Sometimes Willard just doesn't think.

Feisty-

Regarding Robert's decision, today it is herding cats ..... last Friday it was ...... "You all continue to play 'Go Fish' while we play chess ….. "

Really great stuff.

But aside from cats and the obvious insult to anyone who can name the chess pieces …. Just what was won, validated or even redeemed …. That Obama is a flat-out, confirmed by the Supreme Court – liar, or is a imbecile / clueless community organizer that had to have Roberts explain to him the only justification, the only way Obamacare could legally stand.

Amazingly, Obama and his mouth pieces still declare it is not a tax …. Yea right, and the first thing you do when you reform health care is not hiring more doctors, nurses, health providers, etc., but …. hiring 16,500 new IRS agents.

(Go fish? …. Or did you just cluelessly lose a piece - en passant?)

Of course anyone that pays attention, has known for years Obama is a bonafide liar - someone who intentionally misrepresents facts in an effort to deceive.

He says no one making less than $250k will pay a dime in new taxes as he adds 20 new health care taxes. People making less than $250k never need "medical devices?"

Bottom line is that Obamacare would never have passed if Obama and the libs had been honest – had they not lied.

One last thing about Go Fish / Chess.

In your children's game of Go Fish, players ask each other if they have "any threes" / whatever ... an exchange that actually provides opportunity to lie in an effort to win.

In chess .... very little if anything is ever said, in fact not one word needs to be said. The only thing that matters is intelligence, skill ... the play / the moves you actually make and the result of those moves.

How could Obama ever win in chess if his greatest talents .... talking, deceiving, pandering, lying have no effect?

Not sure what your point there was.

You've moved on from 'it's unconstitutional!' to 'it's a new tax'?

It seems that you are hellbent on not liking the law no matter what.

That's cool, to each their own.

But the government is in the job of looking out for all it's citizens, including it's 30 million unemployed and it's 160 million women.

We won't count on your vote in November.

But at least be honest with yourself.

It's not 'it's a tax!' or 'it's unconstitutional'. It's 'i hate this law because...i just hate it.'

I think you can try and spin this issue anyway you want, but it does not change the fact there are in fact many new taxes in ObamaCare that will hit the middle class like a ton of bricks both directly and indirectly. The result of all the new taxes is a massive expansion of the IRS which has the task of trying to administer the new tax laws. When all the new taxes finally come home to roost, we will see if those cheering ObamaCare today still feel the same. After all, all this free healthcare the Democrats like to spew about, isn't really free.

The GOP is likely to find much more success in using this tactic downballot. They have been hammering away at House and Senate candidates since the decision was first announced

Nothing is free.

Some things are worth the price.

Healthcare for everyone is one of those things.

I wouldn't vote for either one of them I would vote for Mickey Mouse I think he would a better job they these people that do all the lieing just for the seat its a crock of bs take all are writes a way one at a time kids can't celabrate holidays in school pass kids to the next grade when not ready for and they are our future so all it is is one lie after another so vote for Mickey Mouse

Bottom line is that Obamacare would never have passed if Obama and the libs had been honest – had they not lied.

Bob - The Dems didn't lie about a tax. This definition of the ACA was labeled by the SC not the Dems. Splitting hairs over what you call it is just a silly talking point. It doesn't chang e anything in the bill...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Voter support for President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul has increased following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling upholding it, although majorities still oppose it, a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Sunday showed.

Among all registered voters, support for the law rose to 48 percent in the online survey conducted after Thursday's ruling, up from 43 percent before the court decision. Opposition slipped to 52 percent from 57 percent.

The survey showed increased backing from Republicans and, crucially, the political independents whose support will be essential to winning the November 6 presidential election.

Thirty-eight percent of independents supported the healthcare overhaul. That was up from 27 percent from a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken days before the justices' ruling. Opposition among independents was 62 percent, versus 73 percent earlier.

"This is a win for Obama. This is his bill. There's not really any doubt in people's minds, that it belongs to him," said Julia Clark, vice president at Ipsos Public Affairs. "It's his baby. It's literally been labeled 'Obamacare' ... which maybe it works in his favor now that there's a little bit of a victory dance going on

The law can be leveraged.

Just keep pointing out to everyone how they can't turn you down for being sick already.

Everyone knows someone born premature...or with cancer...or with other issues.

Just keep drawing that line for them and they'll keep walking across the line.

"Pretty cool that your daughter's will never be rejected for insurance because they were born premature, right?"

Oh Goodie - watching the TP attack the GOP is just pure entertainment. And for added value, spending all this 'political capital' on infighting just before the election. Feisty, bring out the popcorn .. the final installment of "Who wants to marry a loser Republican" is about to air.

Caution flag to all FR regulars - this is an NBCPolitics post.

Sometimes Willard just doesn't think.

Sometimes?

Romney unfit to be President of United States.

If it's considered a tax, so be it. Better they tax those that use the ER for health care than tax those that carry insurance.

GOP plan would tax those that carry insurance.

so u say it's ok to lie not you teach children not to that but it's ok for them to what kind of example are setting not a good one just like them they tax everyone more then they should

Mitt Rove sucks

ACA only makes health care unaffordable for more people. It expands government aid and therefore requires increased future taxing to sustain it. The current taxes mentioned are only the beginning. More to come......

if it would have been labeled a tax, the bill would never have passed the house and senate; of course it is a tax, that is the only way it could be found legal; you either buy a insurance policy approved by the government or you pay a tax that will be deducted from you pay check, just as social security is deducted; the people who do not work, will still have their medicaid, the wealthy have their medical savings account, the government employee has their health care , the middle class is screwed, since employers will no longer be able to afford the expanded coverage plans(no pre existing exclusions, no limit, children up to 26), so the wage earners are going to have to shop , expect a family of four about 10,000. per year or pay the IRS a tax of 10,000. people on medicare are really screwed, since their coverage is reduced to a maintenance policy only, they will either go on medicaid or pay big bucks for a expanded supplement. a real cluster f..ck.

Dont_carry: the GOP plan is for those who can't afford to have health insurance should just die.

The GOP plan would tax those that carry insurance? What do you think ObamaCare does? ObamaCare has a boat load of new taxes to pay for it, and many will directly and indirectly affect almost everyone including the middle class. When the reality of this monstrosity finally hits home, some of you will wake up and wonder what you were cheering about.

teknishan - I had two kids born early before Obamacare was ever conceived and my insurance covered both of them completely. Your sensationalist tactics might work for some, but not all.

Obama knew that he was going to have to raise taxes to pay for his Healthcare overhaul and it turns out he did; even though he lied and said he wouldn't. He sold us all a bill of goods by lying about what was in it. Fine - all politicians lie. But why defend him for it; when we could simply go back to the drawing board and truly find a plan that is budget nuetral. If you can make single-payer systems budget neutral, than do it. But instead we keep fighting over a law that is incredibly flawed. Let's quit settling for second best in this Country and have some REAL healthcare reform.

Vote to stop the meaningless bickering and childish my side is better than your side crap 2012!

Rod, Obama was trying to get the law passed as an unconstitutional penalty. How does that make the GOP the party of trying to trash the Constitution?

Talk about folks NOT THINKING (or is that lying since the Valor Act was shot down ?)........

Flashback to Mr. Lew's interview yesterday where he was in complete DENIAL that ObamaDoesNotCare is NOT A TAX but a PENALTY and continued to say it was a PENALTY.

Further, Mr. Lew completely skirted the issue about WHO would pay for this "We won't know what is in it until we pass it" piece of crap. EVERYONE will have to PAY.

Finally, Mr. Lew had no CLUE on how much this legislation would further dig the hole deeper for the American taxpayers.

Mr. Lew's interview was a complete and total DISASTER for Mr. Obama's re-election bid.

Despicable politics at it's best.

So, for you Liberals~Progressives, break out your checkbook when the IRS comes calling at your door.

When the reality of what is in ObamaCare hits home, the independant voters will be laughing at the hysterics of the GOP. No Death Panels, no Massive Tax increase, streamlined record keeping, better care for the poor, and no more children being denied coverage ever again, for any reason. Children! Shame on you guys, by the way.

LOLOLOLOL, somehow constitutional is unconstitutional?

Saxon you are throwing numbers out there like you know what you are talking about. For the first thing the penalty is about 90 dollors a year, so Im not sure how you came up with 10,000. Dont believe what you hear on Fox Notnews, they do tend to lie to their viewers.

Tax - penalty - or whatever you want to call it, it is far cheaper to pay it than
to buy health insurance. Since health insurance companies can no longer deny
coverage for pre-existing conditions, all one needs to do is pay this cheap tax
- penalty - or whatever you call it - until you get sick. Then buy insurance
on the way to the hospital to cover the million dollar operation you now need.
Good law folks - makes allot of sense...not.

Obama campaigned on healthcare reform and he gave it to us.

Pukes could have been part of the process if they hadn't alienated themselves and played obstructionist partisan politics.

McConnell the tortoise should hide in his shell.

i don't think many of you naysayers read Roberts decision, i did. if you had you might have seen that this "tax" "penalty" whatever you want to call it cannot be collected! if you don't pay, the irs cannot garnish your wages or put a lien on your property AND you can't be sent to jail. AND if everyone had been paying attention from the beginning that provision was in the original bill! so this whole circus act has been a Republican ploy to cause trouble and lie to an ignorant populace, brainwashing them into thinking that the democrats were doing something insidious and evil...something mitt romney already did in MA...but now says he didn't. he's not a etch-sketch, he's not a flipflop...he's a hypocrit.

Simple...

Romney/Republicants: If you don't like the affordable health care act, then why don't you tell us a new plan? The HOUSE GOP has had nearly 2 years to come up with a new health care plan, but where is it?

I still say.. just change the name to "ROMNEYCARE" and everything will be okay. Then the GOP can say 'we did it' and not the DEMs.

The Rod_Father says "Good luck pukes trying to repeal a "CONSTITUTIONAL LAW"."

Sorry to point out the obvious, but if Romney gets elected he doesn't have to repeal ObamaCare, just choose not to enforce it. Obama set the precedent by announcing he will not enforce immigration laws. So all Romney needs to do is announce any or all of ObamaCare that he will not enforce. You cheered Obama for ignoring the law, lets see if you feel the same way if Romney does it.

The Health care crisis is this simple.

1. We continue down the path of ER High cost at the Middle classes expense.
Through Higher Premiums high prescriptions. That the so called OATH driven medical industry bleeds us dry through.

Or

2. We enact a law like the President did. Requiring personal responsibility to those who can afford it. Like the new health care reform does. TO LOWER the amount of ER visits. And to use preventative medicine. To curb future High costs.

This makes some in the medical industry very upset. They will lose record profits. Yet more Americans will enjoy better health. And other business's will enjoy healthier workers. At a lower Premium cost.

This is a step in the right direction. But we cant stop here, not until the greedy insurance companies are gone and we have single payer across the board.

Making huge lumps of cash off of someone's medical misfortunen is just plain wrong.

You can call it a tax, or a mandate, or a penalty, but the bottom line is less than 1% will be affected and those are the freeloaders who can afford healthcare, but choose not to buy it, to offset the costs of treating those losers. The truth is , Mitt again, championed it, before he turned his etch-a-skecth upside down for the uptheenth time. The benefits far outweigh any fake critisicism the right may make. Good for Pres. Obama, and my grandchildren thank him too.

Ultimately, the real issue boils down to this. Who is going to pay for it?

I'd like to take Backhouse's stance that this will actually cost less over time as compared to what we pay now, but until that happens, I'm very skeptical.

This country needs a health care system/plan that works for everybody. But again, who is going to pay for it? With today's economic data that manufacturing contracted, putting the burden on business could lead to furthering today's economic downtrend.

And call it what you want, it is still a mandate to have to cover the expense. Whether you label it a tax, fee, penalty, mandated coverage the result is the same. Money will be forced out of people's pockets that can least afford it.

Neither that nor burdening business that the administration is trying to help makes sense to me.

Tariffing imports does. 5% of all Chinese imports will protect manufacturing jobs here, and add 2.5B per month that can be used to support legislation such as healthcare. And with healthcare being one of the top reasons China is competitive (because they don't have that cost to deal with), it puts that portion of COGS on a level playing field, and takes care of our middle class at the same time.

The Affordable Care Act tax come from insurance corporation and super rich, not middle class.

check out the story on Newsvine or motherjones website

michelle - Does that 1% include people working for minimum wage that can't afford it either?

I agree we need healthcare reform. I agree Romney is a terrible candidate. But I do not agree that this law is the right thing. Obama had to bend over backwards to pass this ridiculous compromise. That is why it won't work. It was doomed from the onset. Forget trying to pass an entire overhaul. Start out small with something that everyone can agree with and work your way from there. That is how real change can happen.

Everyone is talking about the 1600 IRS agents they will hire for this but not hiring any more Dr's. Since when does the federal government hire DR's? When Hospitols start getting people that are now covered with insuarance and they will get paid for them now instead of sending someone a bill and they ignore it until it goes away. The Hospitols will be able to hire Dr's, Nurses, and Tech's. I do not agree with 100% of what is in here but it is a good start. Health care needs to be taken out of the Insurance Companies hands and put back in the hands of the Dr's and Patients. Or more along the line of there needs to be a consensus between all 3. Dr's charge to much for some things and the Insurance companies have a right to say what they will pay. Insurance companies do not have the right to say who will live and how will die when it comes to prescribed procedures with the Hospitols though.

cdahl - Most intelligent comment of the day. Import tariffs would cure so many of our ills. Somehow the Corporations have managed to own both sides of the Government though; making this simple fix for our issues an impossible one in our Political environment.

Well Kelly-Independent says, "The Affordable Care Act tax come from insurance corporation and super rich, not middle class."

Right. Your day of awakening is coming. Can I interest you in an acre of prime real estate on Mars? It comes with an earthly view, something you are obviously lacking today.

New York Girl

so u say it's ok to lie not you teach children not to that but it's ok for them to what kind of example are setting not a good one just like them they tax everyone more then they should

Just curious... did that make sense in your head?

Rod, If you read the story about the Supreme Court decision you will see that the law as originally proposed was unconstitutional unless changed from a penalty through the commerce clause to a tax (Which Obama swore he would not levy against the taxpayers).

At the same time, the court rejected the argument that the administration had pressed most vigorously in support of the law, that its individual mandate was justified by Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. The vote was again 5 to 4, but in this instance Chief Justice Roberts and the court’s four more conservative members were in agreement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-largely-stand.html?pagewanted=all

Romney, the Obama spin machine, and even God himself could descend from the heavens and call this a penalty and it changes nothing.

The Supreme Court, the highest ruling body over law says it is a tax, so it is a tax.

Typical Americans don't react well to increased taxes.....

"It's a penalty that comes under the tax code for the 1 percent, perhaps, of the population who decide they're going to be free riders," said the California Democrat, who as House speaker was one of the law's chief proponents.

AHAHAHAHAH! 1%?? Pelosi is either in complete denial or a liar.

@Those Republicans saying this is a middle class tax,

Nope it isn't. Go to politifact.com and factcheck.org and you'll see that it increases taxes on those making over 250,000 a year, NOT the middle class. Even those taxes are modest.

Most of the "penalties" will be for those that don't buy insurance and those are low, Roberts said so himself in the ruling.

Republicans are now blocking the extension of medicaid and in the case of Louisiana, Jindahl will keep 350,000 from having insurance (as the feds pay for the expansion not the state) from getting insurance just to defeat Obama's signature issue.

Lastly, any plan the Republicans have to replace contain the very same things in this bill. What's the difference? It's their bill?

Obama didn't know it was tax, but the first thing he did in health care reform was to hire 16,500 new IRS agents?

Anything to back up the IRS employment claim? Didn't think so .. in fact you plagiarized that statement without a quotation. Folks, here come the lies from the right wing - without nary a reference to the original lairs in Chief, Newt/Ryan. At least they are easy to debunk.

To help you out Bob - here are the quotes from the fabricators mouths:

"One of the things in the health bill is 16,000 additional IRS agents,"said Newt Gingrich, echoing the latest GOP talking point. Rep. Paul Ryan joined him, saying the IRS will get "16,000 agents to police this new mandate." But is it true? Well, no.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/will_the_irs_need_16000_new_ag.html

Rick -- The taxes being levied are 0.9% on those making 200K and up. The medicare tax that is set to rise for those in the 200K tax bracket is long overdue. Medicare has never been properly funded. In fact heath care costs have risen dramatically over the past 30 years yet the tax collected to pay for Medicare hasn't increased in over 30 years.

The GOP plan to tax employees health insurance would tax it at regular rate of between 15 and 35 percent. If I had a choice I'd pay the 0.9% over the GOP's proposals.

GT - The Dems didn't lie about a tax. This definition of the ACA was labeled by the SC not the Dems.

And yet the Obama team argued it as a tax before the Supreme Court?

Bob, If that were the case, I guess the Dems didn't lie after all....

@Eric-913730 - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/515/no-family-making-less-250000-will-see-any-form-tax/

Promise Broken: No family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase."

American Socialist

This is a step in the right direction. But we cant stop here, not until the greedy insurance companies are gone and we have single payer across the board.

Making huge lumps of cash off of someone's medical misfortunen is just plain wrong.

LOL This post speaks volumes. Keep up the good work Obama.... Here we come Europe!!

Either way you all can claim victory for the tax being upheld, not a penalty by the way, on the other hand it was struck down under the commerce clause. So spinning it into something it is not is the only way liberals can claim it is legal. That is where you will lose. States rights are not federal rights and should never be.

I personally don't see how this isn't going to eventually bankrupt the insurance providers, and the hospitals.

Here's how:

1) Companies and individuals are going to opt out and pay the penalty to not offer or have insurance. The only ones that will have it are the ones that visit the hospital regularly. The ones that don't go in regularly will only get it when they get really sick or have an accident. Hospitals can't turn anyone down that needs emergency service, so alot of people just won't have insurance.

2) When all these people don't have insurance and the hospitals have to sue everyone to get paid they'll go under.

3) Insurance wont' be insurance anymore, because there won't be a pool of money to pay their participants from. People will only get it when the need it and not pay in as much as the get out. The only ones on insurance will be the ones that qualify for free insurance and the ones that make regular visits.

This will put healthcare in the gov'ts hands.

I don't think it will get repealed in it's entirety, which is what it needs, regardless of who the party is in office.

Insurance isn't the problem, it's the cost of health services.

I guess what I don't get is what did they win...if you do not buy insurance and refuse to pay the tax what is the penalty for it? No seizure /liens on property ...No interest for untimely payment and no civil or criminal charges under the tax code for not paying... so why would anyone that don't want insurance get it and just not pay the tax?

The taxes being levied are 0.9% on those making 200K and up. The medicare tax that is set to rise for those in the 200K tax bracket is long overdue. Medicare has never been properly funded. In fact heath care costs have risen dramatically over the past 30 years yet the tax collected to pay for Medicare hasn't increased in over 30 years.

So, hold up, you're saying that if some middle class guy decides he doesn't want or cant afford his "contribution" to obamacare, that someone in the .9 percent making 250K has to pay a penalty? Is this the 1% of the "freeloaders" Pelosi was talking about? Do we seriously think only 1% of the population is going to forgo paying their share?

From what I've been able to discern, most conservatives plain don't like this because it's a "tax". Well, okay, call it what you will - the bottom line is this:

If you want some form of government-subsidized healthcare in the country then there has to be a way to pay for it. So why not have this mandate? Afterall, it wasn't Obama's idea, something many of you conservative Republicans have conveniently ignored.

Remember the Heritage Foundation? back in the late 80's they came up with an idea of affordable heath care for Americans, and guess how it was supposed to be funded? A mandate to purchase insurance. I'll have to excuse my more conservative friends as they tend to have very short, if not selective memories.

Oh, and remember when Bill Clinton was president, there were those health care fignts in the 90's? Who, in Congress, offered a mandate idea as an alternative to Clinton's plan? Uh, it was Republicans....

And of course, there was an attempt on the part of both parties to sponser a bill that included a mandate. Before Obama. And before the Tea Party. So, why, all of a sudden, is this such an evil proposition?

So, what's a moderate Republican, trying to pander to the right wing lunatic fringe, going to do? This is the same guy who got a mandate passed in his own state; a guy who has repeatedly said he favors essentially the same provisions of Obamacare. Except for the mandate thing.

Well Republicans, I've yet to hear what your alternative is. How do you guys propose to pay for government subsidized health care? Quit whining and tell us what your plan is. If you have a plan.

I find it very amazing reading the posts on these articles about this topic and how many people have socialist views. Are we headed the same direction Rome went? We aren't going to lose our country by force, but rather by the debt we have incurred once all these socialist programs can't be funded by it's citizens.

Rick -- Just to add another thing for you to ponder. Right now those that carry insurance pay about $1000 a year extra (a tax if you will) to pay for those that use the ER for care.

TO: SadStateAmerica who wrote:

"teknishan - I had two kids born early before Obamacare was ever conceived and my insurance covered both of them completely. Your sensationalist tactics might work for some, but not all.

Obama knew that he was going to have to raise taxes to pay for his Healthcare overhaul and it turns out he did; even though he lied and said he wouldn't."

It sounds like you have pretty good insurance, and because you already have insurance you don't have to worry about being penalized or taxed.

And the President hasn't raised taxes, there's only a penalty for those who don't have health insurance, which automatically EXCLUDES YOU.

So why would you care if I have to pay a fine or a tax, that's NOT coming out of your pocket?

Obama/Biden 2012

Quit whining and tell us what your plan is. If you have a plan.

They have a plan. It is to repeal the ACA plan including the individual mandate, and then implement a new ACA plan with an individual mandate. And these people think they should be running the country, what a farce!!

"IF" Washington really cared about the health of poor folks, how about changing what is eligible for food stamps? Can't live on pop and chips and wonder why diabetes,high blood pressure, and heart disease is a problem.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The heart my be in the right place but the truth is it makes matters worse.

It has been said...

"The greatest mistake Ronald Reagan's opponents ever made – and they made it over and over again – was to underestimate him. Same with Obama."

The President will be fine and have the best healthcare money can buy for the rest of his life, the poor and middle class will be hurt if ACA is Repealed.

Why don't the Teabaggers understand this fact?

Someone needs to tell Mitch McConnell to go sit down with his foolishness about "beginning the process for Repeal on July 11th".

Mitch and Mitt, "it is over, dead and stinking".

Penalty or tax, it doesn't matter. Those were approaches in the arguments, but the basic question that was before SCOTUS was whether the ACA law and pieces of it including the mandate were or were not constitutional, period. The arguments were for the plaintiffs to make their cases, but the constitutional decision is not obligated to side with either or any of the details made in the arguments.

This is now over and will become settled law. Some members of Congress and others may threaten to overturn it, but that's extremely unlikely. It still won't stop them from using it as talking points in the election cycle, but nobody really thinks that overturning it going to happen.

I actually wonder if the GOP kept going with it being a tax in the arguments up to the decision to help ensure that it was not repealed. As much as the GOP and conservatives speak publicly against it, any workable plan to consolidate and reduce healthcare costs would end up looking almost identical to it including a mandate. Any attempts to cut the ACA items that are already in place and most of what is planned through 2014, would be met with solid opposition from most voters who like not being denied coverage for existing conditions, portable health coverage with job changes, and available affordable coverage from health care exchanges.

There really is only one thing that the GOP and and conservatives really hate about the plan, and that is that it was passed under Obama. Even constantly calling it Obamacare is turning out to be something very positive for the Democrats and to ensure an enduring legacy for this administration and the culture change of basic healthcare for all citizens as a right and not a privilege for the few with good plans where they work or for the wealthy.

Just remember who's name is on this HealthCare. This ISNT BushCare or RomneyCare. This was ALL BARRACK and his doing's, so as each new penility and increase is tacked onto you and your children, and grandchilden over the next few years and you get to watch and finicially support all the illegal immigrants in and coming to the country, Remember it's called ObamaCare by your elected official. This will fail, that's 100% true. Let me be clear. No Bama 2012.

This so-called penalty/tax will only affect those who do not have health coverage now, or do not have adequate health coverage - you know, like minimums for auto insurance coverage. If you can't afford it, it is paid for you. If you can't afford all of it, the difference is paid for you. But, if you CAN afford it and choose NOT to, you pay the full penalty.

Currently, those who have health-care now pay an averge of $1000 more per year for that coverage due to those without health coverage. A $1000 a year is a whopper of a penalty/tax for those with health coverage to be paying now for those without coverage.

PS - A lot of Americans will be getting a credit for health services they paid for before the ACA went into effect under the ACA's standardization of service charges.

Romneycare is Obamacare. Both have the same penalty/tax.

The point is: OBAMA LIED to deceive the American public to gain support for his signature legislation! Deni, Deflect, as you will,l but the fact is Obama is the biggest liar since Nixon declared "I'm not a crook"! Obama repetitively declared there would be no new taxes on those making under $250,000 per year. HE LIED!

Bush 1 lost his re-election bid because of his "Read my Lips, No new taxes" Pledge to the American people. Obama should lose his re-election bid as well. Unless of course, he shouldn't be held to the same standard because he's black! Sorry, but unless you're going to pull an affirmative action excuse for Obama he should be toast. Self serving hypocrites let your rants begin.

If you believe Obama lied about the penalty - now being defined as a tax by the SC, then you have to also call Romney a liar for the exact same definition of his same 'penalty'/tax in Romnetcare. Romneycare = Obamacare.

Do the research, Google it, and, nice try.

@ bob-1805084,

They aren't Chess Players, straight over their heads, nothing but Air.

NON Socialist/Marxist...

Um...you do realize Europe falling apart is the result of Austerity, which is a right-wing idea.

Yes! Free healthcare for all!

Except it isn't free and it isn't healthcare.

Whoops.

TO: RedDevPS who wrote:

"Quit whining and tell us what your plan is. If you have a plan.

***

They have a plan. It is to repeal the ACA plan including the individual mandate, and then implement a new ACA plan with an individual mandate..."

Yes, Republicans have a "Plan", and it's called, "Let's go back to screwing the American People, and, "Hey Insurance Companies, where's my million dollar "bribe" check" signed, Republican Congressmen/women.

They say it has taken more than 40 years to implement affordable health care for the American People, no doubt because Insurance Companies were making so much profit they paid off many a politician to keep the American People from having quality affordable health care.

Now, with a snap of the fingers Republicans want to take away ALL of our insurance and let Insurance Companies run all over us, collecting premiums and denying us coverage, just the way they were doing before President Obama implemented the Affordable Care Act.

Obama/Biden 2012

The law is the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. You can't pick and choose which laws to follow so and so fourth. ; ] It is also no surprise how quickly this party of tea bagging republican extremist in government turn on one of there own. ; ] Saying hes not there friend or hes a traitor or not one of them etc. ; ]

All of the states of goper's in charge choose to not implement the reform will have it done for them. And when everyone is busy loving it and finally understanding what it really is and that the goper's lied about it like they lie about everything they will all be but a memory.

Can it be that it was all soo simple then ; ]

Cheers

@dirp: "the GOP plan is for those who can't afford to have health insurance should just die."

... you forgot the provision where they leave all their worldly possessions to the Republican National Committee first.

I believe the majority of americans are relieved something has been done to reform health care. We have wanted reform for decades. Decades for crying out loud! Americans EASILY see this is a first step in many steps in the right direction. Simple math. ONLY those that think otherwise.... seems to be, in my humble opinion, polarized to a point of being COMPLETELY unamerican and ignorant of what it MEANS to a middle class working american. This dysfunction brought by republicans is purely political theatrics. Nothing more, nothing less.

This health insurance tax is to cover extra cost arising out of those uninsured, including those who can afford insurance, but decide not to buy insurance, and thus impose more cost on the system when the system has to treat these parasites when they seek medical help. The extra cost has so far been covered by hospitals, government, and ultimately the tax-payers, increasing health insurance premium for the insured.

On the other hand, Repugnant presidents such as the Bushes launched wars that imposed taxes on all, including those opposing their wars.

The Republican hypocrisy!

1.)Romney's plan DIDN'T come with more taxes. Obama's plan does - even if you call it penalties and not taxes his bill still has many other provisions that are TAXES.

2.)Romney's plan was and is total legal under the Constitution according with the rights of States when compared with the rights of the Federal Government.

3.)Romney's plan did NOT cut medicare or medicaid, Obama's plan does cut these programs.

4.)Romney's plan was passed with bipartisan support, Obama's plan was shoved down everyone's throat, he got not one Republican vote, and even had to pay off some of his own party to get it through.

Most young folks don't bother to carry health insurance because they are healthy and save a few bucks.

Except some of those "healthy" young folks will get sick and/or get in an accident that requires health care. And they will show up in the emergency room without any health insurance. Do you really expect us to be stupid enough not to know that?

If the mandate involved a penalty instead of a tax, would that make you happy? Does it matter if a politician says he won't raise your "taxes" but then raises your "fees"? Do we really want to play that game?

Republicans just hammered Obama for spending so much time on health care rather than jobs his first two years in office. Now, all Republicans want to talk about is health care?

I buy the health insurance for our company (about 150 employees) and things haven't changed at all in the past several years...in fact, our premiums are not going up as high and as fast as in prior years. We are actually seeing smaller increases and that's what was predicted.

Welcome to the wonderful world of politics. No wonder the Republican Congress has a 9% approval rating.

I was going to list people who were making uninformed comments but there are far too many...

1) This "tax" is only paid when you don't have insurance AND YOU END UP HAVING MEDICAL CARE THAT YOU DON'T PAY FOR! Hense why its a penalty, much like people who don't file the proper forms and file their tax returns late, they pay a penalty which is added tax. Now, if you make under a certain amount per year, this penalty/tax wont hit you, infact, you will be asked to get insurance at low or no cost to you (this is what the rightwing calls freeloaders).

2) The penalty or Taxes for those right inclined, only get charged to those who choose not to have insurance but goto the ER and stick the tax payer with the bill.

If I have to pay up a little more in the future to make sure a sick child can get care, or that an elderly person doesn't need to suffer needlessly, then I feel that is worth it.

There was a much easier and better solution to the problem, but no one was paying any attention. This solution also would not have created ANY new penalty/tax, but hard to do when one has the insurance companies lining one's pockets. The inexplicably easy fix?

LAWS REGULATING INSURANCE COMPANIES AND WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO UNDER THESE LAWS

Normally referred to as regulating an industry just as was once done to the airlines way back when legislators and US citizens were sane.

Rickie,

That is not what Mutt is saying on the campaign trail. He is claiming he will repeal it.

The other problem that Mutt has is he will not be elected POTUS. He can't do chit sitting on the outside of the fence.

American Socialist

Um...you do realize that Europe is "falling apart" because of socialist countries spending much more than they have due to promises made to public sector unions, don't you. And you do know that without the "Austerity, which is a right-wing idea", Greece would have already been bankrupt, the Euro would have collapsed, and the world economy would have tanked further.

The austerity measures are requirements that others are placing on the nearly bankrupt (ie overspending, socialist) countries in order to get more loans to keep their contries afloat. Without those additional funds, the governments will fold.

Of course, it doesn't surprise me a socialist expects others to give their money to someone who overspends and has no idea how to budget, and would allow them to keep spending that money too, until they are bankrupt again. It seems socialists don't really want to raise anyone up, they just want to pull back down anyone who is successful.

yyaaaawwwnnnnn.....Community organizer obama, let's start working on JOB CREATION, or are you waiting for Romney to give you that plan too?

Romney 2012!!

yyaaaawwwnnnnn.....Community organizer obama, let's start working on JOB CREATION, or are you waiting for Romney to give you that plan too?

Wait, we're too busy talking about healthcare now because of Republicans.

Cannibals,

So it was Republicans that made Obama focus on healthcare when he first got into office, you know, when the Dems had a super majority? I guess he thought the private sector was doing fine then too, huh?

The excuses never stop.

It certainly wasn't Republicans who were worried about healthcare. And now we should believe they will? Are we supposed to believe Republicans will repeal AND replace when they haven't done sh** about healthcare, ever?

Nice try, Einstein.

The majority of folks in Massachusetts like their health care, and Massachusetts enjoys much lower health care costs compared to the rest of the nation. That's a FACT.

Of course Romney is the worst possible candidate to fake like he is against "Obamneycare" and in more than one way. Not only the glaring contradiction about a penalty or tax associated with a mandate. Also his claim that his program was good at the state level but not at a national level.

Vermont is proceeding with their state health care plan that will be single payer, and California is in que to do the same, maybe Montana too? The poor Red states in the South will be denied Medicaid expansion, making those states even more poverty stricken, while the Blue states will progress.

In relation to the lies about repealing "Obamneycare" is this matter of the states choosing to implement it anyway -- just like the Teapublican governors (Scott, Jindal, Haley, Perry, etc.) who are grandstanding against it.

In addition to state's rights, Romney can't repeal "Obamneycare" at the presidential or congressional level either. He will LIE and say that's what he would do on Day 1, but the FACT is he can't. In congress, the GOP/TP would have to have a Super Majority, which isn't likely, and the same goes for approval of radical nominations to the SCOTUS. And let's say Romney made appointments to the court, what justice is going to overturn Robert's decision. And when? Long after the many benefits of ACA have been realized and a clear majority supports it.

So forgettaboutit. It's not worth voting for a crappy 1% plutocrat like Romney in a fevered belief that ACA would be repealed. It would only further destroy this nation and possibly our important institutions like the Supreme Court.

FORWARD - Obama/Biden - 2012!

Hey Morons! Roberts ruling says it's a tax. That leaves the door open to new lawsuits regarding the authority to impose leveling of taxes, who may, procedures, etc. It doesn't matter what anyone "says" right now cause it's all smoke. The electorate knows it's a tax and, accordingly, Obamacare will be dead in the water. Roberts knew EXACTLY what he was doing, and right now the frantic White House is scurrying madly to cast the ruling as a "penalty".... Sorry libbies, Feisty, all you other socialist sympathizers, it's a friggin TAX.

If I read the decision 4 judges said it was constitutional the way it was argued and four puppets said it was not. Doofus who thinks corporations decided to try and work a sidestep and called it a tax. Well so what if it is. Less than 1% of the people in Mass have the "problem" the rest are happy with it. Of the 1% all it is to anyone is the inablility to take a tax break and even this plan has no method for enforecement at all.

Now here is the nut case talking....

Mitt Romney has lied about supporting an individual mandate in health care reform say two cable news talking heads, and he will have to face the music.

Mitt Romney and the individual mandate in the health care reform law are "kissing cousins", according to MNBC's Joe Scarborough and Lawrence O'Donnell.

When Tea Party activists and right-wing Republicans focused their distaste for the Affordable Care Act or as conservatives derisively call it, "Obamacare" on the individual mandate provision, fingers pointed to Mitt Romney for including such a provision in the state law he championed and signed when he was governor of Massachusetts.

The Romney strategy for the GOP presidential primary season has been to say that while it might have suited the citizens of his state, at that time, it isn't necessarily a good thing to require it for the other 49 and he opposes it on a federal level.

Unfortunately, another op-ed piece in the USA Today has come back to bite him. During the bitter debates on the legislation as it moved through Congress, Romney wrote:

"There’s a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it. Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn’t have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others."

In other words, the individual mandate.

So guess who else thought it was constitutional MITT THE TWIT ROMNEY!

Now on to the 52-48% approve of the plan and oppose it. What is not in there is the fact that close to 50% of those opposing the plan are those that want single payer o a stronger plan! Of the rest only the right wingers 15-20% who are in the pocket of the Hc/Ins business actually oppose it.

A good day for 43 million people in the US who are now able to get insurance. We should be happy for those who can now salvage their savings from the thieves that call theselves HC.

Of the rest only the right wingers 15-20% who are in the pocket of the Hc/Ins business actually oppose it.

In the pocket of HC/Ins business?? Are you joking? Which party made it so it is MANDATORY you buy the HC/Ins businesses product? You tell people they have no choice but to buy insurance and we are the ones in their pockets? Look in the mirror genius.

A good day for 43 million people in the US who are now able to get insurance. We should be happy for those who can now salvage their savings from the thieves that call theselvesHC.

Again, I thought most of these people could "afford" insurance before but were just being irresponsible and spreading their cost to everyone else? Now you act like they are free to walk through a door previously closed? Which one is it? Salvage their savings, by being made to spend more money.

The amount people are paying is the EXACT same regardless of what you call it.

Tax

Fine

Penalty

Fee

Gratuity

Charge

Required payment

The amount is the same.

If you don't like the bill-fine! Spend your time coming up with something better that will protect people who are sick from being denied insurance instead of focusing on what this tax/fine/penalty is called.

Boy the GOP/Teaburggerers on here are still whinning about the ACA. Its a Tax! Its a penalty!.....hahaha

Boitom line is if you are a freeloader who is 'exercising their freedom' to not have insurance you will pay so the rest of us with insurnace dont have to pay more for your 'freedom' not to when you go to the ER for a flu bug..

Doesant make any difference if its a tax or penalty. NO DIFFERENCE. Except to the malcontent sore loser GOP who cant even accept the ruling from a Consrervative leaning SCOTUS (chuckle). They want it to be a tax....as if that is going to change anyones mind at all. FAIL

WHy cant the GOP do something about JOBS instead of re-litigating te past and sabotaging the Obama adminstration? But I say go ahead and keep re-litigating GOP, its just turning off the INdependent voters and pushing them to a choice for Obama.

[Sorry libbies, Feisty, all you other socialist sympathizers, it's a friggin TAX.]

Tony D mad...

Tony D SMASH!

Gimmie a break...ACA will be here long after President is done with his two terms...buck up young man!

TO: LogicReguired who wrote:

"1.)Romney's plan DIDN'T come with more taxes. Obama's plan does..."

False.

How many times does it have to be repeated over and over again in the news, on every channel, THEY'RE THE SAME PLAN!

Republicans like to call it a penalty, unless they're trying to stick a rotten label on Democrats, then Republicans like to call it a tax.

Whatever you like to call it, both Obamacare and Romneycare are identical in that respect.

PERIOD.

Obama/Biden 2012

BeesKnees

Tax - penalty - or whatever you want to call it, it is far cheaper to pay it than
to buy health insurance. Since health insurance companies can no longer deny
coverage for pre-existing conditions, all one needs to do is pay this cheap tax
- penalty - or whatever you call it - until you get sick. Then buy insurance
on the way to the hospital to cover the million dollar operation you now need.
Good law folks - makes allot of sense...not.

This is the first good point made. The penalty would not matter whether it was enforceable or not, because it applies to less the 8% of the population. That at least 20 million more will be insured is what will matter, as well as the preventative care they will now be eligible for.

The other point made is the delay in rolling out parts of ACA. This was necessary because right now they are working to increase the number of primary care doctors that will be needed -- A lesson learned in Massachusetts. But this is why ACA will create jobs, not kill jobs.

joeyfromcali -- I agree with your post except one point. Providers like ACA.

cdahl

Ultimately, the real issue boils down to this. Who is going to pay for it?

I'd like to take Backhouse's stance that this will actually cost less over time as compared to what we pay now, but until that happens, I'm very skeptical.

Technically, the ACA isn't enough to cut premiums; but it does lower the curve.

This country needs a health care system/plan that works for everybody. But again, who is going to pay for it? With today's economic data that manufacturing contracted, putting the burden on business could lead to furthering today's economic downtrend.

And call it what you want, it is still a mandate to have to cover the expense. Whether you label it a tax, fee, penalty, mandated coverage the result is the same. Money will be forced out of people's pockets that can least afford it.

That is why we need a single-payer healthcare system. It will lower costs and guarantee coverage to EVERYONE.

Tariffing imports does. 5% of all Chinese imports will protect manufacturing jobs here, and add 2.5B per month that can be used to support legislation such as healthcare. And with healthcare being one of the top reasons China is competitive (because they don't have that cost to deal with), it puts that portion of COGS on a level playing field, and takes care of our middle class at the same time.

I have to agree. I was once a fervent opponent of free trade, then became a supporter. But now, I don't free trade works at all. We have given so many trade benefits to foreign countries, but they haven't returned the favor. I say resurrect trade barriers until every one of our fellow traders lower theirs. And even then, I say protect vulnerable manufacturing industries with subsidies and tariffs. If free trade doesn't happen on both sides, then it isn't free at all.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

President Barack Obama's signature domestic achievement represented a tax hike.

“The Supreme Court left President Obama with two choices: the federal individual mandate in Obamacare is either a constitutional tax or an unconstitutional penalty

That’s all I need to know! One and DONE! C YA!

cdahl -- Breaking News -- You're already paying for the uninsured! With ACA. you'll pay less for the uninsured, and you won't be ripped off by insurance companies.

hootgib -- It's not folks becoming socialists, rather it's folks who are tired of capitalism gone wild and the skyrocketing inequalities. Look at how much of the wealth is now concentrated in the hands of few -- It's far worse than you realize. If we don't preserve the middle class, we will lose democracy as well.

VTBobb` -- Europe's problems are primarily with their banking institutions, and in cases like Greece, the problem has not only spending but not collecting taxes -- Italy as well, particularly from the rich (Ferrari owners). The new problem is austerity rather than making growth investments. Let's learn from history and remember that the Marshall Plan is why Germany is where it is today, and that Teabag "eating the corn seed" would be a disaster.

Speaking of which,

According to David Cay Johnston, Romney’s refusal to release his tax returns indicates that Romney has “been thinking about this since before Bain” but the American people deserve to learn:

Did Romney buy illegal, gray-market tax shelters?

Was Romney audited in a way that the government found serious problems?

Did Romney make use of offshore vehicles in order to defer or not pay taxes?

Did Romney take advantage of things that were not caught in audits by the IRS?

If Romney’s returns are clean, if there’s nothing to worry about, then why not just provide them?

Romney -- He's not in it for you.

VTBobb`

American Socialist

Um...you do realize that Europe is "falling apart" because of socialist countries spending much more than they have due to promises made to public sector unions, don't you. And you do know that without the "Austerity, which is a right-wing idea", Greece would have already been bankrupt, the Euro would have collapsed, and the world economy would have tanked further.

Man, you right-wingers never fail to amaze me. Europe is not on the brink of collapse because of its welfare state. In fact, it is one of the best continents in the world, thanks to their strong safety nets that strengthen income equality and their middle classes. I wish I could say the same for us. But to the point, Europe is in financial trouble because of the recession. The recession, caused by the collapse of the housing bubble and the global financial system, leading to the loss of tens of millions of jobs worldwide. After the recession hit, countries were forced to bail out their banks and then service the needs of the millions of unemployed Europeans, throwing the continent into the red. To quote Nobel Prize laureate Paul Krugman, the debt crisis was caused because of the financial crisis.

The austerity measures are requirements that others are placing on the nearly bankrupt (ie overspending, socialist) countries in order to get more loans to keep their contries afloat. Without those additional funds, the governments will fold.

Unfortunately, your statement doesn't really pan out. Before the recession, countries like Ireland, Spain, and Italy were fiscally sound, with Ireland and Spain having surpluses and low debt while Italy was reducing their debt loads. Those are the "socialist overspending" countries that you are referring to. But the austerity measures caused the economies to slide further into recession, deepening deficits and, thus, requiring more bailouts. Had Germany (who offered the loans) allowed nations in crisis to enact short-term stimulus to fix the economy while engaging in long-term deficit reduction, Europe would be in a much stronger place than it is now. But no; the conservative German Chancellor Angela Merkel demanded premature austerity, tanking the economies of the EU and threatening both the stability of the continent and the global recovery.

Of course, it doesn't surprise me a socialist expects others to give their money to someone who overspends and has no idea how to budget, and would allow them to keep spending that money too, until they are bankrupt again. It seems socialists don't really want to raise anyone up, they just want to pull back down anyone who is successful.

Why do you conservatives think we progressives are socialists??? I will bet you that despite his/her moniker, American Socialist is most likely not socialist. We don't favor government controlling EVERYTHING; just things that the private sector cannot handle, like healthcare, safety nets, and education. We were fine as a country (both fiscally and economically) until we began giving expensive tax cuts to the wealthy and gutting industries and services like manufacturing and education that benefit the middle class. Progressives, through the New Deal, created the largest economic expansion in US history, from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. That helped everyone, from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy. If you right wingers had any sense at all, you'd realize that progressive policies help EVERYONE, and your policies only help the WEALTHY while HURTING the ones at the bottom.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

FedupwithFed -- The full quote is as follows:

When asked by ABC News to clarify the campaign’s position on the issue, Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg backed up Fehrnstrom’s comments:

“The Supreme Court left President Obama with two choices: the federal individual mandate in Obamacare is either a constitutional tax or an unconstitutional penalty,” Henneberg said. “Governor Romney thinks it is an unconstitutional penalty. What is President Obama’s position: is his federal mandate unconstitutional or is it a tax?”

But the Romney campaign’s position appears to give President Obama some political cover now that Republicans are signaling their intent to go on the offensive.

This is so typical of rightwingers, to quote an opinion as if it was from a SCOTUS ruling. That's all we need to know.

Feisty, I know GOP stands for Goofy Old Politicians. What does GNOP stand for.

BTW: Standby to see Romney explain the Massachusetts program he help pass with some mental gymnastics which, if they occurred in the gymn, would humble Olga Korbut.

TruePatriot---How do you think we'll pay less for the uninsured? That is a very naive statement. Go look at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid's website. They have a Medicaid report for 2011 that is out and it has a section dedicated to the "what if" the ACA was upheld.

Actually, I'll go ahead and post it:

• The Affordable Care Act is projected to increase Medicaid expenditures by a total of $619 billion for 2011 through 2020, an increase of about 11 percent over projections of Medicaid spending without the impact of the legislation. Almost all of this increase is projected to be paid by the Federal government ($572 billion, or about 92 percent).

• The most significant change to Medicaid is the expansion of Medicaid eligibility beginning in FY 2014. This expansion, together with greater participation by individuals eligible under current rules, is projected to add 14.9 million people to enrollment in 2014 and 25.9 million people by 2020—26 percent and 44 percent, respectively, compared to pre-Affordable Care Act estimates. These increases reflect both the greater proportion of the population that will be eligible for Medicaid and an assumption that the new health insurance exchanges will be very effective in assisting enrollment in Medicaid. Of the new enrollees, about 80 percent are projected to be adults and 20 percent children, and about 82 percent are projected to be eligible only under the new rules beginning in 2014.

• The expansion is projected to increase Medicaid expenditures by a total of $564 billion during 2014 through 2020, with the majority to be paid by the Federal government ($500 billion, or 89 percent) due to the higher Federal matching rate provided for expenditures on behalf of newly eligible enrollees.

Where does this extra $564 billion come from? Every taxpayer in this country. So there are still people sucking the system, and the middle class is paying for it.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) now says that Obamacare will cost the taxpayers $1.76 Trillion over the next 10 years (link below). It's no longer a question of 'is it legal' - it now becomes 'How do we pay for this massive new 'entitlement'? As for the 'tax/penalty, consider this;

The rich won't pay because they have insurance,

The poor won't pay because they get free Medicaid - courtesy of taxpayers.

That leaves only the Middle Class, and Obama estimates that about 30 million will now have to purchase insurance or pay a tax/penalty.

And the worst part is that it largely falls on the lower income Middle Class - those who cannot afford the outrageous insurance premiums - so now, not only will they still not be able to afford insurance, but they will have to pay a tax/fine as well of as much as $2,800 per year for a family of 4 in just a few years.

Ironically, this is the same group that voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008. I wonder if they will again in 2012 when they find out the truth? Here's the link to the new CBO estimate;

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/1175831

Over the weekend I heard an excerpt from a speech by ol' Etch'A'Sketch during his term as governor. He was promoting the concept of the individual mandate to fund RomneyCare in Massachusetts. These days, as the GOP's #1 loser, he finding it difficult to address President Obama's health care program because when he talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, Mitt gets a painful charlie horse in his face. It is a frequent problem for Willard these days, it seems.

This "flip-flopping" as both sides attack each other shouldn't be anything new, but both sides would be better off simply admitting to the flip-flop. Sure you'll be less popular with the American public at large, but then we can kick you out when your term comes and vote someone in who (hopefully) doesn't flip-flop as much. But politics and politicians are all about lying to keep their power (and those who don't see it or don't want to see it are either naive, ignorant or stupid) and unfortunately for both sides you've got Obama/Reid/Pelosi on the left who are the best at the game as anyone and Romney/Boehner/Issa on the right who do it just because they want the power back.

"Romney camp complicates GOP's health care tax message"

Exactly which GOP "message" are we talking about?

A) Death Panels.

B) Socialized Medicine.

C) Unconstitutionality.

D) None of the above, but instead, something actually true.

SSPerfectChaos -- Another GOPee Wee Herman "I know you are, but what am I?" false equivalency. Romney is takes the blue ribbon for flip-flopping, and Issa takes the blue ribbon for being a hypocritical crook. Even Reid versus Boehner -- No comparison!

Regardless ... all this dysfuction was nothing more than political theatrics from the very beginning. Obviously UNHONORABLE theatrics at that. As this dysfuction continues, republicans simply own every bit of it. Republicans have sure wasted a lot of our $, time, blood and treasure the last decade. Shameful. TRULY shameful.

That's all you have First Read? That Romney had a similar law on a state basis years ago (that didn't work there either)?

Who cares? All that matters is that he has vowed to repeal this disaster of epic proportions....and this gigantic tax increase.

Romney's plan DIDN'T come with more taxes. Obama's plan does - even if you call it penalties and not taxes his bill still has many other provisions that are TAXES.

In both cases, they had "penalties" for failing to buy health insurance. That the Supreme Court decided that particular penalty was a tax doesn't make it any less of a penalty, nor does it make "Romneycare" any different. And Romneycare had to pay for insurance for those who couldn't afford it, which means, yes, tax revenues. Of course, Governor Romney raised revenues by calling his tax increases "fees" so he wouldn't be accused of increasing taxes.

Romney's plan was and is total legal under the Constitution according with the rights of States when compared with the rights of the Federal Government.

And the Supreme Court just declared that Obama's plan was and is totally legal under the Constitution, too. BTW, the Supremacy clause in the Constitution means that Federal law takes precedence over State laws.

Romney's plan did NOT cut medicare or medicaid, Obama's plan does cut these programs.

Um, no, Medicare still provides coverage to Senior citizens, and Medicaid provides medical insurance to those unable to afford it - it has been incorporated into the law, not "cut".

Romney's plan was passed with bipartisan support, Obama's plan was shoved down everyone's throat, he got not one Republican vote, and even had to pay off some of his own party to get it through.

That's because the Democrats in Massachusetts was being reasonable, willing to negotiate and cooperate to write good laws, while the Republicans in Washington DC became the unreasonable Party of No, even turning against their very own Republican ideas when they were incorporated into the Affordable Care Act by the reasonable Democrats.

The Republican hatred of Obama is so extreme and irrational that they torpedoed their own proposals in a vain effort to make Obama look bad. They'll do anything - lie, cheat, steal, or libel - in their attempt to regain power.

Of course anyone that pays attention, has known for years Obama is a bonafide liar - someone who intentionally misrepresents facts in an effort to deceive.

Bottom line is that Obamacare would never have passed if Obama and the libs had been honest – had they not lied.

What a misrepresentation this is. From the article itself...

Democrats have preferred, instead, to call it a "penalty" rather than a tax, parrying Republicans' attacks by using language presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney has used in defense of his own similar health reform law in Massachusetts.

As recently as this Monday morning, the Romney campaign was using the same language.

"It was a penalty, and the governor had all the authority he needed under our state constitution to put in the reforms that he did put in place," Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said this morning on MSNBC. "The governor has consistently described the mandate in Massachusetts as a penalty."

So you must be saying that Romney lied, eh? And that Romney could never have passed his healthcare reform in Mass without lying, eh?

It kind of makes sense, though doesn't it? The ACA w3as heavily modeled after Romney's healthcare plan for Mass. Why does it make sense when a Republican does it but it makes no sense when a Democrst does it?

This is at the heart of the current acrimonious environment in Washington. It has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with bipartisan politics. It has nothing to do with what is good for the country and everything to do with what is good for the Party, especially the Republican Party!

Get off your fat duffs, Congress, and start working towards what is good for the country!

Sorta reminds me of the Nicholson - Dunaway exchange in "Chinatown" "She's my daughter!! -slap- She's my sister!! -slap- She's my daughter and my sister!!" no further slapping, just the realization that some major league skullduggery is finding the light of day. The Republicans never wanted the personal mandate for health care, it was just a smokescreen for a poison pill they thought the Democrats would reject. "It's a tax" -slap- "It's a penalty" -slap- It's a tax-penalty that the SC fail to abort and is now a child the right-to-life Republicans want to kill. LOL

It is a penalty within the tax provision authority.

It's not a tax, tax is attached to a purchase or to property. It is a penalty for not having insurance.

The real reason Eric Holder is being charged.

Though the broad suppression legislation that passed last year (HB 194) was
supposed to be on this November 2012 ballot for a potential "people's veto,"
legislators are close to repealing the underlying law and passing new
suppression measures instead. This is a way for legislators to avoid giving the
people of Ohio a chance to vote against voter suppression laws.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/05/ohio_house_votes_to_repeal_con.html

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Ohio lawmakers on Tuesday repealed a controversial election bill that was supposed to go before voters on Nov. 6 -- the first known case in Ohio history in which legislators repealed a bill up for referendum.

Outnumbered Democrats unanimously opposed the repeal of House Bill 194, a GOP-backed election law passed last year that restricts early voting and makes several other changes. They said it subverts Ohio citizens' constitutional right to referendum.

Basically the GOP is trying to oust Eric Holder anyway they can so that they can deny voters the right to vote early where in most cases those voters would not be able to vote on election day thus causing their vote to not count. Once the dictatorial mentality of the GOP in trying to keep American voters from voting unless it is for they want the American to vote for.

If the GOP is able to have Eric Holder thrown out as the AG and replaced with a GOP appointed member the GOP will be in better position to control elections so that the election will go in their favor instead of the election going the way that America chooses.

Once again showing the corruption of the GOP Party which is the real dictators behind the GOP and not President Obama.

http://www.aclu.org/voter-suppression-america

Voter suppression Map - http://www.aclu.org/maps/voter-suppression-measures-passed-2011

You'll notice that most of the states that have decided to suppress the vote are the same ones that plan on voting for Romney.

The only reason Eric Holder is being questioned for his actions in the Fast and Furious scandal is because he is the Attorney General who is in the fight to keep voter suppression out of America.

We all know what happens next once voting rights are suppressed. Constitution Rights of choice become suppressed thus leading to religious persacution.

The GOP has a plan! It's called Soylent Green!

And the Romney mandate is still in effect in Boston ?...And what is all the mumbling about the " Super Pac money from China " ? Whats all this buying?

Democrats love calling Romney a flip flopper. While the Obama position is called evolving. The fact is there is almost nothing Obama can say without be accused of hypocrisy since his positions evolve from speech to speech and crowd by crowd. Some examples of Democrat mentality, it is unpatriotic to raise the debt ceiling, we need to pass this bill so everyone can find out what was in it, I voted for it before I was against it, and none of that is flip flopping?

Easy enough explanation. The supreme court ruling stated the federal government does not have the ability to penalize someone for not buying something. The supreme court said nothing about the ability of state governments to do this.

People need to remember state governments have a state constitution that outlines the powers of that states executive branch and those powers can and are normally different than the presidents.

HEH HEH...

Foot meet mouth... or is mouth meet foot?

Regardless, Romney and all the other Republicans (those uninsured and unappreciative) can go to the ER and I won't have to see my money wasted on having this foot/mouth pandemic eradicated...

The chutzpah I tells ya!!

Remember that the argument was that congress had the power to enforce an invidual mandate either (1) because this is a power permitted under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (the power to regulate commerce)- and therefore the $ paid by those who refuse is a penalty; (2) or because the $ paid by those who refuse is a tax and congress has the power to tax in order to shape public policy. Bless their pointy heads, they chose the answer that is wrong, wrong, wrong! Of course the Health Care Act is permitted under the Commerce Clause and the $ paid for not doing something mandated is a penalty. But Roberts was out to restrict the application of the holy of holies, the Commerce Clause, for all his corporate masters, so he decided to smear the HCA with the "tax" label. He found it constitutional because he's worried that something like 85% of the American people perceive the SC to be extremely partisan and he needed to restore a shred of credibility to the institution.

nomoresameo

The last paragraph of the article says it all.

Romney was, is and will always will be flip-flopping on issues.

The problem with his type of actions is that no one ever knows where he stands on issues. He's for this or that until it isn't popular. Then he turns around and tries to tell everyone he never backed that stance.

Despicable politics at it's best.

Is this kind of like Obama being against the mandate before he was for the mandate?

Mackman-912848 says news break, you will only be taxed if you choose not to carry health insurance. Well news break, you are only talking about the mandate and not the boat load of actual taxes that will supposedly cover the cost of ObamaCare. What, haven't you learned yet that ObamaCare isn't free? Hate to break the news to you mackman-912848 but you and everyone else on this blog will be paying for ObamaCare one way or the other.

I think some of you folks don't really seem to understand what is going on. BO is mandating everyone carry health insurance or pay a penalty. Most young folks don't bother to carry health insurance because they are healthy and save a few bucks. Under this ruling or law you will have to carry health insurance or pay a penalty. I suppose if I were younger I would be angry that I'm subsidizing the old folks health care plans. he he. Anyways here is the cost of your new health care:

You're looking at penalties of approximately the following at the following income levels unless you carry health care coverage. No more freebies... Some folks may still just pay the penalty and take their chances? I'm not suggesting you should do that. I guess the most they can do is double charge you if they catch you? Anyways welcome to the new tax on the middle class. BO breaks another campaign promise, but then which one hasn't he broken?

• Less than $9,500 income = $0
• $9,500 - $37,000 income = $695
• $50,000 income = $1,000
• $75,000 income = $1,600
• $100,000 income = $2,250
• $125,000 income = $2,900
• $150,000 income = $3,500
• $175,000 income = $4,100
• $200,000 income = $4,700
• Over $200,000 = The cost of a "bronze" health-insurance plan

All this hype over a penalty that is 75% lower than any insurance premium anyone pays now or will pay in the future is just more BS from the Right. How about the fact that every state forces you to buy auto insurance in order to drive, register a car/truck, etc. and if caught without it when you get stopped, there is a heavy penalty to be paid on top of having to buy the insurance or not being able to register your car or renew your license to drive. All the Red states have this law in place. Why don't they look in their own back yard before screaming about this tiny penalty?

Where does Obama stand! Is it we are going to be transparent or George it's not a TAX or If we do this unemployment won't go over 8% or I won't use Executive privilege That's not flip flopping those are straight up LIES!

Mitt Romney - Experience to be POTUS:

TRAVELER:

1966, after one year at Stanford University, he spent thirty months in France as a Mormon missionary.

IVY LEAGUE EDUCATED:

1971, he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in English from Brigham Young University and, in 1975, a jointJuris Doctor and Master of Business Administration from Harvard University as a Baker Scholar.

FINANCIALLY CONNECTED:

1977, entered the management consulting industry, which in, led to a position at Bain & Company.
1984, co-founded the spin-off Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm that became highly profitable and one of the largest such firms in the nation. His net worth is estimated at $190–250 million, wealth that has helped fund his political campaigns.

RELIGIOUS

Active in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he served as bishop of his ward and laterstake president in his area near Boston.

POLITICAL LOSER

1994, ran as the Republican candidate in the 1994 U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts, losing to long-time incumbent Ted Kennedy.

SPORTS LEADER

1999, he was hired as President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics and Paralympics,

1 AND ONLY POLITICAL POST HELD

2002 elected Governor of Massachusetts in but did not seek re-election in 2006.

POLITICAL LOSER (2)

Romney ran for the Republican nomination in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, winning severalprimaries and caucuses but losing the nomination to John McCain. In the following years, he gave speeches and raised campaign funds on behalf of his fellow Republicans.

Now with all this “experience” he wants your vote to lead the Largest Economy and most Powerful Nation in the World.

Obamacare Increases Costs of College Health Plans by as Much as 1,112%

At the State University of New York in Plattsburgh, the 2011-2012 school-year premium was $440 per student. Next year’s plan will cost between $1,300 and $1,600.

ObamaCare's Individual Mandate Will Raise, Not Lower Costs

Like so much of ObamaCare, the individual mandate does more harm than good. It’s a net loser – for American pocketbooks and the Constitution.

forbes.com

The more info that is released on this disaster, the more it becomes evident why Obama LIED about it being a tax. Good Grief!

Hey I know...why don't we just call a tax a tax...penalty is a tax...fee is a tax..both parties are guilty of bandying about with the english language, trying to tell us a rose isn't a rose.

I don't give a damn if it's a tax or a penalty. The more important questions is to whom does it apply? The Republicans make it sound like a sweeping new tax on all Americans. It's really a tax/penalty on those who refuse to buy insurance and who instead expect all other Americans to cover their medical bills when health care is received for free at emergency rooms. That will amount to about 2% of Americans, if Romney's program in Mass. is a guide.

Harleychic...my grandson's college insurance premium is going up about 40% next year. But that is because he will receive a whole host of preventive care at no extra charge to him or his parents.

Just saying a premium is changing is, at best, disingenuous. You have talk about the "details".

Romney has always been a states-rights proponent. He's never suggested that what might or might not work for Massachusetts would work for the entire country. In fact, he's been on the record suggesting each state should be free to take their own approach, and that we should all learn from the successes and failures of their experiences as they wrestle with the issue. Makes sense, when you think about it. Massachusetts is having all kinds of problems with Romneycare, however Obamacare proponents seem to be ignoring the problems, intent on repeating the same mistakes.

Fact is BO has blatantly broken many if not most of his campaign promises. The list is absolutely huge... I don't see how anyone can run with a straight face with this many broken promises. I expect we'll pretty much see the same in the second term if elected? More broken promises and a lot more tax and spend. Young folks won't have a dime left after taxes and cost of living.

What's interesting is BO now blames Romney and he hasn't even been president yet. he he... blame game is alive and well for the democrats.

Everybody want all the problems fixed, but nobody wants to pay for it.

@Harley Chic - I have an inherited blood condition - Factor V leiden (actually, quite a few people have it, they just don't know). I take an inexpensive anticoagulant to prevent any clots from forming, which is the primary concern with this genetic disorder. I am unable to purchase individual medical insurance because of this, which has left me up the proverbial creek without a paddle when it comes to getting treatment for the basal cell carcinoma on my lower eyelid (considered a high risk area).

Unable to receive treatment for the basal cell carcinoma has left me in a position of being unable to seek employment. Because I am not independently wealthy, my only hope for treatment is the Pre-existing Insurance Coverage Plan offered under "Obamacare." I have to go 6 months without insurance to be eligible to apply, and I have to pay the premiums, deductible, co-pays, etc.

If you don't like Obamacare, then please do let me know what my other options are for seeking treatment for cancer, and for obtaining medical insurance because I am discriminated against by medical insurance companies and I live in a state that has an jack-a$$ for a governor that doesn't allow me access to Medicaid despite having lived, worked, and paid taxes here for over 44 years (yes, she is Republican and an embarrassment to this state).

I'm waiting with baited breath for your resolution to the very real discrimination I receive from medical insurance companies, from the GOP, and the cancer that is spreading and will likely take any sight I have in the eye where the cancer is located.

While you're trying to find an answer, try looking up the financial statements for any number of medical insurance companies - it is public information if you have the wherewithal to know where to look - here's a clue - they haven't lost any money during the recession!

There go the republicants and their teathuglicans flip flopping again. First we take out the nations preferred public options from the healthcare bill just as the republicants and teathuglicans demanded and we put in it's place the republicants and teathuglicans private pay with their demanded tax penalty and still these party of know nothing, do nothings just sit there and whine that it's everyone's fault except for their own and they are the no so smart antiamericans that demanded it be put in there to begin with.

Just goes to prove the independants and the democrats should never listen to a republican when negotiating for the rest of the UNited States.

Eric-913730 Nice try Ido, but the reality is that the poor will part of medicaid expansion and won't pay the "penalty", except of course if Republicans opt out and and prevent them from getting insurance.

The poor already get health insurance through medicaid. This bill extends families who are not considered "poor" by definition of our National Standards that classify people as poor based on their incomes. They are defined a lower middle class.

So if States don't opt out for yet another expense they cannot afford then I say more power to them, because I don't want to pay extra State taxes to cover these people who can and could easily buy catastrophic insurance or high deductable insurance for almost nothing. But instead of buying insurance they chose to buy fancy cell phones, have cable, internet, big screen tv's etc because those things to them are far more important then paying for health care.

Those individuals will still have to pay a small % of that insurance. Its not free.

FYI, the Missouri Governor who is Democrat is strongly thinking of opt out.

In Missouri, where 255,000 of the state’s roughly 835,000 uninsured residents stood to be added to the program. In 2005, the Democrat Governor of Missouri slashed its Medicaid eligibility for parents to the lowest levels allowed by the federal government in order to help balance the budget. The expansion in Obama’s health care law would restore coverage to those people and add many more The cost: $2 billion annually.

It will not be just Republican Governors opting out, there will probably be as many Democrat Governors also opting out. Just as its not all Democrats Opting in, Republican Gov's are opting in as well. It comes down to one thing, States CANNOT AFFORD IT and try to fund Public Pension at the same time which they CANNOT AFFORD EITHER!!!!

TinyCowLady - The difference is, if you don't want to buy auto insurance or register your vehicle, don't drive. There is public transportation, and walking and biking. There is no way to avoid health insurance or a penalty. And using this excuse to tax us, the government can start taxing us for not buying anything. They'll tax us to death.

Mackman: "NEWS BREAK!!!!!! You will Only be Taxed/Penalized if you choose NOT to carry any health insurance at all!!! Now, Rethugs/teabagger SPREAD THE WORD!!!"

So, you're suggesting that being forced to pay a premium to a private company isn't a tax, merely because it's private? Because it most certainly would be a tax if the premium was paid to the government. Seems to me, whether you choose not to pay the premium and pay the "penalty" instead, or pay the premium, you're being forced to pay regardless. Pretty much satisfies the historical conception of a tax, substance over form...

Most young folks don't bother to carry health insurance because they are healthy and save a few bucks.

Except some of those "healthy" young folks will get sick and/or get in an accident that requires health care. And they will show up in the emergency room without any health insurance. Do you really expect us to be stupid enough not to know that?

If the mandate involved a penalty instead of a tax, would that make you happy? Does it matter if a politician says he won't raise your "taxes" but then raises your "fees"? Do we really want to play that game?

Republicans just hammered Obama for spending so much time on health care rather than jobs his first two years in office. Now, all Republicans want to talk about is health care?

I buy the health insurance for our company (about 150 employees) and things haven't changed at all in the past several years...in fact, our premiums are not going up as high and as fast as in prior years. We are actually seeing smaller increases and that's what was predicted.

Welcome to the wonderful world of politics. No wonder the Republican Congress has a 9% approval rating.

Regardless of where you stand on this, this is destined for failure and a huge increase in the federal deficit or taxes - likely both. The economics simply don't work. The penalties imposed for not having insurance are a fraction of the actual cost of the insurance. With the elimination of the pre-existing condition provisions, there is no real incentive for ANYONE to ever buy health insurance. Simply wait until you get sick, then sign up, pay a small penalty and there you go. According to an article in Barrons, the IRS is going to hire 10,000 new "enforcers" specifically for this provision in the tax code. Just what we need - more IRS agents. AND, there is very limited provisions for actually collecting the tax or penalty (call it what you will) - as it stands now, the IRS can only withhold excess taxes that would otherwise be due to you (i.e. reduce your refund check). There's an easy way around that - simply change your withholdings so you don't get a refund.

The worst part is that NONE of this addresses the rising cost of health care. Recent studies have shown that the primary contributor to rising health care costs is related to poor health based on life-style choices (i.e. smoking, poor diet, etc.) - primarily heart disease and diabetes. . Now that health care is "free" what incentive is there for anyone to change their life styles? NONE.

Admittedly, our health system needs re-tooled. This debacle is not the answer. Now we can follow the recommendation of Nancy Pelosi - we can read the law and find out what's in it. I don't think many are going to like what they see.

"With the elimination of the pre-existing condition provisions, there is no real incentive for ANYONE to ever buy health insurance. Simply wait until you get sick, then sign up, pay a small penalty and there you go."

This is one of the problems they're experiencing in Massachusetts. In fact, once the patient is treated and healthy, they drop the insurance (until the next time, and the cycle starts all over again). So far, Massachusetts has no solution for this dynamic.

Sorry Harley Chic, you're wrong. Obamacare HASN'T EVEN STARTED YET. It's going to start in 2014.

Any increase one seeing in health insurance costs is WITHOUT Obamacare. Yes, costs are going up so fast, we NEED Obamacare to help bring it down.

So Marie,

If you don't buy health insurance, and you get sick, are you willing to DIE, or just go to the Emergency room and end up having the rest of us insured folks PAY FOR IT?????

How is this supposed to be a choice for me when you, BY CHOICE, decide not to insure yourself, and if I want to keep MY insurance, I need to pick up the cost YOU decide not to pay?

Are you a billionaire? Are you prepared to be able to pay for catastrophic care?

The whole health care reform is justifiable as a conservative principle of 'tough love'.

Everyone is supposed to take personal responsibilities for their own care, instead of becoming 'parasites' - only referring to those who can afford to buy insurance, but have refused to buy, and thus impose extra cost to the health system when they seek care.

Who is to pay for the extra cost caused by these people? Hospitals, various levels of government, and ultimately the taxpayers, increasing premium on insurance policies of those law-abiding people who have bought insurance.

That's unfair.

Obamacare will impose a tax on these people, forcing them to make contribution to the system that has benefited them at no cost to them before.

Romney's plan DIDN'T come with more taxes. Obama's plan does - even if you call it penalties and not taxes his bill still has many other provisions that are TAXES.

Romney's plan was and is total legal under the Constitution according with the rights of States when compared with the rights of the Federal Government.

Romney's plan did NOT cut medicare or medicaid, Obama's plan does cut these programs.

Romney's plan was passed with bipartisan support, Obama's plan was shoved down everyone's throat, he got not one Republican vote, and even had to pay off some of his own party to get it through.

I doubt if someone making $75k or more is not going to have health insurance in the first place.

What will be interesting is to see what happens when people can actually shop for insurance. Somehow, I think insurers will collude on pricing and terms so that they don't have to offer services for less.

No matter what happens, however, the people will get that awful end of the stick.

TinyCowLady - The difference is, if you don't want to buy auto insurance or register your vehicle, don't drive. There is public transportation, and walking and biking. There is no way to avoid health insurance or a penalty. And using this excuse to tax us, the government can start taxing us for not buying anything. They'll tax us to death.

The issue with that is if you don't drive you won't get in an accident and need insurance. If you don't buy health insurance can you say you won't get sick or have an accident? No, you can't and that's why you need health insurance and why any legitimate financial planner would say you need health insurance regardless of your age or health. While we never dream of it, kids can get cancer, or other major sicknesses, or get in terrible accidents just the same as anyone else.

@ clb-462357

You do realize that the state Medicaid expansion, that part above what a state is already paying for, is 100% fully paid for by the Federal government for the first 4 years and then is decreased slowly over the next four years down to an end rate of 90% reimbursement, RIGHT?

So, with this funding in place explain to me what the rationale is for any governor to not accept the Medicaid expansion provision? Now if they are opposed to the Medicaid expansion because of the federal spending, then I would grant your argument some credibility. But if the reason is because it is part of a LAW that they don't agree with, then I have a problem with saying they have that power under "States Rights". The citizens of any State are also by extension citizens of the Federal government and as such should not be deprived of a benefit that their government is providing due to an obstinate, ideological, politician. After all, if the potential recipient of the Medicaid funding is a working, tax paying individual then they have already contributed to the payment via the federal taxes they pay from their paycheck.

As to this tax not a tax BS argument; what about personal responsibility don't the opposition get? The tax (penalty, fee, whatever you want to call it) applies only to those people who CAN AFFORD to pay for a health insurance plan but CHOOSE NOT TO. The only problem with that line of reasoning is that no one who is healthy now can predict when they will have a serious injury or illness that requires them to be treated by a doctor or hospital. When any uninsured person arrives at a hospital via ER they are required by law to receive treatment and be stabilized. Now, they can make payment arrangements with the hospital or doctor, but if they do not pay their bill that unpaid cost is passed on to the people who DO HAVE INSURANCE.

Now, please explain how it is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for a person who CAN AFFORD INSURANCE but CHOOSES NOT TO PURCHASE INSURANCE, but they CAN RECEIVE TREATMENT even though they are UNABLE TO PAY FOR SAID TREATMENT and the COST OF THEIR TREATMENT IS BORNE BY THE RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE WHO DO HAVE INSURANCE?

Apologies for the Capitalization, but the oppositional lies and distortions coupled with the whole "personal responsibility" argument really ticks me off. This tax, penalty or whatever only applies to people who LACK PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY not every one else.

As to the other taxes in the ACA, they are for things like certain medical devices, Cadillac Health Plans, and my favorite "10% excise tax on tanning". Now, please can someone who opposes this "responsibility tax" explain to me why it's a bad thing?

Can anyone here imagine a financial penalty which could not be called a tax? When you get a speeding ticket, your penalty goes to a general operating fund, like any other tax.

This is a penalty. This is a tax. It is not an income tax. It is not a property tax. It is not a sin tax. If there is need for a descriptive, there is only one available: it is a penalty tax. Like your traffic ticket 'fines', or your late 'fees', etc.

Trying to call it one rather than the other is like arguing that I'm eating a fish, not a cod.

Does pointing this out make me a centrist?

"Obamacare will impose a tax on these people, forcing them to make contribution to the system that has benefited them at no cost to them before."

And how do you propose we collect from them? Particularly those who don't even file tax returns (?)

@WakeUpAmerica and Rob523523 - Obviously neither of you have read the lengthy health care bill, nor the Supreme Court decision. (I've read both lengthy documents - not fun, not easy, but absolutely necessary!)

Which part of either of these laws (the Codified Federal Regulation (CFR), or the case law from the Supreme Court) do you two not understand when it comes to pre-existing conditions?

Here is a clue that shoots holes in both your arguments - you must wait 6 months without any coverage before you are eligible to apply, let alone receive benefits.

Now you two brainiacs tell me who in their right mind is going to wait to 6 months to purchase health care insurance when they are in an accident, or just found out they are ill?

Just goes to prove you can't fix stupid, regardless of political party affiliation!

KeenInsight

I think you need a new nickname. Insurance companies average around a 5% profit margin. Drug companies and medical device manufacturers somewhere around 15-25%. That's one of my main objections to this junk legislation. It does nothing to address the actual cost of medical care, just tries to spread it around some more. It's almost as if it is set up to fail so the government can go to a single payer system.

So in the most bare bones terms, rightiwngers, listen up. One of the most fundamental benefits of ACA is that Americans will no longer be stuck in a job because of health insurance. Americans can now change jobs, move, start a business, have children, etc. thanks to ACA. This is FREEDOM that you scream about -- The pursuit of happiness.

There are many other freedoms in ACA, for example civil rights discrimination -- Insurance companies can no longer charge women as much as 40% more for health insurance, which is HUGE considering that women make less than men to begin with.

The constitution is being upheld in these two ways, and many more ways. Anyone who wants to repeal these new freedoms is not a true patriot. And the Teapublican leadership dang well knows it and are having a Sh!t Hemorrhage, because they know this is the beginning of the end of their Privatize Profit, Socialize Debt inequality platform.

"Now you two brainiacs tell me who in their right mind is going to wait to 6 months to purchase health care insurance when they are in an accident, or just found out they are ill?"

Doesn't that simply mean that the rest of us will get stuck with the bill regardless, no different than what happens now? Or are you suggesting that in the future, hospitals should refuse patients w/o insurance?

Some say "mater", some say "termater". Either way hit eats real good. I mean goooood! We,ve got a SCOTUS Constitutionally blessed Government managed "health care system". Ain't a goddamned thing any single political party can do about it. Those who like it; good for you. Those who don't like it; you'll have to lump it. Help all of you who are farting and sputtering, lying and speculating, to read the thing, or, have someone you really trust read it to you. Course you're still allowed to howl at the moon, provided you don't piss your neighbor off.

GetReal-3945171

Here is a clue that shoots holes in both your arguments - you must wait 6 months without any coverage before you are eligible to apply, let alone receive benefits.

Now you two brainiacs tell me who in their right mind is going to wait to 6 months to purchase health care insurance when they are in an accident, or just found out they are ill?

Thanks for the excellent information! This thread is about dead...but if you see this and can share information about businesses please do. It varies by business size with the cut-off of employers with more than 200 full-time employees, and smaller companies receiving tax breaks if they offer coverage. Overall it seems ACA will alleviate heath insurance burden for small business, so claims that these employers will be hurt is untrue.

@Rob523523

Doesn't that simply mean that the rest of us will get stuck with the bill regardless, no different than what happens now?

ACA levels the playing field for millions of Americans to purchase medical insurance. Are there those that will purchase insurance at a reasonable price, or because they are not able to purchase it under the existing laws? I have no doubt many will, such as myself. Does ACA guarantee the rest of us won't get stuck with some of the bill? Get. Real. That is an unreasonable expectation for any situation in life. The only 100% guarantee you will get in life is the very real fact if you do nothing, you are 100% guaranteed nothing will change . . .

Or are you suggesting that in the future, hospitals should refuse patients w/o insurance?

You obviously misunderstand the law, both federally and state-to-state, when it comes to hospitals refusing patients without insurance. By law, hospitals can, and do, refuse patients without health insurance and no cash. By law, emergency rooms are not allowed to refuse patients without insurance until they are deemed medically stable. That leaves a great many people who need health care that aren't getting it, and very few people where we will be stuck with the bill due to accidents. Case in point? Deep vein thrombosis (blood clot on the leg) kill more people per year than HIV, breast cancer and automobile accidents. DVTs often have no symptoms and someone who is not able to have regular health care checks may not even know they are at risk, yet have one. Complications from a DVT will kill you long before you get to any ER or hospital. Don't believe me? Check the Center for Disease Control's website, or the Society for Hematology's website (both made March DVT awareness month).

@TruePatriot-445959

share information about businesses please do. It varies by business size

What's new with that issue? COBRA conversion varies by business size . . . everything that is currently in place for group insurance varies by business size. The variants have changed under the current color of the law - so it changes again.

Overall it seems ACA will alleviate heath insurance burden for small business, so claims that these employers will be hurt is untrue.

My previous employer was a law firm with less than 20 employees. I was put on their group policy with AETNA. AETNA penalized my employer by charging over $900 a month for my coverage (lousy coverage with a high deductible). My purchasing coverage through the pre-existing condition insurance plan will cost $374 a month, with far better coverage. I have already had small businesses, granted primarily law firms, tell me they would rather reimburse the employee for purchasing their own independent insurance. Why the heck not? Do the math . . .

Get Real-3945171#2.49: I understand very well. It's a real good deal for you and your employer. Thanks

Rob-523523

Romney has always been a states-rights proponent. He's never suggested that what might or might not work for Massachusetts would work for the entire country. In fact, he's been on the record suggesting each state should be free to take their own approach, and that we should all learn from the successes and failures of their experiences as they wrestle with the issue.

Actually, he flip-flopped. He advocated for a national individual mandate, even telling the president on Meet the Press. Don't believe me??? Believe this website: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/03/03/further-proof-romney-supported-a-national-individual-mandate-in-2009/

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Admittedly, our health system needs re-tooled. This debacle is not the answer.

It isn't? Need I remind you that the ACA was modeled after similar health care reform in the state of Massachusetts. And it was crafted by a Republican governor. In fact, it was crafted by Romney, the Republican candidate who is running for president this Fall?

So what different answer do you think he is going to come up with?

1.)Romney's plan DIDN'T come with more taxes. Obama's plan does - even if you call it penalties and not taxes his bill still has many other provisions that are TAXES.

Logic [but not Facts] Required -I live in Massachusetts, and it has precisely the same type of tax penalties to be incurred if a person fails to obtain health insurance. So Romney's plan DID come with more taxes.

2.)Romney's plan was and is total legal under the Constitution according with the rights of States when compared with the rights of the Federal Government.

I guess this escaped your attention, but Obama's plan has also been upheld by the Supreme Court, so despite the shrill claims by Tea Party experts in Constitutional Law, it is "total legal", too, or totally legal, as we city-schooled folk say.

3.)Romney's plan did NOT cut medicare or medicaid, Obama's plan does cut these programs.

Romney's plan was a state plan. Medicare and Medicaid are federal programs.

4.)Romney's plan was passed with bipartisan support, Obama's plan was shoved down everyone's throat, he got not one Republican vote, and even had to pay off some of his own party to get it through.

There has not been a bipartisan law passed in Massachusetts in decades. The Legislature, both its senate and its house, have huge Democrat majorities.

Face it logic, Romney's plan was basically the same plan he now finds so objectionable. The man changes his political beliefs faster than Gingrich changes wives.

Tax or penalty makes no difference. There are plenty of new taxes set up to try and pay for this massive new entitlement. If Obama and the Democrats had been honest with the American people that the mandate was a tax, it never would have passed. As for the rest of the actual taxes in ObamaCare, talk about a convoluted tax scheme that will not have a prayer of ever fully funding this monstrosity. No entitlement ever concocted has ever come in anywhere near funding projections by congress, ObamaCare will not be the first and taxes will be increased to meet the shortfall.

As for what a Romney adviser says, only liberals care. In our 24/7 news cycle and the need to fill space what a campaign adviser says is meaningless. But liberals trying to run and hide from the fact that the Supreme Court re-wrote the statute to call the mandate a tax as the only means of upholding it, are grasping at any straw they can find. The real issue in the ruling is that states do not have expand Medicaid, and if enough refuse to do so, ObamaCare is in real trouble.

This is only the beginning of the mess that the republicans and that cultist Romney would take us too. They would continue the step backwards tot eh bush era of favoritism of the rich. Romney sure knows what that is like when he wanted to spend $200,000 for and elevator in his Malibu house for this car garage!

TO: LogicReguired who wrote:

"Romney's plan DIDN'T come with more taxes. Obama's plan does - even if you call it penalties and not taxes..."

WRONG.

They've been repeating this for years now, and still Republicans are unable to catch on, or is this more of Republicans' "lie and deny" pile-a-tricks?

Romney's Plan and Obama's Plan are both paid for the same freaking way. If you have health coverage, no penalty and no tax. If you don't, call it what you want to call it, you'll have to pay something.

Geesch!

What a bunch of coconuts!

Obama/Biden 2012

This weekend I heard an excerpt from a speech given by Romney while he was governor of Massachusetts in which he was promoting the concept of individual mandates to pay for RomneyCare. The right wing lunatic fringe is lying if they think they can draw a significant distinction between the manner in which Etch-A-Sketch's health care program was funded and President Obama's. Which begs the question, why isn't the GOP/TP/Neo-Fascist Party showing any outrage toward Mitt over characterizing what is now determined to be a tax as an individual mandate, yet they excoriate Obama for doing the same thing? How can Romney dare to attack President Obama for something he himself did as governor?

A bit of gross hypocrisy seems to be floating in Romney's hot tub, it seems.

What isn't difficult to understand is that Democrats are going to blame someone else for whatever goes wrong, and take credit for anything that works. It is the Bush economy because nothing Obama has done has worked. It is the Republican mandate because they talked about it in the 90's. I think no matter how the right tries to spin anything, the left is just more adept at spinning.

correct....when is it ever going to be G.W.B.'s fault.after all HE did nominate judge roberts?

Sorry, Rick: but truth is truth. This was a Republican mandate, sponsored by one Orrin Hatch in the 90's. They were for it before they were against it.

All this is about is the hatred the right wing has for their President, facts notwithstanding.

Dear Tyler and Company: Would you PLEASE do something about the gremlins that infect this site? It really is getting annoying trying to post anything.

Rick, they didnt just talk about it. Romney put it into action with his healthcare bill, you know the one that Obama copied for the country. Romney is even on tape saying its a great model for the country, so yeah the individual mandate is a republican idea. They only turned against it when Obama used it in the ACA.

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED....."No matter how the right wing spins this, they OWN it!"

Wow, aren't you lucky that the Valor Act was struck down. Now you can lie about anything you want to lie about.

Flashback: The Democrats rammed this down the throats of the American people with their backroom wheeling and dealing (and that included Mr. Obama) and Mr. Obama signed this PENALTY legislation into effect. How many Republicans voted FOR the Mandated Health Care Reform legislation ?

The Democrats are the complete and total OWNERS of this despicable legislation.

Oh I get it, if it is my idea but you act on it and no one likes it, it is my fault. Total win win for you for sure. The individual mandate is hardly all that is wrong with ObamaCare. The mere fact the IRS required a massive expansion in order to administer all the new tax law is a much bigger issue. There were a ton of backroom deals, waivers, and handouts to get this bill rammed down the throats of the American people.

When people realize it isn't free, that everyone including the middle class will be paying higher taxes both directly and indirectly, that will be all the Democrats doing. After all, the Democrats wrote the entire bill behind closed doors in secret locations without any input from Republicans. Make no mistake, Democrats own ObamaCare hook line and sinker, and no amount of spin will ever change that fact.

Backroom wheeling and dealing? Odd, I remember the debate clearly. Where were you?

Sorry, the Republicans own the mandate...and Romney loved it so much he used it in MA.

I realize that it is hard for you right wingers to deal with, but there it is!

Yeah I remember the debate as well, it ended when Pelosi said we needed to pass the bill so everyone could find out what what in it. If it is such a great law why is the entire Democratic Party already trying to blame parts of it on someone else? Ye who wrote it and passed it, owns it.

Nothing was rammed down anyone's throat. Republicans were at the table and chose not to participate.

Furthermore, Republicans had already decided to obstruct the entire Obama agenda, no matter what it was, prior him being sworn in.

Republicans, conversely, rammed medicare part D down all our throats, at a cost higher than Obamacare, and used reconciliation to do it.

Love the intransigence of the "true believers" I will try to be as kind as I can.

The Republicans own this. Their idea, Romney makes that clear since he implemented it in MA.

You can tap dance around it all you want to. This was a compromise from your President to get some HCR passed.

You must HATE that the Republicans did that to you.

Eric: very good point.

Yes but the insured are already paying for the uninsured. People are complaining about in 2016 a family will have to pay $2039.00 a year. I'm paying 50% of my health insurance cost right now. $500.00 a month. Thats $6k a year in 2012. Hell thats over $4K a year less than what I pay. There's a lot of people in different situations. The U.S. government has been discussing healthcare for 40 years. This isn't easy or perfect but it's a start. Like Obama or not this country needed healthcare. We pay for the demcrats and republicans to have the best health insure. This healthcare act belongs to us. Like everything else eventually you'll stop talking about what the media says and read it for yourself. Understand the benefits for you (and there are benfits for all americans) accept it and move on.

NewDay dawn,

Last I checked not a single Repub voted for it....so no, they do not own it. In any case, it is now the law. Clearly Obama lied about it being a fee as the Supreme Court has ruled it is a tax as the Administration aregued in front of the justices. Face it, our POTUS looked the American people straight in the eye and lied to us. The shame of it all. So much optimism for Hope and Change frittered away by one mans inherent dishonesty.

Odd, I remember the debate clearly. Where were you?

Probably he was being bussed from Town Hall to Town Hall with his badly-lettered sign, shrieking about "Death Panels" and demanding that the Government keep its filthy paws off his Medicare.

I bet you are right, thisbusymonster: But you see how they cannot be educated out of the Limbaugh talking points.

Once again. Victor: this is a right wing proposal from the 90's that Romney implemented. Republicans own this.

Newdog,

LOLOLOLOL---me sensing a smile on your face when you wrote the reply which I must confess brought a smile to my face. For some reason I am thinking that the american people don't think the Repubs own it. I know the Dems that voted for it DO NOT want to own it but they are going to have to live with it circa 2010 election. The one thing we can completely agree on is that our POTUS lied to you and me.....and the rest of the world. He should do well in his next career (likely working for a car dealer that he "saved"). Liars are the scum of the earth.

PS: The Repubs do own the death of Bin-Laden. I am glad we agree on that one...

Whether the repubs. say they liked it last year or 10 years ago they didn't vote for it, so saying they own any of it is just stupid. I've had lots of ideas that I thought were good ideas yesterday that I don't think are good today.

Sorry Newday,

What you are saying makes no sense. The Democrats, with Obama made it their platform to push through. They voted for it, and own the Federal version of the healthcare legislation. Specifically, when nary a Republican voted for it.

What you are trying to spin is pinning the ownership for Obama's plan on the 1990's Mass. Republicans and Democrats, and not make those in Washington responsible for federally legislating the plan.

Kind of like me chewing tobacco in college, but now understanding it was a bad idea. I try to tell people that, yet they chew anyways. Under your example, I'm to blame for kids chewing tobacco today because I made a serious mistake 15 years ago and recognize it.

And for the record, I'm for a healthcare policy. Just not this one. The compromise took out anything that would have actually worked, and what is left is an incoherent expense, at best. (see 1.40).

Even Romney notes that the Massachusetts program is fraught with problems (and he never suggested it should serve as a model for the entire country). Seems to me, he's simply acknowledging that he learns from his mistakes - an admirable trait, regardless of how his detractors want to spin it...

O'Bama and the Democrat's just gave U.S. Citizen's the biggest TAX INCREASE in the history of the U.S. and they can't blame anyone else. In addition there will be additional increases in the cost of Medicare passed on to the elderly, when you sell your home,etc.. People "really" need to READ O'Bama Care, it is a massive Socialist Program based on O'Bama's Government Entitlement Program to keep people "trapped" in the ever expanding and very intrusive Federal Government. O'Bama and the Democrat's can call it whatever they want, but the highest court in the land has decreed it to be a TAX. Even O'Bama and the Democrats have to "obey" the law and not only when it meets their needs. If they don't want to call it a TAX, then O'BamaCare would be illegal. REPEAL O'BAMA CARE!!!!!

@newday -

I don't know what the point is that you're trying to make (maybe it's because some republicans were in favor of it then, you're trying to say that I, as a republican, who was 10 years old in the early 90's, therefore have to think the mandate is constitutional?)

Just because people thought it was a good idea in the 90's doesn't mean that DIFFERENT PEOPLE, now, think that it is constitutional. Whether I think it is constitutional or not doesn't have anything to do with George Bush I.

If you're trying to make it seem like republicans (in general) will do whatever it takes to go against democrats and be in favor of republicans (besides the fact that, like I just explained, they can be completely unrelated) isn't the reason the republicans didn't go through with the mandate because they didn't think the democrats would go for it? And now that there is a democrat president, the democrats ARE going for it?

finally, by assuming that because someone now is a republican, and that they therefore are the same as a group of people who 20 years ago came up with an idea, is ridiculous, and maybe you're being the "gremlin?"

It's funny how naive the republicans are to say they never voted for it when in fact, they are the very ones that insisted that if the democrats take out the public options and replace it with the republicans private pay with penalties/taxes, that they in turn would vote yes on the mandate. Like always, when things were done in the very manner they asked for, they once again lied and reneged on their promise and voted no and then came out saying OMG, look at what those democrats did!. Suck it up consevatives, your free ride is over and it's time you start paying for your healthcare entitlements.

O'Bama and the Democrat's just gave U.S. Citizen's the biggest TAX INCREASE in the history of the U.S. and they can't blame anyone else.

That's a total lie and the tax is very easy to avoid --- get health insurance. Stop being an insurance welfare queen and expecting me to pay for your health care with higher premiums on mine.

The majority of folks in Massachusetts like their health care, and Massachusetts enjoys much lower health care costs compared to the rest of the nation. That's a FACT.

Of course Romney is the worst possible candidate to fake like he is against "Obamneycare" and in more than one way. Not only the glaring contradiction about a penalty or tax associated with a mandate. Also his claim that his program was good at the state level but not at a national level.

Vermont is proceeding with their state health care plan that will be single payer, and California is in que to do the same, maybe Montana too? The poor Red states in the South will be denied Medicaid expansion, making those states even more poverty stricken, while the Blue states will progress.

In relation to the lies about repealing "Obamneycare" is this matter of the states choosing to implement it anyway -- just like the Teapublican governors (Scott, Jindal, Haley, Perry, etc.) who are grandstanding against it.

In addition to state's rights, Romney can't repeal "Obamneycare" at the presidential or congressional level either. He will LIE and say that's what he would do on Day 1, but the FACT is he can't. In congress, the GOP/TP would have to have a Super Majority, which isn't likely, and the same goes for approval of radical nominations to the SCOTUS. And let's say Romney made appointments to the court, what justice is going to overturn Robert's decision. And when? Long after the many benefits of ACA have been realized and a clear majority supports it.

So forgettaboutit. It's not worth voting for a crappy 1% plutocrat like Romney in a fevered belief that ACA would be repealed. It would only further destroy this nation and possibly our important institutions like the Supreme Court.

FORWARD - Obama/Biden - 2012!

TruePatriot - I thin kthat's a good point about Romney repealing the mandate. I think a lot of people don't realize that Mitt WANTING to repeal, and Mitt BEING ABLE to repeal are very different!

I do think, though, that there is a very big difference between Massachusetts having a mandate, and the federal government. Whether Mitt ACTUALLY thinks it's a "good idea" for states to do it, and a "bad idea" for the federal government to do it, I think there is a pretty sound LEGAL argument that would go along with Mitt's stance.

Mike - what free ride of medicare do you think it is that the republicans have been enjoying, and will now not be able to enjoy?

All I read is the righties complain. How come the right has never tried to fix the health care problem?

New day you are wrong

The Republicans did not push the mandate in the 90s.

The party researched and studied the idea and determined at that time that the idea would be bad for the people and the economy.

Republicans were smart to shelf the idea and then along came socialist/communist Obama.

As for Massachusetts- the state had the highest number of employers providing health coverage than any other state, had the lowest number of unemployment, and lowest percentage without coverage than any other state.

Mass health care is a100 page free market based system- not a 2700 page disaster written by HHS lawyers instead of the congress.

Mass system system was put together with the co operation of the insurance industry and health care professionals.

Pelosi and her cronies didn't even debate or look at the bill before passing it how ignorant.

Obama Care was put together by HHS lawyers behind closed doors with no input from the insurance industry or health care professionals.

IT IS THE STATES responsibility on health care not the federal government this is another Obama flub taking away state sovereignty and the states 10 th amendment rights.

John - nice post, but I bet no one responds. That's what keeps happening to me.

I've actually barely seen anyone that is IN FAVOR of the bill explain why they think it is legal. (or, if they do, at least address the points made by people that think it is illegal and explain why they are wrong). It's mostly "repubtards hate sick people" "republicans already tried to push this bill through" etc.

Smitty-4183671 -- First off the righties don't like to read (ask Herman Cain). Second, they have a comprehension problem. Third they lack powers of deduction.

So in the most bare bones terms, rightiwngers, listen up. One of the most fundamental benefits of ACA is that Americans will no longer be stuck in a job because of health insurance. Americans can now change jobs, move, start a business, have children, etc. thanks to ACA. This is FREEDOM that you scream about -- The pursuit of happiness.

There are many other freedoms in ACA, for example civil rights discrimination -- Insurance companies can no longer charge women as much as 40% more for health insurance, which is HUGE considering that women make less than men to begin with.

The constitution is being upheld in these two ways, and many more ways. Anyone who wants to repeal these new freedoms is not a true patriot. And the Teapublican leadership dang well knows it and are having a Sh!t Hemorrhage, because they know this is the beginning of the end of their Privatize Profit, Socialize Debt inequality platform.

askaboutet -- Stream Up with Chris Hayes if you want a good review of the ruling.

True Patriot - didn't almost NO ONE read this bill, even though they passed it? (including democrats - specifically Nancy...)

"Americans can now change jobs" they couldn't before? Or you mean SOME people couldn't? Some people still can't for a BILLION other reasons.. .should we force people to do each and everything that would be required to allow everyone to change jobs? Are you saying we DIDN'T have freedom for our entire existence until now because there wasn't a healthcare mandate and people couldn't change jobs?

If women cost health insurance companies more money, wouldn't you think it should be able oto charge more? Like, if you're a landscaper, and it takes you one hour to mow person A's lawn, and it takes you three hours to mow person B's lawn, wouldn't it make sense to charge person B more money?

john-1960608 -- Digressing into re-litigation is a waste of time now. Who cares that the Heritage Foundation started the mandate in opposition to Hillary's universal health care, or whether consideration and inclusion of 100s of Republican amendments was truly having the GOP at the table, or how all the Republicans who supported the mandate suddenly change positions after the 2008 election and the Dems including the mandate, and now whether the fee is a penalty or a tax?

What is important now is the LIE that if rabid rightwingers vote for Romney, he will repeal health care. NOT. The truth is Romney is the worst candidate possible to fake how bad ACA is. Come debate time, this Poser is doomed.

askaboutet -- Do us a favor and stop wasting BTUs.

The only reason Romney would need a super-majority would be to avoid a Democratic filibuster.

It doesn't matter who thought of the idea first, or even who implemented their version of it first, a bad idea is a bad idea, and the Dems in Congress own this one, lock, stock and barrel. They wouldn't even allow Repubs in the room with them while they crafted this crappy law and even then, they had to use a midnight vote on Christmas Eve when most of Congress had already gone back home and the Commerce and Budget Reconciliation laws to "deem it to have been passed" without taking an actual vote, not to mention all the bribes, kickbacks and waivers Obama had to issue to members of Congress just to keep them in line!

And why is no one talking about the way Obama and the Democrats used their sycophants in the MSM to do what no other regime in the history of this nation has done in the way of intimidating the Supreme Court? All the comments from the White House about how "activist judges will be remembered for their role in history" and how they hoped that "activist judges not rule against the will of the American people", and of course, reminding all of us just how truly historic The Anointed One is and how anyone who rules against him is just an anti-American, anti-enlightened racist/bigot/homophobe. Remember how he called out the Supreme Court at his State of the Union Address? He's been trying to browbeat the Justices ever since he got his signature piece of legislation passed because he knew that it didn't have a Constitutionally-legal leg to stand on.

True Patriot - as I said before, i think it was a great point about romney repealing it probably not going to happen.

But what do you think about Romney if he responds that it is his belief that states should have the power to individually mandate people, but not the federal government as his reason for being against the federal mandate?

Neighbor of the Beast - seriously. With all the amount of liberals pointing out that conservatives are just playing "follow the leader" (being in favor of a mandate, then not being in favor) liberals did the same exact thing when they voted this bill through.

It's super scary to know that the people in charge of ruling the most important/powerful country in the world would pass monumental legislation without really even reading it. Obviously I assume no one really reads huge bills EVER before they vote on it, but COME ON.

As I recall, the Mittster was so proud of Romney care that he suggested it should be a model for the entire nation. So why is it a surprise that after it was used as a model for the entire nation, he says that it shouldn't be used by the whole nation.hmmm...flip flop??

douglas oates

correct....when is it ever going to be G.W.B.'s fault.after all HE did nominate judge roberts?

Interesting point. But the GOP gave us Roe v. Wade. It was GOP appointees that voted for it, almost exclusively. Check it out. And yet the dems have been demonized for that for decades.

askaboutet

True Patriot - as I said before, i think it was a great point about romney repealing it probably not going to happen.

If Romney wins and the repugnicans take the Senate, they can kill it with reconciliation. They don't really have to repeal it. They haven't repealed Dodd-Frank but they have effectively gutted it by refusing to staff the appointments and funding.

Thomas - right, but I don't think that's what Romney is campaigning on. I just meant repeal, because I think romney is trying to convince people he will repeal it.

Also, Mitt would probably say that "entire nation" meant every state, as opposed to the federal government.

Excellent points and post at 3-30,True Patriot. I hadn't thought about that.

I don't think that's what people mean by "freedoms" when interpreting the constitution.

Thomas Blue -- Howdy.

Or the absurdity about discrimination against women, and this goes to the contraception debate as well -- Anyone with a mother, wife, or daughter should care about the War on Women, including from the men's own fiscal perspective. And for those who claim to be pro-life, look at the hospital cost of having a baby as if somehow a man isn't also involved as a parent.

Reconciliation (only used in relation to the budget) was not be used to pass health care in the first place because this can't be made permanent. Also, the Dems knew the importance of passing ACA per normal parliamentary procedure and with some Republican votes. Does the already unpopular GOP/TP want to try this?

Aside from the fact that the penalty is NOT a tax, if Teapublicans tried to block implementation in this way, it would still be too late. For example, folks are going to get refund checks at the end of summer for the premiums not used toward actual health care -- ACA is already gaining majority support by the public, and this will continue to increase.

The other factor is state's rights. Like Massachusetts and now Vermont, states like California and others (Montana?) are looking to implement similar health care programs themselves. In the case of Vermont, they are proceeding with single-payer, which is even more liberal than ACA.

In the meantime, governors of poor Red states will only shoot themselves in the foot if the refuse the Medicaid expansion, or leave implementation of the Exchanges to the Federal Government. Some say they are waiting until after the election, but this is just a ploy. Romney's claim that he will repeal "Obamneycare" on Day 1 is just another great big fat LIE.

This ruling will fire up progressives just as much if not more to get out the vote. They realize the importance of reelecting the president AND giving him a Congress that will work together and work with him on many things, not just preserving their new-found freedoms.

True patriot - *I don't think it should be considered a tax either* but if you don't think it's a tax, do you think it should still be considered consitutional? ALSO, PLEASE GIVE MORE THAN A YES OR NO ANSWER, and I'm looking for something that would show why it IS constitutional (i.e. a power given to the federal government somewhere in the constitution) and not just that you think it is good because now women won't have to pay 40% more...

wow, some people just cant read between the lines can they?

Obama-care. the one thing he told ALL AMERICANS... he made backroom deals to get votes from his fellow party. when he told ALL OF AMERICA... the sessions for the debate on Obama-care were going to be live, for the nation to see what the hubub was all about.... it was not! that alone.... tells me that bill is nothing better than what i wipe the sh!t off my @ss with.

This president, had his WHOLE F'ing party with majority of the vote for 2 yrs! ALL the big plans Obama had promised were all his to make. he wasted a yr and a half, playing super star. nuff said. his NUMBER 1 PRIORITY... after some so called "event" was going to be jobs.... and the economy. his "next top priority". i would tell this man who could have done great... the 1st african/american president to sit as our honored president... and he pi$$ed it away! you cant blame republicans for exstending Bush taxcuts, when for 2 yrs the dems did so as well.

if this so called man has been lying thru his teeth since the day he could talk, i wouldnt bat an eye of disbelief. AND THE FUNNEST part about ALL of this.... lol.. after he takes a crap on everyone.. every little man woman and child that supported him, STILL DO!

and ya.. Romney can call it what he wants, he raised taxes to pay for his bill. but what did he raise taxes on? if it was as well considered a penalty, might it be on say... tobbaccoo? and maybe... alchohol? or what? i dont know, but WE in WI also have raised taxes on tobbaccoo, and other types of crap that will kill you and habit forming, lol. thing is, last i heard, nobody was complaining, and they were getting pretty good care. but now, this new law if not mistaken will bring that all down. and we all know Wi, has been top on the list for its practice of medicine, and health care. now, me, i dont like the fact they raised taxes... nobody did. if i dont like it bad enough, i guess i wont smoke? but at least it goes towards a good cause.

here is the thing i was thinking... say i won like after taxes, and debt free won a take on the lottory for $10M or so. for me, thats a good chunk of ching. id never spend it all, but invest if there was something that would keep me going for a bit. and i would have to say... donate 1M or so to a part of the government i fully support. to ease the strain a bit. i feel that would be something i could do for my country. too bad more people dont think like that huh? put it to an agency they see fit, and might even be able to make a tax writeoff of it. too bad we cant pay our taxes in amounts to where we think it would better serve. talk about getting a grip on goverment...lol.

@ True Patriot,

Interesting posting that women are charged 40% more for health care vs men.

Just a basic question, is that because women cost 40% more as compared to men, and if so those costs won't go away therefore wouldn't men be subsidizing the cost of healthcare for women, simply because they are male?

I can see both sides (actual cost argument vs. gender argument) and honestly don't know where I personally fall, but I was hoping for your angle.

cdahl - I would imagine it is because women cost more, unless they're sitting there saying "we just don't like you because you're a woman, so you're going to have to pay more" which I think most people would be against, and I think it would be unjust.

I agree with your point about it not going away, too! It's still going to cost more for a woman (breast cancer exams, child birth, etc). People seem to forget that health insurance is just a private business people go into to try to make a better return on charging premiums that are more than (in the aggregate) CLIENT'S costs. The insurance companies are not providing any sort of health CARE.

"It's a penalty that comes under the tax code for the 1 percent, perhaps, of the population who decide they're going to be free riders,"

Excuse me, but the 30 million people in America that will now have to buy insurance or face a tax/penalty are not 1%, but about 10%.

But the more important question is "Who's going to have to pay the tax?"

It's not the rich - they already have insurance.

It's not the poor - they get free Medicaid - courtesy of the taxpayers.

That leaves the MIDDLE CLASS with a big tax increase. And typically it will be the lower income Middle Class - those least able to buy insurance OR pay the tax.

Thanks, Obama.

By the way - the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says that Obamacare will now cost taxpayers $1.76 TRILLION over the next 10 years - double what Obama promised in 2009, and the cost is expected to be over $2 Trillion when their next estimate comes out - Where is the money for this new 'entitlement' going to come from? Here's the link;

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/1175831

True Patriot:

Do you not understand how insurance works?

The reason women's health care premiums are higher is becuase they generally incur more health-related expenses (i.e. pregnancy). On the flip side, women generally enjoy lower life-insurance premiums (because they generally live longer) and lower auto insurance premiums (because they generally have less accidents). Do you see the pattern here? Insurance premiums are nothing more that actuarial mathematics. There is no "war on women".

WakeupAmerica - if you keep talking like that, there might not be anything left to complain about...

WTF people, do the elderly pay more for health care because they are old, or premature babies pay more for the rest of their lives because being born premature is a pre-exising condition, and so forth? This is the reason why we POOL people in a common health care system.

Furthermore, unlike Teapublican's only plan to "replace" is vouchers for Medicare, or forcing folks to get catastrophic coverage only, or the current broken systems (if you get sick, hurry up and die), ACA is a comprehensive program, most importantly with preventative care that will bring costs down for everyone.

Anyone who supports discrimination is unAmerican. Profiting from the sick is immoral. Get some dang values.

True Patriot, it seems you are under a rather large misconception of how the private-sector insurance business runs. They do not exist to provide everyone with health care, they are a business, and businesses need to make money to survive. What insurance companies of any kind are, are betting houses. They are making a calculated bet that you will never need to use their services. People who are more likely to use their services are charged a higher premium. Most people rarely use their insurance, so they pay less. This model works for all types of insurance, not just health care. You pay higher car insurance if you are young and inexperienced or have a history of recklessness because you are more likely to get into a crash. You pay more in homeowner's insurance if you have a big house with lots of nice things because you are more likely to trigger your insurance policy if you lose a 60" plasma TV than if you bought a used 19" tube-style TV from the Goodwill store. In a lot of ways, the insurance industry is like Vegas, and the house always wins in the long run.

As far as values go, what about individual freedom and personal responsibility? Some people are risk takers. Some people are here illegally. Some people, I just don't give a damn about. Why should I have to buy into your Utopian ideas? Why should I be forced, under threat of imprisonment, to pay for anyone but myself? Go live your life and leave me the Hell alone, Pollyanna.

TruePatriot - you're confusing "discrimination" and "cost." To address what wakeupamerica said: is it also discrimination against men for charging more for life insurance?

What do you do for work?

I think most people in favor of this thing are either confusing health insurance for health care, or ignoring the real problem by trying to change something else.

Profiting from the sick is immoral.

That sums it up perfectly, True Patriot.

The actual and complete quote is "“But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”"

I added the bold in case some of you were confused as to who she was talking to. The occasion for this speech was a gathering of Mrs. Pelosi’s March 9 speech in Washington to the National Association of Counties. This was not directed to or referring to the House.

It's very rare that the general public knows the details of any law at it's inception. Almost everything being said now and during the original negotiations were heard during the debate over Social Security. The current SS system is the result of years of refining as issues are actually faced and the need for adjusting to the real world conditions are made clear.

Who is profiting from the sick? The insurance companies are profiting from the sick and the non-sick, and theoretically they're doing it at the same profit margin, so really there is no discrimination going on at all.

For example - if I go to the doctor and pay $100 for a check up, and then a sick person goes there and stays for 5 days, has surgery, gets full nursing staff, etc., is it discrimination if the hospital charges that person more than $100 for their 5 day stay?

The amount people are paying is the EXACT same regardless of what you call it.

Tax

Fine

Penalty

Fee

Gratuity

Charge

Required payment

The amount is the same.

If you don't like the bill-fine! Spend your time coming up with something better that will protect people who are sick from being denied insurance instead of focusing on what this tax/fine/penalty is called.

askaboutet - I wish I could +1 your comment a million times.

The politicians have duped the average American into thinking it's all about WHO pays, not WHAT we are paying for. Health insurance mandates do nothing to improve health care/patient outcomes, and very little to curb rising costs as we have seen over and over in other single-payor systems.

So, a doctor should never charge a fee for his/her services? That is profiting from the sick. Doctors, shamans and other culture's healers have been profiting from their abilities ever since we crawled out of the mud, and now you want to deny them the ability to make a living from what they do?

How immoral is THAT?

Call me what ever you want. Tax or Penalty it is just a word. They'll just have to write a new definition for what ever term they use. They also have a couple of years to get it right. They will and I bet the Romney is appalled and flabber gasted alright. Here is something to think about, Mass is using Romney care and I read a couple of strings of replies about the State health plan was working in Mass and it only added about 1% average cost to their state income tax. They we're really complaining. As things happen in this country, How is Mass going to be affected by this Change in Decission? This could really blow on him and the Republicans.

Heres another kicker, this plan was all Republican written 10 years ago. We are just 4 little Senators away from a Lame Duck Senate ( heavy on the Republican side). I figure that Republicans are dumb enough to create a lame Duck Duck situation. The Republicans will have to pass the Tax Hike. Obama didn't give us a large Tax Hike but the Republicans will have to pass it. Now, Romney, can you spell P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S. He will probably be the first candidate running that does not want to win. That Tax Bil that will have to be signed will land on whoever signs it in the History Books.

Beer - Thanks!

The problem with the internet forums is this: if people were talking in person, more things would come across (i.e. people against the bill wouldn't sound as cold hearted because I think people would realized that they're not "ignoring sick people" and would just be trying to have a reasonable legal discussion, not a discussion about 'is this nice or not') The problem with so many people in favor of the bill is that they think the only reason someone would be against the bill is "because they don't care"

In reality, I would say insurance companies are NOT really profiting off sick people because they're NOT offering them coverage. And MOST IMPORTANTLY, if someone becomes really sick, the insurance company LOSES money. I hate to say it, but I think A LOT of the people in favor of this really do not know what they are talking about (again, this is coming off as cold/heartless, which I understand, but believe me, I am not)

Dont_carry_it_all "Profiting from the sick is immoral."

So doctors and nurses are 'immoral' because they make an income (profit = revenues minus expenses) from treating sick people?

What planet did you come from? I'll bet you will certainly rush to give those 'immoral' people your business if you get seriously ill.

Sigh. Plain and simple:

Health care is a STATE responsibility, not a federal government responsibility.

This is the distinction that I wish Democrats would acknowledge. And I wish Republicans would acknowledge that doing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people is a good idea. And I wish the Democrats would acknowledge that social programs are fantastic, as long as we have the money to fund them. And I wish Republicans would acknowledge that President Obama is not evil.

*end rant*

NeighborOfTheBeast -- Your post actually makes a good case against catastrophic insurance, which insurance companies LOVE because they collect a huge premium but never have to provide care in exchange for it. But so you know, my hope is for the continued improvement of ACA until we have a single-payer system without the insurance middlemen. Our health care system was originally free from insurance middlemen, and not provided through the employer. We need to return to this, but it must be phased.

As for non-profit, this only means not profiting above overhead, in which doctors remain in the private sector and still are compensated per the market. There are already non-profits in various parts of the country, for example (and Romney pretends not to know) Intermountain in Utah. The quality of care is just as good as for-profit systems.

NorCalModerate -- What Party dominates in Massachusetts or for that matter Vermont, Calirfornia? Democrats are well aware of state's rights.

6dogs -- That was the whole wonderfulness of the optional Medicaid expansion. It will allow Massachusetts and Vermont to proceed with their own health care programs. At the same time, it will put Red state governors between a rock and a hard place.

Romney news clips on tv right now..about 5 in a row where Romney is defending his Robamacare........Romney owns it.......his video responses prove it. Making people pay a tax if they don't pay...pretty funny.....ROBAMA care!

"ROY WILSON" said:

Where is the money for this new 'entitlement' going to come from? Here's the link;

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/1175831

----------------------------------

Roy, you're pandering false propaganda onto us, from the Regressive Right's echo chambers, again. Those claims of yours were fact-checked and proven to be "cherry-picking false."

And ask yourself this: How much do you think will it COST the nation if we DON'T have the Obama Administration's HCR - Health Care Reform, or the ACA law and its mandate that was recently deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court and by conservative Chief Justice Roberts?

---------------------------------------------------

No, Obamacare’s Costs Didn’t Double
By Patrick Brennan

Much has been made recently, on NRO as elsewhere, about the supposedly skyrocketing cost of Obamacare. The House Republican Policy Committee, for instance, put out a statement claiming that “the new CBO projection estimates that the law will cost $1.76 trillion over 10 years — well above the $940 billion Democrats originally claimed.”

This claim, that the CBO’s 2012 estimate suggests Obamacare will cost twice as much as originally projected when the bill was passed in 2010, has been widely trumpeted, by some rather doggedly, as another Obamacare failure, but unfortunately, it’s entirely dishonest accounting, as a range of liberal bloggers have pointed out.

Here’s why: The gross costs of Obamacare’s insurance coverage in the CBO’s 2010–2019 estimate were indeed $940 billion (table 2, page 2, here). The updated estimate covers the years 2012–2022, in which the gross costs will be $1.76 trillion, which is, yes, almost double the other number (table 2, here). But these numbers aren’t remotely comparable.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/293932/no-obamacare-s-costs-didn-t-double-patrick-brennan

New Republic Senior Editor Jonathan Cohn: "No, Obamacare's Cost Didn't Just Double." In a March 15 post on The New Republic, Jonathan Cohn wrote:

If CBO had truly determined that health care reform's cost will be twice the original estimates, it would be huge news. But CBO said nothing of the sort.

[...]

In the this latest estimate, CBO extends its projection out one more year, to capture the expenses from 2012 to 2022, in order to capture a full decade. In 2022, CBO says, the gross cost of coverage expansion will be $265 billion. Add that to the $1.496 and you get (with rounding) the $1.76 trillion -- the one in the press releases and the Fox story.

But there is nothing new or surprising about this. It's only slightly more money than the previous year's outlays. The ten-year number seems to jump only because the time frame for the estimate has moved, dropping one year, 2011, and adding another, 2022. Obamacare has virtually no outlays in 2011, because the Medicaid expansion and subsidies don't start up until 2014, which means the shifting time frame drops a year of no implementation and adds one of full implementation.

[...]

The real news of the CBO estimate is that, according to its models, health care reform is going to save even more taxpayer dollars than previously thought.[The New Republic, 3/15/12]

Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "The Cost Of Obamacare Has Gone Down, Not Up." In a March 15 Mother Jones post, Kevin Drum wrote:

Republicans rushed to the microphones today to announce that new projections show that Obamacare will break the bank. In fact, says Fox News, a CBO reports says that it will cost "twice as much as the original $900 billion price tag."

You will be unsurprised to learn that this is not true.

[...]

As Table 1 shows, if you compare the original 2012-21 time period, CBO's new estimate of the cost of Obamacare is $48 billion less than it was last year. (The report estimates only the cost of expanded insurance coverage under Obamacare, not the entire set of costs and revenues. So the total impact on the deficit hasn't yet been updated.) [Mother Jones, 3/15/12]

Klein: CBO Report "Shows The Net Cost Of The Coverage Provisions Will Be About $50 Billion Less Than Previously Estimated." In a March 15 post on The Washington Post's Wonkblog, Ezra Klein noted that those claiming PPACA costs will increase "didn't read this analysis closely." From The Washington Post:

You'll notice something about the above list: It appears to add up to a net reduction in the cost of the health-care law. And, sure enough, here's CBO: "the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period--about $50 billion less than the agencies' March 2011 estimate." You would get the opposite impression reading Ransom.

[...]

But those other parts of the bill aren't a secret. They're mentioned right there in the analysis. Quoting again: "CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012-2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated."

It's easy to do at least some of the update ourselves. This analysis shows the net cost of the coverage provisions will be about $50 billion less than previously estimated. That implies the law will cut more, not less, from the deficit than previous estimates suggested. In other words, this estimate says the bill is more, not less, fiscally responsible than was previously reported.[The Washington Post, 3/15/12]

askaboutet

Mike - what free ride of medicare do you think it is that the republicans have been enjoying, and will now not be able to enjoy?

You know, the part where most of you do not carry health insurance so when your party members get licquored up and smash your uninsured motor vehicles into the insured persons, you force them to pay for everything including your own medical bills. If your people didn't want to pay for your medical insurance, then you should have forced your party leaders to not force the democrats to include the private pay mandate into the bill. Us democrats were more than happy with the public options.

"rradiko, that's not quite copyright infringement, but blockquote words that aren't yours."

Tyler, I understand what you are saying, but in my own defense, the blockquotes are, "as is." It translates that way when this site uses one format over another when doing a copy and paste from a pre-defined section of text for reference from another defined font-style.

"No harm, no foul."

Roy Wilson -- What I object to is paying CEO's of insurance companies millions in bonuses. I have no problem paying a doctor or nurse for the work they perform.

As True Patriot said there are non-profits out there that provide excellent service.

john-1960608

New day you are wrong

The Republicans did not push the mandate in the 90s.

The party researched and studied the idea and determined at that time that the idea would be bad for the people and the economy.

Not entirely true. Yes, the Heritage Foundation revised its initial support of the individual mandate, but the GOP still backed it in the early 90s as an alternative to Clinton's healthcare plan. Even Fox News admits that.

Republicans were smart to shelf the idea and then along came socialist/communist Obama.

First of all, the GOP only shelved the idea when Obama supported it. Secondly, if Obama is a Socialist/Communist (highly unlikely, due to the fact that he is to the right of Bill Clinton on healthcare and at best a center-left president), than Mitt Romney and the Republicans are Fascists/Nazis.

As for Massachusetts- the state had the highest number of employers providing health coverage than any other state, had the lowest number of unemployment, and lowest percentage without coverage than any other state.

That doesn't necessarily say that the individual mandate is ineffective; it merely states that it had a small impact on Massachusetts due to the conditions in Massachusetts.

Mass system system was put together with the co operation of the insurance industry and health care professionals.

Pelosi and her cronies didn't even debate or look at the bill before passing it how ignorant.

And yet the Obamacare system was the same as the Mass system; essentially, the insurance industry and healthcare professionals helped Obama create the bill.

Obama Care was put together by HHS lawyers behind closed doors with no input from the insurance industry or health care professionals.

Got any proof???

IT IS THE STATES responsibility on health care not the federal government this is another Obama flub taking away state sovereignty and the states 10 th amendment rights.

Okay, first of all, where the hell does it say, directly, that states should manage healthcare??? Secondly, enough with the state sovereignty and the 10th amendment crap. The concept of state sovereignty has been discarded and forgotten for decades; ever since the early 20th century, the federal government has been deemed superior to the states, and frankly that is how it ought to be. The feds are, essentially, a collection of states. You conservatives always bring up the bloody Constitution when your opponents bring up an idea that you hate but cannot find a credible argument against. Guess what: the Constitution is 230 YEARS OLD. It was written by a group of guys who didn't know squat about insurance markets, universal healthcare, or even healthcare systems!!! The Constitution should not be taken word for word. No country on Earth could survive and prosper if they sent a significant amount of power to their political sub-units. No country on Earth has ever prospered under a decentralized government. We need a strong central government, and frankly I don't trust the states, what with their insane balanced budget amendments and separate laws that are inconsistent from state to state, with healthcare. Many countries all over the world have adopted government-healthcare systems, and they pay far less than we do and enjoy a helluva lot better care than we do. And you know what??? It's the FEDS in those countries that control the healthcare system. The Feds are the best to manage healthcare, as they can draw funds via taxes from a larger pool and are not tied in a fiscal straitjacket. You guys on the right need to know that the Constitution is NOT perfect and ought to reformed, both on paper and in perspective. As Patrick Henry once said: "United we stand, divided we fall." Unless the states collectively (federal government) seek to fix healthcare in the United States, we as a nation will never have an efficient, affordable healthcare system.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

How many Republicans voted FOR the Mandated Health Care Reform legislation ?

Let's change that question a little... Which Republicans voted for anything that Obama supported? This is a trick question - because none of them ever voted for anything that Obama supported! It is far more important to make Obama look bad than for the USA to do good!

That, and that alone, is the best reason to vote a straight Democratic ticket this Fall!

@ Mike424215

You dope. What are you talking about? Won't liberals that do that be in the same situation? Stupid rant.

PLUS, I'm regiatered as an independent and have actually never voted for a republican (until this coming election) so hopefully this will make you realize you have no idea what you're talking about, and your points are meaningless.

@ Freshiee

Totally disagree with just about everything you wrote. Out of curiosity, if there was a speed limit on a street that was 30 mph, and you and the majority of people thought it should be 45, do you think the solution to the problem would be to leave it at 30 and just drive 45? Or to change it to 45? You're basically stating in your post that we should IGNORE the constitution because it is old. Regardless of how old it is, it is the law. Don't you think it would be better to CHANGE the law to something more relevant (if it is not relevant (which you think)) than to ignore it? That would lead to chaos.

Also, you speak of cheaper health care systems in government run programs. But aren't those programs government run health CARE systems as opposed to government run health INSURANCE programs? And, aren't most of those countries getting their butts kicked right now?

TO: Rob-523523 who wrote:

"Even Romney notes that the Massachusetts program is fraught with problems (and he never suggested it should serve as a model for the entire country). Seems to me, he's simply acknowledging that he learns from his mistakes - an admirable trait, regardless of how his detractors want to spin it..."

I wanna puke!

No matter what Republicans say, the People of Massachusetts are NOT trying to repeal their Affordable Care Act, so that MUST mean they like it!

Obama/Biden 2012

askaboutet

@ Freshiee

Totally disagree with just about everything you wrote. Out of curiosity, if there was a speed limit on a street that was 30 mph, and you and the majority of people thought it should be 45, do you think the solution to the problem would be to leave it at 30 and just drive 45? Or to change it to 45?

Well, personally I say keep it at 30, but if the people want to change it, they ought to be able to. This is a democracy/republic, after all.

You're basically stating in your post that we should IGNORE the constitution because it is old. Regardless of how old it is, it is the law. Don't you think it would be better to CHANGE the law to something more relevant (if it is not relevant (which you think)) than to ignore it? That would lead to chaos.

Not really. I'm not saying or implying that we should ignore the Constitution due to its age; I say that we should change our understanding of the Constitution to fit contemporary society. Unfortunately, changing the Constitution is extremely hard; you need a vast majority of the states and the federal legislature to do that. But we cannot have the same interpretation of the Constitution year after year. It's like using a horse buggy while everyone else is cruising in a sportscar. We need to modernize our interpretation of the Constitution so we can survive and thrive in the modern world.

Also, you speak of cheaper health care systems in government run programs. But aren't those programs government run health CARE systems as opposed to government run health INSURANCE programs? And, aren't most of those countries getting their butts kicked right now?

Well, I do know that Switzerland enacted a law similar to the ACA (only a bit stronger and containing a public option), regulating insurance in the nation. And actually, those countries are in trouble not because of their welfare states, but because of the recession. The recession forced them to bailout their banks and help the unemployed, pushing their budgets into the red. Remember, the financial crisis created the debt crisis, not the other way around.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

It is a fact that Massachusetts is solidly behind President Obama with the vast majority of voters in that state eager to vote against their former governor. If the people of Mitt's own state dislike him that much, how could anyone else support such a loser?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Question: What is a Romney?

Answer: A tool used by the richest 1% to drill and screw the remaining 99%.

Question: Then why are so many people thinking the tool is the right tool for the job?

Answer: Americans love a good screw from time to time!

According to the Supreme Court the President and Congress does not have that authority.

States have individual constitutions that describe the powers the Governor has in the state. Some states give more powers than others. A State Governor could very well have the authority to mandate everyone participate in an economic activity within the state. The Supreme court has determined the President of the United States does not have the authority to do this for his constituents.

So the governor of a state has more power than the President of the United States? If a governor has the authority he needed under a state constitution , then the President and the majority of Congress have the same authority for the United States under the U.S. constitution.

Willard, you can't have it both ways.

Actually it's not both ways. States are autocratic which gives their leaders powers separate from the U.S. Constitution. That is why each state has it's own constitution. Their constitutions allot powers to their leaders in accordance to the laws of the state in which the leaders are governing. Just as most, if not all, state governors have the power of line item veto which to this day is not granted to the U.S. President. Just because Massachusetts's constitution allows the penalty doesn't mean the U.S. Constitution does. If we want to allow such powers to our nations leaders then we need to vote for and enact the laws needed to grant them total control of your life.

As for the Health Care Reform Law as a whole, I am totally for it. I have ,however; always been apposed to the financial mandate. No law or bill ever passed by a governing body has ever been perfect. This is no exception. Now our legislators can begin drafting new bills to rectify the errors in this one. For beginners they can mandate affordable health care. Most health care insurance policies, even employer based, is not worth the price.If a person spends $8,000 out of pocket on premiums and deductibles before insurance kicks in, most people can't afford it. Insurance with my employer, should I ever need get it and use it, would cost me nearly $9,975.00 out of pocket before the insurance begins to pay which is nearly 85% of my annual net pay. On top of that my income levels fall within the penalty range for not having the policy so I will have to pay but I will save nearly $6,000 annually just in premiums even after paying the penalty tax.

NO I DO NOT SUPPORT "OBAMACARE" as there is no such law or bill. For those of you who keep condemning "OBAMACARE" you need to read up on the laws and bills that were passed concerning health care in America. Congress has never passed a bill named "OBAMACARE". To refer to the health law in that manner just shows ignorance. If it were Bush or Reagan it would not be called "BUSHCARE" or "REAGANCARE".

VOTE DEMOCRAT in 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Already trying to remove Obama from the fact that his team DID design this HealthCare program. The United States in years to come will not forget who shoved this through. Designed only to generate a large pool of money from which the goverment is already spending. Nice try, this will ALWAYS be remembered as ObamaCare. Let me be CLEAR. NO BAMA 2012. I saw last nite where MEXICAN'S are finger-printed to vote. Almost makes you ashammed to be part of a goverment that does'nt even require a picture ID to vote. You have to have a Birth Certificate to play little league baseball for crying out loud. NO BAMA 2012,

The United States in years to come will not forget who shoved this through

Certainly not. Millions will benefit. Millions already have. That is why the Right is so scared of it, and freaking out that they have now definitively lost.

Our for-profit insurance scam was one of the most barbaric systems of making people wealthy that you can imagine. In order to profit, insurance companies must take in more premiums than they pay out in benefits. In order to grow every year as Wall Street demands, they must profit more every year. The only way to do that was to deny care to paying customers, and pocket their premiums instead of caring for their health. As each year passed, we paid more in premiums, and were given less care, and as a bonus fewer of us were insured. This was a system in the process of eating itself. It was only going to last a few more years anyway, and then it would have collapsed.

The ACA is a path out of that insanity, which will force insurers to actually pay for healthcare or give our money back, to stop kicking us off the rolls when we get sick, to stop capping our payments when they reach some imaginary 'lifetime limit,' and basically to stop taking our money with one hand and cutting our throats with the other.

William Kristol advised the GOP in 1994 to kill the plan then named Hillarycare, and he outlined a series of market-based reforms that the GOP proposed in its place. Oddly enough, when the GOP entirely dominated Congress from 2002-2007, they didn't lift one finger to enact any of these reforms. If you look at Kristol's advice to the GOP, standing against healthcare reform was a matter of butt-headed principle, a principle that basically no one should ever go to the goverment for help, a quaint notion known as the right of redress of grievances, or in other words, vote for things that benefit yourselves. The GOP have a toxic aversion to voting in your own self-interest, as if it is somehow evil to do so (although it's not evil when you're a millionaire and you vote to put a business-friendly politican in office who will grease the skids to make you rich).

The GOP have been arguing about health reform basically my entire adult life, and their only real answer to all of the questions has been NO. Well, now they are going to pay the price of a poltical party that has no answers, no agenda, and no real plan. They're going to the dustbin of history. They seem dead-set and bound and determined to sink to the bottom of the ocean with this albatross around their necks, and I am all too happy to throw them an anvil.

Romney is right [as long as he is keeping this position, which like all his positions, is in constant danger of falling victim to an Etch-a-Sketch], it is not a tax.

It is a penalty the government employs the use of the IRS to collect. You can go down to your local town hall to pay your property taxes or pay a fine for code violations, this does not make the penalty for the code violations a tax.

Pelosi doing the ACA in the way it was done was actually pretty smart. It was as if it was designed with a sort of redundancy in it's constitutionality. The Commerce Clause should of been enough. Gonzales v. Raich basically said that even if you operate outside of a market, you still effect that market and so are still actually covered under the Commerce Clause. So really there is no way an individual can opt out of the health care economy. The Supreme Court's reasoning in the two cases is very much irreconcilable. Using the IRS to collect just adds a second layer of constitutionality as the ability of Congress to tell the IRS to collect money for something is practically unlimited.

JOB 1 - The states DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO PASS SOME LAWS IN THEIR STATE. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between a Penalty & a Tax. One of the differences is that, for example, the I.R.S. can "Penalize" a person for not paying or failing to pay their taxes, it's like a fee that applies only to that individual for that particular instance. But the I.R. S. can not make you pay additional taxes because of the "penalty" Taxes are one thing completely different from any form of penalty. State Laws apply only to that particular state whereas O"Bama Care is "forced upon everyone" When it is forced on everyone, that becomes Interstate Commerce and in this case you can't call it a penalty. The Feds. do not have the ability to penalize U.S. Citizens for not buying something they don't want, but the Feds. do have the ability to tax. It's this taxing ability that allows O'Bama Care to survive, for a short period of time. The Federal can not force a person to pay for something they don't wish to buy, and make them pay if an additional "Fee" if they don't

JoeB -- They do this already with the EMTALA. $1000 is added to the cost of an insurance policy to pay for those that use the ER. EMTALA was a federal unfunded mandate.

Good grief,Tommy Lee...where have you been for the last 3 1/2 years. Congress passed the bill and Obama was heavily criticized from the left for not being very involved on specifics. Do you watch anything beside Faux news? When pressed on it in a press conference, he even stated that ,"Congress doesn't like to be dictated to" so he left the specifics up to them and simply kept pushing them to reach an accord. Are you really this poorly informed or suffering memory problems?

Congress crafted this bill, not Obama.

Yes Job1, the President's powers are more restricted than a governor's. Each state has its own Constitution, its own legislature and its own police force. Our nation, our United States is basically an affiliation of 50 individual countries who pledge mutual support and cooperation with each other to create a greater whole, and the federal government is the framework through which we present a united face to the rest of the world. Each state is a socio-political experiment. If you don't like the rules in Rhode Island, move to Pennsylvania. Or Minnesota. Or Hawai'i. Congress has the power to regulate international and interstate trade, but within the borders of their own states, the Governor's word is law.

1

Job1 "So the governor of a state has more power than the President of the United States? If a governor has the authority he needed under a state constitution , then the President and the majority of Congress have the same authority for the United States under the U.S. constitution."

Nonsense. Each state has a different constitution, so what may be legal in one state is not necessarily legal in another - or in the United States as a whole. Case in point - a California Governor has 'line item veto' authority, while the President of the United States does not.

Huh.!....News flash for repubs......The Civil War was fought years ago..The Union won.

An individual state governor nor the entire majority votes of a single state on a given subject have more power than the federal government. If this were true, then governors of individual states wouldn't be running scared now, even after majority votes in their states that legalized medical marijuana. As the federal government is now cracking down on the dispensaries and threatening to imprison even the state government officials of these states if they continue to operate medical marijuana by giving permits, city managers are putting permits on hold and ordering many shops closed in fear of going to jail.

Romney finally has a plan ........WOW a plan........to end healthcare plan..his very own Romney care.........Flip Flop again.

Romney and repubs have no plan after that...except to take the economy down as they pledged.

The first economic plan from the republicans ...was to blow up the economy so president Obama would not have a second term. Newt said it was the first seed sown for the 2012 election. 14-15 republicans secretly met the dat after Obama took office to pledge to vote against every bill that would help the economy recover. They pledged this saying they wanted him to be a one term president. They pledged to take the economy down just to destroy the presidents plans for recovery. Bin Laden wrote down the same plan and executed 911 to take the economy down to destroy the nation. These repubs, Ryan, Cantor, DeMint, and Gingrich pledged to act like the Taliban, to act like the insurgents do,(their own actual words) to prevent President Obama from a second term. Acting like the supreme terrorist of all time Bin Laden. Traitors. Deliberately sabotaging the recovery. Ref Richard draper new book.

Ryan repub Plan...Kills socoial security and medicare. Repubs want to destroy the Post Office and privatize that also.......Take down America and give more tax breaks to the rich 1%. Romney for a worse tomorrow today!.

Vote President Obama/Biden 2012

Sounds like the Regressive Right has run out of political ammo to shoot down President Obama's health care reform law, except for their pitiful ploy to argue on the semantics of just two words, whether or not the mandate should be called a "penalty" or a "tax" on the anticipated 1 percent of the right-wing freeloaders that can afford to pay their fair share to get coverage, but won't.

Republicans have become bottom feeders and lowlife forms that do nothing, but talk a lot. Oh, they do add the Keystone Pipeline amendment to most Bills and then wonder why the Bills die in conference or just don't get acted upon. Toss them all out in November and get America moving again.

@ Thomas Blue,

I know, your canidate is squeeky clean. Never bent or broke a rule in his life. I'm hoping for the good of the country Thomas, that YOUR man is out in one term. Here's to "New" hope and change in 2012, for the good of America, for the good of Americans. Our next president should care more about LEGAL CITIZENS, our next president should stand FOR AMERICANS instead of apoligize for us. Obama is so transparent to me Thomas, after 4 years, I say NO MAS. Let me be clear. No Mas, No Bama 2012.

What, a guy who is running against what he did in Massachusetts...a guy who told President Obama to do exactly what he did in 2009...is supposed to end this presidency?

It seems to me that it is Mr. Romney who has to do more twisting, wiggling and spinning.

You're kidding right No Joe?

in rebuttal

1. So?

2. And?

3. How many people actually have the means, desire or ability to move from one state to another every time they don't like how things are governed in their state? And why should they? We have the right to vote out those who create laws we don't like.

4. Romney has some very deep pocketed friends who contributed almost instantly to his campaign in a big way. Take for instance a certain casino owner that contributed $1 Million himself.

The simple fact remains. The top 1%ers and corporations across the nation have the taxes exactly where they want them and don't want things changing. If anyone starts raising taxes on the middle class it will surely come back to the top 1%ers and corporations and they don't want that.

The republicans can spin, wiggle and twist things as they shout like they favor the average American but the facts speaks volumes against that message. The republicans have always looked after the top earners/corporations they own in the country and nothing looks to be changing anytime soon.

NJNB has decided she doesn't like the law. That's all.

Nothing you can do or say will convince her otherwise. Even as her own rates for insurance go down, she'll complain about it.

That's just how she rolls. The RNC decided that they didn't like it, and the lady is loyal to her party.

teknishan -

NJNB has decided she doesn't like the law. That's all.

Yea ... some of us don't like laws where we were flat-out lied to ... the Cornhusker Deals, the Louisiana Purchases .... the deemed to have been passed .... laws that are not read before they are passed .... laws that we have to pass to see what what's in it ... laws passed against the will/favor of the majority of Americans ....

What's not to like, huh?

Even as her own rates for insurance go down, she'll complain about it.

Gosh, other than blogs / think progress type stuff, you evidently don't read much do you?

Premiums are exploding .... the CBO states that the $900 billion cost has already doubled - before it even takes effect!

Maybe you should "roll" like no joe and get little better informed?

I'm an employer.

Rates for my employees haven't gone up.

But having first-hand experience is much better to form an accounting off of than RNC talking points.

You'd agree?

1. The Court held that using the Commerce clause to coerce commerce was unConatitutional;and

If the Commerce clause was upheld, would you've been in favor of ACA? No! You would've just used different talking points to whine about it. It is here to stay, so you might as well accept reality and STFU about it....

Obama/Biden 2012

Premiums are exploding ....

This just in...

THEY WERE ALREADY EXPLODING!!!

So, what, we should all just sit back and do nothing and hope that maybe that problem goes away? We should just do nothing and continue to let people lose everything because they get sick?

ACA was our answer. Where is yours?

You could have offered (and can still offer) a voice in finding a solution. Instead you just said, "NO!"

Tek....

That's BS and you know it - if you have only provided insurance for your employees for about a year then maybe your rates haven't gone up - but much longer than that (a year or more) your rates have gone up. How many employees do you have? What company are you purchasing insurance from? What does it amount to per employee?

Da Noid: It was their idea too. The Republicans LOVED them some personal responsibility through that mandate...

Until there was a Democratic President.

NEWS BREAK!!!!!! You will Only be Taxed/Penalized if you choose NOT to carry any health insurance at all!!! Now, Rethugs/teabagger SPREAD THE WORD!!!

GT -

If the Commerce clause was upheld, would you've been in favor of ACA? No! You would've just used different talking points to whine about it.....

The commerce clause relates to commerce / activity .... not the lack of. It is unconstitutional to apply it.

And the difference between being robbed by a guy with a gun or being robbed by a guy with a knife is ....?

Noids -

Don't read much?

Tort reform, increasing competition by letting insurance companies sell cross state (actual commerce), health savings accounts, different types of policies ....

You know .. things that actually reduce costs like Americans wanted.

Teknishan,

My individually purchased health insurance rate went up 25% this year. My employer provided rate did not go up though.

One question I have is will my individually purchased premiums become tax deductible since they are now required? Currently it is not.

Boy where have you been maga, HEALTHCARE COSTS HAVE BEEN ON THE RISE FOR YEARS!!!!!!

The funding, not the individual mandate "Penalty/Tax", is a wealth of new taxes. Though not all are directly collected from us by the IRS, they are collected from us by the suppliers of insurance, medical devices and drugs, because the government collects it from them. Here is the funding from the bill. This is NOT in dispute by the authors or those who voted for it.

Summary of tax increases:

• Broaden the Medicare tax base for high-income taxpayers: $210.2 billion
• Charge of an annual fee on health insurance providers: $60 billion
• Impose a 40% excise tax on health insurance policies which cost more than $10,200/$27,500 per year: $32 billion
• Impose an annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs: $27 billion
• Impose a 2.3% excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices: $20 billion
• Raise the 7.5% Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction to 10%: $15.2 billion
• Limit annual contributions to flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans to $2,500: $13 billion
• All other revenue sources: $14.9 billion

Now that you read the list, you can clearly see that there are new taxes for many people, including those this is supposed to help.

For example, I have employer sponsored insurance but have to pay deductibles and co-pays. If, god forbid, someone in my family has a serious (read: expensive) medical issue come up, this is how this funding hurts me.

1. First, I am paying more for my share of my insurance because the insurance companies have to re-coup the $60B from somewhere, and my name just became Mr. Some Where.
2. Now, let's say I was fortunate enough to have a Cadillac plan that cost me little/nothing from my employer and had low/no co-pay or deductible. Well, It is likely I won't have that anymore, because it just cost my employer an ADDITIONAL 40% for them to be a good and giving company. How is over taxing really good insurance the solution to not enough good health insurance?
3. The total cost of treatment just went up because the cost of drugs and medical devices just went up. That means my co-pay deductable will be more and so will the insurance because making me healthy just got more expensive.
4. Before PPACA, if I had major medical expenses, they became tax deductible after 7.5% of my Adjusted Gross Income. But now, it has to meet an even higher threshold before I can deduct the out of pocket expenses like co-pays and deductibles.
5. I used to be able to put a lot more money in Flex spending accounts, to help manage my out of pocket expenses. It used to have no limit (but most employers limited it to under $5K) with a use it or lose it clause. Now it is $2,500, further limiting my ability to deal with expensive medical care. Ex: If I or someone in my family are diagnosed with something that will take months/years to treat, we can plan accordingly.

As you can see, not including the individual mandate, you will be paying MORE to the government while you use medical services/insurance, in order to pay for the this plan. Are you in favor of paying this to expand health care coverage?

Bottom line: If you already have coverage, it makes your coverage MORE expensive. If you don't have coverage, it does provide you coverage at a lower cost, but it still is a cost to you.

Bob -- Tort reforms do nothing to bring the costs down. In fact, because hospitals and doctors own the equipment and labs for expensive tests, they have an incentive to order these tests. It will only lower the cost out of pocket to doctors. Please read the link below. It talks about tort reforms.

As for allowing insurance carriers to cross state lines then we would have the larger carriers swallowing up the little carriers and they would then have a monopoly. They would price fix. Think cable and phone companies. Wouldn't that put regulation and penalty under the commerce clause then? Not sure.

HSA -- Would do little to help the average Joe. Who has the ability to save $100K to have an operation? Certainly not the little guy, he'd be dead before he could save enough money for that life saving operation.

http://www.ssab.gov/documents/TheUnsustainableCostofHealthCare_508.pdf

As for allowing insurance carriers to cross state lines then we would have the larger carriers swallowing up the little carriers and they would then have a monopoly. They would price fix. Think cable and phone companies. Wouldn't that put regulation and penalty under the commerce clause then? Not sure.

"Let Insurance Carriers Sell Across State Lines" is a red herring. Do you know how many federal laws are in the books that prohibit an insurance carrier from selling across state lines?

There aren't any.

Wanna know what keeps an insurance carrier from selling across state lines? It's the regulations of each specific state. If I'm a company in New York and I want to sell in Connecticut I must abide by Connecticut regulations as well as New York regulations.

So, please, stop trying to tell us that carriers can't sell across state lines because it's just not true.

Boy where have you been maga, HEALTHCARE COSTS HAVE BEEN ON THE RISE FOR YEARS!!!!!!

Mom's basement is pretty safe, and you don't have to worry at all about who is paying for your healthcare.

Especially since the ACA made it possible to keep your kid on your plan until 26.

Now, let's say I was fortunate enough to have a Cadillac plan that cost me little/nothing from my employer and had low/no co-pay or deductible

Um, this may be news to you, but nobody has that plan anymore. I've been paying high deductibles since 2004, and my plan WAS the Cadillac, until I finally realized I was paying for nothing different than a slightly larger or smaller donut hole.

I am guessing most of the people bitching about this don't actually pay for their own health insurance. Those of us who do know it's a good thing. Last year vs. this year was the smallest increase I've seen in over a decade. Once again: Thank You President Obama.

ME - Excellent post. Too bad most will not read it past their own talking point and political cheerleading.

Me, I'm not even going to describe the "spin" you put on each of those:

"if" I spend over 7.5% of AGI (never).

Having a "Cadillac Plan" (if you do, you can definitely afford the 40% tax on insurance premiums OVER those amounts - about $20-$200 tax - oh that hurts so much for someone making $400k a year).

Your insurance DEDUCTIBLE goes up? Impossible or your rates will be reduced because of that.

Your insurance rates go up because of drugs & medical devices costs going up? virtually impossible and a red-herring-

You can't even make up good arguments.

mackman-912848

NEWS BREAK!!!!!! You will Only be Taxed/Penalized if you choose NOT to carry any health insurance at all!!! Now, Rethugs/teabagger SPREAD THE WORD!!!

Wrong as wrong can be, sir. I am being forced to buy something that I neither want, nor need, in order for you to pay less for your own health care. Call it what you want, a tax, a fee, a fine...Hell, call it Fred, for all I care. The only thing that matters is I am being robbed by the government on your behalf, and my only other choice is to declare myself a criminal by refusing to pay. That's as un-American as it gets.

Tort reform, increasing competition by letting insurance companies sell cross state (actual commerce), health savings accounts, different types of policies ....

You know .. things that actually reduce costs like Americans wanted.

Not so fast......

1- Only the big insurance companies can be bought across states. Most smaller insurance companies cant compete with them and they dont have the money to expand coverage into multiple states (with their varying healthcare nuances and risk pool demographics). Yor 'choices' for across-state-lines will be the big 4, just like its always been.

2- Tort reform. Biggest joke cost reduction ever, Its been implemented in several states. Its true that Doctors got sued for less $ due to the cap and some lawsuits avoided all together...BUT...its goal of reducing malpractice premiums (and thereby reduce uneccessary tests, procedures and defensive medicine) has not materialized. An AMA article from last year (looking for it now) stated that malpractice premiums either remained on a steady climb or became neutral (no change at all). Sop no cost-reducing impact of tort reform.

3- Health Savings Accounts- In this day and age (with falling wages and job insecurity and rising energy and food prices) , who can save enough money to offset a $300,000 cancer opereation ....or $2500/Month in Chemo Drugs, or even the $20,000 it cost to fix a broken leg? Answer: only the rich

The only thing I agree with you on as a cost saving measure is to allow catastrophic-only coverage much like a 'liability only' car policy. Its the minimum required to meet the provisoipns of the ACA with a minimum set of benefits.

well everyone thinks know how the other person lives well they dont and for you to say that this or that person can afford it they may not afford so until you come live in these people shoes don't judge them and say you can afford and that when they can't you are not them

vote mickey mouse he can do a better job then these liers

I vote New York Girl goes back to school to learn English. You certainly butchered it there.

well everyone thinks know how the other person lives

Oh, please don't whine at us. There is nothing so pathetic about a conservative naysayer whining when required to take personal responsibility. Learn the facts:

The annual penalty is capped at an amount roughly equal to the cost of the national average premium for a qualified health plan — in other words you cannot be forced to pay more than it would have cost to buy a plan in the first place.

Flat dollar amount for individuals: $95 in 2014; $325 in 2015; and $695 in 2016; increases indexed to inflation after that, subject to a cap.

For example, courtesy Blue Cross Blue Shield: An uninsured family of three (two parents and one child under 18), not exempt from the mandate, would have a flat dollar penalty of $1,737 in 2016.

Percentage of individual taxable income: fixed percentage of household income in excess of tax filing threshold – 1% in 2014; 2% in 2015; 2.5% in 2016.

For example (again courtesy Blue Cross Blue Shield): An uninsured, non-exempt individual with household income of $50,000 would be forced to pay 1 percent of the difference between $50,000 and the tax threshold (let’s say $10,00 for an individual in 2014), or roughly $400. Since $400 is greater than $95, this individual would have to pay $400.

There are plenty of exemptions from the penalty. You do not face it if your insurance premiums would be more than 8 percent of your gross income, if you’re a member of an American Indian tribe, or if you lacked insurance for less than three months during a year.

My insurance costs, which I have paid responsibly for 17 years, have gone up 1,000% because people like you freeload. That's money I am paying to support your freeloading. So, shaddap already.

Amy, you lost all cridbility when you quoted former Speaker of the House Pelosi. Certianly we can all agree that she is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. At least POTUS Obama knew he was lying. I think Pelosi just went along with the talking points. Hopefully she has read the bill by now.

So Amy, if only those who decide not to have health insurance are the only one's paying tax/penalty, then if everyone has health insurance ObamaCare will not cost a dime, right? Well the answer is of course not. There are plenty of new taxes including a tax on all employer healthcare to pay for ObamaCare. Here is a partial list.

There are taxes on investments, flexible spending accounts are now capped at 2500.00, itemized deductions for medical is going up to 10K, penalty on withdrawing from medical savings accounts for non-medical goes from 10 to 20%, tax on tanning, tax on medical devices costing more then 100.00, a 40% tax on Cadillac health plans which are comprehensive health plans most unions workers enjoy, Blue Shield tax hike, tax on bio fuel, and employers will be reporting healthcare benefits on W-2's.

But Amy, I am sure Nancy Pelosi will make good on her promise that it won't cost you anything. Of course if ObamaCare goes the way of every other entitlement ever started with huge cost over runs, then all bets are off as to what they will tax to pay for it. The disease inflicting all liberals is that they actually believe anything a liberal says, even when proven wrong.

Maybe NY Girl could learn English from Mickey Mouse?

At least POTUS Obama knew he was lying. I think Pelosi just went along with the talking points

lol...You know, your ongoing whinning little biotch schtick is going nowhere. Only you sore-loser teabuggerer saboteurs are buying that tax vs penalty garbage has any real meaning. CLUE: NO ONE CARES! Spin it how you like though, tax or penalty.... its making a freeloader pay so the rest of us following the law by obtainiing insurance dont have to pay for your poor choices not to insure you or your family.

Amy,

Are you forgetting the insurance companies dropped people once they got sick?

How can sit there and say people that chose not to buy insurance are freeloaders? Freeloaders of what?

The insurance industry is the industry responsible for the abusive practices they employed. In addition to dropping people once they got sick (does it make sense to buy insurance knowing the insurance companies would drop you once you got sick? Isn't that the same thing as throwing your money away?), the insurance industry was also refusing to insure people that had pre-existing conditions. For me, it seems really clear that the insurance industry is about profit.

How is it my personal responsibility to pay for the abusive practices of the insurance industry who refused to insure people that had preexisting conditions and dropped people that got sick?

What you consider personal responsibility is asking healthy people to pay for those that got sick while they have insurance or those who have a preexisting condition that the insurance industry wouldn't cover.

It is NOT my responsibility to pay for someone else's medical bills and it is certainly not my responsibility to PAY for what INSURANCE INDUSTRY REFUSES TO PAY FOR.

The insurance industry ought to be strung up on RICO charges, along with all the other health insurance companies.

Lane,

People do care about the POTUS being dishonest. Folks like yourself choose to go ostrich with their head in the sand and certainly that is understandable for many. The law is passed and we will need to stomach it. I do feel bad for the next generation which will be saddled with this sure to be mess. You must be missing the part where the government is $17 trillion in debt. Get a clue man. No conspiracy theory or anything of that like on my part. Bottom line this is horrible policy, will cost us all way more than the POTUS represented (i.e, lied about) and will not fullfill on what he committed. Hell, he has not even closed Gitmo yet like he promised to do. That should have been a layup for him given the first two years of Congress were controlled by Dems. I guess you do not fall into the "hold our government officials accountable for their committments" category. Very sad....

Rick,

Exactly.

NEWS BREAK!!!!!! You will Only be Taxed/Penalized if you choose NOT to carry any health insurance at all!!! Now, Rethugs/teabagger SPREAD THE WORD!!!

you got that right!!! all the fear mongerers are out in force - yelpin' it up to try and get any moron they can to believe their crap. blah blah blah - that's we need to start saying to the nay sayers. even mitt the moron is looking worse and worse everyday. we need this health care - Affordalbe Care Act - call it what it is. i live this pre-existing nightmare and these awful insurance companies will be stopped NOW. yeah pay - don't pay - whatever - find something else to complain about. it's here - we need it and get on with your poor excuse of a life.

John...you are so funny

I find it hilarious the GOP and their SCOTUS 'new math'.

Truth: THE SCOTUS FOUND THE ACA CONTITUTIONALJust Get over it already! You Lost your day in court and your plans to kill the law FAILED...deal with it, bro

@Mackman, at least that is what they have been saying all along. Even if one pays through their taxes it looks like it may be .05 cent on every $2.00 earned. The only ones complaining are the skaters and the ones making over $100,000 a year that aren't paying anything. I think it's time time they sat down and had a Big ol piece of the Pie. Don't eat it to fast, you'll get indigestion. (Than you break in that new copay).