So, we can say any adult who doesn't want health care is not only a fool, but is pretty darn stupid.

How do seniors have access to lower prescription costs??? What medications are included???

It’s rather amusing to hear the right complain that the penalty for not buying health care insurance is a tax. In Friday’s WSJ, an opinion piece by Cogan, Hubbard and Kessler, argues for taxation for anyone receiving employer provided insurance. This is most likely what Romney and your fellow Republicans would propose. Remember, this is what McCain proposed during his bid for Office. Unlike the penalty approximately one percent of the people will face, this is a tax that would hit tens of millions of people who get their health insurance through their employer.

Fix the tax code: First and foremost is the federal tax code’s long standing exclusion from taxation of employer sponsored health insurance. The exclusion has created a tax advantage for purchasing health care through insurance rather than directly with out-of- pocket dollars. This, in turn, has caused consumers to overutilize health care services as they and their physicians perceive that someone else is footing the bill.

Thanks to President Obama, the ACA is a FORWARD generational move - the hard thing to do, but the right thing to do.

He started the difficult process of affordable, quality healthcare for ALL Americans - after 70 years of President trying and failing to get anywhere with health care.

A truly amazing accomplishment, especially considering the PACT made by senior GOP congressionals on his Inauguration Day in 2009, to block his every attempt to recover our economy, and his every attempt to put us back to work and moving the US forward into the 21st century.

One does have to wonder about Chief Justice Roberts motivation for changing his mind. It could be to save the credibility of the Supreme Court, or it could be that he is a conservative showing some compassion for the uninsurred. If it is the latter, he deserves a chapter in Profiles of Courage.

backhouse -- so you point out many of the positives associated with ACA. Do you believe there are any downsides? Availability of doctors? Rationing due to costs? 4000 more IRS agents to ensure our healthcare? More bureaucracies? Employers dropping insurance coverage?

Yes, some good stuff but a lot of bad stuff. $1.76 trillion which is twice what Mr. Obama told us; a huge tax increase though Mr. Obama did not dare call it a tax; some early findings that the bulk of the cost will be borne by folks making $125k or less.

you mention "free" preventive care. free to whom? do the doctors receive any payment? is no one paying for the machines used to take mammograms? this free stuff -- contraceptives and why not diabetes medication? -- is as big a lie as can be told. nothing is free, someone is paying.

i personally do not think this is a closed topic. by electing republican majorities and a republican president things could change.

Ron, great post.

Speaker Boehner wasted no time after SCOTUS final ACA ruling, saying that GOP will try to repeal it. Health care reform is already slowing the deficit, but Boehner lied and he knew he was lying when he said it "will bankrupt our country".

NOT doing health care reform has been bankrupting us - and GOP/Koch was not going to do it.

It is no secret the GOP budget dismantles Medicaid & ends Medicare as we know it - while adding $5Trillion to the deficit in tax breaks skewed to the very wealthy.

(Additionally, GOP wants to extend the Bush tax cuts skewed to the very wealthy, at $10.8 million per hour).

Alan, NJ

If the people vote a Republican into Office, Republicans will tax employees for their employer sponsored healthcare, as they have proposed to do in the past.

So there is a clear choice.

ACA penalizes those who do not carry insurance instead of those that do.

Facts, lies and Sarah Palin

The death panels are back!

`snip`

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down
syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his
bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of
productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."

Sarah Palin, Aug. 7, 2009

Last week, Palin doubled down. "Though I was called a liar for calling it
like it is," she posted, "many of these accusers finally saw that Obamacare did
in fact create a panel of faceless bureaucrats who have the power to make
life-and-death decisions about health care funding." Note that that's not
actually the claim she made in 2009. Of course, Obamacare, aka the Affordable
Care Act, was upheld by theU.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, which must gratify
Team Obama.

Indeed, falsehoods are harder to kill than a Hollywood zombie. Run them
through with fact, and still they shamble forward, fueled by echo chamber media,
ideological tribalism, cognitive dissonance, a certain imperviousness to shame,
and an understanding that a lie repeated long enough, loudly enough, becomes, in
the minds of those who need to believe it, truth.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0702-pitts-20120702,0,2846706.column

===============================================

The Zoombie RWNJs may think she is a sage; but I don't . Particularly, when she can be FACT CHECKED as being a chattering idiot.

For folks requesting details -

Please check out fact sources at #1.2 - throughout the post, and at the end.

Further:

"Health care reform isn't important just because it expands access to quality, affordable care, but also because rapidly rising costs and the fact that 30 million Americans don't have insurance are weighing down the American economy. Here are four reasons why the Court's decision is good news for the still-struggling economy:

1) Obamacare will reduce the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2011 that Obamacare will reduce the federal deficit by $210 billion over the next decade. The law is expected to save about $1 trillion over its second decade, according to other CBO analyses. The CBO found that repealing the law, as Republicans attempted to do in 2011, would increase the deficit by $230 billion over the next 10 years.
2) Health care costs for young Americans won't skyrocket. More than 3.1 million young Americans have insurance thanks to Obamacare. Without the law, the cost of acquiring an equivalent health care plan would have risen dramatically at a time when young people are still struggling with the effects of the Great Recession.
3) Millions of jobs will be created. Health reform will help create roughly 4 million jobs over the next decade, according to a 2010 Center for American Progress report, by reducing the cost of health care and making it cheaper for businesses to hire. The law will create between 250,000 and 400,000 jobs a year, and they will be spread across sectors: according to the study, the law will help create more than 200,000 manufacturing and 900,000 in the service sector by 2016.
4) It will be cheaper for employers to provide health care. American businesses are under tremendous pressure thanks to rising health care costs, and these costs are often passed on to customers (one study estimates that each car sold by General Motors contains $1,200 in built-in health costs). The ACA, however, will make it cheaper for businesses to provide care, and not just by reducing the cost of care. Small businesses are already receiving tax credits contained in the law to help insure their employees, and it has already offered more than $4.7 billion in reinsurance payments to companies that are providing health care to retirees who aren't yet eligible for Medicare. (Think Progress)

Let me get this straight -

We now have a health system where everyone has an opportunity to buy insurance, but more importantly, a system where bull@!$%#ters like Ben can spread manure up to the ceiling all while he wails, rants, and raves. Indeed, 16,000 IRS agents - that Newtonian myth has been so debunked, it didn't even make a routine talking point. But uninformed Ben missed that boat, like every other boat Ben has missed in his poor pathetic miserable life. When the low-life crowd start making outrageous claims, one only need debunk the first part of the useless post - the rest of the faux claims are equally as invalid. The Ben Pity Party is an epic fail.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/will_the_irs_need_16000_new_ag.html

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/

Did Roberts Cave?

CBS is running a lengthy story that reports Roberts initially sided with the four justices who would have struck down the individual mandate, but later changed his position because of external pressure. Unlike many other justices who deliberately avoid consuming news media stories as they deliberate, Roberts apparently is a news junkie who pays close attention to media coverage -- media coverage that was chock full of stories pushed by the left that a 5-4 decision to overturn the individual mandate would have been damaging to the Court. Heck even the president played the game and used his bully pulpit as a tool to intimidate. So in the face of all that, it looks like our Chief Justice may have gone wobbly.

The pundits have had a field day recently trying to figure out what motivated Roberts to rule as he did. One of the more popular theories is he put the national interest above partisan politics in order to maintain the integrity of the Court as an institution, a perspective I explored last week as well. But the CBS piece puts all that into a different light. It's one thing for the Chief Justice to be appropriately sensitive to the reputation of the institution he leads, but it's quite another thing to have judicial decisions influenced by a questionable narrative that specifically benefits one of the parties affected by that decision. Which is to say, the story that a 5-4 decision to strike down the mandate would "damage" the Court is a story that primarily serves the interests of those who support Obamacare.

In a key passage in his decision Roberts makes the point that the Court does not have the expertise to make policy judgments and it is not the Court's job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices. So Roberts refused to do by judicial fiat – i.e. overturn the individual mandate – what he thinks we the people should do at the ballot box. I have no issue with that and continue to see that perspective as entirely consistent with a conservative view of the role of the judiciary that allows the voters to choose the country they want without judicial interference. But the issue before the Court was not whether to punt the big decision of Obamacare back to the voters, the issue was whether or not the law passed constitutional muster. And for whatever reason, Roberts chose to avoid making that decision.

When Court decisions haven't gone their way, the left has been quick to push the narrative of the aggressiveness of a supposed radical right wing of a Court that just can't seem to embrace the reasoned moderation of the enlightened liberal bloc. So they have led the charge in politicizing Court decisions and thereby contributed mightily to the very erosion in legitimacy they wailed about as potential fallout from the Obamacare case. Unfortunately for America, that kind of incessant bullying may have influenced Roberts to rule on the basis of political comity rather than the legal merits. And if that's what happened, then the integrity of the Court would ironically have been besmirched by the weakness of the very man who sought to preserve it. Maybe that's why Kennedy looked so angry when the ruling was read.

But whether Roberts was a statesman or a wimp is irrelevant at this point. What is relevant is we the people now have the obligation to determine at the ballot box whether we want Obamacare or not. So thank you for your service Mr. Roberts, we'll take it from here: repeal and replace.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/

A stupid statement from Texas T Roadhouse:

Good morning lefty leaners! It's OK to admit you are nervous and scared. You might actually have to go and look for work and support a family in a few months.

Where do you people come off with this same stupid comment in which you make wild assumptions that all Liberals-Progressives don’t have jobs and pay taxes. Many of you think you're the only people paying for anything in this country.

Well you are wrong. First of all my Progressive friends and I all have good paying jobs, and yes we work while paying a quite a large tax bill. And no we don’t work for the government .

So let’s remember the right wing folks have plenty of people getting their share of hand outs. These folks have money for their guns and big screen TV, however no money to pay their hospital bills and God forbid then from paying one additional dime in taxes.

Why, Ben! Is that a conservative ideal? To post a vulgarity to a woman? The very IDEA!

I think all of you can see what is happening with friend Bennie. He cannot deal with the idea that his side is losing and losing badly.

The other thing that Ben's post makes clear is this: People like him don't hate this President because of policy. If you read Ben's post, he travels off the RAILS to talk about people dying in foreign lands. Bennie, those wars were started by YOUR side, not ours.

This is PERSONAL!

This is pure, visceral hatred for a man whose sole "failing" is that he is a Democrat, and looks different than the party (as my friend Feisty would say) of stale, pale and male.

If the people vote a Republican into Office, Republicans will tax employees for their employer sponsored healthcare, as they have proposed to do in the past.

So there is a clear choice.

ACA penalizes those who do not carry insurance instead of those that do.

I would rather pay tax on my current insurance, and level the playing field with those in the individual market, than rely on the current non-insured to suddenly buy policies in the new system. In fact the President's team is already claiming that the "penalty" will only affect 1%. I think the term for that number is naively optimistic.

Well the whining and sniveling are at an all time high for the Repugs. Just like little children if they don't get their own way they roll on the floor, kicking,screaming and crying. Couldn't happen to a more deserving group of clowns. What's next, will they try an impeach Roberts? It wouldn't surprise me.

President Obama wins again and gets the last laugh. I love it.

OBAMA IN 2012.

This is disturbing news for Romney and Right Wing dishonest talking points for Obamacare:

Support for Obama healthcare law rises after ruling

Among all registered voters, support for the law rose to 48 percent in the online survey conducted after Thursday's ruling, up from 43 percent before the court decision. Opposition slipped to 52 percent from 57 percent

http://news.yahoo.com/ruling-ups-support-obama-healthcare-still-unpopular-040755810.html

Futheremore, that old geezer Uncle Rupert tweeted something very intersting and I would say close to beieng a sage:

Rupert Murdoch: 'Doubtful' That Romney Will Beat Obama In 2012 Election

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/01/rupert-murdoch-obama-romney-2012-election_n_1640975.html

ROFLMAO

ACA penalizes those who do not carry insurance instead of those that do.

DCIA - that is perhaps the best statement about the ACA ever made. Too bad it is lost on the party of "personal responsibility". You know, that <tsk-tsk> family values party. That freakish party can't hold a single unifying thought. One minute they are for family values - the next minute they advocate let em die. One minute they are screaming don't touch my guns, the next minute they are wailing stop the legal sale of guns in Arizona. No wonder Romney is a flip-flop candidate - the party shifts ideology so quickly, no one can keep up.

This morning on the Daily Rundown …
Eric Fehrnstrom, chief spokesperson for Mitt Romney: The governor believes what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the court's ruling that the mandate was a tax.
Chuck Todd: But he agrees with the president that it is not — and he believes that you should not call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?
Eric Fehrnstrom: That's correct. But the president also needs to be held accountable for his contradictory statements. He has described it variously as a penalty and as a tax. He needs to reconcile those two very different statements.

Wow, Dennis. Nothing too vague from Eric, right?

Beverly -- WaPo gave the Palin claim 4 Pinocchio's.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/sarah-palin-death-panels-and-obamacare/2012/06/27/gJQAysUP7V_blog.html?hpid=z1

Beverly - I believe if you "fact check" the entire GOP they will be shown up as idiots.

Dennis - trying to follow Mitt's "reasoning" is like following bread crumbs in a forest heavily populated by ravenous birds - not happening!

Ben - clearly you believe that - if you just put down more words, someone will think you make sense. Not happening.

I love that the Florida Governor has decided he will not comply on the Health Care law. He is a true Republican - doesn't have a brain in his head. Let's see - where are the largest number of retirees? Florida and Arizona. So, he is going to cut off programs for retirees and he thinks the GOP can take Florida? As I said, if you do a "fact check" on the entire GOP - they will all come up as idiots!

Obama/Biden 2012

It will be cheaper for employers to provide health care. American businesses are under tremendous pressure thanks to rising health care costs, and these costs are often passed on to customers (one study estimates that each car sold by General Motors contains $1,200 in built-in health costs). The ACA, however, will make it cheaper for businesses to provide care, and not just by reducing the cost of care. Small businesses are already receiving tax credits contained in the law to help insure their employees, and it has already offered more than $4.7 billion in reinsurance payments to companies that are providing health care to retirees who aren't yet eligible for Medicare. (Think Progress)

Will it be cheaper to businesses to provide healthcare benefits or simply pay the "tax penalty" of $2000 per employee? Before you jump to answer consider the fact that even if the employer drops coverage for an employee with a family the penalty is still $2000.

I like the way all these new protections and coverage are just going to appear magically in everybody's health insurance plan, if you don't have coverage you are going to get it and your cost are still going down, and your taxes are not going up. Must be nice in the fantasy world in which you live.

Really? One showed up already. My newly minted college grad was able to stay on my insurance until he was gainfully employed and had his own.

More people have to pay for insurance, instead of waiting until they are very sick and using the ER, the more cost containment we should get.

For those concerned about the number of doctors and your worry there won't be enough to go around, just google your local (or closest) medical school for the number of doctors projected to graduate in the next few years, I work in one and I sure don't see a shortage of Medical students, doctors, nurses, or researchers in my area. And in case you are wondering - if you make $250,000 you are rich, you are not part of the working/ middle class.

Hope and change are working extremely well for me and my true working/middle class family, thanks for asking!

newday DAWNING...RETURNED

Tough, isn't it Bennie? You want to claim that Obama is taxing the middle class? That means that Romney taxed the middle class.

Good morning newday

It sure is tough that Ben has to be a part of the misinformed "Ignorant Loud Opinionated Folk"!

Of course, all we can do is ignore his ignorant FOX NOISE echo chamber talking pointd and hope Ben becomes intelligent.

Obama/Biden 2012

4 more for 44

Lean Forward

CA Tom -- rather reminiscent of how the democrats reacted and continue to react to the CU ruling. Even the President of the United States was exceptionally disrespectful to the Supreme Court. So while some do whine about the ACA ruling others will be out getting folks registered to vote so that a proper response to the ruling, through legislation, can be accomplished.

Bill, Fairfax VA

...the issue was whether or not the law passed constitutional muster. And for whatever reason, Roberts chose to avoid making that decision.

Isnt that EXACTLY what was determined?

Penalty/Tax/Fee/Assessment, whatever you want to call it....If you dont want to pay it..Buy Insurance and stop free loading

Bev ... the real clear politics, average of ALL POLLS, latest one out shows 38.1% of the people support Obamacare. As of June 26.

Union Baby, this plan will raise taxes and cost on the middle class of this county. There is also a good chance it will create a two tierd health system where the rich will be able to get the best doctors and facilities to treat there needs as they have to cash to pay for it. The rest of us will be stuck with the average doctors and hospitals lowering our quality of care. And the shortage of family doctors is real and is going to get worse. We will see what happens. If doctors start dropping out of this plan, start moving away from Medicare and Medicaid patients, we are going to have a real mess on our hands and this plan has nothing in it to prevent this from happening.

I watched Meet the Press yesterday in amazement as Savanah Guthrie pronounced the Republicans to be the political "winner" of the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act. Her justification for spouting this nonsense was that the Republicans would cclaim it was a tax increase. So Guthrie essentially was lending credence to the new Republican Big Lie that the tax penalty on freeloaders who won't buy insurance is a "tax on the middle class." A similar thing happened on CNN (the most trusted name in fake news after Fox). So the Republicans will spend hundreds of millions between now and November on campaign ads catapulting this B.S. at the public, and the corporate media will slyly endorse it. And that's how the Republican-Media Industrial Complex rolls these days.

One does have to wonder about Chief Justice Roberts motivation for changing his mind. It could be to save the credibility of the Supreme Court...

This seems to be the theory put forth by most of the pundits although I'm not so sure. If it was, the price he paid was much too high.

Another theory that has been gaining traction was characterized by one pundit who said "...while others are playing checkers, Roberts is playing chess...". This idea asserts that because Roberts was able to get a 7-2 decision on limiting the future use of the Commerce Clause, he had also limited the ability of the Left to pass further entitlement legislation. Furthermore, by reclassifying the mandate as a tax, he had made the ACA weaker as it is now vulnerable to "reconciliation" a process by which the law could be overturned by a simple majority in the Senate.

We probably will never know what motivated Roberts to change his stance on this issue. What we do know is that he has changed the race for the White House immeasurably. What would have been an easy victory for Republicans in the fall is now a horse-race. While Obama is currently enjoying a 2-3 point bump in the polls, I expect this to wear off soon making this a neck and neck race through November...

Morning all!!

Backhouse...quick question concerning your post #1.19...first item. Is that deficit estimate per the original estimate of the CBO ($940B I believe) or the revised estimate of the CBO ($1.76T). I thought it was per the original estimate that the deficit was reduced. But I can't image that with an extra $800B in cost that it would still be a reduction in the deficit. Thanks in advance my friend! :-)

Everyone else...try to stay cool. Lots of family and friends in the Maryland area who are STILL without power. Crazy, when I can say this: "Escape the heat...visit South Florida!". ;-)

Beverly: I believe that Ben is struggling with the idea that he is really a Democrat.

This last 10+ years, republicans have written a very shameful chapter in our american history. This same shame will obviously continue right up to the election and I believe beyond. This new GOP we are having to deal with is not only dysfunctional for america, but dysfunctional in their own party. NOW is the time for americans to squash this dysfunction as hard as it deserves. A mighty hard squash would and will eventually bring their honor back. Hopefully.

rockymtnroustabout - there is no hint of the old GOP anymore. The party that used to be a rational, intelligent party is now possessed by the far right who have let intelligence, integrity and honor fly out the window. They want to control everyone - yet profess to want less government control - can't have it both ways but they seem to think they can.

What a disgrace the GOP has become. Until they completely destroy themselves and start over, they are a worthless group of hate filled bigots.

Obama/Biden 2012

Isnt that EXACTLY what was determined?

Umm, Roberts concocted the tax argument out of whole cloth to specifically avoid ruling on the constitutionality of the mandate as based on the commerce clause -- which was the heart of this case.

Death Panels have existed for many years ... they are aka the insurance companies.

Bill WE THE PEOPLE ALREADY DECIDED EINSTEIN get over it. Obama care is one of the best things that could happen to reducing health care cost. Currently people like you that skate on not having insurance try to hedge there profits by taking risks with not getting insurance. The only problem with that is that the hospitals have to pay up when your bet goes bad, so essentially you are risking other peoples money. Each time someone tries to save money by avoiding health insurance and each time something happens such as they become hospitalized without insurance the hospital has to eat the cost. Each time the hospitals are forced to raise their rates to cover the deadbeats taking risk with other people's money. Just as the banks do, the hospitals are obligated to provide care whether you are insured or not. So the risk takers have an automatic bailout should their hedging not turn out the way the wanted. Nobody needs proof of this other than looking at the stock market only to see all the hospital related stocks climbing. It's about time to put the problem where it should be. I might also remind you that auto insurance is mandatory in 50 states with very heavy fines for not having it in most!

@ideologyspoilstheview

Your handle says it all. Ideology does indeed spoil the view

Death Panels have existed for many years ... they are the insurance companies.

It seems the Governments Death Panels are twice as good as the private sector

According to the American Medical Association’s National Health Insurer Report Card for 2008, the government’s health plan, Medicare, denied medical claims at nearly double the average for private insurers: Medicare denied 6.85% of claims. The highest private insurance denier was Aetna @ 6.8%, followed by Anthem Blue Cross @ 3.44, with an average denial rate of medical claims by private insurers of 3.88%

In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card, the AMA reports that Medicare denied only 4% of claims—a big improvement, but outpaced better still by the private insurers. The prior year’s high private denier, Aetna, reduced denials to 1.81%—an astounding 75% improvement—with similar declines by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Top of the morning to you

Conservatives have had a series of extreme reactions to the Supreme Court’s Thursday decision to uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare’s individual health care mandate: from charging that Chief Justice John Roberts’s epilepsy medication caused him to support the majority opinion, to calling for an armed rebellion against the Court.

WTF is WRONG with these people

Simply put-- They are hateful, ignorant, bigots!!! Glenn Beck loves giving Tea Party Infomercial to unitelligent people. That'd be the so-called "Bible Belt" who don't follow the 10 commandents and those in the red states.

Armed Rebellion? Over Healthcare? Good Luck.

but I’d like to note here that an actual rebellion would utterly fail. We’re supposed to believe that a few ignorant yokels (who previously supported the mandate, but who suddenly hate it) are going to enter a hot war against the government and the most powerful military in the history of the world and actually win? Over healthcare? Hilarious and tragic.

http://thedailybanter.com/2012/07/armed-rebellion-over-healthcare-good-luck/

======================================================

I'm still tripping LMAO over Orly Tatiz and after birther Donald Trump.

News Alert: Everyone stay away from these crazy people i.e. birthers, miltia, the "Bible Belt, and unintellgent folk in the red states. " Uh ohh, that just about covers the whole Republican party!!!

It’s rather amusing to hear the right complain that the penalty for not buying health care insurance is a tax. In Friday’s WSJ, an opinion piece by Cogan, Hubbard and Kessler, argues for taxation for anyone receiving employer provided insurance. This is most likely what Romney and your fellow Republicans would propose.

Sorry Don't Carry but one part of the ACA which is scheduled to go into effect in 2018 is the so called Cadillac Tax which taxes employer provided health insurance. It wasn't indexed to regional cost of living so some parts of the country will be hit hard.

Just another broken campaign promise:

Your employer now has to pay taxes on the health care that you’re getting from your employer, and if you end up losing your health care from your employer, you’ve got to go out on the open market and try to buy it. It is not a good deal for the American people. - Barrack Obama 2008

As a supporter of healthcare reform rather than the health insurance reform that is the ACA , I feel that one shouldn't celebrate the courts decision too much. If you realistically look at the ACA there are a lot of bad things in it.

Um,...Rick

Romney created 33 new fees and increased 57 others in the state of Massachusetts - so it is enlightening, indeed, to hear you admitting that those were also TAXES, right?

Not to mention what he did with capital gains, increased business taxes, commercial property taxes, etc.

Romney, the wannabee Outsourcer in Chief - You'll love how he'll piss on you and tell you it's raining while the wealth just TRICKLES down,...

Thanks, Rick, for the laugh - What a great way to start my week!

On C-Span Sunday an estimate was given that it costs every American currently paying for health insurance an extra $1000 a year for their coverage due to those Americans NOT having insurance.

By the GOP's definition of a tax, that's a whopper of a tax!

If you can't afford to buy health insurance, you will not have to. But if you can afford to, but decide NOT to buy it, you will pay the penalty. If you already have adequate health insurance and like what you have, you will NOT have to buy a 'new' insurance plan even though Mitt and the GOP want to rekindle that myth.

And I am sorry, but it IS exactly like the requirements of having adequate car insurance. AND it is exactly like Mitt's MA mandatory health care plan even though he still says otherwise. And cut the state vs. fed program ideology. Can you imagine what it would be like driving cross-country through states with and without a mandatory car insurance requirement?

Good Morning Ron Indiana

One does have to wonder about Chief Justice Roberts motivation for changing his mind. It could be to save the credibility of the Supreme Court, or it could be that he is a conservative showing some compassion for the uninsurred. If it is the latter, he deserves a chapter in Profiles of Courage.

Ron, indeed he does deserve a chapter in Profiles of Courage. He beat down the KOCH bros.

Their astroturf proproganda machine is getting a serious facelift !!!

It just won't work this time for the nefarious Koch bros.

all those seniors who were yelling to get your hands off my SS and MC are reaping the benefits of lower cost of name brand drugs and better healthcare. People who had to get Cobra are finding it "less" expensive than their retirement provided healthcare

I keep hearing/reading from the right-wing party, that the American people want this or they want that... What I don't get is no one asked me... On July 11 this do nothing congress is again, going to waste the tax payers money by taking a vote to repeal the affordable health act...

What a complete waste of time... Mr. Boehner, wake up and get the job programs moving... If you don't you and your cronies will be voted out in November, especially Mitch McConnell...

SQUID ....if it is supposed to reduce costs, how is it that the estimated cost of Obamacre almost doubled from 2 years ago (CBO) and is in negative territory from all of the administrations original savings estimates. And we haven't even hardley gotten started.

And how about the half a trillion in medicare cuts? What about that? Medicare advantage is being cut by an estimated 206 billion (again CBO numbers) from 2010-2019. Millions of people will lose that and have to go to a HIGHER COST Medigap. Again, this saves money how?

Thats why AARP supported it because they will make money from the medigap stuff they didn't on Medicare Advantage. And why seniors are leaving AARP. And why seniors don't like it. Both my parents are on medicare and after what they have learned they despise this bill. They will most likely lose their Medicare advantage or it will be so watered down they will drop it.

Alan, NJ

It seems the Governments Death Panels are twice as good as the private sector

The private sector insurers has employees that search for technicalities to use as excuses for dropping people with expensive illnesses. There was one widely reported case when the ACA was being debated about how one person was dropped because she had failed to report treatment for teenage acne when she had cancer later in life. I doubt the government can top the private sector death panels like that one.

BTW: Nice apples-to-doorknobs comparison you got from the AMA, there comparing Medicare to private sector insurance. Medicare is intended to be a floor, not a ceiling to available coverage. That's why people on Medicare get supplemental insurance.

First Read on Roberts' alleged vote switching:

This reporting has raised the obvious question: Who leaked these deliberations? Supreme Court clerks?

Did it ever occur to you that nobody leaked it and that somebody in the rightwingnut-o-sphere just made it up and got the rumor started on the net where journalists and other gullible souls would gobble it up? It wouldn't be the first time that happened. Or the last time.

It is a 0.09% increase on individuals making over $200,000, and only on the amount over $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples F/J). Those are hardly "middle class" folks. I hope to be at that level within the next 5-10 years and will more than gladly pay my extra 0.09% for the rest of the country to have access to healthcare. (And yes, there are tax increases on long term investment gains. Again, hardly a middle class issue).

Clara KCMO

Um,...Rick

Romney created 33 new fees and increased 57 others in the state of Massachusetts - so it is enlightening, indeed, to hear you admitting that those were also TAXES, right?

Not to mention what he did with capital gains, increased business taxes, commercial property taxes, etc.

Romney, the wannabee Outsourcer in Chief - You'll love how he'll piss on you and tell you it's raining while the wealth just TRICKLES down,...

Thanks, Rick, for the laugh - What a great way to start my week.

==================================

Clara, you rock my Kansas City, Missouri

Medicare is intended to be a floor, not a ceiling to available coverage.

@Houston - something that yet again, the right wing flip-flops on. One minute they are screaming about Medicare fraud, the next, they are screaming denied coverage. How many of those claims were to deny full payment for a Hoveround, something not covered by any other insurance company?

Obama care is one of the best things that could happen to reducing health care cost.

Righto, and I have a bridge to nowhere I'm sure you'd like to buy.

Job1

So, we can say any adult who doesn't want health care is not only a fool, but is pretty darn stupid.

#1.2 - Mon Jul 2, 2012 9:19 AM EDT

Stupid is as stupid does...time will tell who the, as you stated, "fool and pretty darn stupid" ones are.

By that time it will be too late anyway.

"Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at
whom it is aimed.” Joseph Stalin

Dad, I'm so glad you are not here to see what is happening to this country that you fought for in WWII. You put your life on the line for our freedom, and we're losing it anyway. Sorry daddy.

Rev (#1.54) commented that the ACA is health insurance reform, not healthcare reform. I tend to agree. I remember thinking the same thing in 1993 when Hilary Clinton was trying to slay the healthcare reform dragon--it was an attempt at health insurance reform even then.

I hear a lot about healthcare reform. I hear even more railing against the ACA, despite the popularity of its various provisions. I hear a lot of rants for "repeal and replace!" What I don't hear is "replace it with what?" What does the alternative look like?

In other words, what does healthcare reform look like to the average person?

The media likes to pretend that leaks are real information. This story is just as likely to be planted by some conservative spin-doctor as it is to come from anyone inside the SCOTUS. It gives conservatives a talking point to spread around. My guess is that it's false information 'leaked' to the media to give them a hare to chase through the woods of speculation.

RedDevPS

@Houston - something that yet again, the right wing flip-flops on. One minute they are screaming about Medicare fraud, the next, they are screaming denied coverage. How many of those claims were to deny full payment for a Hoveround, something not covered by any other insurance company?

Good point. Medicare primarily serves the elderly, and the array of services that they want is very different from the larger population that the private insurance industry covers. But nobody accuses conservatives of making rational arguments for anything. When they're not outright lying, they're cherry picking numbers that they think will deceive the gullible.

This goes to show either how uninformed or idiotic First Read is or how stupid they think we are. The mandate is not the tax referred to in the SCOTUS ruling. It is the fine for not complying that is the tax. Again, First Read, listen carefully...NOT...THE...MANDATE.

Bill in Fairfax -- What's your solution to the health care crisis? Tell us where you stand.

Romney boxed-in because republicans call the ACA a massive tax hike? Hardly. The ACA is a deeply flawed, big hot steaming pile of $hit for a law. God help us if this doesn't get repealed and replaced in the next congress. Can anyone on the left explain the mechanism how the ACA will bring health care costs down, or even just control costs for that matter?

Big-ATC: Their overall views about the ACA notwithstanding, most Americans support many of the law’s individual provisions. In an earlier survey (March 24-27), more than half of respondents expressed support for such components of the law as coverage for adult children, requiring insurers to provide a minimum package of benefits, preventing insurers from charging more to those in poor health, and requiring insurers to provide coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. That said, there was one key component of the law to which respondents objected (and to which they continue to object): the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. To a large degree, opposition to the individual mandate appears to be driving opposition to the law as a whole.

Seeing as the individual mandate will only affect perhaps the 1% of Americans who could afford insurance but refuse to buy it, it's clear that those who oppose ACA don't understand what's in it and how it might affect them (if at all.) There has been a LOT of deliberate obfuscation on the part of Republicans to scare citizens into fearing ACA when it will not only NOT require them to, say, drop their own insurance or be unable to see the doctors they want, but - depending on income level - may provide financial assistance to offset their costs, remove annual and lifetime caps on coverage, allow you to get and keep insurance regardless of any pre-existing condition you might have - and they can no longer drop you if, after years of paying premiums, you get sick.

BTW, great article showing how First Read doesn't know what the hell their talking about. Again, the mandate is not the tax according to SCOTUS...the penalty is.

Why did Chief justice Roberts change His vote? The horrors of Sh^t creek. Many will argue either that the place doesn't exist, or that It isn't as democrats describe It. Think not? The question is for those who can really think. Just have a look and listen to the likes of "Mitch McConnell", "Eric Cantor" "Paul Ryan" "Darrell Issa", etc. Theses sons-a-bitches were mostly conceived, born, and nurtured there, and accordingly will never be satisfied until the remainder of the country looks, behaves, smells, and tastes like the homes of their youth. Have to admit these purveyors of shi^^y stench and muddle headiness have done quite well, especially since 01. A vital question for all Americans arises here. How long can you personally endure on the strength of bellies full of reconstituted bullsh^t and breathing its gaseous stench, especially those many, who are already overflowing with their home grown variety? The jobless, homeless, uninsured, the essence of "want and need" will agree with me. Do not underestimate their numbers, and never commit to the folly of underestimating the deadly power of their discontent. Chief justice Roberts had an epiphany of good and purposeful manifestation. Others, whose greed long ago killed any seeds of personal character are not likerly to be so moved, and will at some point, die a tragic and shi^^ death.

hardtostarboard -- Let's look at their idea to replace. Ryan's plan would hand out tax credits, $2000+ for an individual and $5700 for a family. What does the average family plans cost?

Family plans can cost between $15,000 - $25,000. So the average family making $50,000 pre-tax could not afford to come up with an additional $9,000 - $19,000 to obtain insurance. It's not going to happen. This does nothing to solve the crisis.

BTW -- Who would pay for those tax credits? We would. The taxpayer.

Dave Camp (R), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has admitted we need revenue. Currently we are only taking in 16% or so and to operate normally we need revenues to be at approx. 18% or so.

Here's a very informative article you should read:

http://www.ssab.gov/documents/TheUnsustainableCostofHealthCare_508.pdf

I don't dislike any of the provisions you mentioned. But it most definitely won't save money and throw in the feds and they will surely muck it up as they do everything else they touch.

It would be much easier to do a few of these provisions and allow companies to cross state lines in a 10 page bill, rather than the govt writing a 2700 page bill that will probably balloon to 10,000. But everyone be prepared for whatever you are paying now to increase by 50-100%.

I just don't like the govt telling me i have to buy a product or be fined, with no other options.

Backhouse...

LMAO at your inference that obamacare is here to stay. Like justice Roberts, said if anyone doesn't like the existing law, just get the votes to change it. Heck now even obama is now talking about changes, or is thaat just more of his emty-headed rhetoric?

Well Justice Roberts, the liberal media are praising you; was it worth it to prostitute yourself in order to avoid their disapproval? I hope it was that important to you, because you also earned yourself the permanent title of Chief Justice Spineless Jellyfish.

Nothing is free. Nothing the government does is ever free. Even Howard Dean said on Meet The Press that he doesn't like the bill, as the vast majority of all Americans to not, and what little in it is actually good will be far overshadowed by all that is bad.

Well, not quite. Howard Dean didn't really like the individual mandate, but he accepted it as an alternative to the status quo. That has to be an improvement on some level. Furthermore, it is true that a majority of Americans do not like the bill, but that is far from decisive. According to Reuters poll, around 48% of Americans approve of the law, to 52% who oppose it. That is only slightly outside of the 3.6% margin of error. So, to say that the vast majority of Americans hate the bill is like saying that Bush won the 2000 election by a decisive majority.

The cost alone will be massive and it will be nowhere near funded just like every other entitlement that adds annually to our deficit. This country is on an unsustainable path financially, and ObamaCare will only accelerate the collapse.

Not necessarily. Now, if Congress rescinds the tax increases and cuts that the bill puts forth, it will become a financial problem. But the CBO currently states that the law will reduce the deficit by approximately $125-$200 billion over the next decade. While that is a small part of the projected $7 trillion in cumulative deficits, it's far from expensive.

I hear a lot about healthcare reform. I hear even more railing against the ACA, despite the popularity of its various provisions. I hear a lot of rants for "repeal and replace!" What I don't hear is "replace it with what?" What does the alternative look like?

In other words, what does healthcare reform look like to the average person?

Well, according to Republicans, they want to replace Obamacare with "real market-based reforms" (even though the last one was the very individual mandate that they rail against today). That would include the ability to purchase insurance across state lines, ending medical malpractice, and dealing with defensive medicine. However, that doesn't really deal with the costs, due to the fact that the health system is a system with few sellers. In my opinion, the ONLY way to effectively control costs is to revert to a single-payer healthcare system. You could enact numerous reforms in the private healthcare system, but I still think that it would be easier to do that on a clean slate. Hopefully, by the end of the 2020s, we might have a single-payer healthcare system that denies coverage to NOBODY.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Tax? What tax it's a penalty for not participating. Folks, Roberts ruled that the penalty was really a tax. Spo folks, no matter how how you jump up and down that it is not a tax, IT NOW IS a TAX!. The trouble is that in the federal definition of tax, the tax cannot be punitive!

So, in one swoop. Roberts in effect wrote legislation from the bench in declaining the penalty to be a tax, and made a penalty a tax.

I hope I never get accused of a crime and he is the judge over the case.

Folks, Roberts ruled that the penalty was really a tax.

So what??? It's a tax that you can avoid -- get health insurance. I have insurance and a significant portion of my premiums are to cover dead beats (insurance welfare queens) who don't want to get health insurance. Hey -- I'm sick of paying for your sorry ass.

I don't mind if the government wants to take care of the poor and uninsured, But leave my HMO alone. It works just fine,thanks. That is until the government gets their grimy hands on it. Seems the only government program that Obama actually hates is NASA.. Which ironically has paid more back in beneficial dividends and inspired more people to succeed than it cost.

ACA is already having a negative impact on senior care and prescription drugs. No matter what either side tells you in the media,I am looking right at it in real world. A family member of mine is being forced by her HMO to accept a lower quality generic version of a critical heart medication,or pay full price ( $1000 ) for the correct one. Her HMO explained its due to new gov't regulations. The new meds are already causing serious side effects that sent her to the hospital. Some meds will soon no longer be covered at all. So this so called "access to cheaper medicine",is not so good. She worked all of her life,and already had access to good care,but gov't regulations are changing that. The Obamacare mantra that "you can keep your own coverage if you want to" is bogus. They will soon regulate private HMO's out of business. Leaving even the already comfortably insured with no choice but second rate Obamacare.

"The affordable care" act will be much like the "affordable food act" AKA food stamps. There is also a version of "Obamaphone"although I'm not sure he gets credit for that one. Did you know that part of your phone bill pays for free cell phones? Exept this time,everone will be forced into it. Now that I already enjoy shelling out a fortune at the grocery store paying for my food and everyone else's, I also get to pay for everyone's health care. As well as possibly losing the quality of mine. Like it or not. What next? Will I soon have to chip in for someone else's new rented Lexus illegally parked outside the store in the handicapped spot? Yeah. I can see that coming. They will call it "Obama-Car".

And for those here who complain about and despise the rich...Get over it. Wanna be rich? Start your own company and put your name on the building. And wait till you see what it costs. They get the reward because they take the risks. And they make the jobs. All that I can say is,I never worked for a poor guy.

Can't wait for November. The end of an error.

Romney 2012

Lucy1 - I too am glad my father isn't here to see the debacle of the Republican party and all the damage it has caused to our country. It would sadden him greatly that the GOP has disintegrated so badly and doesn't give a damn about our country anymore.

Obama/Biden 2012

Pete-286#1.83: You ever worked, you worked for many "poor Guys, Gals, and children". Who do you think buys the overpriced crap the rich produce? Other rich bastards maybe? Gwaddamn!

Obama/Biden 2012

Bill in Fairfax, Va,

ACA cost projections will be like the medicare and SS projections....... how has that worked out?

It will interesting to see how many who do not have insurance will really pay and how many companies will drop their employees insurances and pay the fine... time will tell.

The election is starting to get interesting.... I thought the Pesident would have politize the Supreme Court ruling (he said he would), but now the GOP will... if the President was going to do it, is it right for the GOP to use it as a political "football"????

The real issue is the economy and jobs and who will "start" turning this around. The last four years did not bring much hope and change to the economy and that is why I will vote for just "change" this election.

have a great week everybody!

Atlas - if the GOP hadn't tried to obstruct everything we would be further ahead. But, if we vote out as many of the GOP as possible in November, we'll actually begin to get things done!

Obama/Biden 2012

DB Akron, a majority of a non-biased court -- the highest court in the land -- has defined it as a tax. A tax that the Constitution doesn't allow, but a tax none the less. It's pretty arrogant to say they don't know what they're talking about, but you do.

If it were not a tax -- as defined by SCOTUS, some of the best legal minds in the nation -- the forced health insurance mandate would have been found unconstitutional and stuck down. The only thing that saved it was the definition the fine as a tax. Are you saying you side with the conservative dissent???

a switch in time saves nine..

if Roberts did switch, then he has saved the Supreme Court

too much nonsense in politics since tea potty, at least there is common sense from the court. That's why we have had separation of powers. Thanks to the Founding Fathers...please reflect on these great Americans on July 4

The framers of the Constitution were dubbed 'demi-gods' by Jefferson, US ambassador to France -

well-fed

well-read

well-wed

well-bred

Let's just cut to the chase.

This penalty/mandate/tax is a mandatory tax penalty on freeloaders - people who do not chose to pay for insurance but use the emergency facilities at taxpayers' expense when they need them.

Can we all agree that henceforth, this be known as "The Freeloader Tax?"

Mac Forrester -- Excellent post #1.75.

There are several basic issues. One is the SCOTUS. The rightwing need an explanation for what they can't understand -- like religion, they cling to conspiracy theories. What is mind-bending is they never learn from their mistakes nor are they embarrassed.

The first I noticed this phenomenon was during the Iraq war debate with rightwingers certain that Iraq was in cahoots with Al Qeada who was responsible for 9-11 (started by Cheney). Of course there was NO such connection, and not even WMD as Dubya eventually admitted himself. Then in the run up to the 2008 election, the rightwing was certain President Obama was not a legal US citizen and that the Dems and their candidate/president would be crushed. These rightwingers apparently lack the good sense to crawl off into a cave until their ignorance has been forgotten.

But no. Now we have Justice Roberts, who through deliberation and more importantly looking at precedent and the constitution, could not deny the FACT that Congress has the power to tax. Taxation without representation is so obvious that the real conspiracy should be why Scalia, Alito, and even Kennedy would be so ideological as to legislate from the bench.

What the rightwing can't grasp (along with pretty much everything else) is the importance for all Americans to have faith in our institutions, most of all the highest court in the land. Rule of Law! If the SCOTUS always has 5-4 decisions that are always split along "Party lines" then we have a BIG problem. Personally I am greatly relieved to see not only Robert's decision, but also Sotomayor's in the Arizona immigration law, and Kagan's in expansion of Medicaid.

It does not surprise me that rightwingers completely ignore the fact that the various important decisions were MIXED. But what is completely appalling is how much of the media is neglecting this fact.

What the Teapublican Party is correct about is the importance of SCOTUS appointments, as we all know from Bush v Gore. The ruling on ACA would have been at least 6-3 had Gore become the president as the true winner of the 2000 election. And yet, did all the Democrats refuse to accept and implement this horrible decision? No, in fact Gore and the Dems did not pursue the matter in the best interest of the nation.

The Teapublicans can try to use this as a rally to elect a terrible candidate, Romney the Plutocrat, who they argue will appoint more "corporations are people" ideologues like Alito to the SCOTUS. Because despite further stacking of the already right-leaning court to give us yet more horrendous rulings like Bush v Gore, they claim our most important institution must be destroyed in order to repeal "Obamacare."

And here we see the most glaring difference, the difference for which I have my moniker, and that is who are the true patriots and who are not.

Rightwingers, get it through your heads -- this is merely a GOP/TP ploy. Even if Romney was elected, he could not get a repeal through Congress. Even if he could get Congress to approve nominations of radical justices, their will be the Roberts on the court who understand the importance of Rule of Law who will NOT repeal the decision just handed down.

Romney CAN'T repeal "Obamneycare!" Anyone who tells you otherwise is a LIAR. So how about you calm down from your Sh!t Hemorrhage and enjoy the many benefits of ACA, and give thanks for the additional freedoms you have just been given.

FORWARD - Obama/Biden - 2012!

I made a couple comments on here recently saying the supreme court was politicized and that political force is the only way forward. I regret these comments and I apologize. The fact is democrats won in the supreme court fair and square.

t. It was petty and loser ish what i said previously.

So I just want to say that the democrats won fair and square, the supreme court ruled obamacare will stand as law of the land, and I commend democrats for their win. It was a tough fight and a surprising twist, congratulations.

A bit of context.

Due to my split mind that occurred from the "air benders" I see reality through two color filters in a split mind, the one of the higher mind, and that of the instinctual mind. If I were not disabled at this current moment in time, the higher mind could dissolve the lower into one perspective. But at any given moment in time, depending on the color filter I am observing, I will have a knee jerk reaction without any supervision of the higher mind.

This could lead someone to assume I'm not practicing what I preach, when it's not necessarily the case.

In the end the higher mind has no us vs them, all are one as we are really the same in the inner mind. Again, I apologize.. My way of thinking is Trust your inner self and don't get caught up with outside phenomenon, leave that to the greater forces of nature if that is also your persuasion.

I am pleased that the A.C.A. is assured.I have two forms of Medical Insurance and although I have no complaints about the quality I do feel that it is expensive, considering that I have always paid and have had good insurance where ever I have worked. For most of my life I was healthy and could have risked not paying for Health Care, but that goes against my beliefs politically and in fairness. I also felt that it was pre-paying,so that was O.K.,but now that I am elderly and in so-so health these immoral R.W. cheats expect me to pay more. I have experienced Affordable Health Care in two other countries and have great confidence in our country amending this to be finally as great as I found in both of those other countries.

If you are in conflict, forget about the mind. In truth, it can be used as a logical bridge. But in the end its not really the mind.

If I were to give any "advice" (which I must admit I know very little about these higher levels)' it's to follow the teachings of Christ. We arnt supermen, and those are teachings we can all at least admire and aspire to.

@True Patroit: Thanks friend, and likewise to you. Would also like to speak to "MdmdDd" and "listoire": Republicans cannot of themselves repeal the A.C.A. The great probability is, this program will indeed serve as a strong foundation upon which the country will construct a good, cost worthy, vitally effective, and profit neutral, universal health care system, sufficient to, or in excess of those claims attributed to our present, very costly hodge podge system. All other industrialized nations have it in some form. Their quality of life, and life expectancy is as good as ours, and in fact, in most of those nations much better, and longer. This is no longer an area where the country can afford the luxury of "tea party" bullsh^t. We must continue forth as if we do not hear these "pseudo populists" of the greedy rich, or better yet, stomp them into their own bullsh^t, and let history so note. My best to each and all of you. Regards.

The right wing continues their campaignof lies and distortion about the "Affordable Care Act" even after the court has ruled that it IS constitutional. If anyone actually wants to find out the truth about this new law go to: http://www.healthcareandyou.org/what-is/

The fact is this new law will help the economy and the vast majority of Americans. It is disgusting how the Republican Party uses lie after lie to scare people just to make a political point, They sad thing is, too many people actually believe the lies.

The Republicans are acting like petulant children crying and stomping their feet after Mom told them they can’t have candy. The rule of law means nothing to these thugs; it has to be their way or nothing. If there are any actual adults left in the GOP [although I doubt it] I wish they would stand up and tell their childish peers; for the good of the country 'just shut the hell up'.

Forester, obamacare will get in the way of the doctor and patient, as any monopoly like the current insurance companies we have now, costs will spiral upward as doctor and patient alike see no reason to be prudent with the expenditures of a particular check up or visit. Responsibility is then diffuse because the accountability for the cost is shelved elsewhere, hence rising premiums. It seems that obamacare is a political calculation by politicians who know they can't keep their promises on entitlements and union pensions (which have become a ponzie scheme except in the case of the state or a bureaucratic monopoly like obamacare, the accounting can be fudged once the transfer occurs so there is no accountability, unlike a market environment) to transfer people into a political system that they control. Any doctor will tell you that obamacare will create the exact opposite of what progressive rhetoric is supposed to eliminate, a two tier system based on class, where the very rich pay directly and everybody else faces rising costs (in the form of taxes) longer lines and lower quality care. Furthermore, as a tax, this will now come at one of the worst economic times in recent history, saddling the middle class with tax costs and small business

(continued) With not only a bureaucratic nightmare but rising costs as these bussineses try desperately to cover itheur employees, in turn, raising unemployment and further hurting the economy. Not only that, it's incredibly unpopular and people know its a bad piece of legislation, it was passed in a hurry for political reasons in order to get something through and get compromise between the extreme left and moderate democrats, and now the Obama administration and the media is effectively telling the American people to "get over it" due to these political pressures. Very likely, in a calculation that banking left is the only alternative to a moving to the center, which would only see them crucified by the let and the right. Having been let down by the perceived naive and apple pie tea party more than once with the expectation of a compromise, they are now with a security of wisdom and polls banking left (hispanics perhaps) and attacking the collective psychology with the expectation that a political reaction willl re enforce the extremes and assure them a win in November, or at least get an emotional reaction only to have to blown down later after the win and get "allegiance" by "shaming" the republicans and america in general in accepting a reality In their mind that they know is not true. Once you consent to something that makes no sense, or agree to something you "vknow is wrong", the saying goes, you have people by the balls.

No, this is horrible legislation and everybody knows it (at least that's how I rationalize).vthe question is how will this proceed in the years ahead, I still think there are many complications that need to be worked out and americans, if they are concerned, should challenge the law legally and politically as they can. This is not at all about perception in my view, I think they game is won, it's really about politics and tactics if anything. I'm not going to call names at the media or the democrats in general, that degrades the entire premise for a discussion, democrats have a valid philosophy and a valid point of view in their values. I'm not going to claim they are lying because that adds nothing to a frank and honest conversation on health care, it injects vitriol and unnecessary name calling that does not solve problems.

There are many ways to solve this that would benefit and satisfy both of your requirements (talking to both forester and big al). And it doesn't even have to be a "republican idea"...simply by increasing optimum efficiency and having many cost saving measures with innovative ideas such as checks ups by trained nurses at wal mart, nanotechnology, or requiring people to have a certain exercise routine in exchange for insurance, could go wAt beyond just having an exchange beyond state lines and solve most of all these problems.

It's this inclination we have to be at each others throats that just benefits the top, no one else. You may be getting a perk right now but in the end they always dump the foot soldiers first,cbecause power by number is not at all security, it's an illusion. The same problems now will persist and those at the top' just as coldly as they are playing this cynical move will in the end, dump you as well.

The only way forward is together as Americans, and we need to see that we really don't disagree on the what. Just on the how. I'm sure compromises can be found, but division only helps those st the top, not anyone at the bottom, either on the republican or democratic side.

In the end it's not even good for the top, but it takes a while for that to resolve, by the time it does, it's too late.
There can even be a way where the top gets what they want and something sensible is resolved as far as legislation, (even for unions and their bosses) this law though helps no one. It shields things for a while but creates even more complications down the line.

People are getting hung up on arguing whether it's a TAX or PENALTY, but they are overlooking the REAL issue. Who's going to pay for this hugely expensive new 'entitlement' program, which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says will cost $1.76 TRILLION over the next 10 years (link below).

The rich will not pay the tax/penalty because they have insurance.

The poor won't pay the tax/penalty because they get free Medicaid insurance - from the taxpayers.

That leaves the Middle Class paying the vast majority of the tax/penalty, and most typically it will be the lower income Middle Class - those least able to pay the exorbitant cost of health insurance (perhaps $15,000 per year for a family of 4), much less the tax/penalty which will be close to $2,800 per year in just 3 years.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/1175831

Poor people are exempt from the Health Care tax. Where is the cut-off line?

Using HHS poverty line figures and the 1.33 multiplier that is advertised in the Act, then the bottom rung of the ladder (poorest person that will be taxed) is an individual working 32.5 hours a week at a minimum wage job in Washington State, for example.

The tax cost per person for care is estimated at a little over $1100 a month by latest figures. This is approximately $550 per month higher than was estimated in 2009 at the time the Health Care Act was passed.

HEALTH REFORM BILL SUMMARY: THE TOP 18 IMMEDIATE EFFECTS

No More Denials For Pre-Existing Conditions

Health insurers cannot deny children insurance because of pre-existing conditions. A ban
on the same discrimination against adults will take effect in 2014.

Small Business Tax Credits

Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will receive tax credits covering up to 50
percent of employee premiums, thus allowing small businesses to operate less financially
hampered by higher medical insurance costs for themselves and their employees.

Seniors' 'Donut Hole' Rebate

Seniors will receive a rebate check in the mail to fill the "donut hole" in Medicare drug
coverage, which severely limits prescription medication coverage of expenditures over
$2,700. As of next year, 50 percent of the donut hole will be filled.

More Young Adults Covered On Parents' Plans

The cut-off age for young adults to continue to be covered by their parents' health
insurance rises to age 27.

No Lifetime Caps

Lifetime caps on the amount of insurance payout an individual can receive will be banned.
Annual caps will be limited, and banned in 2014.

Adults With Pre-Existing Conditions Covered

A temporary high-risk pool will be set up to cover adults with pre-existing conditions.
Health care exchanges will eliminate the program in 2014. These non-profit, public
exchanges set up in each state will come into direct cost competition and quality-of-
service competition with private sector, for-profit, health care plans and programs.

New Insurance Plans Must Include Preventative Care

New plans must cover checkups and other preventative care without co-pays. All plans
will be affected by 2018.

The End Of 'Recissions'

Insurance companies can no longer drop someone when he or she gets sick.

Transparency In Insurance Companies

Insurers must now reveal how much money is spent on overhead.

Customer Appeals Process

Any new plan must now implement an appeals process for coverage determinations and
claims.

Indoor Tanning Services Tax

A 10 percent tax is imposed on indoor tanning services. This tax, which replaced the
proposed tax on cosmetic surgery, is effective for services on or after July 1, 2010.

Enhanced Fraud Abuse Checks

New screening procedures will be implemented to help identify and eliminate health insurance fraud and waste.

Medicare Expansion To Rural Areas

Medicare payment protections will be extended to small rural hospitals and other health
care facilities that have a small number of Medicare patients. Rural Americans will finally receive access to full coverage.

Deductions For Blue Cross / Blue Shield

Nonprofit Blue Cross organizations will be required to maintain a medical loss ratio –
money spent on procedures over money incoming -- of 85 percent or higher to take
advantage of IRS tax benefits.

Nutrient Content Disclosure

Chain restaurants will be required to provide a "nutrient content disclosure statement" alongside their items. Calories should be listed on both in-store and drive-through menus of fast-food restaurants.

Better Coverage For Early Retirees

The law establishes a temporary program for companies that provide early retiree health
benefits for those ages 55‐64 in order to help reduce the often-expensive cost of that
coverage.

Better Consumer Information On The Web

The Department of Health and Human Services will set up a new website to make it easy
for Americans in any state to seek out affordable health insurance options The site will
also include helpful information for small businesses.

Encouraging Investment In New Therapies

A two‐year temporary credit up to a maximum of $1 billion is in the law to encourage investment in new therapies for the prevention and treatment of diseases.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/22/health-reform-bill-summary_n_508315.html#s75147&title=No_More_Denials

"ROY WILSON-336103" said:

People are getting hung up on arguing whether it's a TAX or PENALTY, but they are overlooking the REAL issue. Who's going to pay for this hugely expensive new 'entitlement' program, which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says will cost $1.76 TRILLION over the next 10 years (link below).

The rich will not pay the tax/penalty because they have insurance.

The poor won't pay the tax/penalty because they get free Medicaid insurance - from the taxpayers.

That leaves the Middle Class paying the vast majority of the tax/penalty, and most typically it will be the lower income Middle Class - those least able to pay the exorbitant cost of health insurance (perhaps $15,000 per year for a family of 4), much less the tax/penalty which will be close to $2,800 per year in just 3 years.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/1175831

#1.100 - Mon Jul 2, 2012 2:50 PM PDT

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

Roy, you're pandering false propaganda onto us, from the Regressive Right's echo chambers, again. Those claims of yours were fact-checked and proven to be, "cherry-picking false."

And ask yourself this: How much do you think will it COST the nation if we DON'T have the Obama Administration's HCR - Health Care Reform, or the ACA law and its mandate that was recently deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court and by conservative Chief Justice Roberts?

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

No, Obamacare's Costs Didn't Double
By Patrick Brennan

Much has been made recently, on NRO as elsewhere, about the supposedly skyrocketing cost of Obamacare. The House Republican Policy Committee, for instance, put out a statement claiming that "the new CBO projection estimates that the law will cost $1.76 trillion over 10 years — well above the $940 billion Democrats originally claimed."

This claim, that the CBO's 2012 estimate suggests Obamacare will cost twice as much as originally projected when the bill was passed in 2010, has been widely trumpeted, by some rather doggedly, as another Obamacare failure, but unfortunately, it's entirely dishonest accounting, as a range of liberal bloggers have pointed out.

Here's why: The gross costs of Obamacare's insurance coverage in the CBO's 2010–2019 estimate were indeed $940 billion (table 2, page 2, here). The updated estimate covers the years 2012–2022, in which the gross costs will be $1.76 trillion, which is, yes, almost double the other number (table 2, here). But these numbers aren't remotely comparable.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/293932/no-obamacare-s-costs-didn-t-double-patrick-brennan

New Republic Senior Editor Jonathan Cohn: "No, Obamacare's Cost Didn't Just Double." In a March 15 post on The New Republic, Jonathan Cohn wrote:

If CBO had truly determined that health care reform's cost will be twice the original estimates, it would be huge news. But CBO said nothing of the sort.

[...]

In the this latest estimate, CBO extends its projection out one more year, to capture the expenses from 2012 to 2022, in order to capture a full decade. In 2022, CBO says, the gross cost of coverage expansion will be $265 billion. Add that to the $1.496 and you get (with rounding) the $1.76 trillion -- the one in the press releases and the Fox story.

But there is nothing new or surprising about this. It's only slightly more money than the previous year's outlays. The ten-year number seems to jump only because the time frame for the estimate has moved, dropping one year, 2011, and adding another, 2022. Obamacare has virtually no outlays in 2011, because the Medicaid expansion and subsidies don't start up until 2014, which means the shifting time frame drops a year of no implementation and adds one of full implementation.

[...]

The real news of the CBO estimate is that, according to its models, health care reform is going to save even more taxpayer dollars than previously thought.[The New Republic, 3/15/12]

Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "The Cost Of Obamacare Has Gone Down, Not Up." In a March 15 Mother Jones post, Kevin Drum wrote:

Republicans rushed to the microphones today to announce that new projections show that Obamacare will break the bank. In fact, says Fox News, a CBO reports says that it will cost "twice as much as the original $900 billion price tag."

You will be unsurprised to learn that this is not true.

[...]

As Table 1 shows, if you compare the original 2012-21 time period, CBO's new estimate of the cost of Obamacare is $48 billion less than it was last year. (The report estimates only the cost of expanded insurance coverage under Obamacare, not the entire set of costs and revenues. So the total impact on the deficit hasn't yet been updated.) [Mother Jones, 3/15/12]

Klein: CBO Report "Shows The Net Cost Of The Coverage Provisions Will Be About $50 Billion Less Than Previously Estimated." In a March 15 post on The Washington Post's Wonkblog, Ezra Klein noted that those claiming PPACA costs will increase "didn't read this analysis closely." From The Washington Post:

You'll notice something about the above list: It appears to add up to a net reduction in the cost of the health-care law. And, sure enough, here's CBO: "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." You would get the opposite impression reading Ransom.

[...]

But those other parts of the bill aren't a secret. They're mentioned right there in the analysis. Quoting again: "CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012-2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated."

It's easy to do at least some of the update ourselves. This analysis shows the net cost of the coverage provisions will be about $50 billion less than previously estimated. That implies the law will cut more, not less, from the deficit than previous estimates suggested. In other words, this estimate says the bill is more, not less, fiscally responsible than was previously reported.[The Washington Post, 3/15/12]

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

Backhouse

For folks requesting details -

Please check out fact sources at #1.2 - throughout the post, and at the end.

Further:

"Health care reform isn't important just because it expands access to quality, affordable

care, but also because rapidly rising costs and the fact that 30 million Americans don't

have insurance are weighing down the American economy. Here are four reasons why the

Court's decision is good news for the still-struggling economy:

1) Obamacare will reduce the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in

2011 that Obamacare will reduce the federal deficit by $210 billion over the next decade.

The law is expected to save about $1 trillion over its second decade, according to other

CBO analyses. The CBO found that repealing the law, as Republicans attempted to do in

2011, would increase the deficit by $230 billion over the next 10 years.
2) Health care costs for young Americans won't skyrocket. More than 3.1 million young

Americans have insurance thanks to Obamacare. Without the law, the cost of acquiring an

equivalent health care plan would have risen dramatically at a time when young people are

still struggling with the effects of the Great Recession.
3) Millions of jobs will be created. Health reform will help create roughly 4 million

jobs over the next decade, according to a 2010 Center for American Progress report, by

reducing the cost of health care and making it cheaper for businesses to hire. The law

will create between 250,000 and 400,000 jobs a year, and they will be spread across

sectors: according to the study, the law will help create more than 200,000 manufacturing

and 900,000 in the service sector by 2016.
4) It will be cheaper for employers to provide health care. American businesses are

under tremendous pressure thanks to rising health care costs, and these costs are often

passed on to customers (one study estimates that each car sold by General Motors contains

$1,200 in built-in health costs). The ACA, however, will make it cheaper for businesses to

provide care, and not just by reducing the cost of care. Small businesses are already

receiving tax credits contained in the law to help insure their employees, and it has

already offered more than $4.7 billion in reinsurance payments to companies that are

providing health care to retirees who aren't yet eligible for Medicare. (Think Progress)

#1.19 - Mon Jul 2, 2012 6:39 AM PDT

rradiko #1.103: Pandering? Roy pandering? Roy goes right on past pandering, and gets right into the thick of out and out lying as quickly as He can. Don't you notice there's several posters here who obviously barely made it to puberty then just quit. Roy sees them too. He's taking advantage of 'em. Telling 'em just enough to make 'em want to spark their powder, even though He knows their matches are too wet to ignite.

There are by far too many good posts in here to respond to but there is a lot of reason being stated. Having said that I think it might be wise to reiterate a fact most of our parents tried to teach us when we were growing up.

There is no free lunch.

No matter what anyone says there will be no FREE health insurance (we are talking about health insurance not health care, there is a big difference). Even if the government gives a tax rebate to the person who can't pay the original tax someone is still paying for his health care. Usually the doctor. What this means is the doctor has to charge more to patients who are responsible and buy their own private health insurance because they have to accept assignment on all the government insurance. So, once again that 1% that you all hate so much (and probably up to 40%) are paying the way of all those people who spend their day at the Occupy events and others on unemployment for the last 99 weeks (seriously, 99 weeks?). Someone is paying for this free health insurance but it won't be the people it serves.

No one is disputing that we need health insurance reform but this is not the way.

Mac Forrester

You are correct.

People like "ROY WILSON" go beyond pandering, they are statistical propagandists, articulating, hyperbole mouthpieces for the Regressive Right. Just click on his name and look at his record of statements on the NewsVine.

Far-right-wing reactionaries are allergic to fact-checking and hate to accurately source whatever they say or claim. But they're willing quickly to share with you a misleading source, cherry-pick their statistics, or point to extremely biased op-ed pieces whenever they can as false proof for the validity of their leading questions or emotionally-rigged arguments. Echoing lies, maliciously expanding upon obvious distortions, playing upon people's fears, and nondisclosure of the complete truth gets faster results for these neoconservative ideologues in influencing the politically naive' and the undereducated among us.

For the far-right, the hardcore ends justifies the unethical and manipulative means to get there. The very fact that they're able to get people to go against or vote against their own interests goes to show you the POWER of the LIE.

Point 1 insurance premiums are around $15,000 a year point 2 the fine is less than $1,000 a year point 3 with the pre-existing conditions clause I can buy insurance after I am sick and go to the doctor. Now why is it that you think I will waste $14,000 a year?

Liberals, et al: Blather all you wish. Fact is this is a tax in spite of the liar-in-chief's campaign promises. Middle class, bend over. You believed the baloney now enjoy your 'never going to increase your taxes' pledge.

What idiots you are for believing this clown.

So when I go to the store, I am not being charged a sales tax. I am being charged a sales penalty?

When I go to work, I am not being charged an income tax. I am being charged an income penatly?

When I want to wipe my ass, and buy toilet paper, I am being penalized for it and not taxed now? I pay a penatly for keeping my ass clean?

When I buy a house, I am not paying a property tax, but instead I am paying a property penalty? So I am being penalized for owning a home?

I love how the libs are trying to spin the word tax, into something else now. Last year, libs tried to use the word "revunue" to spin the word tax. Now they are using the word "penalty"

LOL how can people not see through this charade?

Yes that about sums it up. If you can afford insurance yet you refuse to buy it because you want a plazma tv or a 4 wheel drive truck. And you are using the emergency room for your family and dont even pay them. You are a free loading leach and should be fined, taxed, liened, garnished all of the above till you realize that my tax dollars should not have to bay for a dead beat like you.

Your supposed 'refutation' of my comment only confirms the accuracy of it - that the Democrats used 'deceptive accounting' to get the bill passed, and hid the true cost.

It also ignores the real point of my post - The TAXPAYERS will have to foot the bill for $1.76 Trillion over the next 10 years, whereas that was not the case under previous laws when people paid for their own health care.  Here's an idea - if I agree to cut my personal expenses by 10%, will you agree to pay the remaining 90% for me?  We're 'saving' 10% overall, so you should be happy to do it.  It's no different with Obamacare - We're 'supposedly' saving money overall, but we're shifting the costs from individuals to the taxpayers.

By the way - I used 'supposedly' because Obamacare claims to 'save' money by reducing reimbursement payments to doctors and hospitals over time.  This is clearly 'false reasoning', as demonstrated by the current laws that require reimbursement for Medicare to about 70% of normal, but the reality is that it never happens.  For example, Congress passes a 'Doctor Fix' extension every year to keep the lower Medicare reimbursement rates from going into effect.  The same will happen with Obamacare.

It's all 'smoke and mirrors' to justify a government takeover of the biggest single part of the economy, and anyone that thinks the government can run anything efficiently should look at the Post Office or Social Security and Medicare, where the 'unfunded liability' is estimated at over $100 TRILLION.

Mac Forrester

You obviously subscribe to the saying "If you can't refute the message, attack the messenger".

Show me where I'm wrong - if you can (I won't hold my breath).

By the way - try using reliable government sources like I usually do. Anybody can use the Internet to find a biased article to support any position on any issue, so biased links are not very impressive.

I just read an argument that the law can be invalidated because it was originally passed in the senate as a mandate, and now as a tax, the only branch of government that can pass a wide tax as legislation is Congress. So basically the whole law is invalidated with this ruling, because as we know, if this is true, then congress will never pass this new tax.

This is why it's always prudent to see all the legal ins and outs of a ruling before committing to apolitical strategy.

I also wrote this but for some reason didn't post: I have to say I didn't fact check so I don't know, so this would actually go in the "gossip" column. But if it indeed comes down to legal technicality, then it may fail in the implementation

/article/obamacare-now-invalid-because-tax-bills-must-originate-house

Examiner dot com

If they erase the link it's "obamacare now on invalid because tax bills must originate house examiner" in google search

Maybe this will now put attention on what this mess of a plan will actually end up costing us. A small town government can't build a school addition under budget. Does anyone really think this 'reform' will end up costing what was projected when the mess was written ? How many politicians are able to extrapolate costs out 5 or 10 years down the road. Major government agendas end up with major unplanned costs.

Anyone want to make bets on how accurate the ACA cost projections are ??? Have you looked at the projected costs when things like Medicaid or other large initiatives were first set up ? Government does not have a good track record on 'dollars and sense'.

And as usual..."costs" are rarely even whispered about.

tony-268769 "Anyone want to make bets on how accurate the ACA cost projections are ??"

Yes, I'll venture a guess. Since the government based it's estimate on what it would cost for private companies to do the work, and using the standard 'Rule of 2' (Government programs typically end up costing about double what the private sector would charge), my guess is that the actual 10 year cost of Obamacare will be twice what the CBO estimates, which means it will likely cost about $3.5 Trillion over 10 years (the CBO estimate of $1.76 Trillion times 2).

The entitlement programs have ran about 6 times initial cost estimates, except for the prescription drug one. So my guess would be 5.4 Trillion from initial estimate. But i would guess much much higher cost to premiums as people will opt to just skip paying it all together. They have no incintive to buy it if they can't be denied and just get on it when sick, then back off again.

So since SCOTUS has ruled that it is constitutional to require people to buy a product or pay a tax, does that mean that if the Republicans get in control of the Congress and the Presidency, that they could pass a law requiring every homeowner to purchase a handgun, or pay a tax.

Sounds completely constitutional according to SCOTUS. Wonder what people would have been saying if that had been the case instead of requiring people to buy insurance or pay a tax?

Top of the morning to you Floyd - good to see you & Miss Elly got juice & are safe after those horrific storms...

First came Glen Beck hawking his disgusting John Roberts T-shirts & not to be out done this classless bastard has to up the ante!

Conservatives have had a series of extreme reactions to the Supreme Court’s Thursday decision to uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare’s individual health care mandate: from charging that Chief Justice John Roberts’s epilepsy medication caused him to support the majority opinion, to calling for an armed rebellion against the Court.

Now, the Merrimack Patch reports that a Tea Party leader in New Hampshire is wishing cancer on the justices

Former Town Councilor Mike Malzone, the founder of the Merrimack Tea Party, said Thursday in a Facebook post reacting to the Supreme Court ruling on health care, “I hope the (5 supremes) get colon cancer.”

A day after posting the message, Malzone said he stands by what he said. He clarified that he doesn’t want anyone to die, and the cancer reference was more to make a point that he wants them to feel the pain being inflicted on Americans being overburdened by taxes.

“I didn’t wish for anyone to die, but I said I do wish for them to feel our pain,” he said. “No one cares about me, they all make their promises and then go do what they goddamn feel.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/30/509256/local-tea-party-leader-i-hope-the-supreme-court-justices-get-colon-cancer/

WTF is WRONG with these people?

Tough, isn't it Bennie? You want to claim that Obama is taxing the middle class? That means that Romney taxed the middle class.

Top of the morning to you Floyd - good to see you & Miss Elly got juice & are safe after those horrific storms... Thank you Betty. Yes we do and while the storms in our area resulted in only some minor inconveniences to me and my family I would urge all the folks that were in the paths of destruction from Chicago to the East coast to continue to help each other out as the damage to basic infrastructure was great in many places and the heat is going to make it just that much more miserable and life threatening till we can get the power back on. Check on your neighbors folks (especially the elderly) and hang tough I'm sure that all that can be done to bring you some relief is being done

Ben you can call it whatever you want. Fact of the Matter is that all three Branches of Government have now ratified it. Now you can either engage in a futile effort to repeal it for which getting the votes is slim and none or you can get real and work to make changes in it to strengthen it. If you've got good ideas along about those lines bring them forth. Till then you're just spitting into the wind like the rest of the Yahoo's.

We were very lucky Floyd - the trees around my house... ehhh... not so much!

Thankfully, no reports of serious injuries here in metro-Chi-Town although there are still over 100K without power as of this morning...

Not having any ourselves for 6 hours yesterday was an inconvenience, I can't imagine what these people who are still without are going through!

Spoiled freezers full of food... the sweltering heat... etc...

Oh, is that how you get around it Bennie? Be interesting to find it out.

But if it is a tax, Romney raised taxes. And if he ran as a Conservative, (or did he run as a Liberal, he flips around so much, it is hard to tell,) he violated the FIRST PRINCIPLE OF BEING A CONSERVATIVE....THOU SHALL NOT RAISE TAXES (unless you can call it a fee) on ANYONE.

Sorry, Bennie, you can't have this both ways.

Glad you made it through the storms, Feisty, Beverly..did you do all right too? Hotter than hades here, fans running at top speed in the barn.

The Supreme Court ruled today that the Affordable Care Act, the comprehensive health care reform package signed by President Obama in 2010, is constitutional. The Court upheld the law’s most controversial provision, the individual mandate, ruling that it is constitutional under the government’s authority to levy and collect taxes.

Republicans have falsely claimed the mandate was the “biggest tax increase ever in American history,” so of course, conservatives immediately jumped on the idea that the individual mandate was a massive tax hike on the middle class, reviving an argument Republicans have made since the law passed more than two years ago:

The Supreme Court ruled today that the Affordable Care Act, the comprehensive health care reform package signed by President Obama in 2010, is constitutional. The Court upheld the law’s most controversial provision, the individual mandate, ruling that it is constitutional under the government’s authority to levy and collect taxes.

Republicans have falsely claimed the mandate was the “biggest tax increase ever in American history,” so of course, conservatives immediately jumped on the idea that the individual mandate was a massive tax hike on the middle class, reviving an argument Republicans have made since the law passed more than two years ago:

WISCONSIN GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R) declared that it was a “massive tax increase.”

INDIANA SEN. DAN COATS (R) said “Right now we have something with a big tax and the American people who rejected that in 2010 are going to have a chance to break the tie in 2012.”

LOUISIANA GOV. BOBBY JINDAL (R) said “Ironically, the Supreme Court has decided to be far more honest about Obamacare than Obama was. They rightly have called it a tax. Today’s decision is a blow to our freedoms.”

IDAHO SEN. MIKE CRAPO (R) touted that the mandate was ruled a tax. “Now, we’re back into that argument,” he said.

The mandate can indeed be characterized as a tax, as the Court found. But it is not a massive tax hike on the middle class, much less the biggest tax hike in American history. The tax imposed by the individual mandate amounts to either $695 or 2.5 percent of household income for those who don’t have insurance and are not exempt based on income levels. By comparison, the payroll tax cut extension Republicans repeatedly blocked earlier this year would have added 3.1 percentage points to the tax and cost the average family $1,500 a year.

The mandate, meanwhile, would hit a small amount of Americans — somewhere between 2 and 5 percent — according to a study from the Urban Institute. The number could be even lower depending on the law’s success: in Massachusetts, the only state with an insurance mandate, less than 1 percent of the state’s residents paid the penalty in 2009.

The majority of the Affordable Care Act’s other taxes, such as a payroll tax increase and a tax on high-cost health plans, are aimed at upper-income Americans. In exchange, millions of jobs will be created as new people enter the health care system and millions of people will gain access to affordable, quality insurance that they otherwise would not have. And, as we detailed earlier today, the Court’s decision to uphold the entirety of the law will have significant benefits for the nation’s economy.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/28/508062/fact-check-mandate-tax-hike/

Again this whole tax argument is just more fake outrage coming from the right. No middle class people who are responsible to themselves and their family would go without health care insurance. So this right wing crazy talk is a moot point!

See what I mean folks? The party of we are by GOD, family values and holier than thou, can only post vulgarities when challenged! Sign of a weak brain, Ben. I would take the day off and read a book. Something about Theodore Roosevelt would do nicely.

Here's a hint Ben, what you just posted...brought to us by REPUBLICANS!

Ben, I hate to tell you this, but your anger comes from your confusion. You are a closet Democrat and it is time to come out of that closet!

Great post IR VA, add one more to it for a full #10, If you make over $250,000 you are not middle class, you are rich.

a massive tax increase on the middle class

What massive tax increase on the middle class, there Bennie? If you have insurance, no tax, no fee, no fine, nada. Plain and simple.

Socialcapitalist, I don't think you have cared for an elderly relative recently. I have, even before the ACA was being discussed our doctor was kind enough to inform us of all of our options, lay it out clean and simple so we would know what to expect and what to choose. Not everyone thinks living is being hooked up to a bunch of machines and in bed all day long with no real hope of complete recovery is actually living. It was a huge help to have our family member sign the living will and make what they do and don't want done to them in the end of life situation. So much that both my husband and I had one written up as early as 2006. Death panels are not new, it is the health insurance companie's main tool and has been for years. At least now the doctor will do the right thing and let you know what your health insurance will or won't pay for and you have the option to receive or deny the treatment. Sounds good to me, you must work for a medical supply company or a health insurance company to conjur up the death panel stuff, either that or you have not had a trip to the doctor's office or ER since 2001.

Now they are told Obamacare will drastically cut funds to Medicare, and, in all likelihood, they will no longer receive the level of care the elderly have been pre-Obamacare.

More and more lies from the rightfreak wing. Perhaps you could actually explain to us about all these mythical Medicare cuts. This will be interesting, since they don't exist.

Good morning Floyd. GREAT POST!

Ben - the GOP would call a cow a pig if Obama had already called it a cow. See, the GOP has no integrity as you prove over and over with your ignorant posts. If everyone believed the GOP the country would be - by far - the stupidest country in the entire world!

Oh, and Palin's death panels - please - that has been debunked over and over but the GOP continues to seize onto those lies. Pathetic really.

Obama/Biden 2012

Still no facts from poor Ben, just visceral hate. Remember well, Ben...you can only speak for you. You have no control what others do on voting day. You may want to get some help with that rather grandiose delusion you suffer from. You are starting to sound a bit, well, unwound.

But, still think you are really a Democrat Ben. The stuff you purport to hate was brought to us by the right wing.

Ben - Independents will not vote to take this country backward so they will NOT vote for Mitt. Your implication that Mitt will garner votes from the Independents shows more of the ignorance of the far right. You think people actually BELIEVE the stupidity Mitt, Santorum, Palin, etc., throw out. Please, only the low information voters believe that crap - and they're already voting for Mitt.

Obama/Biden 2012 to take the country forward!

Ben - Independents will not vote to take this country backward so they will NOT vote for Mitt. Your implication that Mitt will garner votes from the Independents shows more of the ignorance of the far right. You think people actually BELIEVE the stupidity Mitt, Santorum, Palin, etc., throw out. Please, only the low information voters believe that crap - and they're already voting for Mitt.

What you forget is that independents also vote against a person or idea. In 2008 did Obama not run against McCain by tying him to Bush. After 8 years of Bush independents like myself were sick of his policies and out of control spending. McCain, after years of being independent, embraced Bush too closely, and a vote for him could be considered another 4 years of Bush. Now we have Bush spending on steroids, a deficit of 1T+ and an Administration choosing this moment to add a new entitlement as Medicare and Social Security are moving into the red, before the bulk of baby-boomers retire. Instead of reforming health care as the majority wanted, the President has taken the same broken system and added an additional 30m. Instead of attacking costs and then using the saving to expand coverage he went for the "political" win with no regard to the financial consequences to this country.

I don't like Romney's current plan of avoiding positions on most issues but compared to what we know of Obama the devil we don't know is a better choice right now.

Ben: You do understand how it appears that you are losing what little control you had over your mind?

See, when you accuse people of not posting facts, in a post that is purely invective, people start to think that the hamster fell off the wheel of your "brain".

I am a registered Republican SeekingSanity, I will not speak for the rest of the independents like myself, however I will vote a straight Democratic ticket this November. If I am the only independent to vote for O'bama so be it, my vote WILL not put Romney over the top. Lincoln was as unpopular among southern white voters as O'bama is today. I am happy to be one of the exceptions to the rule. Hear that Ben? There is at least one Republican who disagrees with you, if not more, R.I.N.O.!

Obamacare Decision: Romney Won't Like This Passage

By Tim Murphy

But it's safe to say Romney, the only other elected official in American history to mandate that citizens buy health insurance, probably won't like this passage from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's opinion, which partially concurred with Roberts and partially dissented:

By requiring most residents to obtain insurance, see Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 111M, §2 (West 2011), the Commonwealth ensured that insurers would not be left with only the sick as customers. As a result, federal lawmakers observed, Massachusetts succeeded where other States had failed. See Brief for Commonwealth of Massachusetts as Amicus Curiae in No. 11–398, p. 3 (not­ing that the Commonwealth’s reforms reduced the number of uninsured residents to less than 2%, the lowest rate in the Nation, and cut the amount of uncompensated care by a third); 42 U. S. C. §18091(2)(D) (2006 ed., Supp. IV) (noting the success of Massachusetts’ reforms). In cou­pling the minimum coverage provision with guaranteed­ issue and community-rating prescriptions, Congress followed Massachusetts' lead.

Ginsburg, of course, is completely correct. And in a sane political climate, Mitt Romney would happily take credit for this. As it stands, he's in the uncomfortable position of once more distancing himself from his biggest political accomplishment.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/06/supreme-court-congress-followed-massachusetts-lead

__________________________________________________________

Since you didn’t like my first rebuttal there Ben maybe you’ll like this one better.

You can shake that Etch-a Sketch all you want to there Ben but this one just ain’t going to go away.

Ben - when you get upset because you're caught posting lie after lie, it's almost funny. See, your "facts" are just lies - over and over again. And, just so you know, Independents will NOT vote with the far right. They have far too much intelligence to vote to take the country backward.

Wade, I'm a registered Independent and there is NO WAY I would vote for Mitt. Most Independents won't. He has nothing to offer.

Now Ben, you should probably just go back to the nice padded room and play.

Obama/Biden 2012

Red -- Here you go. These are the facts. This goes for you too -- donkey ass gnat -- it's Ben.

Bennie Bean-Bag Boy - again, all based on the assumption that he uninsured will remain so. If the uninsured purchase insurance .. no tax, no fee, no fine, nada; no massive tax increase. Comprehend?

Ben, you haven't properly cited your opinion fluff piece there, buddy.

One reason the insurance rates continue to INCREASE is that Insurance Companies are greedy bastards. Perhaps you missed THIS little tidbit:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/26/pf/health-insurance-rebate/index.htm

This is a phenomenon that is SWEEPING the nation,...Thank you, Obamacare!

PS. Newday,...he certainly seems to be a 'closet' something,...can't quite put my finger on it; but

A lot of people that can't afford the insurance, can't afford the fine either. So what will these 16,000 new IRS agents do to the businesses and individuals that can't afford these fines? Tax liens on their properties and businesses that will be confiscated and sold by the feds probably.

Funny, Clara! I really believe Ben is struggling with the idea that the party that he hates is his own! Must be a shock to the system. I can remember when it happened to me with Republicans.

The Right will rise and bring the Independents with it to defeat this scourge.

Don't think so. As an Independent I'm still not sure who I'll vote for, but I can tell you who I WON'T vote for, and that's Mitt. I'm not satisfied with Obama's performance but I'm not about to throw him away for someone like Mitt, and listening to the GOP and their supporters' hateful, arrogant, fear-mongering rhetoric has only turned me off. And I'm sure many other Independents feel the same way.

Clara, you rock my Kansas City, Missouri friend.

Thanks to a provision in the health care reform law, millions of consumers will be receiving rebates from their insurers this summer.

Under the law, large employer-sponsored plans must spend 85% of a policyholders' premiums this way, while insurance companies that cover individuals and small businesses have to spend at least 80%. If an insurer fails to meet that threshold, they must issue a refund according to you CNN link.

Keep feeding Ben little tidbits. After that, he can have a drink of cool, refreshing, water and go lie down beside his bowl.

socialcapitalist

Now they are told Obamacare will drastically cut funds to Medicare, and, in all likelihood, they will no longer receive the level of care the elderly have been pre-Obamacare.

Can you give us an authoritative reference? I haven't been able to find the cuts you are talking about, which leads me to believe you post is propaganda.

It's about time we enforced personal responsibility by requiring all Americans to pay for their own healthcare.

If you believe it is your right to choose not to have health insurance, then I suggest it is an ER doctor's obligation to deny you treatment when you show up with life-threatening injuries and have no insurance and no cash to pay for services when rendered.

Your right to choose not to pay for your own healthcare does not give you the right to stick me with higher insurance premiums to cover the cost of you and all the other deadbeats who get treatment at the ER and then decide they can't afford those expensive bills that come in the mail afterwards.

You want the freedom to avoid a government mandate requiring you to buy health insurance? Ok, I can support that. But only if we bring on Sarah Palin's death panels. If you have no insurance and no ability to pay, then you don't get treatment. If you die in the ER waiting room due to your own personal choices, I guess I can support your decision to live free. I just can't support the continued practice of sticking the rest of us with your healthcare bills.

Clara, the top publicly traded insurance companies had prfit margins in the 4% range in 2010. Cigarette indusrty was 20%, Railroads 15%, Long Distance 14% soft drink indusrty 13%. I believe last i heard Apple had a profit margin of 20%. Overall average profit margin i believe is running around 8% now so i would hardly call the health insurance guys greedy running below average. Or does it just kill you to see anything that says "corporation" make money?

So what will these 16,000 new IRS agents do to the businesses and individuals that can't afford these fines?

Shall we count the number of times this Newtonian lie is repeatedly posted today? So far, it is up to 3-4 .. and yet they keep posting it over and over again. So, BigATC idiot, here it is again, debunked for your sloppy sorry ass again!!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/will_the_irs_need_16000_new_ag.html

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/

Alan, NJ

I don't like Romney's current plan of avoiding positions on most issues but compared to what we know of Obama the devil we don't know is a better choice right now.

Only if, after 30+ years of failure, you still believe in supply-side (trickle-down, voodoo) economics. That would seem to indicate either wealth or extreme foolishness.

To Ben, let's use some common sense here. Why would everyone being required to have insurance drive the prices up? If there are more people in the insurance pool then it only stands to reason that insurance cost will go down.

American health care costs are high because of the number of uninsured Americans who the ER as primary care.

I don't see why the health care law is such a big deal. Do I want to be forced to have insurance for simply being alive? Not really. I can see why in our current system that you need that though.

The health care law also came with some long overdue changes; not being able to be denied for a preexisting condition is one of them.

Dont_carry_it_all

Beverly -- WaPo gave the Palin claim 4 Pinocchio's.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/sarah-palin-death-panels-and-obamacare/2012/06/27/gJQAysUP7V_blog.html?hpid=z1

She should have gotten 5 Pinocchio's. One for being a lame brain idiot and Lying HYPOCRITE. Her disabled daughter gets GOVERNMENT ISURANCE

"Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at
whom it is aimed.” Joseph Stalin

BigATC -- Those corporations you refer to try their damnedest to deny people coverage to boost their profit. Are you okay with someone dying so some CEO can get a $20 million dollar bonus?

Red -- Keep those links handy for the next several months. The one thing we can count on with Republicans is that they lie consistently.

This goes to show either how uninformed or idiotic First Read is or how stupid they think we are. The mandate is not the tax referred to in the SCOTUS ruling. It is the fine for not complying that is the tax. Again, First Read, listen carefully...NOT...THE...MANDATE.

Romney doesn't want to merely revoke Obamacare, he wants to rewrite it to keep the best features and get rid of the nonsense.

So who is going to be 'taxed' because of Obamacare?

The answer, according to Obama, is about 30 million people from the Middle Class who do not currently have health insurance but will be required to buy it now. It's not the 'poor' because they qualify for free Medicaid - at taxpayer expense. It's not the 'rich' because they already have insurance - so who's left? The Middle Class. Show me where I'm wrong - if you can.

Now consider the 'real life' issue. Obama says that these 30 million people will now be required to purchase health insurance, and they are typically those in the lower Middle Class income class that are struggling to make ends meet. If a family of 4 is struggling on an income of $30,000 per year (about $2,000 per month after payroll taxes) and must now spend $10,000 to $15,000 per year on medical insurance (estimated cost for a family of 4), where's it going to come from? They simply cannot afford it, so now they will have to go without insurance AND be fined (about $400 in the first year, and about $2,800 in the third year).

The ironic part is that the people who will be fined (taxed) will be the very same group that voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008 - I guess that's what some might call 'retribution'.

By the way – the cost of Obamacare has now ballooned to $1.76 Trillion over 10 years (and rising), according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Where is the money for this massive new 'entitlement' going to come from?– the link is below;

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/1175831

The media like to pretend that leaks are real information. This story is more likely to be planted by some conservative spin doctor, than a real bit of juicy inside information about inner conflict in the SCOTUS. It gives the conservatives a talking point to pass around. My guess is that it is a false story 'leaked' to give the media a figurative hare to chase through the woods of speculation.

Dear Republicans,

Is this judicial "activism" or judicial restraint? A law passed and signed by the elected officials of our government goes before the court and is upheld by what many would call a conservative court. Already conservatives are calling Roberts a traitor. He who was your hero ruled according to the Constitution which your tea party associates cling to as the final word. Now that it is Constitutional, what do you have to say about other cases past and future that will come before the court? Activism or restraint? Choose now!!

1. Poor Americans do pay taxes.

Just not federal income taxes that pay for the bulk of the things we need as a nation. You see, I pay federal income taxes AND every other tax they pay too.

2. The wealthiest Americans don’t carry the burden.

Unless you consider that the top 10% of wage earners account for between 60 and 70% of the taxes collected at the federal level.

3. In fact, the wealthy are paying less taxes.

So is everyone else. Consider this from a politifact piece in 2008 "The top 1 percent of all households got 18 percent of all personal income and paid nearly 28 percent of all federal taxes in 2005, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The top 1 percent now pay a significantly larger share of taxes than before President Bush’s tax cuts, and also have a larger share of income."

4. Many of the very richest pay no current income taxes at all.

Due to many now making a living off of dividends earned (which is also taxed) on money that was already taxed as regular income.

I could take you down point by point but Me using facts and you using opinion just isn't fair.

sosad,

So by your "logic" citizens united should stand and liberals should just accept it as the law of the land since the SCOTUS approved it, right?

William- Agreed that there were some big issues with the existing status of healthcare and insurance, however there were other ways of dealing with the issue than having the federal government set up a nationalized healthcare system. Here are two things that would have fundimentally changed insurance as we know it, but the government chose not to do:

1. All the purchase of health insurance across state lines. This was a HUGE propsect as it would throw all sorts of competition between local, regional, and national insurance companies to get volume. To them volume = money, so by getting another million subscribers equals huge bonus cash. It would have turned into a bidding war that would have worked in the subscriber's interests. We all would have saved in a competitive market.

2. Allow small businesses to bundle their insurances needs and be represented as a larger group of subscribers. If they had allowed small businesses to group together and create larger subscriber pools it would have saved them significant money because insurance carriers will cut better deals based on volume.

Had they implemented these items, along with the existing condition clause, and we still would be getting ahead. Unfortunately our government chose to grab all of the power away from us and create yet another huge program that they already have projecting 1/3+ higer costs for than they calculated under two years ago. They can't run Social Security, so why should we believe that they can run our healthcare coverage? They can't reform Social Security, so how can we believe that they are competent to make decisions regarding coverage? They can't tell seniors what medicines aren't covered under Part B coverage (it was supposed to be life sustaining, not including elective drugs) so how can they decide what is important under nationalized healthcare?

The real problems William will be in the installation of the program and the implications of the government controlling everyone's healthcare. Why do I say everyone's? That's because the implemenetation of the healthcare program is going to take about 6 years, but by the full implementation of nationalized healthcare you will see a series of growing taxes on you and your company that will directly impact you to the point where your company will most likely bump you from private to nationalized due to the costs. The biggest on is the "cadillac plan" 40% tax that goes into effect in 2018. If the definition of "cadillac" is anything above the standard, nationalized plan's coverage then every dollar beyond that is taxed at 40%- so your company will be spending $1.40 for every dollar over that base amount. Face it, most companies will dump you based on the additional costs.

I heard an interesting commentary over the weekend about how nationalized healthcare is good for McDonald's workers. The commentator failed to mention that McDonalds and many other companies, 3 states fully and 2 others partially, do not need to comply with the program. But aren't these the same people whom are least likely to have insurance- yes. They got a waiver, but I bet the workers will get coverage. I wonder whom will pay for their costs if the company doesn't have to participate??

Lastly, I think it's imporatant to understand that by making the federal government your arbitor for healthcare you are also making them your health arbitor. That is, they don't want you running to the doctor when the costs are passed on to them so they'll want/need to keep you from going in. How do they do that? Well, they'll want you keeping your BMI down, not eat too much salt, watch the drinking, exercise more, eat your veggies, cut out the smoking, etc. to keep you healthy. So goes the 20+ ounce sodas in NYC and no giving the homeless left over hotel food because it might be salty, so goes similar policy nationally.

Ol Doc ........ google "Medicare Advantage Obamacare" and you can find specifics for that program. You may also find the GAO found, and admonished the adminisrtation, where Obama plugged an 8 Billion gap in Medicare Advantage with a slush fund that wasn't supposed to be used for that. He did it because a lot of people would have otherwise lost their Medicare Advantage coverage right before the election.

Another thing it does is reduce reimbursements of over 200 billion to health care providers. I will leave it to you to decide if you were a health care provider taking medicare and your reimbursements were cut to what you would do.

Original estimates were 136 billion in reimbursement cuts to Medicare advantage and CBO just said now they are estimating 206 Billion from 2010-2019.

Don't Carry .... All insurances do that, home, auto etc. Neither you or i like it but it happens.

JoeNY .... that would have been the easiest way to try health care. Going across state lines and the bundling and they could have passed that bill in a couple of pages and wouldn't cost the taxpayers squat to try it.

For all you people proudly spouting your party line talking points on this legislation, has anyone actually bothered to go out and READ the thing? It's onerous, yes, but important information to know, rather than coming on here and talking out your ass. The plan is not some save us godsend and has plenty of issues. However, it's also not all evil. I personally think it's detrimental to job creation during a recession and could have been done much better, but before you base your opinion on media talking points, I'd suggest you read the thing so you can actually have an informed opinion!

I have read what I consider to be a bunch of nonsense coming from you left-leaners here, so I would like to ask you a few questions.

It was stated that health insurance would go down if more people participate. Question: How do you square this with the fact that people with pre-existing conditions will now be mandated to participate which will increase claims that are being paid, therefore making premiums rise?

It was also stated that the middle class will not see their taxes rise. Question: Who do you think is going to pay for this program? This law is designed to help the poor. How can the poor be expected to go out and purchase health insurance, or pay the tax if they don't? The IRS will be able to garnish their wages, if they have any. The IRS will be able to attach their property, if they have any. Does this really sound to you like we are helping the poor? And if there are bills that are run up by those without the ability to pay, don't you expect the government to pay the bills? And where does the government get its money?

It was statd that the IRS will not add any additional employees. I do not know how many, but they will most surely add some. Question: How can you expect the government not to add employees when their workload increases since that is the way government typically operates and does even more so under a Democratic tax and spend scheme?

Before you people go all freaky on me, I must tell you that I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I do not toe any party line. I am all for government operating on common sense and free market principles. This healthcare law seems to be neither to me. As a matter of fact, it seems an awful lot like pure socialism, which Obama supporters claim that he is not embracing.

My goal in asking these questions is to make people think. And you will have to admit that there is not much thinking going on in politics or in political discussions these days.

BTW, great article showing how First Read doesn't know what the hell their talking about. Again, the mandate is not the tax according to SCOTUS...the penalty is.

Romney has a long road to getting the Presidential Nomination in November..

Obama will also have to explain the fact that he promised the American People during his first campaigns so many times that there will never be any more TAXES for the middle class and poor..

The Supreme Court Ruling was a shocker. Who would have ever thought Conservative Justice Roberts would be the key to the main factor, voting for it to make TAXES the main issue. It could have been contrived by him this way to focus on this issue for the Republicans, turning the tables on "O". Obama Care did go thru; it will be a tough battle to Repeal this Reform Act.

Now O is stuck with talking about taxes---more so than Romney--promises that never happened.

Romney may just pass by the Tax Issue, focusing on severe unemployment, creation of new jobs, housing, and a malaise in this country. Now O says he will focus on the same Issues. Why did he not do this from the beginning of his Term 4 years ago?

Taxes, a US Citizens worst nightmare-- it does affect what will happen to the many generations ahead. It is a turnoff. Roberts stayed within the Constitution, by starting a firestorm of Health Care Reform's main issue of all people being taxed. This was never brought up before.

Why did Nancy Pelosi earlier state that "We will find out what is in the Health Care Bill" after it is shoved through Congress--a 7500 page Document, of which no Congress person got to thoroughly read.

It was a bad start--the Majority of People will not be fooled again. Too many mistakes, and Roberts was the Conservative key to all of this turmoil with the 5-4 Verdict.

It is a 50-50 toss up who will win 2012. It all depends on the Independent Vote.

@sosad, read the Wall Street Journal article referenced in my post #2.59. By redefining what a tax is -- and ignoring precedence -- Roberts made himself into a judicial and constitutional activist. The type of tax in the ACA is not allowed in our Constitution, yet Roberts ignores this and allows it to stand.

buckeyenut - interestingly enough, not all Republicans are happy with the Citizens United ruling either. Many GOP congressional leaders are in favor of it being declared unconstitutional.

Mother0f2+1 - whoa! Little too much caffeine today, huh? From your post we know you're a hysterical, non-sensical, don't give a damn about anyone but yourself, low-intelligence, foul-mouthed, idiotic Republican. See how that works?

Obama/Biden 2012

What all these so called conservatives (money and soul hoarders) are really worried about with this new Law is the People. Some of what is being said is true, this Law will increase some costs, lower others, widen the reach of commen care and hurt some of the programs started and prooven effecient until the dawn of the nineties. That the conservatives actually have no fear over, it is that this Law will actually break the commen American out of the delusion designed by the rich to pacify the masses. Once enough commen Americans get 'poor' they will, in great majority, turn on the rich. nothing is more precious to an animal then basic survival and that survival will come at a hefty price for those who have it all. If this Law holds, we will see a decade of high and low trends with some nasty bluffing at the poker table. If this Law still maintains a following after a decade the rich will finally face the majority on vote against a horde they have not had to deal with in ages. The (then) now eighty-five percent of the population in the poor class bracket. The days of rich paying upwards of seventy percent tax will return and democractic socialism will re-emerge bringing us right back to the war for independance era mentality as a people. The very nature of the phrase, "By the People, For the People" is democratic socialism in it's bare honest truth. I will enjoy the next ten years.

I see it's business as usual in the political ideology community.

It is painfully obvious that both sides are clueless as usual and unlikely to change anytime soon. The way some of you go back and forth makes me seriously wonder if people are generally more mature as children, rather than as adults.

SeekingSanity, you're a perfect example. "Low intelligence, foul mouthed, idiotic Republican"?? Yeah, you're real mature there. Grow up.

As for the absurd monstrosity known as Obamacare...well, time will tell whether or not it gets implemented, and if implemented, whether it does what its supposedly supposed to do. Personally, I will never abide by this ruling. I will never buy health insurance that is mandated by the federal government.

Let them try and enforce this law and see how well it goes over. This administration and this Supreme Court have made a major mistake in judgement and the consequences of it have yet to be felt.

Obama

1.) Largest tax increase in American History, 75% of it will come from the middle class.

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/30/wsj-chief-economist-75-of-obamacare-costs-will-fall-on-backs-of-those-making-less-than-120k-a-year/

2.) Lied to Americans, said it wasn't tax then had defense team say it was a tax so as to be Constitutional.

3.) Liberals say they are against Corporate Welfare and Big Business, yet then passes a law that REGUIRES you to PURCHASE Insurance through an big corporate insurance company who trades on Wall Street.

4.) Now that lobbyist are being told this is constitutional every business is lobbying congress how Mandating Americans for their business is in the "Nations Interest", and will save money. Thanks CORPORATE TOOLS!

5.) Obama has the balls to even today IT"S NOT A TAX????? The Supreme Court said if it was not a tax, it is unconstitutional. So either Obama is right and it is not a tax, therefore unconstitutional, or he is still lying, and just gave the middle class the largest tax hike in HISTORY!

6.) ECONOMY STILL SUCKS UNDER OBAMA!!!! Manufacturing Index under 50 indicates a recession, June was 49.7, lowest since 2009.

U.S. manufacturing shrank in June for the first time in nearly three years, a troubling sign as evidence builds that economic growth is slowing.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ECONOMY_MANUFACTURING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-07-02-11-11-45

BigATC, 4 percent profit margin for health care providers, that may well be. I wonder how much of the nut goes to the care of the insured, the operating expenses, and the bonuses for the top brass? I bet it's 30 percent for the insured, 10 percent for operations, and 56 percent for the top brass. And you don't think health care needs regulations of any kind. I for one don't enjoy being ripped off by an industry that spoils it's top brass and gouges it's customer base.

Wade, exactly where did i say insurance doesn't need regulations? Answer is i didn't so how is it that you accuse me of that? Just making stuff up for what reason?

Once enough commen Americans get 'poor' they will, in great majority, turn on the rich.

The "RICH" can afford to move to another country, buy a defense team that helps protect them, fly away on their helicopters. It is us middle class people who get Screwed, and we will turn on Obama supporters.

Logicrequired - you clearly have no logic but you love to post the lies and propaganda of the far right. Pitiful!

Obama/Biden 2012

Comparing Mitt Romney passing wanted health coverage for the STATE he was elected to REPRESENT, to Obama shoving a HEALTH CARE bill that the majority of people and states don't want is a bad comparison. I'm all for states dealing with the issue as they see fit, Federal governments telling me I have to purchase a product is not FREEDOM.

Logicrequired - you clearly have no logic but you love to post the lies and propaganda of the far right. Pitiful!

Hey, thanks for correcting my "lies and propaganda" with no facts, no links, no actual substance at all.

Why do we spend so much on defense and policing when we can (THANKS SUPREME COURT) just MANDATE every American own a gun and take some kind of military training course or be taxed, I mean pay a penalty.

I was also thinking we on the right could keep Abortion legal, just "TAX" or make pay a penalty to all those who are in the business of abortions since it takes away from potential future tax payers. I mean thanks to democrats it would be constitutional.

Obamacare new taxes:

Fines/Taxes starting in 2016 for people that don't buy insurance

9,500-36,000 $695

-$50,000 $1,000

-$75,000 $1,600

-$100,000 $2,250

Flexible spending Accounts that have no cap will now be capped at $2,500

Medical Deductions will now increase from starting at $7.5k to $10k

Penalty on Health Savings Accounts withdrawals double from 10% to 20%

Plans with contributiuons of 10.2k or more will have a 40% tax on contributions. Yikes!

Eliminates over the counter meds purchased with FSA deductions

Medical device manufacturers adds 2.3% excise tax to equipment. Which will be passed on.

Anyone think that this doesn't effect low and middle income people? This is a huge tax on low and middle income people and will have a big effect on a lot of people.

How many people do you know that make 10k a year that can afford a $695 fine/tax? Anyone know a family of 4 that makes $50k that has a spare $1000 to pay a fine/tax? What happens to all those people in that income range that live paycheck to paycheck and can't pay? The IRS will go after your wages or your home, if you have one.

Will this healthcare bill even fix any of the problems?

The answer is no!

The fact is that under the new Obamacare regime, millions will opt for the penalty, simply because there’s no purpose to paying $1,500 per year for health insurance when you can pay a $750 penalty, wait to get sick, then jump on a federally-mandated health plan,"

Get ready for your employer to DUMP your healthcare!

It seems clear from the construction of the law that the government wants employers to offer health insurance. To ensure this outcome, employers with more than 50 employees will pay fines if they do not offer health insurance or if the health insurance they offer is too expensive. If an employer does not offer health insurance, they will pay a $2,000 fine for each employee over 30 employees. So if you have 100 employees, your fine will be $140,000. Which is more expensive – paying for insurance for 100 employees or paying a $140,000 fine? According to Kaiser Family Foundation, the average premium for employer based coverage is $5,429 for a single person and the employer pays $4,508 of that premium. The insurance by far is more expensive than the fine.

Multiple consultancies have studied employer attitudes toward providing health insurance coverage in the wake of reform and the results are mixed. McKinsey & Company found that 30% of employers will probably stop offering coverage and the number is even higher for employers with high awareness of health care reform.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolynmcclanahan/2012/05/30/will-employers-dump-health-insurance-coverage/

You just have to love the logic of politicians.

Health care costs are too high? Well then, we'll mandate that people purchase healthcare insurance or else we'll charge them a tax...oh, excuse me...a penalty. We'll add millions of people who don't have insurance to the rolls and then use federal money to help subsidize their insurance.

Exactly how does this even address the issue of health care COSTS????

Why is it that no one on either side of the political aisle has actually argued about attempting to determine the root causes of high health care costs? Is that so hard to think of?

And please, don't try and blame it all on any one thing, whether it is Medicare/Medicaid, insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, malpractice insurance, etc. I hate to break this to both political parties and their supporters but the actual answer is all of the above.

Maybe if the government actually addressed each of these issues and tried to find common sense solutions to all of them, we might actually get something worthwhile accomplished.

Somehow, I don't see that ever happening.

The Washington Post

Headline...

Employers save $422 billion if they dump health coverage. Will they?

Thanks for the Corporate hand out democrats!

Who is it again who is being controlled by rich corporations and Wall Street? Looks to me like Obama and the democrats just gave big business (especially health care companies) a BIG, WET, KISS!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/employers-save-422-billion-if-they-dump-health-coverage-will-they/2012/05/01/gIQAZiCyuT_blog.html

BIGatc, Obamacare is a set of regulations the health care providers have needed for a long time, not a government take over of the industry. Only people who can afford to buy health coverage and choose not to will be taxed. Those who have health coverage already or enroll in a policy will not be taxed. Subsidies will provide free health care to those living at or below the poverty line. From the poverty line on up payments will be computed on a sliding scale. You said you were okay with regulations so you should be okay with this.

Exactly Logic. In fact if i had a private plan i would drop it and pay the fine. Then when i got sick and could not be denied i would enroll until whatever treatment was done, then drop it. Thats what a lot of people that are teatering on the edge will do. I think they are vastly underestimating how much revenue will come in and in another unintended consequence the result will be much much higher premiums to make up for lower revenues. Thus driving more people to drop plans and just pay the much smaller fine and the problem will compound on itself resulting in sky high premiums. Not to mention the lack of revenue from people that simply cannot pay the fine/tax.

Buckeyeynut...I'm not saying anything about Citizens United or any other case. What I am pointing out is the obvious hypocrisy by those on the right who would point to liberal justices being "activist" when they interpret the constitution...look what happened to the justices in Iowa...The DOMA "Defense" of Marriage Act will most likely be taken up by the court in the fall with oral arguments in the spring. Without a doubt, if the justices overturn that law, right wing pundits will be calling it judicial activism because they say judges should give deference to acts of Congress. How is the logic any different with ACA which was also an act of Congress (whom the people elect). Yet when a district court in California and the 9th circuit overturn Prop 8 (a voter referendum) its once again judicial "activism." The bottom line....pundits call it judicial activism when they don't agree with the ruling and when it serves their purpose....the sad part is that its always the right wing that uses these terms.

Health care costs are too high? Well then, we'll mandate that people purchase healthcare insurance or else we'll charge them a tax...oh, excuse me...a penalty. We'll add millions of people who don't have insurance to the rolls and then use federal money to help subsidize their insurance.

Good point Wizard of Wisdom. It's funny that they think making people buy something is going to lower cost. If the government told everyone in the world they had to buy you or your neighbors product or be fined, would you then "lower" your cost? Of course not, they have to buy it, so you raise your cost because they will get taxed if they CHOOSE not to buy. These people are BRILLIANT.

Wade does someone that makes $9,500 a year sound like someone that can afford health insurance but chooses not to? Well by 2016 they will be fined/taxed $695 if they don't buy it under Obamacare. Then what? Read my scale i posted above on who pays a fine under what income level and tell me if you like that.

BigATC

You do know how profit is determined, right? I mean it is the piece left AFTER paying the bills. And MANY MANY MANY of those bills are SUPER fat salaries and even fatter bonuses,...

so cry me a river about 4%. Personally, I don't see how a single claim gets denied when there is ANY profit,...remember - Healthcare Insurance was originally a service and for the Blue Crosses of the world always intended to be a NON PROFIT model.

Of course that ship sailed decades ago. Amen, Wade, Tampa, AMEN!

LogicRequired (irony much?)

ACA is an effort to address a broken system. Republicans continue to want to slap their hands over their ears and yell "LALALALALALALALALALALA" as if there isn't and hasn't been a problem for decades.

crazy, right?

Wrong again ATC,...they will fall into supplemental coverage - but do continue - you know five years ago they were either showing up at the ER OR going untreated, right? You've BEEN paying for them,...this just implements some COMMON SENSE reforms and regulations. You know, those crazy things the Heritage Foundation SUPPORTED when they schemed this up in the early 90's right?

This health care reform act is going to be a disaster because that is what DEMOCRATS want it to be. They want it all to fall apart, prices going through the roof, companies dropping coverage in droves, and people screaming that can't afford the rising cost. Things will get so bad the GOVERNMENT will have no choice but to take over the system in Universal Health care. They get where they have been wanting to go along, but they just have to go about it in a deceitful way.

@Seeking Sanity the US is the proud owner of position # 17 in the official census of stupid countries with #1 being the most intelligent by education standards and we are in a constant decline, it wasn't that long ago when we were #3, Obama care is proof positive that America has more then its fair share of uneducated brain dead people, to watch people jump for joy at the prospect that they are going to be forced to buy what they cant afford boggles my mind, and there is no way out you buy or we take it from you, most conservatives have health care because they are mostly middle class and this will not effect the average conservative that much so why do they fight Obama care? they know its not affordable and it will break the nation, conservatives know something is needed but not this bill its to dangerous. the thing the pro Obama care people don't seam to realize is this bill is a forced expense on them, you would think that with its proposal to lower the health care cost it would be a benefit to the middle class unfortunately it will cause inflation like you have never seen before its not the concept of affordable health care that conservatives dislike its what the bill will do in the long term. and you might want to take a moment to ask yourself what drove up medical cost to begin with, once again Obama has hired the Fox to watch over the hen house. there are some good things in the bill but their is a lot of pork fat in it as well.

Only if, after 30+ years of failure, you still believe in supply-side (trickle-down, voodoo) economics. That would seem to indicate either wealth or extreme foolishness.

No I don't believe in supply-side or Keynesian economics. What I do believe is that deficits matter and as much as George W Bush was an economic disaster, Barack H Obama has been a full blown tsunami.

I neither have great wealth but I can see that this new health care law will raise the cost of what I already have, or eliminate it completely as it will cost less for my employer to pay the penalty rather than subsidize my family plan. So if you think throwing away a system that covered 85% of people in attempt to cover the other 15% is prudent then you are correct I am the foolish one.

So who is going to be 'taxed' because of Obamacare?The answer, according to Obama, is about 30 million people from the Middle Class who do not currently have health insurance but will be required to buy it now.

GOOD!! I'm tired of supporting these insurance welfare queens. Part of MY insurance costs goes to pay for those deadbeats who don't have insurance. So -- if they don't want to purchase insurance --- let them pay more in taxes.

For three decades we have conducted a massive economic experiment, testing a theory known as supply-side economics. The theory goes like this: Lower tax rates will encourage more investment, which in turn will mean more jobs and greater prosperity—so much so that tax revenues will go up, despite lower rates. The late Milton Friedman, the libertarian economist who wanted to shut down public parks because he considered them socialism, promoted this strategy. Ronald Reagan embraced Friedman’s ideas and made them into policy when he was elected president in 1980.

Ah yes, the old supply-side concept of economic policy. To all my Republican and conservative friends out there, I ask you: if low tax rates create jobs and prosperity, why is the middle class shrinking??? And don't tell me that it's because of the recession, because this shrinking has been going on for 30 years. While we all can admit that high tax rates (in excess of about 75%) can stifle growth, there is no justification to continually cut taxes and expect good things to happen each and every time. In my opinion, tax rates ought to go to Clinton levels, with the rate on the rich to go to about 45%.

JoeNY

William- Agreed that there were some big issues with the existing status of healthcare and insurance, however there were other ways of dealing with the issue than having the federal government set up a nationalized healthcare system. Here are two things that would have fundimentally changed insurance as we know it, but the government chose not to do:

Well, that is true, but then again these reforms would be difficult to put in place due to the rooted interests of the current healthcare system. The AMA has been opposed to numerous reforms from both Democrats and Republicans. And technically, one of the major problems of the private healthcare system is the high administrative costs; on average, 26 cents out of every dollar spend on private healthcare goes to administrative costs, while the government only spends about 4 cents out of every dollar. In addition, private insurers can raise premiums far more easily than governments, as private insurers do not have a democratic legislature.

1. All the purchase of health insurance across state lines. This was a HUGE propsect as it would throw all sorts of competition between local, regional, and national insurance companies to get volume. To them volume = money, so by getting another million subscribers equals huge bonus cash. It would have turned into a bidding war that would have worked in the subscriber's interests. We all would have saved in a competitive market.

Well, not necessarily. According to NPR, the Washington Post, and Kaiser Health News, doing that would have mixed results. While it would have increased competition, it would have met trouble because every states has different insurance regulations. People in a state that requires coverage of diabetes could buy cheaper insurance in another state that doesn't cover diabetes. It could potentially hurt consumers by inducing them to buy less comprehensive insurance plans due to lower costs. Not to mention the fact that, according to a 2005 CBO report, the feds would only save $12 billion from 2007 to 2015, or a savings of $1.5 billion a year. That is paltry compared to the trillions spent on healthcare today. In addition, the CBO projects that such a plan would actually increase costs for those with generally high medical expenses, while cutting costs for those with low expenses. Had there been a nationally-regulated insurance system, this would be an acceptable proposition. But due to the unbalanced regulatory policies of different states, it could open a whole new set of troubles for healthcare consumers.

2. Allow small businesses to bundle their insurances needs and be represented as a larger group of subscribers. If they had allowed small businesses to group together and create larger subscriber pools it would have saved them significant money because insurance carriers will cut better deals based on volume.

I do believe that that may be a component of the ACA, but I am not sure. It would help, no doubt about it, but I doubt it would make a significant contribution to lower costs.

Had they implemented these items, along with the existing condition clause, and we still would be getting ahead. Unfortunately our government chose to grab all of the power away from us and create yet another huge program that they already have projecting 1/3+ higer costs for than they calculated under two years ago.

Not really. The interstate purchasing would have negligible effects on healthcare costs, and I don't have enough info to talk about the bundling concept. But it is doubtful that costs would have gone down in a significant manner without more government regulation. And technically, the government is merely regulating the health insurance industry in a more active way, not taking complete control over it. And even though the program will cost more, it will still reduce the deficit by tens of billions of dollars over this decade.

They can't run Social Security, so why should we believe that they can run our healthcare coverage? They can't reform Social Security, so how can we believe that they are competent to make decisions regarding coverage? They can't tell seniors what medicines aren't covered under Part B coverage (it was supposed to be life sustaining, not including elective drugs) so how can they decide what is important under nationalized healthcare?

Well, the only problem with Social Security (beyond the fact that everyone has been dipping into the Trust Fund) is it's financial problems, which can be easily fixed with a number of small changes to the payroll tax and to the distribution of benefits. While the government has had it's issues with running programs, Social Security is, nonetheless, a successful story, as it has lifted millions of seniors out of poverty. The only thing blocking entitlement reform is the current gridlock in Washington (and the American people's indignation to pay higher tax rates or accept changes to how benefits are distributed). I would rather have the government managing my healthcare than a group of for-profit corporate executives who could choose to effectively deny me coverage just because it will marginally hurt their bottom line. In other words, I don't see how we should allow people to choose other people's fate based on profits, or how anyone should benefit financially from other people's health problems.

The real problems William will be in the installation of the program and the implications of the government controlling everyone's healthcare. Why do I say everyone's? That's because the implemenetation of the healthcare program is going to take about 6 years, but by the full implementation of nationalized healthcare you will see a series of growing taxes on you and your company that will directly impact you to the point where your company will most likely bump you from private to nationalized due to the costs.

I pretty much say to hell with private healthcare and go single-payer. Look at the rest of the world; the vast majority (around 70%) have some sort of universal healthcare. We barely do, even with the ACA. In my opinion, the best way to ensure healthcare to all Americans is to have the government control it. Most countries that have a government-controlled healthcare system have far lower costs than us, are more efficient, and live longer lives. I don't really care if it's socialism; we already have socialist healthcare and socialist civil protection; might as well throw healthcare into the mix. And we must all admit that the free market simply cannot work in healthcare. People don't know when they will be sick, and certainty is a big part of the free market system. In addition, the free market only allocates products to those who can afford them, not to those who need them. I'd much rather trust a "government bureaucrat" with my health than a for-profit corporate insurer.

Lastly, I think it's imporatant to understand that by making the federal government your arbitor for healthcare you are also making them your health arbitor. That is, they don't want you running to the doctor when the costs are passed on to them so they'll want/need to keep you from going in. How do they do that? Well, they'll want you keeping your BMI down, not eat too much salt, watch the drinking, exercise more, eat your veggies, cut out the smoking, etc. to keep you healthy. So goes the 20+ ounce sodas in NYC and no giving the homeless left over hotel food because it might be salty, so goes similar policy nationally.

Well, to be sure, putting incentives (or penalties, whatever is more efficient) to encourage healthy living is not in itself a bad thing. Even the Republicans want to offer incentives for doctors to encourage healthy living as a way to deal with expensive problems like diabetes and obesity. That, along with the bundling of healthcare services by small businesses, are among the few Republican ideas that I actually support. While I am not in favor of banning 24 oz. sodas, taxing them would be a good way to raise revenue to fight obesity while discouraging it simultaneously. In Japan, they tax people based on weight. That may not be the best way to go for America, offering incentives or giving penalties to encourage good behavior is something we must consider in order to reduce costs. We already offer deductions for having a mortgage, going to school, and having children; we might as well offer incentives for doctors to encourage healthy lifestyles for their patients, as a way to decrease the expensive costs of obesity and diabetes. Unless we are willing to see millions of Americans become overweight or obese, offering incentives for healthy lifestyles is something that we ought to consider. Frankly, the free market sometimes doesn't work; one of the times it fails is in healthcare. That is why government-run healthcare is such a viable, and in my own opinion, necessary option.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

I have read your post BIGatc, I reject your premise. 9600 dollars yearly is below the poverty line these days, way below the minimum wage at $4.62 dollars per hour. Anyone getting $4.62 will have their health care subsidized completely and will not have to pay a penny. Chances are anyone that poor is either eligible for medicare, and or medicaid.

seeking at 2.62 -- interestingly enough, not all Republicans are happy with the Citizens United ruling either. Many GOP congressional leaders are in favor of it being declared unconstitutional.

how will republicans or anyone one else declare the CU ruling to be unconstitutional?

D.Buck - yes, and the more the Republicans have their way, the lower this country will go. They don't want science taught in school because they don't believe in education. Mitt wants to cut the number of teachers and doesn't believe class size has an effect on education (and he's the best ya got????). The GOP is bringing the intelligence level of this country down daily, as you can see by the right wingers who post on this site. We can make it better and President Obama is working to do that. But, the GOP likes their voters stupid - it's the only way they can win!

Obama/Biden 2012

Clara KCMO,

Personally, I don't see how a single claim gets denied when there is ANY profit

Well here's a few things to help open your eyes:

1. Failing to note a pre-existing condition.

2. Attempting to file a claim for an illness or injury that is not covered under the health insurance policy.

These are usually the 2 primary reasons that health insurance companies do not legitimately recognize a claim for.

And by the way, if you want to talk about what health insurance was originally supposed to be...don't forget to include the fact that it was only supposed to be for emergencies or catastrophic illness or injury.

And yet everybody uses it for the simplest visit to the doctor. So cry me a river for all the people that bitch and moan about the cost of health insurance. You're the ones who helped make it this way.

Boo freakin hoo.

My math for the hourly pay of $9600 per year, $9600/52=$184.62 a week, rounded up to the nearest penny. $184.62/40=$4.62 per hour again rounded up to the nearest penny. If the person is working part time say at 20 hours a week, then the person is still below the poverty line at $9.24 dollars per hour.

Wizard, under Obamacare preexisting conditions will be a thing of the past, it will NOT even be legal to ask about them. Caps and exclusions will be history too.

Exactly Logic. In fact if i had a private plan i would drop it and pay the fine. Then when i got sick and could not be denied i would enroll until whatever treatment was done, then drop it.

Good luck with that plan when you are lying in a hospital bed in a comma. Further proof the right wing advocates the expectation that everyone else to pay for their stupidity vs. being accountable for their actions. We call people of you ilk - users. You are truly a disgusting pathetic lot.

IR... Your lead in post was very interesting, if not somewhat humorous...

1. Poor Americans do pay taxes.

LOL... Sure they do, just like anyone else when it comes to the myriad of non-federal income taxes and fees assesed on everyone. Why I bet the wealthy even pay a whole lot more of these taxes and fees compared to the average household above or below the poverty level. Apparently you think that when the numbers come up that 47 - 50% of people pay no federal income taxes you run about saying that that is untrue. Sorry to much data from the IRS says otherwise. Your citation on this argument is moot. BTW - less than 10% that makes up that 47-50% are considered wealthy.

2. The wealthiest Americans don’t carry the burden.

Guess you refuse to look at the IRS (Internal revenue service) supplied data that says otherwise. Golly The top 1% paid 36.73 % of the collected income taxes in 2009. All the other groups don't even come close. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

What is your measure of "burden" and how do you want it to be applied after being collected?

3. In fact, the wealthy are paying less taxes.

I refer you again to the link http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

seems that the IRS supplied data says that since tax year 2004 taxes paid by the 1% has been trending upwards. Want to argue it based on an effective tax rate then say that. It still doesn't change that the 1% still pay 36%+ of federal income taxes. Still not happy? Then why has obama and company refused to do anything about it other than talk?

4. Many of the very richest pay no current income taxes at all.

A rather weak point if they are not employed by someone paying them a wage. Interesting that obama and company refuse to engage the house or senate in changing the tax laws. Again all that campaign talk and no action. BTW - seems that the only change he wants is to increase taxes on the 2% without going for tax reform first.

5. And (surprise!) since Reagan, only the wealthy have gained significant income.

Try going back further than reagan and yes the disparity should be a cause of concern. Then again, how do you propose to change it? Tell zuckerberg, jobs family, buffet, soros, gates, laBron, jeter, tiger etc that they shouldn't be rewarded for their contributions?

6. When it comes to corporations, the story is much the same—less taxes.

And yet our business tax rates are the worlds highest. Again, other than campaign rhetoric why does obama and company refuse to engage in tax reform? We already know that obama wants to continue on with a policy of giving credits to businesses. must make him a republican right?

7. Some corporate tax breaks destroy jobs.

Really??? Care to elaborate? Perhaps they just open up new job opportunities. Seems that each recession brings about a change in skill sets. Technology even more so.

8. Republicans like taxes too.

You finally got one right, however it seems that the TEA party is trying to change that and that the republicans have looked more for reducing spending in one area and redirecting it elsewhere. Please spare us the fallacy that the right only wants to give more money only to the wealthy. Seems that they are looking at reducing taxes across the board. You know like the bush2 tax cuts did. Or like reagan and the democrat controlled house did in the tax reform act of 1986.

9. Other countries do it better.

Must be true, we are 18th in length of life, but #1 in healthcare spending and costs (ref bloombergTV last thursday).

We keep on spemding more $$$ on k-12 education yet have declined to a mid 20's ranking with the reast of the world. Yet, despite the high cost of our universtity education, foriegn nationals are willing to do whatever it takes to get that university education.

Yessir, even other countries have better immigration control than we do.

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

Looks like you shouldn't be supporting obama either as he likes the supply side/trickle down as well. The only difference is that obama wants to force it on a minority vs reagan and Oneil giving the choice voluntarily to all Americans. Think the tax reform act of 1986 didn't lead us to the tech boom of the 90's? Think again...

One could even say that one would be naive to say that any economic plan (theory) is a correct one, After all, each recession is different from past ones and to date no one has ever come up with a definitive way to predict them but methods have been shown to help with recoveries. Only the incompetent politicians screw it up by making the wrong choices. Three years of this is way beyond enough.

The only thing I expect to see rationed is elective surgery. Surgery strictly for vanities sake should never be paid for with public funds. Of course reconstructive surgery following disfiguring accidents, or fires, are legitimate.

seeking at 2.62 -- interestingly enough, not all Republicans are happy with the Citizens United ruling either. Many GOP congressional leaders are in favor of it being declared unconstitutional.

how will republicans or anyone one else declare the CU ruling to be unconstitutional?

BillyBob, I agree with you for once. You made a valid point this time.

So it has been a couple of hours yet not one liberal has been able to disclaim or argue against these facts...

1.) It will be cheaper for Companies to pay the penalty (tax) then continue to pay for health insurance, so many of you who don't think this will affect you will be surprised in a few years when your companies cost get to high and they dump you off to the Government plan. (Which is not 80% covered like your employer plan).

2.) Since the rich can afford whatever plan they want, and the poor get free healthcare, this will fall onto the middleclass who are already hurting

3.) This plan that was sold as being (deficit neutral) in cost has began to balloon out of control and is now deep in red ink and getting deeper.

4.) That this plan saves BIG CORPORATIONS BILLIONS once they dump their health care cost.

5.) Obama lied saying this is not a tax. They have audio of the lawyer defending this saying it was legal because it IS A TAX. You can't call this one thing one day and then change it to make it legal, then change it back. It is either Obama lied, or he passed something UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (So said the court, if it were not a tax it would be unconstitutional.)

Hey JoeNY,

I appreciate the intelligent response, while I don't have time to currently respond to it, I do agree with a lot of what you wrote. We needed healthcare reform, there's no way around that – We're simply spending too much of our GDP on it.

I don't see this as a perfect solution or even that great of a solution, but it is something that was long overdue. Healthcare needs to transcended party lines and all parties should be compromising and discussing ways to install something economically viable and fair. We need to look at ways that everyone can receive healthcare regardless of tax brackets or social status and do so without breaking the bank.

In short, I see doing something better than doing nothing. I just don't think healthcare should be one of those polarizing issues, its to important for our country.

thanks wade

red at 2.95 said -- Good luck with that plan when you are lying in a hospital bed in a comma. Further proof the right wing advocates the expectation that everyone else to pay for their stupidity vs. being accountable for their actions. We call people of you ilk - users. You are truly a disgusting pathetic lot.

amusing that you talk about someone in a hospital bed in a "comma" while at the same time using the word "stupidity" to describe those with whom you disagree.

maybe you could take it down a notch.

Wizard of Wisdom - not showing much Wisdom there are ya? See, if you had read the post I was referring to you would have seen I was using the exact same words that person used in my rebuttal. So, it appears you don't really have a problem with someone being foul-mouthed as long as they're on your side. Can we say hypocrite?

Obama/Biden 2012

BIGatc, you aren't entirely wrong, when people can't afford to pay the full amount of their premiums, the sliding scale starts at 2 percent of a persons income and then runs all the way up to $695 for the bracket of $9,600 to 30,000. It means that a person who earns $9,600 would be taxed at the most $192 for the year if they are really subject to the tax. That equals $16 dollars for the month, not $57.92.

Logic - (and I use the term loosely), no Liberals are refuting your claims as your entire argument is speculative, and there is no refutation necessary for a fallacious argument.

Learn to argue and then you see responses. Problem is, once you learn to think critically, you won't be regurgitating RW rhetoric any more. You're stuck there buddy, your choice!

Oh but wait, you're not pro-choice, I'm sure.

SeekingSanity @ 2.62: Boy you really showed me. Bet you drove you siblings mad by repeating what they said over and over again. At least you are aware that you haven't found your sanity yet. Ooooo, see how that works.

ROMNEY 2012!

Wade - Glad to see another sane person coming from Florida.

OBAMA 2012!!

By not doing anything about the PPACA the states can save money by not creating an insurance board and saving their citizens and businesses taxes which are only charged if the states set up the exchange. They can also by not doing anything not expand medicare coverage putting more people on the insurance exchanges as subsidized plans. And by not doing anything push the money for it back on the federal government. I see a lot of doing nothing coming from the statehouses.

Wade the bottom bracket doesn't go to 30,000 it goes $9.6k - 37k. I have heard on CNN and have seen on 3 business sites (businessinsider.com and economicpolicyjournal.com are 2 can't remember the third) and what i heard and read 3 times is the $695 tax is a MINIMUM for the bottom bracket. That starts in 2016 and begins in 2014 at $95 and goes up to $695.

The formula you mentioned STARTS if you make above 37k and it is 2.5% of your income above that. But it will never exceed 3 times that for a family regardless of size.

If these 4 sources are incorrect or not complete please point me to where i can find it.

Another little goody i discovered today is that if you sell your home after 2012 you have to pay a 3.8% tax for Obamacare. If you sell your home for 200K and break even you still owe $7,600 for Obamacare. It's not on profit, but sales price.

Anyone buying a wheelchair, walker, knee replacement, heart stent ..... get ready to kick in another 2.9% tax to Obamacare.

New branded drugs .... another 2.9% to Obamacare.

Medicare premiums for SS recipients ... 104 now, 120 in 2013 and 247 in 2014.

But i'm sure the low and middle class doesn't sell homes buy wheel chairs or use Medicare so it won't effect them.

Lonereb you are correct and when the states don't set them up so there is no funding alloted from the feds to do it. Which means more tax dollars and china dollars. This thing is going to be a heck of a mess just to get it set up. The states don't have the money for it.

CNN is no better than FOX news BIGatc. It actually said the Supreme court overturned Obamacare. O'bama actually believed the CNN report for a while. I repeat people at or below the poverty levels in this country will NOT be charged exorbitant fees they cannot afford for access to health care.

You make some valid points, but some of your claims about how health care reform will be administered are TOO good to be true from the point of view of a modern GOP determined to scuttle Obamacare. When something is too good to be true it probably is not true. If your source is CNN, CNN has been wrong before. I take what you have said in #2.109 with a great deal of salt. If you can find the same information in ALL the major news sources, and post links to them, then I will reconsider your premise. For the time being based on all your posts to date, I STILL reject your premise.

I know you are not going to accept my premise even after I have done the math and thought out the problem. I'm not even going to try to convince you I'm right about Obamacare. It seems though you are determined to convince me in this. You aren't even close BIGatc.

I would have posted more yesterday except I had to get my system ready for windows 7 home premium. I completed the clean install 2 hours ago.

Always good for the clean installs, most everything i touch on a computer ends up badly :-)

Wade i would rather have your premise that no one in that 9,500+ income would be fined/taxed or whatever one calls it. That is way too low of an income not to be exempt.

I'm not trying to convince you of a premise, thats just copied verbatim from businessinsider.com. They said the taxes are X and i reposted here. I also found the EXACT same thing in economicpolicyjournal.com and heard the same thing on CNN. I would never solely rely on any network as a sole source for anything, just that i heard the same thing there i have read in other places.

Those are business driven media, not political. If you reject what i say you are rejecting their written articles that all say the same thing. Google "Obamacare taxes" and that should take you to businessinsider.com. If you choose not to believe what they and others write that is fine. But it says MINIMUM tax and lists $695 by 2016. And it lists the minimum income for the tax/fine at $9,500. And that sucks.

I don't like it for the fact that people in that tax bracket of making 10k have no business of being taxed one dime, for doing basically nothing. I help a 24 yr old single mom with 2 kids locally that falls into that category, i'm guessing she makes around 18k. If needed she would use state Medicaid, thats what its there for. I have to help her with groceries on occasion and in no way can she spend 3k or so on insurance. Also in no way can she scrape up an extra $695 for a fine/tax or whatever you want to call it. She was at my house looking at this on the computer for an hour or so investigating this and literally started crying. Not being able to stand a woman crying i had to tell her i would pay it for her. DOH :-) I try to find additional exemptions or something that says its wrong, or that i'm reading it wrong, but so far have been unable. Well i did tell her if she became Amish or a Menanite she would be exempt but no go. Lol

By year the minumums are $95/1% for 2014. $325/2% for 2015. $695/2.5% for 2016. Double the minimums for a 2 adult home, but percentages are the same.

Flexible Spending Accounts capped now at $2500 when there was no previous cap starts in 2013 and on p2388-2389 in Bill

Elimination of using HSA, FSA for over the counter meds started 2011 p1957-1959 I've already been denied from using my FSA.

Medical deductions start at 10k instead of 7.5k start in 2013 p1994-1995

Penalty on Health Savings Accounts withdrawals doubling from 10 to 20% started in 2011 on p1959

40% tax on employer contributions on "cadillac" plans start in 2018 p1941-1956

Drug company innovation tax started in 2010 p1971-1980

Medical Device tax of 2.3% (passed to us) starts 2013 p1980-1986

Excise tax of 50k on charitable hospitals that don't comply with HHS started 2010 p1961

Blue Cross Blue Shield tax started 2010 p2004

Elimination of employer provded prescription deduction for Medicare part D starts 2013 p1994

Some i found and that was like taking another algebra class. Yikes. PDF pages don't match Bill pages and i don't ever want to look at that again. :-)

Another on page 425 i believe, didn't write it down, has the end of life counseling requirements every 5 years for someone on Medicare and more often if you are sick or in a nursing home. Not sure who picks up the tab for the millions of counseling sessions every year. I can see them making my dad go to one of these. Typical stubborn older gentleman that will probably tell whomever is counseling him to go 'F themselves. LOL

It sounds like this is from the affordable care act itself. Now if you can find text in the act, and post the page numbers, that supports people being penalized when they are at or below the poverty level, I will have to reevaluate my position. Of course I am going to have to read it myself to accept it. Through out this entire debate you have been civil, BIGatc.

I have an analogy that might explain to some why taxing only those who can afford to buy health coverage but refuse can finance the health care of those who want coverage but cannot afford it. I don't expect everyone to accept the premise of my analogy.

There is a mythical country in the world that has every citizens needs covered but clothing, of the 300 million 30 million have to do without. There are shops that distribute clothing to all regardless of their ability to pay. This situation has been going on since the country was founded. At first the costs of clothing everyone were manageable even though some wore little more than flour sacks. Now this has been going on for so long the economy is on the brink of a cliff, and there are millions no access to winter clothes whether or not they want them. What do the clothing distributors do? They pass the increased costs on to those who can afford to pay of course.

Now everything is coming to a head and laws have been passed to require that everyone buy policies that will ensure they can buy warm clothes for the coming winter. Those who refuse but can afford the policies will be charged a tax. Those who cannot but want to will have their policies subsidized.

Enter the conservative nay Sayers who have been against this all along. This is not the governments responsibility. This is Socialism, one step away from Communism. This is against our constitution, even the grand high court ruled it constitutional days ago.

The nay Sayers have over looked something very important here. When 99 percent of the populace chooses means to pay for their cloths the costs of distributing clothing to those who refuse the policies, plummet down to manageable levels very quickly. A targeted tax is able to meet the needs of those who refuse to pay for their clothes, as well as those who want clothes but truly cannot afford them.

Replace clothing with health care coverage and the analogy still holds. The net effect of health care reform will be to lower the backlog of unpaid care in emergency rooms. This reduces the need to pass the care of the uninsured on to the insured. The net effect of this will mean LOWER bills for us all. Those who would rather take the tax than pay for health care policies will not only pay enough for their own care, there will be a surplus large enough to cover those below the poverty line who want coverage.

I try to always be civil Wade and i never call people names. Kind of amusing to see the same people calling people names when i do come here.

The analysis you give sounds like a perfect world scenario, which this is not. It's like the perfect business plan, or war stategy, or boxing strategy ..... it all sounds good til you get hit in the mouth. In your scenario, what if the people that refuse to buy your policy also refuse to pay the tax?

To start with you have to assume that the above program you mention would be run efficiently. Bill Gates or the Waltons could probably do it efficiently but i can assure you our federal government is anything but efficient. In addition to having a couple of LLC's now i have been employed by the federal govt for 21 years in 3 different agencies and i can tell you with 100% certainty it will have cost overruns, fraud and extreme mismanagement. I could sit down with you and fill up a weekend with story after story of HUGE amounts of money thrown right down the toilet. It's really sad. Govt is exactly like JPMorgan now, too big to manage.

The entitlements they run now are costing 6 times original estimates, Amtrak and the Post office are hemoraging money, not 1 thing the govt does efficiently and people believe now will be different?

CBO has the cost estimate almost DOUBLING already and we haven't really got started yet. According to CBO any savings for the first decade are gone and we are in the hole already.

A lot of states will opt out of the insurance exchanges. No money for it. The total amount the govt has funded to come in and do this behind them is ....ZERO. They won't be able to get this thing going anywhere near a timely manner. I can't fathom all the new beurocracies and agencies they will set up. Who will do all the continous end of life counseling, probably millions per year, and who will pay for it? Say 2 million/yr billed at $75/hr is $150 mil a year. Then you have the massive paperwork and administrative network that goes with it and that is just one tiny tiny part of this thing.

Then consider the people that are borderline check to check. Knowing they can't be denied how many people do you think will just pay the fine and not enroll unless they are sick? We won't know for sure but i would guess a lot. A lot of people won't pay the fine out of protest. A lot won't pay, as my friend above, simply because they can't.

We actually have a real life example to look at .. Massachusetts. One of the big things i heard at first on ACA was cutting down on ER visits. An uninteded consequence there that i would have never thought of was ER visits actually went UP. Reason being wait times are so long there (longest in the country) to get into a doctor people are going to the ER, even the ones WITH INSURANCE. Which further drives up cost as ER visits are MUCH more expensive. The same exact thing will happen across the country. The cost to implement Romneycare as a percentage of their budget has went up EVERY YEAR while the % of the budget for other day to day operations has went down every year. I don't remember all the stats but having looked at Romneycare numbers once they weren't pretty. Remember that what are guarenteeing is health insurance, not health care.

I am cycnical as i have dealt with the feds day in and out for over 2 decades and it just makes me laugh when i hear people want to send this beast more money and put it in charge of more stuff. People that don't deal with it every day don't realize how wasteful it is. What you hear on the news is the very tip of the iceberg. So when i hear someone want to turn over 1/6 of the economy to the feds it just makes me cringe.

Out of curiosity i looked up the number of Medicare recipients as of 2010 .... 47.5 million. The end of life counseling that will be REQUIRED under Obamacare (p 425) is a minimum of every 5 years. If you are sick or in a nursing home they want it done more often. Sounds kinda creepy to me.

Assume all those are divided equally over the 5 years and there is 9.5 million per year to be counseled. A trained professional would probably get $75 an hour. Thats $712, 500,000. Knowing the govt they would have to rent out a huge builing for this and all the ancillary costs just on this small part will probably cost a Billion per year or more. Do we as taxpayers pay this or does grandma?

So you gotta ask yourself, what is the govt trying to accomplish here?

The states can opt out of medicaid expansion BigATC, but they CANNOT stop the exchanges from moving forward. All state governors can do is drag their feet like Rick Scott is do is refuse to set up the exchanges, at which point the federal government will do it for Rick Scott. The exchanges are coming, GOP governors can set them up or watch it be done. It is going happen. So by no later then 2014 there will be exchanges in all 50 states unless the GOP can over turn Obamacare. Exchanges, high risk pools, it's all coming. the GOP has three choices, try to repeal Obamacare, suggest improvements, or get out of the way.

I have some skin in the game here, I am on medicare because of my disability, that doesn't mean I want to stay on disability. I want control over my health care I WILL not have if the GOP repeals health care reform as currently passed, and I return to the work force after I get all my degrees. I don't care what business has to say about health care. I was born in a military family, I spent my childhood not having worry about crushing medical bills, or the high cost of insurance.

To me the system is BROKEN and trusting private health care providers to do the right thing without government oversight is simply NOT an option. I went without any health care insurance for 4 years, not because I didn't want the coverage, but because NO ONE would cover me. Unless you can show me in the act that the poor will be taxed, I will continue to operate on the assumption that the tax as proposed in my analogy will work. Let's suppose it does work even better then I predict, and every body who can does get insurance eventually. Health care costs will be so low, the premiums will be with everyone's price range even at the very bottom, or maybe we won't even need insurance. It will NOT happen until the cycle that put the country into this position is interrupted.

Don't let end of life care scare you, BigATC, it's not about "death panels" as some claim it's about making life as comfortable as possible for the dying, not hastening their death because they are old.

I want to address other points you made BigATC, will there be fraud? Yes, knowing human nature fraud is going to happen. I would be off base if I thought the implementation will be as smooth as silk. Setting up the infrastructure that will make Obamacare a reality is going to cost tax payer money. More money then the routine operation will involve.

What is the alternative, doing nothing, implementing tort reform, and selling policies across state lines as today's GOP wants, will not address the fundamental problem, health care providers are acting like a huge conglomerate monopoly, there is no real competition among them unless it's a race to the bottom. Each wants to do as little as possible for their clients. They as a rule only want to insure healthy people. If the GOP gets it's way about dismantling medicare via vouchers for all but the current recipients over over 55, it will increase the number of people at risk of losing affordable health care coverage.

Is these policies really anything to defend? No they aren't. The last time reform was fought this hard was when civil rights legislation was fought by democrats who later defected to the GOP. Must history repeat itself over what is a civil rights issue? The preamble to the Constitution, stressing the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, makes this a civil rights issue to end all civil rights issues. By comparison all the GOP arguments against their on ideas ring very hollow.

A Pig in A Poke:

This idiom originated in the late Middle Ages when meat was scarce, but cats and dogs were plentiful. Unscrupulous business men would slip in a cat or dog in the poke (bag) seal it, and the undiscerning customer would buy it without checking the contents of the poke. The phrase can also be applied to accepting an idea without knowing its true nature.

And so it is with Willard Romney. We know he is against everything Obama says or does, but it's almost impossible to know what he is for. He never did tell us if he supports the Lily Ledbetter Act as we are still waiting for him to get back to us on that.

We still have not seen his latest tax returns. Willard's daddy released ten years of tax returns, but Mitt is not interested in releasing his returns.

Weeks have passed and he still refuses to say if he would overturn President Obama's executive order to allow alien youth to stay in this country.

He does not want to talk about his Mormon religion.

Mitt does not want to talk about his fortune hidden in Swiss bank accounts or money hiding in the Cayman Islands.

He has no defense that while at Bain Capital he "offshored" thousands of jobs to China.

He has been vague on what government jobs he would cut, fearing that most voters would disapprove of his cuts.

In short, we don't know a lot about Willard Romney because he doesn't want to tell us who he is or what he believes. Mitt Romney is inside the GOP poke and voters should examine that poke very carefully. You might be expecting some good ol' ham and bacon, but instead find a rich Wall Street fat cat.

Sorry for the double post. FR was acting strange this morning.

Ron, as an independent I can understand your point. But what you post (anti-Romney stuff) should also have the opposition (POTUS) posted too. Just like comparing software for example. List items on the left column, Romney and POTUS on the next two columns. Then check each one or Yes/No, etc. Then I make my decision as to who I support.

Maybe, I am really not an independent but a pramatist. In each of your statements about Romney above, the converse can be stated for Obama. My point it to rationally think through all the BS coming at us. For any argument to gain validity, both sides have to be heard. Yours is not objective. Be objective and you will gain much more credibility with readers.

I can't argue with what you've stated. That is not my point. But at the same time, I can easily find the same visceral statements listed for Romney on Obama. And when someone states something, acts, or opines, it needs to be taken in context as to the time (days, years ago) and the circumstances at the time. Although it does provide to a large degree a predictive pattern but not necessarily who they are today.

Try this if you don't get my point. Rewrite you last paragraph using Obama. Sure, some of the items don't relate, just substitute the salient points from Obama's past and present. For me, I'm waiting for debates to determine who I vote for. Too much can change in this fast paced world before we actually vote.

Or think of this way using a sport example. There are many that hate A-Rod of the Yankees but there is no denying that he is one heck of a ballplayer without or with the help roids (which he didn't need, just inflated the stats for that period). Point being, recognize he's a great player but not someone I admire. Just because I don't admire him does not in anyway take away from his skill at his sport.

Seeking Sanity

Beverly - I believe if you "fact check" the entire GOP they will be shown up as idiots.

Seeking Sanity

We just can't say it enough it seems because they somehow just don't get it!!!

@Morgs74

No Ron, FR was not acting strange. You were just caught again trying to get the first post but the other squaters beat you to it. You guys are a riot.

On the contrary, you guys are a riot.

Meanwhile, a majority of Republicans actually like all of the provisions in the law except for the mandate (which they invented). So it wouldn’t even really be a war over the law — it would be a war over a small section of the law. I doubt they could muster an army with the rallying cry: “We will fight Obamacare! Not all of it, though! Just the mandate part! We hate that part! The rest is okay! Death to Obamacare, anyways! To arms!”

Not that I’m taking the civil war threat too seriously, but I’d like to note here that an actual rebellion would utterly fail. We’re supposed to believe that a few ignorant yokels (who previously supported the mandate, but who suddenly hate it) are going to enter a hot war against the government and the most powerful military in the history of the world and actually win? Over healthcare? [Hilarious and tragic].

http://thedailybanter.com/2012/07/armed-rebellion-over-healthcare-good-luck/

Guys like you are still stuck on STUPID after nearly 200 yrs. Give it up the South lost. Psst..we are now known as the United States of America; not the ante-bellum South.

The problem facing the Republican party is that while we know what they are against (improving America, supporting the average US citizen, anything President Obama supports) we do not know what they are in favor of, other than tax cuts for the wealthy.

Since tax cuts for the wealthy have been proven to destroy the country, where does that leave the GOP?

Janice Janey - The First Read comments have been degenerating to a lower and lower level as the election grows nearer. I fear you won't see an objective comment from either side here. You might as well move on.

Meanwhile Romney flip flops on every subject. When Romney was chosen to be the nominee for repubs finally, a repub politician was asked if he was going to support Romney. The guy replied that everyone should like Romney because he has been on both sides of every issue one time or another!

Romney has a long term plan alright...and that plan is not to have a plan, and to not talk about his plan of not having a plan, because every plan that Romney planned, was not the plan, that he previously had planned. The plans he did have were also the plans he did not have before he said they are his plans. The plans he didn't have were the plans he said he had when he needed to have plans because he had no plans.

Prresident Obama/Biden 2012....you can plan on that!

A fact is a fact, it does not matter who starts Afforadable Health Care. Romney or Obama or anybody else. One is going to have to pay something somewhere. The Questions How Much and at What Cost. It's going to boil down to about $16 a week. The question now is What Cost. What path of Insanity of Destruction are YOU going to send this country down. It really doesn't matter who the president is there is nothing there for him to work with. With the EU going again things will pick up here again. It will only rise just so much so fast. We still have over a year left to go this recession. Going to war is a poor excuse to get the economy going. I can wait.

Beverly in Chicago

a hot war against the government and the most powerful military in the history of the world and actually win? Over healthcare? [Hilarious and tragic].

Saying this twice doesn't make it true. It is a well known fact that our Federal government is not allowed to turn our own military against we the people. And even if they attempted it how many U.S. military people would be willing to kill the people they swore to protect?

Yeah I kinda figured you wouldn't say anything, you should consider AA

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows President Obama attracting 45% of the vote, while Mitt Romney earns 45%. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

Today’s results are the same as they were just before the Supreme Court ruled on the health care law.

However, intensity is up among conservatives. On Thursday morning, 43% of conservative voters were following the presidential race on a daily basis. That’s up to 51% today. It remains to be seen whether this is a lasting change, statistical noise, or a temporary response to the health care ruling.

Just 28% of moderates and 31% of liberals are following the race that closely. Those numbers are little changed since the Supreme Court ruling. Interest in a campaign is typically a good early indicator of voter turnout.

Ratings for the Supreme Court have slipped since the health care ruling. A week ago, 36% said the high court was doing a good or an excellent job. That’s down to 33% today. However, the big change is a rise in negative perceptions. Today, 28% say the court is doing a poor job. That’s up 11 points over the past week.

By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans are more worried about a government that is too powerful rather than one that is too weak.

Check out our review of last week’s key polls to see “What They Told Us.”

(Presidential Job Approval Data Below)

A president’s Job Approval rating is one of the best indicators for assessing his chances of reelection. Typically, the president’s Job Approval rating on Election Day will be close to the share of the vote he receives. Currently, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's job performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) at least somewhat disapprove (see trends).

Just 30% of Americans now believe the country is better off than it was four years ago. On a more personal basis, 33% currently rate their own finances as good or excellent. That’s down from 37% four years ago today and from 41% on July 1, 2004. On the day President Obama took office, 35% rated their finances as good or excellent.

In his latest weekly syndicated newspaper column, Scott Rasmussen argues that the Supreme Court kept the health care law on life support. “It's important to remember that the law has already lost in the court of public opinion," he writes. "The Supreme Court ruling is a temporary reprieve more than anything else.”

Looking to the Electoral College swing states, Obama leads in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Romney leads in North Carolina and Missouri. The race is a toss-up in Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Colorado.

Intensity of support or opposition can have an impact on campaigns. Currently, 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15 (see trends).

During midterm elections, intensity of support can have a tremendous impact on turnout. That was demonstrated in 2010 when Republicans and unaffiliated voters turned out in large numbers to express opposition to the Obama administration’s policies. However, in presidential election years, there is a smaller impact on turnout.

To get a sense of longer-term Job Approval trends for the president, Rasmussen Reports also compiles our tracking data on a full month-by-month basis.

(More below)

Rasmussen Reports is a media company whose work is followed by millions on a wide variety of platforms. We regularly release our results at RasmussenReports.com, through a daily email newsletter, a nationally syndicated radio news service, an online video service and a weekly newspaper column distributed by Creators Syndicate. A nationally syndicated TV show--What America Thinks --is scheduled for launch in September 2012.

Our firm has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology). Pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have cited our "unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy."

During Election 2008, Rasmussen Reports projected that Barack Obama would defeat John McCain by a 52% to 46% margin. Obama was 53% to 46%. In 2004, Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project the vote totals for both candidates within half a percentage point. Learn more about the Rasmussen Reports track record over the years.

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Platinum Members.

Like all organizations that conduct public opinion polls, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. Obama's numbers are almost always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the president's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote.

Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 35.7% Republicans, 33.4% Democrats, and 30.8% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly larger advantage for the Republicans.

Rasmussen! HYSTERICAL! Whatever helps you sleep at night, Ben.

Rasmussen! HYSTERICAL! Whatever helps you sleep at night, Ben.

NDD,

You notice how hard these nitwits cling to this single poll?

Almost like another version of their right wing bible?

There are hundreds of polls available - any reason in particular they hug only this one? lol

They have to Feisty, what else have they got.

But Ben is really entertaining today.

Only in the imagination of the very weak, Ben.

I will stick with my research results. For example in the 2008, I only missed one state in my winner loser prediction.

So who are the "free riders" (interpret and defined as "freeloaders") that the left talking points hit the news show with this weekend???? Who are they and how dare anyone call those who can't afford health care freeloaders?????

@job1 -- even a blind squirrel finds an acorn on occasion. LMAO.

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

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

But Dennis why is the left so opposed to freeloading in this area and a major supporter of freeloading when it comes to jobs????? The hypocrisy is so loud and evident it is deafening.

I think the question should be if the liar in chief didn't want tax increases on the middle class and a massive one to boot on those making less than $120k why did he put it in this monstrosity that the majority of Americans want repealed????

dennis -- if it is that simple why are there 30 million uninsured?

Yes, many folks have money for their guns, cigarettes, 12 packs and big screen TV, however no money to pay their hospital bills, because they say they don't want the black guy telling them what to do. And God forbid then from paying one additional dime in taxes.

A while back, I had a discussion with a 50 year old who hates President Obama and the Health Care Reform act, along with hatred of all progressive ideas. This fellow said “no way is hell would he let anyone force him to buy health insurance. “ So, my question to him was if he had a major accident or illness, that lets say cost $100,000 or more, what would he do? His answer, “go to the ER.”

Of course with additional questions of how he would you pay for this, his answer was to pay $20.00 a month. Of course my response was $20.00 a month was not going to satisfy the hospital or ever going to pay the bill. I went on to point out that such as a plan of action on his part flies in the face of what his far right friends believe in, and that he would be considered one of the dead beats he and his far right friends accuse the progressives of doing.

billy bob,

If you don’t know the answer to your question
then you clearly have not followed or understand the issue

Again Ben believes that if he just posts LOTS of stupidity it makes him look like he knows what he's talking about. Ben, it just makes you look more desperate and foolish. And, Rasmussen? Really - that's what you're hanging your hat on?

PLEASE!!!!!

Obama/Biden 2012

So who are the "free riders" (interpret and defined as "freeloaders") that the left talking points hit the news show with this weekend?

This should keep Ben busy for a while ..

Ben, what is the difference between unwillingly insured vs. those that are willfully uninsured? Hint, freeloader applies to only one of those options. Now go spin for a while - and good news for you - you have a 50/50 chance of getting 'freeloader' applied correctly.

dennis -- then do me a favor and answer the question that was asked.

dennis -- then do me a favor and answer the question that was asked.

Never ceases to amaze me that the conservative little crybabies on this site are not only opinionated on topics they know nothing about, but then ask you to do all the research, spell it out for them, and then ask for a proper conclusion. No wonder they watch Fox News - they need propaganda to make up for for what their lazy asses refuse to do on their own.

But oh yeah the left aholes don't like to be accurate or deal with facts.

They're still only numbers Ben, and they won't mean anything until November 6th. In football there's a saying, "You can talk trash Monday through Saturday, but you still have to show up and play the game on Sunday." You may interpret the numbers as meaning that Mitt has a chance at winning, but Mitt must still work to earn the votes and with the election still four months away, anything can happen.

billybob,

30 million Americans are still uninsured because ACA hasn't been fully implemented yet. Starting next year more people will be able to buy insurance at low or no cost thanks to subsidies provided by the ACA. Mitt Romney was for the mandate in Massachusetts and imposed a tax penalty on those who did not buy insurance. Only 1% of people have had to pay the penalty in Massachusetts because 99% of the people are covered and the same will be true nation wide.

Republican liars keep saying "biggest tax increase on the middle class in American history" when they are quite aware that almost nobody will have to pay it.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Rasmussen! HYSTERICAL! Whatever helps you sleep at night, Ben.

Correction: FOX-MUSSEN polls

Bev,

The sad part is how few of them actually know just how conservative Rasmussen Reports is (of course, they also think Fox News is "fair and balanced") It's no wonder multiple studies confirm that Fox News viewers are less informed on current events than those who watch no news at all.

I would add that of the 30 million not covered yet - because ACA isn't fully implemented until 2014 - there are about 11 million will never be covered under the act, illegal immigrants. You have to be an American citizen to be covered.

agree: independents not liberal ideologs will decide the next election. The main problem continues to be this anemic economy. Show me how Obamacare will improve our economy and not add to our current debt crises? And where does it specify you need to be a citizen?

What? 50% plus 1 of the BASE is following the election?

That sure sounds like a lack of enthusiasm to me,...

Good Luck, Tighty Righties - I no thinky you prevail. And if Rasmussen is predicting it THIS far out - well,...we know that will be adjusted downward once relevancy kicks in:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#polls

Rasmussen was ALL over the map on their summer predictions,...The first week of August they showed McCain up,...Ras is only 'accurate' when they are done whipping up the speculation and they settle in to their reputation - which doesn't appear to happen until sometime in October.

Cal20, rtfm. Seriously, go READ the legislation. It specifies that you must be a legal resident to be covered by the ACA.

Virginia Democrat, you stated that uninsured people will be able to purchase low cost insurance thanks to subsidies provided by the ACA. Please tell me who you think will be paying those subsidies? If you answer "the government" you are a winner. Now answer this: Where does the government get the money to pay for anything? If you answered "middle class tax payers" you win again. Do you see how easy it is to apply common sense to anything instead of burying your head in the sand and saying the government will handle it?

TO Feisty

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL Ignoring author

Rasmussen! HYSTERICAL! Whatever helps you sleep at night, Ben.

NDD,

You notice how hard these nitwits cling to this single poll?

Almost like another version of their right wing bible?

There are hundreds of polls available - any reason in particular they hug only this one? lol

The reason is historically Rasmussen has been more accurate than all other polls.

I hope that President Obama can spin the largest tax increase in America history to his advantage. Since he was the one the extended the Bush tax cuts I think that he now owns those as well. So that will mean that there will be the largest and second largest tax increases in History hitting at the same time.

Thanks to the tax and spend liberals that support President Obama and his agenda.

ABO '12

virginia -- thanks for the response. if virtually no one will be paying the tax penalty then where is the funding coming from to cover the projected $1.7T cost?

monkey -- above you said "Cal20, rtfm. Seriously, go READ the legislation. It specifies that you must be a legal resident to be covered by the ACA."

That is good but can healthcare providers legally ask about a person's immigration status? If not what is to stop illegal aliens from receiving ACA benefits?

Virginia , and the CBO says the cost of this law is now going to cost taxpayers 1.7 trillion, another great legacy to leave our children, , please look across the pond to see how well gov. health care works which is a major factor in these countries facing their financial melt down. Yes we need some changes as cost have gone up, and I think there are some ideas on how to accomplish this, repeal Obamacare, Romney 2012

Hey Ben -- I've got some poll numbers for you --- even Fox has Obama winning. Take a look.

RCP Average
6/4 - 7/1
--
--
47.4
44.0
Obama +3.4

Rasmussen Tracking
6/29 - 7/1
1500 LV
3.0
44
46
Romney +2

Newsweek/Daily Beast
6/28 - 6/28
600 LV
4.0
47
44
Obama +3

Gallup Tracking
6/24 - 6/30
3050 RV
2.0
47
44
Obama +3

Democracy Corps (D)
6/23 - 6/27
1000 LV
3.1
49
46
Obama +3

FOX News
6/24 - 6/26
912 RV
3.0
45
40
Obama +5

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl
6/20 - 6/24
819 RV
3.4
47
44
Obama +3

Bloomberg
6/15 - 6/18
734 LV
3.6
53
40
Obama +13

Associated Press/GfK
6/14 - 6/18
878 RV
4.2
47
44
Obama +3

Pew Research
6/7 - 6/17
1563 RV
2.9
50
46
Obama +4

Ben-636050

But Dennis why is the left so opposed to freeloading in this area and a major supporter of freeloading when it comes to jobs????? The hypocrisy is so loud and evident it is deafening.

I'm going to assume that you are talking about welfare. Well, ben, I would say that we liberals don't like to castigate people who take welfare as "freeloaders" or "lazy bums." We simply view them as people down on their luck who need help. Sure, some are freeloaders, but most need the money. Let me ask you a question: would you rather see the millions of unemployed people stay financially afloat with food stamps and unemployment insurance due to the economic troubles that persist, or would you rather see them swamping the streets and acting as beggars and paupers????

John I-1511587

Virginia , and the CBO says the cost of this law is now going to cost taxpayers 1.7 trillion, another great legacy to leave our children, , please look across the pond to see how well gov. health care works which is a major factor in these countries facing their financial melt down. Yes we need some changes as cost have gone up, and I think there are some ideas on how to accomplish this, repeal Obamacare, Romney 2012

Well, actually the CBO says that while the ACA increases spending by $1.7 trillion, it will reduce the deficits by roughly $200 billion. And healthcare (and the social welfare state itself) is NOT the reason why many countries are facing financial meltdown; it is mainly because of the recession. Spain and Ireland had low debt and surpluses before the financial recession, but soon had higher debts and deficits after bailing out their banks and seeing unemployment increase dramatically.

Damn, I am so tired of hearing bad news, from Europe to China to Washington. The stupid leaders in Europe can't get their heads out the damn sand to fix their fiscal problems over the long-term while focusing on short-term stimulus and attempts to create a tighter fiscal union. In Washington, our leaders cannot agree on anything; they even passed up a bill that would have created at least 1.3 million jobs and had $200 billion in tax cuts just because it was funded by a tax increase on millionaires, which a majority of Americans support. My friends, it seems like the Republican plan of obstruction is working. With Congress dysfunctional thanks to Republican stubbornness, we will never get anything done until after the election. The problem is, how the election will turn out. Will we see Obama re-elected, and have hopes that the GOP will try to compromise in order to get things done??? Or will we have Romney elected, and will he stick to the hard-right ideology that he has adopted in the primary??? If he does, or if the Republicans force Romney to go into premature austerity, God help us all.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Senator Paul like the other republicans whining this week are hypocrits disguised as elephants. I could say what Senator Paul said only apply it to Citizens United, "just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so." Too bad, Senator Paul, but Chief Justice John Roberts did the right and moral thing; he also did his job which is to find the constitutionality of any laws passed.

jody -- and your high regard for Justice Roberts is universal? He is indeed a true unbiased Justice? When his court rules on things, whether you like or dislike, he has your respect? That is very refreshing. if only our President was as respectful to the court as you seem to be.