a tax. Read my post from last night. I said that the law as written was not a "tax". Obama stood up on his hind legs and told us it was not a "tax".

The Supremes have said it is a "tax"

So are you saying that we should call it something else?

Maybe, to prarphrase Kahn, you should call it a banana. "Obamabanana" has kind of a nice ring to it don't you think?

It is a "tax".

We should call it by its right name.

John Henry


Yes, we should call it by its right name: Affordable Healthcare Act. Anything else is an attempt to deceive and inflame.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3172
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: Health Care Reform

Postby jman111 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:14 am

johnfajardohenry wrote:I have to read it to see how they got to it being a tax after the law as written says it is not a tax.

In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32.

decision
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: Health Care Reform

Postby jman111 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:21 am

also
The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibility payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287,
294. Pp. 33–35.

(emphasis mine)
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: Health Care Reform

Postby johnfajardohenry » Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:28 am

wack wack wrote:
johnfajardohenry wrote:Yes, we should call it by its right name: Affordable Healthcare Act. Anything else is an attempt to deceive and inflame.



And "affordable" is more accurate?

How?

Do you really think healthcare will be more affordable now? Do you really think this act does anything to make healthcare more affordable?

It may mean that some people get more health care than they pay for and others will pay for more healthcare than they get. More affordable for some but less affordable for others.

Overall, the cost of healthcare is going to skyrocket.

The only 2 good things I see coming out of this are:

1) It will get people wee-wee'd up and get them to the polls in november

2) Employers will stop providing health insurance and it will become the responsibility of the individual. I have said for years that the way we treat health insurance, as compared to the way we treat auto, house or other insurance is terrible.

I've long thought that health insurance should not be exempt from income taxes when paid by the employer.

Insurance should be paid by the insured. If this is a step in that direction, it may be a good thing.

Overall, unless you are one of those living off the taxpayer's teat, I suspect that you going to be even less happy with your healthcare in the future than you are now.

And now that it is a "tax", it is also completely accurate to say that it is collected at gunpoint. Ultimately anyway. Most people will pay before it comes to that point but the gun is always there even if holstered or hidden.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Donald and 5 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar