The GOPTP & Romney's Horrible, Awful, Very Bad Week (again). The Supreme Court gave the GOPTP and Mitt Romney migraine headaches this week while Immigration gave them ulcers last week.

Watching republican lawmakers line up at the microphoneyesterday, obviously they had been sucking on lemons just before taking the stage. They were so sure of themselves. After all, they had lied to the people quite effectively for the past two years about the health care law. They also misread the polls and continue to do so. They were positive their carefully cultivated and chosen right-wing justices would come through for me and declare ACA unconstitutional. No one ever doubted that Scalia, Thomas and Alito were in the GOP's pocket; Kennedy an almost sure thing and Roberts just had to be on their side. Except Chief Justice Roberts was NOT. He did what SCOTUS is supposed to do, look for the Constitutionality in the law. There job is not to play politics with law and Roberts knew that.

The GOPTP's talking point is that the Supreme Court ruled ACA Constitutional but that doesn't mean it is good policy. Expect to hear and see some form of that phrase for the next weeks and perhaps months.

Two victories for President Obama and for the citizens of this country. First, each of us can continue walking our streets, driving our cars without wondering when someone will ask for "papers please". Second, the United States took a giant step forward to catch up with the rest of the 65 years ahead of us civilized world when it comes to the health and well being of our citizens.

Third, the Kangaroo GOP House proved once and for all that Darryl Issa and those who kissed the feet of the NRA without proof, without a full investigation, without any justification for their action--as Issa admitted on several occasions--care not about justice for the dead DEA agent but merely about smearing an individual because that person was appointed by President Barack Obama. Shame, shame, shame. Obviously, Boehner and GOPTP hoped to keep this kangaroo court vote out of the Public's attention by purposely scheduling it the same day as the Supreme Court would rule on the Affordable Care Act. But democrats can play the game, too, and a huge number of them staged a walk out quite visible to the press cameras and that protest made the news, too. We the people will now and forever hold John Boehner's GOP 2010 House in Contempt; Contempt for making a mockery of Congress.

P.S. How odd that for weeks conservative posters flooded First Read with their swoop and dump one-liners yet, with few exceptions for the regulars here, the conservatives posters disappeared like the smoke Darryl Issa blows.

What really irks the tea people Koch republicans is they thought they had the SC in their back pocket, now they find out they don't and they go ballistic. They also think because they have all the citizens united money it will cover up all their lies. They'll be even more irked when they find out that ain't true either. Note to the tea people Koch republicans, you may be bought and paid for by citizens united, but the rest of the country and the SC aren't. Did you people really think citizens united could buy you the white house, the house, the senate and the supreme court. You all have been sold a bill of goods by your leaders. Thing is Romney is stupid enough to fall for it to.

I find it quite hilarious that the supposed party of personal responsibility is whining like a bunch of schoolgirls over a fine for doing something most would consider incredibly irresponsible that amounts to less than a speeding ticket.

I still don't understand how this will lower the cost of my premiums.

Because more people will be in the insurance pool. You're paying for the free loaders now. If the free loaders have to kick in, the costs for those who have insurance already will go down.

The basic business plan of any kind of insurance is spreading the risk out over many people as possible . The more people you have, the more the costs risk can be spread out costing each individual a little less.

CONSTITUTIONAL!

God what a great country! Peace and love my friends!

Couldn't get edit to work. That should be John Boehner's 2011 House in Contempt. Thanks to Feisty's reminder, I'll add to my Paragraph 3, "TAX", it's a tax. Of course that tax is about $90 and there is no mechanism to collect it so the counter-point should be if it cannot be collected, it is not a tax.

Backhouse, Feisty, good morning and terrific way to start this happy Friday, "I got a feelin', it's gonna be a good, good" day.

Yea Joe you'll start laughing as soon as you can get those tears out of your eye's from all the crying and whining you've been doing sense yesterday. Nobody believed the happy face you tried to put on behind your key board, we can see the tears through you posts.

Gremlins at work again this morning. Edit to my #1.5 comment, that should be John Boehner's GOP 2011 House. Add to Paragraph #3, "TAX", the GOPTP's other talking point BUT the counter to that is this: if there is no mechanism to collect a tax, no lien placed on income, no IRS provision to collect it....there is no tax. It's that magical, mythical mandate clause.

that should be "come through for them" in paragraph 2.

Good morning to my liberal friends, well said. Let's just say "I got a feelin'.....it's gonna be a good, good" day.

Good grief, my first post to correct was not there but now it is.

It's immoral to profit off the illness of others. What we need is:

Universal Heath-care for all Americans now!

Jason,

The individual mandate was called the individual responsibility act by Governor Romney.

If you don’t want a tax increase then just buy the insurance and stop freeloading off of the rest of us.

The tax (fine) is estimated to affect 3% to 5% of us. Last year in Mass. it collected the fine on only 1% of their residents.

Cool, then you should be happy that the tax will be used to pay down the debt, see Win-Win.

But the tax is not being used to pay down the debt. It is being used to pay part of the 1.76T cost of the ACA.

Because more people will be in the insurance pool. You're paying for the free loaders now. If the free loaders have to kick in, the costs for those who have insurance already will go down.

My point is that because the tax penalty compared to even the cost of a subsidized policy is so low you will actually be increasing the number of freeloaders. Add to this the fact that employers are being fined $2000 per employee who receives premium support credits is also and inducement for employers to drop healthcare.

One of the biggest holes, and I can't find out if it has been rectified yet, is that there is no mention of family plans for employees. So if the penalty is simply $2K per employee, it is a huge cost benefit to a company who previously was insuring employees AND their family members simply to drop the benefit and pay the fine.

What the heck happened yesterday? The health care law specifically did not call the penalty associated with the individual mandate a "tax" for obvious political reasons. Instead the law uses the term "penalty" which is described as a "shared responsibility payment." But Roberts, in his wisdom, chose to interpret the penalty as a tax anyway and thereby uphold the individual mandate under the authority of Congress' taxing power. But as the dissent points out: "To say that the individual mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it." Talk about judicial activism run amok, and from the "conservative" Roberts no less. Who knew?

Bill in Fairfax, if you haven't taken the time to read the opinion by Chief Justice Roberts I suggest you do so. I may not agree with his politics (see also: Citizens United) but I do not question his intelligence after reading the opinion.

"...every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality..."

Hooper v. California set precedent...a precedent that Chief Justice Roberts understood...look at the big picture of the Constitution and not just what was argued. He may, deep down, want to see ACA go away but you're right if you say he took the Court's legitimacy into consideration in rendering the decision. He found a way to refer the ultimate fate of the law back to Congress.

Cowardice? It may be viewed that way by those who oppose the decision.

Smart and a wise use of judicial restraint? Absolutely.

60% doesn't agree with the ruling. What does that tell you?

That 60% don't know what they are talking about, or still think a this corporate giveaway of a bill based on bad republican policies sucks.

Don't worry, this is the first step towards Medicare for all...just watch

60% doesn't agree with the ruling. What does that tell you?

That 60% of those who answered a poll disagree with the ruling. That does not mean 60% of the entire country does not agree with the ruling.

We had 2 T Bagger's heads explode last night and 4 more jumped from a bridge in Philadelphia.There are alot of them who say they are going to move to Canada they are looking for maps as we speak.

Sounds like wishful thinking

Mitt Romney's campaign has raised $4.3 million with 43,000 online donations since the Supreme Court's decision to uphold President Barack Obama's health care law, campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul told The Huffington Post on Friday.

Saul confirmed to HuffPost that it was the campaign's biggest 24-hour small-donor haul to date, and there were still several hours to go.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/mitt-romney-campaign-health-care_n_1637012.html

Good morning, all.

Can't stay, but I wanted to drop in and bring you some news from the Heartland.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/viewart/20120628/GPG0101/120628045/Wisconsin-job-creation-ranks-40th-in-nation-in-2011

The good news is, of course, that BLS more-or-less -- a little less, actually -- confirmed the job growth numbers that Scott Walker was touting during the recall campaign.

The bad news is, however, that even as revised, Wisconsin was tied for 42d in job growth in the nation, including last among ALL its neighboring states -- like the evil Illinois. Wisconsin's job growth rate was only half the national average.

Walker promised to create 250,000 jobs during his first term. He is on pace to create 78,000.

Scott Walker -- How's that working for you?

Have a wonderful weekend, everyone.

Feisty - I see some of the mental midgets are back today. And, clearly no joe thinks writing a LONG statement will fool people into thinking she is saying something important and useful, instead of insipid and idiotic.

Bill, for you dung is the best you're going to get because it's all you strive to achieve.

Great week for President Obama. Great week for the country. I have the feeling we'll be seeing more of these Great Weeks in the months ahead.

The far right is floundering since they have no leadership. They were certain they owned the Supreme Court until Justice Roberts - for some reason - had a few days of sanity. Amazing how things turn out.

I'm certain Mitt is questioning just who he can count on and laughing as more of his VP pool indicate they have no interest in joining the sinking ship.

And, how exactly, is Mitt going to demonize a healthcare plan so much like the one he set up in Mass? Oh well, he'll find a way. He was probably for it before he was against it, then passed it, only to be against it again. Or something.

Feisty - thanks for having my back yesterday. Pretty sure Legalize is Kirk - back from the ashes! Sheish!

Have a great day everyone! And, no joe - no more books - they take up a lot of space and pretty sure no one reads them since they come from you!

Obama/Biden 2012

Bill, Fairfax-

Excellent summary. The most cogent breakdown of yesterdays ruling I have read.

I am still not very happy with Roberts. I need someone to explain to me why he took it upon himself to do the job that the DOJ failed to do in their arguments. That is stating the obvious, that the ACA is a tax and not constitutional under the commerrce clause.

But one truth always holds true, whether it is from the Chief Justice or some insignificant poster here at First Read.

If you don't like the direction our elected officials are taking the country, VOTE.

So we will see in November, just how big a "Victory" this was for the Democrats, I suppose.

Bubblegum!

I am not real happy about the outcome, but I am pleased with the fact that to my limited understanding, the SC followed through via the Constitution. That is more important to me than my leanings. Because agree or disagree, if it doesn't work for the person I disagree with most, it will not work for me (or you) either.

Hahahahaha, I had Wild Alaskan Copper River Salmon earlier this week and T-bone steaks are on the grill menu for tomorrow along with some Iowa sweet corn with a mixed green and arugula salad prior. There's Sam Adam's Boston Lager in the fridge and......fresh mint in the herb garden for Mojitos. I think this qualifies as a one-up on Albany Joe!

"I got a feelin'....it's gonna be a good, good....." weekend!

P.S. There was much celebration at Organizing for America at the county democratic headquarters. I know because I worked there last night.

I'm amused to see the conservatives out here struggling to find a way to explain Chief Justice Roberts' actions in siding with the liberals to uphold the ACA.

Maybe he just got tired of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

And maybe, just maybe, he realized that by doing what he did -- making himself the swing vote on the Court -- he arguably became the most powerful man on this planet.

For the next few years at least, whatever the Supreme Court does is up to John Roberts.

And face it, folks, whenever that happens, the results become pretty unpredictable.

Remember Earl Warren? Remember Warren Burger?

Both Republicans who, when they got into that particular position of power, took seemingly inexplicable swings to the left.

John Roberts no longer answers to the Koch brothers. He no longer answers to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He no longer answers to anyone but John Roberts.

I'm actually smiling about this today.

If you think the Supreme court justifying this as a tax is a win for Obama, than you think it's ok for Romney to flip flop as well.

I am still not very happy with Roberts. I need someone to explain to me why he took it upon himself to do the job that the DOJ failed to do in their arguments.

WCA,

See my post above...Chief Justice Roberts found his reason in Hooper v. California from 1895.

Even though the administration never argued "Power to Tax", Hooper v. California says that "every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality."

In the Chief Justice's opinion, if fit into "Power to Tax" so he let it stand...and essentially gave it back to the other branches of government to resolve.

Well, well, well. Janine admits that the individual mandate is, indeed, a magical, mythical mandate....thus calling the republican talking point nonsense.

RomneyCare has a mandate; Massachusetts now has 98% of its people covered by insurance. That did not happen immediately. As the insurance pools nationwide are developed, more and more people will choose to buy health insurance because it will be more affordable.

I have serious doubt as to the validity of any poll taken the day of the SCOTUS ruling. It has about as much validity as polls which claim ACA is unpopular yet huge majorities like what is it.

Even though the administration never argued "Power to Tax", Hooper v. California says that "every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality."

In other words, always find a way to change the constitution to fit your agenda. This is the main problem with politics. It's a bunch of lawyers looking to circumnavigate the constitution instead of preserving the rights we were granted.

Republicans do not like this bill ???? Well, how about ALL republicans in congress and senate giving up their health care ?????

After all it is paid by the american people, so socialism works so well for them but it would not work for the rest of americans ??? Hypocrits !!

And these hypocrits who say they hate gouvernment, but... aren't they part of the government ??? Well, why don't they give up their government's job too, then ??

CROOKS !

WCA -- thanks, and keep fighting the good fight.

If Obamacare is so wonderful, why did Nevada, Harry Reids state, and many of Pelosi's cronies get waivers? I don't want the incompetent government in charge of anything relating to my healthcare. This is a tax and will hurt the middle class most of all.

That's because they know anything government run is F'ed up.

YOU americans should have had Universal health care LONG AGO !!! READ ARTICLE 25 THAT WAS SIGNED BY ALL INDUSTRIAL COUNTRIES INCLUDING AMERICA !!

NO they used the money to built an industrial complex that is the military, now.

Republicans have been in violation of that treaty they signed !! and they ripped you off that right that is Universal health care !

VOTE THEM ALL OUT !!!

Obama 2012

For those rare RWNJ's that can read, or those that missed this last night:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/health-care-law-mandate-tax-how-many-people-affect/

The health insurance mandate upheld today by the Supreme Court will impact roughly 26 million Americans, or 8 percent of the population, according to a recent study by the Urban Institute and an independent analysis by MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who advised both Mitt Romney and President Obama on health care law.

Those individuals will be required to obtain coverage or pay a fine starting in 2014.

Not everyone will be forced to pay out of pocket, however. Here’s how it breaks down – courtesy of the Urban Institute:

– 8.1 million will be eligible for free/close-to-free insurance through expansion of Medicaid under the law.

– 10.9 million will have to purchase coverage but receive subsidies to help with premiums

– 7.3 million (2 percent of population) will not be eligible for any assistance and will simply have to buy a plan or pay the penalty.

Look at it the other way, the mandate will not directly impact most Americans. Two hundred fifty million out of 268 million non-elderly folks, or 94 percent, of Americans already have insurance coverage through an employer or the government and don’t face the penalty or having to buy a new plan.

But Jody - how much fun it is watching these angry little birds fly into the windows! lol

Even our usual spin-masters are plum SPUN OUT! lmao

We knew we'd get the last laugh right? Gonna be the hottest November on record this year.

But that tax is just a word ! it will be way cheaper than paying the insurance companies !!!!

this is what you don't seem to get !

Feisty,

Judge Roberts did do the right thing, but don't gloat too much over the decision. He also slapped the administration in the face by saying that the individual mandate cannot stand as a part of the commerce clause. He goes on to explain that the commerce clause limits the federal government to regulating commerce not creating it. He also slapped the authors again by saying that they could not constitutionally "bully" states into expanding Medicaid by withholding all of their funding if they chose not to participate! This is the part you really overlooked as significant, because this effects the ability of ACA to insure those 30 million without insurance as many cannot afford to pay premiums and were to be picked up on the expanded Medicaid roles. Though many of the provisions in ACA benefit the consumer, the problem with ACA is the lack of methods to control costs. Whether the mandate is considered a tax or not is really insignificant, the damage that will be done by ACA has already started and will grow worse until it is repealed. We do need to do something to ease the costs of health care, but even as a first step, ACA does more to increase costs than to limit them.

First REad:

“The fact that the chief justice, a conservative appointed by Republicans, wrote the opinion today would and should give Americans a lot of confidence in the decision that it's not just a political thing," SCOTUSBlog’s Tom Goldstein told NBC’s Pete Williams yesterday.

Roberts showed a considerable amount of courage in going against the far-right establishment. Now he's likely to be demonized on Fox News, and he might even be subjected to a shunning in the social circles of the rich and powerful ultraconservatives. It's been pointed out that then-Senator Obama voted against his confirmation to the Supreme Court, but Roberts passed up the chance for some petty political pay-back.

But still it's unfortunate he doubled down on his horrendous Citizens United ruling by striking down the Montana campaign finance law that was passed in a referendum a century ago to break the grip of two copper barons who had bought every politician in the state. Now some modern-day equivalent of the copper barons will probably purchase the state again, now that it's once again up for sale.

So, like most people in positions of power to make consequential decisions throughout history, Roberts will probably be regarded as having made a mixture of good and bad decisions. He's definitely shown some character.

Oh, and by the way: The government can STILL make you eat your broccoli. They can make you pay a tax if you don't. So Obama's evil plot to impose Godless Broccoli-ism on America is still proceeding as planned. Bwahahaha!!!

Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation: More Than $700 Million Per Year In Increased Fees And Taxes Under Romney. "Fees and taxes have increased more than $700 million a year under Governor Mitt Romney and Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, a leading budget specialist said yesterday. Michael J. Widmer -- president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which closely tracks state finances -- said the state has raised roughly $740 million to $750 million per year by increasing fees and corporate taxes gained from what the Romney administration describes as 'closing loopholes.'(Brian Mooney, "Analyst Puts Increase In Fees, Taxes At $700m," The Boston Globe, 9/27/06)

Massachusetts homeowners paid a steep price for Romney's shell game. The average single-family property tax bill statewide rose from $3,015 in fiscal 2002 to $3,799 in 2006, a 26 percent increase, or $784 a year. During the same period, the residential property tax levy (that is, the total amount collected) increased by $1.8 billion statewide, or a staggering 35 percent from fiscal 2002 to 2006. (Massachusetts Municipal Association Research Bulletin, 4/3/06)

Romney’s Claim That He Didn’t Raised Taxes Is “Mostly A Myth.” “Romney will likely also be eager to push the message that he was a governor who stood by a no-new-taxes pledge. That’s mostly a myth. His first budget included no general tax increases but did include a $500 million increase in various fees. He later proposed $140 in business tax hikes through the closing of ‘loopholes’ in the tax code.” (Stephen Slivinski, “Fiscal Policy Report Card On America’s Governors: 2006,” Cato Institute, 2006, p. 26)

Romney nickeled and dimed Massachusetts families and individuals with over a hundred fee increases, on everything from getting married (he upped the price for a marriage license), to buying a new home (he increased charges for Registry of Deeds paperwork), to owning a gun legally (he tripled the fee for a Firearms ID Card). (romneyfacts.com)

Under Romney, the Tax Foundation's ranking of Massachusetts' business friendliness slid from 26th to 37th in America. Meanwhile, Massachusetts' tax burden swelled 10.8 percent(newsobserver.com 12/20/07)

**************************

Good luck working families if you vote for Romney. You're going to get screwed under his policies.

Not fair all this food talk - my dinner will be soda crackers and ginger ale! And the knowledge I won't lose my health care

Obama then: "It is absolutely not a tax...not a tax..."

Obama now: "hell yes its a tax!"

The administration did argue the tax side but minimally; their emphasis was more on the commerce clause. As Chief Justice John Roberts noted his majority justification for upholding ACA yesterday, it is the job of the Supreme Court to FIND the Constitutionality within any law. That is exactly what he did and that is what our SCOTUS is supposed to do.

Yesterday 8 democratic Senators in swing states up for re-election (who would not have supported the ACA if it was a tax) just crapped their pants. 2010 all over again, only I expect now with even more aggression.

And $3M in the Romney coffer in one day? Thank you SCOTUS for clearing up previously blurred positions among independents. They are clear now.

I'm looking forward to a weekend of Top Ramen and boxed wine, thank you student debt, but that's beside the point.

I have yet to hear any GOP/TP member, supporter, or politician, explain the flip flopping in regards to the individual mandate and/or ACA. This was a conservative/repulican, private sector solution, thought up at The Heritage Foundation (conservative think tank). So why do you all of a sudden hate it now???

I have what is considered a "Cadillac Plan", will I have to pay more "taxes"? I wonder how many other's plans are considered this?

Bill in Fairfax -- Let's face it the SC decision by claiming the mandate a tax means Romney raised taxes as governor. It seems he leans a little to the Keynesian school of thought as well with his plan to increase government spending in Defense, should he be elected, which must just rankle your bones Bill. The increase in Defense spending has always been the way Republicans boost growth.

Roy Wilson -- Where the heck have you been, cost shifting began in 80's with the EMTALA.

I find it so very interesting that Mitt is running away from the only decent thing he did while governor of Massachusetts, namely the health care plan which contains the individual mandate. So even though I'm on medicare, when tax time rolls around I have to put a few codes into the state form to keep from paying the non-compliance penalty. Onerous but acceptable. Now MA has the highest insurance participation in the country, and Obama care was built on this model, a Republican plan. Wow!!

Bill, Fairfax --

My take is Roberts is keenly aware the legitimacy of the Court could have been called into further question with a 5-4 decision by a conservative majority to strike down Obamacare. So with the longer term institutional interests of the Court in mind, he steered the justices to a compromise position that gave conservatives some of what they wanted and gave the left a big piece of what they wanted.

The same thing happened in the Arizona case, if you'll remember. A carefully crafted majority of the Court threw out a big chunk of the law and then steered Arizona toward an understanding of what they had better do to keep the rest of that law enforceable.

But do you not find it as interesting as I do that, whenever the "legitimacy" of the Court comes into question, the swing is almost always to the left?

What does that say about the right and the collective conscience of at least three of the last 4 or 5 chief justices?

All in all, I'd say it's been an interesting week in Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Did it ever occur to you teapubs that maybe, just maybe Roberts found his tax decision based on the fact that the repubs were arguing that it was a tax? Thanks teapubs, you basically agured the case that deemed the bill constitutional. LMAO

Only an ignoramus would base or change its opinion of Obama on the SCOTUS decision.

The part most people are missing is that this won't be cheaper. I know that's what Obama has said, considering he would have a clue about healthcare economics. This brought trillions in new unfunded liabilities to the american people, made the cost of labor for hiring increase, cost of medical devices increase, health insurance premiums increase, and speed up the retirement of doctors already seen leading to a shortage. In essence people without insurance before will be helped by this law but we have no way to pay for it and it will be evidednced in taxes and inflation on everyone.

Pity,

Here's the problem. You all complain, complain, complain, but don't offer any counter solutions, solutions, solutions. Please explain why we can afford to have a military 14 times the size of the second largest in the world and we can cut taxes on, literally, the wealthiest individuals IN THE WORLD, but we can't provide healthcare to sick kids?

Since you don't want this tax, tax, tax (and by the way nothing in the bill has changed, if you didn't see it as a tax before simply calling it one now doesn't make its substance different) how do you suggest we fix, fix, fix, the problem, problem, problem???

Tax returns show contributions to anti-gay groups.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s charitable foundation gave $35,000 to antigay groups in 2010, including $10,000 to the Massachusetts Family Institute. Massachusetts’ citizens are familiar with the Institute’s efforts to continue discrimination against the transgender community by running ads claiming that the passage of the trans rights bill would lead to crime in public bathrooms. The Massachusetts Family Institute is also the organization that sponsored the 2007 anti-same-sex marriage amendment.

CNN has detailed reports on Romney’s charitable giving and notes that $25,000 from Romney’s foundation went to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Becket Fund defended the Mormon Church against lawsuits after the church’s involvement in financially backing California’s Proposition 8 was revealed.

The contributions are in stark contrast to the face Romney’s presents during debates and campaign stops. Romney has repeatedly stated that he will not discriminate.

Per Bay Windows, Sue O'Connell

**************

With all his money, why the hate? Why? Because he's rich and doesn't give a damn about people, to the point of giving money to those who discriminate. That's not leadership. That's just being a cold hearted hater.

The health insurance mandate upheld today by the Supreme Court will impact roughly 26 million Americans, or 8 percent of the population, according to a recent study by the Urban Institute and an independent analysis by MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who advised both Mitt Romney and President Obama on health care law.

8.1 million will be eligible for free/close-to-free insurance through expansion of Medicaid under the law.

I guess you missed this part of the ruling

The Supreme Court said on Thursday that a huge expansion of Medicaid envisioned in the 2010 health care law was an option, not a mandate, for states. Experts disagreed on whether states would take the option, one of the most important questions created by the court’s decision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/uncertainty-over-whether-states-will-choose-to-expand-medicaid.html

Charlie-1915998The basic business plan of any kind of insurance is spreading the risk out over many people as possible . The more people you have, the more the costs risk can be spread out costing each individual a little less.

But those individuals who will now be getting insurance are not getting it for free. Nothing is free folks, someone is going to pay for it and again it will be the middle class. The individuals who can afford to purchase insurance will still be paying for their coverage. In other words you're taking it out of one pocket and putting it into another. So individual health premiums will not stop going up.

Then, in 2016, when the penalty is fully phased in, it will be $695 for an individual (up to $2,085 per family) or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is greater. Now, average annual insurance cost for an individual is around $3500. So if you were an individual paying $3500, wouldn't you drop your insurance and pay the $695, saving you $2800 per year and still medical treatment? So we insure that more people will come off the insurance to save money, especially in this horrible economy. $2800 is a lot of money for any individual.

Employers will pay the fine like individuals because the fine is lower than the payment for their workers coverage. More people off insurance.

No this is going to cause our insurance to skyrocket. And anyone that thinks differently is living in lala land.

This was and has been just bad legislation. Which is usually the case when you pass something you never bothered to read.

You are correct PityTheFool, my insurance premiums have gone up in the last two years as HC providers banked as much as they could before the 2014 parts of the law kick in. Now they will go up even more - there is no way these guys are going to eat the tax all by their lonsomes. Do banks do that?

This is how Scott's Walker's continuing resistance to implementing ACA is being met in this state --

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/capitol-report/capitol-report-walker-s-vow-to-delay-implementation-of-health/article_e9d86b3e-c194-11e1-a791-0019bb2963f4.html

Even Walker's own attorney general, who supported him all through the rest of his shenanigans, now says Walker is legally required to implement the law.

While Walker and his state Department of Health Services secretary, Dennis Smith, said they would not advance efforts to create the state’s health exchange until after the November elections, others said the state had to implement the law, including state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, a Republican, at a Capitol press conference.

I saw some clips from this press conference and Van Hollen wasn't at all amused.

http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/160732435.html

Nearly 30 states, including Wisconsin, sued over the law, alleging it was unconstitutional. Van Hollen, a Republican, handled Wisconsin's participation in the lawsuit.

But he said Thursday that Walker is obligated to follow the law according to its deadlines.

Sarah,

I will buy you a gift certificate for Slows BBQ if you would like. I think you deserve it. I am serious as well, this is not a joke.

I read an AP article today about the contemptible tea bag Congress vote on Eric Holder. It looks like the media has shoved the recent Fortune article about Fast and Furious down the memory hole in record time. According to AP, as well as NPR, Fast and Furious is still a "botched gun-tracking" (the media has settled on repeating those same words) operation rather than a case of law enforcement being unable to arrest the suspects because there was no legal basis to do so since Arizona law puts no limit on the size of an arsenal anyone can buy.

The guns bought by Fast and Furious suspects were found at the scene of the border agents death, but it's the NRA and their Republican allies who are responsible for allowing the guns to get there.

Alan, NJ8.1 million will be eligible for free/close-to-free insurance through expansion of Medicaid under the law.

Newsflash...NOTHING COMES FREE

Feisty - thanks for having my back yesterday.

Anytime GF! ;o)

Gonna be the hottest November on record this year.

LOL Bryan! You know it!

During the debate over healthcare, Republicans argued that most Americans already get insurance through their employer, so the law was just a give-away to deadbeats.

Now, Republicans claim, that asking employers of more than 50 workers to provide health insurance as a benefit, is just too much to ask of business. Gee, which is it? Larger businesses already offer insurance, or it's too much of an expense for large businesses to offer insurance?

Here's the problem. You all complain, complain, complain, but don't offer any counter solutions, solutions, solutions. Please explain why we can afford to have a military 14 times the size of the second largest in the world and we can cut taxes on, literally, the wealthiest individuals IN THE WORLD, but we can't provide healthcare to sick kids?

What does sCHIP do then? However, one of my suggestions instead of this unwieldy bill was to end sCHIP and replace it with Medicare for Kids - cover all kids until they leave High School and require Full Time College Tuition to include health Insurance . This would have reduced the cost to employers thus beginning to move away from employer based insurance; it would have been relatively cheap as kids are relatively healthy and it would have helped with natal and pre-natal care thus improving our child mortality statistics. And yes it would be funded by taxes.

A smaller start and easier to digest than PPACA, and would have reduced premiums.

Backhouse

After the SCOTUS final ruling on the Affordable Care Act yesterday, the GOP deflect & dramatize strategy kicked into high gear. Of course Issa's mission is to negate the President's successes - and manufacture whatever against the White House.

Let's review. first Obama claimed time and time again, the mandate is NOT a tax. Then his administration argued before the Supreme Court that the mandate is a tax. Then the Supreme Court ruled that the mandate indeed is a tax on the American people.

Obama believes and stated that raising taxes on anyone during a recession would be bad for the economy. In fact, Obama promised America he wouldn't increase taxes on anyone making less than 250K a year. But then Obama celebrates the passage of his Obamacare which is the largest tax increase on the American people (poor, middle class, and rich) in the history of our Country. This is good?

Darryl Issa admits there is zero evidence against the White House re: Operation Fast & Furious, yet now holds U.S. Attorney General Holder in contempt of Congress. Holding a cabinet member in contempt is a FIRST in all of U.S. history. Major denigrate & abuse points go to Issa from his party for that. And it beats creating jobs that put food on the table or improving the economy, any day of the week.

Of course they have no proof, Obama invoked executive privileges keeping the truth from all of us. That's the whole point. Can't blame Bush for that.

BobbyJones,

MMMMMMMMM....Slows! I'm having a Homer Simpson moment.

Alan,

But then you're raising tuition and burdening those coming out of college with even more debt. See my comment above about what I'm going to be eating this weekend. Not to mention that the University system lacks transparency and is, itself, screwy.

The point of my comment to Pity, was that people need to stop whining. If we can afford our military, we can afford healthcare. Some people need to just pay their taxes and shut up. A low tax rate isn't "limited government" it's poorly funded government. We aren't oppressed because of our taxes. Sorry TP people, I know it's exciting to think of yourselves as "patriotic rebels", but you're really just acting like a bunch of PITA's, for the most part.

"But do you not find it as interesting as I do that, whenever the "legitimacy" of the Court comes into question, the swing is almost always to the left"

That's because in our center-right country, the left usualy holds a minority point of view. So I'm actually more impressed with the tolerance of the right to accomodate those folks in the interests of political comity than I am with some purported notion of the "legitimacy" of their views. But nice try, counselor.

Houston said:

The guns bought by Fast and Furious suspects were found at the scene of the border agents death, but it's the NRA and their Republican allies who are responsible for allowing the guns to get there.

EXACTLY! Apparently, this is too subtle a point for the msm to digest. I have yet to see the Fortune magazine investigation mentioned in msm stories about the contempt charge on the TV news.

Daily Kos:

Maybe Romney thinks that this is an easy way to appease his base, but this isn't your typical pander: Romney is saying this is his first and foremost priority—before he does anything else, he'll repeal Obamacare. Maybe he's lying, but unless he repudiates this video, it's crystal clear that his number one pledge has nothing to do with growing the economy or adding jobs—it's repealing health care reform.

President Obama laid the groundwork yesterday in his brilliant statement after the court's ruling. It's the perfect contrast for the campaign: now that the Supreme Court has spoken, President Obama wants to move forward, not just continuing to implement the law, but to focus our national energy on accelerating the economic recovery, creating more good jobs, and strengthening the middle class.

Romney, meanwhile, is stuck in the past. His priority isn't to move the country forward: his priority is to take us backward.

****************

Let's talk about the economy. Let's talk about Bain.

John Nichols, The Nation:

Had Romney come to Freeport, he would have heard how much Bain’s approach has harmed not just the Sensata workers but Freeport and counties along the Illinois-Wisconsin stateline that have suffered more than their share of plant closings.

In addition to the “significant human toll on the more than 140 families that will be affected by this loss of jobs and financial security,” says Blum, “The loss of these jobs will have a tremendous impact on our regional economy.”

That’s a story that Mitt Romney does not want to focus attention on. So his bus didn't stop in Freeport.

############

Coward.

What Justice Roberts accomplished was to prove the PResident Obama is a liar. By stating that the fee for not having insurance is a tax, he has shown that PRoesident Obama is a liar. President Obama stated when Obamacare was being debated that it was not an tax and now the Supreme Court has defined it as a tax. In fact it is the largest tax increase in the history of the United States.

I wonder how many entitlement hungry liberals understand just how far reaching this descison will be in future legislation.

Beside having socialist tendencies, President Obama is nothing more than a tax and spend liberal.

The second highest tax increase will happen on Jan. 1, 2012 when the Obama tax cuts expire.

ABO '12

TexasT --

You are correct PityTheFool, my insurance premiums have gone up in the last two years as HC providers banked as much as they could before the 2014 parts of the law kick in.

Poppycock.

Your insurance premiums have been going up every year, regardless of ACA, and those increases have, every year, far exceeded the cost of living.

Why? Because there is nothing in place to control it, and left to their own devices, insurance companies have no scruples.

Although insurers may have tried to bank funds, those who did it and violated the 80/20 rule will be giving it back to consumers. To the tune of $1.1 billion this year alone. If that includes you, then your premium effectively goes down, and the chair of HCA makes a little less, for a change.

If the Supreme Court had overturned ACA, there would have been nothing to prevent your insurers from keeping that money and then raising your premiums even sky higher.

If you can't get how that alone is a BIG benefit of ACA, then you just can't see straight.

Bill, Fairfax --

So I'm actually more impressed with the tolerance of the right to accomodate those folks in the interests of political comity

Then why wasn't it unanimous, like Brown v. Board?

Guess again, Bill.

Sarah,

Like I said, I'm serious. If you ever want to take me up on the offer let me know. We can figure out a way to get you the gift certificate.

What went completely unnoticed yesterday was the SCOTUS decision that lying is ok because it is a first amendment thing. Remember that guy who ran for office and said he earned awards in the military that he never did? Stolen Valor Act. These justices claim to be Christians. I guess only when it comes to woman's vaginas. Roberts and Kennedy are A OK with giving a win to the "Father of the Lie, Satan the Devil!" John 8 :44. At least Scalia, Alito and Thomas did the right thing being consistent with their Christian principles.

Why have the Republicans wanted to live in luxury at the expense of regular Joe's right to mere survival?

Where is their humanity? Their attitude toward healthcare reform is just another case in point.

You all complain, complain, complain, but don't offer any counter solutions, solutions, solutions.

The problem with being the party of 'No,' or filibusters, or whatever stop measures are taken by the party out of power, is that you can't do it from the point of view of cutting off your nose despite your face. Which is exactly the difference between the 2006 Democrats and 2010 Republicans. The truth comes out. Doesn't matter how much screaming and b*tching and pointing fingers is done. If you really are not interested in solutions, it is going to show.

And that's why thinking conservatives have no chance while bagging teaheads are running the show. The clown Republicans have made the entire party look like clowns. Yes, in the past, the Democrats have done the same thing. But right now, it is pretty clear that the Republicans have been taken over by No Clowns who really have no solutions, and are being politically outmaneuvered.

As long as your conservative heroes are stooges like Jan Brewer and Scott Walker, you might as well keep your white makeup and red nose on. Because those people are not conservatives. They are just flaming a*sh*les.

Dude- 875416 - ARE YOU SERIOUS???? Bush invoked Executive Privilege several times during his Presidency - during the Valerie Plame "outing"; when he refused to release the minutes of the meetings between Cheney and the energy companies; etc. Know what you're talking about before you post. You just look damned foolish with junk like this!

Feisty - REALLY hot! My air conditioning went down- two days before they can get over to fix it! Thank heaven for great friends!!!

Steve Benen:

As a matter of policy, this is deeply silly. The mandate remains a tax penalty that will only apply to free riders — about 1% of the population, according to the CBO, who can afford insurance but refuse to get it.

But even if we put this aside, there’s that nagging detail the Boston Herald and other Republicans keep overlooking: Mitt Romney’s health care law in Massachusetts, his crowning accomplishment in government, has an identical mandate and an identical tax penalty. If Obamacare’s mandate must be considered a tax increase, Romneycare’s mandate must also be considered a tax increase.

Indeed, we can make this even more explicit: Mitt Romney is the only public official in American history to approve and implement this specific tax increase.

#######

A fact so easily overlooked by Romney and his base. They don't realize Romney is using this decision as a means to get their money.

And as usual they fall for it hook, line and sinker.

Money Money - Romney doesn't need your money but he wants it and will lie to get it.

Legally, he can't repeal anything.

Politics has turned into a giant poker game, with "The People" funding the revolving players...

GW "Boy George" Bush expanded the national debt by $4.899 Trillion in his eight(8) years in office.

BH "Broke Insane" Obama has matched that in just 3.5 years ($4.939 Trillion), and if he gets a second term, it is estimated that he will raise it at least another $4.4 Trillion without this {still} Unconstitutional piece of legislation. This piece of legislation and court decision reminds me of the "Constitutional" decision on "Prohibition". It got repealed as well, didn't it? {sarcasm}

Source: CBS news (03/19/12) - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

"If I don't cut the Deficit in half in 3 years I won't even run for a second term". -- Campaigner - Barack H. Obama, August 2008

"The one who does not remember history is bound to live through it again" -- George Santayana

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roy W: Thank you for continuing to provide facts that surpass "feelings".

The ''Law of the Land'' says that you cannot place a "head tax" on a citizen just because they exist.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not to commandeer, but to inform (because this is being blacked out).

ICELAND FORCES DEBT FORGIVENESS: TOTAL U.S. MEDIA BLACKOUT

"The government of Iceland has forgiven the mortgage debt for much of its population. This nation chose a very different way of stopping the crisis from the rest of European countries. It decided to hear the requests of the population and to put politicians and bankers on the bench of the accused three years after their financial excesses would sank one of the most prosperous economies in 2008." teleSUR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyxzg58JkYI

And people wonder why I frequently go outside the US to get news reports...

Looking down the road I envision a two tiered populace in America. One being healthy legal citizens and the other being a large population of unhealthy undocumented immigrants. Unfortunately, disease does not discriminate based on documentation. A large population of uninsured and therefore unhealthy individuals living and working in close quarters will infect and otherwise diminish the healthy population (Typhoid Mary comes to mind).

Immigration reform is therefore closely related to the health care issue. Now that the right to health care has been affirmed for my fellow Americans, we must address the issue of a pathway to citizenship for long term undocumented residents, deport those that came here recently without the proper authority, streamline the immigration process, provide for migrant workers, and tighten all access points into the country.

We must do this not just because it is the 'right' thing to do, but also because it is the 'healthy' thing to do.

Sarah, what you describe sounds alot like what the FR left does. Lots of whining, denigration and refusal to justify their lack of position. You seem to be confusing what is whining and what is voicing legitament concerns for todays issues.

BTW - Whatever stance any political party took years ago has little bearing on current events unless it relates to a passed policy

Indeed, Obama already had a rebuttal to this in his own remarks yesterday: Isn’t it time to move on?

Indeed it is Mr. Obama. Yesterday the supreme court ruled that you lied to us concerning the ACA not being a tax. It is a tax as interpreted by the SCOTUS. Yes, it is time to move on. Vote for anybody but Obama (the liar) in November. A wise man explained to me many years ago that a politician has only one thing to offer you, his word! When he proves by his actions that his word is @!$%#, then vote accordingly. Vote against the @!$%# that is Obama.

Harley Chic,

Please make sure that you do not accept Medicare when you retire. This will keep the filthy government out of your healthcare decisions. Please keep voting republican, it is the only way to make sure that you do not get free preventative checkups.

Ana...

I didn't miss the Scotus ruling there. I think its sick that people would like about military valor. However, what does their religious background have to do with this ruling? The justices also realize Amendment #1 prevents the government from establishing a religion. Christanity is not nor will it ever be the 'official' religion of the United States. It should have absolutely NO bearing on our secular laws.

As for the GOP today.. You have had control of the House for almost 2 years. Why didn't you come up with your own plan for the health care issues facing this country? Instead of spending so much time tearing apart Obama, why don't you go back and actually come up with a bill that is better? Perhaps we should still just change the name from "ObamaCare" To "ROMNEYCARE" so it is more appealing to the GOP.

P.S. I think Boehner is leading a public crying ceremony today...

Republicans, with their majority in Congress in the 1990s, opposed Pres. Clinton's effort to reform healthcare (remember Hillary Clinton?) because these Republicans said if Democrats got healthcare reform done, then Democrats would enjoy majority in Congress for a long time to come. (Who said it? Dole - the senate majority leader and Newtered Grinch the Speaker).

Now what? The Roberts Court just delivered the victory, it's our voters' turn to make it happen, starting November 2012.

"My take is Roberts is keenly aware the legitimacy of the Court could have been called into further question with a 5-4 decision by a conservative majority to strike down Obamacare. So with the longer term institutional interests of the Court in mind, he steered the justices to a compromise position that gave conservatives some of what they wanted and gave the left a big piece of what they wanted. And he reveals his view of the way ahead in these words:

"we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation's elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

Bill FAIRFAX - Excellent observation and I agree. Roberts did a rational thing and finally someone made a move we are in desperate need of, Compromise.

ROY WILSON - Give it a rest, The Middle Class has been getting the shaft for decades. Roberts gave independents hope yesterday and finally there is something other than "My Way or nothing"

Pat Boston "As a matter of policy, this is deeply silly. The mandate remains a tax penalty that will only apply to free riders — about 1% of the population, according to the CBO, who can afford insurance but refuse to get it."

If that's true, please explain why the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that the cost to taxpayers of Obamacare will be $1.76 TRILLION over the next 10 years? Also, who is going to pay for it - not the rich (they have insurance) and not the poor (they get free Medicaid), which leaves the Middle Class stuck with the bill.

ROY,

Tyler and Sally do not monitor First Read articles. When do you ever see either comment here like they do on other Newsvine articles?

But then you're raising tuition and burdening those coming out of college with even more debt. See my comment above about what I'm going to be eating this weekend. Not to mention that the University system lacks transparency and is, itself, screwy.

Maybe. Don't colleges already have Student health Services? Who pays for those right now?

I agree that the cost of college is out of control and 3.4% as opposed to 6.8% on a Stafford Loan is pretty meaningless.

Derek -- An excellent book and quick read on the subject of who is to blame and what is really going on is It's Even Worse Than It Looks, by Mann and Ornstein.

One intriguing idea was to start a business that provides a low cost service to young healthy people that would help them avoid the cost of buying health insurance until the time they actually need healthcare services that cost more than the premiums would cost them. I called it “health-insurance insurance services”. Yeah, they would have to pay the individual mandate “tax”, but, it starts at $95 a year and no one is going to get a year’s worth of health insurance for $95.

Go for it Joe...game the system. Apparently for you, it's not about the people of this country having a way to get good, affordable health care. It's about ripping off the U.S. government for services that your clients could probably afford to pay for themselves. Kind of like welfare for the rich? Sooo conservative!

Just hope and pray that it's not you or one of your friends or family lying dying and unconscious in the ER, unable to sign up for your last-minute insurance scheme.

Hey, maybe you could extend it to auto insurance too. I can picture it now: Joe Blow calls your company on his cellphone right after his collision with an 18 wheeler. Somehow, I think you'd be bankrupt within a month of startup. Ain't capitalism grand?

Joe in Albany,

Is there a reason, that I do not know of, why I should know what is contained within your fesces?

american - 2051576 - I believe you're in denial. The whining and denigration and refusal to back up their accusations with facts is clearly the far righters (or conservatives) on this site. We heard their gnashing of teeth yesterday and their ignorance as they screamed against Roberts without any reasoning behind their posts - as usual. Although, often, they make up "facts" to support their stance.

Obama STINKS. He LIES repeatedly and gets away with it because people are too stupid to realize it or just let him get away with it because he is so cute or for whatever reason they may have.

Oh, and Feisty Redhead: Is there any reason so many of your comments are collapsed? Maybe they are of no value or false, or both. You might as well hang it up.

Alan,

The health services at my school were basically limited to seeing a nurse. Any type of perscription, injury, or anything more then strep throat, and you had to leave campus and go to an actual doctor. They also had some counseling services, but again, they were limited to social workers as opposed to phychiatrists or psychologists.

To provide substantial care, we'd take a hit on the tuition, unless of course they'd be willing to take it out of the athletic department. HA!!!!! Hahahahahahahaha!!!! That's a hoot, seeing as we Americans value football over health anyday, and I'm including myself in that "Americans".

As Chief Justice John Roberts noted his majority justification for upholding ACA yesterday, it is the job of the Supreme Court to FIND the Constitutionality within any law. That is exactly what he did and that is what our SCOTUS is supposed to do.

________________________________________________

Jody: Thank you. I'm very happy to see that you are now supporting the Citizen's United decision striking down the campaign finance law that the SC couldn't find ANY constitutional support for. :~)

AM: Are you on board with Jody??

It was announced yesterday that the anti health care legislation spending was just over $250 million. These people outspent the pro health care legislation advertising 8-1. So with so many people believing this law was bad for Americans, you only need to look at this fact to know why so many that are polled say they dont like the law or really know what is in the law...Its just that they saw a commercial that condemned the law. The right can only out spend the left in negative, untrue and misleading adds to get their point across as opposed to just putting together good common sense policies that the masses would agree with. Doubling down on the repeal of this law when so many of us just want to move forward is a bad idea by the right in my opinion. They should focus their efforts on improving the law. You ask any economist that studied the numbers on this bill and they will say the exact opposite of how a republican politician interprets the numbers. I don't know about you, but I'll take the word of a professional in his/her field rather than a politician talking about a particular field. Let move on to the next big problem this country needs to solve.. Like Jobs Jobs Jobs that don't mean abortion!

You might as well hang it up.

Not a chance little buddy!

I take my role as "Queen of Collapse" very seriously... ;op

Plus, more people open them once you Yahoo's collapse them & for that I THANK YOU!

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office now says that Obamacare, which was supposed to be 'revenue neutral', will likely cost $1.76 Trillion (link below),

That's not what the CBO said. That's what the Washington Examiner, owned by Conservative propagandist Philip Anschutz said. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Washington_Examiner

Here's what the CBO actually said;

CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period-about $50 billion less than the agencies' March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period.

http://cbo.gov/publication/43080

Keep in mind as well that each CBO estimate is for a rolling 10 year time period as well. Considering that and taking into account inflation it's obvious that one of the President's key points is correct. Affordable Care WILL bend the curve and decrease health care inflation over time.

"Then why wasn't it unanimous, like Brown v. Board?"

Apple, meet orange. Nice try again AM, you're on a roll today.

If Obuma went out the month of June on a high I wonder what he is smoking or taking? He gave American LEGAL citizens a new tax, gave ILLEGAL people the right to stay in America and take our jobs so how are we to pay this tax? I heard an interview with an insurance man who said right out that insurance rates WILL GO UP because of OBUMACARE. so if screwing over the Legal American people over gives him a high people who vote for him should think about it twice. And another thing Obuma I am smart enough to know what is best for me I don't need some holier than thou dictator to tell me, are you next going to mandate what color of underwear we wear on what day?

Yesterday was A GREAT day for America! Yes we can and yes we did.

Obama-Biden 2012

Well, chalk one up for the Democrats and Obama.

Still can't undertand Robert's reasoning on how he constrews a "penalty" to be a legitimate tax when the word tax never appears in the document and both Obama, Congress, and the Solicitor General denied it was a tax. I guess it takes a Supreme legal mind to understand the nuance.

Guess we'll see how things pan out now, but five people in American decided the law is constitutional, so that's what it is.

@John B

I read your link and I'm confused. It seems to be saying that rather than be revenue neutral, which is what the President claimed in 2009, that it will cost $1.1T. Where is this money to come from?

Go for it Joe...game the system. Apparently for you, it's not about the people of this country having a way to get good, affordable health care. It's about ripping off the U.S. government for services that your clients could probably afford to pay for themselves.

_____________________________________________________________

KB: I didn't create or support the fundamentally flawed structure Barry and the Dems set up for ClunkerCare. Don't blame me if I can make money providing a perfectly legal service to willing customers who want to buy it. It's their stupidity that has provided the opporuity that's knocking on my door, blame them.

And yes, capitalism is grand.

Dont_Carry_It_All-

You should also read "Beyond Outrage" or "Aftershock" by Robert Reich. They are both very insightful takes on the underlying issues with the economy.

Albany --

AM: Are you on board with Jody??

No, that's obviously not the case with Citzens United. But that does raise the issue I haven't thought through yet, which is how to explain the Montana decision, either under Bill's theory or mine. What I posted here was mostly intended as red meat for conservatives. In reality, I am pondering whether Roberts really got off the right-wing joy juice -- in the spirit of "comity" or otherwise -- or whether the ACA decision is really about something much larger, and more sinister, than that ....

Can you take a chance by giving the guy in The White House a seeming victory in the Supreme Court -- a pyrrhic sort of victory that might doom his re-election chances -- hoping to rile up the base and knowing that his successor wants to repeal the law anyway?

In other words, is this just one -- albeit critical -- throw of the marbles in the conservatives' ultimate game?

I'm still working out the details of that. Film at 11.

Bill --

Apple, meet orange. Nice try again AM, you're on a roll today.

Not true. Brown v. Board was not unanimous by ideology. It was unanimous out of a sense that there was a need to unify the country. In other words, comity. Look it up.

Thomas, Alito, Scalia, and Kennedy obviously didn't get the memo.

And thanks. ;-)

Have a great weekend.

I see some moonbats are still reveling in yesterday court decision. At first I was to put it mildly pissed off at the ruling. I couldn't believe what Roberts had done. But today, after another look I have to say Roberts did the right thing. Now Obamacare is all on Obama and the progressives. They own it all now.

No one to blame this time. Obama has just enacted the LARGEST TAX on low income and middle class workers in Amercan History. And again, Obama has LIED about it! On tape numerous times telling the American people "it's not a tax".

What a liar. Oh well, since the ruling Romney has been raising money at a rate of $300,000 per hour.

So Justice Roberts, my apologies to you for my immediate reaction to your ruling. As I stated prior to your ruling Obama doesn't have half the intellect you do and he isn't have the man you are.

Thank you for ensuring a devasting election for the democrats come November. Thank you for reigniting the Tea Party and conservative movement! If the moonbats think 2010 was rough they haven't seen nothing yet!

Ehere is this money to come from?

Why, Alan, what's wrong with you? Barry will simply have Bernanke print some more. There's an endless supply, you know!

Feisty,

I take my role as "Queen of Collapse" very seriously... ;op

Funny stuff. I don't think I would be that proud of it though.

I have what is considered a "Cadillac Plan", will I have to pay more "taxes"? I wonder how many other's plans are considered this?

I was going to ask that question, too! Good for you for bringing it up! My wife and I have decent plans (if you want to call them "Cadillac Plans" knock yourself out), through our employers, but we pay through the nose in copays to maintain them.

Here's what's screwy: our son is on MY plan because mine is a bit better, and my tyke's pediatrician, who is fabulous, is under MY plan's network. My wife is on her own, because her own docs are under the network of the hospital SHE works at, but all three of us are under her dental plan because it is far better than what MY company has offered. So we're juggling to keep up our "Cadillac" plans.

So to answer YOUR question, I suspect that answer is YES, we'll have to pay more because an employer-based plan, according to the to our giveaway politician's way of thinking, are the NEW Cadillac plans!

Then you didn't actually read the link, Alan. It states that these are DIRECT COSTS associated with the bill. It also states that offsetting savings were not calculated for purposes of the report.

In other words, not only did the Washington Examiner lie about what was in the report, they deliberately only presented half the picture.

There's your answer...Conservatives lie.

A BOOST for Obama? Yeah. A BOOST right out of office come November. Let's take the Country back from the "gimme" lib crowd.

At first I was to put it mildly pissed off at the ruling.

NO Raaab - at first you called it totally WRONG! lol

In your eagerness to rub it in the face of liberals...

Try to get your premature ejaculation thingy under control & then we can talk! K?

Regardless of the arguments, the ruling, or whether or not we need health care reform, the fact remains that 62% of all americans are against Obamacare. This ruling will make the election more about Obamacare and less about the economy, and Obamas team is clearly trying to use this "victory" to tell people that it is a done deal and we should move on, in effort to avoid making the election about a VERY unpopular bill that he shoved down everyone's throat.

When a liberal website like MSN has a poll asking it's users if the decision was right or not, and only 32% of the mostly liberal user base says yes, you have your answer right there. Americans don't want Obamacare as it stands. That isn't to say that we don't want something, just that we don't want it as it stands.

There is a lot of talk about what we would replace it with, and the fact is, health care reform that gives health insurance to everyone is going to be a welfare program, and all welfare programs are funded by the middle class in some form or another. Anything they do will increase the amount of money we have to spend. It doesn't matter which direction this goes, it will cost us more money, and there is no way around it. Only Obama thinks that you can spend a trillion dollars and not have to really pay for it. The rest of us pretty much should all know by now that this isn't the way the world works. We can argue until we are blue in the face, but this decision has shifted the election focus to Obamacare, with the GOP candidate promising to repeal it if he is elected. That alone will sway many of the 62% who don't want Obamacare to vote republican. Unless Obama can convince people that the bill he forced through is something they really wanted, he will lose more votes. Add to that that he now is on record for insisting that this is not a tax and is now touting that his bill is constitutional because it is a tax, and his credibility in mainstream media has taken a blow. This will be exploited of course.

Like it or not, this is a blow to Obama. Like it or not, Obamacare or anything it gets replaced with will cost taxpayers (ie the middle class) money, whether it is a tax or just in the form of increased premiums on health care. The rest of the arguing is moot. Enjoy the victory party, it will not last long.

So this is a "boost" for Obama? I'd be pretty embarrassed if I were him considering he is getting the boost from:

Freeloaders, Illegals, the Entitlement crowd, and ignorant kool-aid drinkers who have zero clue what this will cost. Let's not forget rich Actors, can't figure out why they would support this except they are so stinking rich they won't notice all their new taxes the govt. is going to take from them when this kicks in.

Dang!

So nice the President has "stuck it" to those who work hard and have employers sponsored care. Soon (but some are already impacted by this) they will all be poorer, not only in income but care as well. Thanks so much.....(not)

NOBAMA 2012!

John B --

There's your answer...Conservatives lie.

I was going to ask, "what was the question" and then I realized ... it doesn't matter.

That's the answer.

(Just kidding, my conservative friends. That was just too easy. You know I love you all.)

Dumb fux,

Honey, two major networks got it wrong, so what?>

Fact is the ruling just sunk Obama! Biggest TAX increase on the middle class ever. During a bad economy and in an election year!

The party is just about over.

SeekingSanity

Dude- 875416 - ARE YOU SERIOUS???? Bush invoked Executive Privilege several times during his Presidency - during the Valerie Plame "outing"; when he refused to release the minutes of the meetings between Cheney and the energy companies; etc. Know what you're talking about before you post. You just look damned foolish with junk like this!

What does Bush have to do with Obama waiting 1.5 years to invoke executive privileges only after Holder requested for him to? After all, we still don't know who "authorized" the Fast and Furious program. Nobody lost their job either even though an American life was taken. Full disclosure on this single program out of thousands of them hasn't been given. Where's the transparency Obama promised? I'd say the only one that looks "damned foolish" as you put it, is Obama himself and those that follow him!

Spider -- What makes you think Democrats believe in every move the Feds make concerning the economy? It's the markets that are clamoring for QE3. Remember that.

Here's a thought, if Congress did their job perhaps the Fed would back off.

A few rebuttals to notes this morning in the string:

1. You hate Obama care but there weren't any other options (paraphrasing). There were other options, simple ones really, that were denied when the government saw a means for the new powergrab law. The market solution would have been to open up the interstate commerce clause and allow for cross state insurance purchasing, as well as allowing the bundling of business and personal insurance contracts so as to attract better rates through larger grouping. Some of the primary problems with the existing insurance system are that small businesses are limited to programs that are primarily built for large employers, so they are stuck with plans that better apply to bigger companies. By allowing small businesses to "bundle" together they could have acted as a group and gotten preferential treatment from the insurance companies as based on their volume. Similarly, by allowing businesses to purchase their insurance across state lines you would have gotten the opportunity to create more competition for carrier volume- kind of like you can with car insurance. Those would have had huge rate impacts without creating the huge bureaucracy and costs of the federal system, but boy our government is far smarter than us so we're better off giving them our power of the purse and choice.

2. Thank God, this'll be great (paraphrasing again). Well if you didn't have insurance, didn't want to "pay" for insurance, don't wand personal responsibility/choice regaring your insurance then you might say that. For the rest of us this is clearly

You should also understand some of the fundimental changes to our healthcare system that are about to change. These are:

1. Hospital visits- Currently hosipitals will help anyone in the state of emergency with or without insurance. They write off the losses for the unpaid treatment. They also end up providing a lot of food service for the homeless as they know when to walk in for "treatment" around mealtimes. Lastly, the ambulance providers face misuse of their services by those whom call 911 as a means for public transportation and get taken to the hospital so they are near the businesses in the area. All of these costs were losses to the businesses and all of those costs can now be transferred to the nationalized healthcare program as charges. Did anyone in Congress realize this or account for that, likely not. The new healtcare law removes some of the charity work the hosipitals do now and turn those services into billable services. Do you think they won't want to keep their operations profitable?

2. Prescription Drugs- The drug companies, up until now, had an unwritten agreement with the government to put out a lot of free drugs and samples for the poor. As this is not a nationalized healthcare system they won't have to as it's just another cost to the government program.

3. Your taxes and choices. Do you know what some of the new taxes will do to your family? How about limitations on health savings programs- it's projected to make the government over $24 billion, but it will take more out of your pocket and limit your choices. Annual taxes to insurance companies- projected to make the government $100+ billion, but they have to pass those cost on to their customers..... so your premiums will go up until your employer says screw it and turns you over to nationalized healthcare. Do you have private insurance? Do you have a "cadillac plan"- what is a cadillac plan?? Well, depending on the definition the government gives you it can mean anything above the level of care the nationalized healthcare program will provide- so it can mean a lot very quickly. Currently the government expects to haul in $110+ billion from an upcoming 40% tax on cadillac plans- guess how quickly your company will run from those additional costs and dump you into the nationalized healthcare system?? You had benies when joined, just fewer now. How about another 1% income tax and 4% capital gain tax on investments- worth well over $100 billion for the federal government. Well you didn't really need that 1% of your income, nor mind loosing 4% of the money you make on your investments do you?? I'm sure the markets will continue to grow atleast 6-10% per year so that your retirement investments can keep up with what you'll need to pay.

One thing I noticed in the law is the extremely neat way they implement the law so that you don't feel the impacts until it's too late. Sure, there have been taxes started to prep the program but wait because they are implementing pieces through 2018. By the time we hit 2018 you'll start to realize just how controlled you are, but it'll be too late. I guess that's part of the "you'll have to pass it before you can know what's in it" clause.

Albany --

AM: Are you on board with Jody??

No, that's obviously not the case with Citzens United

___________________________________________

Sounds like "Heads, I win, tails, you lose.

AM: "When the SC decision is one I agree with, they are just doing the right thing. When the decisionis one I disagree with, they are being partisan hacks."

OK

Come on Feisty be honest. All this celebrating is just pent up political frustration form the Wisconsin recall fail.

Even thought this law does nothing to combat the real cost of health care and the shortage of people going into the medical field. The only thing this bill was good for was preventing insurance companies from denying people with pre-existing conditions. That could of easily been a single item bill and saved a whole bunch of time and money.

Then you didn't actually read the link, Alan. It states that these are DIRECT COSTS associated with the bill. It also states that offsetting savings were not calculated for purposes of the report.

So $1.1T in offsetting saving are not calculated. That's over 70% of the costs. I would say that's a big f...ing hole in your calculations. Do these offsetting savings include the 500B of Medicare saving that is double counted? It also doesn't include further costs that are also not reported in this document.

Those amounts do not encompass all of the budgetary impacts of the ACA. They do not include federal administrative costs, which will be subject to future appropriation action. Also, they do not include the effects of the many other provisions of the law, including some that will cause significant reductions in Medicare spending relative to that under prior law and others that will generate added tax revenues relative those under prior law.

So at the end of the day it seems the CBO really don't have a clue what the total cost will be and we are left with the fiction that we can expand coverage and costs will go down.

@ Hotticket - do you believe your "Cadillac" plans will still be "Cadillac" plans when your employers are forced into the Obamacare plan? I'm betting not. Large employers with regular plans are calculating increases in the millions, do you think your employer can afford the increase and the tax? Welcome to the shabby, low access plan that is known as Obamacare.

JoeNY: Thanks for the info!

"Better to shun the bait than struggle in the snare." -- William Blake

Dear Sarah, my smokin' hot honorary grandaughter,

You are trying, once again, to teach pigs to sing. You need to stop and go pick up that box wine. You're a good kid and you've got your head screwed on right. Your honorary grandmother and I are very proud of you.

But here are some things to consider.

The RWNJ's can't find anything legitimate to complain about with regards to our President. He's a good man doing a good job under impossible conditions. They have nothing to offer, so they complain about things that make no sense aided by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and others.

There is nothing wrong with the HRA. It's good legislation. You are correct, the mandate was cooked up by the Heritage Foundation and the President included it as part of a compromise. It's virtually identical to what Romney did in Massachusestts when he was governor. He liked it then, he hates it now. Flip-Flop. But that's not going to stop him from screaming it's bad for the country. Flip-flop.

But here's the real point: Justice Roberts' poison pill. While disguised in his sheep's clothing and claiming it is the SCOTUS responsibility to find ways to uphold congressional action not just to shoot it down, he has cleverly latched onto the secondary argument presented by the President's legal counsel, the "it's a tax" argument.

While pundits are falling all over themselves in praise for the Cheif Justice they are only now beginning to realize, "Hey wait a minute, the RWNJ's can wail about the TAX INCREASE." The Cheif Justice's clever duplicity has created a rallying cry and a wedge issue for the GOP to use against the President. I do not believe for one minute this was coincidence. It was the plan all along.

Never mind the GOP presumptive-nominee did EXACTLY the same thing when he was Governor of Masschusetts and his health care law was the model for the President's law. This is bizarro world, unless the President's people do a good job of tacking that BIG Flip-Flop to Romney's hide they will lose on this single issue.

What Robert's has done is not praiseworthy, it is diabolical and purposefully done to give Romney a fighting chance of defeating the President.

DO NOT BE FOOLED AMERICA!

So now it's more important than ever that the President do a good job, nay a BETTER JOB of explaining the benefits to the American people AND tacking the duplicity of it to Romney's hide.

We've got to put BUTTS IN THE BOOTH in November or it will all be for naught.

Don't be fooled. Robert's didn't do us any favor. He's just handed the GOP a wedge issue that may very well make the difference for Romney.

Now is the time for us to begin to work even harder.

The check is in the mail, Mr. President. I think you are going to need it now more than ever.

Obama/BIden 2012

Amy B. Portland, ME

Houston said:

The guns bought by Fast and Furious suspects were found at the scene of the border agents death, but it's the NRA and their Republican allies who are responsible for allowing the guns to get there.

EXACTLY! Apparently, this is too subtle a point for the msm to digest. I have yet to see the Fortune magazine investigation mentioned in msm stories about the contempt charge on the TV news.

There was at least one exception to the usual journalist cowardice: The woman who stood in for Anderson Cooper on 360 (I think Soledad Obrien) confronted one the more stupid GOP witch hunters, Congress critter John Mica with the story and asked if he'd read the Fortune article. Instead of answering the question, he just blustered and blathered about how he didn't have to read it because the GOP investigation was "official" and the Fortune reporter's investigation was not. Mica kept parroting the usual nonsense about how the death of the border agent demanded that Congress get all the facts, and O'Brien said something like "but I just gave you some facts from the article that I doubt you'll ever read."

A good performance by Obrien that won't likely be repeated anytime soon.

Mitt Romney has already stated that he wants to repeal ACA with a new plan that (1) allows people to keep their current private insurance - just like ACA. (2) Does not allow insurance companies to drop those with preexisting conditions - just like ACA. (3) Gives states the freedom to come up with their own, better plans, if they want - just like ACA.

However, it will not have an individual mandate.

So Romney and the GOP want everything included in ACA... except the part that actually pays for it. The "fiscal conservatives" want all the freebies, but don't want to be responsible and pay for it.

Which is the entitlement party that wants free handouts but is too lazy to pay for them? The lines keep getting blurred.

The mess this country is in is much worse than it looks. News media, corporatist's that It is, haven't the resources to inform us, or have sold out to the corruption it was meant to reveal. I had breakfast this am with an official of my state government. A republican, not of choice, but of necessity, who told me, among other things, of an on going racket involving "state income taxes" deducted from corporate workers. Seems certain corporations deduct those taxes,but do not send that money to my state. They keep that money. The deal has been pre negotiated between my state and these entities. Those employers will though, make good on any refunds due the employee's after they file their returns. Same process with state unemployment payments. Smaller, in state businesses who don't exceed 100 employees or 5 million in yearly payroll generally are not part of the scheme, but, since some of these employers have more power than others, some are a part of the scheme. Guess where my states revenues come from. Small businesses, property owners, and sales taxes, primarily. Course it screws its citizenry every way it can, and grabs all the federal money it can. How did the state government get into such a scheme? My friend, a republican of necessity, told me it was all "pure republicanism". He did caution me that many of the democrats were following suit as well, and if the trend continued, wouldn't be long before the only difference between the parties would be in name only. Gwad!, If It's going on in my state, It's likely going on in most states. Fascism or the same old 19th and early 20th century American capitalism?

[Here is what else happened this week-]

More cut and paste from bull@!$%# emails again, NoJo?

And here I thought you learned your lesson...apparently not.

What's all this whining about a "new tax"? I HAVE insurance...the only thing I'll see out of it is cost containment.

[If Obamacare is so wonderful, why did Nevada, Harry Reids state, and many of Pelosi's cronies get waivers?]

Harley Skank...you do know that health care waivers are temporary, right?

Sure you do...

TNSEVOL -- Thanks for the recommendation, will do.

KB: I didn't create or support the fundamentally flawed structure Barry and the Dems set up for ClunkerCare. Don't blame me if I can make money providing a perfectly legal service to willing customers who want to buy it. It's their stupidity that has provided the opporuity that's knocking on my door, blame them.

Haha, YOU didn't create Obamacare: Romney did! The joke is on him.

Before you set up shop, you might want to crunch some numbers. My hairdresser cut her finger and paid over $800 for 3 stitches in the ER. My friend's son landed in the ER and hospital after a skiing accident, and his bill was over $60,000. No insurance in either case. You'd have to have a lot of kids paying $95 a year to cover the cost of one expensive ER visit. And what if the insurance companies you shill for impose a 30 day waiting period? What about maternity care? Do you know what it costs to have a baby these days?

I think your understanding of insurance and risk is flawed, my friend in Albany. But I wish you all the best.

Albany --

AM: "When the SC decision is one I agree with, they are just doing the right thing. When the decisionis one I disagree with, they are being partisan hacks."

Close, but not quite. "They are just doing the right thing" is one theory, but as I said, the Montana decision contradicts that.

Which is why I am also entertaining the other theory that the ACA decision isn't really about upholding the ACA, but about something else altogether. And something that would be consistent with the Montana ruling, upholding Citizens United.

What I said was that, if politics is the ultimate goal, then upholding ACA may work in. And in that case, overturning Citizens United, even in part, would be exactly what the Court could not do.

Under the second theory, yes, they're just partisan hacks. But on steroids.

JohnB - please make sure you post when you get that "cost containment." (LOLROF!!!)

Hope you enjoy the tax you will be paying through your premiums too....

HOTTICKET

we'll have to pay more because an employer-based plan, according to the to our giveaway politician's way of thinking, are the NEW Cadillac plans!

Incorrect. You get to keep your current plan AND your insurance provider must now prove that 80 - 85% of premiums go to coverage (not executive bonuses). So you will likely receive a refund, as previously your insurance provider only used 40% (or less) on coverage.

If you suspect your insurance provider is gouging you, contact your state's insurance commissioner.

Feisty, ham sandwich or Fillet, I think I prefer the Fillet. So got any news on those White House leaks? What about answers for the Terry family. Seriously you would want Biden back as VP

For now the liberals may have won the battle but are now assured of losing the war. Conservatives across the country, already ramped-up for Scott Walker just got the adrenalin boost they need to pick-up seats in the house + capture the senate and presidency. Then its bye bye Obumercare. Keep in mind the stop spot light has not been shinning on this turd since nearly everyone thought the SCOTUS would kill it. Now as more and more details emerge, the anger and outrage will grow. June 28th, 2012 is as good as it gets for Obama. It's all downhill from now till November.

I have what is considered a "Cadillac Plan", will I have to pay more "taxes"? I wonder how many other's plans are considered this?

HT, The "Act" provides for a excise tax applied to what's considered a "Cadillac Plan".

Beginning in 2018, those individuals who have a health insurance plan with premiums above a certain thresholds will be subject to the 40% excise tax for that amount over the threshold (they will be indexed for inflation every year). The insurer will pay the tax and will be used to help offset the cost of the Act (the other side of the ledger that Roy always seems to ignore). It's easier just to paste in the details:

Look at the cost. The finance committee defines high-cost or "Cadillac" as any plan with premiums higher than $10,200 for individuals or $27,500 for families (for 2018). Keep in mind that these figures include everything you and your employer spend on health care except for the deductible: premiums for medical (the portions paid by you and by your employer), dental, and vision coverage, as well as any money you put into a flexible spending account, which allows you to set aside pretax money to cover medical costs. Since your pay stub may show only your personal contribution—not that of your employer—the best way to find out the total cost of your plan is to ask your human resources liaison. Many companies already list their employees' total premiums on their W-2 tax forms. The bill passed by the finance committee would make that mandatory.

What does a "Cadillac plan" offer? The top-of-the-line plans—say, the $40,000-a-year plan offered to Goldman Sachs CEOs—likely have no copayments, no deductibles, few limits on how much you can spend, and no need for prior authorization, i.e., to get special permission before you get treated.

Insurance premiums for so-called "high-risk" professions (firefighters, longshoremen, etc.) will have thresholds beginning at $11,500 and $30,950 for individual, family coverages, respectively.

please make sure you post when you get that "cost containment."

How about today?

Companies expect their bills for health benefits to rise 5.4% on average next year, the smallest increase since 1997, according to preliminary results from a survey of nearly 1,600 employers by benefits consulting firm Mercer.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/22/business/la-fi-employer-healthcare-20110922

So much for the Conservative lie that "Obamacare" is already causing health care costs to "explode."

And what if the insurance companies you shill for impose a 30 day waiting period?

I think your understanding of insurance and risk is flawed,

_________________________________________

KB: "Shilling for insurance companies"????

If this concept is successful, the insurance companies would want to put a contract out on my life. I'm screwing the insurance companies royally, using ClunkerCares own rules.

A 30 day waiting period is a form of a pre-existing condition clause and would be illegal under ClunkerCare. That's the beauty of my plan, under ClunkerCare the insurance companies are required to take all applicants with no pre-existing condition clauses. So, if I can submit an application on the same day the person is in the ER, they will be entitled to same day ClunkerCare coverage. :~)

Ain't capitalism great!!!!!

.

Now, it really IS Bush's fault!

We were broke. No we are bankrupt.

29030400 Miles in the Rearview Mirror:

IT’S CONSTITUTIONAL, BITCHES! TEAPUBLICAN CHIEF JUSTICE UPHOLDS CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF ROMNEYCARE TAXING AUTHORITY.WOO HOO!!!!

In a landmark decision that detonated landmines in the heads of almost all right thinking, right-wing, “write off the people” tri-corn and tin foil hat wearing yahoos, Chief Justice Roberts crossed over to the liberal side of the street in upholding the President’s seminal and singular achievement of health care reform; the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice Roberts went all the way around the barn to come to his conclusion, but hey, he arrived at the right destination, once, finally. Millions of our fellow citizens now have a guarantee of some kind of entrance into the healthcare system. Also, as ”foot in the door” legislation, this will be but the first steps in the long march toward single payer, universal coverage. This is a colossal win for the President, showing both his vision and his leadership. It also demonstrates the narrow, partisan political blindness of the opposition. Hey, Teapublicans, that light you see coming, it’s a train, but don’t move, the illumination makes you look younger (except for you McConnell, there is no light bright enough).

BREAKING NEWS: The Supreme court is too liberal! In an outcome that has everybody shocked, shocked I tell you, right-wing whiners and crybabies extra-ordinaire now see the Supreme court as a liberal Godzilla, wreaking havoc throughout the land as it advances the terrifying, godless, homo-loving, tax and spend, apologizing for America, gun confiscating, anti-freedom agenda with the reckless abandon of a drunken sailor that was trained by Saul Alinsky and baptized by Jeremiah Wright. Righteous freedom loving citizens from Montana to Arizona (Montana south) hunker in their bunkers, enjoying M.R.E.s and Gatorade (or is it Hatorade?) as they wait moment by moment breathlessly for the impending collapse of civilized society so they may sally forth, scouring the wreckage for the useful bits that will let them build the perfect society ensconced in the Ayn Randian vision of killing everyone who isn’t them and placing the torso-less heads lovingly upon a centrally located spike. Their disappointment may be tempered by the fact, that after emerging after a long wait to finally dump their poop buckets, society will have progressed admirably with out them. Gosh, I hope that knowledge doesn’t dishearten them to the point of suicide. Or not.

Europe kept afloat for another indeterminate amount of time with a recapitalization deal for Spain and Italy. Damn, them was a lot of wordy words there. Basically, the Ponzi scheme that is international banking gets a shot in the arm from the E.S.M., the European central banks stabilization fund. This bodes well for the U.S. economy, as it allows European economy breathing room and increases the market for exports from the United States. Germany is getting pretty damn antsy though, as their taxpayers are footing the bill, so Germans want more control over the process. It’s ironic that 68 years after D-Day, Germany is the greatest power on the European continent. Anywho, this problem won’t get resolved until banks are stopped from speculating by using an international mechanism resembling Glass-Steagall.

Speaking of speculation; who can speculate how much money JPMorgan will lose? Will it be $2 billion as first reported, $4 billion as next guessed or $9 billion as is being estimated now? Jamie Dimond, the once and former Master of the Universe, has no idea either, and he’s running the damn thing! Formerly pointed to as a “responsible” money manager and the saving grace of non-regulation, the Senate’s and Teapublican favoritist greed head in ever, has no idea when the massive losses will stop or how they can be contained. Word of warning, this idiot is the poster boy for Rombot economics, the ultimate “corporations are people my friend” and the architect of future meltdowns. With his insouciant and devil may care “hey, it’s not my money, I just rake off the top” attitude, Dimond is the kind of person who sees the devastation of the Great Depression as a record to be broken, not a tragedy to be avoided. You have been warned.

Contempt, contempt, contempt over the manufactured contretemps in the Congress as Teapublicans waste more of the country’s precious time and money spewing manufactured outrage towards the Attorney General. The House of Representatives, led by Speaker (and lost terra cotta warrior) John Boehner convened a contempt of Congress vote against Eric Holder. Even though A.G. Holder has testified at least 7 times, turned over 7.600 documents and 2 million e-mails and Oversight Committee chairman (and Grand Inquisitor) Darrell Issa admits there is no cover-up at the White House or from the executive branch, the vote occurred with mindless Teapublican lemmings frittering away the time in a frivolous and futile folderol. Even better, an expose by the lefty rag Fortune, shows that it is really the N.R.A. and Teapublican appointed District Attorneys, in conjunction with Arizona’s ultra-relaxed gun laws, that are feeding a steady stream of firearms into the hands of Mexican cartels. Perhaps a tightening of assault weapons laws and a modification of out-dated prohibition regulations would curb this problem, rather than contemptably ridiculous political theater.

Finally, hope today in Colorado, as the weather turns to give firefighters a chance to gain the upper hand on the wildfires rampaging across the state. With one life lost and millions in property destroyed, one hopes this will be the wake up call to heed the warnings about global climate change. The main reason that these fires burn so profligately is the mountain pine beetle. Typically killed off by the cold of winter, the generally warming winters associated with climate change have allowed these insects to proliferate, killing large stands of pine (the tree the highly flammable liquid turpentine is derived from) and leaving forests of incendiary material in areas that were once thought of as harmlessly beautiful scenic vistas. Tragically, the vista isn’t so scenic anymore. It is hoped that no further loss of life occurs and that further property damages is minimized, but be warned, unless the global CO2 atmospheric concentration is taken from it’s present level of 400 parts per million to at least 320 parts per million, this, and other greater tragedies await us and the generations of the future. We can change it, but we must act NOW.

Have a safe weekend and a great Fourth of July, celebrating freedom and whatnot.

do you believe your "Cadillac" plans will still be "Cadillac" plans when your employers are forced into the Obamacare plan? I'm betting not. Large employers with regular plans are calculating increases in the millions, do you think your employer can afford the increase and the tax? Welcome to the shabby, low access plan that is known as Obamacare.

Today only the "little people" get shabby, low access plans. Only the 1% get those "Cadillac" plans because it's one more way for those at the top to grab a bigger piece of the pie. Think that's rare? I worked for a time in an underwriting department at an insurance company. Trust me, differential coverage for those in the executive suite isn't unusual, it's the norm.

If I was a Democrat, I would not be so quick to presume things so early in the game. Especially with elections...Look what happened in WI and during the 2008 DEM primaries...I believe 2 things, the vote by the SCOTUS and the reaction of democrats have infuriated more voters than you may think. Secondly, I believe a lot of people share the opinion that Judge Roberts made the decision he made to redeem the already negative perception in the Supreme Court in the eyes of the public. I would highly recommend taking a conservative approach to your predictions. I know that might be something painful for some liberals to entertain.

Bottom line is that there are people suffering in this country. People that are working. They have no health insurance. Pre-existing conditions and the ridiculous premiums make it impossible for some people. I found it interesting that the very first post, was a man complaining about it while talking about eating his SURF AND TURF last night with is friends. That is the TOTAL MIDSET of most repubs that think this is a bad idea. You have never wanted for anything. You have more money than god and yet you refuse to see that there are people, your neighbors that are suffering. You seem to think that people are 'freeloading' or 'lazy'. No, that might be the case for a small amount of people but there are other people that work full time and can barely get by. They can't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition and if they do get some coverage it is thousands of dollars. I have been there. GREED. Bottom line. Romney and his cohorts and the KOCHs (spelled COCKS) don't care about anyone else. They see dollar signs. The amount of money that Mitt produced from a small number of people is staggering and should tell people exactly what he is. A greedy monger who acts like he cares about the people. He is a disgusting piece of crap. AND CONGRESS...vote them all out. Take their coverage away, that you and I pay for and get them out. They would empathize much more with the American people if they lived like the rest of us...the 99%. It is sickening. I applaud THE PRESIDENT. He inherited a world of crap. He has tried to change things and CONGRESS won't let him do anything. It is the most ridiculous, sickening thing I have ever witnessed. The REAL American people are watching and will vote in November. You will see. Greed will not win out this time.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012....and did I mention that Boehner can go screw himself?

Been reviewing some right-wing blogs and hearing politically-conservative radio talk shows of disgruntled conservative callers talking about "taking out," Chief Justice Roberts. They're now labeling him as a "traitor of the highest order," in, "this nation's war against liberals and socialist, communist nazis," and that he has proven to them that, "he's not far to the right enough."

These conservative radio talk shows mix in talk about Attorney General Holder being held in contempt by NRA-supportive congressmen with their grassroot supporters ominously talking about, "Second Amendment remedies."

Wow. With the radical right -- to paraphrase a well-known saying -- "It's either their way, or the cemetery for you and everyone else that isn't far to the right enough."

@rradiko...The same can be easily sad about the radical left....They are both radical and prone to inane and utterly moronic banter. I see if for what it is, a bunch of idiots trying to create chaos. More concerned about seeing people's reactions to over the top statements, than see any positive actions taken to improve this nation.

Ladies and gentlemen, yesterday was a day that we will look back and tell our children and grandchildren of. After decades of trying; decades fought with words and arguments, where tears and sweat were shed; we have finally reformed healthcare. Now, this is not a complete reform; costs are still going up, and we must work to improve our healthcare system. But this is a great start. To my friends who, like myself, still favor a more government-run healthcare system (righties, you may fire when ready), do not despair. This is only the beginning of universal healthcare, and the day will soon come, hopefully in our lifetimes, where we will join the rest of the world in saying that no person should ever be denied care for reasons of affordability.

Yet this is also the start of a new era of progressivism in the United States. For roughly 33 years, our nation has undergone a massive experiment, where people have sought to justify cutting taxes for millionaires and gutting regulations on financial industries with the notion that the wealth and prosperity will "trickle down" to the rest of us. That experiment led to the biggest recession since the Great Depression, where private debt levels soared to unimaginable heights and millions of Americans received pink slips. It also led to a "Lost Generation" of sorts for those who do not have the "privilege" to be in the top 5% or even the top 20%. The nation has become infamous in the industrialized world (and even among semi-industrialized countries) for it's high level of economic inequality, with the wealthiest few controlling somewhere in the range of 21-24% of all income earned in the US. But hopefully, with this stunning achievement that fulfills a goal made by Democrats over 70 years ago, this will lead to a resurgence in the New-Deal ideology that led to the largest boom in American history. Hopefully, we will be able to accomplish even more thanks to the resurgent vigor and determination that helped make the Affordable Care Act law. We may finally overhaul our education system, make our schools more competitive and affordable, finally establish a universal healthcare system modeled off of other, exemplar countries' models, fix our tax code to make it fair and progressive, fix our roads and bridges, and finally, reduce income inequality. My fellow progressives, the fire that burned in our party during the days of the New Deal is still within us. We just need to use it to restore this nation's rightful place as the shining light of the world.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Run and hide boys and girls and put your hands over your eyes, this is from From the World Socialist Website:

US Supreme Court upholds Obama’s health care law

By Kate Randall
29 June 2012

In a 5-4 US Supreme Court decision released on Thursday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined with the nominally liberal wing of the high court to uphold key provisions of the Obama administration-backed health care legislation.

The decision maintains the pro-corporate provisions of the bill, including the “individual mandate” to purchase insurance from private insurers. At the same time, the court undermined the key constitutional arguments used to support corporate regulations. It also ruled that the federal government cannot withdraw existing Medicaid funding from states that decide not to participate in an expansion of eligibility for the program.

The ruling on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, passed into law in March 2010, was predictably hailed by President Obama. Coming five months before the presidential election, he said it was a “victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure.” Congressional Republicans and presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, meanwhile, vowed to work to repeal the legislation in November.

The ruling was also trumpeted by liberal publications as a great victory for health care and for ordinary people. In reality, the decision upholds legislation whose main purpose is to cut costs for corporations and the government, while slashing billions of dollars from Medicare and other social programs.

Every step of the way, the bill was crafted to meet the demands of the private insurers, the pharmaceutical lobby and the giant health care chains. Any vestige of what could be termed a “reform” has been stripped away—including the inclusion of a government-run option on the health care exchange.

What remains is a requirement that all but the poorest individuals purchase insurance or pay a penalty. The insurance industry will be guaranteed a new influx of tens of millions of cash-paying customers, and there will be no meaningful oversight over what they can charge for premiums. The legislation is still purposefully unclear about what “minimal” standards employers and insurers must meet for coverage.

This is under conditions of a deep budgetary crisis for virtually all US states. Along with the federal government, they have responded by slashing Medicaid and other health care programs. At the same time, corporations are dumping or slashing insurance policies as part of an attack on wages and benefits. The general impact of the law will be to shift these costs onto the backs of individuals, who will be left to the mercy of private insurers offering less and less coverage for higher premiums.

Moreover, millions will likely remain without insurance, unable to afford it given the very limited subsidies, but still forced to pay a penalty of hundreds of dollars…

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jun2012/supr-j29.shtml

"Reid: Supreme Court's Decision A True Victory For The American People":

http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/06/29/reid-supreme-court%e2%80%99s-decision-a-true-victory-for-the-american-people/

Remarks by Nevada Senator Harry Reid..

"Let me give you a few reasons why.

"Since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, more than 6 million young people have signed up for their parents' health plans.

Because children can now stay on their parents' insurance until the're 26, no young person will have to defer his or her dreams to take a job that offers insurance.

Since Health Reform took effect, 5 million seniors have already saved about $600 each on prescription drugs. Millions more have gotten free wellness checks and cancer screenings.

That means millions of seniors have more money in their pockets for food, gas and the electric bill.

And hundreds of thousands of businesses that already offer their employees health insurance are getting tax credits for doing the right thing.

Since Congress passed this law, insurance companies can no longer put profits ahead of people.

They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions.

They can no longer raise your rates for no reason.

They can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick.

Millions of Americans are already seeing the benefits of this law."

there's more..http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/06/29/reid-supreme-court%e2%80%99s-decision-a-true-victory-for-the-american-people/

So now the President should have no excuses to keep his promise on health care. The President said that he would go over the health care bill, "line by line" with my congressman and any other law maker in Washington that requested it and that all proceedings would be broadcast on CSPAN. I expect that on a "line by line" basis that the President will show that all of the promises that he made are being kept with this bill. In particular I want him to show that the bill will not raise our deficit and that our health care insurance premiums will go down. In view of the President's promise to not raise taxes in any way on 95% of Americans, I want the president to explain all of the new taxes that the bill contains including the penalty that the court has ruled is really a tax. All hail the Chief!

Some years ago the company I worked for was sold by its retiring owner to a venture capital firm. My job and others were outsourced (or maybe it's "offshored") and my family lost our insurance. As a result we were subjected to a preexisting conditions clause and my wife went without treatment for a debilitating medical condition for 18 months.

Because Affordable Care is constitutionally sound that won't happen again.

My son just graduated from college but has not yet found permanent, full-time employment.

Because Affordable Care is constitutionally sound he has medical coverage through my employer's family insurance coverage.

My father has had to plan his fixed income around the Medicare donut hole for years.

Because Affordable Care is constitutionally sound the donut hole no longer exists.

A close friend of me was nearly killed a couple of months ago when an oncoming driver crossed the center line and caused a serious car crash. He had just hit what would have been his lifetime limit on coverage.

Because Affordable Care is constitutionally sound that limit no longer exists.

MILLIONS of Americans who would newly be eligible for expanded Medicare/Medicaid coverage had that prospect nearly obliterated by the Republican attempt to overturn the new law.

Because Affordable Care is constitutionally sound they can breathe easier.

Conservatives have vowed to overturn all this, and a lot more. Who's side are they on? Certainly not the side of average Americans.

If the president hands you (Republicans) lemons, make sour grapes. Contempt? Really? Since this man has taken the high road on so many levels, the Republicans are acting like spoiled criminals.

The House of Representatives is like the Shawshank Redemtion, Eric Holder is Andy Dufresne, Boner is Warden Norton and Issa is the Guard Dog Hadley. As Holder crawls through the foulness of the BS Republicans defacate, he'll come out clean on the other side... we all know what action the Warden took.

Hi Louis,

You owe me a monitor :-)

Sorry about that Job... but the reality is that they (Republicans) cannot pin anything to the president, so what do they do? Go after one of his appointments with absolutely NOTHING. They even admitted they have nothing.

I hold nothing against people that are actually dumb, but I despise people that act dumb.

What is astounding to me in all the vitriol from yesterday, how conservatives treat their 'own' when they stray off the reservation for the common good.

Hell hath no fury as a conservative who feels wronged.

I have never been a fan of John Roberts, considering him to be somewhat smug and arrogant, yet I feel somewhat sorry for him and his family, to be the recipient of such vicious ugly attacks from the conservatives for doing what he decided was the right thing.

If there is anything conservatives do really well it is overreach, they never seem to know when enough is enough, thus they cant compromise. It has to be their way or the highway, they always have to have an adversary. No wonder they are such proponents of war. They really do represent the dark side of human nature and are only nice guys as long as they are winning or in the catbird seat.

Folks remember this when you go to the polls in your primaries or in November, remember if you want perpetual turmoil, war and hate filled lives the conservatives will suit you. We will never have peace of any kind if we continue to elect TeaParty conservatives to government positions.

Wow JohnB,

Who would have ever thought you could get all that "free stuff" for your "average" friends and family. Don't forget to thank your conservative neighbors who got stuck with the bill.....

UAWPLeeeeeeeease - I'm always amazed at those of you on the right who foolishly think you're the only people paying in this country. My guess is that I pay more in taxes - by a long shot - than you do!

The difference is that I know it's part of my responsibility - as a human being - to help those less fortunate.

Obama/Biden 2012

So true Seeking Sanity. The right right folks have plenty of people getting their share. These folks have money for their guns and big screen TV, however no money to pay their hospital bills.

Seek, Since you make more than I do and are "more fortunate" how about helping me too? Could ya spare a little? I can come up with a real sappy story about friends and family who make less than you.

A close friend of me was nearly killed a couple of months ago when an oncoming driver crossed the center line and caused a serious car crash. He had just hit what would have been his lifetime limit on coverage.

So what you are saying is that the driver that caused the accident had no auto insurance. Either that or you are pontificating to make a point.

John B:

I am gratified to learn that your family has been positively affected by this decision outcome.

For those of you decrying that John and his family are getting "free stuff": Isn't it fulfilling to know that your government is actually going to work for PEOPLE for a change instead of serving as an income distributor to corporations and the wealthy? Instead of more Welfare for the Well-Off? Instead of republican redistribution and money laundering to the military-industrial complex?

John, your logical, well-researched writings are an inspiration to me on these boards, and I sincerely hope that you and your family fare well.

John B, terrific post. Through personal example, you point out exactly why ACA is so important.

Geez, UAW, where did John B claim anything was free. Is it free when an employer provides health insurance at no cost to employees? I have neighbors next door who work for a local company which pays ALL the cost of health insurance for its employees. Yes, there are still some of those around. My retiree insurance is partially subsidized by my former employer, is that portion free? Seriously, you don't even make good sense.

I would like to express my outrage over a government takeover of the private sector insurance market. My government has decided that I HAVE to purchase insurance, and even has the audacity to regulate the free market!

That nasty government sets minimum coverage levels and regulates the free market industry in so many ways, surely insurance preimums will skyrocket or the insurance companies will go out of business.

We could never stand for such a thing in America - except we have for several years. State governments have required vehicle insurance and regulated minumum coverage and other aspects of the "free market" auto insurance business for years. The insurance companies are stil in business, and most of us still drive freely around the country.

One other point on the ACA, I keep hearing that employers will drop insurance coverage and just pay the fine. Why would they do that? Businesses don't offer medical insurance now out of the kindness of their hearts, they do it to recruit and retain quality employees. Why would that change?

Too much "Doom and Gloom" - let's work together to make the ACA work for America. It may not be perfect but it is a heckuva lot better than nothing.

Talk to the Hand

So what you are saying is that the driver that caused the accident had no auto insurance. Either that or you are pontificating to make a point.

NH does not require their drivers to carry any auto insurance but Mass does. Before law changed, NH drivers could drive on Mass roads with no insurance. When a NH driver caused an accident and had no insurance, MA driver picked up the tap - EVERY TIME.

Today, you are not allowed on Mass roads if you don't have minimum required auto insurance. If you get caught, you car will be towed. No more Mass drivers beinging penilized for being responsible (or forced to be responsible) and NH drivers getting away without paying.

You can apply this logic to health insurance. For every person forced to have health insurance, taxpayers will pay less to cover the dead beats. For every person who is able to get insurance now where they couldn't before due to their pre-existing conditions, the tapayer will pay less to cover their bills.

I don't understand the logic of those who say they don't want to be forced to have health insurance because they are young and it's waste of money. I know people who've had cancer in their late teens, and 20s. Couple others were diagnosed with MS in their early 20s. They were young, too. And I will bet 10,000 Romney bucks that if they had a choice, they would choose to pay their premiums month after month AND NEVER USE THEIR INSURANCE!

I am still so stopped … thinking about the POTUS and his family, the SCOTUS crew, the Senate and House members, all government union employees, all State government personnel, all prison inmates, all welfare
recipients—everyone sitting in the same crowded waiting rooms as me waiting for substandard medical services based on budget dollars. Woo-hoo! ……… . . . oh, okay, I’m awake now! Those are only part of the groups exempt from Affordable Health Care. I get it.

Louis J, cheers for that homerun description! Fortunately, I don't need a new monitor because I had just set the cup of coffee down.

GBM, well said. The hate expressed by conservatives for Chief Justice Roberts is inexcusable. I have questioned his judgement and disagreed about Citizens United and the Montana ruling this week but never have I attacked him personally nor questioned his integrity or intelligence. For 3 1/2 years we have watched the viscious, personal attacks on President Obama, his staff and now his Attorney General--ugly, viscious, nasty, mean. It does not surprise me that the conservatives hate machine now turns its venom on one of their own.

The president will be re-elected and enjoy in his 2nd term a national prosperity he has worked so hard to produce in this first term.

TNSEVOL

One other point on the ACA, I keep hearing that employers will drop insurance coverage and just pay the fine. Why would they do that? Businesses don't offer medical insurance now out of the kindness of their hearts, they do it to recruit and retain quality employees. Why would that change?

I laugh every time someone says that employers will now drop health insurance. Like you said, they don't do it because they want to share their bottom line. They would also not pay overtime, vacation time, 401(k) match, or anything that takes away from their pockets.

They do it because they realize that to stay competitive, they have to. Employers are not gods like the Republicans claim. We are not slaves to employers like the Republicans try to convince us we are.

Is it "free stuff" for my wife to not be excluded by preexisting conditions from insurance I'm paying for?

Is it "free stuff" for my son to be included as a dependent on insurance I'm paying for?

Is it "free stuff" for my father to not have a donut hole in his Medicare into which he paid for decades?

Is it "free stuff" for my friend to get medical coverage from insurance he paid for?

There you see how Conservative think. Consumers are getting "free stuff" from the "job creators." Welcome to the American Aristocracy.

@ Alan in NJ post 1.10

It'll lower your cost for several reasons, but the most significant is the basic law of supply and demand. As demand goes up, cost goes down. By forcing everyone to demand health insurance, cost will fall pretty dramatically.

Anyone who thinks that this alone will swing voters back to Obama is an idiot. MSNBC included.

As others I am glad to see us start the process of providing helath Care for everyone. I am hoping that people see this as a start not and finished product. There is a lot of work to do to improve ACA and a lot of work to do to as I see it as a work in progress. I am also hoping that both sides of the aisle turn away from the extremeists in their respective parties and start working together to improve the law, although after watching Republican leaders yesterday I have my doubts as it seems their main goal in life is to defeat the Presidents re-election, not improve the lives of Americans. Although my one hope is that now that ACAis law and people a talking about it and a lot of people are seeing its benifits that Gov Romney will start taking credit for it and flip flop to support it.

The only thing that would prevent that is he is so beholdened to the Tea Party and Conservative PACs that he wont do whats natural for him which is to flip and flop.

John B, Des Moines,

Projected 1.8 trillion added to the debt (vs 0.9 T initially) in 10 years, because Obamacare is (generally) constitutionally sound. Y'know, you might want to be a little more inclusive with your list, the good with the bad, fair and balanced, and all that.

BTW, all your 'Is it free stuff' questions? No, as long as your premiums go up appropriately. There are quite a few provisions in the PPACA that are very solidly based. Please try not to cherrypick. Many opposed to PPACA have said all along that there are many changes that can and should be enacted. Seems like some scoff at that or dismiss or derisively dismiss the notion. I seem to recall Pelosi and her eensy-weensy comment. So now we have a 2T monstrosity that we all need to learn about and diddle with. But I guess someone else can worry about how and where costs will go.

CG-636486,

'work together' Sure, I cynically say, now that the monster is loose, let's play nice. it never ceases to amaze me that one party will say the other party is the problem so often (either way. Please note that).

'their main goal is to defeat the President.' My God! What have we devolved to! A first, I tell you, a first! Never happened before. Except for every four years. Bah! I believe in equal treatment for all. Dump all in the Congress and WH that are up for re-election, the lot of them, and bring in a new crowd. Perhaps both side will start getting the message.

GOPisextinct,

"your government is actually going to work for PEOPLE for a change instead of serving as an income distributor to corporations and the wealthy?"

Take a look at the Federal tax revenue tables, at least for individuals. If your 'wealthy' is the top 1%, I'd be interested in knowing how the government is giving money to them. You may be confusing 'income distribution' with 'not taking as much as I'd like them to take'. That top one percent paid out 37% of the FIT. More inclusively, the top 25% - 87% of all FIT. And of course, the bottom HALF had to chip in a teeny tiny amount. Fair and balanced - challenged?

I see that you're every bit as Fair and Balanced as Fox "News." First of all, I've shown elsewhere on this thread that the number is $1.1T, not $1.8T as you state. Second, as I've ALSO shown elsewhere on this thread that number is BEFORE the various counterbalancing factors that led the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to label it "revenue neutral."

It's not that you're wrong, it's that you believe so very many things that aren't so.

Why is it that because I posted that I didn't care for the "freedom of speech" ruling yesterday by SCOTUS that people think I'm a Repubican? Feisty knows better at at least! I'm an independent with liberal leaning all for social justice. I do however love consistency, not hypocrisy. I honor a woman's right to choose though personally against abortions, I recognize everyone's right to marry though my personal belief is a marriage is between a man and a woman. My personal beliefs in no way allow me to interfere in someone else's life by taking away their rights and neither do they have a right to take away any of my rights. I do strongly believe in taking care of widows and orphans which definitly makes me more liberal these days since "compassionate conservative" is a thing of the past.

Every American knows we need Healthcare reform. There's not doubt there. But, I believe Americans made the mistake of supporting this law, but for all the right reasons. They supported it, knowing full well it would impact every American's right to choose. They compromised their basic freedom of choice in order to get reform passed in our country. I guess in the eyes of some Americans that was an acceptable price to pay. However, there are a lot of Americans, more than some people may be willing to accept, that respect and will fight for the tenets laid out within the Consitution. These Americans value those liberties more than the cost of a Healthcare Insurance premium. IMO, the Judge Roberts made his decision to win back the respect from the American people of the Supreme Court. As far as the President winning points, I would not presume that yet. This decision may come back and bite our President more than help him. We can speculate as much as we wish today, but it will be what happens in Nov that speaks to this President's performance.

CG-636486

As others I am glad to see us start the process of providing helath Care for everyone. I am hoping that people see this as a start not and finished product. There is a lot of work to do to improve ACA and a lot of work to do to as I see it as a work in progress.

You said it. The ACA is only the beginning of comprehensive reform. What we need is a healthcare system modeled off countries like France, Britain, and Taiwan. I advise looking at Fareed Zakaria's GPS show on healthcare in other countries.

Fair and Balanced666

John B, Des Moines,

Projected 1.8 trillion added to the debt (vs 0.9 T initially) in 10 years, because Obamacare is (generally) constitutionally sound. Y'know, you might want to be a little more inclusive with your list, the good with the bad, fair and balanced, and all that.

You really botched this comment, didn't you??? The CBO projected the ACA to cost $1.8 trillion, not add to the debt. It actually reduces the deficit by around $200 billion, according to the CBO, even though it will be hard to calculate the costs of the ACA.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

That's right Freshieee, ON BALANCE the Affordable Care Act is projected to DECREASE the deficit. Conservatives want to count the costs only, not the savings and revenue.

it's ok to get a little 'on - a - high'.

DaNoid, great point. The GOP won't even answer that question; they'll spin the Romney weather-vane and then change the subject.

Ha ha! Will Republicans ever see the irony in their hypocrisy? Not likely. The rest of us---those who aren't brainwashed or brain dead--will have to continue the task of saving this great nation from the conservative element that seems hell bent on destroying it.

It's a big job, but we must counter conservative lies and self-serving nonsense with rationality and truth.

We cannot give up hope, although that is what they want us to do.

Damn them to hell and vote them out in November!!

jody and da noid,

It's not claimed that he challenged the supreme court - he DID. But then again, he REVERSED himself and lied his way out of it. If that is your idea of a great or any kind of a leader you are pathetic.

Gingerbread,

God given right to subvert the law of the land - just like that lying "president" you so blindly and stupidly follow. However, if your candidate can do it why not anyone else? You think that the "king" will be upset if someone uses his tactics against him? What makes his dropping not smell like everyone elses?

It's funny how on Wednesday, liberals were chastising us that 5-4 ruling by the conservative Justices would represent a "Kangaroo Court" ruling. However on Thursday, a 5-4 ruling by the liberal Justices is seen a a esteemed judgement.

Uh...yeah, so, Richard, back to the original question...

Does Sen. Rand Paul get a free pass for challenging the Supreme Court's authority yesterday?

It's funny how on Wednesday, liberals were chastising us that 5-4 ruling by the conservative Justices would represent a "Kangaroo Court" ruling. However on Thursday, a 5-4 ruling by the liberal Justices is seen a a esteemed judgement.

Funny how on Wednesday it was a slam dunk that the law was going to be ruled unconstitutional. However on Thursday I heard calls for Chief Justice Roberts to be impeached.

"I'm moving to Canada" - The new slogan of the ignorant right.

I see the 'uphold the constitution' 'free speech' crowd is collapsing comments they don't agree with today.

Isn't it FUNNY how when the Republicans don't like a law or they think it doesn't apply to them,...they just IGNORE it (see Brownback, Walker, Scott, Perry) and yet they are the FIRST to scream bloody hell about 'illegal' immigration?

Priceless how the selective ethics crowd determines which laws are the really meaningful ones, eh?

Isn't it FUNNY how when the Republicans don't like a law or they think it doesn't apply to them,...they just IGNORE it

You mean like Obama deciding what laws he will or will not enforce based on his current state of "evolution"? Pot, meet kettle. Puhhhhhleaze............

You are either being sarcastic or ignorant.

*** On "Meet" this Sunday: NBC's David Gregory will interview House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, plus have a debate between Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Howard Dean.

I can hardly wait to hear the "Liberal words of wisdom" coming from Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Dean.

And the ObamaWagon/Mites continues to "spike the ball". Wait a minute.....what was that saying after the 2008 Presidential election by the Left.....oh yeah....."We won, go sit in the back of the bus, my (our)way or the highway".

Suggestion for Flyeisty: Quit your name calling, irrelevant rants, stick to the article, and your comments will not get collapsed.

Personally, I think this will wind up being a political win for Romney. I'm not saying if the healthcare law is good or bad - I just think the politics will favor the GOP on this one since the only reason it was upheld was because they called it a tax - which means the GOP can say Obama lied about not increasing taxes on people making less than $200k/year.

I think Obama and the Democrats will pay a high price in November for this tax increase. (again, I'm not saying if the law is good or bad - I'm only commenting on how I think the politics will play out)

"I'm moving to Canada" - The new slogan of the ignorant right.

That is funny because the last time I check, one of your comrades said," I will renounce my citizenship if is elected e Mormon president and I move to Afghanistan. Who is the ignorant?"

grr...posting errors...

grr...posting errors part duec...

Richard-3165941

God given right to subvert the law of the land - just like that lying "president" you so blindly and stupidly follow. However, if your candidate can do it why not anyone else? You think that the "king" will be upset if someone uses his tactics against him? What makes his dropping not smell like everyone elses?

Tell me Richard, and please be specific; which laws has the President of the United States subverted and how has he subverted them? What actions has the President taken that are unique to his administration (without similar examples form previous administrations)? I'll wait...

oskar-1391552,

I have no idea what you're talking about, however, I suspect you know exactly what I'm talking about. What does that tell you?

Rand Paul's statement is like him: A joke and just another butthurt statement from a butthurt conservative. Nobody is going to give Rand Paul a pass because nobody cares what he has to say. Only ones that do are either brainwashed RepubliKKKan GOP members or like me: People LOLing at their asinine butthurt comments.

I will say this though: I am glad that one person on that panel decided to use his brain and base his decision on law not political party BS. He didn't agree with it, he didn't want to do it, but he had to and did base his decision on the facts.

Frankly I couldn't care less about Obamacare except for the clause that says "Insurance companies cannot deny coverage for preexisting medical conditions". If the KK...GOP want to tear and appeal everything but that rule, be my guest.

I do agree with you Paul. The celebration is not going to last. Obama lie , Obamacare is a tax , many Democrats also vote in favor because they were told is not a tax Obama said so , he lie everywhere every town Obama visit trying to convince the American people that is wasn't a tax . The support for Obama is not going to change with the rule of SCOTUS Democrats are the only supporters, but it is firing-up the majority of Americans , including the Republicans that once call Romney moderate and have plans to stay home, they will come up and vote. It is going to be imposible for Obama flip flop on this. The political victory for Obama that gave the Supreme Court, will be a defeat from the American Citizens in November.

Obamacare is a tax. Obama promise no increase taxes to the middle class and the poor.

NOBAMA 2012

RE: #3.17

Richard, I'm still waiting...

Personally, I think this will wind up being a political win for Romney. I'm not saying if the healthcare law is good or bad - I just think the politics will favor the GOP on this one since the only reason it was upheld was because they called it a tax - which means the GOP can say Obama lied about not increasing taxes on people making less than $200k/year.

The GOP was always going to look for some way to spin this if they lost...let's be honest here. The fact is that their own conservative chief justice was the one who upheld the AHCA as constitutional. Mud in their eye!

This so- called 'tax' would only be levied on those who can afford to buy health insurance but choose not to, and essentially charge the rest of us premium-payers for their free ER visits. Remember that by law, no one can be refused emergency care due to lack of insurance.

How can it be considered a win for Romney when his Massachusetts health care plan was the very model for Obamacare? Romney is a flip-flopping clown on wheels, but let's see him try to spin his way out of this. Let's hear what he proposes to do to fix the health care system.

If Romney tries to use the repeal of Obamacare as his campaign centerpiece, he will lose. He will lose no matter what he says or does.

Here we go... My question today is: What would the Republicans replace ObamaCare with. Have they ever come out with a plan and explained in "every-day" language how it would work, or why it would be better than what Obama proposes? Show me something better and I might support it, but don't ignore the situation and leave the 99%ers to die and wilt away...

It all comes down to the GOP does not have a Viable person at this time to hold the Office of President. We all have yet to hear what Mitt Romney plans to do. Other than just get Obama out of office. That is not enough.

What are his plans to help the Middle class. More TAX breaks for the Corporations? So they can offshore more jobs and Money into Chinese and the 1% stockholders accounts?

No infrastructure spending so we can continue to FAIL and fall further behind as a competing Nation on a Global scale?

Repeal and Replace this new Medical Law With WHAT?

Answers please. How can someone vote for something that even the Candidate cant answer? He is using CUE card talking points that honestly do not answer anything.

kaybeetoys

Personally, I think this will wind up being a political win for Romney. I'm not saying if the healthcare law is good or bad - I just think the politics will favor the GOP on this one since the only reason it was upheld was because they called it a tax - which means the GOP can say Obama lied about not increasing taxes on people making less than $200k/year.

The GOP was always going to look for some way to spin this if they lost...let's be honest here.

To be honest, both parties were going to spin this no matter what the outcome was...not just the GOP. It's just the way politics work nowadays.

Ol_Doc

RE: #3.17

Richard, I'm still waiting...

Negative Contact....Ol_Doc out.

Da Noid,

"Uh...yeah, so, Richard, back to the original question...

Does Sen. Rand Paul get a free pass for challenging the Supreme Court's authority yesterday?"

Well noid, put it this way: A senator isn't the same as the president and Sen. Paul wasn't indignant and arrogant on the courts' ruling as was your guy who took the position that the supreme court sure as hell was not going to tell HIM (capitalized because he thinks he's GOD) what he can and can not do. Sen. Paul expressed an OPINION as opposed to obama who expressed outrage.

I know you won't agree but there is a difference.

For bettter or worse nobody ,much cares about Mr. Paul's opinions. Peresonallly, he seeems like he's right a lot of the time, wrong a lot of the time. THis time he's wrong.

It just cracks me up to listen to flip-flop Mitt run his yap about this. It's makes about as much sense as Colonel Sanders campaigning against fried foods.

Great Post IR - it's done and let's make it better.....

Oh...and by the way GNOPers.... Where are those jobs you promised in 2010??????

GET TO WORK FOR ONCE!

This is a starting point for Healthcare. But, if President Obama had done nothing, we know the GOP would have done nothing and we would STILL be waiting for something to help with our problem with healthcare.

Now, if it is possible, both parties need to work together - IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY - to make the bill the best it can be. Not to have one party dominate the show - but to put an outstanding bill together - to make this start better!

I honestly think we can do it. Will it happen? Not if each side needs to WIN.

Paul S NY, NY - oh, you mean the GOP was actually supposed to DO something about jobs????

Obama/Biden 2012

To all my liberal posters. The month ended great. I was not so sure it would. In fact it could have been a lot worse. It isn't over, liberals need to use this fight to energize the swing state voters and keep Romney from the White house.

A little ditty I put together, borrowing from the chorus and song "Bye, Bye Miss American Pie". We can not sit on our laurels or Obama loses. We were lucky that Roberts put his ego and legacy above politics or I could have been posting this Lamentation for the ACA for real.

A Lamentation for Health Care.

A long, long time ago, Dem. Convention 2004

Still remember how his speech made me smile

I knew if he just got a try

He would make up for that clueless guy

But had to suffer through Bush till he was gone

Knew recovery would take oh so long

The GOP plan had turned very bad

Country broke and I was sad

In W’s wake markets crashed, foreclosure too

Unemployment near ten point two

But in walked Obama fresh and new

Chorus

So bye, bye Obama legacy bye, bye

The right despised you the left deified you

The normal folk knew you gave your best try

But them good ole boys could only drink tea and lie

Singing Tis the day the ACA died…

Newly elected POTUS wasn’t his fault

Trying to fix what George had wrought

Despite compromise, all went for naught.

Obama told us it would be hard and rough

The GOP wouldn’t help, their idea to bluff

The economy got better but not enough

So despite the facts he was blamed

By the crazies and the deranged

Heard them singing in the rain

Chorus

Do you believe “Corporations are people my friend”?

And do you believe in Tax cuts without end?

Against bailouts and cheer banks refusal to lend?

Abhor gay marriage and the right to choose?

Cause the Bible tells you so.

Believe schools don’t deserve a dime.

Ya’ll think compromise is a crime.

Support the guy who likes to can

Your debt solution - cut welfare to your fellow man.

Chorus

I know that your in love with Mitt

Cause I saw you Caucus for that twit

You put on your marching shoes

And stomped those union blues

Well I’m a middle aged, democrat, leftie guy

With a Honda Hybrid and a clip on tie

But I knew that I would nearly cry

The day the ACA died

Chorus

While Obama proposed bills to pass

His ideas were heckled by the rude and crass

Meanwhile the right flank joined the POTUS field

and In Congress the Tea party refused to yield

In the end Romney was confirmed

And all hint of moderation was removed

Chorus

Now after 4 years we are on our own

And Debt grows fat like a rolling stone

It’s not the way it ought to be

So come Mitt be nimble Mitt be quick

Mitt wants the bully pulpit’s stick

And as I watched Willard on the tube

The debt exploded as if by cube

And as the red ink grew and grew

I heard Grover laugh and Boehner too.

No GOP brave to tell

Ryan’s plan was hatched in ^$%#

Democrats looked flat, not willing to fight

And I saw Palin laughing in delight

The day the ACA died

Chorus

I know a dem who spread the word

Was shocked, surprised when she had heard

Despite the emails, walk and meets

In the end couldn’t compete

Citizen’s united had brought defeat

And the three Dems I admire of old

Gore, Kucinich and Feingold

They are gone defeated, none are so bold

Heard them singing Bye, Bye Obama legacy bye, bye

So Bye, bye Obama legacy Bye, bye

The right despised you the left deified you

The normal fold knew you gave your best try

But them good ol boys could only drink tea and lie

Singing Tis the day the ACA died.

PS: Those sticky buns hit the spot this morning! Mmmmm!

In this hot weather .....how long do they stay on your azz before they drip down your leg?

You deserve the right to gloat, now we vote! One question clown boi what about the States that opt out of the Medicare increased funding?

Thanks Mark I like that and I would echo your thoughts. As old Yogi said folks "it ain't over till it's over" in the meantime you'll take well deserved victory lap and come back Monday Morning. At the rate Politics goes these days when this is forgotten as yesterday's news we'll go back to it

My relatives are in the middle of that blaze I.R. We have called April, William, Amanda and James-Robert and asked them to consider leaving Colorado Springs for the relative safety of water-blessed Michigan. We have offered to take them in for a while, and I am going to propose passing the hat for train fare to get them out here.

We talked to them Tuesday, and they said the air is smoke-filled and that an occasional ember flips past them. They tried to mollify us by telling us that the fire is on the other side of I-25 from them, but I don't think wildfires respect freeways.

I am very concerned, and I want them to leave until this fire either burns out or is under control.

Positive thoughts / prayers for my loved ones appreciated.

GOPisextince - good thoughts for your relatives in Colorado. This fire is just so out of control. I hope they'll find a way to corral it soon - without loss of life. All the best to you and all of those who are in the fire. It's tragic.

Yellowdog - great ditty - glad you didn't have to post for real!

GOP I'm hoping that the President can cut though some Red Tape and bring even more forces to bear for you'll. I know that here in Va. we are having trouble putting out a much smaller fire out down in the T.J. National Forest because we have sent about darn near all of our stuff out there. Hopes and Prayer's for all Coloradans today and for the near future. Hang tough maybe we can get some Military in there.

Thank you friends.

When the Air Force is considering leaving you know it's about time to butt out.

DAWG

That is just plain funny right there!

Thanks!

Let’s cut out some of the negative vibes. I am Amuurican Damn it. I’m used to looking forward with Hope, Drive and Determination to a better day and an even better tomorrow. I can’t get used to (and hope I never do) looking back to Fear, Loathing and Hate.

Good point, IR. We have to look to the future with optimism and do our best to make this country stronger and more competitive. We're less than 5% of the world's population and if we want to stay perched on the mountaintop, we have to fix what needs fixing, move forward, and live in the 21st century. Going backward is not an option.

What is it exactly that makes us Americans different? We have opportunity. We have hope. Take that away and we are nothing.

LOL yellowdog on your ditty. It will be interesting on if obama has learned anything from this.

From the FR article...

Obama already had a rebuttal to this in his own remarks yesterday: Isn’t it time to move on?

Romney may not get a lot of mileage from saying he will repeal obamacare, but obama will still be "one and done" if he continues his divisive attitutudes between classes and business. Obama has effectively been in campaign mode since the midterms and his ignoring the private sector by championing the public sector is not a good thing for a growth economy.

With regards to obamacare it is refreshing to see that justice roberts put to bed the lefts primary argument of using the "commerce clause" as justification for the mandate.

With the nbcpolitical report yesterday on just what the tax penalties would be and suggestion that the penalty enforcement would have no teeth why would those refusing to carry insurance be so inclined to do so now? At a maximum fine of just under $700 dollars in 2016 that is still cheaper than one months worth of my own premium.

While obamacare has many good points I think that obamas approach and rhetoric created much of the controversy. Like the McLaughlin 2010 year end wrapup said, rahm emmannual told obama how to get healthcare through with small steps but the politicly naive obama ignored the logic and forced through a large package at one time. Rather like if one uses an entire roll of TP after a shlt and still expecting the toilet to flush.

I see some moonbats are still reveling in yesterday court decision. At first I was to put it mildly pissed off at the ruling. I couldn't believe what Roberts had done. But today, after another look I have to say Roberts did the right thing. Now Obamacare is all on Obama and the progressives. They own it all now.

No one to blame this time. Obama has just enacted the LARGEST TAX on low income and middle class workers in Amercan History. And again, Obama has LIED about it! On tape numerous times telling the American people "it's not a tax".

What a liar. Oh well, since the ruling Romney has been raising money at a rate of $300,000 per hour.

So Justice Roberts, my apologies to you for my immediate reaction to your ruling. As I stated prior to your ruling Obama doesn't have half the intellect you do and he isn't have the man you are.

Thank you for ensuring a devasting election for the democrats come November. Thank you for reigniting the Tea Party and conservative movement! If the moonbats think 2010 was rough they haven't seen nothing yet!

IR, terrific post as always. Yellowdog Mark, thanks for the time you took on yours, excellent job.

I could not help taking a victory lap yesterday and continue doing an Iowa version of IR's Turkey Trot today.

GOPisextinct. well said. Will continue good thoughts for your friends and everyone in Colorado as well as those in flooded Florida. Having lived many years in San Diego, I know fires have no respect for freeways.

american, it worked in Massachusetts over time. MA now has 98% of its citizens covered but it took several years for that to happen.

American...I loved your analogy. I had my chuckle for the day!

GOP exticnt

I hope you family is okay, but, You do realize that Obama and the democrats CUT funds to maintain the equipment and personel to fight these fires, don't You?

DB: since fire fighting is (and always has been) a state/local thing, how do you figure that President Obama cut funds, particularly since the House (which produces appropriations bills) has been under the control of Republicons for the last 18 months ?

Good point Dirp. As IR points out I think that the President is on his way over there. He is going to review what else, if anything FEMA can do to help these people.

Good thing he isn't going there to play a guitar or read a book about a "Pet Goat".

"I'm moving to Canada" - The perfect new slogan of the ignorant right.

We now have a campaign issue and a possible difference between the bought and paid for political parties. Possible?

The night Hurricane Katrina hit shore, with all those people dying and losing their homes and everything they owned, pres. Bush went to John McCain's birthday party. Bush gave his most important speech of his life, it went,"Happy Birthday to you, Happy Birthday to you, Happy birthday dear Johnnie, Happy birthday to you! Oh boy cake and ice cream!"

As of 6/29/2012 at 8:17PM, the odds of Obama winning on Nov 6 are 65.3% and Romnsy is at 34.7%. I would say that this will improve dramatically over the next 10 days or so as more polls are aggregated into the model I watch.

If you want to really see some good statisical modeling of the fall election, e-mail me and I will send you the link. If I post it on here, it will always cause the comment to be collapsed. I don't know if it is MSNBC doing it because they have their own polling system, or that right wingers don't want people to see how badly Romney is actually doing.

The polls that the media show are virtually all identical in one respect: if the poll shows a "tight race" it creats a demand for more polling. If the race is not tight, the demand for polls plummets. And there is always the "house effect" --- Pew always has a "tilt" to the Democrats because of the nature of its research and Gallup always has a tilt to the Republicans for the same reason. It is not intentional. Polling houses simply cannot take the human nature out of the equation. Another thing that is going badly wrong with the polls (in 2008 and 2010 and now this one) is that they depend on landlines for telephone polling. Focus groups and in-person interviews are incredibly expensive, and telephone polls are the only economically affordable way to do it. But this means that the rapidly growing cell-phone-only demographic (who are decidedly more pro-Obama are being widely ignored.

Just saying ..... be careful of polls. During the 2008 election, McCain led for exactly 4 days in the entire campaign (the 4 days after he announced Palin but before anyone knew anything about her.) Virtually the whole campaing was described as a "close race" by pollsters despite the fact that it was never even vaguely close.

Roy Wilson-

"So this is nothing but COST SHIFTING - TO THE TAXPAYERS."

Mr. Wilson, just who do you think is paying for the 30 million uninsured today? Because they sure as hell are showing up in emergency rooms all over the country or at "free" clinics" sponsored by the US Military.

Get real. Get facts. Get informed. Get with the program or just go away with the nonsense reasons why the United States of America should not have Universal Healthcare.

Sheila, MD

Get real. Get facts. Get informed.

Roy don't play that....

You're right about polling, Chris. The only 'poll' that matters is the one we'll take in the voting booths of this nation on November 6.

Romney has no chance, unless the American people can somehow be duped into buying into his B.S. I have more faith in our people than to lose sleep over that.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL something tells me your a fat slob that sits behind your computer getting your giggles thinking your hotsh## on here. I bet your on Welfare. How much Obama food stamp bucks is feeding your piehole every 5 minutes? Please enlighten us. Two quarter pounders today? Food stamps I don't think work for those actually. When is the last time your fat a## filed a tax return? I somehow would love to meet a person like you in person. You act so pompus behind your computer it is sick. Feisty? I bet you are. Pull out the 4 size to small floss out of your lower smile and I bet you would feel a little better. Bag!

The continued ignorance of the Right is amazing... claiming that Obama has created the biggest tax increase ever. What a bunch of BS. The only people that will be taxed are those who choose not to be insured, and even then it's all of $95 a year for most of them. I'm not a huge fan of PPACA, but it's better than the Republicans IHNOP (I Have No Other Plan) approach. If the Right wants to win some points with the Middle Class, then come up with a plan that is fair to the Middle Class and not just another way for the Oligarchy to pick our pockets and financially rape us.

Kaybee, I agree the only poll that counts is Nov 6. With yesterdays decision President Obama pretty much lost the Independent vote. I think most of this block is as concerned with how this was done with what the content of the bill is. Let's be honest--he lied about so many things regarding the cost of the bill, how it was going to be paid for (i.e, it is a tax), quality of care, impact on deficit etc.

Most independent thinking people do not like liars as our leaders and there can be no dispute that he has told many a bold faced lie regarding this bill.

Rob in Mass -

I have to admit I feel a little bit of joy watching the Teabaggers/ Right Wingers try and twist the ruling into not a loss for them. Makes me wonder if the Right mouthpiece, RL himself -from whom you stole the whole "Largest tax increase in history" nonsense, try and think for your self, you know use your own words - didn't have that already prepared as a contingency plan.

However, thinking that a majority of Americans will think like the TP/RW, and get fired up and vote Obama out of office, is delusional. Face it, a majority of Americans see the Teabags as too extremist, and groan audibly when they start in with their anti-Obama rhetoric. It is only the TP/RW blinder wearing short sightedness that leads them to believe every thinks like them - it's just simply the case.

As a side note, you notice that I used Anti-Obama, not Anti-government, because that is what the Teabags are - just simply anti Obama, stuck on some problem with him because he's Liberal (not that the Teabags know the first thing about Liberalism), Muslim (proven false), Kenyan (also false), or Black, or some other ridiculous, made up reason.

If anything, I would advise the Teabags to begin to re-think their platform - it's not much longer before the Republican party itself begins to distance itself from the toxic manners of the Tea Party.

We've known for a while that it's very unlikely a democrat these days would decide to switch to the other side - since dems seem to be endowed with common sense and all. At the same time, the Republicans have generally been preaching to their own corrupt choirs. And then there are the good, well-meaning people across the country whose thought process and political tradition is handed down from generation to generation along with the family Bible. A lot of those people go to work every day - and at work, not everyone is a Republican. My point is this: after a while, the pounding and banging required fit those giant square pegs into those little round holes starts to become embarrassing to the people who have been swearing all along to their friends and co-workers that they will fit - if you just hit them hard enough. At some point, the proverbial duck is so large and quacking so loudly, that a lot of people outside of the inner circle of vapid vipers is just about ready to go ahead and call it a duck, so that they can get on with their lives and not become the water-fountain pariah. Maybe that would be the time to embrace some of them. At the very least, it's a good time to use extra caution when we quench our own thirst, and not give them the tiniest excuse they might need to stay in the doomed marriage. Examples of the mistakes that people can make along the lines of eggs and baskets and horses and carts are just to our right. And a fine example of leadership, bravery, and etiquette is standing right in front of us. I believe this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for some social dignity to breath life into a gravely ill system that has been mauled by the darker side of man. But it will be a long recuperation.

I know that I'm just repeating what some of you have already said, but I think that it's worth repeating.

I have read all of your pithy and insightful comments (Yellowdog - Mark D - glad to know that there are people out there who have so much time on their hands!) and agree with some, disagree with others. The question I have for anyone who would actually care to answer it honestly is how exactly do we pay for ACA now that it is a constitutional tax. I have already had to change the healthcare plan I had (and liked) because in all 2700 plus pages of ACA nothing, absolutely nothing, addresses the issue of increasing heathcare costs which is really what needs to be addressed in healthcare reform. My premium increased again and I couldn't afford to keep it. Maybe I am in the minority these days but I really don't want the government to pay for my healthcare because if they can give it, they can (and will, if necessary) take it away. I just would like to be able to afford whatever healthcare I need. ACA does many things but who is going to pay for it? Healthcare isn't free or cheap and someone has to pay for it ONE WAY or ANOTHER. In a country with a 15+ trillion dollar debt, taking a slow and methodical approach may have been the better way to bring about healthcare reform that actually reforms. The ACA just puts the federal government in charge and we all know how well that works (the Post Office, IRS and dealing with the national debt are just a few examples that come to mind). Rejoice and celebrate now because this may be the highpoint of living with the ACA.

Obama has just enacted the LARGEST TAX on low income and middle class workers in Amercan History.

Just another Conservative lie, on a pile so tall you can't see the top.

Won't cost me a dime...I have health insurance. I'll enjoy the improved consumer protections very much, however.

Won't cost the poor a dime...they're excluded from the penalty and will see improved availability of affordable insurance.

Even Georgie Boy Stephanopoulis knows Obama is a big fat liar and a big fat taxer!

John B,

The PPACA is at least $900B, and currently $1.8T, over 10 years. Somebodies will have to pay for it. If you think it won't cost you or 'the poor' anything, it has to cost someone something. Well, I guess it COULD turn out to be a lie, or at least inaccurate. The rich could always be forced to pay it. That makes it a handout for the non-rich. But if I understood CJ Roberts's writ for the majority, it seems to be a tax.

OK, I forgot, we'll all see reduced costs for our health insurance preiums and healthcare bills. I'm humble enough to admit and realize I can't predict this future, but I certainly can express my doubts, and not foolishly live my life counting on promises.

Romney may not get a lot of mileage from saying he will repeal obamacare, but obama will still be "one and done" if he continues his divisive attitudes between classes and business. Obama has effectively been in campaign mode since the midterms and his ignoring the private sector by championing the public sector is not a good thing for a growth economy.

I personally don't see Obama's "divisive attitudes between classes and businesses." All I see is a party that is catering to the wealthy. Tell me this, american; how in God's name is raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans (who have seen their tax rates go down from 70% in the 1980s to 35% today and their incomes increase by 275%) by 4.6% points and 5% points for income and capital gains class warfare??? How is just letting tax rates for the wealthiest Americans revert back to Clinton-era rates "anti-success." How is asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more to pay down the deficit along with spending cuts to programs to the middle class and the poor unfair??? As for businesses, Obama has cut tax repeatedly for small businesses, and has even offered to cut taxes on corporations to 28% from 35%. That doesn't sound anti-business to me. And all he asks in return is an end to unnecessary corporate subsidies and tax loopholes and some more regulation to keep our economy from collapsing like it did in 2009. Sounds like the GOP is bashing Obama in order to serve the interests of their rich and corporate buddies.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Look F&B, telling your lie twice doesn't make it true. You've at least TWICE posted an INFLATED estimate of the GROSS cost of the measure without even once sourcing the information. The law is fully paid for in net.

According to the official Administration and Congressional scorekeepers, the Affordable Care Act will reduce the deficit: its costs are more than fully paid for. The Office of Management and Budget and Congressional Budget Office project lower Federal budget deficits as a result of the law. The Congressional Budget Office is charged with assessing how legislation would affect the deficit. When the health care bill was passed by Congress, CBO wrote:

“CBO and JCT estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation—H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal—would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010–2019 period as result of changes in direct spending and revenues.”

When Congressional Republicans sought to repeal the law, CBO found that eliminating the law would increase the deficit. CBO wrote:

“[T]he effect of H.R. 2 on federal deficits as a result of changes in direct spending and revenues is likely to be an increase in the vicinity of $230 billion, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes to CBO’s and JCT’s projections for that period.”

And just last month, in updating its estimates of key parts of the law, CBO estimated that the insurance coverage provisions of the health care law would, compared to last year’s estimates for the same time period, cost $50 billion less. Assuming no change to the rest of the estimates, this means $50 billion more in deficit reduction.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/04/09/official-sources-agree-affordable-care-act-reduces-deficit

See, that's what's referred to as "sourcing" your information. It adds something called "credibility" which is important when you're trying to convince people of your case.

Well, not Conservatives anyway, as the wignutosphere is clearly comfortable just telling bigger lies more often.

LOL JohnB trying to prove a point by citing a WH source and a 2009/2010 CBO estimate. When computers were first having a widespread presence in society the term "GIGO" was very prevalent. You know "garbage in, garbage out".

Guess what johnB, the data has changed since 2009/2010. There is no guarantee that the taxes obama has put in place or the $$$ he transferred from medicare will provide what you and others refer to as "obamacare being fully funded". More likely, this fully funded concept is actually just another example of robbing peter to pay paul. You know, a practise that politicians like to embrace.

With such a low bar being set for penalties in not having insurance I suspect that many will opt out of buying insurance or drop it because the premiums are still not afforadable without a heavy government subsidy. Bet the data obama gave the CBO in 2009/2010 on expected government subsidies was a really lowball estimate.

Amazing how the left no longer looks down the road to see potential pitfalls but only looks to out of date data.

BTW johnB, I have no problem with the healthcare aspects of obamacare, but I do have a problem with obama and company saying that is is fully funded and will save $$$. I can't recall any government program that came in on time and within budget.

The CBO number would be meaningful if Washington kept their committment to the numbers they input. The fact of the matter is they never do. The numbers are based on a bunch of assumptions that will not be fullfilled. If you think this is going to bring the cost curve down, reduce the deficit or come in under budget then you are naive. Here is my source: $17 trillion in debt. Get a clue dude, stop lying to yourself and think man. You are better than that.

Jody, never did say that obamacare was all bad, just that obama was politically naive on how he went about it. Rahm emmanuel had it right, obama and company did not.

BTW my main objections were to the mandate and the notion that such a government program would result in lower costs. After all, there is nothing in obamacare that actually addresses our year in, year out rising healthcare costs.

John B,

The word lie is sometimes misused. I at least gave a range, and yes, I did say 'current estimate'. The following source pegs it at a little over a trillion:

It does so because there are changes in estimates of sevral factors, but read it for yourself. So it, two is at best guess work. It does say that the estimate of 1.76 trillion 'before the tax and revenue effects'. No quibbling from me on that. Is it a better guess? beats me. We can debate what is going to happen in the future, but I don't imagine either of us own a functioning crystal ball, and I do own a baskeftful of skepticism. If it makes you happy, I will agree that a more current estimate is that trillion $ figure. Curious, though, how the CBO jumps around all over the place. And, I'm not clear as to what parameters the CBO uses.

If you want to believe PPACA will reduce the national debt, or the deficit, clearly that's your choice. But at this point that is only speculation, and I've already posted about the track record of our federal government. A little caveat, that.

Regarding the 'paid for', please, the bill has a cost associated with it, and I automatically credit you with enough sense to realize human beings will have to pay for it with by being taxed on the money they earn, or by payin higher fees (?).

You, and many others of BOTH ideological persuasions, when you are trying to convince others of your case, can do with a little less attitude and a little more civility. And that includes a lid on the sarcasm. That, for sure, does very little.

I'll close with my thought that 'lie', in your context, can easily extend to statements from the liberal side. Merely my opinion.

Freshieee,

"how in God's name is raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans (who have seen their tax rates go down from 70% in the 1980s to 35% today and their incomes increase by 275%) by 4.6% points and 5% points for income and capital gains class warfare???"

There's a difference between tax rates and the change in the entire tax structure. For a different perspective, consider actual taxes.

In 1980, the top 5% of tax filers had federal income taxes (FIT) of 92B (37% of all FIT), the bottom 50% paid 18B(7%). In 2009, the top 5% paid $508(59%), the lower 50 - $20(2.3%). Total adjusted gross incomes (AGI), to be fair and balanced, were 1980: top 5% - 21% of total AGI, bottom 50% - 18% of total AGI. 2009: top 5% - 32%, bottom 50% - 13%.

Tons of graphs, all IRS data. Here's the source:

You decide on the class warfare issue. I've often asked for a quantitative, not qualitative, definition of 'fair share' when it comes to taxes. Have yet to get an answer, let alone evaluate the logic and reasoning for arriving at it. I will say that I don't know, but judging from the above source, seems like the rich are doing some pulling.

There's a difference between tax rates and the change in the entire tax structure. For a different perspective, consider actual taxes.

In 1980, the top 5% of tax filers had federal income taxes (FIT) of 92B (37% of all FIT), the bottom 50% paid 18B(7%). In 2009, the top 5% paid $508(59%), the lower 50 - $20(2.3%). Total adjusted gross incomes (AGI), to be fair and balanced, were 1980: top 5% - 21% of total AGI, bottom 50% - 18% of total AGI. 2009: top 5% - 32%, bottom 50% - 13%.

To be fair, the wealthy are paying more in income taxes. But, they are paying more because they control more income. Essentially, due to their increasingly large share of national income, they are paying higher taxes. I believe that wealthy households pay only 18% of their income in taxes, compared to 29.9% in the 1990s. Now, in addition, I do not believe in only raising taxes on the wealthy (if it were up to me, I'd let the Bush tax cuts and sequester cuts happen); I'd probably reform the tax code by limiting some major tax expenditures that affect the lower and middle class,. But due to the increase in income inequality and the growth in wealth and income for the top 5%, I would say that they ought to shoulder more of the increased tax burden. This, coupled with domestic and regulatory policies, will hopefully decrease income inequality.

It doesn't really matter F&B, because you insist on only using part of the numbers...and no sources. Your deception has been exposed, after that further discussion is just kabuki.

Freshieee,

Sorry, for some reason my links in my replies to you and John B. did not post.

Here's yours:

You can see who pays how much to your heart's content. Won't venture a response on 'fair share'? By the way, I don't recall if I said, in one of my earlier posts, if I'm rich financially, in case my view appears to be self-defensive and self-serving. No, our household income ins't close to the stratosphere.

John B,

As you may have seen, but did not acknowledge, there was a gap following my reference to one of many sources. Rather than say that, you merely said no sources. Here is one of many that agree with your contention as to an update downward. I tried posting it, but it did not display:

Presumably it will show. In any event, it DOES say that the estimate was revised downward. I acknowledged that earlier, and do so again. Why do I give it short shrift? You characterized the higher number as inflated. I could say this revised number is deflated. They're both guesses, and they are both made with certain conditions and assumptions. I don't follow your 'part of the numbers'. I will stand by my skepticism as to the ability of the government, regardless of who is in charge at the WH or The Hill, to reasonably predict costs. My deception? Man, you really ought to try a little better than that, unless you are one who espouses the notion that you are right, and dissenters are wrong.

Both of you have a good day.

OK, try one more time:

John B,

Please prepend http colon slash slash and append dot html to this:

ebn.benefitnews.com/ad_includes/welcome_ebn

Freshieee,

Please prepend http colon slash slash to this:

taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0

Well, there's your problem...your information comes straight from ALEC and the Koch brothers;

The Tax Foundation's President, Scott A. Hodge, participated in the 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Annual Meeting, speaking on the "Corporate Taxes and International Competitiveness Panel" in front of the Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force, and the Foundation's Vice President of Legal and State Projects, Joe Henchman, introduced the "Resolution Urging Congress to Cut the Federal Corporate Tax Rate" model policy at the same meeting.^[2]

About ALEC

ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our PRWatch.org site.

Funding

The Tax Foundation is funded by private donations from members, corporate donations, and donations from charitable foundation such as the Koch Foundation, Earhart Foundation, etc.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tax_Foundation

John B,

My problem? My information came from the IRS.

If you bothered to access the site I provided for Freshieee, you should have seen that the DATA is from the IRS. Other 'stuff' on that site is clearly identified as to it's source, i.e, analyses, interpretation of data, position papers. Site funding is one thing, source of data is another. You could get the exact same information from many other sites, mostly because, well, they all get it from the IRS.

More specifically, this site clearly says:

"The source for the following charts is the Internal Revenue Service, ("Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Returns Classified by Tax Percentile - Early Release")."

Now, will I hear an apology, or will it be merely the chirping of crickets in the otherwise deafening silence.

If you want to start a discourse on this matter, I'll pose the same question to you regarding the determination of fair share of taxes. First, though, I would either like an admission that the DATA is acceptably accurate, or you can expound on how the IRS is not to be trusted, as they may post doctored information in a vast (don't know which)-wing conspiracy.

FandB666

chitownporchcritter,

Suggestion: post with a little clarity. You'll be criticized over 'any taxes at all'. I'm guessing you meant 'any FEDERAL INCOME tax at all', and even then, the lower 50% do pay a small amount, something like 2.3% of the entire FIT for all filers, according to the IRS. I think it's something closer to the lowest 47% that do not pay FIT, to be a little more accurate.

hitownporchcritter

Why dont we go after the 50% of the people in this country that dont pay any taxes at all, but reap all the benifits?

Actually, only about 18% of Americans don't pay federal taxes. The remaining 82% pay either income taxes, payroll taxes, or both. And of that 18% (18.1% to be exact), 10.3% are elderly people, 6.9% are non-elderly workers who make under $20,000 (a little less than the poverty rate), and only about 0.9% make over $20,000. So technically, only 0.9% of Americans don't pay taxes, including thousands of wealthy Americans...

Why do we need medicare and SS, and Welfare if the country is just exploding with growth and vitality, like the libs have told me time and again, and what huge amounts of money they are making in the stock market since obama was immaculated.....

I've never heard a liberal saying that the country is "exploding with growth and vitality." Most of us say that the economy is gradually becoming better. We would need Medicare, SS, and welfare even if we had growth, because elderly people need financial aid to pay for medical expenses and such, while poor people will always need help. Jesus himself said that "the poor will always be with you."

lets go after all these "obscene" profits that libs are making off of obama!!!! Obama says " Now is not the time to make a profit" so lets get these libs and tax the @!$%# out of them while they are flush with obama cash!!

I don't recall Obama saying that. If he did, he most likely added the words "on the backs of hard-working Americans." Frankly, I don't care if conservatives OR liberals get taxed; as long as they both pay their fair share.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Freshieee,

Frankly, I don't care if conservatives OR liberals get taxed; as long as they both pay their fair share.

OK, but what is that elusive fair share?

chitownporchcritter,

Did you ever consider expressing your views a bit more politely? Just a thought.

Why exactly would I apologize, F&B? I criticized the Tax Foundation because as an ALEC/Koch-controlled organization they can be depended upon to present the data in deceptive or manipulative ways. That's EXACTLY what they did, for a variety of reasons;

1) Focusing only on AGI produces numbers that are favorable to the Conservative argument of the Tax Foundation. There are several different analyses available and all should be studied to get a full picture.

2) As expected of a Conservative propaganda group they cherry-picked the data. Because investment income was historically week in 2009 it understates the increasing income inequality.

3) Starting the analysis beginning at inflection point, namely 1980, is intended to totally avoid drawing attention to the fact that the dramatically increasing inequality since that time isn't the norm but a historical anomaly produced by Republican economic policies that have failed for the middle class.

4) Using the top 5% of earners helps disguise the fact that the massive growth in income has been concentrated in the top 1%.

Here's another view, also supported by government numbers but in more detail and variety;

Census family income data show that the era of shared prosperity ended in the 1970s and illustrate the divergence in income that has emerged since that time. CBO data allow us to look at what has happened to comprehensive income since 1979 — both before and after taxes — and offer a better view of what has happened at the top of the distribution.

As Figure 2 shows, between 1979 and 2007, average income after taxes in the top 1 percent of the distribution rose 277 percent, meaning that it nearly quadrupled.[24] That compares with increases of about 40 percent in the middle 60 percent of the distribution and 18 percent in the bottom fifth.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3629

So pretend to be offended all you want...I don't owe you an apology.

P.S. -- You claim Liberals always avoid the subject of "fairness" in taxes. I've consistently answered the same way EVERY TIME a Conservative has presented that talking point...I'd like them to pay at least as large a proportion of their income as does the middle class rather than 30% less as they do currently.

Somehow that never gets acknowledged.

John B.

"Why exactly would I apologize, F&B?"
I thought I was clear. You said the data came from Koch/ALEC. You didn't say anything about the data itself. I pointed out that the actual data came from the IRS. That's why.
I think I also said the other 'stuff' at Taxpayerfoundation was interpretation and other views, or something like that. That should have made it clear the other 'stuff' was arguable, whereas data, if we agree it is reasonably factual, is per se irrefutable. The implications from the data, of course, is something else, and subject to discussion and use along with much other indormation.

"1) Focusing only on AGI produces numbers that are favorable to the Conservative argument of the Tax Foundation. There are several different analyses available and all should be studied to get a full picture."
Agree. The only reason I brought up those IRS facts was that first, they are facts, assuming we agree on that, and second, it SEEMS to me that side of the coin rarely gets out, except on 'right-wing' media such as FNN.

"2) As expected of a Conservative propaganda group they cherry-picked the data. Because investment income was historically week in 2009 it understates the increasing income inequality."
There is plenty of historical data from the IRS. Further, this site doesn't only address 2009. It goes back at least to 1980.

"3) Starting the analysis beginning at inflection point, namely 1980, is intended to totally avoid drawing attention to the fact that the dramatically increasing inequality since that time isn't the norm but a historical anomaly produced by Republican economic policies that have failed for the middle class."
Possibly, but that intention is your opinion, which may or may not be accurate. I don't know. So is the contention of Repulican policy. "Increasing inequality" in this context is a phrase that has connotations with which I may disagree.

"4) Using the top 5% of earners helps disguise the fact that the massive growth in income has been concentrated in the top 1%."
That was an arbitrary selection on my part. You jump to a conclusion if you mean I had intended to disguise anything. The data is there for all to see and analyse to their heart's content.

Here's another view, also supported by government numbers but in more detail and variety;

"Census family income data show that the era of shared prosperity ended in the 1970s and illustrate the divergence in income that has emerged since that time. CBO data allow us to look at what has happened to comprehensive income since 1979 — both before and after taxes — and offer a better view of what has happened at the top of the distribution."
Another view. Great. No problem with that. I haven't yet researched that source, so I may, or may not, end up thinking there is a bias there, just as you say Koch/ALEC have biases. Again, though, "shared prosperity" has connotations, or an implicit assumption, which I may not agree with.

"As Figure 2 shows, between 1979 and 2007, average income after taxes in the top 1 percent of the distribution rose 277 percent, meaning that it nearly quadrupled.[24] That compares with increases of about 40 percent in the middle 60 percent of the distribution and 18 percent in the bottom fifth."
No arguement. But wouldn't that, if offered up in a separate discussion, all by itself, constitute cherrypicking?

"
So pretend to be offended all you want..."
"pretend"?
"I don't owe you an apology."
I won't lose sleep over it.

"P.S. -- You claim Liberals always avoid the subject of "fairness" in taxes. I've consistently answered the same way EVERY TIME a Conservative has presented that talking point...I'd like them to pay at least as large a proportion of their income as does the middle class rather than 30% less as they do currently."
"always"? I try not to use that word. One instance is all it takes to prove it false.
"at least as large a proportion as . . . "
OK, I can accept that you have your view. I would be interested in hearing your basis for that rationale, though. Tax burdens ultimately have to be translated into numbers by the IRS, though. As you should have noted, I don't really know what would constitute 'fair', but there has to be a little acknowledgement that a tiny fraction paying a lot of it might be reason to question the fairness of expecting more. If you want to focus on the 1%, see what the effect on the national debt would be if they were taxed at 100%, and consider the ramifications.

"Somehow that never gets acknowledged."
Acknowledged.

Fair and Balanced666

Freshieee,

Frankly, I don't care if conservatives OR liberals get taxed; as long as they both pay their fair share.

OK, but what is that elusive fair share?

Well, that is the question whose answer shall elude us until the end of time. There is no optimal rate for each income bracket; we can only guess. What we can deduce is that tax rates are the lowest in a half-century, and that has had a somewhat negative effect on economic equality in the country. I am not necessarily calling for a return to a top rate of 70%, but I think that at the very least we ought to return rates to Clinton levels. Then we can focus on tax reform, and further debate on the future level of the top tax rates. Personally, I'd prefer a marginal rate for the highest bracket at around 45%, followed by 39.6%, 33%, 27%, 21%, and 18%, respectively. Capital gains would be taxed at 24%; dividends at 24%, carried interest being treated as income, and the corporate tax rate would be about 25%. Payroll taxes would be 14.4% (7.2% for employer and employee); gift taxes would be 48% for gifts over $10,000, and estate taxes would be 55% for estates over $675,000. Effective income tax rates would have to be 80% of marginal rates for the first 3 brackets, while it would go down to 70% of marginal rates for the fourth and fifth brackets, and 40% of the last bracket. Hope this answers your question.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

They pay a lot of taxes for a reason. The 400 wealthiest Americans now hold more wealth than the entire bottom 50% combined, the top 1% holds more net worth than the bottom 90%, and wealth continues to accumulate to the 1% at a rate unseen since just before the Great Depression...which is why the Laissez-Faire economics of modern Conservatism inevitably led to another crash of epic proportions in 2007. Unfortunately we've yet to learned the lessons of the past.

Freshieee,

You're right. 'Fair' will always be in the eye of the beholder. I just have difficulty rationalizing why such a small percentage of the population should pick up the tab for so many. I do see why some would have the expectation that the rich should pay more, and even more than today, in FIT. The consequence of Engel's Law. On the other hand, the entitlements concept is bothersome, as it has a tendency to foster irresponsibility. Not universally, but to an extent, and I don't know what that is. Is that really doing the population a favor? Then there's the issue of whether an increase in FIT results in positve results. I refer to the problem of the national debt. To say I'm skeptical that higher revenue will lead to a balanced budget, let alone one with a surplus that can be applied to the debt, is an understatement.

Instead of taxing the 1% at their current rate, take all their income.. Apply it to the debt. Right now, that would recude it from about 16T to about 15T. Of course, how many years would you think that is going to happen, beyond the first time?

I think the FIT program is skewed enough as is, and skewing it more won't meterially improve things. But that's my opinion. We can agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

John B,

I agree, they do pay a lot because they earn a lot. Both in FIT and in other taxes. Not a big issue, but the current topic was strictly federal income taxes; net worth just opens up a larger topic, but generally, I'm sure positions won't change much. I think it fair to say the current mess we're in had many, many people, from all levels of income, political persuasions, both genders, young and old, of every sexual orientation, to blame. I won't even bother with that one.

Fair and Balanced666

Freshieee,

You're right. 'Fair' will always be in the eye of the beholder. I just have difficulty rationalizing why such a small percentage of the population should pick up the tab for so many. I do see why some would have the expectation that the rich should pay more, and even more than today, in FIT. The consequence of Engel's Law. On the other hand, the entitlements concept is bothersome, as it has a tendency to foster irresponsibility. Not universally, but to an extent, and I don't know what that is. Is that really doing the population a favor?

Well, to be fair, liberals like me think that the small percentage of the population have gotten off pretty easy, while the rest have faced stagnant wages, decreasing standard of livings, and the rise in the cost of living. I personally think everybody has to put in a little more, but I guess some liberals think that the guys at the bottom are squeezed out. I understand it; many middle class families have been hit hard, not just by the recession but by the past 30 years of trickle-down economics, which we can all agree has not led to great results for Americans collectively. As for entitlements, they may foster some irresponsibility, mostly on the part of the government, but their benefits to society (Social Security alone has reduced poverty among seniors by two-thirds, from 30% to 10%) far outweigh the costs. Those programs can easily be fixed with simple (and by that I mean policy-wise) adjustments, such as an increase in the payroll tax, raising the cap, progressive indexing, and the like.

Then there's the issue of whether an increase in FIT results in positve results. I refer to the problem of the national debt. To say I'm skeptical that higher revenue will lead to a balanced budget, let alone one with a surplus that can be applied to the debt, is an understatement.

Well, I agree that we need spending cuts along with higher revenues to eliminate the deficit entirely. However, I do believe that, hypothetically, if the US government were to rescind the Bush taxes for everyone and eliminate half of all expenditures in the tax code, we would attain a cumulative surplus of roughly $3 to $4 trillion over the next decade, assuming that cumulative deficits would total around $7 trillion and that tax expenditures equal around $13 trillion over the next decade, not to mention the $3.8 trillion cost of the Bush tax cuts.

Instead of taxing the 1% at their current rate, take all their income.. Apply it to the debt. Right now, that would recude it from about 16T to about 15T. Of course, how many years would you think that is going to happen, beyond the first time?

Actually, I think the results would be a bit more positive. Instead of looking at the results toward the debt, I would prefer looking to the cumulative deficits over the next decade. I think a conservative estimate of the concentration of wealth by the 1% is approximately 17.7%; it may be higher. But, I think 17.7% is a good number to start with. Assuming that GDP is currently about $15.3 trillion, the top 1% control about $2.7 trillion in income. Multiply that over the next ten years, and that is approximately $27 trillion out of roughly $153 trillion in cumulative GDP estimates; and that doesn't even account for growth. If, hypothetically, the government were to take the entire income of the 1% over the next decade, the debt would be eliminated entirely, with roughly $11 trillion to spare. Now, that is highly unlikely, but if the wealthy were to pay a 30% tax on all their income, as they did in the late 1990s, the debt would be cut in half, to around $8 trillion. Now, these are merely hypothetical numbers, but you do get the point.

In short, I can agree with you that the wealthy should not be the only ones to pay more. Everyone has to contribute more to solve the problem. But, in a reference to the past 30 years of the government coddling the interests of corporations and the wealthy, I would say that they should bear a small plurality of the cost.

revenge: If you already have insurance then there is no "tax"...which majority of Americans have. This "tax" will impact about 2-5 percent of Americans, and for those can not afford to purchase healthcare from the exchanges, an even lower percent, they can get assistance.

Dragon - then whats the point if it will only effect 2-5 percent of of us?

but i do agree i think the ACA law will do little to change healthcare - i say that as someone who works in healthcare. i have always thought that

The mechanism that roberts used to justify the law does concern me since its basically provided federal government with a map on how to expand its powers. The constitution built barriers and left those limits that were undefined as "left to the states". What Roberts did was to unshackle the government from that limit of "if its undefined you cannot do it" and instead told government "you can now do anything if you offset the "mandate action with a tax penalty for inaction to create a "choice" (a false choice in in my mind since both actions are negative to those who will disagree with the mandated action)

what i have been looking for is some realization of that new reality from democrats. since no party stays in power forever the other side will eventually pull the levers of power and i am trying to gauge awareness of what could happen if "your worst fears" come to pass and tea party types take over congress with this new road map Justice Roberts just laid out.

(so far i seem to be alone, but that could be due to the quality of my audience, or a am insane)

joshua

Roberts said it was a "tax" not a tax increase. I suppose when my kids leave the house the credit I get turns into a "tax increase"' or when my mortgage is paid off I will get a tax increase. Bottom line, it's all CONSTITUTIONAL! I love that! Don't want a tax increase, buy health insurance or pay the $90. OMG! $90 whole dollars! Wow! GTFOOH.