On June 29 2012 02:20 Defacer wrote: Honestly, Republicans should be jumping for joy right now.
Roberts was very deliberate in stating that the ACA is constitutional, ONLY because for all intents and purposes it's not 'mandatory', but non-participation is penalized through a tax.
This is like Obama handing the Supreme Court a gun, and Roberts loading it with a silver bullet and handing it to the Republicans.
Obama must defend the ACA as a potential tax penalty, and not just the merits of Health Care reform overall.
I agree. I'm surprised by the decision, but I can't describe how I feel as upset. I have been pondering ramifications of the decision, and I see bad for liberals and good for conservatives. Republicans are about to put a vote to the House on repealing this, and every Democrat will now have to either vote against the ACA or vote for this huge tax increase, which they will have difficulty defending leading up to November. Not a chance in hell the vote will happen in the Senate, but you can bet every Democrat Senator up for election in November 2012 will have to answer that question, with the context that it is a tax. Extreme liberals will get re-elected anyways, but it's going to get interesting in the battleground states.
Calling it a tax is semantics and politics.
Sure, it's legally valid semantics now.
But it's still just wordplay, it makes absolutely no difference to the underlying mechanics and health care effects of Obamacare.
But now Romney gets to claim that Obama 'raised taxes' with the hated Obamacare and the braindead part of the american electorate will eat it up and continue to live in their illusion that they live the independent, american way while picking up their foodstamps.
It's obviously gonna be an issue in the election, but this outcome is the best Obama could have hoped for. Rejection of Obamacare would have been a major blow to his presidency, making him seem powerless and fickle. Now its just a difference of opinion between the two candidates, and Romney has to overcome his record as a governor and general flipflopper.
Obama didn't raise these taxes but his healthcare bill will go the same route that medicare/medicaid does. The problem isn't that Conservatives don't want a free healthcare system, it's just that we can't afford it. Countries like sweden and norway can afford it and it does well because if factors like the GDP per capita is much higher than US and spending in the us government is atrocious because it is a well that you can just pluck funding out of. In '65 when Medicare was introduced it was supposed to cost 9 billion in 1990 but cost 67 billion, and it is even worse now. Government programs like this are so expensive in a country of 300 million that you can't hope for the same kind of success as you would in smaller european countries. Not to mention that the EU is practically failing, and you could associate the higher taxation of the citizens to this cause (as well as pensions). Obamacare is not going to pay for itself, it is going to cost more money than we can estimate now and what's worse is that it creates uncertainty in the market. Employers are not hiring because the increase in cost per employee is rising and will continue to rise.
Second point- Obamacare is not hated, it's just a bad bill, not only was it delivered with multiple things added including handouts to states that shouldn't have even been considered, the bill tries to force a contract between two private parties and meddles in an already over inflated business.
Why would you call people that have a dissenting opinion braindead? Not only do you lose credibility by being a dick, you also patronize a minority on forums like these in a similar way to bullying. Btw, there are about 50 million people on food stamps and most view it as a free voting tool for big government politicians, which is dominated by the left, not the right.
You are right, if Obamacare was repealed then he would be fairly gimped, it was one of his main policies (probably main) during these first 4 years and it being unconstitutional would hurt a lot. But even if it was repealed he would be able to play the underdog, The mainstream media in this country would portray the democratic party as the guys fighting for the people against the greedy republicans that never pass any bill and want your children to die of cancer. This could have been a win for the GOP but it is really about limiting the size of government (who we don't trust, we don't think that the government is efficient in any way) and making the US economic engine viable for future generations.
I don't think romneys position as a governor is a hurdle he will have to overcome with most independents, the strong republicans are already going to vote for him and the strong liberals are already going to vote for Obama. Also, every politician flip-flops, Democrats just call it evolving.
On June 29 2012 02:33 Derez wrote: It's obviously gonna be an issue in the election, but this outcome is the best Obama could have hoped for.
Almost too bad there's no way we can run an experiment to see If ACA had been overturned, that would take away arguably Romney's biggest attack against Obama - the unpopularity of "Obamacare". However a ruling overturning the law might have also taken away any little bit of wind liberals have in their sails.
I'd argue that Obama essentially had the ACA endorsed by the supreme court, which makes Obama look a hell of a lot more legitimate and authoritative. It gave the ACA a ton of credibility. And its hard to argue the supreme court ignores the constitution when they just allowed lying about military medals as protection of freedom of speech.
It makes him look legitimate and authoritative if and only if he embraces the fact that he has imposed this tax. As long as he contends that it was never his intention for this to be considered a tax, he looks illegitimate, inauthoritative, and a complete imbecile as a 'Constitutional Law Professor'.
I agree with the previous poster that calling it a tax or not is semantics. Romney always could have called it a tax this just makes it a bit easier to do so. In general it's pretty easy to argue that money going to the government is a tax... because that's pretty much the definition of a tax.
On June 29 2012 02:33 Derez wrote: It's obviously gonna be an issue in the election, but this outcome is the best Obama could have hoped for.
Almost too bad there's no way we can run an experiment to see If ACA had been overturned, that would take away arguably Romney's biggest attack against Obama - the unpopularity of "Obamacare". However a ruling overturning the law might have also taken away any little bit of wind liberals have in their sails.
I'd argue that Obama essentially had the ACA endorsed by the supreme court, which makes Obama look a hell of a lot more legitimate and authoritative. It gave the ACA a ton of credibility. And its hard to argue the supreme court ignores the constitution when they just allowed lying about military medals as protection of freedom of speech.
It makes him look legitimate and authoritative if and only if he embraces the fact that he has imposed this tax. As long as he contends that it was never his intention for this to be considered a tax, he looks illegitimate, inauthoritative, and a complete imbecile as a 'Constitutional Law Professor'.
Only if you're the kind of person who believes that if the smartest people in the room correct you on a point (SCOTUS can be safely considered the smartest people in the room on the subject of constitutional law) then you're an imbecile. Which you should not be, since you should have some depth of thought.
I swear you must have taken classes in hyperbole. You're quite good at it.
You seem quite accepting of Obama being corrected by SCOTUS. I, however, remember him publicly (some might call it scolding) directing them upon how they should rule on this case back when the arguments were being heard. He doesn't seem to think they are smarter than him. He still doesn't. He still hasn't acknowledged the 'taxing' nature of this law. I don't think he ever will. He is the one with the arrogance to know better than the SCOTUS Justices on the matter of Constitutional Law. I don't think it's unreasonable to find him to be arrogant, and since he's wrong, an imbecile when it comes to the very area of law that he is supposed to be the expert.
On June 29 2012 02:33 Derez wrote: It's obviously gonna be an issue in the election, but this outcome is the best Obama could have hoped for.
Almost too bad there's no way we can run an experiment to see If ACA had been overturned, that would take away arguably Romney's biggest attack against Obama - the unpopularity of "Obamacare". However a ruling overturning the law might have also taken away any little bit of wind liberals have in their sails.
I'd argue that Obama essentially had the ACA endorsed by the supreme court, which makes Obama look a hell of a lot more legitimate and authoritative. It gave the ACA a ton of credibility. And its hard to argue the supreme court ignores the constitution when they just allowed lying about military medals as protection of freedom of speech.
It makes him look legitimate and authoritative if and only if he embraces the fact that he has imposed this tax. As long as he contends that it was never his intention for this to be considered a tax, he looks illegitimate, inauthoritative, and a complete imbecile as a 'Constitutional Law Professor'.
I agree with the previous poster that calling it a tax or not is semantics. Romney always could have called it a tax this just makes it a bit easier to do so. In general it's pretty easy to argue that money going to the government is a tax... because that's pretty much the definition of a tax.
Yeah, well, the more tax one pays, the less semantics one considers these taxes to be.
On June 29 2012 02:22 Leth0 wrote: Terrible decision by our 'supreme court'. Sure , the thought of everyone having health care is a nice thought, but to penalize the uninsured in any way is communism, plain and simple. I'm a healthy man, I take care of myself, and I pay for my own healthcare, but I had that choice and I did it on my own. I could of just as easily decided that it was not needed and saved myself some money, but not anymore, the choice is no longer yours. It's nanny state to the extreme, the US government is not everyones mommy and daddy, it really needs to stop acting like it.
It's not communism... You should look these things up before you make a post like this, you make conservatives look uninformed and frankly stupid. The word you are looking for is Fascism and while that is a trait of fascism I wouldn't consider either political party or anyone talking about Obamacare as fascists. Also, if you can't afford it you won't be taxed for it.
I do agree that the nanny state that we seem to be "evolving" into is not appropriate and is bad for our country. Smoking laws are a perfect example of this.
On June 29 2012 02:20 Defacer wrote: Honestly, Republicans should be jumping for joy right now.
Roberts was very deliberate in stating that the ACA is constitutional, ONLY because for all intents and purposes it's not 'mandatory', but non-participation is penalized through a tax.
This is like Obama handing the Supreme Court a gun, and Roberts loading it with a silver bullet and handing it to the Republicans.
Obama must defend the ACA as a potential tax penalty, and not just the merits of Health Care reform overall.
I agree. I'm surprised by the decision, but I can't describe how I feel as upset. I have been pondering ramifications of the decision, and I see bad for liberals and good for conservatives. Republicans are about to put a vote to the House on repealing this, and every Democrat will now have to either vote against the ACA or vote for this huge tax increase, which they will have difficulty defending leading up to November. Not a chance in hell the vote will happen in the Senate, but you can bet every Democrat Senator up for election in November 2012 will have to answer that question, with the context that it is a tax. Extreme liberals will get re-elected anyways, but it's going to get interesting in the battleground states.
Calling it a tax is semantics and politics.
Sure, it's legally valid semantics now.
But it's still just wordplay, it makes absolutely no difference to the underlying mechanics and health care effects of Obamacare.
But now Romney gets to claim that Obama 'raised taxes' with the hated Obamacare and the braindead part of the american electorate will eat it up and continue to live in their illusion that they live the independent, american way while picking up their foodstamps.
It's obviously gonna be an issue in the election, but this outcome is the best Obama could have hoped for. Rejection of Obamacare would have been a major blow to his presidency, making him seem powerless and fickle. Now its just a difference of opinion between the two candidates, and Romney has to overcome his record as a governor and general flipflopper.
Obama didn't raise these taxes but his healthcare bill will go the same route that medicare/medicaid does. The problem isn't that Conservatives don't want a free healthcare system, it's just that we can't afford it. Countries like sweden and norway can afford it and it does well because if factors like the GDP per capita is much higher than US and spending in the us government is atrocious because it is a well that you can just pluck funding out of. In '65 when Medicare was introduced it was supposed to cost 9 billion in 1990 but cost 67 billion, and it is even worse now. Government programs like this are so expensive in a country of 300 million that you can't hope for the same kind of success as you would in smaller european countries. Not to mention that the EU is practically failing, and you could associate the higher taxation of the citizens to this cause (as well as pensions). Obamacare is not going to pay for itself, it is going to cost more money than we can estimate now and what's worse is that it creates uncertainty in the market. Employers are not hiring because the increase in cost per employee is rising and will continue to rise.
Most people consider nationalised health care to be cheaper than privatised health care. The reason that your Medicare is so expensive is because your hospitals are for-profit organisations. Nationalised health care cuts out the middle man (insurance companies).
As I said earlier in this post, insurance companies have to pay more because of the lack of budget restraint on government programs. I do agree that if healthcare systems were switched completely over to a public system and the burden of disease was covered by all it would be a better and cheaper program. However, just adding on new legislation like obamacare is just going to bury the US. The switch is not simple at all and would take decades.
Obama didn't raise these taxes but his healthcare bill will go the same route that medicare/medicaid does. The problem isn't that Conservatives don't want a free healthcare system, it's just that we can't afford it. Countries like sweden and norway can afford it and it does well because if factors like the GDP per capita is much higher than US
2010 : Sweden 47 667 US : 47 132 That's a pretty terrible argument in my humble opinion.
On June 29 2012 02:33 Derez wrote: It's obviously gonna be an issue in the election, but this outcome is the best Obama could have hoped for.
Almost too bad there's no way we can run an experiment to see If ACA had been overturned, that would take away arguably Romney's biggest attack against Obama - the unpopularity of "Obamacare". However a ruling overturning the law might have also taken away any little bit of wind liberals have in their sails.
I'd argue that Obama essentially had the ACA endorsed by the supreme court, which makes Obama look a hell of a lot more legitimate and authoritative. It gave the ACA a ton of credibility. And its hard to argue the supreme court ignores the constitution when they just allowed lying about military medals as protection of freedom of speech.
It makes him look legitimate and authoritative if and only if he embraces the fact that he has imposed this tax. As long as he contends that it was never his intention for this to be considered a tax, he looks illegitimate, inauthoritative, and a complete imbecile as a 'Constitutional Law Professor'.
Only if you're the kind of person who believes that if the smartest people in the room correct you on a point (SCOTUS can be safely considered the smartest people in the room on the subject of constitutional law) then you're an imbecile. Which you should not be, since you should have some depth of thought.
I swear you must have taken classes in hyperbole. You're quite good at it.
You seem quite accepting of Obama being corrected by SCOTUS. I, however, remember him publicly (some might call it scolding) directing them upon how they should rule on this case back when the arguments were being heard. He doesn't seem to think they are smarter than him. He still doesn't. He still hasn't acknowledged the 'taxing' nature of this law. I don't think he ever will. He is the one with the arrogance to know better than the SCOTUS Justices on the matter of Constitutional Law. I don't think it's unreasonable to find him to be arrogant, and since he's wrong, an imbecile when it comes to the very area of law that he is supposed to be the expert.
If the mere act of disagreeing makes one arrogant than I doubt there is a humble person on this earth. Also its not that unusual for a president to try to lobby the supreme court to decide a case the way he wants it.
On June 29 2012 02:20 Defacer wrote: Honestly, Republicans should be jumping for joy right now.
Roberts was very deliberate in stating that the ACA is constitutional, ONLY because for all intents and purposes it's not 'mandatory', but non-participation is penalized through a tax.
This is like Obama handing the Supreme Court a gun, and Roberts loading it with a silver bullet and handing it to the Republicans.
Obama must defend the ACA as a potential tax penalty, and not just the merits of Health Care reform overall.
I agree. I'm surprised by the decision, but I can't describe how I feel as upset. I have been pondering ramifications of the decision, and I see bad for liberals and good for conservatives. Republicans are about to put a vote to the House on repealing this, and every Democrat will now have to either vote against the ACA or vote for this huge tax increase, which they will have difficulty defending leading up to November. Not a chance in hell the vote will happen in the Senate, but you can bet every Democrat Senator up for election in November 2012 will have to answer that question, with the context that it is a tax. Extreme liberals will get re-elected anyways, but it's going to get interesting in the battleground states.
Calling it a tax is semantics and politics.
Sure, it's legally valid semantics now.
But it's still just wordplay, it makes absolutely no difference to the underlying mechanics and health care effects of Obamacare.
But now Romney gets to claim that Obama 'raised taxes' with the hated Obamacare and the braindead part of the american electorate will eat it up and continue to live in their illusion that they live the independent, american way while picking up their foodstamps.
It's obviously gonna be an issue in the election, but this outcome is the best Obama could have hoped for. Rejection of Obamacare would have been a major blow to his presidency, making him seem powerless and fickle. Now its just a difference of opinion between the two candidates, and Romney has to overcome his record as a governor and general flipflopper.
Obama didn't raise these taxes but his healthcare bill will go the same route that medicare/medicaid does. The problem isn't that Conservatives don't want a free healthcare system, it's just that we can't afford it. Countries like sweden and norway can afford it and it does well because if factors like the GDP per capita is much higher than US and spending in the us government is atrocious because it is a well that you can just pluck funding out of. In '65 when Medicare was introduced it was supposed to cost 9 billion in 1990 but cost 67 billion, and it is even worse now. Government programs like this are so expensive in a country of 300 million that you can't hope for the same kind of success as you would in smaller european countries. Not to mention that the EU is practically failing, and you could associate the higher taxation of the citizens to this cause (as well as pensions). Obamacare is not going to pay for itself, it is going to cost more money than we can estimate now and what's worse is that it creates uncertainty in the market. Employers are not hiring because the increase in cost per employee is rising and will continue to rise.
Most people consider nationalised health care to be cheaper than privatised health care. The reason that your Medicare is so expensive is because your hospitals are for-profit organisations. Nationalised health care cuts out the middle man (insurance companies).
On June 29 2012 02:20 Defacer wrote: Honestly, Republicans should be jumping for joy right now.
Roberts was very deliberate in stating that the ACA is constitutional, ONLY because for all intents and purposes it's not 'mandatory', but non-participation is penalized through a tax.
This is like Obama handing the Supreme Court a gun, and Roberts loading it with a silver bullet and handing it to the Republicans.
Obama must defend the ACA as a potential tax penalty, and not just the merits of Health Care reform overall.
I agree. I'm surprised by the decision, but I can't describe how I feel as upset. I have been pondering ramifications of the decision, and I see bad for liberals and good for conservatives. Republicans are about to put a vote to the House on repealing this, and every Democrat will now have to either vote against the ACA or vote for this huge tax increase, which they will have difficulty defending leading up to November. Not a chance in hell the vote will happen in the Senate, but you can bet every Democrat Senator up for election in November 2012 will have to answer that question, with the context that it is a tax. Extreme liberals will get re-elected anyways, but it's going to get interesting in the battleground states.
Calling it a tax is semantics and politics.
Sure, it's legally valid semantics now.
But it's still just wordplay, it makes absolutely no difference to the underlying mechanics and health care effects of Obamacare.
But now Romney gets to claim that Obama 'raised taxes' with the hated Obamacare and the braindead part of the american electorate will eat it up and continue to live in their illusion that they live the independent, american way while picking up their foodstamps.
It's obviously gonna be an issue in the election, but this outcome is the best Obama could have hoped for. Rejection of Obamacare would have been a major blow to his presidency, making him seem powerless and fickle. Now its just a difference of opinion between the two candidates, and Romney has to overcome his record as a governor and general flipflopper.
Obama didn't raise these taxes but his healthcare bill will go the same route that medicare/medicaid does. The problem isn't that Conservatives don't want a free healthcare system, it's just that we can't afford it. Countries like sweden and norway can afford it and it does well because if factors like the GDP per capita is much higher than US and spending in the us government is atrocious because it is a well that you can just pluck funding out of. In '65 when Medicare was introduced it was supposed to cost 9 billion in 1990 but cost 67 billion, and it is even worse now. Government programs like this are so expensive in a country of 300 million that you can't hope for the same kind of success as you would in smaller european countries. Not to mention that the EU is practically failing, and you could associate the higher taxation of the citizens to this cause (as well as pensions). Obamacare is not going to pay for itself, it is going to cost more money than we can estimate now and what's worse is that it creates uncertainty in the market. Employers are not hiring because the increase in cost per employee is rising and will continue to rise.
Most people consider nationalised health care to be cheaper than privatised health care. The reason that your Medicare is so expensive is because your hospitals are for-profit organisations. Nationalised health care cuts out the middle man (insurance companies).
Don't forget the premium increases brought on by the provision of uncompensated care for the uninsured and ill.
On June 29 2012 02:33 Derez wrote: It's obviously gonna be an issue in the election, but this outcome is the best Obama could have hoped for.
Almost too bad there's no way we can run an experiment to see If ACA had been overturned, that would take away arguably Romney's biggest attack against Obama - the unpopularity of "Obamacare". However a ruling overturning the law might have also taken away any little bit of wind liberals have in their sails.
I'd argue that Obama essentially had the ACA endorsed by the supreme court, which makes Obama look a hell of a lot more legitimate and authoritative. It gave the ACA a ton of credibility. And its hard to argue the supreme court ignores the constitution when they just allowed lying about military medals as protection of freedom of speech.
It makes him look legitimate and authoritative if and only if he embraces the fact that he has imposed this tax. As long as he contends that it was never his intention for this to be considered a tax, he looks illegitimate, inauthoritative, and a complete imbecile as a 'Constitutional Law Professor'.
Only if you're the kind of person who believes that if the smartest people in the room correct you on a point (SCOTUS can be safely considered the smartest people in the room on the subject of constitutional law) then you're an imbecile. Which you should not be, since you should have some depth of thought.
I swear you must have taken classes in hyperbole. You're quite good at it.
You seem quite accepting of Obama being corrected by SCOTUS. I, however, remember him publicly (some might call it scolding) directing them upon how they should rule on this case back when the arguments were being heard. He doesn't seem to think they are smarter than him. He still doesn't. He still hasn't acknowledged the 'taxing' nature of this law. I don't think he ever will. He is the one with the arrogance to know better than the SCOTUS Justices on the matter of Constitutional Law. I don't think it's unreasonable to find him to be arrogant, and since he's wrong, an imbecile when it comes to the very area of law that he is supposed to be the expert.
Being wrong makes him an imbecile? You are literally absurd.
It's not like Obama said "the sky is down underneath us." There was no factual right or wrong on the topic. The topic was amazingly complicated, and the SCOTUS decided his interpretation of the constitutional powers of government and the commerce clause were not in line with their own, and since they have the power to make the decisions, what they say goes.
You're acting like he asserted vehemently that up was down and 1+1=3. Please demonstrate some depth of thought.
On June 29 2012 02:22 Leth0 wrote: Terrible decision by our 'supreme court'. Sure , the thought of everyone having health care is a nice thought, but to penalize the uninsured in any way is communism, plain and simple. I'm a healthy man, I take care of myself, and I pay for my own healthcare, but I had that choice and I did it on my own. I could of just as easily decided that it was not needed and saved myself some money, but not anymore, the choice is no longer yours. It's nanny state to the extreme, the US government is not everyones mommy and daddy, it really needs to stop acting like it.
If not everyone pays insurance, insurance would be unpayable for most.
An American in this thread said 400 dollars is a basic insurance. There is no way in hell that normal people can pay that. I pay 135 dollars monthly for my insurance, and why? Because everyone in my country pays insurance so that it can be affordable by all. If you cannot pay the bill, you get extra money from the government.
If my insurance cost 400 dollars a month, with no help from the government and no obligation for everyone to have insurance, I and many others would not be able to have insurance.
For 400 dollars a month I could get an insurance that pays for every cosmetic procedure possible and delivers my bills written in gold per helicopter to my house...
The 400 per month is due to poorly written government programs that essentially allow companies to charge government programs like medicare rediculous amounts and since insurance companies have to pay that much it drives the price up like mad.
On June 29 2012 02:33 Derez wrote: It's obviously gonna be an issue in the election, but this outcome is the best Obama could have hoped for.
Almost too bad there's no way we can run an experiment to see If ACA had been overturned, that would take away arguably Romney's biggest attack against Obama - the unpopularity of "Obamacare". However a ruling overturning the law might have also taken away any little bit of wind liberals have in their sails.
I'd argue that Obama essentially had the ACA endorsed by the supreme court, which makes Obama look a hell of a lot more legitimate and authoritative. It gave the ACA a ton of credibility. And its hard to argue the supreme court ignores the constitution when they just allowed lying about military medals as protection of freedom of speech.
It makes him look legitimate and authoritative if and only if he embraces the fact that he has imposed this tax. As long as he contends that it was never his intention for this to be considered a tax, he looks illegitimate, inauthoritative, and a complete imbecile as a 'Constitutional Law Professor'.
I agree with the previous poster that calling it a tax or not is semantics. Romney always could have called it a tax this just makes it a bit easier to do so. In general it's pretty easy to argue that money going to the government is a tax... because that's pretty much the definition of a tax.
Yeah, well, the more tax one pays, the less semantics one considers these taxes to be.
Exactly. Whoever has to pay the tax is not likely to give a crap if it is called a tax or penalty or fee or whatever. The SCOTUS 'officially' declaring it a tax only matters in terms of constitutional law - nothing else.
I'm watching a former director of the CBO on the news and here's some basics of what he's just said:
Based on the part of the law determined unconstitutional, States can refuse to expand their Medicaid coverage, as called for in ACA. Further, they can even constrict their pool of people eligible for Medicaid. This forces these people into the 'state exchanges', which are funded by the Federal government, not the States. These exchanges have to accept everyone and are entirely funded federally. Now, we have known a number of states weren't going to expand Medicaid coverage, but not it seems states are actually given incentive to actually restrict Medicaid eligibility rules, forcing the maximum amount of poor people into these exchanges. The additional costs of these exchanges were not considered in ACA budgeting and will require additional taxpayer money. This is one example of how this is not budget neutral and will require tax increases even beyond what have already been imposed. With Republicans in control of at least one House of Congress, and not likely to get removed, this will get very interesting and very 'red' in terms of deficits.
On June 29 2012 02:20 Defacer wrote: Honestly, Republicans should be jumping for joy right now.
Roberts was very deliberate in stating that the ACA is constitutional, ONLY because for all intents and purposes it's not 'mandatory', but non-participation is penalized through a tax.
This is like Obama handing the Supreme Court a gun, and Roberts loading it with a silver bullet and handing it to the Republicans.
Obama must defend the ACA as a potential tax penalty, and not just the merits of Health Care reform overall.
I agree. I'm surprised by the decision, but I can't describe how I feel as upset. I have been pondering ramifications of the decision, and I see bad for liberals and good for conservatives. Republicans are about to put a vote to the House on repealing this, and every Democrat will now have to either vote against the ACA or vote for this huge tax increase, which they will have difficulty defending leading up to November. Not a chance in hell the vote will happen in the Senate, but you can bet every Democrat Senator up for election in November 2012 will have to answer that question, with the context that it is a tax. Extreme liberals will get re-elected anyways, but it's going to get interesting in the battleground states.
Calling it a tax is semantics and politics.
Sure, it's legally valid semantics now.
But it's still just wordplay, it makes absolutely no difference to the underlying mechanics and health care effects of Obamacare.
But now Romney gets to claim that Obama 'raised taxes' with the hated Obamacare and the braindead part of the american electorate will eat it up and continue to live in their illusion that they live the independent, american way while picking up their foodstamps.
It's obviously gonna be an issue in the election, but this outcome is the best Obama could have hoped for. Rejection of Obamacare would have been a major blow to his presidency, making him seem powerless and fickle. Now its just a difference of opinion between the two candidates, and Romney has to overcome his record as a governor and general flipflopper.
Obama didn't raise these taxes but his healthcare bill will go the same route that medicare/medicaid does. The problem isn't that Conservatives don't want a free healthcare system, it's just that we can't afford it. Countries like sweden and norway can afford it and it does well because if factors like the GDP per capita is much higher than US and spending in the us government is atrocious because it is a well that you can just pluck funding out of. In '65 when Medicare was introduced it was supposed to cost 9 billion in 1990 but cost 67 billion, and it is even worse now. Government programs like this are so expensive in a country of 300 million that you can't hope for the same kind of success as you would in smaller european countries. Not to mention that the EU is practically failing, and you could associate the higher taxation of the citizens to this cause (as well as pensions). Obamacare is not going to pay for itself, it is going to cost more money than we can estimate now and what's worse is that it creates uncertainty in the market. Employers are not hiring because the increase in cost per employee is rising and will continue to rise.
Most people consider nationalised health care to be cheaper than privatised health care. The reason that your Medicare is so expensive is because your hospitals are for-profit organisations. Nationalised health care cuts out the middle man (insurance companies).
Don't forget the premium increases brought on by the provision of uncompensated care for the uninsured and ill.
The problem of US healthcare is that they take nearly the worst of both worlds. Pointing to US healthcare and saying that it proves national public healthcare system cannot be run in such a big country is rather unsupported. There seem to be no big disparity in effectiveness of healthcare systems in Europe between nations related to their size.
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read peoples reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because universal health care is "comminist"
On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote: It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because of no universal health care.
Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray.
"the people in the US"
Pretty please, don't generalize all US citizens based off some outlandish reactions here on the internet forums. It's a move in the right direction. Of course we don't have a perfect system yet.
EPT
If ACA had been overturned, that would take away arguably Romney's biggest attack against Obama - the unpopularity of "Obamacare". However a ruling overturning the law might have also taken away any little bit of wind liberals have in their sails.
