Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

ok ,I get it you don't like the man but this is BS.


He's being sarcastic if you couldn't tell.

Senate theatrics over taxes - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/07/senate-theatrics-over-taxes-128627.html)

Here you go fellow GOPers. Your boys in the Senate denying tax cuts for small businesses unless the Democrats extend Bush's tax cuts for the rich again... :laughing2



Tell me again how it's Obama's fault? (I say this partly in jest)

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured....but not everyone must prove they are a citizen."


Given that there people who don't have identification papers who have managed to vote in many elections it is incumbent upon the government not the governed to prove citizenry....and since there is no wide spread prevalence of election fraud it is even more imperative for the government make a strong case for these voter ID laws.

A poll tax by any other name is a poll tax, especially when it is enacted during an election year.

Some more lulz. (and irony) Almost hilarious (yet saddening) to watch people vote against their own best interest all to tow the party line.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/states-benefit-medciaid-expansion.jpg

Benefit me? This can't be!! The GOP said it wouldn't!! SO did Fox News!!

Some more lulz. (and irony) Almost hilarious (yet saddening) to watch people vote against their own best interest all to tow the party line.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/states-benefit-medciaid-expansion.jpg

Benefit me? This can't be!! The GOP said it wouldn't!! SO did Fox News!!


Hopefully their governors will follow in Rick Perry's footsteps and opt-out. I doubt they will be sincere though. Much like they did with the stimulus they will tell their incompetent base one thing while writing letters to the administration behind the scenes that reads like the pleas of Kolkata street beggars.

He's being sarcastic if you couldn't tell.

....nope,don't know how I missed it.

I haven't seen one healthcare economist or insurance industry study that says your healthcare premiums will get jacked up to pay for someone else's healthcare plan. If you can show me ONE independent study reflecting that, I'm all ears.
http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/8226.pdf

Obamacare Has Increased Cost of Health Insurance, Says Kaiser Foundation | CNSNews.com (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamacare-has-increased-cost-health-insurance-says-kaiser-foundation)

From the link: "However, he continued, “Our analysis is that the Affordable Care Act [ObamaCare] could have been responsible for about one-and-a-half percentage points – we say 1 to 2 percentage points – of the increase that we’re documenting this year,” he said."

and that's just from 2010 to 2011, when most of the provisions haven't kicked in.

and this: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-premiums.pdf

From the link: CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law.

and this from PolitiFact (no bastion of conservatism for sure):
PolitiFact | Nancy Pelosi says 'everybody' will get more and pay less under the health care law (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/06/nancy-pelosi/nancy-pelosi-says-everybody-will-get-more-and-pay-/)

Even one of the main architects of Obamacare is changing his tune:
How Obamacare Dramatically Increases the Cost of Insurance for Young Workers - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/22/how-obamacare-dramatically-increases-the-cost-of-insurance-for-young-workers/)

from the link:
"Gruber now: Obamacare will increase premiums by 19-30 percent
As states began the process of considering whether or not to set up the insurance exchanges mandated by the new health law, several retained Gruber as a consultant. In at least three cases—Wisconsin (http://blogs-images.forbes.com/aroy/files/2012/02/Gruber-WI.pdf) in August 2011, Minnesota (http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Minnesota_Gruber_Nov_17_2011.pdf) in November 2011, and Colorado (http://blogs-images.forbes.com/aroy/files/2012/02/Gruber-CO.pdf) in January 2012—Gruber reported that premiums in the individual market would increase, not decrease, as a result of Obamacare.
In Wisconsin, Gruber reported that people purchasing insurance for themselves on the individual market would see, on average, premium increases of 30 percent by 2016, relative to what would have happened in the absence of Obamacare. In Minnesota, the law would increase premiums by 29 percent over the same period. Colorado was the least worst off, with premiums under the law rising by only 19 percent."

And just sayin: When Medicare was passed in 1965, for example, the federal government estimated it would cost $12 billion in 1990. Medicare actually cost $110 billion in 1990.

Given that there people who don't have identification papers who have managed to vote in many elections it is incumbent upon the government not the governed to prove citizenry....and since there is no wide spread prevalence of election fraud it is even more imperative for the government make a strong case for these voter ID laws.

A poll tax by any other name is a poll tax, especially when it is enacted during an election year.

The only reason I can see why people object to this law is that they beleive that some people are to dumb to bring an ID to vote. Hell, even if they forget their ID they can still vote and their ID checked following the election. BTW that quote did not say one thing about voter ID.

Some more lulz. (and irony) Almost hilarious (yet saddening) to watch people vote against their own best interest all to tow the party line.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/states-benefit-medciaid-expansion.jpg

Benefit me? This can't be!! The GOP said it wouldn't!! SO did Fox News!!

That's the problem now days people just look at how something benefits them and they don't care that other have to pay for it.

The only reason I can see why people object to this law is that they beleive that some people are to dumb to bring an ID to vote. Hell, even if they forget their ID they can still vote and their ID checked following the election. BTW that quote did not say one thing about voter ID.

It's not that they are too dumb, it is that they have never had an ID or needed one. And the implication of your statement can't be misconstrued to mean anything other than for a citizen to show some kind of an identificaiton to "prove" their ability to vote.

There are two ways to prove citizenry and both require the government to be proactive in the verification process. One way places unnecessary burden upon the citizens and the other does not.

The burdensome way is what unscrupulous Republicans are doing which is to force citizens to spend money and energy to obtain a passport, birth certificate or a drivers license obtained by first proving citizenship. And if they don't have any documents at all they have to look to the government, the same government asking them to prove citizenship, to get more documents that show they are indeed citizens.

The unburdensome way is what we do here in Washington state. Anyone can show up to the DMV and register to vote or reigister online. Once the state has your information it checks your name and information against a database that contains all voters eligable to vote based on national citizenship and felons records. Once the election is complete the voting records are made available for participating parties to see and any party can challenge a voter's vote. The voter is then notified of the challenge and they have until the date the election is suppose to be certified prove that the challenge is unfounded.

At the end of the day what we in Washington state is what every state should be doing regardless of a citizens ability to show an ID. Common sense tells you that the government should proactively verify whether a voter can vote in an election cycle and if they can do that then why do you even need an ID? You can't tell me that the government that issued you an ID that proves your citizenship status doesn't know your citizenship status or can't verify it.


Innocent until proven guilty, you understand?