Thread: How Will Supreme Court Rule on Obamacare Mandate Provision

Originally Posted by JAD_333

RR, this can't be a comment on what I said.

Just the part about republicans focusing on the economy if we'd followed their positions we'd be calling this the great depression of the 00s. Just the idea they were screaming for tight money to fight inflation when we were actually on the precipice of a deflationary cycle would of been a disater let alone all the other "fixes" from austerity(seeUK) to closaing GM. Austerity is about entitlements not the cuts in non discretionary spending in a recession and require long term fixes not default brinkmanship followed by sequestration regret

Originally Posted by Bridgeburner_

On an unrelated note,

Is there any recommended reading from anyone here on how a layman can make head or tails of this healthcare situation? The more I know about it, the less I really know.

It really depends on your situation. if you already have VA socialized medicine or socialized Medicare or Medicaid it does nothing. If you have an employer based plan in a small shop thery may shift you to a pool to reduce m costs, if you have one of those BS catastrophic policies that are catastrophes when you need them there will now be minimum standards and no longer policies like those which as little as half the premium is used for care now the requirement is 80-20. No longer will you deal with we dont cover that because the minimums will be clear on low end policies. If you loose your job at 50 you can still get health insurance same with if you have diabetes or hemophelia or heart disease. No more can free loaders pass the cost of their ER care on the rest of us. If they want to make that gamble it now requires they pay a tax and have some skin in the game beyond their credit rating. Remeber this isnt some novel idea that came from no where. It's a bit more capitalistic but similar to a few other nations plans and similar to Romneycare and similar to the plans many republicans had previously supported. It isn't the OH NOES companies wont go beyond 49 people disaster the bottom line

How does the bill work for businesses?

Here’s how that works: If you are a firm with more than 50 employees, and do not offer health insurance as a benefit, and at least one of your full-time employees gets a subsidy from the federal government to purchase health insurance on his or her own, you would have to pay Washington a fee of $2,000 for every one of your full-time workers. (Company accountants take note: you could subtract the first 30 of your employees from that assessment.)

YAYYYYYYY no more welfare for walmart it's about time they had to pay for the public benefits their full time employees get. If a company pays a real living wage no one will qualify for the subsidy. It only applies to companies that pay so little they pass the cost of healthcare on to the rest of us now

BB,

I don't see the morality however in penalizing a person who has no interest whatsoever in the health of another random, unrelated individual and punishing him for his choice to excerize his capital as he sees fit.

"I don't see the morality however in penalizing a person who has no interest whatsoever in another random, unrelated individual and punishing him for his choice to exercise his capital as he sees fit."

eliminated one word from your sentence, and suddenly you have a case for no taxes, or no government at all.

on the healthcare front, as i said before, the only way you can square this is if hospitals are also prohibited from treating people who don't pay for themselves. same principle.

z,

Dale got it, no offense meant, just what I think based on his past comments.

no need for personal snark.

and now for something different...

Originally Posted by Bridgeburner_

On an unrelated note,

Is there any recommended reading from anyone here on how a layman can make head or tails of this healthcare situation? The more I know about it, the less I really know.

Suggest you browse the net and see what you can find. If you're lucky you'll find one that isn't biased to the right or the left. BTW, there are many good article-length pieces. You have to find them. Be sure to read all sides of the the issue. Anecdotes like Dor's are common and not to be shrugged off. But they are too often used as premises for universal health care. It is better to view health care from the POV of its benefit to society as a whole. Good luck with your search.

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

Just the part about republicans focusing on the economy if we'd followed their positions we'd be calling this the great depression of the 00s. Just the idea they were screaming for tight money to fight inflation when we were actually on the precipice of a deflationary cycle would of been a disater let alone all the other "fixes" from austerity(seeUK) to closaing GM. Austerity is about entitlements not the cuts in non discretionary spending in a recession and require long term fixes not default brinkmanship followed by sequestration regret

Really, for someone who appears to follow this question closely, it's amazing how you simplify matters. The Stimlus bill passed in 2009 with GOP help after Obama made several compromises. All but 10 GOP members voted against it in the House not because they opposed the stimulus in principle, but because they could without affecting the outcome, as the Dems held a commanding majority. In the Senate, the GOP could have killed the bill, but didn't. Why did the GOP mainly vote against the bill? Because of politics...if the stimulus failed, the GOP could blame the Dems; if it succeeded, well...

The idea that the GOP would have actually driven the economy into a depression is an urban myth concocted by the Dems and Obama supporters. I'll grant that, had the GOP actually gotten all it wanted at the time, the economy might have been worse off, but no one can say for sure, and to parrot that line just goes to show how people become convinced of things that didn't happen.

Originally Posted by DOR

Bridgeburner,

For what it's worth . . . my late father-in-law was a career solider and sole breadwinner. One of his daughters, now 43, is Downs Syndrome. They get by on his pension and medical benefits plus some social security and life insurance money. But, their full-time care giver, my sister-in-law, has no other job and no healthcare. She’s 60.

The Affordable Healthcare Act will make it possible for her to get medical insurance and to continue providing care for my mother-in-law and the dependent sister. Without it, my wife and I would be the only fallback, and we are already contributing quite a bit.

And I should go to jail for not wanting to help with that, exactly why?

-dale

JAD,

I'll grant that, had the GOP actually gotten all it wanted at the time, the economy might have been worse off, but no one can say for sure, and to parrot that line just goes to show how people become convinced of things that didn't happen.

that seems weak, though.

'well dems might have been right but we'll never actually know.'

to flip it around, how then are republicans so sure that the stimulus/healthcare/etc all hurt the economy? it seems to me that certainty in the face of a lot of variables is part of the definition of partisanship or ideology! the best we can do is look at predictive analysis, which will have to do until we one day have that perfect crystal ball.

and predictive analysis (and for that matter, what real world examples we do have) has not been very kind to republican assumptions lately, such as the Laffer Curve or the Austrian school of economics.

Originally Posted by astralis

JAD,



that seems weak, though.

'well dems might have been right but we'll never actually know.'

to flip it around, how then are republicans so sure that the stimulus/healthcare/etc all hurt the economy? it seems to me that certainty in the face of a lot of variables is part of the definition of partisanship or ideology! the best we can do is look at predictive analysis, which will have to do until we one day have that perfect crystal ball.

and predictive analysis (and for that matter, what real world examples we do have) has not been very kind to republican assumptions lately, such as the Laffer Curve or the Austrian school of economics.

Real world examples we have of socialism are far less kind to Democratic assumptions, but you guys keep humping that log anyway. So even if your claim is true, give us our log to hump too.

-dale

dale,

And I should go to jail for not wanting to help with that, exactly why?

-dale

no, you wouldn't.

Supreme Court upholds health care law - NBC Politics

Congress specifically did not allow the use of liens and seizures of property as methods of enforcing the penalty.

Non-compliance with the mandate is also not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Tax Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay the penalty in a timely manner, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

dale,

Real world examples we have of socialism are far less kind to Democratic assumptions, but you guys keep humping that log anyway.

considering i'm a Third Wayer, i don't think 'socialism' really fits my assumptions or beliefs...

and thus, considering how Third Way/moderate assumptions HAVE fit in pretty darn well with what works in the real world-- hell, our ideology IS pragmatism-- i say i have the ability to laugh at both sides with some level of impunity...