SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS ObamaCare

[curious 2]

ThinkinMan wrote:

<quoted text>
Good information!! Sometimes the fine print is the hardest to read and the least talked about, but bites you in the keester before you realize the damage.

Yes, this is information that the public needs to know, so people when you read this pass it along. Don't you think it's kinda of funny how they have kept it out of all the news media? I think the people should contact their representatives and start asking questions about why this has been kept secret, I run across the topic by accident and to beat all it had to come from Blue Cross Blue Shield of ALABAMA!

[hillbillyboy]

Wow, the medicare cost of less than $100.00 a months now, going up to nearly $250.00 per month in 2014 under Obamacare!

Cost of insurance going up! Wow!

And all deceitfully times so as not to happen until after the election. What a dirty job!

Liberal Democrat supporters are so gullible, arent they?

They are probably going around saying "Obamas for the poor man!"

Its sad really, isnt it? That anybody could look at ther biggest corporate fleecing job in American history, and still convince themselves that it is a good thing!

I guess there is a sucker born every minute!

[Hmmm]

hillbillyboy wrote:

Wow, the medicare cost of less than $100.00 a months now, going up to nearly $250.00 per month in 2014 under Obamacare!
Cost of insurance going up! Wow!
And all deceitfully times so as not to happen until after the election. What a dirty job!
Liberal Democrat supporters are so gullible, arent they?
They are probably going around saying "Obamas for the poor man!"
Its sad really, isnt it? That anybody could look at ther biggest corporate fleecing job in American history, and still convince themselves that it is a good thing!
I guess there is a sucker born every minute!

Hmm, a particularly nasty tone today...

[hillbillyboy]

I wonder if any Americans ever look up from the (junk food) crumb littered sofa in front of the TV, disregard the endless soft-peddle, spoon fed, pre-digested intellectual drivel they are spoon fed by corporate media in the form of sound bites and spin , and actually have an original thought about anything from time to time?

(Actual thought-not to be confused with gas)

For, if they did, they might be a litle miffed at the Liberals on the Supreme Court for being judicial activist. That is to say,they do not content themselves with determining the constitutionality of a law.

They write laws, change laws, and nullify existing laws.

With Obamacare, for example, they did them both.

The penalty on the mandate as it was specifically writen in the law, and understood and stated by both houses of Congress and the Executive branch (President) all stated specifically and adamantly that the penalty was not a tax,nor was it ever intended to be a tax. That is how Obamacare went into the Supreme Court.

The Supremes re-wrote the law themselves and transformed it into a tax.

And secondly, the Constitution clearly says that all taxes must originate inthe House of Representatives. The Obamacare tax/penalty originated in the Senate. Thus, if it is a tax, its an illegal tax. That should have killed Obamacare right there as unconstitutional.

Any first year law student, or even an alert and informed citizen can see that.

The Supreme Court then, practiced judicial nullification, by refusing to follow or observe the statute of that particular law. Thus, the Supremes had to nullify yet another part of the Constitution just to play partisan politics and pass Obamacare.

This is a golden example of why some judicial reform is badly needed in America.

Now, Congress does have the power to regulate the SCOTUS as it sees fit.But they have to get up off their crumb infested couches before the TV sets, and get energized to do something good for America.

But they aint going to do anything unless the people make them.

Somebody has to be the first ones off the couch!

[hillbillyboy]

BTW, if anybody is interested in the tax thing about Obamacare, they can look up Article 1 Section 7,Clause 1 (Origination Clause) of the US Constitution. A tax bill must originate in the House of Representatives.

Obamacare originated in the Senate.

So, the Supremes changed the law they were given, and made a tax (quasi-legal) out of what was intended to be a penalty (clearly illegal).

And by so doing, they made the entire Obamacare unconstitutional, in violation of the origination clause mentioned above.

What did the republicans do about it?

Well, they are doing some ineffective gesturing, with the House repealing Obamacare for about the 31st time, with everyone knowing it will fail in the Senate.

Useless gesture.

Why dont the Republicans do something a little bit more likely to bring results?

Starting with some judicial reform might shake some of the gridlock loose. I think they should start with some of that.

Partisan Politics as usual in Washington. Poor old Constitution. It dont get no respect anymore?

[ThinkinMan]

The following was an opinion written by Texas Gov. Rick Perry in the 7/12/12 edition of USA TODAY:

Rick Perry: ObamaCare a bad deal for the states

As a general rule, the more a salesman offers you to sign a long-term contract, the closer you should scrutinize the deal. That's the situation we're facing in Texas, as the Obama administration extends a handful of cash with one hand while keeping a sledgehammer behind its back.

Setting aside the brazen intrusion into state sovereignty and the gross federal overreach, the practical problem with ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion is that the product the administration is selling is broken. State and federal budgets are simply unable to handle an expansion of this magnitude.

While the news media fixate on the substantial amount of debt-financed money Washington is offering states to close the deal, they're ignoring the massive, long-term costs such an expansion would bring.

In Texas, Medicaid already accounts for more than 20% of our general revenue spending, with that number threatening to skyrocket further in the next budgetary cycle. Many states must cut services in essential areas such as education and public safety just to keep Medicaid solvent, and that's even before any expansion.

The president's plan promises to pay the state share of expansion for a few years. However, that "federal" money is still taxpayer financed, whether it's collected or borrowed. That flow of money will, necessarily, come to an end, and states will be left with a massive bill that can't even be estimated yet.

When it comes to ObamaCare's insurance exchanges, they aren't the free-market solution they're advertised to be. Texas was given an option of setting up a state exchange, but we'd be required to set up a system using federal rules and federal guidelines, with little to no state flexibility in its execution.

There's no advantage for our state to go to the trouble and expense of setting up a state system that's essentially a federally controlled operation. To add to the difficulty, many of the federal rules have yet to be written.

ObamaCare is one long-term contract nobody should sign, and I'm proud to stand with other governors in opposition to these costly and misguided programs.

[ThinkinMan]

ThinkinMan wrote:

..........
That's the situation we're facing in Texas, as the Obama administration extends a handful of cash with one hand while keeping a sledgehammer behind its back.
..........
State and federal budgets are simply unable to handle an expansion of this magnitude.

..........the substantial amount of debt-financed money Washington is offering states to close the deal, they're ignoring the massive, long-term costs such an expansion would bring.
..........
Many states must cut services in essential areas such as education and public safety just to keep Medicaid solvent, and that's even before any expansion.
..........
However, that "federal" money is still taxpayer financed, whether it's collected or borrowed. That flow of money will, necessarily, come to an end, and states will be left with a massive bill that can't even be estimated yet.
..........
Texas was given an option of setting up a state exchange, but we'd be required to set up a system using federal rules and federal guidelines, with little to no state flexibility in its execution.
..........To add to the difficulty, many of the federal rules have yet to be written.

I know that most of the states that are choosing to opt out of the Medicaid expansion have Republican governors, but surely they are not the only people who see that some of the ObamaCare legislation is a "make it up as you go" plan and is going to be debt-financed. It is only natural that some governors would be leery when Uncle Sam begins offering cash in return for Medicaid expansion because the federal gov't is operating at a deficit -- meaning that we do not have a surplus of cash to pay for this NEW program(s). We have to remember that every dollar that gets borrowed will need to be paid back sometime -- and who is going to be saddled with that payback -- the little ol' taxpayer!!!

The costs of ObamaCare for the most part cannot be calculated -- they are being guestimated -- and if Obama happens to be re-elected -- the real impact of this legislation will not be felt until long after he is gone. ObamaCare is going to end up being a BIG FINANCIAL klooge on the American taxpayer just like welfare and social security -- and our descendents in the next century will probably be miserable with the debt that we have left them.

[Hmm]

ThinkinMan wrote:

The following was an opinion written by Texas Gov. Rick Perry in the 7/12/12 edition of USA TODAY:
Rick Perry: ObamaCare a bad deal for the states
As a general rule, the more a salesman offers you to sign a long-term contract, the closer you should scrutinize the deal. That's the situation we're facing in Texas, as the Obama administration extends a handful of cash with one hand while keeping a sledgehammer behind its back.
Setting aside the brazen intrusion into state sovereignty and the gross federal overreach, the practical problem with ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion is that the product the administration is selling is broken. State and federal budgets are simply unable to handle an expansion of this magnitude.
While the news media fixate on the substantial amount of debt-financed money Washington is offering states to close the deal, they're ignoring the massive, long-term costs such an expansion would bring.
In Texas, Medicaid already accounts for more than 20% of our general revenue spending, with that number threatening to skyrocket further in the next budgetary cycle. Many states must cut services in essential areas such as education and public safety just to keep Medicaid solvent, and that's even before any expansion.
The president's plan promises to pay the state share of expansion for a few years. However, that "federal" money is still taxpayer financed, whether it's collected or borrowed. That flow of money will, necessarily, come to an end, and states will be left with a massive bill that can't even be estimated yet.
When it comes to ObamaCare's insurance exchanges, they aren't the free-market solution they're advertised to be. Texas was given an option of setting up a state exchange, but we'd be required to set up a system using federal rules and federal guidelines, with little to no state flexibility in its execution.
There's no advantage for our state to go to the trouble and expense of setting up a state system that's essentially a federally controlled operation. To add to the difficulty, many of the federal rules have yet to be written.
ObamaCare is one long-term contract nobody should sign, and I'm proud to stand with other governors in opposition to these costly and misguided programs.

I didnt even get past the first line of that due to who you said wrote it...Perry makes Bush look intelligent.

[ThinkinMan]

Hmm wrote:

<quoted text>
I didnt even get past the first line of that due to who you said wrote it...Perry makes Bush look intelligent.

...Not asking you to agree with Perry's commentary -- I mean he is in a position to see certain aspects that "Joe Local" is not going to see or experience. As I have stated before, there are certain parts of ObamaCare that are good ideas and that "low-hanging fruit" has already been implemented. However; the rest of the "fruit" is going to be a little more difficult to get and I think Perry and the other Republican governors have highlighted some issues that cannot be ignored.

I remember when ObamaCare came to the floor for a vote, the Dem's had a "no compromise" attitude -- it was as if they wanted to shove it down America's throat. And let me be clear, the Rep's have done the same in other issues but this party-line crappola has to end somewhere. As of today, there are way to many unanswered questions about ObamaCare not only for the states but also for the taxpayer.

[Hmm]

ThinkinMan wrote:

<quoted text>
...Not asking you to agree with Perry's commentary -- I mean he is in a position to see certain aspects that "Joe Local" is not going to see or experience. As I have stated before, there are certain parts of ObamaCare that are good ideas and that "low-hanging fruit" has already been implemented. However; the rest of the "fruit" is going to be a little more difficult to get and I think Perry and the other Republican governors have highlighted some issues that cannot be ignored.
I remember when ObamaCare came to the floor for a vote, the Dem's had a "no compromise" attitude -- it was as if they wanted to shove it down America's throat. And let me be clear, the Rep's have done the same in other issues but this party-line crappola has to end somewhere. As of today, there are way to many unanswered questions about ObamaCare not only for the states but also for the taxpayer.

You gotta be able to see the other side of that coin also..they were probably frustrated and tired of dealing with the "party of no" so when they had the numbers it was payback time. I dont really care about the semantics of how it got passed, its either good legislation or its not. All I see if people who poopoo it because they dont like Obama. If you all would stop being so one-sided and list the pros and cons your argument would carry alot more weight.

[ThinkinMan]

Hmm wrote:

<quoted text>
You gotta be able to see the other side of that coin also..they were probably frustrated and tired of dealing with the "party of no" so when they had the numbers it was payback time. I dont really care about the semantics of how it got passed, its either good legislation or its not. All I see if people who poopoo it because they dont like Obama. If you all would stop being so one-sided and list the pros and cons your argument would carry alot more weight.

CONS:

Individual Mandate: Obamacare includes a requirement that everyone buy government-approved health insurance or face a penalty (tax).

Employer Mandate: Obamacare includes a requirement that employers with 50 or more employees provide government-approved health insurance or face a fine.

Health Care Subsidies: Obamacare spends more than $400 billion in the first 10 years to subsidize health insurance offered through government-designed exchanges.

Medicaid Expansion: Obamacare requires states to expand an already broken Medicaid program that is squeezing state budgets and providing poor-quality care. More than half of the reduction in uninsured under Obamacare comes from expanding this failing welfare program.

Medicare Cuts: Obamacare cuts more than $500 billion from Medicare—not to shore up Medicare’s long-term solvency, but to pay for new spending in Medicaid and new health care subsidies.

Independent Payment Advisory Board: Obamacare puts in place an unelected board to reduce payments to Medicare providers.

CLASS Act: Obamacare creates a new long-term care entitlement program for all Americans. The program is actuarially unsound and fiscally irresponsible. Its flawed design has led the Administration to put its implementation on hold.

New Taxes: Obamacare includes more than $500 billion in new taxes. Many of these new taxes will be passed on to consumers in higher prices, while others will lead to higher tax rates on work and investment and discourage economic growth.

Government Regulation and Benefit Mandates: Obamacare adds layers of regulation and benefit mandates on insurers and the insurance market and on employer health plans.

[ThinkinMan]

PROS:

Insurance companies cannot deny children coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Parents can put their children up to age 26 on their health insurance plans.

People with existing health insurance will keep it.

Obamacare does not apply to businesses with less than 50 employees.

[Hmm]

ThinkinMan wrote:

PROS:
Insurance companies cannot deny children coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Parents can put their children up to age 26 on their health insurance plans.
People with existing health insurance will keep it.
Obamacare does not apply to businesses with less than 50 employees.

You left out the biggest pro...millions more Americans now have health coverage who had none before. That was the driving force behind the legislation from the beginning.

[Cindy]

A juvenile diabetic can stay on his parent's insurance until he is 26. Then he can get his own insurance, because the law won't let him be turned down for a pre-existing condition. So many lives, and young lives will be helped by this bill.

[hillbillyboy]

Cindy wrote:

A juvenile diabetic can stay on his parent's insurance until he is 26. Then he can get his own insurance, because the law won't let him be turned down for a pre-existing condition. So many lives, and young lives will be helped by this bill.

Except, that nationalized health care is most likely to mean...get this...rationed health care.

Folks with mild health problems will worsen (some may die) while wading through endless miles of government beaurocracy and red tape, waiting lines, and the inevitable budget cut backs.

Budget cut backs mean less treatment for the sick. See how that works?

The Obamacare supporters look at the theoretical benifits, and that is what sells them.

The Oponenets of Obamacare look at the practical problems it will face when it has to leave the sound bite stage and enter the real world.

Not to mention the Orwellian aspects of it all.

Good in theory often times results in disaster in practice. Just like thew "unsinkable" Titanic.

Theoretical usually fails when comfronted with real world.

[say what]

hillbillyboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Except, that nationalized health care is most likely to mean...get this...rationed health care.
Folks with mild health problems will worsen (some may die) while wading through endless miles of government beaurocracy and red tape, waiting lines, and the inevitable budget cut backs.
Budget cut backs mean less treatment for the sick. See how that works?
.

Complete speculation unless you have a crystal ball we don't know about. No way we can know exactly how general health care will be affected (I doubt people with "mild health problems" will be falling dead in the streets) but so many want to take the glass half empty outlook. And if rationed health care means more poor and children get their basic health care needs met so be it. The more prosperous of us can afford to pay a bit more anyway.

[Ouch]

Most people who are opposed to it, don't even know why. They've just been told to oppose it. It's a great big multi billion dollar war effort that will never come to pass. John Roberts knows that. Why don't you????.

[hillbillieboy]

say what wrote:

<quoted text>
Complete speculation unless you have a crystal ball we don't know about. No way we can know exactly how general health care will be affected (I doubt people with "mild health problems" will be falling dead in the streets) but so many want to take the glass half empty outlook. And if rationed health care means more poor and children get their basic health care needs met so be it. The more prosperous of us can afford to pay a bit more anyway.

Yes, everywhere that nationalized health care has been tried it has eventually become a ration system, No crystal ball needed to predict anything, one just need remove head from sand and pay attention to what the other nations have been telling us for years.
And no, it dont mean more kids getting the care they need.
Remember "metal mouth" from the James Bond movies? The Russian guy with all of the very bad, frankenstein dental work?
Welcome to nationalized health care. Is that what the kids need, to look like metal mouth? Just because that sort of oral surgery may be cheaper than doing it right?
Ask the insurance company lobbyist what their clients are interested in, kids very best at whatever expense, or cutting corners to improve the bottom lines of the insurance companies?
Reality time. Come on Liberal democrats, lets pull our heads down out of the clouds and get our feet on the ground. Obamacare is about $$$.
$$$ talks.

[ThinkinMan]

say what wrote:

<quoted text>
Complete speculation unless you have a crystal ball we don't know about. No way we can know exactly how general health care will be affected (I doubt people with "mild health problems" will be falling dead in the streets) but so many want to take the glass half empty outlook. And if rationed health care means more poor and children get their basic health care needs met so be it. The more prosperous of us can afford to pay a bit more anyway.

Insurance companies use actuarial science to determine what they are going to do. Actuarial science is the discipline that applies mathematical and statistical methods to assess risk in the insurance and finance industries. Actuarial science includes a number of interrelating subjects, including probability, mathematics, statistics, finance, economics, financial economics, and computer programming.

All that being said, what it basically comes down to is this: it may be more cost efficient for an insurance company to pay some possible? future damage claim than to provide benefits to those in need in the present. The insurance industry has been using this methodology for years and they do not care about the best interests of the patients -- their best interests concerns the bottom line of the corporate balance sheet. In the end, ObamaCare is all about money and the insurance companies could care less if the money they receive is borrowed on the backs of the American taxpayer. Let's face it, ObamaCare has expanded their possible customer base with "guaranteed" payment from Uncle Sam -- and they have nothing to do except collect the money. It would be interesting to know how many professional politicians are getting a "kick-back" for their vote.

[say what]

hillbillieboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, everywhere that nationalized health care has been tried it has eventually become a ration system, No crystal ball needed to predict anything, one just need remove head from sand and pay attention to what the other nations have been telling us for years.
And no, it dont mean more kids getting the care they need.
Remember "metal mouth" from the James Bond movies? The Russian guy with all of the very bad, frankenstein dental work?
Welcome to nationalized health care. Is that what the kids need, to look like metal mouth? Just because that sort of oral surgery may be cheaper than doing it right?
Ask the insurance company lobbyist what their clients are interested in, kids very best at whatever expense, or cutting corners to improve the bottom lines of the insurance companies?
Reality time. Come on Liberal democrats, lets pull our heads down out of the clouds and get our feet on the ground. Obamacare is about $$$.
$$$ talks.

Ah, Hillbilly gets more cynical each day. I remember the earlier posts where you made more sense as a moderate who questioned both parties. Now your posts smack of partisan Republican rhetoric, going out of your way to demonize anything remotely Democratic. They used to carry alot more weight but now just sound like Fox news anytime you tune in.