The SCOTUS Upholds Affordable Care Act

As I see some of my favorite bloggers piping in on the breaking news, I figured I better get my thoughts down for the record. I base the following on the reporting I’ve seen so far.

First, Republicans should take solace in the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts basically said “let’s not mince words here … this mandate is a tax. As long as we call it what it is, it’s constitutional.” This gives the Grover Norquist devotees more fodder.

Second, this is a win for Obama on the “legitimacy” question. A defeat on this law would have added to the rhetoric that Obama is an un-American violator of the Constitution. That rhetorical argument is now dead.

Third, we have affirmed as a nation that it is unconscionable for the wealthiest country on the face of the Earth to allow its citizens to be bankrupted by catastrophic health problems.

The GOP response to this decision is a plan to vote for repeal in the House on July 11. This is an incredibly petty move in my opinion.

What does it mean for the election in November? Not much I’m afraid. A negative decision from the court might have hurt Obama badly but this “win” doesn’t change things much. Jobs are still the biggest issue in this election and it is still Obama’s task to convince the American people that he can create jobs and that Romney’s experience does not prepare him to do the same.

What are your thoughts?


Photo by White House (Pete Souza)[1] (White HouseOlder upload from here) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons Political Blogger Alliance

142 thoughts on “The SCOTUS Upholds Affordable Care Act

  1. I agree. Total spin, all untruths. We are all noting Rutherford your absent comments on points of merit. Not saying its new, just noting it again.

  2. I think you’re wrong. HUGE impact on November for both sides with many variables at play.I favor the GOP’s ability to play it out right and catch the breaks.
    This isn’t as much about an unpopular here /popular there program it is now all about the power and precedent set into play.
    Following up on that and how the GOP can possibly play this (as well as the smarter D’s)
    Get real single item legislation that covers the basic favorable points. This is even what Daschle & Co. recommended.
    At the same time snipe the nasty shit. The taxes and fees that will come into play. The burdensome compliance issues ranging from practitioners paperwork to restaurants getting bigger and complex menus.The expansion of the USPHS officer corps and various training programs could get repackaged too.

  3. Rutherford from my comment on my own post:
    1) Nobody called this a tax. In fact Congress applied the “penalty” label so as to avoid a law already on the books. How SCOTUS can now call it a tax just to find it constitutional is insane.
    2) It won’t happen in 2014,or perhaps not in 2020 but I firmly believe that before 2040 other inactivities will be taxed as well as activities. Here is a quick sample. By 2040 if you own 2 cars and one isn’t a hybrid or electric…you will be taxed. I totally see that happening. I can equally see that if you’re the owner of more than 2 vehicles in a non-commercial setting or hell even if you are….bang special tax for you.
    Think about it! Some day the party shoe will be on a different foot than the one you like and it will be your gluteus getting the kick.

  4. Your humble Rabbit minored in the soft sciences. Specifically, I minored in political science. In the PS department the students and professors circle jerk to Machiavelli and Lennon. They stroke off to Themsticles lying to the Athenians, in effect, saving them by convincing them to build a fleet to face Persia, a threat that didn’t concern the people at the time. Nanny knew best and lying was good. If anyone here thinks Obama and the zombies that suck him off give a shit that he lied to the people about themandate not being a tax you got it wrong. They think its awesome. High five material.

  5. “we have affirmed as a nation. . . blah, blah, blah.”

    Who is ‘we’ my pompous Kemosabe?

    The majority that oppose the bill, the dissenters, and those acting to repeal it.

    Damn I’m glad I wasn’t around for your chanting when Obama won the election.

  6. Rutherford please keep in mind there are those that know a great deal of what was wrapped up in the 2000+ page act. To that end keep in mind since I know you’re all about the Benjamins. We don’t have them! We’re not getting them anytime soon. It is far more likely that the post 2014 yummies in this bowl of shit will actually harm the economy.
    Also one last thing before I leave the web till tonight. A big aspect of the future of healthcare and especially the integrated pools it depends on. The US version of the UK NI.C.E office which escapes me has all ready tried some stuff. It has not gone over well but on their ledger pages it WAS the right thing to do.
    The best case I can quickly offer you was the nightmare over breast exams and mammograms and the whole recommendation thing.
    Dude this is just tip of the iceberg.

  7. DR, the “tax” argument was 100% forced change in positions brought on by the apparent first time examination of the b.s. position on the scope of the commerce clause. It’s laughable that R would suggest “it is what it i8s” and Roberts called properly when his team argued the exact opposite until staring down the barrel of a losing CC argument. R can’t see part the end of the MSNBC broadcast day to recognize that this is a doule edged sword.

  8. Noah, regarding the video you posted from the prior thread … you’ve rightly called out Democratic spin. If the government forces you to pay money if you don’t do an alternative action, that is a tax. You avoid the tax by buying insurance. The SCOTUS, as I pointed out above, clearly said let’s stop the smoke and mirrors about taxation.

    So, no dodge necessary on my part.

  9. None of what you said is true.

    How incredibly foolish that sounded. You can’t refute a single thing I said in the post. If you can, do it, line by line.

    I do agree with you however, as posts go, this one was shallow … f*ck I wrote it in five minutes once I saw Alfie, Sandi, and BiW all pipe in. Such is the fast paced world of bloggerism. 🙂 A more substantial post would have taken me a couple of hours.

  10. Just picture it. 2040. Progressive politics have completly bankrupted the nation. Completly. Yet, the powers will do anything to remain our masters. There is now nothing stopping them from putting a boot on our childeren’s necks for any choice or lifestyle they want to punish. Power always weilds itself. Restraint impossible.

  11. Noah, regarding the video you posted from the prior thread … you’ve rightly called out Democratic spin.

    No, I did not. I called out an Obama LIE. Obama was the only one in this video. Or did you see something I didn’t?

  12. I think you did all right, considering the time you had. However, as we wrote before this is not a petty Republican attempt to repeal the law. The court found the mandate unconstitutional, so they called it a tax. Therefore, the law might have been thrown out.

    I read the bill, before it became a bad law. Is it petty to recognize the danger this law presents to our future? Is it petty to attempt to save our country through legal means? No.

  13. Fuckers looked the American people in the eye and said its not a tax. They looked SCOTUS in the eye and said it was a tax. Oh how crafty.

    As there ever been a tax levied on Americans in which the money doesn’t go to the government?

  14. R, you labeled them First, Second, Third. Each one false. I don’t need to go line by line.

    First, republicans neither should nor do take solace in Roberts’ flawed analysis. Indeed, I refer you to the government’s initial arguments, and what Alfie alluded to in the last thread: a “punitive tax” is unconstitutional. Or Obama words himself: You take all the solace you want. Republicans will be determined to cap this thing the BP oil leak.

    Second, this is hardly a win for Obama on the “legitimacy” question. Obama’s treatment of constitutional limitations of power are amply demonstrated by his own hostility towards it,, including but not limited to the immigration proclamation, exercise of EP etc., etc. As to legitimacy, the bill was defended on commerce clause grounds — an apparently illegitimate argument. Just becuase Robert’s was a deciding vote, this ain’t dead no matter how loud you trumpet.

    Third, this decision neither affirms nor rejects anything other than the SCOTUS analysis of constitutionality. In fact, the bill is disliked a by a large majority.

    Moreover, as I said, I think repealing the act will be a central issue in Romney’s campaign, hence his speech today. Why you think he’ll ignore something weighing heavily is your usual wishful thinking held out as fact.

    Finally, your salutation is bullshit. This post was offered without one scintilla of respect.

    Did I leave anything out?

  15. The GOP has something now to get their base to the polls in November, they needed it, and they will continue to beat this drum for decades, because in my opinion, the base is gullible.

  16. . If the government forces you to pay money if you don’t do an alternative action, that is a tax- R

    Rutherford, SCOTUS has just given the government the power to tax “INACTIVITY”. If you don’t pay taxes on your income, the IRS slams you with a PENALTY, not a tax. As Alfie, said this precedent is going to come back and bite us someday. This is not just about Affordable Health Care.

  17. Hey R, you did pretty good for five minutes. BiW just posted a picture of shackles but then it is said a picture is worth a thousand words 😉

  18. If you watch coverage of this you will hear a lot of folks say the health care tax has no teeth … i.e. there is no penalty for NOT paying the tax. According to the highly respected SCOTUSBlog, this is NOT true.

    The way the tax provision will work, if it does, in fact, go into effect about two years from now, is that individuals who do not obtain health insurance will be assessed a tax (based on family income) that they must pay along with their regular federal tax return. The enforcement of the tax will depend, ultimately, on whether an individual who refuses to buy health insurance chose — as a specifically intended response — not to pay the tax, for whatever reason. The Chief Justice’s opinion did note that willful failure to pay a tax that is due can lead to criminal prosecution. There would have to be proof of something more than a simple failure to include the penalty payment along with the return.

    Here is the choice that individuals who do not want to obtain health insurance will face, according to the Chief Justice: “Those subject to the individual mandate mayh lawfully forgo health insurance and pay higher taxes, or buy health insurance and pay lower taxes. The only thing they may not lawfully do is not buy health insurance andnot pay the resulting tax.” —

  19. His children can fight those battles tomorrow.

    My daughter will be proud to live in a country that has joined the ranks of civilized nations who provide (close to) universal health care for their citizens.

  20. “My daughter will be proud to live in a country that has joined the ranks of civilized nations who provide (close to) universal health care for their citizens.”

    What country will she be moving to?

  21. It’s laughable that R would suggest “it is what it i8s” and Roberts called properly when his team argued the exact opposite until staring down the barrel of a losing CC argument.

    Again putting words in my mouth. I’m just glad the SCOTUS upheld the law. Had they upheld it based on the commerce clause, fine … if they found another way to do it (tax jurisdiction) that’s fine too. I don’t really hang my hat on any particular legal argument.

    In fact, I’m on the record for saying Roberts did the Solicitor General’s job for him.

  22. Puting words in your mouth?

    “Republicans should take solace in the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts basically said “let’s not mince words here … this mandate is a tax. As long as we call it what it is, it’s constitutional.”

    What words did I put in your mouth?

    Solace? It’s not a tax. It was argued by your side that it was not a tax. It’s not within CC.

    The problem is you don’t give a shit, don’t care to bothered with the analysis you’re discussing, and care little of anything restrictions on the scope of federal power — while YOUR GUY IS IN OFFICE.

    Your comment is false.

  23. Tell us Rutherford how this massive increase in government power to tax behavior and choice is a positive thing.

    You’re hung up on the word tax. Our government exerts control on our behavior and choices every day of the week. It’s called living in a society.

    Cigarette taxes are considered punitive by some. That’s also an attempt at behavior control. This is nothing new.

  24. No, I did not. I called out an Obama LIE. Obama was the only one in this video.

    Fine … you call it a lie, I call it spin. The thin rationale for not calling it a tax is that the tax is not applied to everyone. Hence it can be framed as a penalty. Regardless, if you have to pay it on your tax return, it’s basically a tax. No one likes taxes, so the payment was framed as a penalty.

    But if I remember correctly the entire reason this was able to be done through reconciliation was that it was viewed as tax law.

  25. James I don’t find the repeal vote itself petty … I find the timing incredibly petty. You announce on the day you lose a legal battle “nah nah na nah nah, I’m gonna hold my breath till I turn blue.” Its childish. If Cantor etal wanted to look like serious legislators, they’d put off the vote till August and not announce plans for the vote for another two or three weeks.

  26. I also think Rush will benefit.

    Rush and every other conservative commentator. They will exploit this to get the audience all fired up. It’s great ratings!!!

  27. We get taxed sitting at home all the time. Every time they print more fiat, we’re being taxed. Even if your ‘green’ car isn’t taxed at POS, your fuel, registration, insurance, and road maintenance is.

    We are taxed and the ones that aren’t are best at sheltering from it.

    Now it’s just okay to assess people and call it what it is.

    And where does it go…

  28. Speaking of double edged swords, isn’t this one of the first taxes we will pay directly to private companies instead of the government? What is to stop the government from forcing us to buy Volts or stop eating chocolate?

    The decision lets states opt out of the increased Medicaid burden created by Obamacare. This could cost some poor families their Medicade insurance. What will happen to them? Excnanges? But what if they can’t afford the price because they were barely making it with Medicaide? In that case you and I will buy their medical care.

    Will this mean another set of ID insurance cards? How will this effect illegals and others who oppose voting IDs? Is this Obama’s new job creation program?

  29. Finally, your salutation is bullshit. This post was offered without one scintilla of respect.

    Did I leave anything out?

    Wow and you said you weren’t gonna go line by line. 🙂 I’m surprised you didn’t take issue with the photo credit.

    The left is already laughing at Romney’s “day one repeal” of Obamacare. Romney won’t and can’t do sh*t on day 1. Congress enacted the law and congress has to get rid of it.

    Also with regard to repeal and replace, I haven’t seen Romney’s specific plans for replacement. Can anyone supply a link?

  30. It was argued by your side that it was not a tax.

    Actually if I’m not mistaken the SG did provide a “backup argument” that the mandate was within taxing authority. That’s what Roberts latched onto. The SG’s error was not making the taxing authority his main argument.

  31. We all know Romney can’t do anything on “day one.” His latest statement is that on the first day he will act to repeal Obamacare, not kill it on the first day. He won’t personally construct the Keystone Pipeline either. He is indulging in hyperbole to fire up the troops. The left needs to find something else to laugh at, maybe Sarah Palln’s disabled grand child..

    I don’t know if you are right or not about the timing of Holder’s censure, but it needed to be done. Look at it this way, The Supreme Court decision announcement stole the Republican’s thunder.Eric Holder became a virtual afterthought.

    Given the administraters, new IRS agents and other workers, I believe this is the beginning of Obama’s new jobs program.

  32. “That’s what Roberts latched onto. The SG’s error was not making the taxing authority his main argument.”

    No it boxed itself in becuase it sought to argue its way around the Anti Injunction Act — which had to do by amicus. A blatant contradiction.

    It is fictitious rational.

    Go eat your mayonnaise.

    Your complaints about Romney are petty.

  33. If I get bored tonight I will go back through the comments sections a couple years ago where Rutherford lectured me about how it’s not a tax. Its fun to fuck with a fraud of a man.

  34. enacting a tax under another name undermines representative government by obscuring political accountability, and contradicts the principles of federalism that begin Justice Roberts’ majority opinion. The primary check on the expansive taxing power, other than, as the dissent notes, “the sheer impossibility of managing a Federal Government large enough” to “assume all the general-welfare responsibilities traditionally exercised by the States,” is the fact that the public is sensitive to tax increases. Thus, political accountability holds Congress’s use of the taxing power in check. As federal district court Judge Vinson noted in his 2010 Florida v. HHS ruling, it is reasonable to infer that Congress “proceeded as it did specifically because it did not want the penalty to be ‘scrutinized’ as a $4 billion annual tax increase, and it did not want at that time to be ‘held accountable’ for taxes that they imposed.” Rather, members of Congress sought to “insulate themselves from the potential electoral ramifications of their votes.”

    An attempt at objectivity:

  35. From the previous thread via James — ” If there were no Tex, we would have had to invent him.” LOL sounds a bit like the Frankenstein monster. 🙂

  36. I’m glad you liked it Rutherford.

    I felt sorry for the Frankenstein monster. he was misunderstood and wanted people to like him. Poor monster.

  37. Our government exerts control on our behavior and choices every day of the week. It’s called living in a society.
    I realize that was offered in a sense of innocence but OMFG!
    Reflect on the Freudian aspect of the realization. Think about the alleged foundation of our nation and tell me you don’t see EXACTLY where the political divide is.

  38. “You’re hung up on the word tax. ”

    Anyone else notice Rutherford took the easy way out ….again…and picked one word…again…talked about it and moved on….

    The supreme court called it a tax…why do you have a problem with it?

    Also…Obama said in the I need to link it again…that there would be no tax…the supreme court said it was a tax….how is it a spin and not a lie?

    Also I am waiting for an explanation on how our government being able to tax our behavior is a good thing in your mind?

  39. Our government exerts control on our behavior and choices every day of the week. It’s called living in a society.

    I realize that was offered in a sense of innocence but OMFG!
    Reflect on the Freudian aspect of the realization. Think about the alleged foundation of our nation and tell me you don’t see EXACTLY where the political divide is.

    Thomas Paine just muttered “Congratulations.” and finished downing the bottle of whiskey in front of him.

  40. We might as well starting practicing…”I pledge allegiance… to the socialism of America… and to the destruction… for which it stands. Broke nation, no God, with debt and bondage for everyone!”

  41. Kind of ironic. The President looked the American people in the eye and emphatically claimed what will one day be the largest tax hike in American history not to be a tax. Who was the guy who yelled “liar!”?

  42. From the previous thread via Noah — “Obama care is the largest tax in the world, and is going to be paid by the uninsured.”

    I have no idea what you’re talking about. The uninsured who cannot afford to purchase insurance through the exchanges will get tax credits to help them do so … and for those states that opt in, Medicaid will be expanded to include more indigent folks.

  43. From the prior thread via Noah — “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general **Welfare** of the United States.

    Can someone tell Obama in this article that this did not mean healthcare and food-stamps?”

    Says who? If the health of the American citizen does not fall under “general welfare” I have no idea what does.

  44. From the prior thread via El Tigre: “”Roberts said the SCOTUS should find a way to uphold laws and not look for ways to defeat them. Or in other words, if a constitutional justification for a law can be found, it must be used.

    Your thoughts?”

    That’s doctrine. I don’t get your question.”

    When you say doctrine, do you mean judicial philosophy? I assumed that Roberts was applying his interpretation of what a justice should do and that not all jurists share that interpretation. That’s why I was asking if you shared it.

  45. James, because you didn’t spell your email address the same way as usual a couple of your comments got stuck in moderation. One also got inexplicably spammed. So I just approved all of them. Sorry for the delay.

  46. If I get bored tonight I will go back through the comments sections a couple years ago where Rutherford lectured me about how it’s not a tax. Its fun to fuck with a fraud of a man.

    I hope you find it. I always get a kick out of being reminded about what I pontificate on two years later.

    Face it Rabbit, it’s semantics and you know it. Tax is a dirty word to the masses so it got called a penalty. It was always money out of your pocket if you didn’t comply so what the f*ck difference does it make what we call it?

  47. DR, go back and hit a few about Roberts shaking his head at the SOTU address (racist) and the Citizens United decision while you’re at it.

    At least get your history right. It was Alito not Roberts.

  48. I can say with near certainty that Newt and Thor are two different people (and in fact, two different genders). LOL Alfie, hard as it is to believe I can occasionally get more than one left leaning person to comment on the same thread. 🙂

  49. Also I am waiting for an explanation on how our government being able to tax our behavior is a good thing in your mind?

    Asked and answered already. The cigarette tax is basically punitive. Granting tax credits to companies who don’t outsource (an idea that has been floated by both parties) is taxing behavior in reverse. There are no doubt many other precedents for “taxing behavior”.

    If I wanted to be really broad in my language, my earning money is “behavior” so the very concept of income tax taxes my behavior.

    Noah, this law turns on one of the most conservative concepts out there … paying your own way and not free-loading. That was one of Romney’s primary motives when he advocated the mandate in Massachusetts. If a Republican POTUS had championed this, you’d be jumping for joy and declaring an end to free ride emergency room visits. It’s only cos it’s a Dem that your panties are in such a knot.

    Rank hypocrisy.

  50. Noah your claim of socialism is beyond silly. A law that funnels an entire new group of folks into the capitalist health insurance industry, and you call it socialism. And before everyone hits me with “why did the insurance industry fight this tooth and nail?” the answer is simple. This law forces the insurance industry to be competitive like every other industry in this country. Right now they function in a virtual monopoly. Those days will be thankfully over.

  51. Rabbit, dumbass Joe Wilson was the dude who yelled “You lie!” and I’m pretty sure it was when Obama said that everyone who has insurance would get to keep it. I could be wrong (about the “lie”, not about the person).

  52. Rutherford 59 it matters if we can trust the leaders on their word. It isn’t semantics. This is all about sneaky elitist shit bags knowing what is best for the little children and lying to them. R you do your self a disservice glibly accepting this maneuver as simple nuance and semantics.
    I honestly cannot comment further on this thread on this topic.

  53. sorry I just lied like O. @ 63….omg!!!! No this doesn’t make insurance companies be competitive. Holy crap you are so deluded

  54. 59, Rutherford, you are right, but it does matter what we call it. Had it been called a tax when the bill was debated, it might not have passed. Democrats deceived us for that reason.

    Had the mandate stood as orginally named, an attempt to kill it would have been stopped with a filibuster. Now, that it is a tax, it can be removed by a simple majority. If the Republicans should get a repeal through the House and Senate, an unlikely outcome, Obama would be forced to veto a rescinded tax increase. Republicans would be able to use it as an issue against tax and spend Democrats.

  55. This law will create 108 new commissions and boards. Costs will be higher with new employees to man the new beaurocracy. Individual costs will rise because the insurance will be less competitive. $500,000 billion taken from Medicare will shift to Medicaid. A central board will approve of insurance policies and pricing before the companies go to a state exchange.

    30 million people may have insurance they did not buy before. If they earn under $94.000. the Medicare shift will subsidize them. It will be cheaper to pay the penalty (tax) than to buy the insurance. Ultimately, insurance companies will have to charge more to make up for the loss of such people. The government imposes strict guidelines on rate scheduals. Insurance companies failing to make a profit will go out of business and leave fewer companies to compete.

    We will need more doctors than we have now, but many doctors plan to quit, and the number of their replacements is unknown. The solution will be to rely more on nurses and other anciliary medical practitioners. We will be told how long to wait for treatment, and whether or not our conditions can be treated by more than what Obama said should be a few pain killers. Rationing health care as they Brits and Canadians do will control the rising cost of treatment. ‘

    The government cannot force states to expand Medicade rolls as the original law intended. Therefore some of those people will be forced into the exchanges at costs they cannot afford. Our taxes will pay their bills.

    Joe Wilson shouldn’t have said “you lie” because it was impolite and indecourious. But he was right. Obama lied, and the Supreme Court decision proves it.

  56. Sarah Palin was also right. The law does have a death panel.
    Another part of the law discriminates in favor of inner city and rural people. I think it involves training of new medical workers.

  57. “When you say doctrine, do you mean judicial philosophy?”

    No. Doctrine. To respect the delineation between the judicial and legislative branches, the object is to respect the boundaries of the laws enacted bu Congress. All justices are to abide by it.

    As I sad at BiC’s, the concept is similar to what appellate lawyers refer to as “right for any reason” (or harmless error) in trial court proceedings. The Judge may have ruled for the wrong reason at trial, but if he was “right for any reason” it will not become a basis to set aside a trial. The object and all preferences are to uphold the verdict, not punish the judge, provided there is fairness to the litigants.

    Similarly, in reviewing a lawful enacted bill, the preferences and presumptions are in favor of constitutionality. The entire dem party and that smarmy Pelosi had there heads up there asses with their dismissive claims that they were authorized under the Commerce Clause. Your and their view of the proper limits on federal authority are truly telling — the fact that you didnt give enough of a shit to even try and understand it is disheartening.

    The truth is, the geniuses you support cared nothing of constitutional limits of their all-powerful, filibuster proof majority in enacting the bill, and were careful not to call it a tax so they could falsely assuage the public that somehow this piece of shit wouldn’t have much of a price tag. And they know it’s a penalty and not a tax. Like you, they don’t care about the proper role of government though and the ruling from Roberts was Mana from Heavan.

    Roberts blew it. His efforts to uphold the law through the tortured sophistry he employed exceeded his the any legal presumptions in favor of the Act. As a member of the US Supreme Court Bar and citizen, I am distraught. I believe the ramifications of the precedent are coupled with dems lack of concern about it troubling.

    Go back to your mayonnaise.

  58. “At least get your history right. It was Alito not Roberts.”

    I stand corrected. I lose track of which ones are the racist du jour. I I know Thomas is the Uncle Tom.

    R, I might need to take a break too. The abject stupidity of your comments at #59 from an intelligent, educated guy, albeit a misguided populist, makes me want to burn down the neighborhood. I really think you belive what you are saying and it’s just incredible to me how childlike and naive it is.

    Take stock in one of the dissents. Roberts carried the vote. He did not win a prize for being right, okay?

  59. ” I really think you belive what you are saying and it’s just incredible to me how childlike and naive it is.” -Tigre

    Ha. The turd doesn’t believe in anything. He will argue whatever the party tells him to. 2 years ago it wasn’t a tax. Now it is. Cheney is a war criminal that deserves jail. Obama is a war criminal that deserves reelection. Sara Palin killed people in Arizona because the TV told Rutherford it was so… until they didn’t.

    I know Rutherford’s type very well. Followers are actually dangerous people. Have you ever seen such a lack of independent thought?

    Its boring talking politics with someone who defends nothing more then expediency. What’s the point.

    Thor……when is that GDP bump going to save the future? The bastards of young keep waiting for it!

  60. No this doesn’t make insurance companies be competitive.

    Explain. The whole idea of the exchanges is to offer individuals (regardless of employment status) access to various competing insurance policies. The very fact that insurance companies can no longer rely solely on the “this is what you get — tough sh*t” approach that comes with employer based insurance, means they have to compete.

  61. Had the mandate stood as orginally named, an attempt to kill it would have been stopped with a filibuster.

    This is not entirely true. Parts of ACA got passed through reconciliation which only needs a simple majority, not a super majority. And the reason it was able to be pushed through the reconciliation process was that it dealt with tax law.

  62. so what the f*ck difference does it make what we call it?- R

    It makes a difference for future abuse. You can tax the uninsured who do not buy health insurance until the cows come home. What happens when they don’t pay that tax or don’t have the income that would benefit by tax credits? Some Congressman is going to come up with the brilliant idea of creating the “uninsured tax” similar to the Medicare tax that now all employees will pay. When you are dealing with constitutional matters, words are important.

    Penalty = official punishment for committing an offense
    Tax = an amount of money levied by a government on it’s citizens to run the government

    “This law forces the insurance industry to be competitive like every other industry in this country. Right now they function in a virtual monopoly. Those days will be thankfully over”.-R

    Wrong. All you have to do is check out Medicare Part D (Drug coverage) to understand that insurance companies were given a monopoly in this field and now control the “where and how” of drugs purchased and prescribed.

  63. And they know it’s a penalty and not a tax.

    Thanks for elaborating on the doctrine thing. Would have been nice if you coulda done that at BiW’s without calling the question dumb. And your explanation here made more sense than at BiW’s.

    As for the part of your comment that I quoted, WTF? One minute you’re pissed that they called it a penalty and not a tax and now you’re saying the opposite. Or did you mean the opposite?

  64. Apparently, nearly everyone here likes their medical insurance coverage, has no problem when their premiums raised, their father-in-law was seen immediately in the emergency room when he had his heart attack, never attended a chili feed fund raiser for the treatment of a neighbor’s toddler’s leukemia …. I am sure that must be the case, so sure we should just get rid of the Affordable Care Act, we do not need it, everything is hunky dorky. Right?

  65. “I believe the ramifications of the precedent are coupled with dems lack of concern about it troubling.” – Tigre

    Exactly!!! Lack of concern includes more than just dems though.

  66. Look, I’m giving the best defense I can to what I always admitted was a clusterf*ck of a law. Rabbit, since you love researching so much, go back through some comment threads and you can verify it.

    But bottom line … much like the civil rights laws took years to get right, so is the case with this. We need a better health care insurance system. Any of you who deny that are just being blind. For the first time in sixty years of trying, a President finally got something off the ground. Is it perfect? No, far from it. But it’s a start.

    If Romney wasn’t so interested in being political, he’d stop saying “repeal and replace” and simply say “refine”. What we’ve got needs tweaking, not repealing. But folks aren’t interested in solutions. And many of you are so concerned with your precious freedoms (translated “let the f*ckers die, it’s not my problem”) that you can’t see the forest for the trees.

  67. “As for the part of your comment that I quoted, WTF? One minute you’re pissed that they called it a penalty and not a tax and now you’re saying the opposite. Or did you mean the opposite?”

    I don’t know what you;re talking about now, but it’s so obvious to me you didn’t actually read the opinion or follow the arguments. No different than the MSNBC morons I listened to that sent me to bed having lost all faith in the country.

    Your homework assignment is to read the dissents — Kennedy’s at the top.

    When you are done, I hope you have a better understanding of why calling it a “tax” versus calling it a “penalty” is paramount. Use your head. You don’t refer to a speeding fine as a tax or sales tax as a “penalty/fine.” We’re talking about the constitutional scope of federal power her, okay? The difference between “tax” and “penalty” is the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional. The fact that you don’t real care to contemplate the importance of that as cheer for Obama is infuriating because you are representative of the dumb fucks that enabled the process that brought us this piece of shit.

    The real problem as I see it are the ignorant bystanders. My tolerance for them has vanished.

  68. @ Newt
    Apparently, nearly everyone here likes their medical insurance coverage,
    I’m pretty happy with it although I didn’t like the increase of $100. this past year that was directly attributable to ObamaCare points.
    has no problem when their premiums raised,As I just stated I was pretty pissed when my premiums increased solely for ObamaPoints.
    their father-in-law was seen immediately in the emergency room when he had his heart attack,As a former 911 Paramedic I hate to tell you that although a heart attack patient does get pretty high triage status there is no guarantee he/she is seen immediately and even less chance in many centers that the tertiary care they will require is forthcoming.
    never attended a chili feed fund raiser for the treatment of a neighbor’s toddler’s leukemia …. I don’t eat chili but I get your point and if you think ObamaCare is going to alleviate the need for charity you’re truly as stupid as this entire comment of yours paints you as.

  69. @ Rutherford 73….Where do I live? Who on the thread has real world experience watching a false insurance marketplace exist? Who has tickled the keyboard and had their eyes pop out of their head whilst using the Commonwealth Connector?

  70. Okay R. I’ll go on record to state the obvious so you don’t have to hear from Noah for your conceptual departure from the issue again.

    We have a health care crisis and it needs reforming.

    Let’s get back to issues. You equating this as a “well at least it’s a start” is outrageous. You are supporting a financial catastrophe and complete subversion of the most basic notions of federalism that underpinned the founders notion of our country and what has made us great.

    Newt/Thor, yeah. End of argument. 🙄

    Apparently your are a Obama cult worshipper. End of argument.

    Go back to your mayonnaise.

    Real heavy R.

  71. “ET, does that include Chief Justice Roberts? The Zimmerman bail hearing is on truTV right now.”


    Actually don’t bother. I don’t care. You’re another Thor-like gnat.

  72. Says who?

    The two men most responsible for the clause being there in the first place. The sad part is that they were told at the time that that “artful” turn of phrase was going to be used as a means to enslave, and arrogantly blew off the prescient warning, much to the detriment of us all.

    If the health of the American citizen does not fall under “general welfare” I have no idea what does.

    You’re correct. You don’t. So I’ll let Mr. Madison explain it to you:

    Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

    Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.

    “But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

    The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are “their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. ” The terms of article eighth are still more identical: “All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,” etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

    James Madison, The Federalist 41

  73. Affordable Health Care:
    Yes, I want affordable health care insurance for all. Will the AHC Act provide that? In it’s current form, probably not but I do agree we had to start somewhere. The Act will be tweaked and turned over the years and we can only guess the end result. Is the system we have now sufficient for our needs? NO! Any government run entity will not be efficient nor productive but the current system does favor the insurance companies and is not always in the best interest of the patient but then again neither is Medicare/Medicaid.

    Frankly my bottom line is people need to start taking charge of their own health and not rely on the medical conglomerate to fix what they abuse. But if wishes were…….!

  74. Call it a penalty, or a tax, or a blue lizard; the effect is the same; money is fungible and it doesn’t matter what you call the productivity the government takes from you at the point of a gun. (Think that’s over-the-top hyperbole, R? Don’t pay your taxes next year and you’ll see…).

    I think of some acquaintances of my wife who live paycheck to paycheck and don’t have health insurance because they “can’t afford it,” but seem to have money to take care of two horses, their fodder, vet bills, riding habits and transportation to/from riding competitions all over the state of NC. I guarantee you, as sure as the sun comes up tomorrow, there will be ANOTHER tax on producers like me to cover folks who “can’t afford insurance,” just like there is a tax to cover folks who can’t pay their power bill, their gasoline bill for their three cars, their heating bills. Mark my words.

  75. Rutherford.
    Not sure what I can do for you. I have a video clip of Obama saying absolutely this was not a tax. We have the supreme court saying it is absolutely a tax. And I now have you on record saying that this is a spin and not a lie. Then to no ones surprise we have multiple posts talking about the “word” tax. This is the profound and defining character defect that is you.

    Rather than trying to improve the kind of human being you are, you chose to learn how to formulate your arguments around this flaw. Unfortunately you have become really good at arguing in a circle until you ultimately you exhaust/frustrate your opponents into giving up, thinking it represents a win for you.

    I would ask you to consider that being wrong isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Admitting you are wrong will give you a lot more credibility with folks when you are legitimately trying to show them you are right on a topic they disagree with. As it stands now, you are Wesley Snipes in White Men Cant Jump. You would rather look good and loose than look bad and win.

  76. R, how important is honesty to you?

    As I’ve read the comments, yours in particular, I see you’ve essentially admitted that you are too stupid to run your life and that you need someone smarter to do it for you, even if that means lying to you in order to manipulate events.

    You know there is a HUGE difference between penalty and tax, but to admit such would be to admit that you were lied too by your savior, and thus ignore it. And you call Christians foolish…

    You can’t articulate how this is going to bring healthcare prices down because we all know that it is not going to bring healthcare prices down. Healthcare prices continue to go up and will continue to go up because this does nothing to mitigate costs. It complicates the process greatly and it adds additional financial burden to the system. You make the incredibly stupid statement of ‘monopoly’ but ignore the fact that this forces folks to buy one of those monopoly’s policies. Even the health exchanges will force you to buy one of those monopoly’s policies, so at no point do you mitigate the control- in your mind at least- that the health insurance companies have.

    But back to the point- how self-loathing do you have to be to willingly be lied to, over and over again, yet accept it as good for you?

  77. The Obama campaign is now selling T-Shirts saying Health Care is still a BFD to raise campaign money. So the President, is selling t-shirts..and not just any shirts but shirts with BFD…just kind of brings that touch of class to the presidency that we have been missing doenst it?

  78. By the by, I said before that this was a lose/lose for Obama. If he loses, then he looks bad, if he wins, it fires up the opposition in a way he’s not prepared to deal with. Well, I believed before that Obama was going to lose to Romney by 3-5 points in November. Now, I believe he will lose by AT LEAST 7-10 points. On top of that, before this, I believed that the Dems would likely continue to hold the Senate, but now I think the GOP takes the Senate handily.

    Any Seanter or Representative that voted for Obamacare has a HUGE target on them. Tester, McCaskil, et al, will lose in November. This sealed their fate. Seats that were not really in play before absolutely are now.

    This law will die with the next administration. Independents, who might have been on the fence between Romney and Obama are almost certainly going to support Romney now since 75% of them wanted to see Obamacare thrown out.

    Anecdotal as it is, has a poll asking if folks thought the SCOTUS made the right decision. Some 500,000 votes later, 60% say no while only 32% say yes. This decision has, and will, polarize the electorate in their decision to support either candidate, which bodes very badly for Obama.

    Gloat and enjoy that happy feeling of stupidity that only a supporter of this can have- it’s not going to last long…

  79. Interesting blurb from Financial Intelligence Report:

    “Rather than bucking the “paradox of thrift” and trying to put aside money to fund future taxation, in a free world a citizen who is a victim of runaway deficits has the obvious alternative of running away himself.

    This, indeed, is what a growing number of native-born Americans have decided to do. Faced with financial repression at the hands of the Obama administration, a silent migration has been underway since 209 in which Americans are fleeing the United States for lower taxes abroad.

    Nearly 1,780 gave up their citizenship last year, compared to a mere 235 in 2008. While this rush for the exits has escaped the notice of the mainstream news media, it seems to have attracted Obama’s attention.

    He has decided to crack down with both administrative and legislative initiatives designed to make it more difficult for Americans to live abroad or even obtain passports for travel. In other words, the debt slaves can’t escape to freedom.”


  80. Call it a penalty, or a tax, or a blue lizard; the effect is the same;

    Isn’t that pretty much what I said?

    Let’s look at the two perspectives — first this notion that the consumer got somehow fooled. I call BS. The dissatisfaction with ACA among the masses centered around the mandate. Folks knew they would have to pay up one way or the other. So this notion that not using the word “tax” totally fooled everyone is ridiculous. The intent was to make the medicine go down easier but based on polling, it obviously didn’t work.

    Now, from the perspective of the legislative process itself, reconciliation was used so it was obvious to every congress critter voting on this thing that it had TAX implications. So there was no deception there.

    Finally, when it comes to the arguments before the court, their first line of defense was the Commerce Clause because again, they were trying to avoid that nasty Norquist word “tax”. But as a backup, they presented an alternative argument that did position the penalty as a tax.

    Four justices bought the Commerce Clause argument. Neither Kennedy nor Roberts did. Fortunately for those interested in moving our country closer to the other civilized democracies on the planet, Roberts bought the tax approach.

    Tigre, I agree with you that I owe it to the debate to read the opinions themselves and not rely on third party accounts of it.

    I do understand the difference between a penalty and a tax but we do have penalties built into the tax code so even if this is just a penalty, it can still be collected through the taxing authority. Example: To survive in Middlebury as long as I did after layoff, I withdrew money from my 401K. Each year I filed taxes, I had to pay a 10% penalty on that withdrawal. So penalties can be administered through the tax code.

  81. Here is the rest of the report:

    “Financial Repression 101
    In the first instance, Obama has sought to deprive
    Americans of their civil right to open bank accounts
    outside the United States. It is practically impossible
    to live anywhere in the world at a decent standard
    of living without operating a bank account.
    In his rush to seal off the exits, Obama went for
    the jugular first seeking to prevent you from opening
    or maintaining a foreign bank account if you are an
    American. FBAR (or Foreign Bank and Financial
    Account Report) and FACTA (Foreign Account
    Tax and Compliance Act) impose hefty regulatory
    mandates on foreign banks that have American
    These regulations seem to have achieved their
    purpose in bullying most foreign banks and financial
    institutions into rejecting applications from accounts
    for U.S. citizens. Americans living abroad, even
    those who have never lived in the United States, find
    increased difficulty in opening and maintaining bank
    Obama’s next line of attack to close your
    potential lines of escape is to make it more difficult
    to obtain a U.S. passport. Proposed changes in the
    application to attain a U.S. passport will add to the
    complication with an incredible array of niggling
    questions that even the most exacting citizen would
    be unlikely to complete in a “true and correct”
    Among other things, you would be required to
    “list your mother’s residence one year before your
    birth.” You would also be required to list your
    mother’s place of employment at the time of your
    birth and the dates of her employment; the name
    of the employer and the employer’s address. Good
    luck in assembling the information if your mother is
    You also would be obliged to declare whether
    or not your mother received prenatal or postnatal
    medical care, providing the name of the hospital or
    other facility along with the address and name of
    the doctor who administered these procedures and
    the dates of appointments.
    You will also be requested to provide a
    description of “circumstances of your birth
    including the names (as well as address and phone
    number, if available) of persons present or in
    attendance at your birth.”
    The proposed form would also require you to
    list all of your residences inside and outside of the
    United States starting with your birth until the
    present as well as “all your current and former
    places of employment in the United States and
    abroad.” Equally, you’d be required to “list all
    schools that you attended inside and outside of the
    United States with the dates of school attendance.”
    In addition, you would have to provide
    excruciating detail about your family “(living and
    deceased)” including the full name, place of birth
    and date of birth and citizenship of your immediate
    Beyond that, the Obama administration has
    sought de jure powers to cancel your passport and
    thus prevent your physical escape from the country,
    whether to travel or take up residence abroad. One
    of them is tied to your tax bill.
    Whether or not you believe in Ricardo’s
    “equivalence theorem,” it is all but indisputable that
    higher taxes will be necessary due to the deficits that
    Obama is encouraging today. With that in mind, the
    Obama administration included a provision (section
    40304), “Revocation or denial of passport in case of
    certain unpaid taxes.”
    If this provision, which already passed the Senate
    by 74 to 22, sails through the House as well, you
    can add the United States to the list of countries
    — like the late Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba
    and East Germany — that explicitly limited their
    citizens’ right to travel.
    The bill would give the IRS the right to revoke
    your passport if they merely allege that you owe
    $50,000 or more in taxes.
    If you want a good chuckle, try to imagine what
    Thomas Jefferson would have thought of that.”

    I apologise for the length; thought you might find it amusing.

    Of course there is one thing they haven’t counted on: people just quitting work. Like me.

  82. Shit – I didn’t realize it copied everything. Rutherford, can you delete from, “As a subscriber to….through….June 11, 2012…?? Thanks – that’s not part of the article.

    Editor’s Note: I fixed it. Happens to me all the time.

  83. Admitting you are wrong will give you a lot more credibility

    You’re still new here. Anyone can tell you I’ve admitted I’m wrong on many occasions.

    I suspect the only way you would ever find me “right” was if I converted to a Conservative. 😉

  84. PF, your Financial Intelligence report reads like one of Poolman’s conspiracy web sites. Without corroborating sources, I ain’t buying it.

    Some of the more believable aspects of the piece sound to me like prevention of tax evasion by sheltering money abroad.

  85. Four justices bought the Commerce Clause argument. Neither Kennedy nor Roberts did. Fortunately for those interested in moving our country closer to the other civilized democracies on the planet, Roberts bought the tax approach.

    The “civilized” democracies going broke with these measures? The “civilized” democracies whose medical wards are houses of horror, and where old people are starting to be “encouraged” to opt for euthenasia?

    Even if you believe that those countries offer something better, what gives you the right to decide for the rest of us that not only should we be forced into it, we should be forced to pay for it? If you can’t close the sale with the rest of us, you should be packing your bags and availaing your self of what these utopias have to offer, rather than insisting that it will work this time, we’ll all see.

  86. gorilla #95
    I agree 110%

    So this notion that not using the word “tax” totally fooled everyone is ridiculous.

    Then why did he go so far out of his way to make sure it was NOT called a tax? a lie is a lie is a lie. Intentions does not change that.

    Rutherford, I did not figure my plea would have any effect. For any chance of that a moral center is required. I will have to settle for exposing your blatant deceptions and trust other pick up on it even if you lack the character to admit it yourself. Sorry an, this one was obvious, you should have stepped up. I dont care what you did in the past, I am dealing with the man you are today.

  87. PF thanks for the letter from the ACLU (aside to Tex … they come in handy once in a while don’t they?).

    I must say my mind is boggled. It would be helpful to see a government explanation of their rationale for this. In the absence of a compelling explanation, this is scary indeed.

  88. PF thanks for the letter from the ACLU (aside to Tex … they come in handy once in a while don’t they?).

    You are quite welcome. Thanks for fixing my post.

    As you and I have discussed, the ACLU is one of the few things that stand between us and outright fascism in this country, both from the Right AND the Left IMHO. Actually taking time to explore ACLU about twenty-five years ago, I decided I had been wrong about them. I had decided to hate them all, but thought I at least owed myself a little more information. Good folks.

  89. One last closeout multi-point comment for this post.
    1)Poolmans absence speaks volumes.
    2)Rutherford has to his credit owned up to being wrong before;however,he’s no slacker when it comes to digging his heals in whether he is right or wrong.
    3)ObamaCare was upheld it was recreated contrary to how it was written and…
    4) That above all will be an issue for America for the coming times.
    5) Whether the domestic concerns of Holder and this thing play for a longer time I hope someone remembers to look beyond their nose and point out….Russia has started to put their new ICBM submarines online.,China is absolutely fucking everywhere and making us their bee etch ,Eastern Med is ready to go,Ind/Pak has a new ingredient called China,The neighbors in the Western hemi are also adopting their own Pacific Pivot and it’s an issue folks,the economy still sucks.

  90. Okay Alfie, you are really depressing me. Remember at least half the stuff we worry about never happens.

  91. Rabbit, 72 was pretty cool, sort of a pre-Joshua Tree U2 meets Toad the Wet Sprocket. I’m still positive about this country’s potential for growth, especially if we start investing in education and infrastructure more and blowing up other countries less.

    Nice to see BiW back.

    R, you guys commented on Poolman’s absence. I also notice no Tex. As you know, I stopped reading his stuff a month ago, but I haven’t had to skip over any of it tonight. Has he gone on another sabbatical? Muffy too?

    ET, I won’t even start. You sound pretty pissed. Just keep in mind, the way you feel about this is the way a lot of us feel about Citizens United. I’m not talking about a legal or constitutional equivalency. I bow to your greatness on all things SCOTUS and know better than to ignite that exchange. But on a strictly visceral level, we do have something in common here.

    And remember, I’m an amoeba, not a gnat. Maybe that will put a smile on your face. 🙂

  92. Poolmans absence speaks volumes.

    Volumes, eh? Well it just so happens I have five pool projects going and so work has kept me away from the Rutherford Lawson blog. And agreeing with 116, I also don’t think this clusterfuck of a health care bill worth my time of day.

    I would have been good with single-payer, but since have little confidence anything can be solved through government, especially ours.

  93. @118 that’s funny but I am glad you’re doing well business wise.You’re self employed right? Not worth your time? Really? Yeah that is funny.

    @117 I get you on the visceral commons but don’t share your optimism on growth. The USA needs a dramatic shift if it is to survive let alone prosper. The sad thing is the solutions are all well known.

    @116 & why 118 is funny. I never read Poolman a libertarian only a Paulist which embraces New Deal love+ smaller govt.= a joke.

    @115 sorry for the sorrow Newt but everything I listed is or has happened. The neo-Soviets have 2 Bolei class subs in the water,Mercosur has opened chats with China,Ecuador is developing a city meant to service Pacific trade,Remnibi trading is streaking skywards,China and Pakistan are in treaty/contract negotiations ,and Turkey has sent forces to the Syrian border. The only mixed bag from my earlier is Cyprus’s soured economic status is in full display which dovetails nicely into two potential Eastern Med stories.Those involving Turkey,Israel and energy. That should arouse ones volatility meter but indeed are yet to play out.
    On the flip side I just had an awesome cup of Italian roast coffee.

  94. Alfie when I read your comments @113, I wondered if citizens of other countries, Canada, Sweden, wherever, take all of news to heart and feel such a personal responsibility to rectify all the world’s problems. Somehow I doubt they do.

  95. You’re self employed right? Not worth your time? Really?

    Yes, yes, and yes.

    I own a pool construction company. Right now I am the only employee. This is historically the busiest time of year.

    I argued the ACA while it was becoming law. It made no difference and caused great consternation. These guys basically do what the corporates tell them. The constitution is rendered moot. This law was written by insurance and pharma industries, like most of our legislation is.

    We, the people, no longer have representation in this land. Proved over and over and again. Goldman Sachs is king AND queen.

    My best use of time is in developing self sufficient means of survival for myself and community. I’ve learned long ago you can only help those who want help. Time is the one thing we all are given and should steward wisely.

  96. @ Newt I’m not out to rectify the worlds problems I’m just about the US not falling down further. I truly believe America has a lot at stake.

    I do believe folks in other countries that actually hear news do indeed embrace it within their realms of concern. For example I think Europeans are as much in tune with potential neo-Soviet aggression exerted via Gazprom screwing them as they are the EuroCup final. Again the euros are obviously focused on the EU austerity bailout which is multi-national in nature. Europeans care a lot about Syria and Turkey for external and internal reasons.
    Latin American press was pretty clear on the whole Paraguay thing and do I need to open up the Falklands/Malvinas thing? And seriously how much more is the rest of the world invested in the geopolitics of climate change.

    I confess I’m a total FP wonk and see potential in many things others dismiss and sometimes dismiss for good reason. On the spectrum of focusing on domestic issues so as to perhaps afford the luxury of international issues I come form the other direction.

  97. Sorry if I gave the impression I thought it was just you worrying and even strategizing how to best solve the world’s problems, I am guilty too. And no, I don’t think the rest of the world, even though they stay informed, takes on the mental burden we impose on ourselves. I think, I’ll learn to meditate.

  98. @ poolman not to get too personal but are you looking to:
    1)pay the tax err penalty err tax thing?
    2) go down Alamo style when the IRS comes?
    3) buy insurance?
    4) grab Medicaid?
    5) hide “off the grid” as long as you can?
    6) “fuck it I already have insurance”?

  99. @123 this is a classic example of where thread discussions fail where face to face works.
    I disagree others fail to take on the mental burden,I will concede the burdens probably trend differently. (starving kids in Africa,Aboriginals getting played etc.) but its there. Also don’t get me wrong I think it is more important for an American to care about their job,neighborhood etc. and then care about the stuff I’ve mentioned,it’s just frustrating to me so many of my countrymen can’t find these things/places on a freaking map. Uugghhhh!
    I also think it would be great if Americans could meditate and reflect and chill better. That lends to constructive response. Sadly we tend to go full stupid and lap up mind numbing “entertainment” escapism.
    So with a deep breath and and a sigh I return to my yard work and thank you for conversation. I also apologize for any offense found in the close of my #83, that was meant as more literary than literal.A touché to the comment you made so to speak.

  100. #97 lame lame lame. hell that’s not even apples:oranges. Penalties on 401k are secondary to the tax you avoided. 401k are entered into voluntarily and penalties and benefits included are part of the contract. ObamaCare isn’t a voluntary contract!!!!

  101. Alfie,

    I practice holistic health and do not have a health care broker on retainer at the current time. I have gone it both ways in the past.

    Cash is king for any clinical requirement. They cut the bill sometimes as much as 90 percent if you pay cash.

    I don’t know what the future holds and what my choice will then be.

    Nothing is guaranteed, even if premiums are kept current. Plus, I really despise insurance in general. I’m not one to take advantage of it, though plenty folks I know do and think I am crazy not to.

    I also am not much of a gambler. Some folks think that doesn’t jive.

  102. @poolman you actually sound like the ideal candidate for the true insurance route. I’m a fan of that route myself. You get a real plan that when the medical or traumatic train wreck hits it pays. You stay healthy on your own, otherwise a mix of self treatment and consumer driven health care. I’d only add that the insurance plan would be extra nice if you one could finance via a health care IRA thus providing tax savings and portability plus the ownership society of leaving it when you’re gone.
    Portability,true cost/consumerism,just you and the clinician no middle man,and if the big one occurs no fiscal ruin.

  103. Stephen Moore, an economist with the Wall Street Journal, appeared on Fox News recently to discuss the ramifications of the president’s new health care law…and his analysis is sure to come as a shock to those who haven’t been following the matter closely.

    Though Barack Obama assured the middle class he would not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 a year, Moore’s research shows that in reality, a significant percentage(75%) of the burden will be shouldered by those making $120,000 or less by the year 2016.

  104. I wanted to be done with this thread but it has dragged me back.
    I was going over some of the Medicaid expansion numbers. The Fed will be bearing the overwhelming brunt of this,as opposed to the states,still it is all taxpayer $$$ no matter who pays it out. I’d also say I could provide data that shows Medicaid patients have documented worse outcomes than folks without insurance. My thing here being: Is Medicaid expansion really the best idea?
    select expansions are: NC 53.5% increase,CO 65%,NV a whopping 88.6%. TX is 63.5% and that % represents at least 2 million people.
    Medicaid expansion eligibility targets those @ 133% of the FPL. For a family of 4 the annual income trip is $30,657.
    Many physicians have reached their limit on accepting Medicaid patients on a PCP basis. I fear this will leave people covered but not cared for. It will also be ripe for further fraud events. In the end it will be good money down a drain.

  105. #133, I wish you had watched Melissa Harris-Perry this morning, she and her guests addressed and explained most of your concerns.

  106. I never,ever watch msnbc,on the flip side I don’t watch Fox either and it is for the same reasons.I can’t offer much in rebuttal/follow through to your comment @135.
    I will say my resource for the bulk of my comments in 133 is the US government. (stats,%’s & FPL)
    Various news sources (including NYT) and an industry survey (Jackson Healthcare) provided the back up on the accepting patients thing and it didn’t look at the Medicare issue which is just as bad.(and equally well sourced by many)
    The outcomes comment did come from a slanted source,Gottlieb, but then again his rhetoric aside his piece was well sourced from respected non-partisan entities such as Cancer,Annals of Surgery and American Journal of Cardiology.
    No offense intended but I think I can safely stand by my 133 which two questions are all mine and still open.

  107. For those that don’t read the facebook links his was just too good to pass on so I’ll type it out.

    ‘Let me get this straight … We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t. Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it, but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke!

    What the Hell could possibly go wrong?’

    Personally I missed the part where we are adding 16,000 IRS agents. The average IRS agent makes $76,710 a year. That is an additional $1,227,360,000 in annual spending that I am sure was not included in the bills cost .

  108. A great comment from the photo posted by Noah: “I really think Trumps hair is screwing with his brain!” LOL

    Sorry, as King of the Birthers and Exaggerator-in-Chief nothing Trump says holds any weight with me even though my 8 year old daughter admires him for his billions.

  109. Serious question Rutherford. Why don’t you comment without being insulting? You didn’t take on a single point.

    You use King of the Birthers and Exaggerator-in-Chief and nothing Trump.

    Are you so ignorant, or is your position so weak, that you can only attack the messenger, and never the message? I thought yours was the better way? I thought you had the moral high ground( in your opinion.) Why is it you cant take any of the message but can come up with line after line if insults? Do you feel this is making a positive contribution? Do you think this moves the discussion forward?

    Why not instead show us how any of his points are wrong? Show us where he lied or misinformed us. Bit by bit, line by line show us how what he said is inaccurate. Or is it the point he isn’t wrong, and you are just confounded and unable to refute anything he has said, so you take the low road and go for the man?

  110. The Canadian woman on the radio this morning said if you have money you are fine. The Canadians and British have a shadow system which lets patients use doctors independent of the national health care operation.

    One writes a $10,000 or $20,000 check or pays with a credit card as if buying a car or tractor. Rationing is for the poor and unconnected.

  111. Now that we have punitive taxation approved by our supreme court, how long do you think before we start having debtor’s prisons? I bet 10 years tops.

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s