Obama Care, How Will Be Judged On Thursday?

[mercury14]

No, you still have to raise the taxes to pay for it.

That niggardly fine isn't going to do the trick.

When you've soaked the rich to pay for it, then you will have WON!

Good. Policies should be paid for as much as possible. And the fines aren't the main way that obamacare is being paid for, doofus.

Unlike unfunded Medicare Part-D and two wars we got which dwarf the cost of Obamacare.

 

[landslider2000]

Every entitlement is a wedge. Costs will go up endlessly. Whatever America aspires to do in the future, it will do dragging this anchor.

Obamacare will expand relentlessly. Look at the evolution of Social Security (once a simple retirement program) into widow's, child's, disability, SSI, etc.

Obamacare was not a "tax" in terms of Anti-Injunction, not a "tax" in terms of how Obama and Congress argued for it, but in Roberts' odd opinion operated as a de facto tax. So Roberts essentially edited the law in order to logic-chop his way to affirm it.

Nice to see some limit to the commerce clause, but the federal government now has limitless power to compel citizens to do anything under tax power so long as it is arguably for the general welfare.

 

[mercury14]

Every entitlement is a wedge. Costs will go up endlessly. Whatever America aspires to do in the future, it will do dragging this anchor.

Obamacare will expand relentlessly. Look at the evolution of Social Security (once a simple retirement program) into widow's, child's, disability, SSI, etc.

Obamacare was not a "tax" in terms of Anti-Injunction, not a "tax" in terms of how Obama and Congress argued for it, but in Roberts' odd opinion operated as a de facto tax. So Roberts interpreted the law in Constitutional context along with most of the other justices, just like he was supposed to.

Nice to see some limit to the commerce clause, but the federal government now has limitless power to compel citizens to do anything under tax power so long as it is arguably for the general welfare.

Fixed your post to incorporate reality.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Every entitlement is a wedge. Costs will go up endlessly. Whatever America aspires to do in the future, it will do dragging this anchor.

Obamacare will expand relentlessly. Look at the evolution of Social Security (once a simple retirement program) into widow's, child's, disability, SSI, etc.

Obamacare was not a "tax" in terms of Anti-Injunction, not a "tax" in terms of how Obama and Congress argued for it, but in Roberts' odd opinion operated as a de facto tax. So Roberts essentially edited the law in order to logic-chop his way to affirm it.

Nice to see some limit to the commerce clause, but the federal government now has limitless power to compel citizens to do anything under tax power so long as it is arguably for the general welfare.

The government always had enumerated power to tax you into poverty. But now they cant disguise TAX as anything but what it is.

 

[Byron In Exile]

How very sad that you choose not to follow the law of the United States.

Have you ever considered relocating to the libertarian paradise of Somalia, perhaps? I'm sure they could find great use for your many talents!

I have always followed the law and will continue to do so.

There might come a time when I decide to hoist the black flag and start slitting throats, to paraphrase Mencken's view of when enough is enough... but that time is not here, yet.

In my time, the two most unpopular decisions of the Supreme Court have been: 1) Bush v. Gore, and 2) NFIB v. Sebelius.

I've seen Democrats butthurt for four years straight, until Bush got re-elected. The wailing and gnashing of teeth actually disturbed my sleep sometimes. Not because I could hear it, but just because I knew it was there, and I would have to face it the next day.

But I do believe the Republican butthurt over this will be much more short-lived. Roberts, bless his tiny munchkin heart, has pointed out a gaping hole in the Constitution's protection of us again despotism: Congress. Roberts' opinion basically said, "you idiots elected them, they wrote this law, so don't look to us to bail you dummies out." Without a repeal of the 16th Amendment, or a new Amendment, "You are screw, G. I. !!"

But, as unpopular as they both have been, I do see the reasoning in both of them. In the former case, they made a hard call, but the right one. In this case, they managed to dodge a bullet.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

No, you still have to raise the taxes to pay for it.

That niggardly fine isn't going to do the trick.

When you've soaked the rich to pay for it, then you will have WON!

According to my math its much cheaper for Wal-Mart to dump employees onto Medicaid than pay premiums. Its a real coup for corporations, to cut overhead.

 

[RobDownSouth]

But, as unpopular as they both have been, I do see the reasoning in both of them. In the former case, they made a hard call, but the right one. In this case, they managed to dodge a bullet.

Comparing the judicial activism of Bush v. Gore to the judicial restraint of the Obamacare case is the pinnacle of false equivalency.

Thanks for the laugh, my deep thinker friend.

 

[busybody..]

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/384332_10150962538987740_1135391841_n.jpg

 

[Byron In Exile]

Comparing the judicial activism of Bush v. Gore to the judicial restraint of the Obamacare case is the pinnacle of false equivalency.

Thanks for the laugh, my deep thinker friend.

The rulings were sound in both cases.

If you could step out of the football game you seem to be trapped in, you would see it instantly.

 

[Byron In Exile]

According to my math its much cheaper for Wal-Mart to dump employees onto Medicaid than pay premiums. Its a real coup for corporations, to cut overhead.

Business will always find a way to survive.

 

[busybody..]

The REPOZ are shooting themselves in teh head for holing a repeal vote

The voters will come to love it and take it out on REPOZ

 

[HB1965]

What people believed years ago and came to understand differently really has no bearing on events today. Democrats own this disaster HB, lock stock and barrel. To your charge of hypocrisy, I'll simply say the ACA got no Republican votes and will be repealed by them if possible.

vette, dude. You need to get real about your party. They are just as two faced as the Dems. They didn't vote for it because it's a Dem plan and they saw right through the reasons the Dems were trying to get it through despite the fact that many Reps on the floor had been for individual mandate a only a couple of years before. It's all about towing the partyline and bowing and scraping to the Repo god just like the Dems do. The fact that Mitt was for it just five years before, sounds like a flip flop to me. A big one.

It gets back to our point that there's far too much money in politics. Mitt won the nomination because he outspent his competition by like 7 to 1. Negative ads work. He's a weak conservative and a weak candidate in general but presidential nominations and probably the Oval Office can be bought.

The only problem that Mitt Romney faces (and sadly it's a big one) is that Repo voters in droves will be standing in the poling booth saying to themselves, "Do I really want a Mormon for President?" No one will say it out loud but they will be thinking it.

Actually, teh "pleasant surprise" was Chief Justice Roberts.
I didn't believe he'd actually put Constitutional principle above party politics.
A very pleasant surprise.

Here's a "non-surprise" quote from Glibertarian Rand Paul
""Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so."

I have to say, I thought Bush was just proving what a Whacko he really was by promoting a man of such limited judicial experience as chief justice (guys like Kennedy and Scalia make him look like a baby). I thought it was clearly a way to get the court Repo so they put in a Repo shill. I'm now seeing the dude might just have capacity for individual thought. While I don't agree with his decision, I gotta admit my respect for him as gone up a notch.

As for Rand Paul, the fucker's a doctor not a lawyer. He wouldn't know what was constitutional if it bit him in the ass.

I expect that the IRS will have to make a new 1040 form: health insurance premiums paid will be listed on Line 43 and the tax amount (as set by the law) will be listed on Line 44. If Line 43 is greater than 0, then tax owed is 0, if line 43 is 0, then tax owed is line 44. Very simple (and eventually, they can add in some simple math and if Line 43 is smaller than Line 44, you will have to pay the difference (so that nobody pays less for health insurance than the tax would require if they had no insurance).

The enforcement won't happen immediately, but it will happen.

In MA all you have to do is answer a question on your tax form and produce a form from your insurance the states you've had insurance. You're allowed to lapse for three months before you'll be charged.

 

[fuckwaffle]

So much for not a dime in new taxes...projections are $7 trillion over ten years, that is if the tax base is still there to tax. Unemployment is also projected to increase significantly over the next 10 years.

What a fucking liar!

 

[HB1965]

According to my math its much cheaper for Wal-Mart to dump employees onto Medicaid than pay premiums. Its a real coup for corporations, to cut overhead.

And they will also be the biggest payers of the business portion of the mandate. While they might be cutting overhead they will still be paying $2000 per employee.

 

[Adre]

According to my math its much cheaper for Wal-Mart to dump employees onto Medicaid than pay premiums. Its a real coup for corporations, to cut overhead.

Health benefits, like salary and other perks, always have been and will continue to be part of a package to attract employees. Companies will drop them at their own peril.

 

[Byron In Exile]

In MA all you have to do is answer a question on your tax form and produce a form from your insurance the states you've had insurance. You're allowed to lapse for three months before you'll be charged.

Oh, that's all?

And three months?? Well! Isn't that special!

 

[koalabear]

I do not.

Companies cut more and more benefits from their employees everyday. We need a safety net to keep the vulnerable members of our society safe and healthy.

If Big Money is for something, I am against it. Big Money and Pete have very little in common.

Now they will cut even more, plus the States can dump medicaid with no penalty.
Your safety net has giant holes in it.

 

[Byron In Exile]

And the fines aren't the main way that obamacare is being paid for, doofus.

Not according to Obama.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Business will always find a way to survive.

Right you are! I expect every corporation worth its salt to make its employees 1099 contractors.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Business will always find a way to survive.

Look for lots more 1099 contractors.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Health benefits, like salary and other perks, always have been and will continue to be part of a package to attract employees. Companies will drop them at their own peril.

Yep. Youre right. But only for its rock stars.

 

[Adre]

Look for lots more 1099 contractors.

I think the IRS is wise to this ploy.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I think the IRS is wise to this ploy.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

It's no "ploy," unless it's one on the part of the IRS.

 

[eyer]

Here's my take:

1. While the rebel in me sides with the minority 4, I respect Roberts' reverence for the Constitution, for the Constitution clearly enumerates Congress the power to tax, and that power is only limited by the exact body the Constitution deems is the ultimate arbitrator: We the People. Since ratification of the 17th Amendment, the People are fully responsible for seating all those who have the power to tax them without restraint. America gets the exact government (thus, naturally, taxation) it deserves.

2. It seems to me, from what I've read in both the bill and from commentary, the law currently prohibits any other penalty than deducting the Act's tax from an individual's income tax refund amount; if the individual has no refund due, the tax cannot be collected in any other way, ie, the law also specifically prohibits any type of other collection, eg, liens, garnishments, etc.

3. I do not know the exact financials of the bill, but I have read one commentator posit that it will be significantly less expensive for a whole bunch of Americans to simply pay the comparably cheap tax on their income tax refunds than actually pay the deductible for the plan; if that is indeed the case, I find it highly amusing.

Most of all, though, I hope this ruling further ignites more passion among Americans to focus more on the Constitution's mandate that they are the keepers and government is the kept, and...

...that this issue brings more awareness to the (for now) civil war America is fully engaged in.

Those on this forum who endlessly portend enthusiastically the elimination and/or eventual dying-off of those "over 60", those on this forum who constantly champion the government over individual liberty, are the same ones who will naturally fully support government when government forcefully prosecutes those who stand squarely on the founding principles a great nation (despite its equally great faults) was erected upon.

Only those who are sincerely willing to live those Revolutionary principles today - no matter what sacrifice that now entails - will be able to morally fight for them once the enemies of the Republic finally show the sheepish whites of their traitorous eyes...

 

[zipman]

Look for lots more 1099 contractors.

Actually many firms are (and have been) moving away from 1099 contractors and just hiring them as "temporary employees" due to government scrutiny to ensure that the contractors are not being taken advantage of. It also makes absolutely no sense as "temporary employees" don't get benefits, vacation days, etc. But firms are now far more concerned about the best legal status than before.