Are you seriously suggesting that bills does nothing more than force people--who couldn't afford health insurance prior--to start paying for health insurance, or pay a fine?
If they couldn't afford it before, how in the hell are they going to afford it, now?
Stop spreading right wing propoganda. The truth is that the latest CBO analysis found the net cost would be $50 billion LESS than originally estimated. The "double the cost" rhetoric is a flat-out lie, as the new gross cost estimate covers a different time period than the original gross cost estimate.
But I agree that Obamacare is just a good beginning -- focusing as it did more on expanded coverage than cost containment. Now we need to focus solely on the cost side of the equation.
But now that the near-costless years 2010 and 2011 have elapsed, the true 10-year price tag comes into focus. From 2013 through 2022, the CBO reports, the costs of Obamacare come to $1.76 trillion — almost twice the phony original number.
High Court to hear Obamacare - chicagotribune.com
It's amazing how many people are DETERMINED that the law is evil ... without having a clue what's in it. Now maybe Nancy Pelosi's comment starts to make sense?
What the bill does, primarily, is extend health insurance to 30 million Americans who don't have it. It doesn't force anyone who can't afford it to buy insurance. But it does attempt to force people who CAN afford it to buy insurance. The bill provides subsidies, on a sliding income scale, for those who can't afford to buy it on their own.
No. The legislative intent has a great deal to do with it. If they didn't intend it as a tax, then it's not a tax. This is according to the rules of statutory construction which courts follow.
I think the individual mandate will be upheld.
The Federal government has the power to tax, that's a given. Does it have the power to tax if you don't do something? I think SCOTUS will find that it does. If not, Obamacare is gutted.
Well, gee whiz! Why don't you educate us...and be sure and cite the bill to support your claims. Thanks in advance.
We had to create this monstrocity of a bill to do that?
I thought that's what medicaid was for.
Yes the fed govt. has a right to tax. If the health care is a tax, then why doesn't the feds say with this tax, here is your health care policy (like medicare). Why give people a choice since we have to pay the tax.
Medicaid does not address people who are above the poverty line but who still can't afford insurance.
Of course the law does a lot of other good things
There are probably 100 good summaries you could find in a 30 second Google search if you were interested. As a general policy it's probably a good idea to know what you're opposing before you oppose it. :roll:
Which begs the question: what the hell's the real objective of Obamacare, to begin with?
Why not just tweak medicaid? :rofl
Like what???
It's not my job to prove you right. That burden falls squarely at your doorstep, sir. Take your own advice and be able to support that which you support.
the first ruling will be whether the penalty amounts to a tax.
Q&A: The details of the Supreme Court's healthcare debate - latimes.com
the argument is that the mandate cannot be thrown out before someone actually has to pay the penalty for not buying health insurance.
i'm curious to see the outcome of this.
No. The legislative intent has a great deal to do with it. If they didn't intend it as a tax, then it's not a tax. This is according to the rules of statutory construction which courts follow.
Just stumbled across this. It's a video report on today's activity from CNN, but based on this, it looks like the court will probably rule(oops, I was wrong again maybe), and that it could be very interesting how this plays out.
Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
That certainly would have been the best way to go but there's no way it would have passed Congress.
That is not quite what the rules of statutory construction are:
Statutory Construction | LII / Legal Information Institute
Overview
Any question of statutory interpretation begins with looking at the plain language of the statute to discover its original intent. To discover a statute's original intent, courts first look to the words of the statute and apply their usual and ordinary meanings.
If after looking at the language of the statute the meaning of the statute remains unclear, courts attempt to ascertain the intent of the legislature by looking at legislative history and other sources. Courts generally steer clear of any interpretation that would create an absurd result which the Legislature did not intend.
I am happy with what I have now.
What are you talking about?
Like I said above, this isn't a case where the meaning of the statute is unclear.
Even if it was, however, the legislative intent would surely indicate that the penalty was included, in part, to raise revenue.
Are you seriously suggesting that bills does nothing more than force people--who couldn't afford health insurance prior--to start paying for health insurance, or pay a fine?
If they couldn't afford it before, how in the hell are they going to afford it, now?
Yes the fed govt. has a right to tax. If the health care is a tax, then why doesn't the feds say with this tax, here is your health care policy (like medicare). Why give people a choice since we have to pay the tax.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?