Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Those links really don't support your own positions very much:

"Swamped by other factors". Not very comforting. Especially since we all know out premiums are indeed going up, for all the "concessions" made by the health care industry to cover more people.

Not sure how they don't support my position when I didn't state a position. I stated that Fox News was exaggerating and distorting, which they were. They make it to seem that this tax is going to end jobs, stifle innovation, and make health care costs go up that much more. The stuff I posted (one being from somebody within the industry) says otherwise. Also, I really doubt companies are cutting back on R&D right now in response to any taxes. Many companies use stuff like this as a scapegoat so they can be cheap and make more money.

(articles on how employers use situations like these as a excuse)

Using the economy as an excuse to shortchange employees | Raoul Pop

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/fa...pagewanted=all

It's a cop out.

[NC_Skins]

In a perfect world, we would have a small government that had minimum regulations and restrictions on its people and its economy.

The sad reality of it, is that you have to hold people's hand in order to get them to do the right thing. Don't believe me, take away all laws and see what happens. It always is a double edge sword, but sometimes it is a necessary one.


Remove regulations from banks and corporations. They'll end up collapsing the economy and providing workers with unsafe conditions and petty pay.

Remove EPA regulations and the environment will be destroyed by corporations and businesses trying to make a buck.

Now, I would rather our government not be involved, but it's been proven time and time and time and TIME again that businesses (and people) have to be regulated.

The thing that kills me with most conservatives is that what do they actually think is going to happen when you deregulate? They are allowed to run wild, and that's exactly what they'll do. Why? Because their primary focus is to make as much as money as possible, even if that means using unethical means to do it.


Do we really want to go back to these days? I know the rich elites do.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Not sure how they don't support my position when I didn't state a position. I stated that Fox News was exaggerating and distorting, which they were. They make it to seem that this tax is going to end jobs, stifle innovation, and make health care costs go up that much more. The stuff I posted (one being from somebody within the industry) says otherwise. Also, I really doubt companies are cutting back on R&D right now in response to any taxes. Many companies use stuff like this as a scapegoat so they can be cheap and make more money.

(articles on how employers use situations like these as a excuse)

Using the economy as an excuse to shortchange employees | Raoul Pop

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/fa...pagewanted=all

It's a cop out.

I love your links. The first one had an unnamed first example. The 2nd used Adobe saying it laid off employees and was not loosing business but the link showed their stock had gone from $40 some dollars to $20 some (that raking in the profits). The second uses a nanny who was not doing her job as an example. LMAO

[12thMan]

@mlmpetert,

This is a really good way to frame the discussion. Good questions. Some I've considered but mostly on the pro-side. Before I delve into my answer(s), I just want to correct one or two things you said and then take a step back to help understand "Obamacare" from a slightly different angle.

It's not a bill. It's the law of the land and has been for two years. I know you know that, but it makes a difference in terms of how we discuss and/or debate the law. Once we peel back the term "Obamacare" for a second and call it by it's proper name, The Patient's Bill of Rights/Affordable Care Act, that too makes a huge difference. Most people hear "Obamacare" and immediately certain images, right or wrong, pop into their heads. For the sake of our discussion, Obamacare is fine. Just wanted to point that out.

Secondly, this law doesn't cover ALL Americans. It covers approximately 30 million (revised number per CBO). That's it. No undocumented immigrants and no one gets free medical care. No free rides. Period. That said, all Americans insurance plans aren't directly affected by this law. So most of what we're debating isn't what falls under the Patient Bill of Rights Act portion, because if we go point by point, the vast majority of people here -- left and right -- would agree with most of those rights. What we're debating is the individual mandate. Correct? The idea that those who *don't* have insurance should. Okay, that sounds pretty libertarian to me. Pull your own weight, pal. Is that an expansion of the social safety net. Sure. But it's also an economic imperative. Too much of the nations debt, too much of our GDP is driven by healthcare costs. It's ludicrous to say you're a fiscal hawk and want to do absolutely nothing about our broken healthcare system. It doesn't make moral sense or fiscal sense.

And to that end, I absolutely agree with the court's decision. Whether it falls under the Commerce Clause or the Congress' taxing authority is besides the point in my opinion. It's the law of the land. It was the right thing to do. Republicans believed so in the 90s, Democrats got it passed in the 2000s. This wasn't a unique idea. This wasn't some new radical Obama agenda. Both parties have embraced the idea of universal healthcare at one time or another. The political will power just wasn't there in the past. This time is was and the Supreme Court validated the law passed by the other two branches of government. So you have ALL three branches on the same page regarding a Republican concept.

In terms of Nanny State and redistribution of wealth. I touched on this earlier. There are no giveaways under this law. You can't give me one example, under this law, of "free health insurance". In fact, you appear to contradicting yourself. You say Congress is forcing people to buy insurance, then you turnaround and call it free and wealth distribution. Which is it? There are some tax credits for lower income families who decide to purchase insurance. That's hardly Nanny state. I've yet to see a definitive argument that explains how this is redistribution of wealth. I'm open ears if you want to take a stab it.

The Supreme Court limited the Medicaid provision of the law, basically giving the states ability to deny funding or opt out. In some cases I don't think it's a wise move, but I can live with states making decisions based on the needs of the people and not politics. My biggest concern is how do we address cost containment. I've neither read nor heard anything that says with certainty that costs will come down dramatically because of the law. It's an imperfect law with room for improvement. Just like Social Security and other social programs that passed in their original form. It will be a lot better in the coming years.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I love your links. The first one had an unnamed first example. The 2nd used Adobe saying it laid off employees and was not loosing business but the link showed their stock had gone from $40 some dollars to $20 some (that raking in the profits). The second uses a nanny who was not doing her job as an example. LMAO

Yes. They showed where Adobe reported record revenues and still laid off people.

Adobe registered fourth-quarter revenue of $915.3 million, up $4.1 million from Q4 2007 and up $23.9 million from last quarter. Net revenue was $245.9 million, working out to 46 cents / share. Annual revenues were also record-breaking -- $3.580 billion, for 13% year-over-year growth. That's in line with the company's targets at the start of the year.

It's not hard to figure this out. It's called PR. Why would a company take the negative PR hit on slashing jobs when they can just point at the economy and use that as an excuse? The point of the links was to show that instead of companies (small, big, etc) coming out and taking the negative PR hit, they just used the shitty economy as their excuse to lay off people(or fire nannies) even if the bad economy didn't affect them in any way. Politicians then piggy back off of the companies excuses to blame whoever is in office at the time for such job loss even though it had nothing to do with them.

Also, you do realize you can be highly productive and your stock still plummet right? You do realize that in 2008, the stock market and Wall Street took a huge dump? You remember, your good ole buddy GWB right? Those years!

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Dear god. Fox news again? Sammy, for the love of god stop reading that crap.

As usual, they distort and exaggerate the truth. Let's start with that first point.

At this point, Fox News should be treated much like The Onion when it comes to stories.

As usual with you and 12th, you'll discount anything from Fox without reading/admiting the facts in their articles. I'm not going to comb through the actual Obamacare legislation to cite page/paragraph for the following points mentioned in the Fox link, but I'll cut out virtually all the commentary. Still leaves some pretty hefty tax increases that I noticed you couldn't/didn't address in your response:

- Currently, Americans are allowed to deduct medical expenses on their 1040 form to the extent the costs exceed 7.5 percent of one’s adjusted gross income. The new ObamaCare provision will raise that threshold to 10 percent, subjecting patients to a higher tax bill. This tax will hit pre-retirement seniors the hardest. Over the next ten years, affected Americans will pony up a minimum total of $15 billion in taxes thanks to this provision.

- The 24 million Americans who have Flexible Spending Accounts will face a new federally imposed $2,500 annual cap. These pre-tax accounts, which currently have no federal limit.......The cap will also affect families with special-needs children, whose tuition can be covered using FSA funds. Special-needs tuition can cost up to $14,000 per child per year......so that the federal government can squeeze an additional $13 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years......

- Under current law, the capital gains tax rate for all Americans rises from 15 to 20 percent in 2013, while the top dividend rate rises from 15 to 39.6 percent. The new ObamaCare surtax takes the top capital gains rate to 23.8 percent and top dividend rate to 43.4 percent. The tax will take a minimum of $123 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.

- The ObamaCare Medicare Payroll Tax increase - This tax soaks employers to the tune of $86 billion over the next ten years.

When you can't counter the facts, try to disparage the source....must be straight from Rules for Radicals. If you guys discount Fox, I guess those on the right can discount CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, WaPo, NYT, LAT, etc.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

When you can't counter the facts, try to disparage the source....must be straight from Rules for Radicals. If you guys discount Fox, I guess those on the right can discount CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, WaPo, NYT, LAT, etc.

I said they distorted and exaggerated, not that any of their information was incorrect. I used the first point as a example of them saying how the tax on prosthetic limbs was going to cost jobs/research in that area. It's hogwash, and it's simply not the case as noted from the articles I posted.


Isn't the WaPo more conservative leaning? Also, if you think all those media outlets are left leaning then you have no idea what unbiased or neutral is. I had this right winger (a friend at that) tell me that the BBC news was not only liberal, but also anti-american.

Just because they (media) point out Fox's slants and trashy news, doesn't mean they are liberal. It means they are setting the record straight.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

- Currently, Americans are allowed to deduct medical expenses on their 1040 form to the extent the costs exceed 7.5 percent of one’s adjusted gross income. The new ObamaCare provision will raise that threshold to 10 percent, subjecting patients to a higher tax bill. This tax will hit pre-retirement seniors the hardest. Over the next ten years, affected Americans will pony up a minimum total of $15 billion in taxes thanks to this provision.

.

...we are allowed but how many hit it?Point is if it 7.5 or 10% I haven't hit it or would have hit it in the last 10 years,THIS WILL NOT EFFECT ME.I am a pre retirment senior,these numbers are thrown out but in reality ....noone knows.If I or the Mrs get sick (God forbid) then yes I might have a higher % to hit but the bill would be smaller and that is what all the anti Obama chicken littles are afraid of that Joe Public will find out.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Secondly, this law doesn't cover ALL Americans. It covers approximately 30 million (revised number per CBO). That's it. No undocumented immigrants and no one gets free medical care. No free rides. Period. That said, all Americans insurance plans aren't directly affected by this law. So most of what we're debating isn't what falls under the Patient Bill of Rights Act portion, because if we go point by point, the vast majority of people here -- left and right -- would agree with most of those rights. What we're debating is the individual mandate. Correct? The idea that those who *don't* have insurance should. Okay, that sounds pretty libertarian to me. Pull your own weight, pal. Is that an expansion of the social safety net. Sure. But it's also an economic imperative. Too much of the nations debt, too much of our GDP is driven by healthcare costs. It's ludicrous to say you're a fiscal hawk and want to do absolutely nothing about our broken healthcare system. It doesn't make moral sense or fiscal sense.

As it states, the law provides a tax credit to go toward the purchase of health insurance for those who qualify. Those who don't qualify (earns below a certain amount) will be covered by Medicaid's extended program. So while only 30 million would be covered under the tax credit, you how many more millions now will qualify for Medicaid? Obama has already came out, against his own party's will, and announced rising taxes for those making $250,000/per year and more, so we know that somebody has to cover the expensive of the extension of Medicaid.

Originally Posted by 12thMan

And to that end, I absolutely agree with the court's decision. Whether it falls under the Commerce Clause or the Congress' taxing authority is besides the point in my opinion. It's the law of the land. It was the right thing to do. Republicans believed so in the 90s, Democrats got it passed in the 2000s. This wasn't a unique idea. This wasn't some new radical Obama agenda. Both parties have embraced the idea of universal healthcare at one time or another. The political will power just wasn't there in the past. This time is was and the Supreme Court validated the law passed by the other two branches of government. So you have ALL three branches on the same page regarding a Republican concept.

This kind of sounds like a statement of a card carrying Democrat, lol! So, if it succeeds, it's the Democrats, but if it fails, it was a Republican concept?

Originally Posted by 12thMan

In terms of Nanny State and redistribution of wealth. I touched on this earlier. There are no giveaways under this law. You can't give me one example, under this law, of "free health insurance". In fact, you appear to contradicting yourself. You say Congress is forcing people to buy insurance, then you turnaround and call it free and wealth distribution. Which is it? There are some tax credits for lower income families who decide to purchase insurance. That's hardly Nanny state. I've yet to see a definitive argument that explains how this is redistribution of wealth. I'm open ears if you want to take a stab it.

Of course there's free health insurance. The Supreme Court past the decision that would allow this program to offer Medicaid extensions to cover those who "fall between the cracks" that otherwise before would not qualify for Medicaid. That money HAS to come from somewhere, where you do think the government is going to get that money? Again, President Obama has already came out this week and stated that he's pushing to have taxes raised for those making $250k+ a year instead of just millionaires now. So, even the President realizes that he's going to have to tax more in order to fund this program.

Originally Posted by 12thMan

The Supreme Court limited the Medicaid provision of the law, basically giving the states ability to deny funding or opt out. In some cases I don't think it's a wise move, but I can live with states making decisions based on the needs of the people and not politics. My biggest concern is how do we address cost containment. I've neither read nor heard anything that says with certainty that costs will come down dramatically because of the law. It's an imperfect law with room for improvement. Just like Social Security and other social programs that passed in their original form. It will be a lot better in the coming years.

We've been waiting for years for social security to improve, and alas, I won't have social security by the time I'm old enough to retire, so that's probably a bad example to compare this "law" to. As far as the Medicaid extension goes, in the end, it doesn't matter if the states have the right to opt out or not, they'll more than likely adopt the program, because it will probably wind up costing the states more in the long run not to.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Hyperbole anyone? Here is a link from the Aussie gov't on problems they admit they are facing in their own system. Now imagine how those problems will increase exponentially in the U.S with a much larger population.

yourHealth - 2. Problems with our health system today

I'm a Christian and I've got no problem going to church on Sunday and opposing Obamacare. There are already plenty of gov't programs in place to help the very poor. Obamacare is about gov't control, not helping the less fortunate. This clown needs to stop drinking the socialist kool-aid.

Oh, and this,
Austrailian Income taxes:
under $ 18K = $ 0
18-37K = 19%
37-80K = 32.5%
80 - 180K = 37%
over 180K = 45%
plus 1.5% Medicare tax on all
also 10% VAT (sales tax) which goes to the states

US Tax Brackets - Single Filing
$0 – $8,700 = 10%
$8,700 – $35,350 = 15%
$35,350 – $85,650 = 25%
$85,650 – $178,650 = 28%
$178,650 – $388,350 = 33%
Over $388,350 = $ 35%
plus 1.45% Medicare tax on individual, 1.45% on employer.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

In a perfect world, we would have a small government that had minimum regulations and restrictions on its people and its economy.

The sad reality of it, is that you have to hold people's hand in order to get them to do the right thing. Don't believe me, take away all laws and see what happens. It always is a double edge sword, but sometimes it is a necessary one.


Remove regulations from banks and corporations. They'll end up collapsing the economy and providing workers with unsafe conditions and petty pay.

Remove EPA regulations and the environment will be destroyed by corporations and businesses trying to make a buck.

Now, I would rather our government not be involved, but it's been proven time and time and time and TIME again that businesses (and people) have to be regulated.

The thing that kills me with most conservatives is that what do they actually think is going to happen when you deregulate? They are allowed to run wild, and that's exactly what they'll do. Why? Because their primary focus is to make as much as money as possible, even if that means using unethical means to do it.


Do we really want to go back to these days? I know the rich elites do.

NC_SKINS:

I don't know of any true conservatives that are for taking away laws altogether. I do know of extremist libertarians who believe in some sort of utopia of sorts where the gov't is skin and bones and any rescue, fire, and police service is all privately ran. Most conservatives that I know realize there needs to be some regulation in terms of protection, but at the same time, too much regulation is detrimental, and I believe that we have way too much regulation in this country which is crippling job growth. for instance, in the state of VA, it is illegal to grow Hemp, but not illegal to sale or buy it. The gov't right now has it on the controlled substance list, but removing it from this list would allow farmers in VA to grow it and create about 10,000 jobs in southside VA. Hemp is used in just about everything nowadays. That's just a small case of regulation that does not need regulation.

As far as regulation of pay, I think that is one area where the government should stay out of the way and allow the free market to decide how much that job is worth. If Company A pays crap, and company B pays better, employees will go to company B. It should be just that simple, but instead, the gov't wants to step in and say company A should pay X amount no matter if they have to cut jobs and downsize to do it. What is worse, getting paid a crappy salary or having no jobs at all? Just ask Southside VA.

But anyways, assuming that conservatives feel there should be no regulation is just plain stupid to me, but there should be a lot of deregulation going on.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Isn't the WaPo more conservative leaning? Also, if you think all those media outlets are left leaning then you have no idea what unbiased or neutral is. I had this right winger (a friend at that) tell me that the BBC news was not only liberal, but also anti-american.

WaPo is just as left as the NY Times. Wash Times is conservative leaning.

Just because they (media) point out Fox's slants and trashy news, doesn't mean they are liberal. It means they are setting the record straight.

Depends on perspective, you & 12th would consider Fox "slanted and trashy", me and those who are conservative would consider CNN, NBC, MSNBC, etc. "slanted and trashy".

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Giantone

...we are allowed but how many hit it?Point is if it 7.5 or 10% I haven't hit it or would have hit it in the last 10 years,THIS WILL NOT EFFECT ME.I am a pre retirment senior,these numbers are thrown out but in reality ....noone knows.If I or the Mrs get sick (God forbid) then yes I might have a higher % to hit but the bill would be smaller and that is what all the anti Obama chicken littles are afraid of that Joe Public will find out.

Unfortunatley I've exceeded the 7.5% a couple of years in the last few. Bottom line, is this is an increased tax burden for many Americans.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I'm a Christian and I've got no problem going to church on Sunday and opposing Obamacare. There are already plenty of gov't programs in place to help the very poor. Obamacare is about gov't control, not helping the less fortunate. This clown needs to stop drinking the socialist kool-aid.

.

The last time I checked it was a religious sect that was serving cool aid to it's memebers and lying to them.My question to you ...what about the not very poor,what about the people who are doing the best they can to hang on but don't qualify as "very poor",Sammy what do they do?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Unfortunatley I've exceeded the 7.5% a couple of years in the last few. Bottom line, is this is an increased tax burden for many Americans.

Maybe but with lower primiums ...then it is offset.