2012 President?

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

The problem is not the insurance, but the outrageous costs associated with Health Care.

[ih8music]

Honestly, I don't have the stomach for re-arguing this debate. The ACA is far from perfect (I'd rather have a single payer system), but there are a bunch of good things in the bill (no rejections due to preexisting conditions, no annual/lifetime caps on coverage, young adults can be covered by their parents plan until 26, expanded medicare coverage, etc). The mandate/penalty is the means by which those other things are possible.

 

The fee only applies to people who can afford coverage, but choose to not buy it. I don't know the exact income level where that distinction is made, but I'm sure one could google for it if they really want to know.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

I agree about debating it.

I just have a real aversion to people who act as though Government action was the only thing that can save people.

The ACA is a poorly constructed band aid.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Roberts is really getting pilloried this afternoon by the far right. The irony is hilarious. A right-wing think tank idea (the mandate) is supported by a conservative-leaning SCOTUS, and Michele Bachmann says, "This was an activist court that you saw today." I guess when they agree with you, judges are sages. When they disagree, they are activists.

Seriously, I really feel like doing a victory dance on the faces of all these jackasses who pounded on this thing month after month, with the outrageous lies about Death Panels and all that crap. You know, an "In Your Face" dance that says, You lost. Oh, and you were beaten by a conservative, not a liberal. Now, STFU.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

By the way, here's a rather simplified explanation of how the ACA will work. And it's from dailyfinance.com, not exactly a far left medium.

Sounds pretty good overall. Not the "sky-is-falling" nonsense we have been hearing the last couple years.

http://www.dailyfina...ect-your-wallet

[lost highway]

Thanks for sharing the link. Clarified some details for sure.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

There are some paranoid people out there. I just read a poster on a blog who wrote that this decision was meant to energize the Republican base, get Romney elected and thereby get the health care law overturned.

Um, wouldn't it have just been a lot easier to strike it down?

[Tweedling]

I'm not an expert on law but didn't Roberts just change it from a penalty to a tax thus making it constitutional? And didn't Obama reject the notion that it was ever a tax?

Very interesting how this is playing out in just over a few hours already.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

I'm not an expert on law but didn't Roberts just change it from a penalty to a tax thus making it constitutional? And didn't Obama reject the notion that it was ever a tax?

Very interesting how this is playing out in just over a few hours already.

Yep.

Just it's a makeup for the Citizen's United ruling.(JK)

[ih8music]

I'm not an expert on law but didn't Roberts just change it from a penalty to a tax thus making it constitutional? And didn't Obama reject the notion that it was ever a tax?

Very interesting how this is playing out in just over a few hours already.

I found this to be a good read on the Roberts opinion and how it'll affect future legislation. http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/sometimes-labels-matter-why-the-anti-injunction-act-didnt-preclude-judicial-consideration-of-the-individual-mandate/

[KevinG]

How is someone who can't afford health insurance going to be helped by paying a tax/penalty for not having health insurance?

 

That is why a government option should have been included. ACA is really a law that benefits the insurance company. Remember the individual mandate was first suggested by the Heritage foundation.

 

So if Romney is elected he will repeal the law. Someone tell me how he is going to do that? I am pretty sure that the constitution does not give the president that power. Wish someone in the media would ask him that.

[uncool2pillow]

Pretty much anything a presidential candidate says they're going to do they mean to say they're going to lobby Congress to do.

[lost highway]

The interpretation of it as a tax to get it through the supreme court seems to me to be fairly semantic. The conservative media is running with it like: "This is imposing an additional tax on middle class families." Except all of the families that have coverage already won't be paying any tax, and the tax/penalty that uncovered families, who could afford it, but opted not to, are then taxed so that they can be covered. So..... not really a normal tax hike.

 

I think the best this can do is fairly well, I also think it's pretty sure it will succeed in this regard. If some time can pass and everyone can stop wetting their reactionary pants about it, we might even realize that a step further- a single payer system, would be even better.

[rareair]

I'm not an expert on law but didn't Roberts just change it from a penalty to a tax thus making it constitutional? And didn't Obama reject the notion that it was ever a tax?

Very interesting how this is playing out in just over a few hours already.

 

the tax argument was presented as the third alternative in support of the constitutionality of the act.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

That is why a government option should have been included. ACA is really a law that benefits the insurance company. Remember the individual mandate was first suggested by the Heritage foundation.

 

So if Romney is elected he will repeal the law. Someone tell me how he is going to do that? I am pretty sure that the constitution does not give the president that power. Wish someone in the media would ask him that.

 

Maybe he'll do it with an executive order...

[KevinG]

Pretty much anything a presidential candidate says they're going to do they mean to say they're going to lobby Congress to do.

 

To repeal the law I think they need 60 senators which ain't gonna happen. Romney can posture all he wants but there is no way this law is overturned.

 

Or Romney can come up with his own healthcare law and put a provision to end ACA but that would require passage in a deeply divided congress. Also it would require Romney to have an idea other than I am not Obama.

[uncool2pillow]

You'd just a need a new law. Technically you'd need 60 Senators to make it filibuster-proof, but only 51 would have to vote in favor of a law to repeal.

[ih8music]

But President Obama would veto it anyway...

[Guest Jules]

I don't think Romney gives two shits about this other than its impact on the election.

[ih8music]

And I can't wait to watch the debates between the two of them and see Romney try to attack Obama for doing almost exactly what he did in MA. Good luck with that one.

[Tweedling]

 

 

the tax argument was presented as the third alternative in support of the constitutionality of the act.

Presented by who? "tax" was not in the law.

[caliber66]

Presented by who? "tax" was not in the law.

Oddly enough, it is paid to the IRS, however.

[KevinG]

You'd just a need a new law. Technically you'd need 60 Senators to make it filibuster-proof, but only 51 would have to vote in favor of a law to repeal.

 

Technically yes a new law passed would end ACA. Does anyone actually believe that will happen. When Romney says he will repeal the law as the first thing he does in office, he is either pandering to the far right or is failing to understand the constitution.

 

Either way I agree with Jules, Romney does not care about ACA in so much as disagreeing with it will help him get elected.

 

So if this ineffectual centrist health care policy (ACA) is not the answer? What is HAS's? Cause giving more money to banks is a good idea. I am looking at you jp Morgan (9 billion plus investor money lost).

[bleedorange]

Technically yes a new law passed would end ACA. Does anyone actually believe that will happen. When Romney says he will repeal the law as the first thing he does in office, he is either pandering to the far right or is failing to understand the constitution.

 

Either way I agree with Jules, Romney does not care about ACA in so much as disagreeing with it will help him get elected.

 

So if this ineffectual centrist health care policy (ACA) is not the answer? What is HAS's? Cause giving more money to banks is a good idea. I am looking at you jp Morgan (9 billion plus investor money lost).

 

It just might be the first time in the history of American politics that a candidate has made a campaign promise that would be very hard to actually implement.

[uncool2pillow]