E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSExpectations in Washington have reached feverish heights as supporters and foes of the Affordable Care Act fret about a Supreme Court ruling in the next few weeks that will decide its fate – and potentially set off a cascade of policy reverberations.
Alex Wong / Getty Images
Twenty-six attorney generals, who are the plaintiffs of the lawsuit against the healthcare reform, leave the U.S. Supreme Court March 28, 2012 in Washington, DC.
If the justices strike down the law in its entirety, for example, they would do away with $1.4 trillion in planned spending over the next ten years. Since there would be no expansion of Medicaid eligibility and no creation of insurance subsidies for middle-class people, the money for those benefits wouldn’t be spent.
A ruling which invalidated the law would also cancel more than $400 billion in tax increases between now and 2021 that Congress designed to help pay for the expansion of insurance coverage.
The last time the Supreme Court struck down budget legislation was in 1998 when it ruled the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional. Before that, one has to go back to the 1930s and the high court’s clash with President Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Congress to find the justices striking down a major revenue measure.
If the justices do hold that the ACA is unconstitutional, the tax revenue that would be cancelled is significant, but more important from health care policy makers’ point of view is the type of taxes that would killed.
As Congress was writing the law in 2009 and 2010, a recurring theme among health care reformers such as MIT economist Jonathan Gruber and former Congressional Budget Office director Alice Rivlin was that any overhaul should reduce the tax code’s subsidization of unnecessary health care. Gruber and other reformers wanted to begin to limit the tax-free status of employer-provided health insurance.
Related: High court rules in favor of Secret Service in Cheney case
The law that President Obama signed on March 23, 2010 moved in that direction. It relied heavily on taxing benefits that go mostly to well-off people to help raise the money to insure the uninsured.
By 2019, once all the tax provisions take effect, more than two-thirds of the new tax revenues to pay for the Affordable Care Act will come from just two taxes: the increased Medicare tax on upper-income people and the tax on so-called “Cadillac” employer-provided insurance plans.
The Medicare tax increase is set to take effect on Jan. 1 of next year, while the tax on Cadillac health plans is not slated to begin until 2018.
The Medicare tax increases the tax rate on wages to 2.35 percent on earnings over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly. It also creates a new 3.8 percent tax on investment income for those same taxpayers. The thresholds are not indexed to inflation so in time they would begin to affect more and more middle-income people.
The 40 percent tax on Cadillac plans will apply to coverage that costs more than $10,200 for individuals and more than $27,500 for family coverage. After 2020, the tax thresholds would be indexed to the inflation rate – but since health insurance costs have risen faster than the overall inflation rate, over time the tax would likely begin to bite a greater and greater percentage of those with insurance.
The tax on Cadillac plans drew adamant opposition from labor unions and from some Democratic members of Congress, who despite their final votes for the ACA, might be happy to see the tax on Cadillac plans eliminated.
As Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D- Mich., said at a meeting of the Senate Finance Committee when it was writing the bill, the criticism of Cadillac plans “really doesn't hold true for many, many working Americans, who over the years have given up salary increases to get their increased (health insurance) benefits….and they are now because of cost increases, the same cost increases we are trying to address overall and reform, they are seeing their co-pays and deductibles go up.”
She said, “I don't want to see them in addition to that have to add an additional tax” while “they are trying to figure out how to keep their health insurance.”
In one month, the Supreme Court is expected to announce its decision on the constitutionality of President Obama's Affordable Care Act. With universal health care to Americans on the line, will the court uphold the full law, just portions, or completely scrap the legislation?
But Gruber said both in his testimony to the Senate Finance Committee in 2009 and in his book published last year, “Health Care Reform: What It is, Why It’s Necessary, How It Works,” that taxing high-cost plans was needed to contain costs.
“Folks are encouraged to use extra care by their overly generous, tax-subsidized insurance,” Gruber said. The tax on Cadillac plans, he said, is “not really a new tax on insurance. It’s an attempt to offset the existing unfair and inefficient tax break we now provide.” By taxing Cadillac plans, “We stop subsidizing employers from buying overly generous insurance that induces wasteful medical spending.”
Although House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney support a tax overhaul that would combine lower tax rates with fewer tax preferences, they haven’t specified whether the current tax-free status of employer-provided insurance is one tax preference they’d seek to limit or eliminate.
Romney does say in his economic blueprint that “The approach taken by the Bowles-Simpson Commission is a good starting point for the discussion.”
The Bowles-Simpson commission’s report suggested that one option for reducing deficits and creating a simpler tax system would be to phase out the tax-free status of employer-provided insurance. And Congress took a step in that direction by passing the Affordable Care Act, but in the wake of a Supreme Court decision, it may need to begin with a clean sheet of paper and redesign both tax policy and health care policy.
Gruber said Monday he thinks that Congress would not likely take on the tax-free status of employer-provided insurance outside the context of the ACA.
On policy grounds he said, limiting the tax break for insurance “makes a huge amount of sense when folks can access well-functioning non-employer markets, as they will be able to under ACA. If they can't, there are risks in employers scaling back coverage, as might happen under a Cadillac tax.”
He added, “This is a policy that health policy experts have been fighting for over decades, and we were only able to get it in the context of the larger ACA. I highly doubt it could survive as a stand-alone.”
Leave a Comment:
Hm, now it's making sense.
Warning: If you make any sense...someone might call you a Pinko-Kommie-Socialists!
Ruken, that is just two of the new taxes. My Favorite that hits everyone is the tax on "medical" devices.
This hits the Seniors the worst because they are the ones getting pacemakers, hip replacement, knee replacements, etc.
But look closer and you find out that even a TOOTHBRUSH is a medical device. Yup, they taxed everything and everyone!
taxes are what you pay for civilization - are you enjoying the convenience of interstate highways, for example?
Ruken,
you forgot this important piece in your spin.
" It also creates a new 3.8 percent tax on investment income for those same taxpayers. The thresholds are not indexed to inflation so in time they would begin to affect more and more middle-income people."
I thought that the 60 cents a gallon tax for gas and the 66 cents/gallon on diesel tax here in NC was suppose to pay for roads.
What really funny is the name "affordable care act" because it does nothing to make heathcare more affordable. In fact it does just the opposite.
PIGOTRY
Then they will follow the way of Europe who taxes the crap out of cars, gasoline and such to build highways. Trouble is they aren't building any, it is all going into social programs budget busters!
Look Closely, they already have been diverting highway funds elsewhere.
The right wing idiots would cut their own throats if it meant Obama would be out of office.
They don't even consider the benefits to this health care law because their own bigotry gets in the way.
If it does get struck down I will applaud every regret they have in the future.
What we need in this country is a health care system which allows Americans to purchase insurance from a single health insurance pool (which would be far cheaper than the system we have now and would cover everyone).
Single payer now!
rushless, you're sounding very intollerant and bully-ish there. You also obviously don't know anyone personally who votes opposite the way you do. Those "right wing idiots" supported EIGHT health care bills presented by the right that the left struck down before it could even be discussed, amended, and voted on. By your own definition, that means the Democrats "don't even consider the benefits because their own bigotry gets in the way".
I'm not on the right, but the left has too many people like you spewing hate and false statements for my liking. The swing voters are going the other direction this year because of it.
Let's shoot this bill down and put one together in a bipartisan manner so that EVERYONE has the chance to be represented with the spending of their tax dollars. As the law currently stands, if the Republicans take full control any time in the future, they'll have full control over your health care. People on the left tend to ignore that possibility.
Don't forget the cadilac tax....
Fixing our tax problems one item at a time just increases the unfair aspect of our tax code and the total confusion that goes with it. They need to start from scratch and design a fair system for all. I agree with you about people needing to realize that. They also need to realize that any right you take away from those who don't agree with you has the same effect. Just because you are the darling of society at this point there is no way to be sure that will always be the case. It is better not to mess with the constitution then to find out twenty years from now the thing you fought to take from someone else is now being used against you.
It took three quarters of a century to get this bill passed. What makes you believe we could possibly get rid of this bill and pass another?
Besides, repeal and replace has been the republican cry since ACA passed. Do you know what they want to replace it with? Neither does the rest of the country.
No republican has a viable plan to replace it with anything.
I've never heard liberalism stated more succinctly.
SUCK IT BARRY 2012
What everyone is missing is this..republicans and their wealthy friends have been against anything that takes a dime away from them. It is all about profit and keeping it. IF any type of tax would effect them..they are aginst it....just as they are today with in the tea party.I guess we need to go back to horse and buggy days to make them all happy. Of course..many of the wealthy would then not be wealthy..as for health care..a number of country's now have that..we do not...many country's are now out preforming us in most every field..from schooling to sciences..and this country is still looking to cut even more than it already has. Do I hear third world country calling to us now ?
The Medicare Tax should probably be increased to 2.35% for ALL wages, not just over $200k.
"Affordable" - by what standards? We the people want "Quality and Affordable"! The last time I went downtown I saw a bank building and a health insurance building. Guess which building was bigger. Hint: Not the bank!
You have correctly associated liberal thinking with civilization; conversely, the extreme of the other side is associated with outlaws - those who deny law, community, and public service. And just so you'll know where I stand, the author of this article is wrong (also note he appeals directly to people's greed by predicting tax cuts for one and all, money, money, money). If the Supremes strike this down, we will go for what we should've gone for initially: a program modeled on Medicare that covers everyone, includes bargaining for Rx drugs in bulk by the government, and cutting out any private insurer who doesn't want to play by the rules. Yes, true national health care, people.
Does anyone but me see the problem here? They are willing to tax the insurance that people get from employers but refuse to even consider a tax increase on the wealthy. They want the Medicare tax eliminated on income over $200,000 but tax retirees with employer paid medical insurance. In other words the Republicans are trying to cast the burden on the working people and retirees while insisting the wealthy get off with no increases.
Well I say congressmen should pay taxes on the campaign contributions they receive. What's fair is fair nbecause they use the money for "vacation trips" under the guise of campaigning.
This should be interesting. I suspect the Supreme Court will void the 'individual mandate', and let Congress sort out the consequences, although the best way would be to void the entire act so that Congress could make a 'fresh start' on a bipartisan basis - something that was totally lacking in Pelosi's bill.
You do realise that YOU are the bigot, right? You are so full of hate for people you don't know and don't agree with that you can justify being a bigot AND calling them bigots at the same time and on top of that you wish them harm for your own personal satisfaction.
There is a word for that, look it up and get help.
Two words.... tort reform... if you take the cost of "lawyers hitting the lottery" out of healthcare, malpractice premiums and subsequently healthcare costs would go down. Of course I don't expect the "Party of Lawyers" (uh, Democrats) to even consider it. That would also lower the cost of manufactured goods, especially automobiles and airplanes.
My favorite tax is the tax on tanning booths ! Could this, perhaps, have been a "racially discriminatory tax" ? Do "African-Americans" work on sun tans, or is this only for "pasty-faced crackers" ??
Please understand, I am bringing this up mostly for INTENDED HUMOR ! I do wonder, however, how many "African-Americans" get sun tans. Does anyone have data on this they would like to share ??
Yep, Republicans keep bitching about it, but have give no specifics or plans about how they would solve the problem.
It's easy to tear something down. Try putting a plan forth.
ObamaCare was a terrible piece of legislation. Written behind closed doors in secret locations by liberal Democrats and special interest groups. All the waivers that have been granted along with the backroom deals now being made public prove this monstrosity never should have been signed into law. But as Pelosi said, we needed to pass it so everyone could find out what was in it, and what was in it was a total failure by the Democrats in Congress and Obama. What little about the bill that is good, is far out shadowed by that which is bad. Just another glaring example of how corrupt Washington has become, and how they are simply incapable of writing clean well thought out legislation.
Allen
You mean like those people dressing up like a Nazi and calling Obama, Hitler... claiming that he wants to destroy America and everyone will wake up dead tomorrow? Oh no, wait... that was Glen Beck on the RIGHT.
Oh, you mean like those people saying they want to shove an assault rifle down the throat of our President, or insinuate that they want to kill him... hate like that, right? Oh no, wait... that was ultra-Republican Ted Nuggent.
Ok, I got it this time. You mean like the large auditorium of people chanting "let him die" when asked what to do with someone who can not afford health care... that "spewing hatred" is a good example of what you speak of, right? Oh wait... that was also the Republicans at their primary debate.
How about that leftist group that "boo'd" and mocked a solider... fighting for OUR FREEDOM... on live television, just because he was gay. You have to be the scum of the earth to treat a soldier that way, wouldn't you agree? Oh wait... that was the Republicans again.
Hmmmm... what about that leftist politician who stated that we should NOT help victims of natural disasters until he gets his political demands met? Crap... that was Republican Eric Cantor.
Perhaps you are referring to the "spewing hatred" from people who keep calling the President a Muslim terrorist? Damn... those are Republicans again.
Maybe you refer to the hundreds of books written by political pundits that call the President a socialist Nazi? Yet again... Republicans.
So which side is "spewing hatred"?
I just want to respond to a few things. Regarding medical devices. These are obscenely priced and the suppliers are making alot of money from them regardless of taxes. Medical and dental professionals in this country are horribly overpaid and specialized. Most states require us to purchase auto insurance. Perhaps, that should be ruled unconstitutional as well. Marlen, very interesting idea.
Now, for what this article DOES NOT even talk about and should, is what about the people the law is already helping by what it's already doing. Oops, now my 20 year old is out of luck because his dad and I can't share the burden of covering him. And he CANNOT afford premiums at work. Oops, forget that preventive care piece. Oops, if you have a pre-existing condition, you are again forced out or priced out of health insurance.
No name calling, just very worried about the precedent. And I really have not heard from AHA opposition a plan that is solid and fair. Thanks.
Same old tired talking points. It was all over the news as it was being debated. It was never behind closed doors.
There were not back room deals. Obama tried to work with the insurance industry, drug companies, and the Republicans. Of course, Republicans didn't want to help with it and were against it, even though it contained things that previously they had supported.
Until Republicans come up with a plan about how they will reform insurance, and give specifics, they don't have a lot room to talk.
Note: Republicans passed Medicare part D by the same process Obamacare got passed. It's the pot calling the kettle back.
It's okay, uninsure 37 million people and see how you fare next elections.
If you make more than $200k or a combined $250K and you have money to invest, then you can take those tax increments. If you don't make this amount of money and are against this law you are a fool rich wannabe.
That is because this health care bill IS THE REPUBLICAN PLAN.
For 20 years the Republicans have tried to pass THIS BILL. Bob Dole tried it, they used it as an alternative to Hillary-care, Romney did it is his own state... Obama-care IS the Republican plan.
The only reason the GOP is against it now is because a black liberal passed it. They tried for 20 years... 20 GOD DAMN YEARS... the Republicans tried to pass THIS bill.
But NOW they are against it. NOW they suddenly don't like it. 20 years of support... a black liberal comes and passes it for them... and they are magically against it. Shocking.
What happens if it get's struck down? We go back to paying for the uninsured with our taxes, just like we always have. We either pay through Obama-care... or we pay through your taxes... either way, WE PAY.
There will be no Republican plan because THIS WAS THEIR PLAN. The only other option is single-payer and the GOP hate that idea. So we will go back to paying through our taxes while healthcare costs skyrocket until they drain us dry.
Cadillac plan. In 2007, when I turned 65, my individual health insurance premiums went up to $14,700 per year - out of pocket. I paid every penny of the premium; it was subsidized by nobody. Fortunately for me, Medicare kicked in. Result: no more 20-to-25% co-pays, and drastically (and affordably) lowered premiums. I guess that would have meant that I had a Cadilac plan, and would have had to pay a s%^t load of taxes on top of my out-of-pocket expenses for premiums. No thanks.
IndieParty: Obama a Hitler? Perhaps not yet. But any observer can plainly see that he does have very strong socialist leanings. And, if I may remind you, Nazi is the abbreviation for National Socialist (Nazional being German for national). Hatred? or history?
Biprtisan? For people making 1.8 mil a year. you would think they would, In the interest of the people who pay them, know that at times, it is a word that can live with.
Typical liberal tactics......ignore the truth.....lie...lie...lie.....and hope people who aren't paying attention will believe the lies.
Yes it was on the news...which was where we learned how Democrats shut out Republicans and went behind closed doors to make back room deals excluding some states and promising money in exchange for enough votes to pass the bill. Nancy said we had to pass it to learn what was in it....it was passed...and now as we learn more and more about what is in it......Americans are rejecting it!! But let's not forget that the majority of Americans rejected it before it was passed and Democrats ignored the will of the people and tried to ram it down our throats!! Hence the Republican landslide in 2010 and another Republican landslide on the way in November 2012!!
Fred Craven
You obviously do not know what socialism is, nor do you have the education required to attribute the "socialist" title to the correct person. Let me guess, you heard some moron on Fox News say that word over and over again... so naturally you believe it to be true.
I suggest you go back to school, starting in 2nd grade, and educate yourself. Obama does not even come close to qualifying as a socialist, and every American Socialist party outright rejects Obama as a model for their political beliefs.
Based on your extremely limited understanding of socialism, every single American president in history would qualify as a "socialist".
If that is true...then it must have been Democrats that prevented it from being passed for 20 years, and if it's as great as so many think....shouldn't they be pissed off at Democrats for keeping it from them for 20 years? Just think of all the sick people that Democrats killed for the past 20 years by blocking the Republicans from passing this bill.
one & a half years ago I asked my DR. what he thought of this "health care" plan and he told me that it had already cost him $45,000. JUST so the federal gov. could see MY records! He said he knew of GOOD DR.s that was just waiting for an excuse to get out of the medical field. You tell me, THIS IS A GOOD THING???
Walker "walks" away with the recall today, Mitt wins in a landslide and the gov. take over of health care gets defeated!! GOD is good!
Indiparty...Please change it to "socialist party". After all YOU are a socialist! YOU are the one that needs to get an ACTUAL education instead of being led blindly by your left, socialist party called democRATS.
Why do retarded liberals think that if you disagree with one thing they do with our tax money we're against using taxes for anything?
You don't have to be retarded to be a liberal, but it sure helps.
Scomata: "you are so full of hate for people you don't know and don't agree with that you can justify being a bigot AND calling them bigots at the same time"
Just because you correctly call someone a "bigot" does NOT mean you're full of hate or a bigot yourself. You remind me of a friend who said I was "full of hate" and a "bigot" because I refused to listen to her call Obama a "ni**er". Crazy!
Common Sense Mike (love the irony)
No, because Democrats wanted Hillary-care... so it was the constant arguing back and forth.
Do you suffer from a memory loss problem? You seem to be incapable of remembering anything past 3 years ago.
No, because we paid for those uninsured "sick people" with our taxes. Hence the entire reason for trying to find a solution to that problem. Again, do you suffer from some sort of genetic deficiency or disease that removes all of your long-term memories?
Again the wool pulled over the American people's eyes. ACA does nothing to actually lower the cost of care, nor increase access, nor improve patient outcomes. Politicians have duped you into making the debate all about "who pays." Instead, the debate should be "what are we paying for?" This question is answered not by insurance mandates, not by government intervention, but by funding genetic research, personalized medicine, diagnostic development, patient education programs (prevention and chronic disease management) and cost-comparative studies for all treatments and procedures. Heck, if more American were compliant with their treatment regimens, it's predicted we can save more $$ in one year than the ACA claims to save in 10 years.
Bottom line, true health care costs will not change as long as Americans would rather eat their Big Mac, smoke their Marlboro's, and drink their Budweiser (mmmmmm, beer) then complain about who's going to take care of them when they are sick...rather than just staying healthy in the first place.
Fred: "And, if I may remind you, Nazi is the abbreviation for National Socialist (Nazional being German for national). Hatred? or history?"
With all due respect--it is YOU who need a history lesson. This is the problem with labels. Yes, Hitler's Nazi Party labeled themselves "National Socialist"--but they were FAR from Socialism. They were right-wing Facists who HATED Communism and Socialism. Look it up. That's why Hitler hated Russia and fought Stalin.
Our medical system used to be extremely good and health insurance was affordable - until the government started messing with it. Now both are a mess and the government is telling us that allowing the government to mess with it more is going to make it as good as it used to be. What is the old defination of insanity?
Libtards.....explain this for me. This bill pass, it will close many insurance companies.
You have no idea how many tens of thousands of jobs would be lost.
Call centers, coders, EDI, processors, clinical staff, etc.
dumb dumb dumb
Spencer
I find you to be more of a hypocrite than anything. You want taxes to be used for things that benefit YOU, yet you do not care about things that benefit someone else.
Unfortunately we live in a society... NOT "Spencer's world", where everything revolves around you. Regardless of what your mommy tells you, the world does not revolve around you and you are not a special snowflake. All taxes are used to benefit you AND other people.
Now go throw a tantrum in the corner and cry about how "life isn't fair".
I just wonder how this country EVER made it as the most powerful and GREATEST country the world has ever seen with out having a nanny state "helping" us along the way? I'll tell you how we got here. We got here by getting up every morning and (by ourselves) saying how can I better myself and MY family today? NOT how can big government help me today!! You get the gov. out of the way and watch the U.S. prosper beyond your (liberals) imaginations! Keep them involved more and more and watch this nation FALL!!
As Reagan would say...Well here we go again with lies and distortions. The Republican party was asked to give input for the health care bill but refused to acknowledge it so the Democrats went ahead on their own. Behind closed doors?? No the Republicans were not shut out but refuse to negotiate on the bill although on the rare occasions when some Republican did offer suggestions that were put into the bill they still would not support their own suggestion.
This has been going on since Obama took office. The constant filibuster by the Republicans and the lack of the 60 votes need to bring the bill to the floor simply because the Republicans were in their NO mode to fight everything the Democrats tried to do to get this country back on track. Why?? Because they knew that if the country recovered under Obama it would be years before another Republican was elected president so they were ready to bring this country into an economic collapse and default on our debt to do so. Anyone with half a brain would be able to see this but evidently the GOP still denies they are the one that caused the economic crisis in 2008.
Oh...Democrats took over congress in 2007 and cause it they say. BS!! Congress under the Democrats still gave Bush basically what he asked for after all it was only the house that changed control. They just stopped the wild spending that was going on with Republican control of the house. The only reason the Democrat Senate gave in to the house and Bush demands was because the cry of being unpatriotic that was leveled at the Democrat Senate if they didn't pass the bill. Some of you say if it happened under Obama it's Obama's fault. Well the same holds true for what happened under Bush and that includes the 9/11 attack and the lie by those on the right that we were never attacked under Bush. The right wing wants to blame that on Clinton but refuse to accept responsibility for the condition of the country now.
One comment above states something like you don't have to be mentally retarded to be a Democrat but it helps. Well after reading many comments I have come to the conclusion you have to be mentally retarded or rich to be a Republican and you know what group you fall under.
"It's okay, uninsure 37 million people and see how you fare next elections." Paraphrase, "Take away paychecks to all the voters you have bought and see how you fare next elections". C'mon, let's be honest about this process, huh?
Liberals are like a bucket of crabs. You dont have to put a lid on the bucket because everytime one gets near the top to get out, another crab will grab hold of him and drag him back down into the bucket.
lfergie812...You need an education yourself. You can try to revise history but if its a lie its a lie no matter how you dress it up. The demwits cramed this so called health care reform down our throats anddidnt give a flip about the other side! Just like Obozo said, "elections have consequences"! HE said it and YOU wont like it after todays vote OR novembers vote! GET USE TO IT! Elections DO have consequences!!!
"I have come to the conclusion you have to be mentally retarded or rich to be a Republican and you know what group you fall under."
I'm not rich and I'm a member of MENSA; "logic" destroyed!
Another lie. Those jobs would still be needed and more. With more people under the insurance coverage even more jobs would be created to process the additional claims.
dumb dumb dumb
Allen, we did it was called Medicare D, how is that working out?
Yeah and I'm a muli-millionaire. Anyone can make claims to who or what they are under anonymous.
P.S. Your writings does not show you to be a genius and neither does you logic.
@ truetexan
If the Republicans had not sit on their asses for the whole time the bill was being formatted it would have been bipartisan so blame your Republican friends if you don't like it because they tried to put a health care bill together for the last twenty years and failed but let the Democrats succeed they cry foul. Just as you are now.
The real reason it will be unconstitutional, it caps profits for healthcare industry at 30%. How dare someone tell another company how much they money they can roll around in, in the privacy of their own homes/ Banks.
Mike C.
I was not aware insurance was a "paycheck"... and here I have been paying instead taking the "paycheck".
And I drive a Maserati and have a black belt in karate... I can lie on the internet too.
lfergie812...
Another lie. Those jobs would still be needed and more. With more people under the insurance coverage even more jobs would be created to process the additional claims.
GOVERNMENT jobs! Not private sector jobs. Jobs supported by TAX DOLLARS! The gov. doesnt create anything. They never have! They only tell you how to run your business and tax you!! You really arent verrrry intellegent are you? OH, I'm sorry, your a socialist liberal democRAT. I forgot.
The gov. has bankrupt medicare, social security, and EVERYTHING they have touched! BOTH parties!! They cant even run a casino and make money, look it up. GOV. IS THE PROBLEM, both sides!!!!
the reason it will be held unconstitutional , it is a expansion of the Commerce clause to a infinite level, meaning there is no limit to what a government may require it's citizens to do, or not to do; the Constitution is a limit on government authority, if this passes , then we no longer have any limit on what a government can require of their citizens.
It amazes me how libs are the only ones who tell the truth on the internet, everyone else lies, lol.
Regardless, I know who I am; you aren't going to hurt my feelings claiming you know otherwise.
I believe the real reason it will be declared unconstitutional is because the Supreme Court is partisan. They will make the decision just before the election to influenced the election but hey, it wouldn't be the first time they decided an election in favor of a Republican candidate. Happened 12 years ago.
Oh gee Mike C...I'm sorry. Really really sorry. Now get a life.
@ truetexan, Businesses don't create jobs, demand of products create them. Again, another Republican/ FoxNews lie.
SOOOO trust2112, I guess if I demand a space ship to go into outer space it will just appear out of thin air??? NOPE there will be a "BUSINESS" started and jobs created and then and ONLY then can I have what I desire! Again, another liberal lie.
They go hand in hand, but the gov. does NOT create any jobs that create revenue. They TAX US for the revenue!
One thing is for certain: we need to make the tax system FAIR! We need to make sure everybody has some skin in the game!
In order to do this, we should make those people who use the most public services to pay their share.
We should stop taxing the bejeezus out of single working adults while giving tax breaks to people who have multiple children. The people with multiple children use the most public health services, welfare and food-stamp services and the public school system, including high costs of school buses, teachers, administration and building maintenance.
Let's start making things fair NOW!
reading the diatribe of the likes of Dudelips22, Common Sense Mike and True Texan makes me realize this country has indeed been hijacked by oligarchy worshiping gutter scum. People that have absolutely no clue what it takes to make a society.
@truetexan
Yeah, thanks to the Bush administration and congress borrowing the money to fight a needless war in Iraq and passing a stupid Medicare part D bill. Now they are trying to cut the program so they won't have to pay back the money,
Are you forgetting that our government is paying business billions of dollars for the space research services. Yes, if government is to stay out of businesses then it should be all the way. You can't have them only helping businesses you like and ignore the ones you hate.
@ lfergie812:
How much health care background do you have? Do you know what it is all involved?
Yes it would take away jobs. Many businesses have already trashed the health benefits they give their employees and tell them to go with the Gov plan. By having one insurance company in the end would mean less people needed to run the company.
Regular commercial insurance companies have contracts with the hospitals and that decides what they get paid. The government doesn't do this. Hospitals have no choice in that regard concerning government payments.
So businesses will stop carrying commercial insurance for employees because its cheaper that way or they buy the government plans. So then the commercial insurances lose business and GO OUT of business. SO then where do all those unemployed people go???
Actually I want my taxes to go to things that benefit EVERYONE, not just this group or that group who get picked by the current party in power.
This is funny because years ago I called myself a Democrat and hated the republicans because I thought they were nothing but rich a$$ wholes. Then while talking with a Republican he asked me if I would like to become rich, even if it meant some people who don't know you think you're an a$$ whole? I said, "yes, of course", so he then said to me, "well since all republicans are rich a$$ wholes just change your party affiliation to Republican and wait by the mail for your check. Well I did and got no check, but did gain so much more. I'm not a member of MENSA, and was once a Democrat, so I guess I can't rule out being mentally retarded. :)
Boy, the teahadists are crawling from under the rocks today.
Back in 2009, the GOP was asked to take part in crafting the healthcare law, instead, they made the choice to be the party of NO and now it was all done in secret.....
Well, I guess since the GOP/teahadists discussed women's health and didn't invite any women, it could be called a secret meeting too.
The current GOP/teahadists are sure looking like the SA "brownshirts" of 1930s Germany - attacking the rights of women, minorities, and education. Always wondered what happens to the "bully" after high school - now we know - they join the teahadist party.
As to the "Obamacare" it didn't go far enough. Healtcare shouldn't be a "for profit" venture. And if "Obamacare" is thrown out by the Supreme Court - it still won't effect me - I have the best health insurance plan available - it's called TRICARE/VA and if you fat arse teahadists would of served this country instead of trying to destory it...... you could of had the same plan.
Like every good liberal program long term, unattended consequencesare not even thought of. How all insurance plans will become Cadillac plans, how companies will dump evey employee off at the government door step for medical insurance, and how doctors and hospitals will change care based on the new lower payments is not even talked about because the thought is no one will change what they are currently doing even though we have totally different rules and cost. everything will change and all the "projections" will be shown to be B.S.
For all those who think the Democrats held meetings behind closed doors...nothing could be further from the truth.
I personally watched Pelosi chair a commitee to detemine the choices in sourcing the income (taxes) to pay for this Landmark legislation.
Every day she waited to start the meeting and this was on CSPAN and gave the Republicans that were chosen by their party to attend these meetings the first day 30 mins, 2nd day 30 mins 3 day 30 mins by the end of the week she gave them 15 min to show.
You know what they NEVER showed; I suspect on purpose so the Republican Party and GOP members could claim they had no input....and that's exactly what they claim today.
The bottom line is They are hypocrites, liars and have no intention on improving America unless it fits their agenda to make more profit for their sugar Daddy's.
Despicable.
PRober...Just a fly by stupid comment? Nothing intellegent to say?? Didnt think so. You are the gutter scum with no clue. Go back to your playboy rag where you actually fit in.
lfergie812...Your Obozo is the one who took 1/2 a BILLION $$$ away from medicade to HELP pay for HIS "health care reform". Look it up and stop posting lies. OH, again I forgot your a lib. You cant help it. SORRY!
I want gov. out of ALL business...ALL! Both sides!
If it gets removed we can then go after car insurance. My car isn't worth squat insure your expensive vehicle, it isn't my fault your car costs as much as a house. I pay more in car insurance than my car is worth and no accidents.
Insure your own property. Personal responsibility and all.
While we are at it I don't want to pay for roads I don't drive on. And I also don't want to pay for wars I don't believe we should be a part of.
FREEDOM! Welcome to Middle America!
Businesses do create jobs, demand of products sustain those jobs.
Hey Kevin...Your peeeelosi is the one who said "we have to pass the bill to see whats in it". Look it up!
LookingForwardtotheFuture
I used to be a health benefits rep. in the company I worked for. The health care companies are cutting jobs but not because of the health care plan. To save money.
Employers telling employees to go with the gov. plan?? That's news because the major portion of the plan doesn't take effect until 2014 and also the government does not run a plan so if they are trashing benefits it's to cut their cost. People are suppose to find an insurance company they wish at a cost they can afford and it can be any of the companies that are now in the business.
Good grief man. Haven't you heard of Medicare? They do it just like the commercial insurances do.
Once again, the government does not have a health care plan for those under 65 or on disability to go to. As of this date they only have Medicare and Medicaid which is not included under the health care bill. Commercial health care coverage companies will get a wind fall of new customers which will increase their business so they will need more people to handle them. With all that new business they should not go out of business unless they run a very poor business.
"Once again, the government does not have a health care plan for those under 65 or on disability to go to."
Let me rephrase that. Once again, the government does not have a health care plan for those under 65 or NOT on disability to go to.
As an added note, I seem to get the idea that most of those opposing the health care bill think that the government is going into the business of handling health care. The health care bill states that a person must be covered by health insurance and it may be purchased from an insurance company like BCBS, Athena, Anthem, Metro Life, or any number of companies out there. Not from the government.
True, but calling somone a bigot did not reveal your bigotry, your contempt for people you disagree with, the "right wing idiots", did. That and wishing harm on people you disagree with and then stating you would revel in their discontent. That makes your post one that is DRIPPING in bigotry from YOU.
Shall we review your words?
lfergie812... You are either an idiot or a lier or both! Everything you just posted is wrong.
the government does not have a health care plan for those under 65 or on disability to go to. CAN you say social security disability and medicare? And AGAIN my DR. Has told me differently and he should know about the cost and people LEAVING the medical field! Just because YOU post it doesnt make it so. It still LIES!
jim-1455434...(#1.22)....Yes, the Tanning Booth Tax is a targeted racially discriminatory Cracker-Jacks-Tax....And you have to remember....it was a replacement tax devised to fill in for lost money when Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi went totally ape-shyt when she saw the Elective Cosmetic Surgery Tax in the Original version....Funny how she found that before the bill was passed so we could see what's in it....
lfergie812...This is my last response to you.
YOU are a liberal sheeple. BLIND sheeple.
Have a good day. I just cant believe the ignorance of the left.
I see you have a reading disability. If you read my correction I edited my comment to Once again, the government does not have a health care plan for those under 65 or NOT on disability to go to. But irregardless if you're under 65 with no disability you don't qualify for Medicare. Yes they have Medicare but it's only available to people 65 or older or on a disability. Social Security disability is not really a health care coverage. It's money you get from SS if you become disabled before you become eligible for regular SS benefits.
What the hell does people leaving the medical field have to do with people losing their job from insurance companies?? That's apples and oranges.
MDB - there is no law that requires you to have collision insurance on your vehicle. The insurance you are required to have is Liability insurance. That means that if you do something stupid, like run a stop sign for instance and hit someone, the injured party is able to collect against you for the damages that were your fault. If the lies in the other party, say you come to a full stop at a stop sign and someone hits you from the rear causing damage to your vehicle, you would collect against their LIABILITY insurance. That is why you get your deductible back if you put the claim in through your carrier.
Also - with car insurance you don't have to pay for any insurance if you opt not to drive. Remember when you first got your license and you were told that driving is a priviledge, not a right? If you don't want to pay car insurance you have the option of not dirving, you can get a ride with friends, use public transportation, walk, bike, etc. The Insurance mandate requires you to have insurance if you want to breathe. Last I checked we did have a "right to life" as stated in the preamble of the constitution. Living is not a priviledge, unlike driving.
Of course the big turd of it all is that if it gets thrown out it's going to be because Democrats couldn't admit that they were raising taxes to do it and instead got all fancy with Penalties instead...
All they had to do to be completely constitutional is to say that they were raising taxees across the board by $500 per person and that anyone who could show that they had a valid health plan for that tax year wold receive a $500 tax credit per person. Since people with low incomes aren't paying any taxes anyway, that would leave people with higher incomes who opt to go without insurance with a $500 tax increase as their "penalty" for not buying a plan. That money could then be funnelled into Medicare to help pay for hte expansion to cover "uninsurable" people with pre-existing conditions.
But Democrats didn't want to go on record as voting for a tax increase because once again our politicians are more concerned with keeping their jobs than doing their jobs.
Vote out all incumbants!
Republicans don't believe on equal pay for women so what makes you think they believe in affordable Health care for all. Republicans have voted no on everything that benefits the working class, kids, women, those with disabilities, vets, education, etc. but they will vote yes on everything that will benefit their wealthy cronies and themselves. Don't forget Romney's budget will allow him to pocket another $15 mill. while taxes will rise for those earning $40,000 or less. I wish all working class Republicans supporters would really do some fact finding research and if they still think their party is looking out for their and our country's interest then I feel sorry for you because apparently you like your party would rather have our country controlled by corporate America and the Koch Brothers than allow Obama another term. Now that's really not how I would class as being an American Patriot.
@ Xina the Awesome
Don't know about your state but here in Florida you have to have liability insurance on your vehicle as long as you have a Florida license plate on it whether you drive it or not. If your license plate expires you have to turn it back in to the state.
@ truetexan
AW SHUCKS!! I'll miss you like that abscess tooth I had pulled.
Wow, are you folks doing too much caffeine?!?
Most of you have missed the MORE important part of this article. The Cadillac Tax. Already we have the govt and the state telling you what is considered a "rich" policy based solely on the total cost per year. They are not looking at WHAT you are getting for that price. With the costof policies skyrocketing at a much higher rate now than before Obamacare, it may well be the vast majority of any employer sponsored policies will ALL qualify for the Cadillac Tax, even though the members will not be on a true "rich" policy. Or the reverse will happen, companies will take the absolute minimum to stay under the limit. So what does the employee get? Next to nothing.....Is that what we really want? A country that has had the majority of it's access to health care taken from them. Is a unhealthy population a good alternative?
(I would LOVE to see one of these policies that PROMOTE wasteful spending! LOL, what a load of crap!)
Oh and taking away the pretax benefit? This is smoke and mirrors, before this, we were allowed to write off the cost on our Taxes. Will we get to go back to that?
lfergie - I think her point was that you don't have to have a FL license plate.
True Texan... your doctor lied to you, the same as you lie to everybody. Are you perhaps related to the good gov'ner there in Texas who can't remember which social services he wants to cut? Duh... could it be education? Something you're severely lacking of?
@ lfergie - it is a foregone conclusion you would not own a car if you choose not to drive. So no, you wouldn't have to buy insurance.
I can't believe the brains on here that cry, "we have to pay for all those deadbeats that show up in emergency" or, "the republicans don't have an answer, they just want Obama to fail". Helllooooo, we are being taxed like crazy with Obamacare and are paying for all those deadbeats ANYWAY! And if you weren't so close-minded, you would have heard some of the Republican ideas they presented but were shot down by King Obama. Tort reform, competative price control for opening the borders, and a tax rebate for people who BUY their insurance. All things that could have helped control cost, but Obama said, "I won" and wouldn't even listen- such an arrogant narcissist! Why on earth do you think the insurance companies and AARP (insurance clearing house) were so in favor of it? It's money laundering, passing through the pockets of your cronies.
Has anyone honestly paid attention to their own health care costs since Obamacare? My costs have more than doubled without changing a thing for me in coverage. It is pathetic at best. I hope the courts void the entire health care law so it can be rewritten properly. It is useless as it is.
you all are so busy calling each names, insulting each others intelligents, and seeing who can outdo who on posts and, somehow, all of you think your the smartest person on the planet. when your all done with that. does anyone really want to discuss the issue?
If it is struck down, the primary message to Congress is to think better and do their job more carefully when writing legislation. This job was pretty sloppy.
My eyes are brown and I am full of it! :)~
But seriously Cost is the sum of its individual parts. This doesn't apply to anything it applies to everything.
I think a medicare medicaid (call it whatever you want) for all covering 60%. The rest is up to you, either insurance plan or out of pocket.
Government, Private companies, personal responsibility. It is adjustable either way and doesn't incorporate a too big to fail approach. I want to see the problem solved.
You can either use the law of large numbers or let it use you. To me that is the real argument. Instead we get liberal and conservative political points. I am so over it! Can we fix the problem? Are we this incapable? It is numbers, they have no ideology.
I don't profess to be the smartest person on the planet, I just know that I do possess common sense, which the liberals don't. I hate politics, I have always thought they were just prostitutes trying to sell themselves, but when Obama came out of nowhere and people just started drooling and taking on the herd mentality without question, I became interested. Obama wants fair? Okay, flat tax for EVERYONE. Everyone would have skin in the game instead of the liberal constituants that have been bought and now lack the ambition to be responsible paying nothing, and the rest of us have to suffer the consequences.
True Texan,
You sure do like to bring up "history" a lot but it would seem you don't know too much except what you've lived, meaning the last 80 plus years or so. Before the "government intrusion" there were vertical monopolies that controlled industry, the ones Teddy Roosevelt broke up, there was no middle class to speak of. Public education and public health were non-existant (and our life expectancy and literacy were in the dumps) and we were a third rate power on the world stage. There were no civil rights or higher education for anyone but the favored wealthy, no re-dress of grievances for workers including perilous working conditions, no retirement system, no highway system, no standing military, no GI bill, and wealth was concentrated in the hands of the famous "robber barons".
Fortunately for us we live in a democracy, you know "we the people", and after the cons screwed the pooch in 29 Democrats ruled for thirty plus years and lo and behold all of these things which you,your parents, and your children (if any) have benefitted from and which undoubtedly contribute to your feelings of America's greatness during your lifetime, came to pass. No thanks to Republicans who fought most of these things tooth and nail, I guess because they were trying to "conserve" how we looked in 1900. They would prefer only rich land owners could vote and minorities were only counted as 3/5ths.
The Republican plan for healthcare "just die already".
Sounds like a WIN-WIN!
"If the justices strike down the law in its entirety, for example, they would do away with $1.4 trillion in planned spending over the next ten years."
Do you mean that Obama lied when he said that Obamacare 'wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime'?
Or perhaps it was just his typical rhetoric - it won't cost ONE time - it will cost 14 TRILLION dimes.
Eau Contraire,
Your win-win will end up being lose lose because health insurance rates will continue as they have for the last couple of decades, more and more people will not be covered, including possibly yourself and your family, the whole system will react as it has been, meaning closings of ER's, reductions in care, and lots of really sick people who could collapse the economy. Add in the poison of the current SC(R)OTUS who say corporations can spend as much money in politics as they want, and it'll be a long time before anyone again attempts to right a fatally flawed healthcare system.
LogicRequired
Considering the government DOES NOT have a medical insurance plan for the average employee... there is no "doorstep" for companies to "dump" employees.
If companies did "dump" employees on this imaginary doorstep, the government would tell these employees to get private insurance coverage, like the bill requires. Thus sending these employees BACK to private insurance companies.
Seems you Require some Logic of your own.
I find it ironic that the Republicans who love to yell "personal responsibility" are the same people who want to remove all personal responsibility from medical insurance.
So here we go again with the "marriage penalty". The couple is penalized on $150K of their income because they are married filing a joint return.
Was it just me or did anybody else notice that the article kept stating that "Congress" passed these laws? Strictly speaking it was Congress but it was the democrats that shoved it down their colleagues' throats and up the public's asses. Who wants to bet that when the supreme court rules it unconstitutional that the cry will be that it was the repubs fault that it failed - when strictly speaking it was "congress'" fault?
Gee, I would like to see a Democrat produce a Budget! Sure, Obummer produced one, the Republicans have produced many! ACA was pretty much the only thing the Democrats have produced in 3.5 years besides rubber checks! What a piece of crap that is!
Time to start being accountable Democrats! People are getting bored with the Circus!
(Oh, and if you can please put emotion aside an produce some facts in your argument, you might get some credibility too!)
Are you kidding me??? Are you @!$%#ing kidding??? Do want to know how we became the most powerful country in the world??? Two words: NEW DEAL. Because of the New Deal (which many conservatives derided as "big government"), we had the largest economic expansion in history. Our economy was shared equally; our middle class was stronger than every; our growth was substantial; and we were the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. Now, we are only a shell of that great nation. Yes, salaries are higher, and the economy is larger; but our middle class is weaker, thanks to stagnant wages and massive economic inequality. Few nations prosper as a whole when most of the wealth goes to the elite. America isn't one of them. Americans in the 1950s and 60s believed in hard work, but they also believed that government can do a lot of good things. And government can. Not everything the government does is great, but it isn't the negative entity that the right makes it out to be. We've gotten government out of the way over the past three decades, and all that did was sabotage our middle class, our economy, and our integrity. We are now the laughingstock of the world, thanks to a group of congressmen (who shall not be named) who planned to sabotage the nation in order to oust the chief executive. And because we claim to support democracy and freedom, yet allow the 1% to suck all the wealth that our country makes. You need to reread history, truetexan.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
ScoMata1964, IndieParty, truetexan, you are all suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
The government has no more right to tell me that I have to buy health insurance than they do telling me I have to buy a tv or a pair of jeans. They have the right to REGULATE commerce...not compel people to engage in it. The argument that everyone will at some point require health care so they can be compelled to buy health insurance is illogical....since when does going to a doctor's office REQUIRE that you have health insurance if you can pay out of pocket? To say that people can be required to buy private health insurance because they will someday require medical care is a false equivalency...like comparing forcing people to buy health insurance like people have to buy car insurance.
No person should ever be required to purchase a consumer product brought the the marketplace by private, for-profit corporations to be an American citizen in good standing...EVER. Your citizenship is not for sale...it's your birthright. Congress can't make you buy something to be an American in good standing...it's exactly this type of abuse by the government for which the people who founded our country left England!! WAKE UP !!!
We can thank NAFTA for the evisceration of the middle-class as well as high-paying blue collar jobs...you remember NAFTA, right? That legislation that was completely dead in the water when Bill Clinton took office and he orchestrated its resurrection from legislative pergatory and it's passage into law, signing the death warrant on the American middle-class himself?
Maybe you should brush up on more recent "history" instead of talking up the New Deal...why don't you talk about Clinton's Screw Deal...?
NAFTA wasn't the cause of our economic collapse. Had we pursued healthcare reform under the Clinton administration, for example, our economy wouldn't be hampered by microeconomic issues like high health insurance premiums that are hurting consumer demand. Had we preformed adequate and fair education reform (favorable to all sides), more jobs would be here than overseas. Had we pursued fair regulatory and tax policy, our economy wouldn't be in this mess. A lot of things led to our crash; NAFTA could have been beneficial had we used it to our advantage. But we didn't. And now we are paying for it.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Terry46 - excellent point, I suspect that just increasing the medicare tax on those earning over $200k will do little to create any type of medicare sustainability.
I seem to remember Clinton balancing the budget before that idiot Bush got into office and f*cked everyone over. However, I would like to see the government out of everyone's business (this includes Republicans as well as Democrats). I would also like to see ALL Congressmen pay for health insurance. Obviously, they're not going to vote for that now, are they??? I call myself a Democrat, but I don't like either side. And if it's a choice between Obama and Romney for president, I ask that everyone vote for Mickey Mouse because he can certainly do a much better job than both of those idiots.
Congress really screwed up. They bailed out the auto industry and they are trying to screw with the health care industry. Since many people may need a ride to the doctor's appointment - they should force everybody to but a GM car now so they will have a way to take advantage of their mandatory healthcare
A 5 yr old could tell you how to make healthcare AFFORDABLE.
#1 - SINGLE PAYER
#2 - NON-PROFIT
#3 -ACROSS THE BOARD PRICE REGULATION
PROFIT is what kills the affordability, efficiency and quality of healthcare.
As much as I and probably everyone else isn't too crazy about paying more taxes, you have to admit that the Cadillac tax really makes sense. If you get right down to it, any employer provided insurance probably ought to be taxed, Cadillac or not. The bottom line is it is part of your compensation package. Some say they gave up wage increases for insurance. Well maybe so, but if you would have gotten wage increases instead, you'd be paying tax on it.
On of the downsides to doing this is how you value those plans. Take an interesting example. Two people work the same job for the same wage and both get the same health insurance. Well, almost the same. One guy is single and the only one on his insurance. The other is married with 3 kids all covered by the same insurance. So in reality, the single guy is actually getting compensated less for the same job. So do you value the insurance for married guy with the 3 kids at 4 times as much as the single guy? Seems kind of like that you should. In fact it makes a ton of sense because that married guy is already getting tax deduction for having his family. So if we do this, it needs to be fair.
Now when you consider that a guy without employer paid insurance, maybe pays for it out of his wages which are already taxed, it sure seems like any provided ought to be taxed. But people aren't going to want to give up what amounts to a tax break on a portion of their compensation. The very fact that we have such a "tax break" for people with "better jobs", more than likely earning more money, just emphasizes how screwed up the system is. The bottom line is we have a system that the more you make, the more breaks there are availableto you. Consider folks who make some pretty high salaries and have all kinds of other tax exempt or tax deferred compensation. Again, the more you make, the less they take. And then of course there are those who earn above the Social Security maximum and get another tax break of 6.5% once they break that threshold. Most "average middle class never see that break. Our system is truly weighted to those who make more money.
I'm sure a lot of people don't like the idea of the Cadillac tax, but if we're really honest about it, isn't it more fair than what we have now?
Funny. 0bama and crew have been saying for a while now that it didn't raise taxes.
YOU LIE, 0BAMA
The 0bama regime is falling to pieces.
You are wrong. The Obama administration always said it would be Debt-Neutral, to be paid for by a combination of tax increases ($400B) and spending cuts $500B).
Oh, well, there you go. If the Obama administration said so...When is the last time any gov't plan came in on or under budget? Get a clue!
... which is highway robbery to the middle class. Debt-neutral my a$$
I didn't know the middle class consisted of individuals making over $200k a year.
Vinnie - figure it out, you cannot trust what the Democrats and the news media (79% are registered democrats) tell you.
The $500 Billion was cuts to doctors for medicare and medicaid. So when you are old or poor, you won't get the best care and will have to wait longer to get care, because there will be almost no doctors taking elderly patients. Medicare and medicaid already pay below what the services really cost.
Elliot-Your and idiot and clueless like the rest of the Fox news regime.
Do you realize how brilliant you appear when you lambaste someone as a Fox news watcher, while we are on an MSNBC blog?
Talk about idiot....
yes, people who read nbcpolitics.com or got here from the msnbc.com link are just "Fox news regime".
Most of us in opposition are reading the same articles and seeing the problems, and they can't.
That comment really makes you look like a genius... Perhaps you should replace "rush" with "sense" in your ID.
I think the Obama union thugs appear to be losing in Wisconsin, and that blinds the Obama butt kissers to any facts that aren't leftwing ?facts?. I wonder what is so complicated about the use of you, your, and you're.
Maybe it doesn't consist of people who make $200K, but that is not a lot of money. My mom and dad make a combined income of about $175K. It took them 50 years of working to get there, and they should not have to pay extra to support people who don't wish to work, or people who can't get work because there are not enough jobs here. My dad pays quite a bit in health insurance, and it is not fair that he is going to be taxed extra to pay for people who choose to not have insurance now. Medical coverage is not a right. If people really want to help things out, go to doctors who don't accept insurance and offer different pay plans to people of different income levels. Health care wouldn't cost so much if there was no insurance.
Ruken--
I'm sure you didn't know that. Go ask a small business owner how much he or she "makes." Have them explain to you why they don't appear to be as "rich" as the numbers suggest. Ignorance like yours is what Obama banks on. Pun fully intended.
Vinnie ACA hasn't even gone into effect and the cuts to medicare and medicaid have already started to effect my area. Go on an information study go to as many doctors offices in your area as you can. Look for the sign that says: NO NEW MEDICARE PATIENTS ACCEPTED. You will be able to move around the country but Grandma won't be able too. The cuts in reimbursements have put the payout below the cost of procedures and tests. One doctor here found that out the hard way when his payments from medicare/medicaid were so low he had to pay his staff from his personel savings account.
I don't understand why this is such a hard subject. What part of the health industry is not "for profit"? Unfortunately it seems many of these business are being driven by that very profit. That leaves only two things to keep this cost to the general public from rising as well: 1) figuring out what the market will bear or 2) government limitations. Yes this is America but it is the same America where most of us have been brought up to respect the sanctity of life so most of our medical profession will at least stabilize patients who cannot afford to pay and past those costs on to the rest of us in some shape or form.
Letting the market decide means that there is a "choice" involved. Call me crazy but medical care is something we all will need at some point so there is little choice. While I do think ACA will fail for various reasons, it was an attempt versus just standing there staring as this tidal wave is coming right at us and it will be interesting to see what the many who claim that it infringed on our right will offer as an alternative.
175 is less than 250 Victoria.
Come back and complain in 10 years when they're making 75k more a year.
Wow Such hate and discontent for each side....can't we all just get along?? Anyway Don't know which side of the fence I'm on but I'm sure someone from each side will tell me I'm opposite of them. For all you Right and Left wingers I'm a Union member and I'm not a thug. For all you Right and Left wingers Obama is a joke and everything he says is a lie. For all you Right and Left wingers I'm undecided when it comes to Obama or Romney. For all you Right and Left wingers Obama constantly blames the shortfalls of his current Administration on the previous administration of Bush. For all you Right and Left wingers its been almost 4 years yes "4" years, if you can't fix a problem in 4 years its your own damned fault. From what I've been reading and seen. Apparently Romney wants to talk about the policies of the future. Obama wants to blame the previous administration and point fingers that because Romney is a Republican the same problems will arise. Well if that is the case isn't that considered Guilt by Association? With that thought process wouldn't it mean that if you happen to be around or know someone that has murdered someone than you are guilty by association? Also wouldn't it mean that because I'm a Union member that I'm a Democrat? However for someone reason I don't share any of the views of people that are Democrats? In regards to taxes yes the roads are paid for by tolls, fuel taxes, and car taxes, as well as registration fees traffic tickets etc. etc. And yes those funds are being moved around by the government to pay for other programs. Because those programs don't have the tax income to cover what they are paying out. There are a lot of things out there to think about and when it comes to the economy you would think an established business man such as Romney would be a good pick. But, business itself is to benefit ones self that is capitalism. So by electing Romney you now have someone in office that is only going to think of himself??? So many choices out there.
This however is a discussion about Healthcare, and whether or not its constitutional or against the law. This isn't a discussion about who is for who and right or left wing its about "Healthcare" so please put aside your confusing back and forth banter and keep on subject. Is healthcare either not against the law or against the law in your opinion and why?
Me, I believe its against the law, the whole point of a "Free Country" is the right to "Choose" freely. You have a Right to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion etc. etc. so why not the right to "Choose" your own Insurance? or whether you have or don't have Insurance?? While I understand it may be a scary thought to not have medical insurance when you walk into an emergency room especially with the costs of medical help but its the same when it comes to cars or home insurance. If your out driving around and you get hit by someone that doesn't have Car Insurance how are you going to pay for your vehicle? or what happens if your house catches on fire? or gets blown down by a Tornado or Hurricane or flooded or destroyed by an earth quake? Insurance is there for "Peace of mind" if you have peace of mind by not paying for insurance that is you but it should be "YOUR CHOICE" not a choice made for by someone else. That is a free country, people constantly talk about god and "one nation under god" etc. Doesn't matter if your Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or any other religion. God doesn't mess with "Free Will" or "Freedom of Choice" why is it that the government or someone in a position of power that is a man needs to make that choice for you and take away your "God given right" of the "Freedom of Choice". That is how I feel about it.
Me and the wife ran a small business, we earned a little over 270k a few years back (Since '09 we've mostly just broke even). Now I don't know what you imagine, me and the wife did with that windfall, that knocks us out of the middle class, but it's not as glamourous as you might think for us "Rich" folk. First, We paid nearly 60% to the Gov't - 33% to the Feds, 15.3% Fica, 10% between State and Local taxes. Of the remaining 115k or so, about 80k had to stay in the business, To stock Inventory, and cover receivables, capital expenditures, etc.... But you are Right, we did selfishly pull out $35k, for ourselves, to live off of, because us greedy rich 1%'s still insist on eating every day and such...
Uh...Dudelips, everyone knows that combining business and personal accounts is incredibly stupid.
Hmmm, $400 billion in new taxes by 2021 !
Did you also know Obama has moved to eliminate medical deductions ? Yes, the AGI florr on medical deductions will be raised from 7.5% to 10% ... thus making it harder to deduct if you have high expenses.
Also, medical reimbursement plans under a cafeteria arrangement have been reduced .... making ALL who use such plans, like me, pay higher taxes. My income is not over $200k by any means, so this is just another example of a LIE BY OBAMA !
Lonereb, I appreciate your post but I'm not here to relitigate the ACA. It was passed and now we all have to wait and see what the SCOTUS will do.
What should not be tolerated is when people make up their own set of facts such as Eliot's post that said Obama promised it would not increase taxes...which is simply not true.
@Jim, so what's the Republican plan? What's your plan?
Because we as a society have given up many freedoms in exchange for too many broken promises. So sad.
Vinnie, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/08/03/gibbs_obama_wont_raise_middle-.html
0bama lying
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U
I see crabbin about middle class doesn't make $200,000 a year. I have just 1 simple question. What are the dollar amounts the define what class you are in? Is there a scale for this? Man I heard of someone only making $100,000 a year and be considered poor. C'mon help me out here.
victoria, i guess your parents and the rest should have been backing the public option then. if we had had that to choose from there would have been no need to take from the rich for care for the poor. what we need to do is change our entire way of thinking to one that is more in line with what it means to be an american. the declaration says that we are endowed by our Creator(that's for all you superreligious out there) with certain inalienable rights, LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. i know this isn't the constitution, but it is a creed that we live by. no one should have to DIE because they don't have the money to live. that is disspicable, it's unamerican, it's unchristian to fathom that type of belief. Good health is just as much a right as speech, but it isn't free. the way we have things right now, you pay through the nose for health care and the insurance agencies can STILL deny you coverage if it gets too expensive. talk about death panels, we've had them ever since the first health insurance agency opened its doors!
a healthcare cooperative is like universal health care except that it is not controlled by the government, rather it would be administered by individual states. EVERYONE would pay the same amount. do you know with as little as $30 a person we could raise more than 100 billion dollars in a year? that doesn't count any monies employers would put in. it doesn't count what ever amount we would get from undocumented workers who also use it. rules concerning this cooperative could be set up by a contingency of regular americans chosen by lottery and the states could 'borrow' from one another in cases of disaster. it could work, but for the greed of the uber rich and their minions, the radical right. i wouldn't say republicans because i know there are plenty of republicans who are not part of the all or nothing, my way or the highway attitude that has infected our government. just look up the senators and representatives who are not seeking reelection this term. Olympia Snow, a republican was just in People magazine saying that she just realized that congress was so broken by party politics that she felt she couldn't do it anymore. she's not the only one. i guess i'm so angry at the republican party because i was a republican most of my life and i really loved that party. that they have sold their collective souls to the corporate devils and the religious right for thirty pieces a silver just breaks my heart. i call myself an old republican, the lover of Teddy Roosevelt, and Lincoln, and i'm a new democrat, realizing that although they are not perfect, they at least care about people.
and by the way, victoria, my mother never drove a car, went to college or held a job. she was disabled when she was 19. she is JUST as good a person as your folks could ever be and she is JUST as deserving of medical care is yours. the difference between my mother and others out there are that she has no problem paying out of her paltry social security(she only gets what she does because my father worked) for her health care. and she doesn't blink an eye to know that someone else might get to use a penny of her money to make themselves better. you see, when you're a real human being you CARE for others and allowing your hard earned money help pay for those who can't help themselves is just an obvious ideal. you never know if one day, you might wake up and find yourself at the mercy of others. 'there, but for the grace of God, go you.' do not judge, lest ye be judged. not everyone who is on public assistance is a bum. most of them are hard working americans whose employers refuse to pay them a decent wage and why should they? we are living in a employers's world right now. they won't stop until we are all born, live and die in the same spot, until we are all working like the peasants in china and our children are slaves to the state.
elliot-3020456 - Thank you for proving my point. Obama said that he would raise taxes, just not on those making less than $250,000.
So, you're argument that he promised to not raise taxes at all is clearly wrong.
Victoria: "Medical coverage is not a right."
What is a right then if our health (pretty basic) is not one? Didn't our Declaration of Independence state that "we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"???
Jesus roamed Judea healing the sick for free! What would JC do and/or think of us arguing over healthcare for his flock?
And what else is hidden in the Bill that no one writes about,so far it's all in favor of the Insurance Co.?? What about the pork that was added that had nothing to do with health care ??? Why are both Parties against over hauling the IRS?? Only the rich will win::::
please go to nytimes.com/packages and they have what you are requeting.
You're right, ask the government to give us health care for free! No new taxes, no fines, no requirements, just free health care. Also please ask your doctor if he went to school for years, racking up huge amounts of debt, so he can then go and make sure your healthy and get nothing in return.
Just because the government says it's free doesn't mean it isn't being paid for. If you look at other countries with Universal Health care you will see a couple of things, 1.) high taxes to PAY for it, 2.) Care that is not as good or quick as that in the U.S.
Jesus also buried people who died from illnesses. I don't recall him blaming anyone for that.
I don't think that having more money makes someone a better person, but it does put them in a position to afford more. The idea that if you work hard, you will get ahead is American. The idea that if you work hard, you can pay for others to get ahead...even for medical coverage, is socialistic.
I also do not agree with any kind of insurance. I believe that the idea of insurance is destroying America. That is what a savings account is for. Even if you have catastrophic coverage, it is still a losing battle. Insurance companies, and the bureaucrats who protect those companies, are a cancer eroding this country. However, you and I still have the ability to tell them no. I know no one will, but it just takes everyone saying no thank you, and declining services from insurance companies. For years, even though my daughter had top notch insurance, I took her to a provider who wouldn't accept it. It is called taking responsibility for your actions and not expecting the government to do it for you.
ACA is not revenue neutral, as stated by the CBO, contrary to the hopes and dreams of the left it is not and never will be revenue neutral. The government cannot run any agency without fraud, ineptness and just plain waste why in the hell would anyone think that a health plan would be any different.
If the court strikes it or part of it down there will be a scamble on to patch, fix, ditch or just kick the can as usual. I could care less and most that have insurance could care less unless they have employer funded/partial and the employer jumbps ship on insurance or already has due to the scare of higher costs.
Victoria: "Jesus also buried people who died from illnesses"
No he didn't. Actually he said, "Let the dead bury their dead." But he DID resurrect the dead. Besides, why would he blame people for burying their dead? But he would blame YOU, Victoria, for not helping to heal our sick. Think about it.
So you want to bury everyone who is ill? OH WHAT A GIVEAWAY!
Victoria: "I also do not agree with any kind of insurance. I believe that the idea of insurance is destroying America. That is what a savings account is for. "
How much money do YOU have in your savings acct, Victoria? Because one weekend in the hospital can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. It will DEFINITELY wipe out what little savings the average worker may have. And what about the poor? The poor that Jesus healed for free? What about them?
No wonder Jesus said it was easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
I'm not rich, and while I don't agree with insurance,I never said I don't have it. I said that the idea of it was a problem. I also don't like the idea of people not being able to afford health care, and I offered ideas as to how we could get rid of over-inflated costs by getting rid of insurance and having doctors that charged reasonable rates, but you didn't comment about those things, just that I probably won't go to Heaven. I would just like to say that people like you probably vote for whichever establishment person your party tells you to, because clearly coming up with a candidate that offers real solutions must be crazy.
So, Victoria tell me more about Jesus and his socialist teachings...
Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Luke 10:30-37 Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other
side. But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, ‘Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.’
Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?" He said, "He who showed mercy on him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."
SpoutingFire2: Yes, you have rights; however, I also have the right NOT to have to have my hard-earned taxpayer money used to pay hospitals to care for those individuals who are either too irresponsible to get health insurance or can't afford health insurance. If ACA can provide low-cost insurance coverage for those who can't actually afford health care now, I would be thrilled! But, to be able to afford health care insurance and NOT purchase it is against my rights as a tax-paying citizen!! It's irresponsible and crazy!!
So you offer us Romney, Victoria? Mr. Corporations (insurance companies) are people... That's laughable, you are scary loony. We had personal responsibility as a system up until the conservatives smashed the system in 29 with their greed. They think we have forgotten how that system worked. Every man for himself is not a system of government that worked when the population of the country was 123 million as it was in 1930 nor will it work now when the population is 313 million. The numbers do not work. We will never have full employment, we will never again see a time when everyone could be "middle class". The numbers don't work. The rest of the world caught up with us. So we can either have a society that finds a way to take care of each other, or we can just let the chips fall and bury the ones that don't make it. I'd prefer to see option 1.
Heck no, I do not want Romney. I don't want any of the people in Congress. I think we should go to a system where none of the people get paid, they do it voluntarily a set term, and they can't vote themselves any kind of pay...it must be voted on by the public. I didn't state which party. I don't want either person.
And I didn't bring Jesus into this. If you want to discuss Christianity, we can, but something being Constitutional is the question here. If you want to talk about good works, then we can do that, too. It is still about personal responsibility. You can donate time to soup kitchens (without the help of government giving for you), you can donate food and money to the poor (without the help of the government giving for you). One doesn't have anything to do with the other. WHAT?-4099780 was the person who brought up Jesus. So please direct your comments to him. Thanks.
Vinnie, your an idiot.
Clearly, the problem with Libs is they cannot read what they refuse to believe!
Cadillac Tax on Premium Health Care Plans-at tax right? Do yourself a favor and watch that You Tube video again real quick!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U
My wife has the second best Heath Care Plan in the state, provided by her employer! Better than Microsoft, Amazon, Intel, and Google! Boeing provides a better one.
She only makes $60,000 a year. But ACA would tax her for it!
Now, for your sake, watch the You Tube video again!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U
Now, how is that not a tax for Americans making under $200K-$250K per year? If that one is obvious, I am sure there are more!
Actually, care in Europe and in other countries with universal healthcare is generally better than ours. Nearly 180,000 Americans die every year from the expensive treatments that could have saved their lives. Millions go uninsured. In most industrialized countries, they spend FAR LESS on healthcare and have either the same quality of healthcare as we do or even better. I would bet that Americans would gladly pay a more stabilized yet higher tax rate for the ability to have healthcare with no co-pays and no prescription costs. I wish Obamacare had the public option, but this is a great first step to broad healthcare reform, which I hope will end with single-payer healthcare that they have in places like Taiwan or Germany.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Victoria: "....My dad pays quite a bit in health insurance, and it is not fair that he is going to be taxed extra to pay for people who choose to not have insurance now"
.....Could you elaborate on just how your dad will be taxed extra because of people who choose not to have insurance? Actually, what you have described is the current problem of people like me having to pay higher premiums because of the deadbeats and welfare queens/kings who refuse to buy health insurance although they could afford to do so. This is why, in 1990, the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation proposed the individual mandate to buy health insurance, and which was backed up a few years later by 4 GOP U.S. Senators, including Grassley of IA and Hatch or UT.
Roadhouse Blues
My dad is one of the people who falls into that category. And the people who don't have insurance that I was referring to are the people who are supposed to benefit from the ACA. Yes premiums would be lower if everyone had insurance, but a lot of people have better uses for their money and just choose not to go to the doctor.
I would like to say that all of this is a mute point because any one can already get medical coverage if they go to a public hospital. They have to treat you, which makes this law unnecessary.
But many Americans don't live near public hospitals, and free-rider insurance costs the economy over $40 billion a year. Plus this law helps reform our nation's weak and inefficient healthcare system.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
rushless, you are suspended for a week for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
Maybe...if that " Affordable Care Act" had more 'COWBELL' the SCOTUS would less likely to vote along party-lines! As for me...give me 'Bowles-Simpson' or give me more 'COWBELL'!!!
But that's part of the problem with Bowles-Simpson. Like the ACA, the thing only works if most of it's component parts are approved and in the the same package. Otherwise you get the GOP approach of give me spending cuts now, leave Defense alone, and we will talk about tax reform when we have the political advantage. And since we aren't ready to discuss tax reform, we must in no uncertain terms, leave the Bush rates in place until then. Amazing that the ACA had some "forward thinking" items in it, some that the unions opposed. But it's Obama and therefore it's evil.
wm.-375: .....it's Obama and therefore it's evil.
Correction> It's Obama and therefore it's haphazard and stupid.
imnotlost. By thinking obama and the democrats are stupid, you are lost. They are following a master plan. The scheme is to say there is a problem, insist their fix is correct. Get you to spend on the fix that doesn't totally solve the problem so you they have to do more, spend more, expand their power.
Think! Drop a frog in boiling water, the frog jumps out. Put a frog in a pan of cool water and slowly heat it and the frog will cook to death.
That is how stated dependency works. It's end result will be the death of the patient in the name of helping the patient.
Akron: Exactly! If Obama had told Congress to come up with an affordable care act that would be introduced slowly over a ten or twelve year period, giving care givers, from doctors to major hospitals the proper time to implement plans for patient care in the least costly way possible with efficiency being a priority he may of had a chance to actually do something credible. When you rush a bill through to passage so you can "see what's in the bill" and no one has even read it does nothing to win faith with the populace. You might be right, they're not stupid. For the record, I'm not lost either. o:)
They never would have gotten it through if they told us EXACTLY everything they were doing and told people what the good things and bad things about it really were. Everyone with a basic calculator would have rejected it. Heck a first time abicus user could have figured out it was wrong!
I don't know Akron: The fever pitch they were in at the time - no public outcry would have stopped them from passing that ACA bill. Obama, Reid and Pelosi were determined to trounce the republicans and come what may it was going to happen. Sad.
Don't forget the "mobs" of taxpayers at Town Hall meetings demanding to know of their elected representatives what exactly was being jammed down their throats.
Shameful!
The vote is 5 to 4. The Universal Healthcare is declared Unconstitutional. Supreme Court Chief Judicial Activist John Roberts fulfills a promise to the Republican'ts that he has joined the "Make Obama a one term president" Platform. He has obeyed well. What a Robot!!! Shameful Shameful.
Now citizens have no universal health care. They are at the mercy of the Big Wig Health Insurance Industry, as designed by the Republican'ts. Their Slave, willing slave that is. Chief Judicial Activist John Roberts performed well.
Shameful to the Nth Degree...
In 2012 remember the Republican't war on the Senior Citizens, Disabled and the Poor and needy. Vote President Obama, he cares and fights for those who the Republican'ts step on
And thats my opinion.
All these knee-jerk fixes only make the problem worse. The only way to get a fair tax code is to scrap the whole thing and start fresh. imnotlost I wrote my senator for information on ACA because the government printing office took it off the website. So much for transparency. I got an e-mail back. She apologized to me and said she couldn't tell me what was in it either since she never got to read it before the vote. Is this what you want to hear from your senator when you ask for information?
lonereb I got exactly the same response from my senators in Texas...amazing things happen without people knowing what the hell is goin on.
After all this time your Senators still hadn't taken the trouble to read it? How do they know if they are for it or against it? Can they read?
Pam: They don't care what's in it. Most of them voted for it when promised they would get a perk in exchange for their vote. Sad.
Nice attempt by the mcnbc hacks to support the law without sounding too biased.
With the not so subtle jab basically saying, don't worry everybody we only want to
tax those nasty rich people.
We don't need tax increases in any of the forms that this administration may try
and disguise them- we need to spend less!!

Spending less...yes, because austerity is working so well in Europe.
To be fair, austerity is different than cutting spending.
Planning out controlled cuts of wasteful spending over years is one thing, taking an axe and lopping off 20%+ of a government's spending today is completely another.
"you need to stay on rice and beans and beans and rice until you get your mess cleaned up!"
Dave Ramsey, financial counsellor.
The problem with people is that they will justify anything to get something they want, even to the tune of $16 Trillion in debt!
Spending less is not austerity- nice talking point though.
The measures you see in Europe now are only because they went down the path years
ago our administration is trying to take us down now. Europe is the perfect
example of why the kind of policies this administration wants don't work. Leave
it up to a zombie to try this argument that being fiscally responsible is austerity.
Not everyone can be on welfare- somebody has to pay for it.
Why Ruken would be lopping off 20% be unreasonable?
The Federal Budgets for the last four years have been exceeded by 1.2 trillion dollars, record setting I might add, and we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar the federal government spends. In other words the Federal Government spends 33% more than what it takes in.
Cutting 20% right off the top would still mean the Fed is spending 11% more than its taking in. Cutting 20% of spending would only reduce the amount of dept we are accruing.
Perhaps you can also explain why regulations in the ACA require Private Health Insurance companies to not spend more than 20% of collected premiums on Administrative costs or they have to return the excess back to the participants.
Why shouldn't we be able to demand the same 20% from our government? The federal Government and all departments should only be allowed to spend 20% of all collected Tax Revenue on Administration and all unspent funds are to be returned back to the Taxpayer.
When GSA spending $830,000.00 to throw a party in Vegas, 9 Circuit Court taking 4 Trips to go to Hawaii to discuss "Judicial issues", Congressman spending $1800.00, $2000.00 to lease a car, which we could lease for a couple hundred dollars, because its one of their perks, etc. don't you think maybe there's quite a bit of FAT that needs to be cut?
Just remember that FAT is your Tax Dollars.
Depends on the time frame in which you lop it off. If you lopped it off in a matter of months, you'd have economic chaos and recession / depression.
Now, if we're talking say...7-10 years, that's another story. The longer you spread out the cuts the less painful they will be.
Actually, you are both wrong. Spending less is Austerity.
Austerity: A state of reduced spending and increased frugality in the financial sector. Austerity measures generally refer to the measures taken by governments to reduce expenditures in an attempt to shrink their growing budget deficits.
#axzz1wwCICVPn
Hey David,
When you're talking about the government wasting tax dollars, it only matters to those of us paying taxes.
I caught that too. MSN was spinning this thing to make dear leaders ideas look credible. It's frustrating to see the propaganda presented, and then read how many people buy it as truth.
I am starting to think that independent thought is a thing of the past. Whats worse than the loss of independent thought is the self evident truth that those that don't agree with the sheeple line of b.s. become labeled racist or bigot or fox readers.
Anyone with a brain can see that those who don't agree with dear leader get publicly berated and run through the mainstream media discredit line. Look at what he did to the Supreme court during the State of the Union.
I pray that this thing is voted down by a court that is not afraid to stand up to the media malestorm that will follow such an educated decision. Dear leader will rake them through the coals and all kinds of skeletons will magically appear in their closets.
Yes Ruken. Austerity is what a creditor forces on you.
Right now, you have the democrat plan which is tax the rich. The problem is that higher you tax them, the less money they spend in new ventures, which means revenue will grow at a slower rate than the tax increase leads them to believe they will get.
The Ryan plan is about a 2 - 3% annual increase in outlays that will permit the natural average 7.5% revenue increase to overtake the budget deficit in about 6 or 7 years.
First thing, you have to have the stones to get a beast started - so far we don't.
Second thing, you have to have the stones to endure any immediate government job losses that may occur (depending upon how the strategy is implimented).
Third thing, you have to have the discipline to stay on course regardless of the crisis that come while the plan is working.
Fourth thing, after surpluses begin, have the stones to not spend it on anything other than paying down the debt. Won't happen, so the alternate is that 75% of the surpluses go to the debt and we can loosen a bit to do some of the nice things that we like to do. We are, afterall about the most generous nation in the world.
Fifth thing, never let big debt like that happen again unless it is to keep our sovreignty.
CJM: I'm surprised that more people don't understand that spending less will NOT pay off the deficit. We need to raise taxes across the board in order to make enough money to pay off our debt. For some reason, the Republicans (and Grover Norquist) can't understand that by cutting spending (meaning, cut people from jobs) without raising taxes, they are cutting their own throats. Sure, they save money in salaries, but they end up losing money because the people who lost their jobs have lost their spending power. Without people spending money on products....you can't help the economy. Manufacturing will only manufacture what will be consumed, and if out-of-work people have no money to spend; then manufacturing makes less (meaning, again, they lay off more people). This is a vicious circle that will get us NOWHERE! Besides, how much do you think it costs us to pay for their unemployment??? Some of that comes out of taxpayer money.
Additionally, in the past, whenever we had a war, the president raised taxes to pay for that war. Unfortunately, our last president, who decided to have a couple of unwarranted wars, failed to do that....which is what put us in the circumstances we're in now (along with many other things from presidents previous to him). Until the Republicans understand that you can't pay bills just by saving money; that you HAVE to raise taxes to pay them; our economy will never get better! Even the average household understands that you can't pay your bills without adequate income coming in....and, of course, if you spend too much, you have to cut back along with finding other ways to make more money. I'm all for cutting back, and I'm sure there are many ways of doing it without having to fire people from their jobs, but I'm also all for raising taxes. Even a small rise in taxes won't kill any of us, and it would add to income coming in that could pay our deficit.
As for the healthcare plan....if you all want to continue to have your taxpayer money used to pay for those indigent people who are crowding our ER's because they don't have insurance to go to see a doctor, that's your perogative. Personally, I'm tired of paying 3X what I normally should be charged whenever I go to the hospital because the hospital has to cover those who they see without insurance. And, the healthcare policy will give even the poorest person an opportunity to purchase low-cost insurance so they can actually go to a doctor's office in lieu of going to the ER! Another thing people don't seem to understand is that the MORE people who purchase insurance; the bigger the insurance pool becomes. And, since the insurance companies are required to use a certain percentage of the money they get from their insureds for medical care.....and since they will have more money....this means that the people they insure will probably pay lower rates for their insurance. It's easy to understand, and I can't figure out why the average person can't see this!! Granted, there are parts of the bill that can be tweeked but, in the most part, it's heading in the right direction. If the Supreme Court votes it out totally.....we'll be back at the mercy of the insurance companies, who can then charge as much as they want, deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, etc., etc., etc. Don't you think that's what they WANT to see done....the more money they make; the happier they are (but we are the ones getting the shaft)!
Are there really four people stupid enough to vote for this VinnieSaltine crap?
Well when your daughter has a new baby will you gift wrap the $44,000 debt bill you are also giving him with his first breath as an American citizen.
The Ryan Plan is hypocritical bullsh*t that increases military spending, that is all.
It wouldn't do MSNBC any good to put any support one way or another they are facing the same issues as any other company.
@Didi, I remember when we went to Afghanistan, how the prople loved it. actually it was rightous. We are going to Iraq Howthe people liked it. All but me it seamed. Yes i went to Vietnam, Desert Sheild, Desert Storm, and in between some places I didn't want to be. You got what you asked for, now it time to pay the piper and you run. Big waste of my time and servitude. It's hard for me to comprehend but I was shooting the wrong people all this time? I will now take up pen, pencil, and keyboaard to take out rich bastards and CEO' and anyone else who is in my way. And I will start to devote my time to cleaning up this mess that you allowed to happen in this great country.
6dogs: I also served in the military (US Army Ret) and retired after 24 years as a Lieutenant Colonel. I too was in Vietnam (although I missed Iraq). I didn't "allow" anything to happen to this great country....too many politicians and big business have torn everything down that you and I fought for! It's a sad day when neither side can sit down and compromise on something. Anyway, thank you for your service, and thank you for your comment. However, I had nothing to do with what's happening....I'm just trying to make people see that it needs to be fixed and calling each other names, etc. isn't the way to do it.
David, the reason why we have a trillion-dollar deficit is because of the RECESSION. The recession cost the government roughly $1 trillion in less revenue and higher spending on safety nets. Not to mention the $380 billion tab of the Bush tax cuts.
First of all, cutting government spending in a recession is economic suicide. You don't usually take money out of the economy via spending cuts or tax increases, as that would lead to a double-dip recession similar to that of 1937. The ensuing recession would actually increase deficits.
Secondly, government is not a business. Businesses don't manage or regulate an economy; give benefits to the poor or the unemployed or the elderly; or have institutions to jump-start the economy. Governments aren't controlled by shareholders that demand repayment on their investments. The government is supposed to spend money to help the economy when private investment is lacking. Governments cannot maintain economic growth indefinitely via deficit spending (raising taxes and/or spending cuts would have to ensue); they are just used to buy time for the economy to improve enough to encourage the private investors to start putting money into the economy.
And finally, a budget proposal like that would be insane. Our government would essentially have to spend roughly $760 billion a year to meet such a requirement. That is simply not enough to support the current size of our nation; it wasn't even the size to maintain our nation during the 1990s. And personally, I don't believe that governments should be forced to return surpluses to the people via tax cuts. The government ought to use the surplus to either pay down the debt or invest in things like infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc.
$830,000 is chump change compared to our current budgets. Yes, there is some fat in the budget, but not a lot, so we have to be careful where we cut.
You don't want to raise taxes, fine by me. Just don't complain when the government suddenly abandons social programs like SS and Medicare that will help you in the future because of a lack of funds.
Quite simply, we have both a spending problem and a revenue problem. The spending problem is not that we spend too much on welfare, but that our entitlement costs are ballooning and our defense budget is completely bloated. My personal opinion is that we should reform (not privatize) Medicare, SS, and Medicaid, cut the defense budget by roughly 10% over the next decade, and then reform the tax code by first repealing the Bush tax cuts and then closing loopholes. I also say that we ought to raise the top rate to 45%, the capital gains and dividends tax rates to 24%, and lower the corporate tax rate to 25% but force companies to pay at least 20% in taxes.
Since when is a $10,200 plan a "Cadillac Plan"?? Sure, you'll be able to keep your current insurance plan. Just try it...sucker.
I can't wait to see Jughead scramble to take credit for the tax break when SCOTUS rules Obamacare unconstitutional.
The "Cadillac tax" is so vile that it's implementation was delayed until 2018 well after the 2012 election. Another one of Gruber's bad theories it is a regressive tax designed to hurt the dying middle class. This horrible idea was made worse by the incompetent, corrupt senate finance committee who failed to index it to regional cost of living differences. That means it will fall heavily on high cost of living states. It will essentially end health care coverage for millions of Americans dumping then into the individual market at the mercy of the predatory insurance industry.
If Gruber, a pure academic, left his offices to come across the river to really learn something about healthcare he would realize that is it is not people overusing healthcare that drives up costs. It is our profit based system along with it's massive administrative costs that provide no value to patients.
I doubt Gruber will ever leave his graphs and office to see the real word. Except of course to rake in the money as a "consultant" promoting his insurance based approaches to healthcare reform. He has made quite a bit of money doing that already.
Have you noticed the Public Service Announcements the government has been running in the last few weeks touting the positives of the law? I think if "funny" they are spending all this money on advertising within weeks of the Supreme Court decision.
it's a joke.
His health care debacle is a joke.
His budget(lol) is a joke.
FP is a joke.
His resume is a joke... etc.
He's a joke.
What budget?
The one the Senate controlled by his party shot down unanimously 99-0. One senator didn't even bother to vote. This attack on cadillac plans reminds me of a very bad school funding plan in my state. The state was forced to support poor school districts by transfering property tax money from "rich" districts. What that ended up doing was to transfer money from a school district with large property tax revenues because of a vacation destination, lots of hotels etc. They had to send the money to the district 30 miles away. The effect was to force the "rich" district to have to cut all music art and drama classes. One thing nobody understood was 90% of the children in the "rich" district were so poor they qualified for free lunch. So what they really did was to rob one poor kid to give it to another poor kid.
With the number of Universal Health Care Plans across the earth, you would think the US could have come up with something with less than thousands of pages that no one read prior to passing it and hopefully have avoid dragging the Supreme Court (That bunch is another story) into it. But this is America 2012 and common sense no longer exists.
Well, if you're trying to influence a Supreme Court decision, I don't know what all those protesters are doing out in front of the court building. Supreme Court justices always enter the court through the back door. So they will never even see any of those protesters. The only thing they are accomplishing is to make themselves feel better.
If they took the thieving Insurance companies out of the health care plan, and funded it through the government, how many BILLIONS would be saved?
Why do we need these greedy middlemen involved?
Well I am sure they are probably using taxpayer money so not funny.
The federal government IS a middle-man!
Gee, MORE @!$%#ing tax cuts. As if the depression they helped cause in 2008 wasn't bad enough, they want us to try for Round Two.
hmmm.
i'd love to hear your take on what caused the Great Recession.
i'll help you get a head start.
Greenspan, Clinton, Countrywide(GSE)...
Toasty
Tax cuts didn't cause 2008, government insisting banks make loans to people who cannot afford homes, (Graham-Leachy-Billings Act of 1999). If banks have to make loans that they would not make, what makes you think they would keep them? They sold them to someone else (investment, Insurance, other banks).
And that is one way to have a financial crisis. Heck, the democrats are already pushing for these loans again. The only way to fix stupid is move it to where it can't hurt you anymore.
So the GOP was stupid at the time? Still stupid cause the care to blame Frank-Dodd for it.
Things really went down the tubes as Obama gained popularity, promising to raise taxes on business & investors, increase energy costs, bring unions to all parts of our economy, along with carbon taxes.
Business ran for cover, investors shut down, people lost their jobs & our economy dropped, all just before Obama took office, but business had foresaw & planned for.
The GOP didn't cause the housing crises the Democrats especially Barney Frank did. Unfortunately those who couldn't pay weren't the only ones hurt. Loans were transfered from one failing institution to another so fast nobody knew who held their loan. The people who finally held the loan BAC or Wells Fargo or someother didn't take the time to bother dealing with the laws in the states the loans were made and demanded people follow inheirtance laws in the state they were incorporated in. Or in my case they spent 4 years asking to speak to my deceased mother instead of speaking to my daughter who by Iowa law inheirited the house and land.
December 2007: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07).
2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.
January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.
February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.” (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08).
March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and “move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08).
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and “modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08).
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying “we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08).
July: Congress heeds the President’s call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
As you can clearly see, the tanking of the housing market is clearly Bush's fault. He told Congress no less than 17 times in 2008 to reform Freddy and Fanny, but the Dem's in control of the House and Senate didn't want to hear it and did nothing about it. Blame Bush all you want, but the record is clear.
Gateway - The Graham Leachy Billings bill didn't originally strenghten the CRA. The republicans could agree how to permit Finance, Insurance, Securities, and Banking co-exist under one roof. The Bill was in conference and the house and Senate couldn't agree on a compromise.
But then came the democrats who secretly wouldn't mind voting for mega finance, but couldn't do so without appearing to favor the rich and thus angering their socialist/progressive base. They offered republicans all the votes they needed if they attached what I described to you a.k.a. Strengthening the CRA by increasing penalties and granting all agencies brought investigative powers to invest any bank if they did not give loans to people who really couldn't afford them.
Anybody would give that the Republicans can be stupid, but the democrats are even worse off in believing that the Socialistic policies could actually work in capitalism.
Entirely too expensive for sure. Hopefully it will be good riddance to this nonsense.
totally agree.
talk about govt over stepping their bounds.
this is it.
socialism doesn't work... check out how it's working across the pond
The Cadillac tax always confounded me. In essence, the administration sadi that they want you to have health insurance, but if your insurance is too good, we will punish you. Some people choose to get the newest iphone or the biggest TV, others choose to buy a bigger house or a nicer car, what is wrong with choosing better health coverage that the government must disincentivise it?
That's not it at all. What we should all be saying is that health care benefits, just as golf course membership or a car allowance, is taxable income, most especially for the rich.
Strange isn't? I thought they just wanted everyone to have affordable health care. Y'know, like they have in Cuba? And why do those lucky people put their children on inner-tubes and float out to sea? Michael Moore makes it look downright idyllic.
they don't dudelips22, do you ever get tired of showing your ignorance?
Republicans hate freeloaders, but what they hate even more is the Government requiring those same freeloaders to pay their fair share towards their medical insurance. Republicans have no problem with freeloaders in the ER's who dump their medical care on everyone else because they would rather have Obama fail at all costs.
Everyone against this health care law, I wish them plenty of pre-existing conditions, and a closed ER when they show up there with out health insurance!!!!!!
They would rather be a burden on the country rather than be responsible for themselves!
yes.
far be it from any of you to have a job and pay your own way.
Jason-I have never been without health care in my life, but I do care about poor people who cannot afford it as it is today.
Your a prime example of the unkindness that is ruining this country and taking us where we don't belong.
One can be for true health care reform and against the ACA.
Just because you have insurance doesn't mean that you will be able to use it to access health care. The MA connector, the model for the ACA's exchanges, recently approved plans designed for the low wage retail sector. With deductibles of $2000 for individuals and $4000 for families the people who have these plans have state approved health insurance but will still not be able to afford to use them to access health care.
The idea behind the ACA and Gruber's Cadillac Tax is that it must continue to be extremely financially painful to obtain health care. You have to choose between eating and seeking care other wise you will use "too much" health care. That is not really reform, it is more of the same under a different label.
Those of us that pay income taxes already make certain we have health insurance.
Rushless:
"poor people?" You mean the ones that buy $250 sneakers, have iPhones, cable, cars, etc? Isn't it a matter of priorities? The American so-called "poor" are rich compared to the truly poor in 3rd world countries!
Ah, more liberal compassion. Just like we saw during the union protests in WI.
Agreed, Rev. There is a lot that can be done without the law in the form it is. The supposed Cadillac tax, taxes on medical devices which appears to be on its way out are not helpful. We need healthcare reform and ways to help people get insurance. Focuses on improving health. The bill as it stands is just too overwhelming.
First, it is disgusting to wish harm to others simply for not agreeing with you. Your hatred of those you don't even know because they have their own individual ideas and opinion makes you a tool. Easily manipulated.
Regarding your(?) opinion that those against the law would rather be a burden than responsible for themselves, I couldn't disagree more. Even at the risk of your wishing horrible things on me.
This law takes away my ability of being responsible for myself and morphs that responsibility into a burden on the gov.
The government is claiming that the people who are currently a burden on the healthcare system should be a burden on everyone and that the best way of acheiving this is to take away all Americans ability to be responsible for themselves. Strip away the freedom of all to help out the irresponsible few.
I have a pre-existing condition and I still don't want your law especially the part where my church pays for contracetives the drugs that caused my pre-existing condition in the first place. Iwill not be as mean as you. I will not wish your daughter 42 years of health problems. I will not wish your daughter 42 years of pain and fear. I don't want your daughter living in my medical hell. But I can't stop her from being just as stupid as I was. So I will settle for not paying to buy her a chance to join me in this medical hell. You want it pay for it yourself. If that makes one girl choose not to take the pill I wil be satisfied.
So instead of cheering on a GIGANTIC government run system that the majority does not want, how about you spend some of your time setting up a non-profit charity to raise money to buy group insurance plans for the "poor" in your area.
Men if you really love your woman read the side effects label before she takes them. Believe it they are real. Then think would you rather visit your woman in the hospital or put on the condom.
Rushless first writes:
Then writes:
I am constantly amazed at the ability some have at practicing "double-think".
Perhaps self-righteousness and a strong sense of superiority muddle the skill of self-analisys?
My insurance would run $400 a month for two people, and that's not counting the deductable and whatever other trick rules the insurance company can invent
I pay taxes but can't afford $400 after tax dollars for coverage, especially when I know illegal immigrants get FREE health care.
Rushless, why is preexisting conditions denied? This is what will happen. If I am 20 and in good health, I will pay the couple of hundred in penalties, taxes, or whatever obama is calling it today. Let's say I do it until 50 years old. I then find out I have an illness that will cost tens of thousands to treat. I can now go in to an insurance company after years of not paying my premiums and say I want your best policy. No deductibles/no copays. They now have to cover me. I am treated, cured, then drop it again. Who pays for it? We do. The honest people. The HC plan went from 940 billion to a new estimate of $1.76 trillion and many predict it will go higher. And this does not take in consideration that $80 billion in student loan profits by the federal government was counted in this. The CBO states that obama double counted $500 billion in medicare savings. obama als did not count the $225 billion in reimbursements to the healthcare providers. All which add on to the $1.76 trillion The cornerstone of obama's healthcare plan is now too expensive and is being cut out. Long term care. CBO estimates that by 2019 that 20 million people will be dropped from their employer paid health insurance because it is cheaper for businesses to pay the penalty instead of healthcare. Millions on Medicare advantage will lose their coverages, which obama said would not happen. Thousands of low income children were dropped from coverage in New York by a union. Many people will be moved to Medicaid instead of Medicare. Can your state afford billions more in costs? There is a panel that will decide whether you get a procedure covered or not. Taxes will be raised over $400 billion for the HC plan. You still think this is good? Any sane person would not agree. Let's not also forget that there is a good chance that part of this will be ruled unconstitutional and should be. Also, do not forget about separation of church and state, which the HC law goes against by forcing religious HC providers to give.
Rushless: even "poor people" need to have some "skin in the game" when seeking healthcare services. I work in the healthcare industry...even now, without ACA, there are those that abuse the system...they show up in the ER repeatedly, don't provide any co-pay or cash of any kind to help pay for the visit...if there is absolutely no risk on the side of the person seeking healthcare, even a nominal co-pay, the system will continue to be abused. There has to be some responsibility and accountability on the part of the utilizer.
Economically speaking, the exemption from income taxes for health care benefits is nothing but a government subsidy. For a CEO making $1m and having a $20k family plan, that amounts to (at 35% marginal tax rate), a $6k subsidy.
So we give the CEO a $6k subsidy but that same CEO denies a poor family a smilar subsidy under Obama-care.
Seems a bit ironic, doesn't it.
For those who decry the cost of Obama-care, let's also look at the cost of CEO-care.
not to me.
makes sense.
Jason, I didn't follow you, are you saying that a CEO's health insurance benefit should not be taxable as income?
Is it any different from other perks they get, like car allowance or golf club membership fees, which are taxable as income?
I know this is difficult for most of you demowhinners but...
You are where you are because of the decisions you made.
How did the 'poor' family become poor?
Have children to young?
No college?
Drop outs?
These are decisions that the 'poor' family made.
Jason, let's eschew the insults and stick to the economics.
Let me ask you again, are health care benefits income or are they not?
the CEO's benefits should be taxed
Jason, isn't that what obama-care mandates? Do we agree that provision of the law does make sense?
Mark... there are parts of the Bill we could recycle however...
I already have enough govt minutia shoved up my azz.... i don't need any more.
Agree Jason.
Jason this poor working slob for all the time I worked had a choice of pre-tax/ post-tax on health-care benefits. I could take pre-tax in which the benefits were deducted from my pay before the taxes were and I was taxed on the lower pay after benefits. If you haven't figured out that little gem it isn't my fault.
So Republicans believe if you are poor you made bad choices, yet if everyone were rich we would need illegal aliens to do all the menial work. Conservatives are a contradiction in themselves.
Ok.... thought we had this horrible debt problem we need solved.... so why exactly would we give a tax break.... As KORN would say "F*CK Dat". If The healthcare plan fails we should raise taxes, since we obviously can not afford to care for our society then we should clean house.... I will vote for anyone that says they will never lower taxes at this point.... DO not tell me the country is failing because of debt and at the same time say we need to give rich guys big tax breaks...Damn it would be nice if the priorities of anyone on the right would Jive with well all their other priorities.
Debt a huge problem fine be ballsy and cut the big spending in gov.... Military, Soc Security. Then a temporary Increase in taxes to pay the debt down. That of course is not the goal... the goal is to destroy government, and enrich friends and themselves... But none of the above jives with most of the legislative agendas of the right, Guns, abortion, religion, etc. So put those to the side as less important then fixing the country, and if your principles say that means fixing the debt, then do it, and quit playing lip service to it.
Yeah, simple as...um...dat. This is why KORN will never run the country. Thank Christ.
Our current tax level is unsustainable given the amount of spending done. We need to reduce spending, and at the same time, increase taxation to the point where we can start paying down the national debt. I like the idea of $2 in cuts for every $3 in increased revenue. A fair balance between what both the Reps and Dems want. Without a fix, our system is going to go the way of Greece.
bingo
Matt: I agree totally.....see my post above. We HAVE to raise taxes in order to pay the deficit. Prices of all things are going up, which means when the U.S. purchases anything, the price will always be higher year after year (as it is for the average consumer). If we don't raise taxes to pay for the rises in costs, we'll NEVER get the deficit paid off. And, as I said previously, laying off more people to decrease spending is not the answer! In order to boost the economy, people have to have jobs so they have money to buy things. If they can buy things; manufacturers can manufacture them (meaning....they can put people to work and on and on). I just can't see why people don't understand that....it's a very simple concept. I refuse to vote for ANYONE who signed Grover Norquist's stupid pledge....it goes totally against the pledge (oath of office) they made when they were elected!
As long as the raise in taxes is paid by someone else right Jason. I think a better plan would be to quit treating federal tax dollars af if they are not real money. As factcheck did in the question about Milwaukee's Trolley plan. Their idea was that Walker lied because the tax bill for the Trolley wasn't mostly state funds most of it was federal. So it is OK to spend $55 million of somebody elses money on a plan to benefit one city. When you going to put a bus stop at the corener of cornfield and soybean so the people who paid for it can use it. Didi I live in a state with no state income tax. Our state capital unemployment rate is 5-6% what is yours? The more people working the more people paying taxes the faster we pay the debt off. Just keep working at driving jobs from your state we will accept any company that wants to come here.
$2 in cuts in exchange for $3 in additional taxes?
no.
$25 in cuts in exchange for $1 in additional taxes.
This is why I think balanced budget amendments suck. They don't allow for deficits even during recessions, making it nearly impossible to stabilize the economy. If I were Governor of California, I'd vote to boot Prop 13, the supermajority on tax increases, and the state's balanced budget amendment. Then I'd rehire as many employees that had been laid off as possible, mostly teachers. Then I'd raise a surtax on anyone making over $250,000 a year and then use the money from that to partially offset a massive infrastructure project, looking out especially for unemployed Californians. We create jobs, keep education up and running, and then after a few years we seek to balance the budgets. To placate any fiscal hawks, I would offer a new amendment stating that California must balance it's budget and reduce debt when debt is at around 70% of GDP and/or during an economy where GDP growth is at or above a certain benchmark. Essentially, I'm trying to set a template for budget reform in California.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
They will not over turn it...they know how they have greatly damaged the courts credibility. If they do I would support patriots storming their homes and eliminating them for eternity.
you realize you just promoted the killing of supreme court justices, right? also, anyone doing something so heinous would not be "patriots", they would be murderers.
Ken: I think Paul was being facetious! I have to agree with him....if SCOTUS overturns the ACA, it will be extremely detrimental to many people! I agree that it does need to be tweeked to some degree, and I think as it goes into affect, the glitches will be taken care of as they pop up. But, to totally throw it out would be two steps backward for the U.S.!
Actually Paul just made a terroristic threat. He incited to riot. Where is the Homeland Insecurity department when you need them? Ah but Didi if he was a conservative and said that he would be labeled a hate group by our government. Just like those 9 old retired farts in Florida who don't believe in paying taxes.
People are being arrested for making very similar threats to the POTUS in forums just like this.
Lets see if there is a news report of Paul being arrested.
I did no such thing. I said I would support someone else do it...lol....which is true. I wouldnt hurt a fly. People need to pay attention during reading comprehension class.
Bottom line: the Affordable Healthcare Act is unconstitutional. Nothing else matters. It is time people start making their freedom and rights the top priority or there will come a day when freedom and rights no longer exist. I said this when they passed the "Patriot" Act, I've said it about Social Security, and I'm saying it about the healthcare one. I've said it about many other bills and actions taken.
More important than security and well-being is freedom. Think that's nuts? If our forefathers and those who fought and died in the revolutionary war had not put freedom above all else, there would be no U.S.
What good does it do you to be free if you starve to death because the person you made rich for 40 years doesn't give you Sh$$. I said this about the patriot act also. I still believe it. But when Republicans want to stick a probe into my body before I can be in comand of my own body, that is where I draw the line.
First, I would say it's on you if you worked for someone for 40 years and made them rich rather than make yourself rich, but that is BESIDE the point.
The point is that your freedom and rights must come before all else.
Your problem is the same as many. You're willing to forego what people in every war have fought to preserve for a little bit of security while failing to realize what those people realized who fought in the wars.
There is no such thing as security.
Rose:
And who exactly did you make rich?
Christ, Rose, why stop there? I'm sure you've got juicier paranoid fantasies that keep you up nights. Don't hold out on me.
Mark,
Exactly what freedoms do you have really? The choice between sandwich or bagel, window or aisle seat, Democrat or Republican?
We're given the illusion that our vote counts, that we can invest with confidence in a stock market where rational people make rational decisions, and where corporate capitalism's invisible hand treats everyone within its system equally.
The world we have before us today isn't one of freedoms but distractions.
I have to agree with Mark. Too many Americans are willing to trade freedom and individualism in exchange for a sense of security.
Rose Macaskie: If you don't like supporting that "person that you made rich for 40 years", why didn't you go out and start your own business and make your own "shi$$" instead of complaining about someone else not giving you something?...go out and do something about it yourself...don't depend on the government to solve all of your problems.
The ACA is getting me a refund from my Health insurance company that they would usually keep, no harm in that. This bill has helped me in several ways and I have not seen any part of the bill that would not benefits the middle class.
SSN and Medicare was called unconstitutional also.
You're comparing this boondoggle to SSN and Medicare? Seriously? Tell me, what was the projected cost of Medicare when it was first proposed? Now tell me Obama's plan is debt-neutral. Idiot.
Wow Im an idiot , really? Where do I compare the 3 you liptared? Where? You believe this is unconstitutional When it is not. 1/6 of the economy does give Congress the power to control. The same talking points that was used against SSN and Medicare is being used today. Reading is fundamental Liptard!!!
Mandate = unconstitutional...Period!
I don't care how you "justify" it...the govt has crossed the line....
yep.
Ironic that individual mandate was a conservative initiative many years ago, not a liberal one.
I wonder what changed?
it's bad no matter who's idea it was
Jason, does the indivudual mandate affect you, personally? Do you not have insurance and do you not have any inention of buying insurance?
I ask because so many people claim it infringes on their liberties, but in practice, so few are actually affected by that provision.
Mark it was just window dressing. It wasn't suppose to happen. When it did and seem to have a working chance, well you know the rest.
SSN and Medicare was called unconstitutional also.
Dey wuz, huh? See my comment from the first time you posted that startling revelation. Idiot.
I thought Obama gave the unions (state and private) tax waivers on the "cadillac" employer provided plans to appease them for their vote, while the rest of us get screwed! Just remember that those "cadillac" plans will be taxed a t 40% if over $10,000 per year for single people and $27500 for a family plan. Most middle class that get employer provided healthcare will fall into this bracket. Obama will be reaching deeper into your pockets than you think!
He did, and that was wrong. But the rest of us didn't get screwed by any material measure.
So if the AHC is so great for Americans, why the waivers to unions both public and private? Hmmmm
In my case, that's a $4500 tax increase for the measly HC plan my employer provides with massive copays! That's not getting "screwed?"
You would just get taxed 40% on the 10 grand before deductions. Shouldm't someone in this country pay taxes for roads and police and schools. What a bunch of whinnys. They say the poor but its the Republicans that always want a free ride.
Politics Tony, pure and simple. Obama needed their support.
Rose:
Stay on track. This has nothing to do with road, gas, etc. taxes which we do pay for on every gallon.
I will have no problem paying the "Cadillac" tax once every member of Congress, the SC justices and the POTUS pays the same Cadillac tax. What a great way for those is DC to stand as one with the people. Ha.
Rose...........................................
eh....never mind. You wouldn't understand. Couldn't comprehend, and would just continue your infantile diatribes.
Pathetic.
At the risk of sounding alarmist...I just don't see it stopping there. It's the thin edge of the wedge. The cost of this thing will balloon. And then what?
England and Canada have public medicine and they are still here. Why not legalize marijuana, tax it and regulate it like alcohol and cigarettes. The revenue would surely help fund public health and the deficite. If they legalized heroine and regulated that as a controlled medication via prescription for addicts, then we would certainly put a kink in organized crime's chain. What we've done so far has not worked--its time for a new approach. And, any bootleggers can be handled under tax laws.
Have you ever been treated in England or Canada?
I have... both places... if you don't like it here... please move.
Canadians also come here for health care because of the long waits for services that are done in less than a week here. I injured my knee skiing on a Saturday and had it scoped the following Wednesday. A skiing buddy of mine from England estimated he'd have missed a full year of skiing because it would be considered elective surgery over there. Its always been the desire of the left, for reasons that escape me, that those who produce have to live a crappy life, the same as those who don't, or it isn't fair.
The woman holding the sign that says Obama Care is immoral. Should ask herself would she feel the same way if her child were sick and could not get health care. I find her morally offensive.
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
I do believe something to allow more folks to get healthcare was important and the law may accomplish that. I also feel the law may well do more harm than good.
Why, Rose? Because she disagrees with your views? If we use that logic, I find you disgusting for faulting others for their views!
Rose: any child here in the U.S. is not turned away if they need healthcare and have no insurance. That is a fact.
Somewhere along the line people were fed or came up with the notion that healthcare is a right. It is not! You get what you pay for and if you pay nothing you are due nothing.
Years ago (before my time), the government didn't pay for healthcare and the social services were very limiited, if at all existing. People looked to their community, churches etc for assistance. Take it out of the public sector and bring it back to the community. Maybe then we could reduce our national debt.
I used to be a member of a church ladies group. We often raised money to help pay for medical expenses for people even those not members. One example is a 15 year old who was hit by a car. Not saying that is the only way but people do need to act more as a community.
Not in the USA they won't. No compassion for those less fortunate. But they will quote the Bible when its convenient.
The middle class is already benefiting from being able to keep children on their insurance till age 25. Insurance companies cannot discriminate with pre-existing conditions. Insurance Companies will have to return a stimulus style dividend on monies not used in medical procedures or care to insureds. The ripple effects will definitely reverberate across the nation.
the joke is in the first line: "affordable health care act"
It is estimated to cost THREE times originally thought, WILL cost those on medicare and those expecting to receive medicare BILLIONS, services WILL be cut, and the political elite and muslims are exempt. IT WILL cost the tax payers in ways that health care is not even involved, such as arrest, trial and incarceration of those that refuse to comply.
IT WILL cost billions in court costs as churches and individuals fight for the CONSTITUTIONAL right to choose and the separation of church and state, and that is above and beyond the triple cost to the public for the thing alone.
the obamanations obamacare IS the wrong thing for this country.
health care reform was pushed by insurance companies to avoid insurance reform which is what really needed to happen.
the last line is so true
The mandate part of the ACA would require us all to buy into a corrupt, toxic, and just plain lousy health insurance industry. That is the problem I have with the ACA.
Many of us already buy into this industry (80% or so). But, I always feel better knowing I have the option to tell them "Fu— — You!" and take my money and leave the game. The mandate would not allow me to do this.
Mandate Personal Responsibility: Republicans Please Sign This and Get on With A Jobs Program.
Declaration of Non-Healthcare Insurance Status for Individual and/or Dependents:
I the undersigned, Resident of State of _____________, City of ______________, in declining to purchase mandatory health insurance for myself or my dependents or to have said health insurance purchased on my behalf for myself or my dependents by any federal, state, city, municipality, charity, employer or agency.
Therefore I accept full and complete financial responsibility all for a healthcare costs incurred by treatment of myself or my family by any doctor, nurse, emergency personnel, at any doctor’s office, clinic, care center, rehabilitation center or hospital. I will not present myself for any treatment where I have not prearranged for payment or, nor will a member of my family do so on my behalf if I am incapacitated. For the purposes of the Law I shall be treated as a self-pay patient, and will present amble evidence of credit, bank balances, property, and holdings showing my ability to pay all foreseeable costs without limit, which may provide for my health care costs.
I promise I will not incur any costs to federal, state, city, municipality, charity, employer or agency arising from Emergency room treatment, and or the event of my death. The Emergency room, hospital, charity are not authorized to take any loss charge on my account to offset its business losses, exclusions or reduce taxes from losses I have caused or seen to have caused. These charges shall not be passed on directly or indirectly to any government agency federal, state, city, municipality, charity, employer or agency or to the taxpayer.
If these provisions prove onerous to hospital care personnel; I may be administered palliative care from a fund I have set aside to provide my self-paid insurance.
Signed ____________________— Resident of ____________, City of _______________, June, 05, 2012.
Clarifications: Yes. If you refuse to purchase health care you cannot transfer the cost of your health care back to the government by any path. Therefore the undersigned being unwilling to purchase healthcare insurance cannot directly or indirectly transfer of your health care cost to the government and are responsible for all costs. Where is the confusion? Either get health insurance or pay the health care bills. The abstainers would just as soon go to the emergency room, and stick the hospital with bill, which get takes as loss hospital, or transferred to the government. The Emergency Room has the moral and legal obligation to treat you, but the costs has to be your responsibility, OTHER wise we might as well provide medical for no cost and transfer the cost directly
Would you like to see costs provision in writing? The voters only decided that they don't want to be forced to buy health insurance, not that they would be so foolish as to not buy health insurance. So if everyone bought health insurance they would be happier if they were not told to do so, and then vote for happiness. Or maybe the voters think that having health insurance was bad thing, and the government should outlaw health insurance! Imagine how much more time would wasted if every possible phrasing of the question was put on the ballot. Any fool with two cents worth of opinion can see that money has corrupted the system, and that stupidity so infectious in the public mind that the problem cannot solved.
Hint 1: The health insurance companies are unnecessary middlemen taking huge profits that otherwise would be used to improve medical care delivery.
Hint 2: In effect health insurance companies are an extension of government, tailored to create middlemen who can make huge profits, and provide service to the health care industry.
Hint 3: Were the function of health insurance business combined with the health care business, the benefit would to make middlemen richer, and may provide service to patients.
Hint 4: The middlemen need to get richer, and donate to charity hospitals that may care for patients with treatments they can afford.
Hint 5: Hell why have patience at all!
Now available in bracelet, pendant or tattoo form, and order soon supplies last only as long as the economy does, “Not responsible for medical problems from any source including the one foot by one foot tattoo’, color choice available according to availability.
If this mandate is unconstitutional, then all laws that are based on the same deeply held belief doctrine of unconstitutionality are also manifestly void. Emergency care is mandated, requited by law, hospitals and emergency and first responders are required to be good Samaritans and cannot withhold service for payment. It is implied that those care services can only file for losses against other profitable revenues. Business can and do accept losses that are unrecoverable and reduce their portion of revenues called taxes, those taxes are paid by whomever is not protected from making taxes by wealth classification. Therefore the public, supposedly represented by the Constitution are in fact not protected by the same Constitution, because they are footing the bill for this bit of political propaganda.
===
Texas has the highest percentage of people without healthcare insurance, when they get shot; the taxpayer pays the medical costs at a premium because it is just passing on through to the federal deficit. Had the citizens of that proud state provided civil penalty for damage and just caused by careless weapons fired the USA would not be pay those unnecessary cost. The objective is clear, not providing Texans with health insurance saves money because it forces the federal government absorb the true cost, thus reducing labor costs, and supporting illegal immigration. If there is money to made Texans know how it is done.
You put alot of thought into your views and I congratulate you.
RichMJones - I have been saying the same thing for years. If you don't want to participate in and contribute to the health insurance system, fine. But don't expect others to pay for your treatment when you need it.
Taxes may go down but health care costs and insurance premiums will continue to rise at rates far in excess of inflation.
richjones,
why isn't your contract in spanish?
oh thats right, because most of them get free health care anyway - AT OUR EXSPENCE!