E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSPenalty-vs.-tax episode exposes Romney’s fatal flaw: Conservatives simply don’t trust him… Romney’s verbal gymnastics… Will tomorrow finally allow Romney to change the subject to the economy after three weeks when it hasn’t been the dominant issue?... Obama embarks on two-day bus tour, hitting areas he easily won in ’08… The tour’s name, “Betting on America,” touches on three messages: 1) auto bailout, 2) outsourcing vs. insourcing, and 3) Romney’s offshore accounts… And this week’s 10 hottest advertising markets.
*** Romney’s fatal flaw: So just two days after Romney senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom referred to the federal health-care mandate as a penalty and after the campaign issued a press release also calling it an “unconstitutional penalty,” why did Mitt Romney reverse course yesterday and say it’s a tax? Look no further than today’s scathing Wall Street Journal editorial, which blasted the Romney camp for calling it a penalty. “In a stroke, the Romney campaign contradicted Republicans throughout the country who had used the Chief Justice's opinion to declare accurately that Mr. Obama had raised taxes on the middle class.” More: “Mr. Romney favored the individual mandate as part of his reform in Massachusetts, and as we've said from the beginning of his candidacy his failure to admit that mistake makes him less able to carry the anti-ObamaCare case to voters.” This penalty-vs.-tax episode highlights what many conservatives see as Romney’s fundamental flaw: They simply don’t trust him, especially when it comes to health care. That’s why we’re seeing conservative handwringing over Romney -- from the WSJ, the WSJ’s owner and leading conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch, and Jack Welch -- even though the race is so close.
*** The John Kerry vacationing comparison: By the way, the WSJ editorial also went down the John Kerry-comparison road and even took a shot at Romney for the jet ski photo-op. “[T]he Obama campaign is assailing Mr. Romney as an out-of-touch rich man, and the rich man obliged by vacationing this week at his lake-side home with a jet-ski cameo.” In short: It was a brutal takedown. And conservatives now have their “told you so” moment if Romney loses.
*** And Romney’s verbal gymnastics: When you think about it, Romney never had to truly deal with his fatal flaw on health care. Yes, he gave that health-care PowerPoint speech in Michigan in May 2011. And, yes, he was asked questions about the issue during the 20-odd GOP debates in which he participated. But he never REALLY had to reconcile his health-care law with President Obama’s -- with a campaign team capable of going toe to toe with him -- until last week’s Supreme Court decision. As for his explanation in calling the mandate a tax, his verbal gymnastics would have impressed even the Russian judges. First, he technically didn’t disagree with Fehrnstrom’s original take; he simply conceded that the Supreme Court called it a tax. “Well, the Supreme Court has the final word, and their final word is that Obamacare is a tax. So it’s a tax,” he said. And then he painfully tried to explain why the federal mandate is a tax, but Romney’s state mandate is a penalty. “Actually the chief justice in his opinion made it very clear that at the state level, states have the power to put in place mandates. They don’t need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be constitutional.”
*** Will tomorrow allow him to change the subject? Perhaps no one is looking forward more to tomorrow’s jobs report than Romney -- as simply a way to change the subject. If you think about it, the past three weeks or so have been dominated by issues other than the economy and not-so-coincidentally, it coincides with Romney’s roughest poll patch of the general since the primaries. The president’s immigration announcement. The Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona’s immigration law. And the Supreme Court’s decision on health care. All of these issues have put Romney on the defensive, and all of them have exposed some of his flaws as a candidate. Tomorrow has the potential to get him back on the subject he wants this election to be about: the economy.
*** On the road again, just can’t wait to get on the road again: Obama today begins his two-day “Betting on America” bus tour through two battleground states – toss-up Ohio and Lean-Dem Pennsylvania. He starts with remarks at 11:40 am ET in Maumee, OH (just outside of Toledo), and he won that county with 65% of the vote in ’08. He then speaks in Sandusky, OH at 3:40 pm ET, and he got 56% of the vote in that county four years ago. And he concludes the day with a speech in Parma, OH (outside of Cleveland), and he won that county with a whopping 69% of the vote. Meanwhile, the Romney camp, per NBC’s Andrew Rafferty, is dispatching two potential VP picks -- Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- to bracket the president on his bus tour.
The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd explains why Mitt Romney needs to win at least one swing state in the industrial Midwest.
*** What “Betting on America” means: The theme of this two-day bus tour touches on three subjects. First, it allows him to highlight the auto bailout in the Industrial Midwest (and on the heels of the big jump in sales). Second, it gives him the opportunity to highlight that Washington Post article (which the Romney camp disputes) noting that Romney’s Bain Capital invested in firms that outsourced work to China and India – a powerful charge in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And third, it’s a not-so-subtle inference to the fact that Romney doesn’t even keep much of his money in the United States. After all, this bus tour comes after Vanity Fair wrote about Romney’s complicated offshore accounts in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, and after the AP focused on one of these Bermuda accounts. “Based in Bermuda, Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd. was not listed on any of Romney's state or federal financial reports. The company is among several Romney holdings that have not been fully disclosed, including one that recently posted a $1.9 million earning — suggesting he could be wealthier than the nearly $250 million estimated by his campaign.” Remember, political slogans are only picked if they both highlight a pro and a con, and this “betting on America” is a triple entendre.
*** Obama admin. to file WTO complaint against China: And just as Obama is in Ohio today to highlight the auto bailout, his administration “will file an unfair trade complaint today against China's new duties on some American-made cars and sport utility vehicles, including the Toledo-made Jeep Wrangler,” the Toledo Blade writes. “A senior administration official told The Blade Wednesday the United States will file the case with the World Trade Organization in Geneva, accusing China of putting illegal duties on $3.3 billion worth of U.S.-made auto imports.” The paper adds that Obama is expected to discuss this move during his speech in Maumee at 11:40 am ET.
*** This week’s 10 hottest advertising markets: As we mentioned earlier this week (but not in First Thoughts), here is our weekly look at the 10 hottest advertising markets for the week (in terms of advertising points from 7/2 to 7/8). Three of the markets are in Colorado, including No. 1 Colorado Springs; two are in Florida; two are in Virginia; and another two are in Ohio. AFP is the Koch Brothers’ Americans for Prosperity and Priorities is the pro-Obama Priorities USA Action. By the way, this is the first week since the general election began when one of American Crossroads, Crossroads GPS, or the pro-Romney Restore Our Future were on the air.
1. Colorado Springs, CO (Obama 950, Romney 900, AFP 250, Priorities 200)
2. Orlando, FL (Romney 985, Obama 700, AFP 150, Priorities 150)
3. Tampa, FL (Romney 950, Obama 580, AFP 215, Priorities 200)
4. Richmond, VA (Obama 775, Romney 690, Priorities 250, AFP 200)
5. Roanoke, VA (Obama 830, Romney 720, AFP 350)
6. Reno, NV (Obama 850, Romney 715, AFP 150)
7. Grand Junction, CO (Obama 775, Romney 550, AFP 350)
8. Denver, CO (Obama 750, Romney 650, Priorities 40, AFP 125)
9. Columbus, OH (Obama 660, Romney 530, Priorities 360, AFP 100)
10. Cleveland, OH (Obama 765, Romney 580, AFP 125, Priorities 125)
Countdown to GOP convention: 53 days
Countdown to Dem convention: 60 days
Countdown to Election Day: 124 days
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
HOW the SCOTUS ruling will support and lift up our economy:
With the dawn of a new day comes the burning question as to whether or not Willard is going to proclaim the ObamaCare individual mandate as a; tax or a penalty?
Anyone want to bet $10,000 what answer today will bring? lol
Over the past 3 days we have seen some serious incompetence when it comes to delivering a message and sticking to it!
Reminds me of the old SNL skit about it’s a floor wax… NO it’s a dessert topping!
Can someone explain to me how according to Willard, the mandate in the ACA is a tax BUT the mandate in RomneyCare is a penalty? lol
They can call it whatever they want – it’s a massive predicament for Camp MittWitt, given there is plenty of video with Willard bragging about his major accomplishment as Governor of MA!
Willard has found himself in quite the proverbial “pickle”!
At the end of the day, you’ll can argue until the cows come home.
The free ride is rapidly coming to an end for those who supposedly represent “personal responsibility” while their actions say just the opposite!
I bet John Huntsman is looking pretty good right about now! lol
Stericycle:
Most Americans have not heard of the company named Stericycle, but anti-abortion groups have. You see, Stericycle is a company that disposes medical-waste including aborted fetuses collected from family planning clinics. However distasteful, most rational people would understand that cleaning up and disposing medical-waste is a service that must be provided. My issue is not with Stericycle for providing the service.
The problem here is that during the Republican primaries, Romney could not allow voters to know that he was engaged in buying a company for 75 million dollars that disposed aborted fetuses. So Romney LIED. He said that he didn't have anything to do with Stericycle; Romney said it didn't happen on his watch.
Unfortunately for Willard, the Securities and Exchange Commission listed Mitt Romney as an active participant on the management team and one transaction document was actually signed by Romney. The SEC reported that Mitt remained in a decision-making role even during his part-time leave of absence.
There are some real issues in this story. Not only did Willard show cowardliness by not revealing his role in the Stericycle acquisition, he was dishonest by claiming he had nothing to do with the decision. This man simply cannot be trusted.
Perhaps a more important issue has to do with Romney's values. Romney has flip-flopped on abortion issues, but he does not flip-flop when it comes to making money. In the Romney world making money is far more important than the ethics around abortion.
I have to wonder about the convictions of the Evangelicals: is voting for Romney more important than adhering to their own anti-abortion/Christian values?
On The Road Again
On our President’s bus tour “Betting on America” that kicks off today will see Republican VP want-a-be’s following him around like little lost dogs. Maybe he will toss them a bone.
They are calling it the “Broken Promises Tour” trying to show what the President hasn’t done for the middle class instead of saying what they have done or will do for the middle class – because they haven’t and have no plans to help the Middle Class.
This as CNBC releases a report showing that the US trails other nations in Middle Class retirement wealth.
The God Particle
That's what they're calling that thingie announced at CERN recently. Apparently because this particle is so fundamental to the universe that in it's absence, nothing could exist. Sounds a bit overly dramatic to me, but God Particle rolls off the tongue a heck of a lot easier than "Higgs boson," that's for sure.
Which got me to thinking. Now that we've established the existence of a particle with such remarkable properties, what should we turn our attention to next? What profound problems of the human condition should be next in line for explanation by our best and brightest? I know one near the top of my list: is it a tax or a penalty?
One would think the answer to this cosmic question would be fairly straightforward. After all, the Supreme Court said it was a tax and their rationale for upholding Obamacare was the taxing power of Congress. Republicans are showing appropriate deference to the Court by acknowledging it's a tax, and yesterday even Romney acknowledged the obvious as well. So what's up with all those Dems who seem to be in denial about this and are going through all manner of verbal ju jitsu to avoid using the dreaded "T" word?
That's easy, Democrats don't want the folks to be reminded that Obamcare represents one of the biggest tax increases this country has seen in quite a while. Anyone with a brain has known that since day one since it's kind of hard to extend coverage to 30 million people without the massive tax increases to pay for it. The funny thing is that compared to all the other taxes embedded in Obamacare, the tax associated with the individual mandate is relatively small. So it's not the actual dollars and cents of the mandate tax that are giving Dems a conniption fit, it's the symbolism of associating higher taxes with Obamacare.
The Democrats got what they wanted when the Supremes upheld their cherished health care law. But in their wisdom the Court also gave Republicans the gift that will keep on giving by concluding the mandate penalty was actually a tax. That may be small comfort to those who think the Court should have struck down the law, but it is politically potent comfort nonetheless. And Democrats more than any other breed understand that potency full well. So while scientists tell us the God Particle is fundamental to the existence of the universe, we don't need a scientist to tell us the Tax Particle is hazardous to the political health of anyone who touches it. And since the Dems own the political hot potato of Obamacare, they own the BIG TAXES that come with it as well.
Kind of makes the God Particle look like a spitball by comparison.
Belated Thoughts About the Fourth of July:
Progressive Thinking Men:
The Revolutionary War began with the battle of Lexington and Concord accompanied by the siege of Boston on April 19, 1775. But it wasn't until July 2, 1776 when Richard Henry Lee of Virginia proposed that members of the Second Continental Congress sign the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps the best collection of progressive thinking men was assembled in Independence Hall, Philadelphia.
John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Hancock are some of the more remembered delegates. Thomas Jefferson and a committee of five did much of the writing, but the draft was placed "on the table" so all members could add and delete phrases which resulted in the perhaps the most quoted phrase: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that each are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Upon completion of the signing, these 56 men were, in the eyes of King George III, traitors and if captured would be hung. Legend has it that it was Hancock who said we must hang together, followed by Ben Franklin who added, "Or we will hang separately."
I rightfully call these brave men progressives. They had a vision for America as being a free and separate nation, devoid of British rule. The conservatives of the day were the Tories or sometimes called the Loyalists. They wanted to remain loyal to the British monarch.
Today all Americans owe a debt of gratitude to our brave founding fathers. However, I can't help but wonder what the founding fathers would think if they could view today's America. They truly believed that "All men are created equal" and would be pleased to see that as a nation we no longer engage in slavery. It took a civil war costing more than 618,000 American lives to resolve that issue. I believe the founding fathers would have supported the 15th Amendment granting African Americans the right to vote and may have been surprised that it took till 1920 (19th Amendment) for women to gain the right to vote.
They would not support voter suppression laws as the right to vote is a pillar of our Republic. The founding fathers believed in debate, compromise, and finding solutions. Personal greed or steadfast adherence to a political ideology was not supposed to take precedent over putting the country first. I suspect they would be disappointed to see how polarized we have now become. Perhaps we owe it to our founding fathers to find common ground when fixing what ails our country.
Feisty, Ron and Dennis, Fabulous kick-off this morning!
The Individual Mandate is a tiny part of the ACA, affecting 1% of the population. It only asks those who can afford health care, to play fair do-s and buy it!
GOVERNOR ROMNEY - On the subject of free-loading or "free riders": "Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages 'free riders' to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar."
Note: Bear in mind that President Obama has CUT TAXES by $3600 for the average middle class family, and cut small business taxes 18 times.
Thanks for the two-fer today Ron!
Much appreciated!
*waves to Backhouse* - nice work! ☺
Not a chance!
Willard has some splainin to do...
Feisty:
I listen to the ideas of smart women.
Good Lord Mr. Me First Bill!
You really should of skipped the broccoli yesterday, that's quite the load you left.
Sorry to see the only one you are comforting is yourself...
☺
Is Romney.
And since the Dems own the political hot potato of Obamacare, they own the BIG TAXES that come with it as well.
Good post, Bill.
The House Democrats will also be required to put their support for or opposition to this abortion of a bill on record when the House votes for the upcoming repeal measure. This has to be an akward position to be in if you're a Democrat since neither of your choices are necessarily good ones. You can either take the party position and support a bill that is incredibly unpopular with your constituents and that now includes a mandate enforced by what the Supreme Court has defined as a tax, or you can cover your own a$$ by voting to repeal and hope the the Democratic majority in the Senate can stand their ground. My guess is that many of the Democrats in vulnerable districts will choose the latter. An interesting predicament for the Dems indeed.
Ah, classic right wing BS. Bill in Fairfax is complaining about taxes yet forgets that Republicans have plans to TAX everyone's health care benefits should they get a majority. Talk about a tax!
Vote the Republicans out.
"I was for it before I was against it." "I thought it was a penalty before Obama called it a penalty and now I know it was really a tax." ??????? Who is this guy? Does he really have any real convictions? Can you believe anything he says today knowing that he'll flip flop tomorrow.
And Romney, let's see those tax returns, are you hiding something? And how about those offshore accounts? Too many questions Willard.
Please America, think carefully and ask questions before you consider voting for this man, he's dangerous.
OBAMA IN 2012.
So Feisty Red -- Nothing but a snide remark about Bill's outstanding post? His point is spot on and one that no amount of whining by the left can honestly refute. It is a tax, albeit probably not a big one, but a tax nonetheless if you accept the court's decision in full.
He also correctly points out that not all is positive with the bill. Lots of taxes hitting lots of people and decisions pending from business as to just what they believe the effects will be.
You and your girlfriends should certainly keep blowing Obama's horn, he really needs it, because as we get closer to November he is going to have to begin accepting responsibilities for his term as President and will no longer be able to blame it on:
Obama Blamed ATMs And Airport Kiosks For His Failure To Create Jobs.
Obama Tried To Blame The Japanese Earthquake And Arab Spring For Poor Economic Numbers.
Obama: Problems In Europe “Wash Over Into Our Shores.
Obama Says He “Inherited” A Bad Economy.
President Obama Claims “We Didn’t Know How Bad It Was.
Obama Blame’s Congress.
All lies, Backhouse, and you fell for them.
You think President Obama requesting SCOTUS fast track the ACA decision might of had anything to do with that? lol
Fatal: Causing ruin or destruction; disastrous
With all the facts and truth coming out about Willard 'Flip' Romney, you can now say anyone who votes for him is not in their right mind.
Would you be so kind Jennifer, to elaborate on how they are lies for us?
You won't mind if we just don't take your word for it...
Why does this suprirse anyone? Romney flip flops faster than the wind changes. Romney, should we just change the name of the affordable health care act to "RomneyCare". Maybe you would like it more if we just put your name on it.
Obama/Biden 2012.
Obama Tried To Blame The Japanese Earthquake And Arab Spring For Poor Economic Numbers.
Uh, no, economic experts blamed The Japanese Earthquake And Arab Spring For Poor Economic Numbers. What is the problem with Republicans and reality? Republicans are Climate-change deniers, economic reality deniers, and political swiftboating experts. Newsflash: you can't fix problems without understanding their true causes.
Republicans would have willing voted for the morons (Perry, Palin), the liars (Trump, Cain) and the insane (Bachmann, Newt). Why would they balk at voting for the sociopath (Romney)?
Sadly, the propaganda machine merely has to identify the "right" puppet, and they then promote him to the fools and ignorati. That's what the GOP has come to in the 21st century. . . . morons, liars, and the insane. What could go wrong with a sociopath in the Whitehouse?
The FACT is, it does not matter what Romney, Obama, or anyone else calls it. The Supreme Court called it a TAX, and so it is.
I think Obama pledged not to raise taxes, like he pledged to reduce the federal deficit.... Well done Sir.
Even the Washington Post gives Obama's ads attacking Romney a full 4 Pinocchios... When libs are calling Obama a liar, you know there are problems.
I bet Obama DOES want to speak in Sandusky.... awkward...
Ah, dear- I'm off for about a week, and see that the crackerjack journalists here are back to printing Obama campaign literature as "news".
Some things never change. Kind of like public approval of this health care mess- it never changes, either.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2012/CNN_healthcare_0702.pdf
See, what's really interesting in this poll, taken AFTER the mangled SCOTUS ruling, (the mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce clause; the tax, for not following the mandate, IS constitutional. Talk about cognitive dissonance!), is that 60%- SIXTY PERCENT!- of registered voters in the battleground states want this disaster repealed in all its parts.
No wonder Axelrod wants a healthcare ceasefire- and no wonder Team Obama News is promulgating the falsehood that this issue hurts Romney.
Good luck with that. . .
If they're all lies, disprove them. Just SAYING it's a lie means nothing.
Ron, while I'm not concerned with Stericycle in and of itself it does speak to Mr. Romney's character that he hides his engagement in an enterprise that his political base would despise. Between that, his unwillingness to open up his tax history, and his substantial participation in tax havens it appears more and more that he has a LOT to hide. His attitude that we have no right to know speaks to his opinion of us as little more than "the help" and not the true repository of power in this great republican democracy.
Romney's big problem, and it is really a huge problem: he is a Morman, and bubba and the SBC don't take kindly to Mormans, sorry Mitt, if you carry the south it will be with a squeeky margin and no real support. I just don't see Bubba and the SBC supporting a cult.
NON Socialist -- REAGAN raised taxes many times. Our economy is not static.
Can't wait for the first Obama/Romney debate. Mitty will be getting quite the smack down. Wonder if he'll just flip flop through it, or randomly change the subject to his pre-programmed statements.
Backhouse, Feisty, Ron for two, terrific posts.
Those founders were progressive thinkers; they also "compromised" to achieve both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, something conservatives these days believe is a dirty word. If today's conservatives existed in 1776, we'd still be flying the British flag.
Big taxes? Really, only 1% of the population is affected--only those persons who can afford to buy health care but choose not to buy it; and there is NO teeth in the federal mandate, no liens, zero, zip, nada. Big tax increase? Really, when 99% of Americans have health insurance and would not even be affected. Talking points from the GOP and FOX but as we know, FOX and the GOP, a wholly-owned subsidiary of FOX, have a tendency to speak untruths--we know that because an independent study found that FOX viewers are the most uninformed and misinformed of TV watchers.
THe Obama loves us
Who cares if it's a tax or a penalty! To those of us that were going to vote for the president in November ( or a straight Dem ticket) this doesnt matter one bit. We got health care for most, because a lot of Rep Governers are going to refuse to extend medicare and the exchanges. That is, untill they get replaced in their own elections. Republicans should just concentrate on making the law better rather than being such soar losers! ACA is here to stay so get over it!
BTW the prez is already hinting that he will deal with the failed war on drugs policies in the next term. Hope he goes all out on that one too :) cuz if Republicans can go hard to the right, Dems should do the same!
It's a mandate! No, it's a tax! No, it's a floor wax! No, it's a dessert topping!
Feisty ReadHead leaving a trail of her sardine smell on here again. Quit leaving your snail tracks Libtard and get a job. You smell real bad!
John B, Des Moines, IA
If they're all lies, disprove them. Just SAYING it's a lie means nothing.
What do you mean John? This is one of the most powerful tactics of the left. If someone says something you don't like, call them a liar and "disagree" with them. It doesn't matter on what grounds you disagree, you just "reject" their claim regardless if it's true or not.
Take the Obama interview with Stephanopoulos when asked if Obamacare included a "tax" all he could say is, "I reject that notion".
Lots of whining over whether it's a tax or a penalty. The SCOTUS ruled that Congress's "Power to Tax" is what makes it constitutional. Note "power to penalize" is not in their ruling.
I can understand the squawking about it though. It is the first time a tax for the non-purchase of an item (health insurance) is being implemented, and this will confuse most people.
It is therefore a "penalty tax", so Romney and his aide are correct.
"Can you believe anything he says today knowing that he'll flip flop tomorrow."
The clown has flip-flopped on just abut everything --- abortion, gun control, health care, mandates, taxes -- you name it -- he's been for/against/for/against/ for and then start all over again.
Maybe, John, you and Navy should read Dr. elmendorf's testimony before congress on the topic of Obamacare and jobs
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-director-says-obamacare-would-reduce-employment-800000-workers_547288.html
Now, there's a lot of spin out there, and these projections are based on other projections- but the fact is that the CBO, based on a projection of 160 million workers at the end of the decade, sees this law as costing about 800,000 jobs.
Whether they are right or wrong is about to be rendered moot- because President Romney is planning on repealing this mess. He'll be helped in this by the battleground states, where Obamacare is even more unpopular than in the rest of the country.
John you can NOT get these IDIOT liberals to believe the truth. They believe in MSNBC as there GOD speak.
These ASSCLOWNS thank that OBUMMER is for the middle class. That he hates the 1%'ers that he is a part of. They probalbly think he HATES himself.
So this is a NEW tax on the middle class, is that what you people are now saying. Its NOT a penalty, its a TAX
John B: You are spot-on. I suspect Romney does not want to show his tax returns because he is still getting revenue from companies like Stericycle. Without question Romney is the magic man of deception.
Don't carry it all....
Nice try, but no ceegar. The left had already put in place that little bit of considering an employers contribution to an employees healthcare costs as taxable income. Only a matter of time (jan 2013) to see if the IRS impliments it. BTW - What was that bill number that the right had the senate and obama sign off on?
What Romney says is what matters, what people who work for him says matter unless Romney corrects them. Romney did NOT call it a penalty one day and then a tax the next day, Romney called it a tax, his campaign called it a penalty.
First Thoughts "fatal Flaw" is they constantly write this junk about Romney and never Challenge Obama. Not one story about how Obama said it was not a tax but HIS defense team called it a tax, NOT ONE. Romney didn't change HIS story, he corrected his adviser, that is not a flip flop.
The republican side of this issue continues to leave me with my jaw on the floor. In the 1930's, the Nazi party seemed to have no problem throwing lives away for the good of the state. We rejected this outlook completely, and yet now, the republican party seems bent on a similar crusade. There is nothing in the ACA that will fail to help people, maintain their dignity, and give hope to their offspring, and yet republicans overtly cheer (publicly in nominatorial debates) the idea that people should be allowed to die over something as trivial as money.
When people survive a disaster that destroys every material thing they have, we say that material ojects can be replace, but life can't, and yet the republicans directly contradict the view with their stance on heath care. How can we look at them in any other light then that of dictators, malevolent dictatorships and facist governments of the past? All evidence points to a complete lack of value placed on all human life, much like human rights abusers across the planet.
In light of this anectotal evidence, I can see no place for them in the enlightenment environment set up by our forefathers. They seem to be a cancer on our society.
I don't believe in mincing word or soft-peddling the truth, and I don't make this judgement lightly, but I can come up with no other conclusion. Just as Nuns on a Bus find the republican agenda to be out of step with Christianity, I must find it in direct contradiction to the social contract created between God and Abram so many years ago.
I believe that the love of money is the route of all evil, and these people have fully committed to that path.
This many not be politically correct, but I've always believed that political correctness has gone a long way to damage our society, so touchy-feely or not, that is my inescapable conclusion, and the republicans would rather preserve their own power at the expense of the well being and lives of countless millions of other Americans.
I find that abhorrent.
I believe most liberals have selective hearing, including the liberal press. The Romney message is not inconsistent. He stated himself that he agrees with the dissent which calls the mandate an illegal penalty. So Romney's belief is that it is a penalty. But, the SCOTUS has ruled that it is a tax and therefore, by the law of the land, it is a tax. I read Romney's comments and that is how I interpret what he said.
Personally, I disagree with the label of tax, because it just is not a tax. It is a penalty for not purchasing insurance and it should be struck down as unconstitutional. Never in the history of this country has there been a tax for not doing something. So is this a head tax??
But I ask, is it a tax and if yes then Obama broke his campaign promise with a huge tax on the middle class, or is it a penalty and as such should have been struck down by the SCOTUS? And by the way, there is no wonder this law reduces the deficit, it is a huge tax increase. And lets not forget about Obama's reduction of costs with his backroom deals, another campaign promise not kept.
And as far as whether or not the Court is partisan, I don't thing they are partisan per se, but just following their individual idealogy views and so the justices that are liberal are going to rule that direction and the justices that are conservative are going to rule in that direction. Simple. However, Roberts, in this instance, bowed to political pressure and voted for the law because he did not want the Court to be seen as partisan. So now that all three branches of the government are screwed up what is left??
The U.S. Post office loses billions of dollars a year to deliver junk mail to my mailbox which I deposit directly into the trash on my way back to the house. Your government at work.
The truth be told, The Right Wing fraction doesn't want Romney and never has. It at its core is no different than their disdain for Obama, its prejudice pure and simple. Evangelical "God is for us", Gun Carrying "except when it means bearing arms in the Middle East, you leave that for others", Corporate Cronyism "Chase low life Crack Dealers no matter how long it takes, ask questions about Wall Street and its a witch hunt or better yet class Warfare".
Romney is still in this because the bulk of our Country is Independent and just want common sense.
Simple fact is America has changed and it now houses many cultures which are in direct conflict with what some of us deem "American"
A Congress capable of Compromise and Common Sense seems so unattainable and impossible.
Its nice to hear you guys call each other names like IDIOT LIBERALS, WILLARD, OBUMMER.
The Real Idiot is a Useful Idiot and this Forum is full of those...
Backhouse
Good post. Well done.
While I'm glad the Affordable Health Care act was upheld and if it survives it's many trials in the coming months I know it will help millions of Americans.
But....
I believe Justice Roberts did what he did to give the GOP a talking point and a wedge issue. He did us no favors. By declaring it a "tax" he set the stage for the howling, wild-eyed "conservatives" to launch a full scale attack against the President for "taxing" the middle-class.
It was pre-meditated and diabolical.
Sorry kiddies, that's just how I feel and I believe history will support me on this.
I find it just bizarre that the standard-bearer and beneficiary of this politically-motivated decision, Mr. Romney, is uniquely unqualified to take advantage of the situation. Yet, somehow, I do not think it will matter.
In a country where we allow right-wing propaganda to dominate the public airwaves, without censure or responsible comment, we cannot expect the electorate to make an intelligent decision. They are incapable of separating the chaff from the wheat. We have seen that over and over again.
My own sister-in-law, a Republican, an intelligent and sweet woman, firmly believes everything said about the President by Fox, Limbaugh and Company. Even when SNOPES reports that such nonsense as broadcast by Limbaugh and others is inaccurate and misleading or even down-right lies, she doesn't buy it. She thinks SNOPES is the propaganda organ and her source for news and information is "fair and balanced".
How do you combat that?
You can't. It is insidious and pervasive.
Romney has no personal convictions. He will do or say anything to get elected. He will sell his soul to the devil in a New York minute in order to win the election and he has.
When he ran for Governor of Massachusetts he was a progressive, by his own definition. He was not your daddy's Republican. Now, seamlessly, he's become a right of right-wing tea party conservative. Overnight an amazing metamorphoses has occurred.
In our 24-hour news cycle-oriented, low-information voter, atmosphere where Fox is "fair and balanced" there is no telling what will happen in November.
I despair.
At a time when we have one of the best Presidents in US history facing unprecedented economic and political pressures, we have to listen to the uninformed, ignorant and intolerant tell us how he is ruining this country and how they are going to systematically undo all the good he has accomplished if they succeed in taking the White House. They will do this with the help of otherwise good, honest people, whom they have convinced to vote against their own enlightened self-interest.
It's enough to make a grown man cry.
Our work is not done. It ain't over till it's over and we've got to give of both our blood and treasure if we want to keep America on course.
"Butts in the booth" in November. That's our battle-cry. We've got to make sure we get out the vote and we drown out the voices of ignorance and intolerance.
When the President wins his second term, and I hope to God he does, he needs to do something to return the public airwaves to the public. He needs to stop the propaganda, lies and deceptions being broadcast to a gullible segment of our society and return the public airwaves to the public.
So, stop squawking and act. Give money, give your time and work to keep a good man in the White House.
God help us if we fail.
Obama/Biden 2012
Sinced the SC ruled favorably on it, It's more like:
It's mine (Romney), and I want it back!!!
LOL!!!!
OBAMA/BIDEN/HOLDER....2012!!!!
There you go again Jody, not only misrepresenting what I said in my post but also misrepresenting the reality of the BIG TAXES embedded in Obamacare. Taxes like these:
The 100% tax increase on non-qualified distributions from Health Savings Accounts, from 10% to 20%. And the Medicare payroll tax on wages over $200K which will rise from 1.45% to 2.35%, which works out to a hefty 62% increase. And the new 3.8% tax on gross investment income for those earning over $200K. And the new 2.9% national sales tax that medical device manufacturers must collect, a charge destined to be passed directly to consumers. And the increase in the threshold for deducting medical expenses from individual tax returns from 7.5% to 10%, a tidy little 33% raise in that bar.
And let's not forget the charges many large companies already announced a year or so ago, like the $1 billion from AT&T, the $150M from John Deere, the $100M from Caterpillar, the $90M from 3M -- charges that are the direct result of changes Obamacare made to the tax liability of companies that provide prescription drug coverage for their retirees.
Yes Jody, really BIG TAXES. If you would stop getting your news from MSNBC and ThinkProgress, you might be more conversant with the FACTS.
Well, maybe if the Republicans weren't being run by F*CK*NG CRAZY PEOPLE then they might have a candidate besides Romney that would represent their viewpoints.
But when Santorum gets more votes than Ron Paul, you know that party is just giving itself a good screw.
The leftist extremists aren't any smarter. But you know what? They actually aren't running the party. And they aren't going to worry about it either, because the person they worship is already in office.
See, crazy Republicans think changing your mind is bad. They think compromising is bad.
Crazy Democrats are only happy to push this point of view on Republican candidates, though the hypocrisy is that when their own candidates change their minds, fume breathing Dems look the other way.
Being a fan of a political party means turning off your brain. That should be obvious to anyone who thinks, by now.
Ya gotta love the delusions of liberals. There is not one federal program of a national scale that has ever NOT cost exponentially more than first projected, is broke at this minute, always expands far beyond it's original scope and intent, or one that is not being subsidised with debt.
SS now pays out more than it takes in. Medicare is broke and rife with fraud. Amtrak doesn't even break even. And please, spare me your "SS is solvent til such and such date" argument. We're 16 TRILLION dollars in debt. Any argument like that is complete, total and utter f-ing BULLS#IT!!!
But somehow, liberals think Obamacare is going to be different. As I said, liberals are delusional, and just as with every other government program, Obamacare, if it's not repealed, will soon be singing the same old song by liberals: "we need to spend more money on the program."
Its very sad that the GOPs choice for this year's election is falling way faster than their 90 year old candidate from 4 years ago. That party is really lost. They have NO leadership and no clue how to govern. Im very conservative and Im tired of free-loaders taking advantage of the system. Ive paid my taxes my whole life and watching someone sit at home on HUD while their live-in-boyfriend has a full-time job and its disgusting. But the problem is the GOP is not concerned a bit with fixing this, though they'd SWEAR that they are. Stand for something and follow-thru for once.
GOP, you are lost. You need to get all the grubby little mitts out of your party. You're awful.
Unhonorable theatrical politics from our NEW GOP daily for over 3 years. DAILY! Truly the best 4th I have celebrated in years knowing that Obama is at the helm. Someone that obviously cares about the little guy. Enjoyed emmensly shoving ACA further down a couple Obama haters throats. Both in their 20s. I shut them up but could tell they were polarized to stupid because the looks they gave me could have killed. lol Like these 2 idots, there are millions of these fools who do not vote on principled american ideals, just hate and lies. We must put forth a new and conserted effort to clean up congress. We simply can not afford this new GOP to continue wasting our time and treasure as they have the last decade.
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
Benjamin Franklin
Those of you applauding this assault on freedom are traitors to your nation. I for one hope you have the sack to stand on the front line when push comes to shove; because that is where I will be looking to right this wrong.
I keep wishing all you conservatives would go find your own country and stop trying to ruin our liberal country. That's something I'll hold you too if Romney gets elected by some miracle and crashes the economy in 3yrs or if Congress continues their job of refusing to pass a single bill that actually creates jobs.
Congress having the taxing authority doesn't make a penalty for not buying insurance when you can afford it into a tax. The closest you can come is to call it a penalty tax since a tax affects everyone for many different items, but refusing to purchase insurance will get you penalized. Just because the IRS is responsible for collecting it doesn't make it a tax either since the IRS also collects many types of penalties as well. It doesn't affect the middle class either, nor does it affect the poor, those are just lies being propagated by those who want to scare gullible conservatives. It will only penalize those who are rich enough to afford it and choose not to buy it. Most small business won't be affected negatively either and instead will receive tax credits which is good incentive for them to hire.
I keep seeing lie after lie propagated from the conservatives and the truth will come out and Romney will get trounced in the general election, so y'all won't have to leave and find a conservative country that you can ruin since hopefully the American people will come to realize how y'all have ruined us so far and won't let it happen again.
Cavalier...
So money is trivial? I find that rather interesting... Why just the other day I had to pay my local grocer for some potatoes and sour cream to round out my families 4th of july meal. Dang if my city doesn't require money for my water usage, or my local mechanic demand money for services rendered.
By your logic these and other services are just so trivial because they all require an exchange of money for a service.
BTW - seems that you have the parties confused when trying to equate the republicans with the national socialists of the late 20's and 30's. The national socialists of that time went after first the communists of the time to effectively eliminate them politically by blaming the communists for what ailed Germany. Then they moved unto the jews, gypsies and other minority groups.
With all of obamas rhetoric against the right, wealthy and businesses as well as the rhetoric espoused by the left on first read I would have to say that you and most of the FR left would fit in quite well with goebbels propaganda machine.
The Presidency is important the House and Senate are more important. We really need to give our President people who understand Government and are capable of making decisions for all Americans not just the ones with fat bank accounts
BillyBob whatever -
...as we get closer to November he is going to have to begin accepting responsibilities for his term as President and will no longer be able to blame it on:
Obama Blamed ATMs And Airport Kiosks For His Failure To Create Jobs.
Classic misdirection. What he said was that companies were becoming more efficient rather than hiring new workers. And many agree with him. Take this article from the NY Times:
Two years into the recovery, hiring is still painfully slow. The economy is producing as much as it was before the downturn, but with seven million fewer jobs. Since the recovery began, businesses’ spending on employees has grown 2 percent as equipment and software spending has swelled 26 percent, according to the Commerce Department.
Obama Tried To Blame The Japanese Earthquake And Arab Spring For Poor Economic Numbers.
Totally true. It had effects almost as soon as it happened. Back in Mar, 2011, USA Today reported:
Already, the turmoil in Japan is affecting U.S. companies, investors and consumers, threatening disruptions in the flow of products and parts used to manufacture everything from Apple iPads to Sony televisions.
Obama: Problems In Europe “Wash Over Into Our Shores.
True - and only fair. After all, the root of Europe's economic crisis started with Bush's meddling in the housing market in the first place. His "American Dream" initiative promised to let anyone buy a home whether they could afford it or not. Europe's investments in the same housing bubble that crashed our economy did in Europe, also. And that was all W's fault, aided and abetted by a Republican Congress.
Obama Says He “Inherited” A Bad Economy.
Are you saying he did not? Are you stupid?
...the numbers for Bush's last three months. Between October and November, 597,000 jobs were lost; between November and December, 681,000 were lost; and between December and January, 741,000 were lost.
Dec 29, 2008 U.S. corporate earnings fell for a sixth-straight quarter, the longest streak in at least 20 years, as consumer spending on automobiles, homes and retailers collapsed.
Even die-hard Republicans have given up trying to blame Obama for the financial disaster that Bush caused. Nobody is buying that BS, why are you? Even Mitt Romney admits it:
President Obama didn’t cause the recession...
President Obama Claims “We Didn’t Know How Bad It Was.
We didn't! And because we didn't, we didn't do enough. But don't take my word for it... look at the words of Jon Huntsman, you know, Republican Governor of Utah and candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination:
Governor Huntsman said in 2009 that President Obama’s failed “stimulus” spending bill didn’t spend enough – it should have been a trillion dollars. In a 2009 interview with Politico, Governor Huntsman said, “It’s easy to criticize the bill and if you don’t like it, you don’t have to take the money. It’s pretty simple.” He then went on to say:
I guess in hindsight we can all say that there were some fundamental flaws with it. It probably wasn’t large enough.
Think about what you are saying... no more "sound-bites"!
amy -- OBAMA: “Let me start by saying a few words about our economy. There is no doubt this has been a tumultuous year. We’ve weathered the Arab Spring’s effect on oil and gas prices, the Japanese earthquake and tsunami’s effect on supply chains, the extraordinary economic uncertainty in Europe. And recently, markets around the globe have taken a bumpy ride.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks, Washington, D.C., 8/5/11)
When will he talk about weathering his disastrous economic policies?
I must admit that for once No Joe didn't put up a link that said exactly the opposite of what she claimed. That's because Conservative propaganda mill "The Weekly Standard" edited the testimony to a single word..."Yes". Here's what the testimony REALLY said;
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/playing_games_with_cbo_testimo.html
The important thing about that testimony is that ELMENDORF WASN'T SAYING 800,000 PEOPLE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FIND JOBS. What he actually meant was that 800,000 wouldn't NEED TO WORK if they choose to take early retirement, or wouldn't need to work MULTIPLE JOBS just to make ends meet.
In other words what the liars in the Conservative echo chamber are telling us would be a big increase in unemployment is actually a big tightening in the labor pool.
Conservatives, of course, are against this. They would prefer that there be as many people desperate for a job as possible.
Anyone with a brain knows that we are already extending coverage to these 30 million people. It happens in the emergency room, and we pay through the nose for it. Emergency room care is the most expensive care there is.
Anyone with a brain also knows that if you give these 30 million people insurance, they will be able to go to a doctor as soon as their sickness starts. Anyone with a brain also knows that this will be cheaper for everyone involved.
We also get two additional benefits: when you suffer from chronic pain, you are far less productive. Put someone back to work immediately, and they will make more money. More money made means more taxes paid. So the taxpayer benefits.
In addition, if you can give someone a few pills and send them home, you are going to do far less work than when you are operating on them. So, if you can get problems early, doctors and nurses will have less work to do. Given the shortage we already have of doctors and nurses, this means everyone gets to see a doctor sooner.
Anyone with a brain knows that Obamacare has serious problems, but all of the problems it has is that it doesn't go far enough.
It is interesting to me that no one mentions that the mandate means that individuals who do not have medical insurance will have to buy it from private insurance companies, thereby increasing their customer base, (or pay a fine to the government).
Does no one see this as a "gimme" to the insurance companies? Why are no posters complaining about how the insurance companies have lobbied for what is essentially more profit?
What percentage of the 1% uninsured actually use the ER on an annual basis? What about illegal aliens who do not have real SS #'s. Will they pay the tax? What happens if one of the 1% pays the tax one year, gets sick the next year, then buys insurance, which cannot be denied because of pre-exisiting conditions? Won't the insurance companies object to this threat to their bottom line?
Other issues: rising health care costs, outlandish compensation for providers and drug companies...
All these things can be addressed in a Single-Payer insurance system, with optional supplemental insurance for those who want, need, can afford it. It seems to be working for both providers and consumers in England, Canada, etc.
I can only hope that ACA is a first step in a decades-long transition from health insurance for profit to Single-Payer. It will take a long time and many small steps to wean Congress from the blandishments of the industry, and for the health insurance industry to transition to a not-for-profit enterprise.
Fiesty, Backhouse and company
My wife's boss is a CPA. The ACA means a total of 30% increase in taxes and fees. These are not limited to the "Rich" as promised.
There is a tax on medical devices. Regulations have not stated what percent that is, and the term "medical device" in FDA terms includes your toothbrush, dental floss, a pace maker, portable oxygen units, artificial heart joint replacements, . On top of the tax for medical devices, there is a fee for the doctors to pay to file papers to an agency that tracks any medically inserted devices. That can be a pin in your broken finger to, artificial joints, and pacemakers.
There is a 3.8% across the board tax on sales of property and investments. Yeah, it is advertised to be only to those who earn over but, according to the CPA there is no such limit.
There is a tax on health insurance companies.
There tax on Cadillac health insurance plans the employer or you pay, depending upon how you purchase your health insurance
There is a tax penalty if you don't purchase health insurance.
For the First time in History, the IRS has a warrantless ability to open your personal checking account "for purposes of insuring you are purchasing health insurance, who your health insurer is, your plan is, and does it meet federal requirments.
How long will it take before the IRS notices all Cash only Deposits and withdrawals? What do you think they will do with that bit of unofficially obtained information?
The Supreme Court ruled that the mandate is a tax. So the mere fact liberals are trying to run and hide from that reality is certainly no surprise. There are no big boy pants to be found in the Democratic Party, just blame and excuses. Whether you call it a tax or a penalty, the mandate is extortion. Funny how liberals are ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court said it cannot be a mandate under the commerce clause as you cannot force anyone to buy anything, but you can tax them if they don't buy it. The end result is the same and it is a completely idiotic stance from the Supreme Court and a very dangerous precedent.
Of course the House Ways and Means Committee is where all taxes originate, so how is it the mandate tax originated in the senate? How many truly believe if the Democratic Party had called the mandate a tax the bill would still have passed? The Democratic Party is all about perception, just call it a fee and not a tax, or just call it a penalty and not a tax. Well call it whatever you want, but it is nothing less then the federal government taking more of our money to spend on programs that never come in anywhere near budget. The cost of ObamaCare will spiral out of control in just a few short years just like Medicare and Medicaid, and it will never improve healthcare or control the cost.
History has proven that time and time again. The way ObamaCare was written behind closed doors in secret locations and rammed through congress nothing about this bill was well thought out or truly calculated. Remember we had to encourage congress to pass it before we could find out what was in it. Justice Roberts sold out the American people with one of the worst decisions and poorly written arguments ever to come from the Supreme Court. But he was only given the opportunity to do such by the Democratic Party that rammed through what will go down in history as one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed. But even when that reality hits home, you can bet Democrats will be blaming the Republican Romney for giving them the plan. Nothing but blame and excuses and no leadership.
Bill in Fairfax -- And who but the rich can afford an HSA? Most middle class people are trying to pay for a roof over their head and food on the table. Unlimited withdrawals from an HSA for non qualified items should be taxed at a high rate. The HSA was never intended to be used as a bank. NON QUALIFIED withdrawals should be penalized.
Medicare is woefully underfunded. The tax to fund Medicare hasn't been raised in several decades. It's about time the tax is increased.
Corporations have enjoyed tax credits and breaks for providing health insurance for decades. Our tax dollars paid for those breaks. Now they are griping about costs? That's hilarious. They are now whining with their hand out for more government money. Quit being their cheerleader, you look ridiculous.
It is a penalty that comes down through the tax provision authority. If you do not have/buy health insurance you pay a PENALTY, collected through your tax payment to the Federal Government or taken from your tax return.
Let me ask the Pukes on the board, if you buy health insurance and you pay no penalty, have you been taxed?
My guess, they will be thoroughly confused.
I cannot believe the number of posts for such a non newsworthy subject in my life! With all of the ills in this country and the world, all of the important issues that should be dealt with, People, are you really concerned whether or not Romney calls the mandate a tax or a penalty????? Who cares!!! Whats worse is that MSNBC actually made this a headline subject in a news article. By the way, this law is still a piece of sh$t and is unconstitutional regardless of what the SCOTUS ruled! This just goes to show that all 3 branches of government has been bought out by big business.
keith at 1.53 -- Your basic premise -- I keep wishing all you conservatives would go find your own country and stop trying to ruin our liberal country -- is flawed according to Gallop in January of this year:
The Gallup survey found that 40 percent of Americans consider themselves conservative; 35 percent consider themselves moderate; and 21 percent see themselves as liberal. The figures did not change from 2010.
If you want to live in a liberal country you may want to research Europe.
Is it a tax or is it a penalty.....either way it is bad policy. Let's look at some other government run success stories: Amtrak, US Postal Service, Medicare, Social Security, Air Traffic Control, TSA, Solyndra. Tell me which one has fulfilled its initial promise or is financially viable without major support from US tax payers. The US government is simply not capable of managing a business.
I thought that the penalty for not having insurance is the tax, not the mandate itself. If that is the case, then nobody raised taxes on the middle class. Seeing as a large majority of the middle class already has health insurance, this would be more of a tax on the poor. Except, the poor will be paid for by the government (us in short), so they won't be paying the tax either. So who is paying the tax here?
I'm not sure if most of you are aware, but many large corporations pay the entire cost of healthcare for their executives, it's part of their compensation package. So as usual, this is another "tax" that the rich don't pay.
The ACA mandate and the Massachusetts mandate are both "tax penalties".
Neither is a tax in the usual sense of being in place to raise revenue, since in both cases the government would rather you didn't pay it, so it clearly neither are intended to raise revenues or to be paid by more than a small minority of the people. So, calling either a tax increase on an entire group of taxpayers is not accurate in either case. In fact, since the penalty is less than or certainly not more than the cost of health insurance, it's actually a net savings or at worse revenue neutral to the taxpayer who does have to pay it.
As a penalty, it is however collected through the IRS, so it is still a tax in that sense.
In reality, all fees, tariffs, licenses, fines, etc... are imposed, collected, and go into the treasuries or offset some expenses of federal, state, and local governments, so one could argue that they are all taxes in that sense.
Bottom line is that there income taxes (which are levied on all based on income), sales and use taxes (levied on all who purchase whatever is being taxed) and this other odd category of taxes that are associated with privileges like licenses and penalties for behaviors like smoking or parking in the wrong place at the wrong time. The mandate falls in the last category.
What one chooses to call it though, is irrelevant other than for use in political talking points. It simply is what it is regardless of what one chooses to call it.
Those without health coverage have been raising our Federal, State, and local taxes for many years and would continue to do so, so this is great for the majority. Check your local city/town/county property taxes and state taxes to see how much of that is going to cover medicare and public health services. We have been and are paying for everyone not covered who uses the local emergency room for doctor visits because there's no affordable options or incentives for lower income people to buy coverage. The ACA via health exchanges and the mandate can only help to reduce the toll of the uninsured that we all have to pay for.
Uh.. kevinoffsite, you're off your rocker also.
Government dependence, which is defined as the percentage of persons receiving one or more federal benefit payments, is at a staggering 47%, its highest level in American history, while 21 million households are reliant on food stamps. In fact, government spending on food stamps in 2010 ($68 billion) was double what it was in 2007, with the 2011 figure likely to be even higher.
Read more: #ixzz1zlD1bhVF
Yes, Kevin, God is for us, is Obama for you? Are you one of those 21 million households on foodstamps, welfare, Government cheese and unemployment checks extending out 2 years?On a state-by-state basis, seven of the ten states with the highest unemployment rates voted for Obama in 2008, with Alaska, Georgia, and South Carolina being the exceptions.
Read more: #ixzz1zlG72yFg
What exactly are you trying to say here? The fact that this country has changed and "houses" many cultures is, by definition, what we are so proud of. The fact that its being exploited by the race card carrying Dems shouting class warfare mantra makes it one of the #1 problems in America today. How can we afford to take care of all these "nice' American dream seeking ragheads, oops, essential workers, when we have such high unemployment and sooo many people on government assistance currently?
I propose we initiate a penalty, no, a tax, no, how about we just start another revolution? First things first, we hang ALL the cronies inside the I-495 belt line. That would be a good start.
BTW, we do want Romney and we aren't as fractioned as you think.
Last time I checked, more than 70% of this nation (according to polls), opposed ObamaCare. There is only one poll that really counts, in November, and that will be the beginning of the end of ObamaCare!
Calling it a tax or a penalty does not matter, it is still going to cost everyone!
Lot being made of the tax or penalty definition, nothing being said about "private sector is doing fine", we are undergoing the largest, longest unemployment period in our history!
We have no jobs now because all of the so called "progressives" spent all their political capital on passing ObamaCare. MORE TAX AND SPEND LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE HYPOCRITICAL BS!
As much bungling that has been done on the economy the last four years, how can we lose by selecting a new leader for this country.........ANYBODY NEW!
Eeeek
Benjamin Franklin would be appalled at your use of his quote.
Obama/Biden 2012
ee -- though we disagree i will not stoop to your level with an insult in return. that is the problem with so much here. both sides, though as i lean right i see it more on the left, hurl names and insults rather than taking up a civil discourse.
Damn!, "Bill Fairfax,Va" posts about "Higgs Boson", or the so called "God Particle". Says now, the next big question that needs answering is whether or not "It's a tax or penalty"? Then He proceeds to give democrats all kind of unmitigated hell for passing a tax posing as a penalty. Welllll, Mr Bill, i understand the great thinkers have determined and embarked upon the hunt for an answer to that next big question. A team, lead by the worlds best Anthropologists, Psychiatrists, and waste disposal experts, are now on a quest, hoping to lend some scientific understanding of republicans innate proclivity toward the production, maintaince, and often, clumsy strewing of bullsh^t among the population. Another correspondingly difficult dilemma for these brilliants is; why do these same republicans, while employing tatics, amusing as a tree full of horney monkeys, become so upset when the recipients become dis-pleasured enough to divorce themselves from their gaseous, and often, "*cornhole" antics?
*Ask any southern man above 60 years old
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president."
Wow, great campaign article, First Read crew; I'll bet the check from the DNC is in the mail already!
@Backhouse
I always laugh my ass off when the same people who rip anyone for quoting anything from the "lying FoxNews" actually believe @!$%# from sources like Think Progress.
The reason we keep getting @!$%#ed over by our politicians is because most people in this country believe it's only the other side that lies to them. Talk about a bunch of @!$%#ing morons.
This is why many republicans did not want Romney. But it is your own fault republicans. Had you not put all of your eggs in one basket so to speak you could have looked better after this ruling. Because you were betting so much on the scotus repealing this law it now looks like the wheels have come off of Romney's campaign. You all did this to yourself
Have you wondered why liberals who rail against the insurance companies, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and anyone else involved with health care are so glad this bill passed?
I mean, after all, this bill is going to be a HUGE windfall for all of them. It gives all of these entities (by force) MILLIONS of new customers. So why would liberals be for that?
Well, the reason is simple. Liberals, if nothing else, are very patient. They are more than willing to trade off the temporary gains those companies will make, in return for what will come down the road.
For you see, liberals understand completely that this bill is actually designed to destroy all of those entities. What do you think will happen when insurance companies are forced to cover pre-existing conditions for everyone? The prices will become so astronomical, that most folks won't be able to afford the premiums. But yet they MUST buy insurance.
So, of course, what will happen is that one by one, insurance companies will stop offering health care all together. And where will people be forced to get their insurance? From the government, of course.
This bill is a malevolent Trojan horse to get to the real liberal goal of single payer and by extension, using it to control people's lives via the tax code. But then again, liberals are truly corrupt malevolent people, so this bill is totally in keeping with their insidious depravity.
And once again, liberals prove without a doubt, that most, the vast majority of liberals, are nothing but DOG SH!T. However, just like Obama has shown that he can ignore law at his pleasure, I will do the same thing because I'll be damned if the putrid federal government is going to have any authority over my life that I don't consent to them having. The federal government can go to hell.
Right - interrupting the president during his address the nation speech yelling "You Lie" is a beacon for civil discourse. Open your eyes.
This article is for conservatives who are confused about what other conservatives are saying about Romney's inability to stand for something or anything. Read on.
http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-clumsy-health-care-falls-predicted-trap-152740111--abc-news-politics.html
Wow, the media really sucked in the pavlovic dems on this one. I can see the drool all over the screen from it. Does it matter if it is a tax or a penalty? Even the supreme court and the white house couldn't decide what it is. So when Mitt can't figure it out, it means a whole lot more, huh???
Obama called it a penalty, the supreme court called it a tax, now Obama agrees that it is a tax, but just won't open his big mouth to say so. And why should he? He doesn't care as long as Obamacare is now the law.
Either way I still hope Obama wins this election. It will be four more years of pain, but then when all is said and done, the dems will never hold the presidency again.
I can't wait to see the national debt and the unemployment rate after 4 more. Obummer 2012!!!
Governor Etch-A-Sketch referred to the individual mandate in RomneyCare as a "fee", chadical. Why aren't you sniveling at him for being a liar and a flip-flopper? Well, with scum like Romney as the best the GOP can produce as a presidential candidate, it will be a long time before there will be a Republican president, but we'll still have those hilarious GOP primaries to laugh at, won't we? I wonder if Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry will come up with fresh material in time for the next primary race...?
President Obama in November! He is clearly our only rational choice!
Here is a clip of a speech given by Governor Flip-Flop in which he defends his individual mandate as a "fee":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HymUU7OADbU&feature=relmfu
Good luck with that, Governor...
@Sailcat-2064101
Why aren't you sniveling about our President doing the same thing? Don't ask a question of others if you aren't going to bother explaining why you do the same thing.
Johnny judging by you're rant I would suggest not calling anyone "off their rocker". First of all I own a business with 17 employees, prior to that I spent 10 years in the United States Coast Guard, I am as middle class as it gets. I have voted accross party lines my entire adult life, I voted for Bush Sr. twice, I voted for Clinton once and Bush Jr Once. I don't consider myself elite or special and I certainly have no interest in debating a guy who has nothing to contribute but name calling.
If God is really for YOU, maybe he could teach you some anger management.
Backcountry, if you had been keeping up with the conversation it would be apparent even to you that chadical had been whining about President Obama's mandate as a tax when it is a fact that Romney did the same thing. I was pointing out the hypocritical inconsistencies in his rather feeble argument.
So, if you aren't going to pay attention, Backcountry, your best course of action is to stay out of the discussion.
So people want to inject all this talk about the "Founding Fathers" and Independence Day? The Founding Fathers never saw us going down a path of socialism.
The founding fathers (Washington especially) would aghast at the fact the US currently spends as much each year on its military budget as the rest of the world combined. They would also be heartbroken by their beloved country being dragged into two foreign wars (one illegally) that were started and fumbled by a Republican president. The founding fathers would be far less concerned about health care than the vast amount of tax dollars being squandered to fund the direction in which the right-wing, militaristic GOP has been trying to drag this country.
"The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without any thing more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations." -George Washington in his Farewell Address
http://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp
Think about it. Would you rather have your tax dollars going to health care for US citizens or flushed down the toilets that are Afghanistan and Pakistan. Close the purse strings on countries who hate us and use the money here at home.
A Moderate a LIberal and a COnservative walk into a bar. THe bartender looks up and says, "WHat'll be Mr. Romney?"
Let's face it folks, Romney is nothing but a gutless, shameless, chronic liar. How can he even look at himself in the mirror every day. Is this what we want to lead this country? Who could ever trust this man?????
A fool a liar and a fraud walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and says "What'll it be Mr. President?"
Come on Grail, Romney hasn't been elected yet.
So Obama can have his 'date nights' in NY City at taxpayer expense, but Romney can't enjoy the 4th of July with his family at his own expense?
Give us a break.
FR is dredging the bottom of the barrel for things to criticize Romney for.
I see what you did there...you took someone's funny joke and turned yourself into a laughing stock...Not the desired effect i'm sure.
Actually, FR doesn't really need to dredge for anything to criticize Romney...he hands it to them on a silver platter all by his little lonesome. You betcha.
Bryan
At least his joke is original, and I thought it was funny. The one Hussein tries to tell actually goes like this:
A moderate, a liberal, and a conservative walk into a bar. The bartender says, ”Hello Mitt.”
Santorum supporters were telling this joke at CPAC. Look it up.
If Romney did a flip on the mandate being a tax, then the Obama did a double flip, telling Congress it was not a tax, asking his lawyers to argue it was a tax before the Supreme Court, and then now telling Americans it is not a tax. Even though the the court agreed with Romney that on a federal level, the mandate was an unconstitutional penalty, but a constitutional tax. They even said on a state level it could legally be a penalty.
Also Romney's investments are in a blind trust and he does not choose where they go, offshore or not.
Also, Republicans trust Romney to repeal the Health care monstrosity, all Republicans.
But the little snot rag idiots who wrote this article will campaign for Obama no matter what, as they always do.
I also believe that Romney pledged to lower taxes when he was the Massachusetts governor. Now that the penalty has been ruled a tax, that means that BOTH of them have raised taxes. The truth cuts both ways, my friend.
And I believe that even Fox News stated that Romney advocated for a national individual mandate.
If you're making a reference to that perverted sex-offender, than you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
To be honest, sailcat, I opposed the founding fathers on their opposition to a standing military. I always have liked a large army and navy (still do). But, I admit that we should only have a large military if we can AFFORD it. Last time I checked, a third of our budget is spent on the military. We spend 43% of the entire world's military spending. That is unsustainable. I also find it remarkable how Republicans want to exhort the founding fathers' ideas on "limited government," yet fail to realize that limited government includes a small military.
Do you own a house?? Do you have children or go to school?? Then you are getting a deduction for that. Essentially, the tax code already does that. Don't see you arguing about that, so whats different about the mandate tax/penalty???
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Roy Wilson -- I believe the Wall Street Journal, you know, that conservative paper, took Romney to task on many points today in an editorial, here is the part concerning his vacation:
First Read was just quoting Wall Street Journal, please read FT slowly and maybe you will understand things better.
In Roy's dimly lit fantasy world, even a staid, conservative publication like the WSJ is still quite a few sheets too far to the left of his benighted political position for him to be comfortable reading it.
ROY WILSON - Why do you insist on posting lies? The President's date night was not at tax payers expense and more than the Bush's daughter's nights out at bars were at taxpayer's expense. We paid for the secret service for both and the actual expenses of the night were paid for by each family - as they have always been.
When you have to lie to make a point - you don't make the point.
Obama/Biden 2012
Freshiee:
The difference is that the government does not FORCE anyone to buy a house or have kids. I get a deduction from my taxes on the interest paid on the mortgage, not the payment itself. And for that matter, I'd gladly give up that deduction, as well as the dependent deduction, in exchange for the Fair Tax, or a flat tax.
I have a lot of gripes with the POS government we have, but their incessant malevolent fixation on using the tax code to try and control the behaviors of the population ranks only a very, very close, second to my fury about them not securing the borders.
Beyond that, my kids are in private schools. I do NOT get to deduct their tuition (over $22,000 a year total). So, in essence, two other kids in the public schools are getting a free ride on my dime, because I choose to bite the bullet so my kids won't have to suffer the bullsh!t of public schools.
I laugh with scorn at liberals who always want to raise taxes on others, while they take advantage of every deduction and credit they can to lower their own tax burden. We paid 87 grand in federal taxes after all deductions last year, so don't hand me any crap about us not paying our fair share.
Deservedly, the right wing has backed itself into a political corner.
Romney is the GOP's presidential candidate.
About the ACA, U.S. citizens who do not select a health care plan will have to pay a fee.
The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the above fee is a tax.
Romney has vacillated between calling the fee a "tax" or a "penalty."
Ironically, Obama Care is modeled after Romney's Massachusetts Universal Health Care Plan. Yet, on the campaign trial Mitt has ranted against Obama Care. How can this candidate who is hoping to land in the Oval Office, campaign against legislation that he enacted at the state level? Notably, it is the citizens of Massachusetts who do not select a health care plan, that actually pay a penalty fee.
If he is elected president, Mitt states that he will on day 1 of his presidency repeal Obama Care.
Repealing the ACA on day 1 of the presidency cannot be politically achieved.
What a fix Romney is in!
This is good news for America.
Cannot wait until Tampa Time!
The sound of the Republicans eating their own will echo most euphoniously across the nation.
Because...
Rombot.Has.Nothing.
@Roy Wilson: Regarding FR and barrel dredging. FR reports findings. Now, the bottom of the barrel is often where one can find the real scum. Republicans don't want the Media finding and displaying their scum? They need to clean themselves and their barrels more often.
Hasn't Romney learned yet -- that no matter what he says or does -- there's no pleasing the intolerant, judgmental, sanctimonious, ideological, know-it-all extremists that took over his party?
Why is it that this race is close again?
Be quiet, the sheepeople are speaking. When people talk about the mass media being owned by only a few people, and these people frame the news along their agenda for controlling how the sheepeople think and put all this emotion into issues that are completely beside the point. It's really amazing to see it at work. Red states, Blue states, Demos, Repubs, tax vs. penalty, the sheepeople just don't get it, the real issue is that the congress, the supreme court, both sides of the aisle, is bought and paid for by the special interests, multi-national corporations, and the military-industrial complex. The people that make our laws view us as sheep, with no idea who really controls our country, to shear whenever they need a few more billion dollars. Read further George Carlin's piece about the American Dream:
George Carlin(May 12, 1937 - June 22, 2008)
"The American Dream"
Theres a reason why education sucks and its the same reason it will never ever ever be fixed. Its never gonna get any better, dont look for it, be happy with what you got. Because the OWNERS of this country dont want that. Im talking about the real owners now. the REAL owners. The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You dont. You have no choice. You have owners. They OWN you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations theyve long since bought and paid for the Senate the Congress the State Houses the City Halls they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies so they control just about all the news and information you get to hear. THEY GOT YOU BY THE BALLS! They spend BILLIONS of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying to get what they want. Well we KNOW what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else. But I'll tell you what they DONT want. They dont want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They dont want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. Theyre not interested in that. That doesnt help them. Thats against their interests. They dont want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly theyre getting f***ed by a system that threw them overboard thirty f***ing years ago, they dont want that. You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers. People who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork, and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly sh***ier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime, and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And NOW theyre comin' for your social security money. They want your f***ing retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it! Theyll get it all from you sooner or later because they OWN this f***ing place. Its a big club... and YOU AINT IN IT. You and I are not in the big club. By the way, its the same big club they use to beat you over the head all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head in their media telling you what to believe what to think and what to buy. The table is tilted, folks. The game is rigged. And nobody seems to notice.. nobody seems to care... Good honest hard-working people. White-collar, blue-collar, it doesnt matter what color shirt you have on, good honest hard-working people continue - these people of modest means - continue to elect these rich c**k suckers who dont give a F*** about them. They dont give a F*** about you, they dont GIVE a F*** about you. They dont CARE about you. At ALL, at ALL, at ALL! Man...You know? And nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care... Thats what the owners count on - the fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red white and blue d**k thats being jammed up their a**holes everyday because the owners of this country know the truth... Its called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.
So, because the Supreme Court "says it's a tax" it's a tax? That's the argument? Well actually it was a 5:4 decision; so does that mean it's only 55.56% a tax, and 44.44% not a tax?
Why place so much significance on the word "tax" for your latest verbal assaults on the Affordable Care Act (ACA)? I for one don't especially care if you put mustard on it and call it "a corn dog."
What I DO care about is that if I continue to budget my own insurance premiums as I do now, the ACA will cost me nothing; no "penalty", no "tax" ... no "corn dog."
Under the ACA there will now be no lifetime maximum coverage if I or an insured member of my family should develop a catastrophic illness.
My children can remain covered on my family policy while they are at University and until they turn 26.
My children cannot be denied insurance or coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions and in another two years my wife and I will have the same piece of mind.
And reasonable and sensible preventive care coverage is already guaranteed for my entire family and myself to help keep us healthy.
And my premiums, which had been rising at a rate several times the rate of inflation for more than a decade, will now rise more slowly!
That's what I care about.
But I also care about my Republican friends and neighbors and their families ... and I want THEM to have the same piece of mind and assurance if someone in their family gets sick; the assurance that they will not potentially be bankrupted by medical expenses.
Why is this partisan?
Americans, like all human beings need reasonable cost access to medical care. ALL Americans, even those without means, and even those who are the most vulnerable. It's as simple as that. Doesn't EVERYONE agree with that simple truth?
I mean, gosh, what has happened to our nation's moral compass?
Amen to Ron's comment.Patriotic and correct.
Actually, there isn't much of a difference between the mandate penalty/tax and normal deductions. If you don't buy a house or something like that, you pay a higher tax rate. And technically, the Fair tax (and the flat tax) are not as great as they seem. The flat tax, in order to raise enough revenue as the current tax code does, would have to be raised to a relatively high tax rate (raising taxes extremely on the middle class), and chances are that it would amount to a huge tax cut to the wealthiest Americans, increasing income inequality and hurting economic growth. And the "Fair Tax" is not fair at all. It is a regressive tax that focuses mainly on consumption, burdening the middle and lower class while giving a huge tax cut to the wealthy.
I went to a private school myself, and it wasn't that great. Not a lot of people can afford the tuition. Plus public schools aren't that bad; it depends where you live. Plus the big reason why public schools suck is because the states keep cutting budgets for them and never reform their methods, plus the fact that we put too much emphasis on test scores and not enough on learning and on students.
I would agree to that, but in order to help keep our roads paved, our schools running, and our nation fiscally sound we need to have more revenues. Plus we have been giving the 1% a huge holiday over the past three decades. The best way to raise taxes would be to limit certain deductions, increasing the effective tax rate. And the fact that you paid $87,000 is not very relevant. If it was 30% of your income, I'd say that that is your fair share. If it was 15%, however, that's debatable. Liberals like don't focus on absolute values when we talk about taxes; we tend to focus on proportions of income paid to income earned.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
Robert:
You're making an awful lot of very hopeful assumptions with those statements.
1. You just assume that when your insurance company has to start covering pre existing conditions that your rate is just going to stay the same. It's not. It will skyrocket.
2. If you say, "well, the ACA says the insurance company can't do that", guess what, you're right, they can't. But, what they can do is now tell you, "sorry Robert, the government has now made it impossible for us to provide your policy and still make a profit. Due to government regulation, we are now dropping health care policies, and you are no longer covered." And that is exactly what is going to happen.
The dirty little secret of Obamacare is, of course, that was exactly what liberals wanted to happen to begin with.
3. Liberals seem to think that insurance companies are just an endless bottomless pit of money for anyone to pay in a dollar and collect a hundred in benefits. You are going to be in for a very rude awakening. Oh, you'll still be able to get insurance, you'll just have to buy it from the government, and you just won't have any choice in the matter, and it will be far worse than anything you ever experienced in the private sector. If this isn't repealed, liberals will rue the day they passed this pile of dog sh!t, and it will happen much sooner than later.
Freshiee:
The purpose of taxes is to fund government. The purpose of the tax code is NOT to try and control or manipulate the behaviors of the people. I do not exist to serve the state. America is NOT the Federal Government. I don't sit around wringing my hands worrying about how much of what someone else earns the government is taking from them. The government does NOT exist to promote equality of wealth. For most of the history of this nation, we had NO income tax at all. And consequently, any debt we had was paid back reasonably quickly. It was only after the 16th amendment in 1913, where the corrupt politicians said: "pppppffttttt, what's to worry? This is only on "the rich", and it's only a couple of percent. And gosh, we'll never have the middle class paying this tax"....and on and on with the bullsh!t lies, that we started getting ourselves in trouble. It was no coincidence.
You might be able to pawn that argument off on someone who doesn't have a clue about history, or an inability to apply a little common sense and logic, but you'll never make that argument work for me.
You've got to be kidding? The USA spends more per student than any other country in the world. Why is it that when government programs are failures, that those on the left never can seem to grasp that it might not be the money, it might be the program itself. Throwing money at a program that is already spending more than any other in the world is not going to make it any better. Money is not the issue. http://mat.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographic/ Quit making excuses for the failure of a government program because of money. It's completely false.
Yes, it's quite clear that liberals are perfectly happy with the concept of 47% of the working people of this nation getting a free ride off the other 53%. Liberals love the concept of a "fair share" being zero for almost half of the workers of this country. With the exception of gas taxes, any other taxes the paid by the 47% are given back to them in the form of a refund when taxes are filed, or as a benefit when they retire. This means they pay NOTHING for support of the bloated POS government we have, or the military (which has a fair share of bloat and waste of it's own)
In fact, the truth is that those 47% are also the same people that receive most of the food stamps, and other government benefits that the rest of us provide for them. I'm sick of the recipient class thinking they have the right to the fruits of my labor via government fiat. When a liberal says someone should take care of the poor, what they really mean is that someone else should take care of the poor. But liberals are always more than willing to be generous with other people's money so they can feel better about themselves.
Not quite. If you, hypothetically, wanted to revert back to the old tax system, relying mainly on consumption taxes, you'd be influencing public behavior. Hell, supporters of the consumption tax argue that it will incentivize saving and investment and lower consumption. And technically, while the US government is not necessarily forced to promote economic equality, it still can, but only when it is necessary. Right now, the top 1% of Americans controls anywhere from 17% to 24% of all income earned (check either Paul Krugman's End this Recession NOW and Timothy Noah's The Great Divergence) in the US. In the post-World War II era (from the 50s to the late 70s) income distribution was far more equal, thanks to the welfare state created by the New Deal (which coincided with the longest economic expansion in US history). We have the highest rates of poverty and hunger in the industrialized world (not to mention the most unequal distribution of wealth and income), and yet we have the gall to call ourselves "the richest country on earth." I think the current economic climate is suitable for redistributing income to the middle and lower classes, considering the high levels of income inequality in this country. And finally, we only paid off the debt ONCE in our nation's history. It was in 1832, and that coincided a few years later with an economic recession (not necessarily related, but still food for thought).
First of all, I know how some people feel about income taxes, losing some of their money to the taxman and all that. But those taxes allow us to be the greatest country on Earth. They keep roads paved, our schools running (however under-par), and keep millions of Americans (unemployed and retired) from going to the poorhouse. It is a burden we all must share if we are to enjoy the greatness of this country.
Okay, first of all, let me rephrase what I said. One of the big reasons why our education system sucks is because of a lack of funding. True, we spend more money per student than any country in the world. But the problem that I see is that when states have to balance the budget, they often cut funding to schools and public universities. That causes tuition rates to increase and lead to larger class sizes due to more teacher layoffs. If, however, you wanted to fix education but not add any more funding to it, the best way I would think to do so is for teachers to take a pay cut; but that doesn't help. In my opinion, we should have a larger federal role in education, increase funding for schools, and hire more teachers. HOWEVER, I would direct the increased funds to more teachers and repairing schools, improving computer systems, promoting and loaning money to startup learning programs like Khan Academy, and proposing a merit-pay system while scrapping seniority tenure with a minimum pay of $35,000 and a 15% "insurance bonus" for any teacher with good credentials who goes to a neighborhood with high crime rates. This, along with taking examples from other countries, could greatly improve our education system.
First of all, most of those 47% do pay federal taxes in the form of payroll taxes, and those tend to go to current retirees, not to them in the future. Secondly, there are only 18.1% of Americans who don't pay any federal taxes. 10.3% are elderly, 6.9% are non-elderly but are technically living in poverty (<$20,000), and only 0.9% are both non-elderly and make over $20,000. So technically, only about 1% of taxable units don't pay taxes when they are eligible to do so.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
if or since social security is such a mess and has been for such a long time, why did 'W' push the prescription drug benefit through? oh, but that was hailed as 'ground breaking', fair and, cost effective!!
perhaps mitt will advocate cancelling it first thing, since we can't afford it. and couldn't then, either. but that was a different day, but it was a republican plan that sailed through but is now all but forgotten about.
'W' certainly made the deficit worse than it ever should have been by the prescription drug plan and the on going medical bills all of the service people will be generating to for years and years and years, to come. to say nothing of the cost of the 2 wars that were hair brained, at best. ruinous at worst. he could have fought the taliban with cruise missiles and saved thousands of lives and billions (or is it now trillions?) of dollars!!!
good going 'W'!!!!!! what a legacy!! you will be fondly remembered for generations to come!!
not one american life was worth trying 'to save' iraq or afghanistan!!! to say nothing of these stupid wars ruining our economy!
'w' and dick! great going guys!!!
Well, that's mighty white of ya! I really don't care. You insult my intelligence with your mindless parroting of Republican talking points without any critical thought. As for "see it more on the left" what bullcrap! Righties here and everywhere have taken any kind of civilized discourse to new lows. For you to play wounded peacemaker is ludicrous! Particularly with the way you started this whole thread...
.
The amazing spectacle of Willard the Human Weathervane just keeps on spinning. The guy just can't help it, he's incapable of taking a position.
To be fair it's a tough job justifying the idea that the Individual Mandate is a "socialist take over of 1/6 of the economy" when it originated with the Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich. http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/02/07/the-tortuous-conservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/
It's even more difficult when you actually oversaw the only real-world implementation of Heritage Foundation's big idea. Therefore Mitt's campaign probably had no choice but to take the following position;
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/04/romney-calls-health-reform-a-tax-contradicts-top-aide/
Then again the Human Weathervane refuses to deviate from whichever way the wind blows, and so in a Wednesday interview with reporter Jan Crawford he stated:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57466432-503544/romney-individual-mandate-is-a-tax/
There you have it. The Individual Mandate is without question a tax. Except, of course, when he stated;
By which he meant that it's unconstitutional because it ISN'T a tax.
So there you have it. Mitt Romney categorically believes that the Individual Mandate is and is not a tax. Then he goes on to say that while the Individual Mandate in the Affordable Care Act IS a tax, the Individual Mandate he signed into law in Massachusetts cannot under any circumstances be considered a tax.
All of which is amusing and instructive as to the character of Mr. Romney, but in the end it doesn't mean a hill of beans. People have known about the Individual Mandate from the very beginning. This Republican idea is virtually the only part of Affordable Care that is unpopular, but it certainly isn't unknown. And yes, it's Constitutional under the same authority that allows the federal government to charge for camping in national parks, or filing papers in federal court, or the fees that are part of your utility bills. The fact that such as been affirmed in the highest court in the land doesn't change anything that anyone knew last week, week, or last month, or last year. Conservatives didn't get the result they wanted. The only problem is it's EXACTLY the result they wanted when Mitt Romney signed it into state law, or Newt Gingrich introduced it as an alternative to the 1993 health care reform bill.
Turns out the entire Conservative Movement is very much like Mitt Romney...the only thing they actually DO want is power. Everything else is optional, and situational.
Please - Justice Roberts himself had to refer to it as a "penalty" for the anti-Injunction Act part of his decision, then refer to it as a tax for the taxation part of the decision.
Obama camp called it inter-state commerce regulation, then threw in that if it WASN'T inter-state commerce regulation, let's call it a tax.
This is "fliip flopping" is being blown out of the water. I'd rather pay more attention to more serious, pressing issues.
July 05, 2012
This tight one is starting to open up a little bit more in favor of Obama. So, my current Projection: (Currently the states that will continue to play the biggest in November are Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida and Wisconsin. For now these states are remaining in the toss up status, while leaning toward Obama. However, if the election were held today, Obama would win the general.
The key months for this race are going to be September and October. And as far as the debates, Romney most likely will have a problem in this area, along with his lack of availability to the press/media.
For now, the new projected election out come totals are:
Projected Winner Obama 293
Projected Loser Romney 244
Job1, that lack of availability is becoming a bigger and bigger issue for the meda...and with good reason. Their pride doesn't allow them to just be herded around pretending the same campaign literature given to everyone else is a "scoop", and their instincts tell them someone trying that hard to control the message must have something to hide.
Right on both counts.
Meanwhile......Romney is trying to find someone for his VP pick. However.....Romney is not choosing his mate...It will be Norquist and Rove who call the shots. When Romney went to Trump for advice on the issue, Trump recommended Gary Bussey. Trump fired him before and Romney likes to fire people, So Gary is the likely choice. Hell he wouldn't even know he was fired so no harm to him.
@FEISTY DEADHEAD: The difference between Romney's healthcare in Ma. being called a penalty and Obama's healthcare being called a tax is, Romney's healthcare was never challenged in court so it is called a penalty, Obama's healthcare was challenged in court and the SCOTUS ruled his is a tax. But of course your head up Obama's azz Liberals are to stupid to figure this out!!!!
TYLER, When are you going to do something about the needless deleted posts?
cliff - ha! exactly. haha.
Amazing how many uninformed people in this thread who actually believe that a government program will actually SAVE money?? So we add a 2,700 page law (that most politicians admit have not read it) that so far has added nearly 10,000 pages of new regulations (and are only about 50% of the way through this law) and some above are naive to think this is going to increase efficiency and "bend the cost curve"?
Can you name ONE government program that EVER came close to the "estimated cost"? Can you name ONE major government program that EVER was run efficiently and saved the taxpayers money? I'll help you with the answer: a simple "No" will do.
Do you know that when Medicare started in 1966 it cost $3 Billion. By 1990 it was supposed to cost $12 Billion but it ACTUALLY cost $107 Billion in 1990. Nearly 10 times what was projected. Now Medicare costs about $800 Billion a year. That is nearly a TRILLION dollars for Medicare!! And that is not counting the "unfunded liabilities" (promised benefits that have not been paid yet thus the money has not yet been borrowed) estimated at $82 TRILLION!!
And let's not even get started with Social Security which is a bankrupt system and in 2010 finally hit that point where more money is going OUT than coming IN. So every year we must borrow money to pay Social Security benefits. And that is not counting the "unfunded liabilities" of Social Security estimated at $16 TRILLION!!
So all of you throwing a party because this disaster got upheld by the Supreme Court you keep your horns and streamers so you can throw ANOTHER party in 5 years when this country finally admits it is bankrupt. PASSING this disastrous law was the easy part.
Finding out how to PAY for it will be the hard part. And when you read this disaster will "only" cost $1 Trillion over the next 10 years multiply that by 10 or even 20. You saw what happened to Medicare (above) and THAT was for just a small portion of our citizens. The Affordable Care Act affect over 300 million citizens and will make the disasters of Medicare look like dime store candy. The Affordable Care act will cost us trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars when it is all said and done.
And what will we have? A health care system that costs 5 times more with the efficiency of the Department of Motor Vehicles and the compassion of the Internal Revenue Service.
So, again, congratulations!! You think health care is expensive now?? Just wait until its FREE!!
LOL JohnB, Isn't willard the one running for POTUS, not his top aide? Aides come and go regardless of who is potus. Good to see that you still are foolish enough to still believe that the right is always wrong and that obama is always right. Oppps, a catch 22, if obama is always right, and the right is always wrong must mean that obama is always wrong. If you have a problem with this reasoning just re-read many of the posts made by yourself and your fellow liberal posters.
cliff, why are you talking to Feisty when she hasn't commented on this subthread?
With that necessary house cleaning out of the way, the rest of your comment is equally nonsensical. It isn't a tax because no one ever went to court in order to insist that it be CALLED a tax? No one ever went to court to insist that a duck be called a duck (as far as I know, admittedly). Does that mean I'm free to refer to said waterfowl as an armadillo?
The people know what it is. They know how it works. They've known about it from the beginning. They knew when Newt Gingrich was plugging it 20 years ago. The terminology simply doesn't affect anything.
What IS of significance is Mitt's intense efforts to parse words, and the rest of Conservativeland along with him. Weren't these the same people who were in a lather over "what's the meaning of 'is'?" Seems the shoe is on the other foot now and you just want to pretend that isn't so.
The Supreme Court ruled that the mandate is a tax. So the mere fact liberals are trying to run and hide from that reality is certainly no surprise. There are no big boy pants to be found in the Democratic Party, just blame and excuses. Whether you call it a tax or a penalty, the mandate is extortion. Funny how liberals are ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court said it cannot be a mandate under the commerce clause as you cannot force anyone to buy anything, but you can tax them if they don't buy it. The end result is the same and it is a completely idiotic stance from the Supreme Court and a very dangerous precedent.
Of course the House Ways and Means Committee is where all taxes originate, so how is it the mandate tax originated in the senate? How many truly believe if the Democratic Party had called the mandate a tax the bill would still have passed? The Democratic Party is all about perception, just call it a fee and not a tax, or just call it a penalty and not a tax. Well call it whatever you want, but it is nothing less then the federal government taking more of our money to spend on programs that never come in anywhere near budget. The cost of ObamaCare will spiral out of control in just a few short years just like Medicare and Medicaid, and it will never improve healthcare or control the cost.
History has proven that time and time again. The way ObamaCare was written behind closed doors in secret locations and rammed through congress nothing about this bill was well thought out or truly calculated. Remember we had to encourage congress to pass it before we could find out what was in it. Justice Roberts sold out the American people with one of the worst decisions and poorly written arguments ever to come from the Supreme Court. But he was only given the opportunity to do such by the Democratic Party that rammed through what will go down in history as one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed. But even when that reality hits home, you can bet Democrats will be blaming the Republican Romney for giving them the plan. Nothing but blame and excuses and no leadership.
Get used to it right wing nut cases. Romney will "flip-Flop" to get into office. Lie, cheat and steal is the republican motto for the rich and ultra rich trying to buy this election and others.
You know Cliff...I agree with you. There is no real difference between Romneycare and Obamacare. Why do you thing Romney is bouncing around like a ping pong ball on the issue. Rove and Norquist are going to have to do some serious marketing, keep Romney's mouth shut and spend a ridiculous amount of money to get the boy out of this.
The reason Romney takes no position on any issue is because then he would be asked questions and he would have to defend his position. At that point he will fail miserably. It will be like watching the male version of Sarah Palin.
If he had not been born into wealth, he would be a hotdog vendor at Diamondbacks ballgames. No disrepect intended towards hotdog vendors.
Romney cannot even control his senior adviser but he wants to run the United States of America?
I guess, according to Romney's senior adviser, women's issues are considered shiny objects...
But investing money to make money in a company that disposes aborted fetuses is, according to Romney, just business....
What a bunch of hypocrites...
Probusiness...
At least we know that obamacare will add jobs, first in the private sector to ensure that the insurers and medical providers have the clerical workers required to ensure compliance. Secondly in the public sector to also insure that the private sector is in compliance.
Hard to see where obamacare will create a savings, regardless of how you bring up the all important history of government being so efficient and without waste.
Rick-3416939
the reality is that if it's a tax, it applies to Romney as well. Romney cannot have it both ways...or his way only....or whatever Romney is trying to claim to get out of this one.
Obama flip flops:
Gay marriage, GTMO, debt ceiling, tax cuts...
I would assume everyone flip flops on certain issues.
I guess I don't get why he would be called a flip flopper when he is just stating the facts. If the Supreme Court called it a tax, then that's what it is. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks it is unless it is repealled, which it won't be. If at the state level it's a penalty then that's what it is, again just stating the facts.
Are the Obama supporters going to say Obama isn't a hypocryte. They said it was a penalty, and didn't try to scrap it when it's a tax.
Both parties suck. I, wishing I could go back in time and change my vote, gave Obama a chance. He hasn't delivered. I personally liked Romney last time over John McCain. ALL politicians change their stances. Do you know anyone that keeps the same mindset on an issue their whole life, or after they are presented with facts or landmark decisions? I don't.
So the republican "Cultist" is able to flip-flop and Fox excuses it as just part of politics, while condemning it for others?
Romney isn't flip flopping. He is simply "evolving" just like Obama does, and did specifically with gay marriage. Remember when Obama was against that? He changed his mind, and instead of being called a flip flopper, he "evolved"
So its only fair to say that Romney is simply evolving too right? Yep cool.
Or how about when Obama said it wasn't a tax with the ACA on national TV, then he sent his lawyer in front of the SCOTUS, and Obamas lawyer flat out stated it was a tax. I guess Libs don't like that thrown in their faces though.
cliff-567164
this is the funniest excuse I have heard so far....
If I steal a car but don't get caught, it's really not stealing because I was not "challenged" in court?
haha. Good point John.
Hoot - I'm with you.
WOW!!! Take a position,how about all the broken promises by OBAMA!!!! Thats right it Bushes fault; the fact of the matter is, this is OBAMA's Economy. A failed economy with a debt that will never be paid especially with the new Obamacare health care tax or penalty. If not for the rich and wealthy all you lazy and can't get off your ass and make a name for your self people would really be hungry and homeless. Look at what France just did, all the rich and wealthy are leaving the country as fast as they can. If this is all you have to talk about is Rommey saying its a penalty or tax, you all must be peeing in your pants because OBAMA will be ripped apart this election, he will have to run on his failed economy and the massive debt he has created. Sorry you all hat America as badly as you do, I served 11 years in the military for your freedoms and privileges. If you do not like America move to a different country such as France, a socialistic country that hold your values.
bayllie - I think he's referring to the fact that Obama said it wasn't a tax, and their main reasoning for the "penalty" was the government's power under the commerce clause. Then, it was challenged, went to the court, and was then ruled a tax, which allows the mandate, afterwhich it is now, according to everyone in favor, a tax, as opposed to before, when Obama referred to it as a penalty, and the main reasoning behind most people's arguments was the commerce clause, not taxing authority.
Personally, I don't see the MA healthcare law as a real problem for Romney as long as he treats it as a states rights issue. The citizens of MA wanted the law, so he gave them what they wanted. That doesn't mean he thinks the solution that was implemented in MA is appropriate for the entire country.
Romney is morphing into some evil right wing extremist who represents the billionaire and millionaire views. We will see if the rich can buy this election or not?
Cuts are fine if you include increasing revenue to get rid of the debt that bush's tax cuts and corporate cuts have led us to to the tune of $11,000,000,000,000 of the $16,000,000,000,000 that Obama gets blamed for by the teabuggers!
I hate the right because we all know that they are wrong.
Bayllie,
Good point...I don't like the healthcare law, but I also don't think Deadhead's comment has any validity.
Still waiting for a responsible journalist to ask Romney when he will be calling for the Repeal
of ROMNEYCARE?
Welcome to Romney's Waffle House. Flip Flop!
I noticed Obama is pulling ahead significantly in Ohio. Romney's outsourcer tag is killing him there. and other surrounding states. Looking at the heavier lean to Obama in every swing state, I don't see how NO SOLUTION ROMNEY gets to 270 electoral votes.
Where are Romney's ideas on replacing Obacare? Where are his specific job proposals? Where are his stands on foreign affairs? Energy? Romney is a candidate with no ideas. Oh, and why does he value his money in foreign banks rather than investing in America
Romney just doesn't have any answers. And America is waking up about that. Throwing rocks from thje bench just wont work this time. Romney is losing.
Obama/Biden
I dislike extremists of both sides because they seem to be incapable of listening to others with different opinions. Neither "side" is always right or always wrong.
I suggest trying to actually listen to people with opposing views and try to understand where they are coming from, and why they think their ideas might work. If you do this, I think you will be surprised. I have both liberal and conservative friends, and they have significantly different world views and approaches to solving problems, but at a core level they all have the same goals - provide for their family and then help those in need. Yes, there are some jerks out there, but they are the minority and I see an equal number on the right and the left.
RE_POST:
July 05, 2012
This tight one is starting to open up a little bit more in favor of Obama. So, my current Projection: (Currently the states that will continue to play the biggest in November are Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida and Wisconsin. For now these states are remaining in the toss up status, while leaning toward Obama. However, if the election were held today, Obama would win the general.
The key months for this race are going to be September and October. And as far as the debates, Romney most likely will have a problem in this area, along with his lack of availability to the press/media.
For now, the new projected election out come totals are:
Projected Winner Obama 293
Projected Loser Romney 244
John Haddock
60 years ago, 90%+ of Americans were against mixed race marriages. Many who were against it then, don't have an issue today because we, as the society, evolved. Gay marriage, as a social issue, applies to evolving as well.
Guess what, I will take a president that evolves with the social issues any day, and anytime over one that doesn't.
Republicans call social issues "shiny objects," why? It's 2012 for crying out loud!
dems are pecans while gop is almonds....all nuts. if I am forced to pay something they say i have to....my wallet does not speak their language and only knows this as a (-). Just another play ground fight amongst our "leaders". I wonder what school would have been like if our teachers acted this way....could you imagine..."its a test", no its a "quiz"....(cat screams, nails come out, fur starts flying) wow just simply wow and why do we tolerate this behavior is wastington? I'm embarrassed
Clwyd - what are your thoughts on Obama increasing the debt ceiling (4 times I think?) plus continuing to increase the deficit, while also extending the bush tax cuts?
Todd - what is it with you right wing mental midgets that you constantly have to believe that those of us who are not on the far right don't work. Guaranteed I work longer and harder than you and most of your little right wing friends do so why don't you get off your sorry ass and do something productive?
Your whining is beyond stupid - it's Republican! Get over your hatred of the man in the White House and realize how much worse the economy would be had McCain/Palin (we don't have a problem with the economy) had been elected. Romney has NOTHING to offer - not one single program or plan - but you would stupidly vote for him just to get the boogie man out of the White House. Grow up and come into the 21st century! You'll find it's not so bad and that if we all work together we can get the country back on the right track. But not as long as the right wingers are just filled with ignorance and hatred - based on nothing.
askaboutet - Regan raised the debt ceiling 18 times - Bush 19 times. Your point????
Obama/Biden 2012
From Romeo and Juliet-
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet;"
For those of you who are so desperately trying to separate Romneycare's tax/penalty from the ACA tax/penalty, they are one in the same. Call it whatever you want. The important thing is this rose will effect about 2% of the population and those are just the ones who can affort insurance but choose to dump their health care costs on the rest of us. Do you not care for personal responsibility? Are you supporting free riders as Romney called them?
And Todd, just one word "Decaf"
Tax, Penalty...in the end it really doesn't matter. It will only apply to the healthcare freeloaders, about 1%. But if its a Tax for Obamacare, then it was a tax for RomneyCare too. Cant have it both ways, but if your Romney, you will sure try.
Romney, the human well-greased weathervane
In my humble opinion, I think all politicians will "flip/flop" to get into office. So, what is the big deal? Let's move on.
Im just going to write my own name on the ballot...I know what I stand for (yeah I know it will do nothing) but hey they cant say I voted for these two freak shows
askaboutit,
By Travis Waldron on Apr 14, 2011 at 11:49 am
"At the beginning of the Bush presidency, the United States debt limit was $5.95 trillion. Despite promises that he would pay off the debt in 10 years, Bush increased the debt to $9.815 trillion by the end of his term, with plenty of help from the four Republicans currently holding Congressional leadership positions: Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl. ThinkProgress compiled a breakdown of the five debt limit increases that took place during the Bush presidency and how the four Republican leaders voted:
Database searches revealed no demands from the four legislators that debt increases come accompanied by drastic spending cuts, as there are now. In fact, the May 2003 debt limit increase passed the Senate the same day as the $350 billion Bush tax cuts for the wealthy."
Before you righties jumps up and yell "ThinkProgress is a bunch of commies" all voting records are public information and can't be manipulated by anyone. Debt ceiling are open Congressional records too. The messenger is not the message.
SeekingSanity -
The problem with posts like yours, especially when you accuse people of being mental midgets, is that they don't really say much, and therefore make YOU look a little more like a mental midget.
1. I am not in favor of posts like Todd's either, but you're upset about the fact that he assumes you don't work, and then you assume you work more than him and his republican friends. (same thing)
2. "Realize how much worse the economy would be had McCain/Palin ... won the election" You can't just SAY that. If that is a good argument, someone could just respond by saying it would be better.
3. Accusing republicans of ignorance and hatred - based on your responce, calling people "mental midgets," telling people to "grow up" etc, you're acting like you "hate" republicans, and also like you're acting with IGNORANCE , assuming that all people that are against the mandate can be lumped together in one general description.
Great post.
Ron,
The HC law is far from perfect but we have to start somewhere. I've known too many people who were denied health insurance due to pre-existing conditions. It's not right. You work your whole life, pay premiums, just to find out that when it's time to cash in because you happen to get sick, the insurance company says a big, fat F*CK YOU!
I really don't like Romney. I think he worships one thing and one thing only: cash. I don't think Romney is a good human being, and I think he is capable of almost anything as long as it increases the balance in his Swiss bank account.
VWTerry - I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me. (but that is an interesting set of facts. Pretty amazing!)
Ummm....best start shopping for diapers yourself there sport, looking at the polling for the swing states, especially Ohio. Obama is pulling away. Obama is being very effective at pointing out Romney's Outsourcing solutions and statements that 'Detroit should just go bankrupt'. Its working where it counts; Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Romney's paths to 270 are shrinking. He can only run from the press so long, campaign without stating his position or the policies. Romney just doesn't have any SOLUTIONS or policies.
Romney is bankrupt of ideas
askaboutet - no dummy, it's not the same thing. He began this by talking about liberals sitting on their asses - I didn't. To call him out proves a point that he isn't thinking at all. But, you're a Republican - as you've shown in your posts - so you'll side with him. Not surprising.
And, since McCain/Palin didn't realize there was a problem with the economy, we would have been much worse off under their "leadership."
I think it's funny you never jumped on Todd for his post. Again, you'll never attack someone who is a Republican. Can you say Hypocrite?
You mental midgets stick together, don't you?
Obama/Biden 2012
ask,
Just drawing a parallel with your question in #2.36. I think a question like that should have some basis for comparison.
SeekingSanity - I'm not a republican. I'm just against the health insurance mandate.
Again, you're just saying that we would be worse off. That doesn't really mean much.
To behonest, I didn't read Todd's post until after I read yours. Then, when I was about to respond to yours, I purposely mentioned that I also didn't agree with his post, in order to not sound like I was only against your post. sorry.
You're amazing with your mental midget lines. great alliteration. I promise I am actually smart, though.
Most Americans do not realize that the obligation to have Health Care Insurance is NO DIFFERENT than the State Mandate to have Vehicle Insurance (to protect the other driver) where the Health Care Insurance(HCI) protects both you and your family. Additionally it helps protect the other guys from footing your bill if are unable to pay for Medical Care.
askaboutet
I personally don't care what it is - tax or penalty. At some point I was taxed more for being single, not owning a house and for not having dependents. I viewed that as being penalized.
I'll bet you have no issue with other people not getting deductions for children, being married, or owning home.
I'll bet that, if you get any of those breaks that many others don't) you take it and claim you deserve it.
So guess what, many of us feel that the deadbeats who CHOOSE not to pay for their health insurance, should contribute somehow.
But to get to my original point: if it's tax - it applies to Romney as well.
It's only a tax on the deadbeats who choose not to have health insurance, so the rest of us can pay higher premiums to cover the "free" healthcare they get when they visit the ER and then can't or won't pay the bills.
I continue to be amazed at the conservatives who would rather continue supporting those deadbeats rather than require them to take financial responsibility for their own healthcare.
Unlike many other things in life, healthcare is not optional -- at some point, everyone needs it. When they do, especially in a life-threatening emergency, they will be treated first and billed later. If they have no insurance, they will not be able to pay the large bills that come with ER treatment for severe trauma, unless they are fairly wealthy. So why are conservatives ok with the rest of us -- those of us who are insured -- continuing to subsidize the health care costs of those who are not?
I could go along with a truly free-market health care system in which everyone has total freedom to choose whether or not to buy insurance and takes full responsibility for the consequences of their choice. That means doctors, ambulance drivers and hospital emergency rooms must refuse treatment to anyone who has no insurance and no cash to pay for services when rendered. If you die in the ER waiting room due to lack of insurance and lack of cash, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.
Repeal Obamacare and bring on Sarah Palin's death panels!
American: Did you ACTUALLY say "at least ObamaCare will create jobs"? Are you THAT naive? Are you THAT out of touch with reality? You must be one of those lemmings that say the "stimulus" also created jobs too - right? The question is NOT whether spending money creates jobs but HOW MUCH does it cost for each job!! The stimulus was inefficient and all indications are it cost somewhere around $300,000 per job. So you want to spend tens of trillions of jobs to supposedly "create" some jobs?
I have a better idea: remove the shackles of the U.S. government and let the BUSINESSES create jobs!! Businesses are efficient and remove the burden of ObamaCare, remove the burden of needless regulations, remove the uncertainty of taxes over the next several years and you will see job creation like you haven't seen since the Reagan years.
Stating government spending creates jobs is as naive as saying trimming your bushes creates jobs. The U.S. government CANNOT create any jobs. Impossible. Can't be done. All the U.S. government can do is create a pro-business environment where BUSINESSES can create jobs. And ObamaCare does the complete opposite.
Do you know about the "50 employee" rule in ObamaCare? I'll let you read the details (its MUCH more complicated) but, in summary, once a company hits 50 employees then they MUST offer "acceptable insurance" (as a business owner just TRY to figure out what an "acceptable insurance" means!!). If not they pay a penalty. I know 3 businesses right now who have about 50 employees. One tells me he will need stop growing his business to make sure he doesn't hit 50 employees. Another is at 54 employees and is already analyzing WHICH 5 employees to get rid of. Another is considering outsourcing 6 phone operators so when they layoff the 6 workers they will be under 50 employees (oh and by the way, that will be six more phone operators in India who will get a job. At least India is trying to create more jobs!!).
I know another business with about 90 employees. Obviously they cannot cut down to 50 employees so they will be forced to pay fines. So they have calculated they will need to layoff 3 workers to offset this increased cost.
So don't be naive. Government CANNOT create a job and ObamaCare is doing nothing more than causing businesses to find a way to cut this increased tax burden (BTW, it IS a tax. Businesses don't give a tiny rat's behind what YOU call it - if it requires a check to the government it is a tax plain and simple). And businesses are already preparing how to PAY for these new taxes and it will require laying off good employees. So tell me again in your naive logic how ObamaCare will CREATE jobs?
Isn't it both a tax and a penalty if you have a job with insurance you pay part of your premium you also pay medicare tax for who not me and if you don't have insurance you pay a FINE!!! So no matter what you call it your paing and the government is more involved than before and that's good why.
The other thing I keep hearing about is the off shore accounts Romney has. Is it illegal to make money and be smart with it? As gov. in ma Romney didn't collect a pay check because he didn't need it. isn't that like a volunteer. What he's got more money than he know what to do with? SO WHAT!!! How many other people are in the same boat and don't have the BALLS to get up and say somethings wrong. If he can make that kind of money for himself than just maybe he can doing for the country. We need a ruthless business person who has experience running things and knows how to make money. If we keep going in the direction we are then we will all be talking Chinese.
@John B, Des Moines, IA
Speaks to his character huh? Well please do share with us what you think it says about the character of the POTUS. His people go back and forth between tax and penalty all the time. Hell during the Oral arguments poor solicitor General Verrilli was so confused he couldn't remember when he was supposed to argue that is was a tax and when he was supposed to call it a penalty.
Funny how you critisize Romney but then make no mention of Obama doing the same thing. Let me guess, you only see fault in the other side while giving a pass to the very same thing when your side does it. How very hypocritical of you.
OOPS: The Supreme Court ruled it a Tax, and ruled that only States can Mandate? According to statements by Tea Party Congressional Newbies, they stated that their actions in Congress were Mandates (like building a new Naval Vessel or a new Bridge) rather than a real cost to the taxpayer. Catch-22. Are they correct or is the Supreme Court correct? Both cannot be correct.
Warning! Warning! That is illogical. Paradox. Paradox.
@azdad48
Wrong. A very, very small percentage of uninsured people end up in the ER. The purpose of this tax is to force people who don't need insurance to chip in and cover the expenses of those who do. The bill will be so costly that the only way to pay for all of the perks is to take money out of the pockets of people who won't be seeing any of the advantages.
Mitt the UnFitt is a clueless bumbling fool.
49 more states now have Romneycare.
Bayllie - Actually, I am pretty much against the government creating tax breaks/incentives for just about anything. Just so you know I am unbiassed, I am a tax attorney. I think the government using taxes as a means to get their ideas across is ridiculous and causing an incredible multitute of problems.
In terms of ME taking tax deductions, I certainly wouldn't say I think I DESERVE them, you mean like having the feeling of accomplishment for doing something, then deserving a tax deduction for them?
HOWEVER, Despite the above, I do think it is possible to make the argument that there is a difference between the income tax deductions for government incentives (which remember, I am pretty much against as well) and a tax for the lack of purchasing insurance.
Backcountry164 - people without insurance ALREADY use the ER's in place of a doctor because they can't be turned away. All of us who are insured already pay for them in higher insurance costs and in higher hospital bills used to offset the loss of treating those who are uninsured.
Probusiness,
You really saying these people never had jobs? Please explain then why the last three Republican administrations added so many public sector (Government) jobs when needed to maintain employment numbers. That should be interesting.
Public sector job growth under G.W. Bush rose 4.2% while he maintained an overall growth rate of 01%. Public sector job loss under B. Obama has been at approximately 2.9% with an overall loss rate of 3.0%. This indicates that the Bush administrations job growth record was solely based on government jobs while at the same time loosing private sector jobs. The same rates of public sector job growth occurred under Presidents Reagan and G.H.W. Bush for 54 months following recessions during their administrations, the same time period shown for the Obama administration. Were the Obama administration to add similar public sector jobs the unemployment rate would be around 7.5%. (Source- BLS)
SeekingSanity - *I am not trying to argue/be difficult, I am actually trying to learn what the plan is...*
If the hospital costs are now going to be convered by insurance companies, won't those costs be spread out to other people paying for insurance? Also, if insurance payments are now pretty much guaranteed, do you think hospitals will actually LOWER what they charge for things? That's the biggest part I don't understand - do you think health care costs will actually decrease as a result of this or increase? I know if I were running abusiness and I was told that everytime someone owes me money it will DEFINITELY be paid, I would probably just keep prices where they are, or increase them to be guaranteed to make more money...?
Man you right wingers sure like to beat a dead horse. Everyday you all say the same $#!t. All of you need to get a life. Come election day it will be decided. Talk about a waste of time and money, thats what the house is going to do on July 11. The powers that be in the house are going to vote to repeal the the health care bill. I already know the outcome they will vote to repeal. But its not going to go anywhere. The powers that be in the house should be working on something that will be acceptable to both parties not just to them. The best part of all this history will show just how stubborn and hard header the right is. Contempt is the best word to describe the leaders of the house.
Why is it that no one is talking about the second half of this story...Obama's big 2 day campaign trip.?If Obama is doing so well why is he spending his time in places he won easily last election. Candidates normally focus their time on gaining new votes not ones they have already won.
This story talks so much about "Romney's Fatal Flaw" while completely glossing over the fact that Obama is wasting time and money trying to secure his base. Obama's fatal flaw is going to be this economy and his dismal economic record. Both these candidates have weaknesses. Nice biased reporting.
I trust MSNBC's commentary on what conservatives think about as much as Feisty and Backhouse trust Fox News' commentary on what liberals, oops I mean progressives, think on an issue.
Ron-1861300...I agree with you about listening and the fact that simply slamming one side or another makes little sense. What is far more concerning is that so many opinions, on each side, are made by culling out facts in an argument that assist what one particular side wants the story to be and leaving behind issues that contradict or raise questions about their point. Both sides are guilty of this, left wing generally because they are a bit naive and the right because they are brainwashed by interests that spend hideous amounts of money pumping out propoganda and getting people's chests all swelled with patriotic pride and self-importance. The problem is that just listening to the other side's argument generally means listening to parroting of half-truths and someone else's priorities. Not enough critical discussion is done by most people on either side because they launch into their respective opinions disposed right away to believe one side over the other instead of carefully arriving at an opinion. Case in point...I love Ayn Rand and think her philosophy is brilliant, if it is followed honestly and true. But the reality is people as a whole will no more follow Ayn Rand's doctrine any more than they will Karl Marxs' ideals. I love the concept of free market and while it pains me, careful consideration of fact and reality have led me to realize that we need some evening of the playing field in the issue of health care and in the end, right wing interests are in the interest of only a select few yet they have marshalled the support of those who will be negatively effected the most by their own ideas. Romney is screwed because he cannot actally hold a view on something of his own and has to continually flop around to stay in line with the requirements of his corporate masters.
SeekingSanity - sorry I just saw that you posted about reagan and bush debt ceilings and asked what my point was talking about Obamas. The person was ranting on bush's tax cuts, increasing the deficit, etc. (Assuming he is in favor of Obama) I asked what his thoughts were on Obama also increasing the deficit and keeping the tax cuts because it seemed like he was trying to show that Mitt romney is bad for wanting to extend the cuts, and that republicans in general are bad because of bush, so I was wondering his thoughts on Obama doing (seemingly) what he was saying is wrong with his republican examples.
I wasn't saying that democrats or republicans do or do not extend tax cuts, increase the debt ceiling, etc.
Romney's statement shows that he made a choice. The Supreme Court ruled that it is a tax, and as long as he continued to claim it was not a tax but rather an unconstitutional penalty, he was saying that the Supreme Court was wrong. It is a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" So which way would you rather he went?
It doesn't change the fact that either Obamacare contains unconstitutional penalties, or a tax that Obama denied vehemently. Whichever way you look at it, it makes Obama look bad.
Obamacare will raise the amount that middle class citizens pay each year. The part that the supreme court ruled on - the mandate to have insurance or pay a penalty - is key to Obamacare working. The only possible way to get the cost of insurance down is to include more healthy young people in the plan. Insurance companies are businesses, and if more money is going out than is coming in, they can't function. So either they raise the rates for their customers or get new customers who won't need to file claims. Without forcing people to do this, Obamacare is just another welfare program, but one that has no way to offset the expense - the 1 trillion dollar expense.
But while that part is the part that the focus has been on, the problems with the plan are that it makes it mandatory to cover people with pre-existing conditions, which anyone who understands ANYTHING about insurance would understand that it will increase the amount insurance companies pay out without increasing the amount of money coming in. So the result is everyone's premiums go up. EVERYONE's. It makes it illegal to charge women higher premiums, even though women average more health care costs over their life than men. So higher premiums for everyone. It forces companies to provide coverage for everyone, but the penalty for not doing it is FAR lower than the cost of providing coverage for their employees, so they will STILL not cover the employees and only pay the fines, which don't go toward health care costs, it goes to the government's coffers. So then those employees have to get coverage on their own, but if they can't afford it, they either pay a TAX that doesn't go toward the cost of health care, or they go on medicaid, which increases the taxes for EVERYONE ELSE.
Anyone who thinks that this plan will not increase premiums, increase taxes, and increase the national debt is wrong. It will do all of the above. Any "jobs" created as a result of needing more people to administrate this program within the health care industry and in businesses needs to understand that the cost will be passed on to the customers, in the form of more expensive health care or higher premiums. Or it will be paid for with lower wages for all employees. One way or another, the cost gets passed on to US.
The rest of the arguments are moot. We are all struggling to get by, and with the economy down, more taxes and higher health care costs are NOT the answer. It isn't the "rich" who are against all this - it is the middle class. The taxpayers who are not happy to have the government forcibly take their hard earned money to give to the poor. If we want to give our money, it should be our choice, not a government mandate. That is the rub, that is the problem, and liberals seem to be OK with it but can't understand why the rest of us are not. Read the history of how and why we became an independent nation, perhaps that will shed some light on it.
Backcountry said "The purpose of this tax is to force people who don't need insurance to chip in and cover the expenses of those who do."
And that is the fundamental fallacy of those who oppose the ACA -- the notion that there is someone out there, anyone, who truly doesn't need health insurance. Some people only think they don't need it...until their life is on the line and suddenly they need it.
I don't care how young, strong and healthy you are, anyone can get in a car accident at any time. And when you do, and it's bad, you had better either have insurance or have a couple hundred thousand dollars in the bank because I am tired of paying YOUR upaid medical bills, just so you could exercise your freedom to decide "I don't need health insurance."
Like I said before, I'm perfectly ok with a free-market system in which an uninsured person who doesn't have the cash is allowed to die in the ER due to inability to pay. But doctors and hospitals don't work that way, they are trained to save lives first and collect the money later.
If you think the unpaid medical bills of the uninsured deadbeats don't affect insurance premiums, then please explain why health insurance premiums in Massachusetts are down 50% in the 6 years since Romneycare took effect.
askaboutet - 2.68 no problem. It's difficult keeping up with all the conservation sometimes.
haha. Dd you edit that in? I seriously missed it the first time I read it.
Dave K - AWESOME post.
Great entertainment reading these messages from leftists pointing out Romney's flip flopping. Where it really gets funny is how they suddenly drop the subject as soon as someone points out the fact that Obama has been flipping and flopping on issues like a mahimahi on a boat's deck since he's been in office.
Lanikai - unfortunately, that is also the problem I have had when trying to have a good legal/economic discussion on here about the mandate... oh well.
SC Guardian
Some analogy on the health care/car insurance. You're dead wrong, though. If I choose not to drive a car, I don't have to pay car insurance. If I choose not to have health insurance, I have to pay anyway. Please enlighten me as to where the similarities are!
what is with us.dems are now more like repubs. 5 yrs ago we would never agree with assinations thats what repubs did. we were against it.dem prez and now dems are for it and repubs against it.people just care whats good for their party not country. we are one twisted country
You right wingers are again packing your sacks assuming the trip is still on. It ain't. Since the SC ruling on the A.C.A. many people, heretofore mired in your BS, are reading, and have read the act. They like it. Fact, a great many love it. Many break down in tears in quaking anticipation of the completion of Its installation. Turns out, that lady you sum-bitches decried as a $200.00 a night whore is in reality, a wonderful woman freely distributing yummy biscuits among those who so desperately need them.
Obama/Biden 2012
askaboutet- did not edit it in, sorry.
Lanikai Ron - no different than trying to get the right wingers to actually talk facts instead of talking about President Obama's birth certificate; calling him a Socialist; communist; marxist; Kenyan; etc.
Obama/Biden 2012
SS - no reason to appologize. Also, I haven't seen anyone in this discussion bring any of those up. Just you, in defense to a post made about not offering defenses...
Anyways. This forum is sort of silliy, I guess. It's mostly people from either side bashing each other...
So, we can say any adult who doesn't want health care is not only a fool, but is pretty darn stupid.
Who doesn't want healthcare?
askaboutet Who doesn't want healthcare?
The republican/tea bag party! Easy answer!
Immigrants who are here illegally will use the emergency rooms has a doctor visit, which brings up the cost considerably. Had this been addressed?
Don't you think republicans go to the doctors too? Wouldn't they have tried to pass a law outlawing healthcare or something if that were the case?
Smitty, it's only an easy answer to the uninformed and those who look at the federal government as their Daddy.
Honestly, Smitty. It's answers like that that make me worried about this country, unless you're sort of just joking, to rile people up.
thetotas, health care costs are driven up considerably by anyone who uses the ER and doesn't pay the bill. Illegal aliens are part of this, but the vast majority of the freeloaders are not illegal aliens -- they're citizens and legal residents who don't have health insurance and when they have an expensive medical emergency, they can't or don't pay the tens of thousands of dollars in bills that come in the mail afterward.
We can't solve the illegal alien problem with this health insurance reform law, but at least we can solve the majority of that unpaid medical bill problem that costs all the rest of us so much in higher insurance premiums.
Actually we could solve the problem completely if we could just convince the medical community that they must not provide services to anyone who can't pay. If you have no insurance and don't have a huge pile of cash, then you don't get emergency surgery after that bad car wreck, or whatever.
If you can't pay the bill, you shouldn't get the service. If you die, whose fault is that?
First I have a question; how did feisty get "aced out." There's one thing I would like for all you Obama worshipers who is your god (small g) keep your eyes on his pants when he speaks because they are going to catch on fire.
VWTerry: I just LOVE the way liberals always deflect their failures with "Yes, but George Bush........". I'll be the first to admit I think GW failed when it came to spending. He protected us at a time where our country was being attacked. For that I am grateful. But he spent money like a, well, liberal. Of course everything is relative. He borrowed about $250 Billion a year on average and I hated that. But Obama is borrowing about $1.5 TRILLION a year. That is unsustainable. However, I won't get pulled into a George Bush debate. So you are aware he is no longer president and hasn't been for nearly 4 years. But Obama has made it worse and it will continue to get worse until we get a president who understands business. Is Romney the man? I have never been a big Romney supporter and voted for someone else in the primary. But Romney won so the question is do we want four more years of the failed policies of Obama or try someone else that at least understands how business works? Obama doesn't know how a business works, how a job is created, WHY a job is created, or how an economy works. On a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being AWESOME!!) I give Romney a 7. He is too liberal for my desires but he is much better than Obama who is a 2.
BTW, what I find very sad is everybody was so anxious to vote in a black man that they failed to "vet" Obama first. I too was looking forward to a black president and would go a long way in showing the country and the world how far we have come in only 50 years or so. But the first black president in U.S. history was a disastrous failure and I think that is sad because it will hurt the chances of another black president any time soon. So Obama actually has hurt the racial divide rather than helped. That is a shame.
And for the many uninformed they are under this incredible myth that ONLY those who don't pay for their employee's insurance will have to pay the "penalty" (aka "tax"). How wrong you are. There are FIVE MAJOR new taxes coming your way and will affect EVERYBODY including the lower and middle classes. The Affordable Care Act includes these FIVE MAJOR additional taxes that are scheduled to start January 2013. They are:
1) ObamaCare Medical Device Manufacturing Tax: This is a 2.3% tax on medical device makers and will raise the prices of every pacemaker, prosthetic limb, stent, and operating table. I know what your next comment will be: "but insurance will pay for those". And who pays the insurance premiums? That's right - you and I. So your premiums are going up next year already just for this tax. This is projected to cost taxpayers an additional $20 billion over the next 10 years.
2) ObamaCare High Medical Bills Tax: Currently you can deduct any medical costs that exceed 7.5% of your adjusted gross income (AGI). This is a VERY important tax benefit especially for the lower and middle classes because any significant event pushes the lower and middle class above this 7.5% of AGI. But ObamaCare changes that to where it must be over 10%. So if that affects you your tax bill just went up. BTW, this rarely helps the "wealthy" since getting over 7.5% of AGI when you make $250,000 is hard to do but if you make $25,000? Well, you are screwed. This is projected to cost taxpayers an additional $15 Billion over the next 10 years.
3) ObamaCare Flexible Spending Account Cap: 24 million Americans have Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA) and, starting next year, will have a cap of $2,500. Currently there is no limit and if you have a great deal of known medical costs per year can put money in your FSA tax free to cover these costs. But not starting next year and limited to $2,500. Over that you must use AFTER tax dollars. Example: You have a child and getting braces. So next year you wanted to put $8000 in your FSA to cover braces and get the tax benefits. Sorry, you are screwed. How about using your HSA (Health Savings Account) to buy over the counter medicines like you always have been able to do? Sorry, Obama stopped that starting next year. Taxes just went up for you in the lower to middle class. This is projected to cost taxpayers an additional $13 Billion over the next 10 years.
4) ObamaCare Surtax on Investment Income: Capital Gains taxes going from 15% to 20% in 2013 and top dividend rates rising from 15% to 39.6%. I know what you are thinking "GREAT!! Screw the rich!! They don't need it!!". But I'll bet you or someone in your family (parents, siblings, etc.) who get some money from selling stock maybe they got for working 20 years at a company or get a dividend check once or twice a year for the same stock? And these people are probably lower to middle class. Congratulations you just raised their taxes. This is projected to cost taxpayers an additional $123 Billion over the next 10 years.
5) OBamaCare Medicare Payroll Tax increase: Now this IS a tax on only the "wealthy" and if you make over $200,000 in wages they will pay an additional 0.9% in Medicare taxes. I know what you are thinking "GREAT!! Screw the rich!! They don't need it!!". Okay, let's go with that flawed logic. But do you actually think that will benefit the lower and middle class? Absolutely not because you don't understand business. If a person is making THAT kind of money it is easy to "shuffle" value. What that means is if a person was making $195,000 a year and ready for an increase in pay it might push him into a higher tax bracket. So one of a couple things will occur: The employee will demand a HIGHER increase to cover the tax. That means it costs the employer more thus they cannot give a raise (or hire) a lower to middle class worker. Or, second, the employee asks for a company car in "lieu" of a raise. Or the company revises their travel policy so this employee gets more (or better) travel benefits (higher per diem, better hotel stays, one additional "free day" after a work day when traveling, etc.) So the extra taxes are ultimately not paid anyway.
The problems with liberals is they just don't understand how businesses or an economy actually work. So the lower and middle class is getting ready to be screwed starting next year.
Enjoy your FREE health care!! And just keep telling yourself you won't pay more in taxes!! Just keep repeating it!! You might actually CONVINCE yourself even though you are getting ready to be bent over the counter and asking the government to just keep pounding you and pounding you. And somehow you will keep telling yourself this is good and you like it.
The liberal definition of Romney changing his mind on an issue is flip flopping. The liberal definition of when Obama changes his mind on an issue is evolving. So far Obama has evolved on just about every issue from speech to speech and crowd to crowd, except he has yet to evolve into a leader.
Romney is only calling the mandate a tax because that is what the Supreme Court called it. Romney says if the highest court in the land calls it a tax then it is a tax. How does it matter what he thinks personally if the Supreme Court has said it is a tax?
Everyone is getting hung up on semantics. Tax, fee, penalty, it all just the government taking your money to spend on something they deem to be more important then what you might have spent it on. ObamaCare will not come in anywhere near budget, and that will mean taxes will need to be raised or healthcare services cut. That is the simple truth backed up by every other entitlement ever started, which have all come in far over budget.
You will always have a choice whether you need a car but you will never have a choice whether you need healthcare.
Restated for the more simple-minded:
You may never need a car but you will always need healthcare.
ProBusiness
What I find amazing is that after having been sodomized by the govt and big businesses since the Raygun era, from the war on PATCO to the banking collapse and repugnican block of regulatory attempts, there are still some people stupid enough to believe that if we just keep bending over, eventually, the people will get treated reasonably. I can't help wondering when someone unashamedly defends being pro-business catagorically, without reservations, whether they are just incredibly stupid, stunningly naive, or just a thief trying to defend using the govt to justify their unbridled greed. I wonder how much of his ill-gotten gain Jamie Dimon will get to take with him to the grave.
@SeekingSanity
And you think this is a bad thing? Then why the hell do you support the same in reverse? How is this so hard for people to comprehend? When people are young and healthy the odds that they will need insurance are small, the mandate forces these people, many of which could easily get by without insurance until they are older, to pay for someone else's medical expenses. You are forcing people to do the very thing you bitch about? That makes sense to you?
Porbusiness,
Since I can't find anything in your cut and paste response to my post regarding government jobs, regardless who hired them, I will move on to something more important than trying to have a discussion with someone with the attention span of an average gnat.
Did anyone SAY health care would be free? Not at all. I will say that MY health care will be cheaper if YOU don't run around without insurance until need health care, then welsh on the bill making it part of MY insurance overhead. I will say that EVERYONE's health care will be cheaper if all actually have coverage for routine office visits. That's because people with no coverage normally end up at the emergency room, far more sick than they need to be. I will say that MY health care will be cheaper if insurance companies are limited to "only" 20% gross profit margin.
backcountry164 - I never said I thought it was a bad thing. Quit putting your words in my mouth. Young people often end up needing insurance even though they don't think they will. There are the broken bones - unexpected. There is the cancer or other disease that wasn't planned for. There are the serious accidents that can cause brain damage, etc., which are unplanned for. It would be really nice to think no one needs insurance until they are a certain age but that is a fallacy that has been disproved over time.
You've clearly had WAY too much caffeine and know very little about what you are posting about. Read up a little then come back for a real conversation. Then maybe I'll bitch - since I haven't yet!
azdad48
And the fundamental fallacy of those who support it is failure to acknowledge that the mandate does the same thing that you bitch about. Force people who aren't using healthcare to pay for those who do.
You can't get into a car accident if you don't drive and you can't drive (or ride with someone who is driving) without car insurance. Car insurance offers PIP giving these people an option to provide for medical coverage in the event of an auto accident without the need of medical insrance and at a fraction of a fraction of the cost. So your car accident scenario is moot since people already have a better option to protect them from that.
50%?? Yeah right, you'll need to provide some proof to back that claim up
"Tuerck argues that reforms not only taxed people by forcing them to buy coverage, but that they also made insurance rates rise. “The bill imposed new costs both on the federal government and on people who had insurance policies in Massachusetts, and we found that the cost of private health insurance had gone up because of Romneycare,” he says. This could be interpreted as having the same effect as a tax increase, which he says has a negative impact on job growth."- http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v30n1/cpr30n1-1.html
John, nothing our government has ever given us as an entitlement has ever cost what they said it was going to cost. The bill has always come in much higher. Obamacare will not only cost more than the bureaucrats have told us, it will also result in lesser quality healthcare. Can you provide us with one example of quality on time healthcare provided by any socialized medicine program anywhere in this world? The rich will always have access to quality healthcare. The rest of us will wait in line for our turn to be called and watch our politicians scramble to find the additional funding that will be needed to support Obamacare. I'm quite happy with my healthcare insurance and the quality healthcare that is currently available. If Obama really had our best interests at heart, he would not have caved to the big drug manufacturer's lobbyists by removing our ability to purchase cheaper drugs from other countries, which was in the original draft.
backcountry, I support your right to choose not to have health insurance if you will support the rights of my fellow citizens and I to not to pay extra to cover your unpaid medical bills.
There are some Americans who have enough wealth that they won't ever need health insurance no matter what happens to them. Mitt Romney, for example. Even if he got in some horrific accident that required multiple surgeries over a long period of time and the bill ran up to $2 million, he could just withdraw some cash from one of his offshore accounts and pay it.
But if the same thing happens to you, I suspect you probably don't have $2 million laying around in an offshore account. Most Americans don't.
There's nothing wrong with a free enterprise health care system except for the fact that we've never had one in modern history and we will have a tough time convincing hospitals and doctors to simply let people die if they can't pay the bill.
This whole thing is nuts.
1. In order to pass it, SCOTUS had to say it is not a tax, it is a penalty, in order to pass the anti-injunction rule, then they had to say it is a tax, not a penalty, in order to pass the taxation rule.
2. The federal government now has the authority to make people purchase private products from private companies, or else pay a fee
3. Even though it costs insurance companies more money to cover women, they can't charge women more (this would be like a grocery store not being able to charge a bigger person for more food, because they need to eat more because they're bigger. i.e., if a tall person needs more calories than a small person to survive, and, for purposes of this example, say they purchace 2 $3.00 gallons of milk, and a short person purchases 1 $3.00 gallon of milk. Should the grocery store be able to charge the tall person $6.00? Or should they only be able to charge the tall person $3.00?
4. Pre-existing conditions - not being allowed to charge someone more with a pre-existing condition is what I think is the craziest part of all. To take the grocery store example one step further, this would be like not even being able to charge anyone based on the amount of food they buy. The grocery store just charges everyone $100 to shop, and then if 100 families of 8 come in go to shopping for food, and each buy $500 of food, the grocery store now has a loss of $40,000. Store goes out of business, too bad store. It's ridiculous. People are confusing the fairness of sick people not being able to get treated with forcing a random PRIVATE company to lose incredible amounts of money, in a transaction that they in no way want to be involved with.
* My little rant for the day/.
Ron,
I do listen to both sides. I used to be a YR before the party went to the crazies. I watch FOX daily and end up laughing my head off that someone out there might actually think it is "Fair and Balanced."
ThomasBlue: I would respond to your post but I just can't figure out what in the heck your point is? Irrational jiberish with no point. All I am saying is government cannot "fix" things and in fact in virtually all cases they make it worse. When you disrupt the private sector then the private sector cannot grow. There should be no bailouts. If your business decisions cause a problem then the stockholders pay-not the taxpayers.
VWTerry: Did you not understand the comment that George Bush is no longer president? When the current economy is flopping around like a fish on a 100 degree dock and we want to know what the current president has as a solution it matters NOT what your impression is of a previous president. You don't like George Bush and that's fine. Debating his policies is irrelevant and only detracts from the problems we currently have. I won't be pulled into that discussion. When I ask the president, or other liberals, what the solution is and how do we fix the economy the answer cannot be "But George Bush....". That is a WEAK reply. That is a NAIVE reply.
George Bush is no longer president - Obama is. And he does not have a solution to the economy. He told us 3+ years ago that he had all the answers. Just elect Obama and all will be fine. Meanwhile unemployment has INCREASED to almost 10% and even though declined slightly has been above 8% for over 3 years with no sign of improvement. GDP growing at an anemic less than 2% rate. Food Stamps are now given to 1 in 7 people. We have a higher percent on Welfare since the mid 70's. We have the lowest labor-participation rate since the 1970's. We have a higher percent of those unemployed for 6 months or more since the Great Depression. Obama said he would fix the economy but instead of focusing on jobs (like a "laser" if I am not mistaken) he spent all his energy on ObamaCare that would have NO positive impact on the economy (and, quite frankly, is the primary cause of our current stagnant economy).
So when we ask Obama why the economy sucks and his policies have failed I don't really give a tiny rat's behind what George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, or Jimmy Carter said or did. They don't matter know. What matters now is we have a president (Obama) who said "elect me I will fix everything" but he has made everything worse. Let's stay focused, quit trying to blame everyone else for Obama's failed policies, and tell me how Obama is going to fix this economy!!
The title reads: Romney's natal claw? That's weird.
born with a claw - Willardo is a natural-born vulture!
Willard the Weirdo was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, a claw in his hand ... to rake in as much illegal wealth as possible as a vulture.
azdad: I'll agree with you when you say "I support your right to choose not to have health insurance if you will support the rights of my fellow citizens and I to not to pay extra to cover your unpaid medical bills".
The frustrating part is there are much easier solutions than writing 2700 pages and adding over 10,000 regulations to fix this problem.
1) Let's remind ourselves what insurance means. Insurance is paying a company to absorb some of the risk. This is calculated using actuarial tables which are the "likelihood" of getting sick. You pay a premium so in that rare occurrence you get injured or sick the insurance company will pay a portion. But if you have a pre-existing condition then you have already left the "insurance" need and now simply want someone else to pay for your care.
2) If a person decides to absorb ALL the risk that is their choice. I think it is a stupid idea to not at least protect the high-end risk with a high-deductible plan but if someone is worth $100 million who are you to say they must buy insurance? They have decided to not pay a company to assume their risk because they can self-fund their risk. Go to the hospital for a week? They simply write a $100,000 check.
3) I agree we should not be responsible for paying for those without insurance. But the solution is to penalize them. How? Simple: With public policy commercials and literature Health and Human Services tells everyone that if you get sick and don't have insurance, and/or the ability to pay, then the government will come in and loan you the money to pay your bill. However, this is a loan and handled like a student loan meaning it can NEVER be released even in bankruptcy. You take the risk of not having insurance then you risk borrowing money from the federal government and you don't want that monkey on your back for the next 20 years. You won't ever get another tax refund until it is paid off. You will never be able to release this debt. Once people realize that you can never bankrupt medical bills and you are responsible for your debts then they WILL buy insurance.
4) However (we tell them), before that occurs here are some ideas and opportunities. We have negotiated high deductible policies with several well known carriers (United Healthcare, Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, etc.) where they will cover 100% over $7,500. If poor (or pre-existing condition) the federal government will assist in subsidizing the premium. But if the people know they will NEVER be able to release medical debt and we give them a basic high deductible policy at a low cost the problem is solved.
We don't need the government controlling the health care system. All that gives us is a health care system with the efficiency of the Department of Motor Vehicles and the compassion of the IRS. Force people to take responsibility for their own obligations. Don't force those who DO take responsibility for their own obligations to pay for those who don't.
What relevance does that have? We don't have socialized medicine, our care is mostly provided through private insurers. Affordable Care does not change that.
If you're actually interested, however, at least some of the 36 nations with better health outcomes than the United States surely fit the definition of "socialized medicine." http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064
@Backcountry164 . . .
I've heard this one so many times I could scream ..... do you know what people like this do??
They have BABIES and let me tell you, the cost of that is SKY HIGH! Stop thinking this entire thing is just based on making sure the elderly are covered. I'm pretty sure most states have baby-your-baby programs that are funded with Medicaid $.
Just wanted to get that out there . . .
Again, my post was in response to your totally ignorant statement that government can't create jobs. Government has created certain types of jobs for the entire time we have had one. Teachers, firefighters, law enforcement officers, border patrol agents, the list goes on and on. I didn't say whether or not the presidents who were in power at the time were right or wrong. What I said was there have been hundreds of thousands of jobs created by our government and those jobs have been counted as jobs when the employment rate has been calculated.
I said nothing about Bush's politics. I have only tried to clarify a serious misconception that you have when you state the government can't create jobs. That opinion is factually incorrect, regardless who is in office.
Additionally, If this administration were to add the same number of job as prior administration, both Democrat and Republican, the current rate would be about 7.5%. Not naive, not weak, just facts.
@azdad48
Wait. So you DON'T support the ACA??? Or are you just unaware that your taxes will be paying for all of the people who can't afford health insurance? That is the sole purpose of the mandate, so there will be money to partially cover the cost of all of the goodies in the bill that people can't afford. After Romneycare went into effect it cost MORE to provide insurance to those who couldn't afford it than it cost to cover the unpaid bills. . The difference was that the state saved money because they could pass that extra expense on to the Federal government.
In 2012, the Blue Cross Foundation of Massachusetts funded and released in April research that showed that the 2006 law and its subsequent amendments – simply in terms of measuring the state-budget effect on the uncompensated care pool and funding subsidized insurance (see Background section above) had cost approximately $2 billion in fiscal year 2011 vs approximately $1 billion in fiscal year 2006. Some of this doubling in cost was funded by temporary grants and waivers from the United States federal government.-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform
So taxpayers literally spend twice as much with the mandate as they did before there was one. Just goes to show how ignorant people become when they feel they're being ripped off by "deadbeats". They're literally stupid enough to pay double to avoid it even when in the end, they're paying for these same people anyway. The only difference is that instead of paying their medical bills you'll be paying twice as much for their medical insurance.
@azdad48
And btw, I'm still waiting on that source for your claim of a 50% reduction in insurance premiums.
John B: I suggest you do some research before you start attaching links you know nothing about.
You need to understand HOW the rankings are made. They are based on "equal access" but that doesn't mean "better" care-does it? Many countries also don't count if a child dies within the first week of life - the U.S. does.
But rather than me listing ALL the criteria, and making this post lengthy, just to show you have no idea what that list even means let's just look at a couple rankings of other countries. First thing I notice is we are 37th, Costa Rica is 36th, Slovenia is 38th, and Cuba is ranked 39th. 39th!! Are you REALLY going to tell me that Costa Rica is BETTER than the U.S. and we are equivalent to Slovenia and Cuba?!?! Funny, I don't see people in Europe who need major surgery debating about whether they should go to Costa Rica, Cuba, or the United States for their health care.
BTW, Greece is considered #14 - I doubt seriously when YOU need major surgery you will be checking flights to Greece to get such "better care". Afterall it IS ranked 14th and the terrible U.S. is ranked 37th. Actually, maybe you should run down to Cuba for that appendectomy. The care would be the same but should be cheaper.
So in other words: Don't be a fool and forward stupid link information without knowing what you are forwarding. That confirms you have no idea what you are talking about and what point you are trying to make. I suggest you get better educated before you use a World Health Organization Ranking to be your defense for ObamaCare.
VWTerry: Once again I must educate you. The federal government CANNOT create any jobs!! Any money taken from the private sector in taxes reduces an equal amount of jobs. I am not saying one job is better than another but when we hire a teacher, policeman, or fire fighter we hire them at the EXPENSE of an assembly line worker, computer programmer, or accountant that COULD have been hired in the private sector if the money was not redirected.
This has always been clearly understood in economics and when you redirect money from the private sector (which is the ONLY sector that can "create" a job) then jobs are lost so when you pay for jobs in the public sector it is a net gain of zero.
So let me say this one more time so you hear it and understand it: The Federal Government CANNOT create jobs!!! I suggest you take a college economics course and maybe you might understand it a little. Only the private sector can CREATE a job...............
Actually, government spending DOES create jobs. The highways you drove to work on were built with GOVERNMENT funding; they contracted businesses, who then hired workers to build and fix those roads. I would refer to how the United States got out of the Great Depression to show how government creates jobs. We got out of the Great Depression through World War II; we created millions of jobs building warplanes, ships, tanks, rifles, belts, grenades, ammunition, trucks, jeeps, and cannons. Who paid for that spending??? The GOVERNMENT. The government does create jobs; conservatives just can't admit that government is actually doing something that the private sector can do.
While I don't agree with everything in the ACA (including the lack of a public option), it is an improvement to the status quo and will bend the cost curve, although not by a lot. On CNN, I recall hearing that the law would reduce the increase in costs from roughly 9.4% to 7%, a sizable reduction, but still too small. In my opinion, the addition of a public option would have brought down MEDICAL COSTS (though would have most likely eliminated the $200 billion deficit reduction that the ACA would cause over the next decade) by forcing private insurers and healthcare providers to compete with a government plan that would have low costs due in part to extremely low administrative costs.
Honestly, no.
Yet those liabilities are extended over a long period. And that number is actually too high. According to CNS news in April 2012, Medicare has unfunded liabilities of roughly $38.6 trillion (note that that does not take into account the fluctuations of policy and of the environment of the next 75 years). Taken altogether, it is an impressive figure, but divided by 75 years it totals to an average of $514.67 billion a year, still a lot, but most likely smaller when compared to the overall budget. However, this is still a problem. And there are ways to solve this problem, like reducing payments to Medicare Advantage plans, bundling payments to cover services for patients, and broader healthcare reform. Personally, the best way to control the costs of Medicare is to deal with our private healthcare system, which in my opinion is inefficient and expensive. The best option, in my opinion, is to adopt a program like they have in foreign countries, like in France, Britain, or Taiwan, which tend to have single-payer healthcare systems that are A LOT LESS expensive for both the government AND the patient.
First of all, SS has only $8.6 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years, and only $20.5 trillion over the "infinite horizon." $8.6 trillion divided by 75 is a little over $100 billion over the next decade. Secondly, Social Security does not borrow money to pay for its costs if it runs a shortfall; it takes money out of the Trust Fund. Unfortunately, the general budget will have to pay for that (due to the lack of a lockbox on the Fund), and unless we raise taxes for SS or cut outlays or a mixture of both, the money will come from borrowed funds.
WE ARE NOT BANKRUPT. Understand that. The money is just in the wrong hands. In order to fix our fiscal outlook, the best thing we can do is to both cut spending AND raise taxes, both in the general budget and in the entitlement programs.
First of all, I don't think that Medicare estimates factored in things like falling birth rates, inflation fluctuations, or exponential increases in healthcare costs. I am not sure, so we have to leave that as a possibility. And by the way, the elderly and the sick cause the most of the costs. The vast majority of Americans are relatively healthy (factoring out obesity and diabetes) compared to those 5% that cause 50% of the costs. Remember: much of the increase in healthcare costs come from waste in the healthcare system and fraud caused by doctors who prescribe expensive and relatively unnecessary procedures and treatments. I personally think that a single-payer government system modeled after the systems in foreign countries would help reduce costs dramatically, but at the very least we should consider a healthcare system where the government has a bigger role. Basically speaking, the free market does not work when it comes to healthcare.
We already have that. It's called the pre-ACA American healthcare system.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
@SeekingSanity
But you were saying that we all pay more because these people aren't insured. Please accept my apology for assuming you were suggesting that was a bad thing. Although I guess if your weren't saying that was bad I have no clue what your point was.
And since you seem to take offense at people "putting words in your mouth" I'd like to point out that I never said "no one needs insurance until they are a certain age" but rather stated that the odds of them needing it are small. Do you doubt this? Seems sort of odd that you'd accuse me of putting words in your mouth but then do the same to me in your response.
Probusiness - this is obviously an oversimplified example, but I am just trying to figure out what you're saying, and correct me if I am not quite getting it: say the government wants to create 1 job, that pays $40,000 / year. Say there are 200,000,000 (obviously a pretty random number) tax payers in the U.S. (businesses, individuals, trusts, estates, etc. and that 40,000 is spread out over the 200,000,000 people. That's $.02 per year, of the taxpaying people's money, per taxpayer. Obviously that $ is not spread out evenlty as a $.02 tax per taxpayer, but even if you move some of it around to make it more accurate, I would imagine it's pretty small anout for each person that the decision to higher another person for ~$40,000 per year would not be affected...? Or is this what you are saying WOULD happen?
@Freshieee
Just like liberals just can't admit that government jobs create a net loss to the economy because those jobs require more tax dollars to support than they bring in. The economy is the problem; if government jobs were in any way a solution then the government could just hire us all and fix all of our woes. But as we can clearly see with Greece, the government hiring an ass load of people doesn't solve @!$%#.
Freshieee: First let me say thanks. I don't mind a "lively" debate but many resort to name calling (and I get frustrated and return the favor) but you did not. You went to each point and made a counter-point. I think that is great and if we could get everyone else to enter the debate in an adult manner we could get a lot more done. Doesn't mean I still don't disagree with you:) but we can have a civil debate. I don't have the time to address all your points but let me touch on a couple:
1) Government cannot create jobs. When government spends money to "create" a job it does it with tax dollars but those dollars must come from the private sector. So for every $50,000 the gvmt spends that is $50,000 the private sector cannot spend. So in economics it is common knowledge and accepted that any job in the public sector was created at the expense of a job in the private sector that now cannot be created. Therefore net job gain is zero thus my statement is correct and Government cannot create jobs.
2) A government program creates multiple layers of bureaucracy and 2,700 pages (and so far over 10,000 new regulations) it is very unlikely that there will be any efficiencies and quite the opposite. We have a government that cannot even put a budget together and expect them to run a health care system? And a public option would be a nightmare. Just ask anybody who is currently on Medicare or Social Security if they have had any issues and how did they resolve.
3) You mention the Social Security Trust Fund is used to cover shortfalls in Social Security payments but there is no money in the Trust Fund. Only U.S. Treasury Bonds. So for every shortfall going forward we must borrow money to replace the U.S. Treasury Bond. Here is how I explain it to my classes (BTW, I am a college Economics professor): Say you save $10,000 in a piggy bank for retirement. But five years before retirement you decide to "borrow" from this fund to send everybody on a cruise for your 50th anniversary. So you put a piece of paper in the piggy bank that says "I owe you $10,000". Now five years later you are ready to retire and tell your spouse "don't worry, we have our retirement fund of $10,000". But there is a major problem. There is no MONEY in the piggy bank. Just an IOU. So you must find a way to pay that IOU back. Only one way - borrow the money and replace the money.
End result is Social Security is broke. There is no money. There are only U.S. Treasury Bonds which are IOU's. When we must "cash" one of the IOU's there is no money to cash it out so we must borrow MORE money to replace the Treasury Bond.
4) We ARE bankrupt. We have no savings and spending nearly 40% more than we bring in taxes. We are borrowing about $1.5 Trillion a year with no plans to pay it off. Even if we raised the taxes as desired by Obama estimates show we would get about $100 Billion more in taxes a year (and that is assuming no negative effect to the economy which is untrue). So taxes can't fix this. We don't have a tax revenue problem - we have a spending problem. Just five years ago we "survived" as a country on about $2.5 Trillion a year - now we are spending about $3.8 Trillion (and we bring in about $2.3 Trillion in tax revenue). The only solution is cut spending back to about $2.5 Trillion. Get us there and I will be the FIRST in line to promote the idea of minor tax increases to make up the difference. But to even TALK about tax increases when our spending is that out of control is like giving everybody a cup on the Titanic and telling them to start baling water. It won't mater.
I got to go so can't touch on your other comments (ironically I have a Microeconomics class to teach in about 45 minutes) but the economy is much more complicated then you think and reacts quite a bit differently than many believe.
@Backcountry164
Backcountry164
@SeekingSanity
There are so many things wrong with your line of thought. Here's just a couple of them: Suppose a young person is involved in a motorcycle wreck. Or hit by a driver just walking down the street. Do you suppose that no one under 25 or 35 will develop cancer? Think any young people will get shot by guns this year?Statistics say otherwise. Suppose the much dreaded bird flu finally does go airborn. You think it will only kill the old? I believe that it kills almost everyone who contracts it, old,young,male,female...doesn't matter. Did the Spanish flu kill only old? So you're okay with other people playing Russian roulette with you having to clean up their mess? I'm not.That's very stupid.
Until such time as ERs don't have to treat the uninsured, common sense says that everyone who can buy insurance should. It never ceases to amaze me how the reich wing likes to foam at the mouth about personal responsibility and yet when Obama tries to push that very issue and even gives people a reasonable avenue to that goal, all of the jackboots howl like their mothers were talked about. Why is that? Is it because a black man is in the White House? This plan is essentially repugnican. You guys are a very poor joke. A parody of intelligent life on earth.
@askaboutet
Intel paid 4.6 billion dollars in taxes last year at a rate of over 28%. If they could pay just 1% less they'd have an extra $46 million dollars or enough money to hire 1,150 people at 40k per year.
I'm reading your response and right off the bat I see you claim "1) Government cannot create jobs. When government spends money to "create" a job it does it with tax dollars but those dollars must come from the private sector. So for every $50,000 the gvmt spends that is $50,000 the private sector cannot spend."
Are you insinuating that the public sector job holder that receives the $50,000 will not spend that money, thus returning it to the economy? How does this person eat, have housing, a car or other transportation, health care and not spend that money?
Backcountry,
What you say about the amount that Intel paid in taxes may or may not be true but the real question is, if they made enough money to owe that much and could pocket the extra gained through a tax cut without hiring any new employees, why would they?
clywd, I don't watch Fox or MSNBC normally. I enjoyed watching both of them breifly when the Supreme Court Obamacare ruing came out. Two completely different takes on the same news. My problem is I'm living in the real world. I own and operate a union general contracting company and I am currently one of the survivors. This morning, my Office Manager handed me a notice from our company healthcare insurer saying our monthly premiums are going up again in August along with a breakdown of the increases over the past 11-years. Union members get their healthcare insurance via the union contract. No sweat to them in that they pass on increases to the signatory contractors via those contracts. I can better track the increased costs of our healthcare insurance based on what we pay directly to our insurer for our non-union employees. Here's my reality with regard to my non-union employees healthcare costs, which includes myself:
2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004
Subscriber 716.77 597.31 481.70 406.15 390.52 348.67 322.84 288.25 271.93
Subscriber & Spouse 1571.64 1309.70 1056.21 864.35 831.10 742.05 687.84 613.14 578.73
As you can see, healthcare insurance has skyrocketed since Obamacare has been law. In the 4-years since Obama became President, our monthly healthcare bill for each employee has gone up $326.25. In the 4-years prior to Obama becoming President, that same healthcare insurance increased $118.59. In other words, Under Obama, our healthcare insurance costs have spiked almost 3-times the rate of healthcare costs did under Bush. Now I don't say we should be thanking Bush for any of that. What I do say is under Obama and the ACA legislation, healthcare costs have skyrocketed. If the goal of Obamacare was to bring down premiums, this legislation has failed miserably. In the State of Hawaii, our employee healthcare law passed in the mid 70's requires that all employers pay at least 50% of healthcare insurance for any employee working more than 20-hours per week. I, like most employers have paid 100% of our employees healthcare insurance because it was an easy benefit to pass on to our customers. Obamacare will only drive employers like myself to follow state law and require our employees to pay for 50% of the insurance costs, or drop the insurance altogether and send those employees to the government healthcare system for coverage. Obamacare does not address the increasing cost of healthcare. All it does is place another tax on those of us that already pay for the benefits of others from our pockets. It will also lead to less quality healthcare for the middle class. The Democrats feel that it's more important to make us feel like Obamacare helps us in their attempt to bribe us for our votes than it is to deal with the real problems driving up healthcare costs. Thats' our reality folks.
@Thomas Blue
Statistics? Sorry but the statistics supposrt MY argument. Yes, all of these terrible things will happen, statistically they will happen to a very small percentage of young people. The mandate forces everyone of them to help cover the cost of what will happen to a very few of them. Do you not understand this is the point I'm trying to make?
The problem is that many of them CAN'T buy insurance. Do you not understand that many of these people will have their insurance subsidized or paid outright my the taxpayer? In Massachusetts under Romneycare the cost of providing the subsidized insurance was DOUBLE the cost of paying the medical expenses of the uninsured.
LOL! Forcing someone to do something is hardly a "reasonable avenue" towards personal responsibility. In fact it entirely removes "personal" from the equation.
"Winners and Losers: Understanding the Ryan Plan's Potential Tax Implications for America's Workers":
http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=bc6c837c-cfbd-4212-a85f-9b88695dcb85
"The Ryan Plan gives the largest tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and will pay for those tax cuts by raising the tax burden on middle-class workers."
@vwterry
Backcountry,
Sorry, I should have posted a link- http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_112560.html
This is the argument that the liberals always put forward, if you give a big company a break they'll just pocket the extra money. But let me ask you this question in response, how do you suppose Intel got so big? Did they do it by pocketing all of their profits or by investing in the growth of their business?
I just used Intel as an example because they pay a lot in taxes but the same theory holds true for all business. If you save Intel 46 million in taxes of course they aren't going to spend ever penny of that on new employees but the fact remains that they'd be more able and more willing to expand.
And of course even when the average consumer pays a little less in taxes they have a little more to spend. Consumers spending their money creates more jobs than the government taking it. Someone has to build the products they're buying, someone has to deliver the product to the store, and someone has to sell them.
@vwterry
The problem is that a 50k government job costs far more tax dollars to create and maintain. According to the CBO the "Stimulus" cost over 200k per job. 228k to creat a 50k job?
Unfortunately, that only happens when companies like Intel have an incentive to expand, like when demand for their product increases to an extent that they cannot squeeze any more productivity from their existing workforce and need more employees. Unfortunately for that notion, chances are that much of that money that would be devoted to expanding production would most likely go to countries with extremely low labor costs, like Vietnam or Bangladesh.
Not necessarily. Tax cuts don't always work; they usually succeed during a recession, and even then there is no guarantee that taxpayers will use that extra money for consumption. Chances are that during a recession, when money is tight for many households, they will use the extra income to pay off credit card debt, help compensate for pay cuts or furloughs, or (in the case of the current recession, which was caused by the collapse of the housing market) help pay off the mortgage. If you use it in a tax cut that adds a few extra bucks unnoticeably into their pocket, they won't have any incentive to store that money away. Essentially, if you cut the income tax, it most likely won't have a huge effect on the economy, but if you cut the payroll tax, it will have a big effect. Plus I don't think that cutting progressive taxes will help the middle class, while reducing regressive taxes do because it increasing the economic power of those who are most affected. Cutting progressive taxes help the wealthy; cutting regressive taxes help the middle and lower classes.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
VWTerry: I just don't know how many different ways I can explain it to you to where it finally sinks in. Let me try it one more time: Government cannot create any jobs. All they can do is redirect private sector funds but the net result of job gains is zero.
Example: Say a factory would hire 10 people if they didn't have any taxes to pay (let's not get abstract-I know there are taxes but I am trying to explain it to you yet another way so you can finally understand). These 10 make $50,000 a year each. Each one of these 10 people will be spending their money on cars, food, housing, and so on.
But now the government tells this factory they must pay $50,000 in taxes. This factory does not have enough revenue to continue hiring 10 workers, pay $50,000 in taxes, and have enough left over for distributions to owners. So they must layoff one worker. That saves the factory $50,000 so now they can pay their taxes. But now they only have 9 workers.
The government decides to hire a new police officer and willing to pay $50,000. So here is this lonely ex-worker looking for a job and the factory is not hiring. He must find a job or he will lose the house. So he sees an ad for the government needing a police officer. He applies and is accepted. He goes to the academy and gets approved. So the government hires this man as a police officer and pays him $50,000. Yes the government hired a worker (and yes this officer will have car expenses, food costs, and housing) but what is the NET job gain? It is zero.
The money taken from the private sector lost one job and that money was used to hire a public sector worker so the public sector gained one job. Net job gain? Zero.
This is basic and common Economics and is in every economics textbook on every campus in the country. By definition the federal government cannot create any jobs. Any money the government sector spends on a job is money taken from the private sector and lost a job.
So I go back to my original statement: The Federal Government by definition cannot create any jobs. Only the PRIVATE sector can create jobs.
Here is another way to look at it. Say the federal government confiscated EVERY dollar from EVERY company in the U.S. So in that case over 120 million people would lose their jobs. Let's even assume for a moment the U.S. government then HIRED all 120 million people (I know, government is not that efficient and couldn't hire all 120 million but stay with me for a second - I am making my point). Did the government create any jobs? No, it is impossible for the government to create any jobs. All the government can do is to try to offset jobs lost in the private sector with a public sector job. Net job gain? Always zero............
Probusiness - I know I've been away for a while (went home and din't log back on, but hopefully you'll check in) - in your example, the govermnet is getting all of their tax money for one additional job from a single taxpayer. Obviously that's not how it works, though. If the governmentwants to spend $50,000 on a job, theoretically that $50,000 has been received from millions of taxpayers. If the government wanted to spend $50,000, probably $.01 of that money would have "come from" the company in your example. Put another way - if the gov't wants to hire a teacher, for $40,000, my taxes don't go up by $40,000. The amount of the $40,000 that I would be "paying" is just my prorated portion of total taxes paid, which for each and every person, even billionaires, or each and every company, even huge companies, is relatively small, right?
On second Thought...
I was speaking to friends last week about how President Obama's campaign will slowly and methodically release damaging reports on the candidate himself (Romney). Forget about the candidacy itself, which is par for the course of presidential campaign shortcomings – flawed political platforms and unexplainable policies – Romney has a past in-and-of itself that will be exposed to the American public as not only criminal, but also morally reprehensible.
Romney will be backed so far in the corner that the RNC will have to find an alternative come Labor Day. Is that even possible?
Republicans (working poor and middle class) that wish to vote against their best interests need to realize that Romney does not have your best interest in mind. If he would be elected to some sort of office with authority over you, he would use his position to crush you. It would be no different than a certain dictator on some northern Asian peninsula.
Yep, write that down for the history books... Romney the first presidential candidate ever to be removed right before an election. You heard it here first.
The Romney GOP plan: "LET EM' DIE!!"
Evidently the tea tools don't want the deadbeats to pay for health insurance - which is the main part of Obamacare. It will drive costs down because millions will have insurance now instead of abusing the emergency rooms and costing the taxpayers billions......
Like I said before...the GOP wants everybody to have a gun...but no one to have health insurance. Just shows you where the GOP/Tea Bangers priorities are.
You think Obama and the Democratic Party have the interest of the American people at heart? I just don't see it, not arguing that the Republicans have the interest of the American people at heart....just don't that any of them give a crap about the American people
Tea Bagger Clown,
The mandate doesn't force poor people to buy health insurance. It also doesn't force them to make intelligent decisions about their health care. People who go to the emergency room instead of a family doctor will continue to do so. I know plenty of people with insurance who do just that.
Ronald Reagan was in much worse shape on labor day against CARTER but still whipped his ass come November. I wouldn't worry about Romney it's the economy that will elect the next president.
By today's standards, Reagan is not a republican anymore. He was appalled at hearing his rich friends saying they used tax loopholes for the rich to avoid paying any taxes at all. Reagan raised taxes 11 times after he realized the trickle on economic plan was a failure. Of course he would oppose signing the king Norquist pledge of no raising taxes plan. Reagan would not be allowed to run for the republican ticket anymore.
Nancy-305998 - What makes you think they ever cared? "We the People" have to force them to care. FDR once told activists in his own party, "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." It's not that the Democratic Party isn't corrupted by money, it's that the Republican Party doesn't even care that we know it...therefore "now make me do it" becomes nearly impossible when going up against Norquist and Rove and the rest of the wealthy neocons.
Tea bagger clown, remind us again on the reputable news links that support your statement...
Apparently you have the mistaken belief that the poor and others will be more than willing in paying out more for health insurance than the penalty tax and its lack of enforcement.
Seems that your chosen moniker really does make you out to be a clown.
Trying to figure out what Romney really believes and what his positions are, is like trying to nail jello to a wall.
If conservatives can't trust him, why in hell should I? This is just more testimony to Romney's lack of core convictions and his willingness to say anything to get elected.
I understand Rick Santorum is already working on printing signs for his next Presidential campaign.
"Santorum 2016...I TOLD YOU SO!!!"
Or "Santorum 2012"
Romney....ever the Etch A Sketch Flip Flopper!......Always having to use the Etch A Sketch the next day to cover his flaws by playing wordsmith.. ..Next time he is caught hiring illegal aliens he will say he hired "offshore labor". Next time he is asked about putting his dog on the roof of his car and driving for hrs, he will say his dog was riding on the "observation deck." Next time he talks about the Ryan plan that gives more tax breaks for the rich and makes middle class pay 20% more to pay for his tax breaks he will call it "investing in jobs." Vote Romney for a worse tomorrow today!
Obama/Biden 2012...............Clinton 2016
Santorum is just as bad as Romney. Santorum is just another Tea Party and a nobody.
Star - Do you have any ideas for making things better? You do nothing other than try to character assassinate political figures that you disagree with using part truths and your unsubstantiated allegations. DO you have a "building" thought? Something to add to society versus tearing down.
Fatal flaw?! What a moron. Here is Obama's fatal flaw:
Most political predictions are made by
biased pollsters, pundits, or prognosticators who are either rooting for
Republicans or Democrats. I am neither. I am a former Libertarian Vice
Presidential nominee, and a well-known Vegas oddsmaker with one of the most
accurate records of predicting political races..
But as an oddsmaker with
a pretty remarkable track record of picking political races, I play no
favorites. I simply use common sense to call them as I see them. Back in late
December I released my New Years Predictions. I predicted back then- before a
single GOP primary had been held, with Romney trailing for months to almost
every GOP competitor from Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt- that Romney would
easily rout his competition to win the GOP nomination by a landslide. I also
predicted that the Presidential race between Obama and Romney would be very
close until election day. But that on election day Romney would win by a
landslide similar to Reagan-Carter in 1980.
Understanding history, today I am even more
convinced of a resounding Romney victory. 32 years ago at this moment in time,
Reagan was losing by 9 points to Carter. Romney is right now running even in
polls. So why do most pollsters give Obama the edge?
First, most pollsters are missing one
ingredient- common sense. Here is my gut instinct. Not one American who voted
for McCain 4 years ago will switch to Obama. Not one in all the land. But many
millions of people who voted for an unknown Obama 4 years ago are angry,
disillusioned, turned off, or scared about the future. Voters know Obama now-
and that is a bad harbinger.
Now
to an analysis of the voting blocks that matter in U.S.
politics:
*Black
voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. His endorsement
of gay marriage has alienated many black church-going Christians. He may get 88%
of their vote instead of the 96% he got in 2008. This is not good news for
Obama.
*Hispanic voters. Obama has
nowhere to go but down among this group. If Romney picks Rubio as his VP
running-mate the GOP may pick up an extra 10% to 15% of Hispanic voters (plus
lock down Florida). This is not good news for Obama.
*Jewish voters. Obama has been
weak in his support of Israel. Many Jewish voters and big donors are angry and
disappointed. I predict Obama's Jewish support drops from 78% in 2008 to the low
60’s. This is not good news for Obama.
*Youth voters. Obama’s biggest
and most enthusiastic believers from 4 years ago have graduated into a job
market from hell. Young people are disillusioned, frightened, and broke- a bad
combination. The enthusiasm is long gone. Turnout will be much lower among young
voters, as will actual voting percentages. This not good news for
Obama.
*Catholic voters. Obama won a
majority of Catholics in 2008. That won’t happen again. Out of desperation to
please women, Obama went to war with the Catholic Church over contraception. Now
he is being sued by the Catholic Church. Majority lost. This is not good news
for Obama.
*Small Business owners.Because I
ran for Vice President last time around, and I'm a small businessman myself, I
know literally thousands of small business owners. At least 40% of them in my
circle of friends, fans and supporters voted for Obama 4 years ago to “give
someone different a chance.” I warned them that he would pursue a war on
capitalism and demonize anyone who owned a business...that he’d support unions
over the private sector in a big way...that he'd overwhelm the economy with
spending and debt. My friends didn’t listen. Four years later, I can't find one
person in my circle of small business owner friends voting for Obama. Not one.
This is not good news for Obama.
*Blue collar working class
whites. Do I need to say a thing? White working class voters are about as
happy with Obama as Boston Red Sox fans feel about the New York Yankees. This is
not good news for Obama.
*Suburban moms. The issue isn’t
contraception…it’s having a job to pay for contraception. Obama’s economy
frightens these moms. They are worried about putting food on the table. They
fear for their children’s future. This is not good news for Obama.
*Military Veterans. McCain won this group by 10 points. Romney
is winning by 24 points. The more our military vets got to see of Obama, the
more they disliked him. This is not good news for Obama.
Add it up. Is there one major group where
Obama has gained since 2008? Will anyone in America wake up on election day
saying “I didn’t vote for Obama 4 years ago. But he’s done such a fantastic job,
I can’t wait to vote for him today.” Does anyone feel that a vote for Obama
makes their job more secure?
Forget the polls. My gut instincts as a
Vegas oddsmaker and common sense small businessman tell me this will be a
historic landslide and a world-class repudiation of Obama’s radical and risky
socialist agenda. It's Reagan-Carter all over again.
But I’ll give Obama credit for one
thing - he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.
We always said Obamacare was a huge tax on the middle class, the biggest in history.
Obama and the Democrats said over and over it was not a tax , and the word "tax" wasn't even in the legislation
The Supreme court agreed with us today. Obamacare is in fact a huge tax
We always said Obamacare was not constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Obama and Democrats said over and over it was covered under the Commerce Clause
The Supreme Court ruled we were right.
We always said that just because Democrats say something is definitely not a tax, it doesn't mean they are telling the truth
The Supreme court ruled today that is very true
Every election, every legislation must be picked thru to see if any taxes are in it. whether its called tax or something else
No election is unimportant. Just believing what politicians say is not an option
We have to win the elections to get control of congress and the White House., that's how you change the direction of the country, enforce immigration laws, keep Congress from levying taxes on you.
Obama and Democrats levied the biggest tax in history on the middle class , the only way to stop the tax is to remove these people in our elections, inform others of the true nature of their action and continue without avail to monitor each and ever action by congress, today and in the future
This rage will not end until after the election. I am only going to continue exposing obamacare AKA OBAMATAX until it is changed or repealed. There is nothing in obamacare that is going to cut costs. Yes, I am upset more right now because this was passed by the supreme court as a tax, which we all knew it was a tax, but never would have passed if they called it a tax. I was fighting back before this law was passed that you can call a duck a chicken, but it is still a dang DUCK! It is a tax on every American and people are soon to realize the wrath. Everything in obamacare is going to increase utilization, increase waste, increase hospital profits, increase drug manufacturer profits, increase medical equipment maker profits, and increase taxes on every American! There is nothing in obamacare that is going to hurt the insurance carriers too much. I am quite confident insurance carriers will make more money under obamacare. That is not good for America. What is in obamacare is going to totally change how the government and America interact. Take the new tax on tanning salons. If that is not a racist tax, please prove me wrong. Tax tanning salons that are used 99% by white people and everything is just fine!!
Companies will not drop insurance for their top talent with this law. That is why this law is going to cause a bigger divide between the rich and the poor. People that are talented will be fine. I am worried about the lower middle class and lower class that are going to be exposed and thrown to the wolves/exchanges. Group insurance will be fine as it is currently. You have a predictable risk and information that you can use to rate the business wisely. Increases in premium will be just like they are today. The exchanges are going to be full of unhealthy lower class citizens. The price for insurance in the exchanges is going to be crazy expensive due to this worse risk. The exchanges are going to have a large percentage of people that are electing insurance coverage only when they are sick and need care. The exchanges will have to price for people just paying the super low fine and then opting for coverage when they need it. These people are going to drop off the exchange as soon as they are healthy. We are going to be in the same place that we are right now with a huge amount of lower middle class and lower class opting to go uninsured.
The only thing you've left out of your analysis is the "gut instinct" that Romney is a better option. Is he? How do his policies appeal to the groups you cited? Unless he gets a rollover Congress, won't Romney just throw up his hands and say "it's Obama's fault," while skewing tax breaks to the wealthy under the trickle-down theory of economics? Corporations are people, the mandate in MA is not a tax, etc.
Maybe Obama is living proof that he's "the Devil you know." In any case, Truman won..... polls notwithstanding.
Decades from now, when Single-Payer medical insurance is the law of the land, people will wonder what all the fuss was about. Water, clean air, untainted food, adequate housing, education and medical care: all human rights -- Not Entitlements.
Rational.........is my little stalker. Always waiting to see what I post. Then using the same tired little hissy fit because his head is exploding because he supports Romney and his flaws. I own him now as he has no home. I was looking on line on how to care for and feed the little stalker. Advice says to liberally feed him truth in the morning, then at noon and once more in the evening. Anybody know if you have to get your stalkers a license or get them shots? I do want to be a responsible owner of this little stalker.
Example of Obama's "trickle up economics": You will never believe this, but last week I was looking for a job and then out of the blue this really extremely poor guy that looked homeless came to me off the streets and offered me a job with benefits! I could hardly believe it! I was so thankful for this poor person to hire me and give me a job! Every time in the past I had been hired by someone who is poorer than me, but I did not think it would happen again! I am so thankful for all the poor people and the jobs they create for those of us that have more money. These poor people and their venture capital wisdom and their business savy is so helpful. I am always hired by these people that have less than me! Man, thank you, thank you, thank you, for your trickle up economics!!
The Romney and right wing extremists of the republican party will never make a stand that they stick to except, making the claim that Obama will be a one term president. They will try to buy this election with the $ from their billionaire and millionaire contributors. They will work for the tax cuts of bush that have led to $11,000,000,000,000 of the $16,000,000,000,000 that they try to blame on Obama. I used to be a YR, but the party has made me ashamed to say that!
Crystal - someone should have told you that just making a long post doesn't impress anyone with you - especially when your post is all right wing nonsense. Posting your ignorance so blatantly is nothing more than confirmation that you really know nothing. Your opinions and verbosity mean little when there is absolutely nothing to back it up.
I can refute every comment you've made about the voting blocs in the US because you've listed your far right opinion - based on nothing. Nothing you've posted is valid. But, like most Republicans you proudly post your ignorance for all to see!
Obama/Biden 2012
Then again there is that little thing called SOLUTIONS. You have to have better, specific policies that can be vetted by the voter? No ideas? Well, then just threatening an overthrow isnt good enough. Not anymore. Got Solutions?
Where are Romney's policies? Does Mitt have any solutions? Where are they?
BAHAHAHAHAHA
MSNBC and all the Obamanites trying to deflect attention from the snakey tax slid through by putting it into an unconstitutional commerce clause line and then arguing in court it is a tax to get it through. Now our fearless so called Constitutional Law teaching leader can blame the Supreme Court for the biggest tax increase on the middle class in history. Keep trying to distract everyone with semantics, won't work. All know now that Mr. No tax on the Middle Class is full of you know what and he won't get another shot at finishing off making everyone equally poor and bad in school to develope the perfect socialist system. AS they in the National Parks: Don't feed the animals they will become dependent and won't be able to find for themselves. Borrowed that one from a facebook post, so true. That is what this administration is trying to do to all of us, make us into dependent animals.
Crystal ########,
I think if someone is going to cut and paste a very long opinion piece written by someone else they should at least reference who it was that wrote it. Post 4.7 is obviously written by someone other than Crystal unless, as shown in this line "*Small Business owners.Because I
ran for Vice President last time around, and I'm a small businessman myself, I
know literally thousands of small business owners." she is really Sarah Palin.
If there are two, God help us all.
Shaking..........
I know that many of you really want to believe the lie that is going around about this mythical "biggest tax increase on the middle class in history." but is is just a lie. The size of the tax/penalty alone is estimated to be so small as it will effect less than 2% of the country. Even if all new fees are added and mistakenly called taxes it is still significantly less than rate hikes implemented by Reagan, Bush1 and Clinton.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/the-individual-mandate-is-a-very-small-tax-chart.php
The Obama Administration and the left wingers want to keep this discussion over what is or isn't a tax because it deflects from the real issues which are jobs, the economy and foreign policy. The argument over healthcare is over for now, the Supreme Court as ruled it is a TAX. No matter what the Democrats call it, nothing is going to change the ruling. It's a TAX get over it.
How about the Democrats call it:
ROMNEYCARE for the other 49 states.
SeekingSanity, I had a long response all typed out in regards to your comments to crystal then I erased it because I realized your blind and blind people can't see. Crystal said it perfect, just like many of my honest left wing friends, they are worried big time for these very reasons. For the record I'm not a huge fan of Romney either so don't go there. Just see it how it is.
sandy - You can call it whatever you want no one cares what you think. Everyone knows that the democrats and liberal left wingers keep calling it Obama's single greatest accomplishment, if crediting Romney puts a tingle up your leg so be it. Does this mean now you will vote for Romney because you like the ACA?
The Supreme Court ruled it a tax- not Obama. And what is the difference between this and the penalties from Romneys plan?
'Great White North Observer' wrote:
I agree. And given the recent increase in the rate of switched positions and self-contradictions, it does make one wonder if the Romney campaign is going to have to take their "candidate" out of service for a major overhaul before the convention, and replace some parts which appear to be prematurely wearing-out (obviously the logic chip is toast).
And it appears that some of the audio-animatronic joints are binding-up, too. The walking pace, already shorter and faster than an actual human male, is getting shorter and faster over time. Definitely some wear issues there; not very human-like at all.
Well, it's a good thing that the Tampa Bay, FL, Republican Convention site isn't all that far from Disney's mechanical shops in Orlando. All-in-all the engineers at Disney did a pretty admirable job this time (a little bit more human appearing than the John Kerry model they built in 2004). But, nevertheless, it appears this one is not slated for a spot in 'The Hall of Presidents' in Liberty Square at the Magic Kingdom.
But didn't Governor Etch-A-Sketch say the individual mandate was not a tax? He said it was a "fee".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HymUU7OADbU&feature=relmfu
Sailcat, the comment by 'dirac17' below that youtube video says it all
I think every adult male knows that his own core values were pretty well carved in stone by the time he turned age 25 or so. Mr. Romney is now in his 60s, and by all appearances has found nothing in his core which is unchangeable ... except the pursuit of personal wealth. I'm sorry, that just doesn't persuade me that there is any "there, there."
And didn't Obama swear that he didn't believe in mandates for health care during his campaign speeches? Alright for one, but not the other, huh?
Robert in Oregon - I think Disney has higher standards in regard to the mechanical items it works on. Plus remember, they have the ORIGINAL Pinnochio, and it's MUCH cuter! They'll probably skip this one!
Well, if the Democrats are now calling it a tax, why can't Romney? Its just plain stupid. Obama LIED about it, saying it is not a tax. Now they are saying it is a tax.
And why can't Romney relax one day and ride a jet ski? He worked his ass off to be successful. Obama plays golf every frikin week and plays basketball. Why not bitch about that, NBC’s Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower? Damn hypocrites.
@Pity The Fool-494713: I do. I really do. Let it never be said I am an uncharitable sum-bitch. Problem I have with you though, is; how many fools are you? You speak of yourself in both singular and plural terms. I will freely give you a hefty portion of my pity, but I'll just be gwaddamned if I'll allow you to rob me of all I possess!
Crystal,
You make many good points (post 4.7) but we cannot take this election for granted. Obama can easily BS and lie through his teeth to a win like he did four years ago.
I love that the the Right is constantly parroting the chosen line "it's a tax! It's a tax!" as if it were some sort of magic spell.
I've said it before, and no one from the Right even acknowledges;
The public doesn't care if it's called a tax, fee, or penalty. It only really matters that less than 2% of the population will pay it. To everyone else it's irrelevent. If the GOPTP can figure out some fancy math that makes 2% a majority contratulations to them. Here in the real world the rest of us just don't care.
Kevin - what Crystal posted is nonsense - nothing more. It isn't even her opinion as vwterry pointed out - and a terrible job of copying and pasting. But, you have about the same mentality as Crystal so I don't expect you to understand.
alan290 - oh, you think Crystal (aka Palin) made good points - what a joke. You guys should actually learn to read and reason but that is too much to expect of the far right!
Obama/Biden 2012
why are mitts millions in off shore accounts instead of here, in this country, doing us some good?
doesn't seem very patriotic to me!! not from a man who wants to be president!!
i have to question his actions and loyalties. as they say actions speak louder than words.
so just how patriotic is he if his money is out of the country? granted nothing illegal about it, but it just seems odd that there are no banks anywhere in this country worthy of handling his banking business.
while the grand caymen islands surely appreciate his dough being parked------ down there---- it seems this country could use it just as much, if not more.
perhaps he should go run for office in the caymen islands if he likes his money to be down there!!!
"The governor believes that what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the Court’s ruling that the mandate was a tax." - Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney Campaign Senior Advisor
"The majority of the court said it is a tax, therefore it is a tax." - Mitt Romney
Damn it, people, shake harder!!!
PS - That seismic tremor you may have felt last night was Rick Santorum doing a massive facepalm!!!
The article states some people see Romney as out of touch with average americans. A guy with elevators for his cars out of touch?
Mitt Flips. If anyone needs more proof that Mitt Romney will say whatever he thinks is what his party's base wants to hear--especially if the word is "tax"--witness his incredibly twisted conclusion that the mandate in the federal law is a "tax" because the Supreme Court says so and that the mandate in his RomneyCare in Massachusetts is a "penalty". They are identical and they both amount to a penalty tax except in the federal law, there is no mechanism for collection.
Penalty = tax. Fee = tax. Driver's License fee = tax. Parking ticket = tax. Speeding ticket = tax. Business License fees = tax. Whether it is called a penalty, a fee or some other term, it means paying money for something and can be called a tax or not. Take your pick. We just think "tax" in terms of income and sales.
As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney implemented many fees but refuses to call them taxes even though they amount to the same thing as a sales tax. It is silly to play this game of calling something a different name because Grover Norquist and the GOP has made the word "tax" a four-letter one. We know it is silly because Mitt Romney and his staffer, Eric Fehrnstrom, proved it to be nothing more than what it is--rhetorical, political spin.
Jody,
You summed it up. PING!
And now for something completely different, but more of the same --
Mitt Romney is running against his own bill.
It's a shame that Republicans don't believe in science. Otherwise, they'd understand that human beings have something called a "hippocampus" in their brains that allows them to remember things for long periods of time.
So true Jody. Willard "Flip" Romney is nothing more than a Bold Face Liar!
Mitt Romney is a flip flopping liar and a Bain in the ass!
Obama/Biden 2012
Joe Donnelly for Senate!
(with apologies to U2) - Mitt Romney - Still hasn't found what he stands for....
When Romney was declared the winner of the republican primary for the office of the president, news media were asking other republican political members if they supported Romney. Going down the line at the table one of them answered "Everyone should like him, he's been on both sides of the issue one time or the other." One after another, when possible republicans were asked if they would consider running as Romney's VP, everyone said no. They all distanced themselves quite openly. In related news, Michelle Bachmann went for a ride in a Chevy Corvette last week and is now claiming she was ...vetted for the office.
Romney or Obama.... what's the difference?
Only Ron Paul would do the right thing and make a real difference.
I agree with you expat....but Ron Paul isnt running...so that leaves Obama as the only Good option for America and Americans.
Romney and his cabal of nation wrecking neo-cons plan on bringing back the failed, greed based policies of the Bush administration...and we all know how well that turned out for this nation.
Obama/Biden 2012
Obama is clueless, Valerie Jarrett is running the country. Still blaming Bush? Obama just wanted to party in the Whitehouse, and turned the reins over to Pelousy, Reid and the Clintons almost immediately. Now without Pelousy, he is neutered. He is an arrogant narcissist who is unable to compromise and unite. Welcome to reality, Obama is a failure and it's not Bush's fault.
Ron Paul wants a pony.
@crystral..
Its people like you, that are causing republican voters to lose any respect they had left.
Its people like you who voted against your own best interests and the best interests of this country because you believe in the childish lies of the GOP/Tea Bangers who are willing to do or say anything for power.
The GOP/Tea Tools are so consumed with hate that they are willing to entertain absolute silliness about Obama, which really hints at their racism. The GOP/Tea Banger fanatics are also so blinded by their hatred for a black President that they now share that same hate for anyone, republican or Democrat, who even slightly works with Obama on issues.
People like you crystal have let greedy, selfish and morally bankrupt religious fanatics take over the grand experiment and they have made a shambles of it.
Personally I don’t see how the United States can ever become a great nation again with people like you voting for the GOP/Tea Tools.
Cool jody, mitt flips and obama evolves. A rather fine point in trying to say either is correct.
At least we now know from obamas lack of economic policy and unification skills these past years that we might as well bring in new blood to get us moving in the right direction.
one and done 2012 - OMG
Hey clown, lets just wait until after the nominating convention before negating any influence ron paul has.
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president."
Tea Bagger Clown (love your avitar) Crystal doesn't have enough intelligence to know how utterly stupid she sounds. She has no clue about anything that is going on but eagerly posts the GOP talking points!
Obama/Biden 2012
truetexan - my guess is you voted for Bush twice and McCain/Palin, right? 'nuff said!
Obama/Biden 2012
And Obama won't? He wants power and will do whatever it takes to get it, including crushing us under his feet if he thinks it will help him. When it comes to wanting power, he's a male Oprah.
It will be hilarious watching Romney not get the needed delegates from the Convention floor.
RNC = Republican National Clusterphuck!
Rod_Father - I think the Ron Paul supporters are going to make the convention very entertaining. I wouldn't normally watch but this could be fun!
Obama/Biden 2012
@Tea Bagger Clown
ROTFLMAO!! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Anyone who intentionally chooses a screen name such as yours has no business accusing others of being consumed with hate. Your ranting and raving and name calling suggests that "consumed with hate" is something you are more than familiar with.
Truetexan, shouldn't you have cited Glenn Beck as the source of your little monologue?
You have to give Beck credit for one thing, he was willing to try on different characters for his radio show until he finally found one that resonates with an audience. He's been a shock jock, a regular guy who just doesn't quite understand why the rest of the world doesn't get what he thinks he sees, a comedy act, a "rodeo clown" (his description), the man most likely to cry, a televangelist, and one fine parody of an idiotic college professor.
The only thing he hasn't tried is being truthful.
Hope everyone had a great 4th . . . I surely did . . . no traveling and lots of food that I didn't cook . . . yum! :o)
Here is what I have to say . . .
Mitt . . . just for the record (I know no one actually cares about that quaint idea known as "the truth" anymore), the Supreme Court did not say the mandate in the Affordable Care Act was a tax, one justice, the Chief Justice, said it was a tax.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled spin . . .
I just wanna say this . . . the problem I have with many conservatives is their inability to accept reality and lose with grace . . . Mitt said the Supreme Court "has spoken" and "Obamacare" is Consititutional. That is how our government is supposed to work. The primary problem I have with the modern Republican Party is the way they work tirelessly to undermine government institutions . . . that is not democracy.
Fight for what you believe in, state your case (using REALITY not made up BS), and then RESPECT the outcome.
Is that really too much to ask?
The Supreme Court actually did the GOP a favor by telling the truth....that it is a tax, a $2 trillion boondoggle,,,still want to keep your house? Justice Roberts wrote that we have basically chosen poorly our political leaders be ause of what they are doing to this country. I see a steady destruction of Gov. Romney by the Dems....doesn't matter that it is not true...people don't read jfor the most part, don't pay attention, and don't even vote - the greatest gift our forefathers gave us. I'd Obama wins again, God help us.
What's not true is much of what comes outta Romney's pie hole!
Dear Jennifer:
Dramatic much? ;o)
I am paying attention, and what I see is that President Obama stepped up to the plate and used the government "of the people" to help real live Americans who up until this point have been given a death sentence if they could not afford health insurance.
No amount of blah, blah about governmental minutia is going to change that.
And, whether you call the penalty for not buying health insurance that you CAN AFFORD a tax or a penalty, one thing is for sure, VERY FEW FOLKS will be paying it, so it is yet again much ado about nothing. . . a GOP trademark . . . make a big stink over here and hope no one notices the "corporate people" continuing to rob us blind over there.
No deal Jen, no deal.
$2 trillion, eh? My, that's a mighty big number that just keeps getting bigger by the week, all with no supporting information to back it up.
Why not just go all in and tell us it's a gazillion? The Conservative Movement needs to learn that if they're going to make up numbers just go REALLY big to start with.
I'd guess Jennifer has health insurance and won't be paying either a "penalty" or a "tax" which poses the question of why she and others like her support the notion of "individual responsibility" but discard the fact that "free riders" on the system increases the cost of their or their employer-subsidized health insurance benefits. This is the irony in conservative chatter these days. The loudest objectors and objections are coming mostly from those who are not affected by the "individual mandate". The GOP legislators and Governors have health insurance, same as the democratic legislators and governors, yet the GOP spin their web of deceit convincing their faithfull that those faithfull do not deserve the same health insurance as those GOP politicians have and do so by disguising it as freedom of choice.
Jennifer in New York............Mitt Romney's (& your) worst enemy is................Mitt Romney! Pray hard, Jenny, you may need more help than you realize!
People like Jennifer said the same thing about Medicare in which where all lies, they can help it because they are program and can't think for themselves.
Nashville, glad you and yours enjoyed the fourth.
As for obamacare, if chief justice roberts hadn't made the distinction on the individual mandate as being a tax then obamacare would have been struck down (or at least greatly hampered) by a 5-4 vote against.
Actually, there is a silver lining to this fiasco. Obviously, a heck of a lot of people don't believe that the Constitution places limits on the powers of the federal government. A lot of these same people think that government is the answer to everything like free health care, free wages for doing nothing, no consequences for one's choices or actions, etc. As is the usual course of great nations, they slide into mediocrity when the people realize that they can legally vote themselves money from other people's wallet. So, Roberts was correct in that if we are to save our nation from it's down slide, it will be necessary to do a better job of choosing our representatives.
The Republican Establishment politicians are so far to the left of where they used to be that they are now even to the left of where the liberal Democrats were no all that long ago. That being said, Roberts did provide the Republicans with a fairly easy way out of this mess. Assuming the Republicans maintain control of the House, gain control of the Senate (by just 1 vote) and take the Presidency, then it should be easy to not only repeal Obamacare, but to get rid of the ridiculous barriers that prevent the sale of health insurance nationwide. All they have to do is pass a budget bill in the House and the Senate and make sure that the versions are different. No need to mention Obamacare in either bill. Then, when the reconciliation measure comes up, add in a tax provision to undo the Obamacare tax repealing Obamacare and add in the prohibition of states restricting the sale of insurance. Heck, they can even add in tort reform too! This then does away with filibuster in the Senate and only requires a simple majority in both houses. Thus, the fate of the Union will be saved, if the Republicans have the guts to do it.
Speaking of Medicare...
The audio that was played last week of Ronald Reagan before he was President saying Medicare would be the worst thing that ever happened to Freedom Loving Americans.
All the Reagan lovers hate this truth about their fearless leader but he had many flaws and fear-mongering was among them.
Sounds a lot like this crowd screaming about ACA.
BTW, the same crowd screaming about REPEAL OBAMACARE are not screaming to REPEAL MEDICARE. Why not???? They are both Socialist programs.
witchrunner - okay, you are certifiably insane. The Republicans are left of the Democrats? Are you taking the hard drugs today? The Republican party has gone off the deep end right! They are so far right they are for taking our country backward by about 100 years. That is why the party is losing members. No one can relate to the total buffoonery of the GOP today. If you aren't a white old man, you don't belong in the GOP.
If the GOP ever comes to it's senses and comes out of the dark ages it may be a good party again. However, I don't see that happening for a long time which is why the GOP won't win the White House and may very well lose the House in November. The Democrats will maintain control of the Senate.
Obama/Biden 2012
"The Republican Establishment politicians are so far to the left of where they used to be..."
What? Compared to Eisenhower, Dirksen, Reagan, and the GOP old guard the current batch of GOP/TP/Neo-Nazis are so far to the right they've fallen off the edge. Damn.
Nashville Fan
I think it would be wise for you to look up the definition of democracy. In a true democracy, the majority rules. I have yet to see that lately. The government dictating to the people what they are to do, is NOT a principle rooted in democracy. The people telling the government what to do, is (by majority-i.e. majority vote). There are only two types of regimes that tell the people what to do-dictatorships, and socialist (communist) regimes.
13BVET:
I hate to break this to ya, but the Affordable Care Act was passed by a democratically elected Congress and signed by a democratically elected President.
What you hear on your radio every day is not representative of what America thinks, only what you think. Maybe try some fresh air and some fact checking and get back at me.
What I find most amusing are those like Jennifer, who are here today (and ever day SINCE the SC decision) expressing shock and outrage over something they apparently just now learned,. Even know anyone with half a brain and the ability to read has known for over 2 years now. So, Jennifer is in essence stating;
a) She can't read
b) She's too lazy to read
c) She's not bright enough to form her own opinion after getting her own facts and prefers to only parrot what she is told, even if it makes her look like a complete nitwit.
d) All of the above
seeking sanity: You might want to read what I said. I never said that the repubs are left of today's dems. I said they are left of where the dems were not to long ago. Clinton couldn't pass Hillarycare even with a majority in both houses. This stuff wasn't even brought up under Carter. In fact, it was unfathomable until Obama locked all the dems up and threatened the dems with their careers if they didn't vote for it. For good measure, he threw in a ton of taxpayer money as bribes. Of course, a lot of them lost their careers anyway because the voters are overwhelmingly dead against this monstrosity. Now, some repubs are debating whether this catastrophe is a tax or a penalty. The only purpose for having that discussion is to be prepared to get rid of it. Regardless of what Roberts said, this thing goes against the Constitution. The reason I say that today's repubs are left of what the dems were not too long ago is that I'm not sure that the Repub leadership has the determination to get rid of this thing. With the history of the last 3 years, it's doubtful that they will. Taking the Senate and WH along with keeping the House makes it a slam dunk, if, they don't worry about being criticized by the socialist media. Time will tell.
Oh, and where have you been for the past 3 years. The repubs losing? I think you must be Rip Van Winkle. The repubs annihilated the dems in 2010. That trend is continuing. Considering Obama's policies have led us further astray from the greatness that is the United States, the only real campaign issue is whether the repubs fight even half way as hard as the dems will. All this piddly stuff of tax vs. penalty is nothing but a distraction that the lib media is all to willing to foster. Keep the focus on the total lack of results from Obama's policies and this should be a slam dunk for the repubs.
Holiday week thoughts…..
DNC Liberals are eagerly waiting to launch into full personal attack mode on whoever might be named as the Vice President candidate for the Republican Party. You can feel the anticipation, hate and anger they have harbored to attack.
They really don’t care who it is…..they will and must attack them. Watch for the name calling and demeaning to develop quickly. This is “the liberal way”…isolate, attack and demean.
With the Obama-tax set to deliver the largest tax ever imposed on humanity, the struggling, stagnant “O”-conomy appears headed for a continued slow sinking process for Americans.
How many American’s recognize the loss of freedom with the new Obama-tax?
So many seem intent on having a big government to support them, thinking this makes life easier. It’s a fact that any time the government “gives” a person something, a piece of their freedom is surrendered.
Excuses, finger pointing, the Blame Game……things our president, Mr. Obama does well!
Obama/Biden - Attack and Distract 2012 :)
We need a new coach, one who can get the job done. Mr. Obama, our president can't.
Nuf C Nuf !
And the Republicans haven't been doing this since Obama took stage?
Remember the Bush :)
Republicans tend to, (not always) go after policies for the most part. Liberals go after the person, demonstrated by the quick and frequent name calling and trying to demean others through giving names.....
But it is a shared trait at times :)
All 4s....
Start paying your fair share and buy your family healthcare you
cheap free loading tea party cheap skate!!
Mitt is running out of choices for VP...Rubio, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Bachman, Pawlenty, and so many others have already said they will, NOT accept the nomination. (They do not want their careers to go down in flames) Christie said NO, now has flip-flopped, but the GOP cannot risk running him with his mouth calling people "stupid" and "idiot"because they ask a question. Obama was interrupted and dealt with the issue politely and calmly...Christie became a name caller.
Great post! The Dems are in full throttle destruction mode. Who is paying for all those destructive TV ads? George Soros pulling everyone's strings?
How about pizza man. Has he vetted Cain?
If you truly read between the lines in this WSJ editorial, several points become apparent. First, the Republican Party is far from excited about Romney as their nominee. Secondly, it becomes obvious that Romney is not on the same page as establishment Republicans. Mitt swung ultra-conservative to get the backing needed to oust Santorum and Gingrich but is now moving moderate to have a broader appeal in the general election campaign. Here's something to watch for ~ if the RNC and its monied acolytes begin a strong campaign for their senatorial candidates, it means they have written Romney off and their focus is on seizing congress. Frankly, they have a far better chance of winning the Senate than the White House.
Excellent post Jim in Texas - and you and I, along with Nashville Fan, being from the south, know one of the biggest challenges Mitt will face - the Bubba and the SBC vote, which he will not capture in droves as in past for the republicans, also I don't see the evangicals going for him, and Joe Biden helps shore up the Catholic vote for the Obama/Biden ticket. Our family is heading up to Boston later this summer, I'll let you know what the folks up there actually think about the Romneycare they have which is pretty much identical to Obama care that the rest of the nation will be graced with. I'll be with the real working class, riding the "Charlie", eating at No Name, playing on the beach at Revere, so it should be a pretty good mix of what the working/middle class thinks of this now that it has been in place for awhile. Mitt should not run from the only positive thing he ever accomplished, but I suppose he has no choice but to walk, talk, and act like the Koch brothers tell him to at this point.
Now that's some pretty funny stuff there. It's almost as if Conservatives haven't;
Portrayed President Obama as a monkey.
Or a witch doctor.
Or a closet Muslim.
Or a radical, fringe Christian bent on overthrow of the United States.
Or the Antichrist.
Or referred to him as Barack Insane Obama.
Or Barack Hussein Osama.
Or Obammy.
Or Obummer.
Or circulated watermelon-eating jokes over the internet.
Or lazy in spite of bringing himself up from humble beginnings.
Or stupid in spite of his top-tier education and college professorship.
Or uncaring about regular people in spite of turning his back on big bucks to work in the community he loves.
And succeeding financially anyway.
Yeah, Republicans didn't invent the politics of personal destruction...they just perfected it.
"Swiftboat" did not become a verb because of anything liberals did.
There's a word for someone who deliberately states something they know to be untrue. There's another word for someone so willfully ignorant that they only think in talking points from hate-media. I'll let you decide which word applies.
The most untrue statement posted thus far - why it even qualifies as a Swiftboat attack. Republicans rarely go after policy issues. Why look no further than the strategy they invented and aptly named "Swiftboating". Take a candidate with a war record, falsely claim his war record is full of lies, use millions to create ads into deceiving the public and buying into the false claims. When you take all of Romney's false add claims and line up the 3 and 4 Pinocchio ratings end to end, you have one long "Mitts wooden" schlong.
Odd, I rarely hear republicans or their SuperPACs going after policies but I do hear a huge amount of personal character assassination from them. Swiftboating is what the GOP does best. Mitt Romney didn't win the primary by playing "nice" with the other kids and disagreeing with their policies. He and his SuperPACs ran the most negative, personal character attacks against whichever other candidate had taken the lead.
@Jody - apparently the right wing now claim the "birther" issue is a policy issue, since after all, republicans rarely, if ever, lob personal attacks on candidates <SNARKism>.
Oh JohnB such a sweet list, now give us the list from the FR left on the variety of names given to the leaders of the right. You know, if it was so important to point out obama's nicknames why not do a full disclosure? Of course, perhaps you just like blowing smoke?
Why, those are paid for by the one and only, whore of the Chinese - Adelson.
Liberals go after the person, demonstrated by the quick and frequent name calling and trying to demean others through giving names....
LOL-- yet another case of a conservative attempting to describe a liberal but in fact -- describing conservatives. Demean others through giving names --- you mean names like "socialist," or "communist," or "baby killer" or "Nazi' --- names like that???
Or, Joe Wilson- You Liar- or Trump- show me your birth certificate.
To all you Republicans show me your proof of sanity papers.
frespech - they can't.
All4Areason - Are you fricken kidding yourself?
" This is “the liberal way”…isolate, attack and demean."
- look at your mouth piece Rush and tell me how you can reconcile your statement of those tactics being the "liberal" way...
american (?) "now give us the list from the FR left on the variety of names given to the leaders of the right."
Why don't you do it? Because you can't? hmmmmm *crickets chirping*
Every day Willard gives us all proof that no way no how can he, or will he be elected for the highest office in the land.
Every day Obama gives us all proof that no way no how should he have been elected for the highest office in the land.
But he was, Shorts ~ and he will be re-elected. Not because he deserves it but because there is literally no one running against him that has much of a chance of defeating him. Barring a huge Obama gaffe, he's got a lock on November.
Jim, I think the politically centric will vote Mr Obama right out of office. They're quiet, but very politically potent if they'll vote. We need a guy to lead from the middle, and Obama ain't it.
The Gaseous Old Pharts are looking out for the Insurance companies because there are some pretty good things in "Obamacare" that help the middleclass. One big one is, the insurance companies have to pay out 80 percent of what they take in paying for the care of those paying the premiums instead of buying a 5th luxury home for their CEO and stockholders (sometimes the same). The can no longer call anything a pre-existing condition whenever they don't want to pay for it. My insurance for one, had a lifetime cap of 200 thousand dollars after I retired. So what does that really come out to, a tripple bypass and I'm on my own after that?
All of these changes I have mentioned help every American even the rich who are basically self insured but they especially help those in the middle class like Lucky and McGreer.
Here is the sick part, they would rather side against things that help them, than give a Black President the credit for trying to see it thru........................................ SICK
@ Job1, so your tag name, job1, are you the only recipient of a job created by Obama?
just wondering....
I imagine with all the money the GOP/Tea Tools siphon from hillbilly rednecks and KKK racists in America, they can afford to hire 17 paid trolls to spread GOP lies, play the victim card and distort facts......
Obama 2012. At least he's interested in ALL the US citizens, not just the handful who agree with him.
mlkyundrwear ....
I am the middle class and I have a helluva lot more incommon with President Obama than I do with Mitt Romney who spent the first week of July at his family's $8 million, acre estate in New Hampshire.
Great Play of the RACE CARD Michael, this isn't about COLOR, it's about capability. A Community Organizer does not a President Make, Wasn't Presidential Material, Isn't Presidential Material and does not show the competence required to function in the Office after having served one term. I sincerely Hope the Great Unknowing One is not re-elected, he may have dooped the Electorate with "Hope and Change" once, but I hope the Electorate has the Intelligence to see through the LIE. ABBO-Anyone But Barak OBama, Remember in November.
By the Border - yet your party elected an actor when they elected Regan. How funny you've forgotten that. And, with George W. Bush they elected a businessman who had bankrupted 2 companies prior to going into politics - boy that's a stellar recommendation.
We've seen that businessmen don't make good Presidents. President Obama was a community organizer; a professor of Constitutional Law; a lawyer; and a state senator prior to becoming a senator. He has done a good job with the mess he inherited and will do a better job during his 2nd term - after we vote out as many of the GOP obstructionists as possible.
Oh, Romney hasn't done anything since he was Governor - absolutely nothing! Just what we want - a NOTHING for President -NOT!
Obama/Biden 2012
By the Border-
Your jealousy is showing....
Community Organizer eh. Well so was Jesus Christ. Just sayin'
By the border wrote..........."A Community Organizer does not a President Make".
Ask Bin Laden how that ol Community Organizer is doing!
By the Border...
THANK YOU!!! The race card does get played every time we criticize Obama. I don't care if he is black, white, or purple... he's incompetent.
Not that again. Obama is being credited for taking out OBL, when the credit belongs to the military and that specific team. All Obama did was give the OK because he had no choice. The outrage would be monumental if he has told them not to kill him.
Rene ...
Really, and your source for this is what? Is our President not the Commander in Chief or is that someone else? Show me the source for your extremely moronic statement.
Tea Bagger Clown-
So are you saying only a handful of people agree with President Obama? I'm confused. I thought you liked him.
Johnny..how do you know his name is not "Job" (as in the Bible), and not "Job" as in employment. You use the word assume a lot don't you?
Rene.....do the words President of the United states....Commander in Chief ...President Obama ring a bell?
Pssst...don't tell anyone.....but he ordered the killing of the terrorist known as Bin Laden. You know Bin Laden...that guy Bush said he wasn't thinking about anymore....you know..the guy Mittster said he would not spend the money on trying to capture him. Yep..President Obama made the final decision as Commander in Chief, as President of the United States, to take out Bin Laden.
Another Flaw of Romney, after saying he would not spend the money going after Bin Laden, Romney flip flopped and said he would have made the same decision as Obama......Oh oh....another Romney flaw exposed.....Dang...kinda hard to choose just one!
Yet if Bush would have been able to get him he would have been cheered as a god. Its funny haw you brilliant minds try and trivialize the assassination of the #1 terrorist in the world.
Rene278 - you should probably have a clue before you post nonsense. Bush/Cheney said OBL was not important and no longer a main focus for them. President Obama HAD a choice about sending the SEAL team in - he was told there was only a 60% chance OBL was there and was advised against going in. He felt it was the best chance we'd had in a long time and felt the intelligence was good. President Obama made a decision HE would have to live with. Had it not gone well - he would have taken the blame.
You're an ignorant fool to believe any of what you posted. Or, you're just a GOP liar and don't care about your lies. Your choice!
Obama/Biden 2012
Rene ...
Ok--if that is true--why didn't Bush do it?
Seriously, has anyone seen any real proof that UBL was killed, or did he die from the kidney problems he had? Most people who had the severity of health problems that UBL had, would have died long before that. I find it interesting that we would just outright kill him, when he could have been a trump card for leading us to the other lunatics we were after. It just doesn't make any sense. Let me see if I've got this right. We killed him (as a veteran, I'm not taking anything from the SEALs-they're kick -ass)-pack him onto a helicopter, fly him half way around the world, verify the dna, and bury him at sea within 24 hours? Ever flown in a C5A? They're not exactly speed demons. Not to mention, that even acquiring a dna match for the worst murderers generally takes at least a couple of days. It just doesn't add up!
On another note, if you go by the census questions, Obama would not be considered black, or African American, but, instead, would be listed as white with black/African American. So, if that's the case, exactly which side of the spectrum are conservatives supposedly racist against?
13BVet - Okay, you're just a blithering idiot! Cheney - is that you???? Let's see, the wife that was wounded and has screamed over and over about the killing might be proof. You are an imbecile!
Obama/Biden 2012
People like 13BVet make me worry that they might actually have licenses to drive motor vehicles. With the sort of craziness rattling around in his head like the nonsense he posted above, how could he possible focus on performing a simple, but dangerous, task like driving a car? I bet he doesn't get a lot of eye-contact from people he passes on the street, either.
Mr. Obama, our president will certainly be remembered for his often used, "What I meant to say was....." opportunities. :)
and of course....his "Do as I say folks, not as I do" examples. :)
Start paying your fair share and buy your family healthcare you
cheap free loading tea party cheap skate!!
Guessing you are a liberal Say What? lol :)
Confirmation!
Nice! :)
Oddly enough, the only people I personally know who take advantage of government handouts...vote Republican. MaineCare, food stamps, unemployment benefits, rental assistance, free lunch for the kids...yup, they are first in line for the gimmees, then they snarl "I'd never vote for a librul!"
It's also a weird truth that many of the Tea Partiers, including the politicians like Newt, made their personal fortunes off the very government they claim to want to shrink.
You are so right on Amy, I find it so strange that republicans hate government, but man do they ever come out of the woodwork to run for office - guess that government healthcare and retirement plan is good enough for them, the rest of us are just not good enough for it, right? Typical right wing thinking and talking points.
Republicans run on a platform that government doesn't work. Then they get into office and prove it.
Amy, it is the same here in Ky. The people decry the government and "handouts" while on disability, food stamps, housing assistance, and medicaid.
My cousin, while accepting all of these govenment handouts, actually told me she did not get any assistance from the "government".
Guess the tooth fairy drops off those checks every month.
reminds me of the family guy episode where Peter giffin steals a circus for stuies first birthday and he is riding a elephant and says look at me I am symbol of the republican party a fat white guy who resists change
When will Mitt Romney start paying his "fair share" in taxes instead of hiding his millions in the Cayman Islands and Swiss bank accounts? Romney claims to be a patriot yet chooses the loopholes to avoid taxes--anyone seriously think a Romney president will fight to close those loopholes? President Obama has tried hard to close them but the GOP legislators think it's just fine and use the filibuster to allow American businesses and citizens to stash their cash OFF SHORE.
Amy and Angie, so true. Know a few of those republican free-loaders myself. I also find it amusing that Tea Party folks with their signs "keep your hands off my medicare" ignored or don't know that it is government run health care system; that it and the Veteran's systems are the most efficient and cost effective in the country because they are NOT for profit.
Amy,
Please state where you get your so called facts. If you look at statistics that identify democratic strongholds they exist in areas like inner urban cities where the percentage of people on public aid is much higher than the suburbs. Most of the people that I know living on public subsidies are in fact democrats. They also abuse the system and fake illness to gain SSD. You must be very young because you are still quite ignorant of history and facts.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps
here is an article for you Randy. Google it there are lots of them.
Clotho ...
One of the best summary statements I've seen in the past few days!
Randy,
Have you ever had to go through the process of applying for SSD? It ain't easy (no I haven't applied I have a good friend who does the examinations). Can you back up your other statements?
randy - you're either 10 years old or very ignorant of the facts. More of the red states are getting high government support than the blue states. And, like Amy, the only people I know who get "handouts" vote Republican.
Obama/Biden 2012
Agreed. The most staunch tea party friend of mine who believes government is too big... also collects welfare and food stamps.
Nice link angie but you'll never convince people like randy by providing proof. Any surprise that a state like West Virginia, home of gun totin red necks is one of the 3 highest subsidized states?
It's always those who scream the loudest who are the very ones sucking the government teat. Didn't you guys get the memo? It's welfare when it's anyone but them. When it's them they "earned" it. LOL
Hey Randy, seems like Angie answered quickly and correctly, and you never came back to say something... hmmm, let me guess, you ran back to your talking points station and lo and behold, they don't equip you with the ability to refute, only regurgitate. That's a shame buddy.
I hope Willard will fold his rathole and go to one of his many homes and call it a day. This guy makes it very clear that a rich guy should stay CEO and never run for President of the US.
Oh shoot, I thought Romney's fatal flaw was his connection to Bain Capital, and trying to claim he knows all about creating jobs from heading a company that pioneered in outsourcing them.
Walking to work today, I saw a headline in a local paper that read How Mitt Romney's Bain Capital is Holding a Small Maine Town Hostage. Got to work and pulled it up online. Posting here for your edification:
http://portland.thephoenix.com/news/140911-how-mitt-romneys-bain-capital-is-holding-a-small-/
Mitt Romney's fatal flaw is Mitt Romney. There's simply nothing there to run on. He can't run on Bain. He can't run on Massachusetts. He can't run on his history as a silver-spooned child of wealthy entitlement to his position in the modern day global aristocracy. He can't run on his religion. He can't run on his education in the elitist ivory towers of the Harvard academics. He can't run on his track record of saying anything to get elected, and then flipping on his old positions when they stop being politically beneficial.
There's not one reason to vote for Mitt Romney, so all he can do is try to harness a large enough block of voters to vote against President Obama. If Europe drags the global economy into a worse slowdown over the next four months, there may be enough of those voters, but it's a bigger challenge than it should be with Romney constantly serving as his own ball and chain.
Nathan, I am very concerned that we are considering a guy for president that will not tell us what he thinks, answer questions, or release his tax returns. I do not care that he is wealthy, but I do care that he is hiding money and investments.
As for his opinion on issues or plans for this country I have no idea what he wants to do. We cannot get a straight answer out of him. His position changes with the wind. Hopefully voters will wake up and realize we do not know who this guy is and he does not want to tell us.
.
I thought Ronmey's fatal flaw is his illegal alien hiring.
Romney...the job provider...to Illegal aliens.
From Politico.com dec 4 2007 ROMNEY HIRES ILLEGALS!
The morning after last week's debate "immigrants from Central America who say they are here illegally were in plain view on the lawn in front of Romney’s salmon-colored mansion in Belmont. Chatting in Spanish, they hustled to rake massive clumps of leaves, dump them in barrels, and clear debris from his tennis court.
Their boss, Ricardo Saenz of Chelsea, was the same man who for a decade brought illegal immigrants and others to work for Romney, whom he had met through their shared Mormon faith. A year ago, the Globe broke the news that illegal immigrants landscaped Romney’s 2.5-acre property.
In the past two months, the Globe observed Saenz and his crew at Romney's estate once a week, except during the week of Thanksgiving. The lawn work at Romney's usually took place around noon, then the crew drove a few houses down the street to the home owned by Taggart Romney, one of Mitt Romney's sons, where they worked for about an hour. The work was sandwiched in between other jobs elsewhere, on workdays that sometimes lasted 10 to 12 hours.
Last Thursday, the Globe interviewed two of the three workers who were at Romney's house. Both said they were illegal immigrants from Guatemala; one of the immigrants said the third worker was also here illegally. After the first snow, one of the workers said he went on to another job for another employer after Saenz said they would not return to Romney's house until next spring.
All those millions, and he can't hire Americans to work on the properties.....How cheap and unAmerican can one man be?
How can we possibly list ONE fatal flaw for Romney? Is it because he can't decide how to refer to the healthcare bill? Is it because he has no personality and can't relate to anyone? Is it because he is incapable of discussing issues? Is it the fact that he is an empty suit? Is it that even Republicans can't stand him?
I think there are way too many "fatal" flaws to list! Just sayin....
Seeking Sanity.........Let's list all the flaws and let the voters choose!......I think Romney fatal flaw is his plan....his long term plan......May I once again unfold his plan before your very eyes?..This is not for the faint of heart. Kids don't do this at home....
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!
starsailing, I swear .... you have the best way of Dr Seuss'ing up the Romney campaign! Always appreciate the giggles!
Thanks Layton........Dr. Seuss was a big influence on so many people. All of his stories can have subliminal messages for the good , while at the same time he was addressing so many social issues. Wonderful stories, just pure colorful, whimsical escapism from the daily grind from things like say, having to wash behind your ears, brushing your teeth, and dealing with fanatical teabaggers voting against their self interest! Life is hard.........why make it harder?
Obama/Biden 2012
The money being spent against the presumed nominee may be for naught if another nominee winds up coming out of the Republican Convention....
This is the biggest election possibly in our country's history. Nothing can be kept off the table.
First thing you have said that has any intelligence in it
Anyone other than Romney is guaranteed to get nuked in November! It'd be a sign of desperation and panic.
SW?
Truth not always welcome to the liberal left in their "Fantasy Land" of non-reality.
Remember, name calling, demeaning, attack.....liberal's have proprietary rights to those tactics. :)
all 4 reason, do you really think the republicans would put another candidate out there at the convention? I think romney has a better chance than if they changed horses in the middle of the race.
Who do you think they may put out there at the convention?
I'm pretty sure that at least the last four or five presidential elections have been "the biggest election possibly in our country's history".
Just the facts: We already pay for those without insurance. If you've ever been hospitalized and seen a breakdown of your bill there'll be things like $25 for each of those 25 cent pair of gloves they use, $10 aspirins and really quite shocking charges. Every year millions are treated who end up never paying which leaves the rest of us to make it up. There's a reason you can have major surgery in a thrid world country for a fraction of what it costs here. There those that can't pay die, here we treat them and raise the costs on those that can.
Response to post below mine.
Please clear this up for me, the 25M or so we are adding to the rolls, the poor will pay nothing, the not quite as poor will have the coverage subsidized at some level, who is paying this shortfall, then the big one, how are we going to rate the person coming on the rolls with the pre-exisitng condition?? How will you give insurance to the person just diagnosed with breast cancer and needs surgery, chemotherapy and radiation TODAY?? It will take thousands of healthy people for every person with a pre-exisitng condition to cover the cost of the coverage. Not sure how this can be done and be fiscally responsible and solvent.
Actually, the question is "How can we not do it?"
How can we sentence folks to die because they get sick?
Why are profits more important than human life?
This is not a math problem.
Under the Affordable Care Act, businesses with over 50 employees will provide insurance. The more people who are covered, the lower premiums will be, and the healthier the population.
I used to work at an L.L.Bean call center, that had hundreds of employees, but did not cover them with insurance. If I had gotten breast cancer, I'd have been treated at a local hospital, but I would have had to declare bankruptcy in the process of paying the bills. Now I have a job where I have health insurance, and I am getting treatment for conditions before they seriously impact my health.
There are millions of Americans who can afford health care, but they are young and healthy and don't think they need it. When they have to take responsibility and get insurance, most of them will not be costing a lot in medical bills. That enormous addition of premiums will help make up for the elderly and sick, who do use a lot of health care.
In the short term, that may seem unfair to those who are young and healthy. However, we'll all be old and need medical treatment eventually (if we're lucky.)
also all 25 year olds or 40 year olds will be charged the same premium. NO longer can they be charged for prexisting conditions.
Our son is still being punished by the insurance companies for SURVIVING cancer when he was 5 years old. He was denied coverage for a long time, now he is charged exorbitant rates. This has been 20 years since he had cancer and he is still being punished. Without the ACA this will continue, so it is good for my family that things are going to change.
The increase in "customers" for the health industry is supposed to make up the difference.
Just the facts..............and the republican plan is........(per teabaggers during repubs debate)....Let them die! Romneys personal fiscal plan is to hide his money in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes. He sure is fiscal responsible...to himself! Tax dodger....wants to become the president of the United States while hiding money in offshore accounts. Maybe that will be his fatal flaw. So hard to choose which one there are so many!
My sister was denied coverage for years because she used Accutane as a teen. She hasn't had any side effects from using that deadly drug, but one of her co-workers hasn't been so lucky.
I sympathize those with children with conditions, and I believe the insurance companies should never be able to throw you off the rolls once you've been underwrititten and approved, however, if the 25M or so we are adding to the rolls are not there because they are too poor to pay or have a pre-existing condition that will far outweigh any premium brought in, how can the ACA stay solvent? How is it fair to charge all 25-40 year olds the same premium? One is healthy and the other has cancer? If the poor are to be subsidized, who is paying for the shortfall? Why should I have to make up the difference? I know there are circomstances beyond some's control, and we have policies in place for those already Medicaid/Medicare so why a new entitlement? Just trying to look at this from a non political point of view and just look at the bottom line. This will cost more and more than expected and that is a fact.
Star...what the hell does that have to do with the premiums of healthcare to those with pre-existing conditions. And tax dodger,.....Geitner, Rangel....I could go on....you don't think the millionaire Obama has money offshore?? FOOL. You still have not answered a simple question, how much premium will you charge to someone who has cancer, or heart disease, or diabetes, or some other ailment and needs surgery and chemo and after care NOW. and hasn't paid a nickle yet. How will you offset this shortfall of money? More tax? Higher premiums on the healthy? How will this work?? IT WON'T
just the facts,
You are trying to gloss over this, but can you just state plainly what you propose to do for folks who have no recourse under our current system?
Are you okay with letting them die?
Just for the record, I'm not. And if insurance company's cannot make a profit off of treating sick folks fairly, then maybe health care should not be a for profit industry.
You present a false choice.
Just the facts..............and the republican plan....is?............Let them die!
The post is about Romney's fatal flaw.............which one do you choose? I give a number of them....Kinda hard to just pick one isn't it?
Nash, Why are they not currently insured? I am and have been since I got married and had children even through some lean times we carried health insurance just in case. We already have programs in place for those who cannot pay, medicaid/medicare. These help the poor and indigent. I'm not for letting them die, but you tell me what will happen when a 70 year old goes to a hospital or doctor and is told he needs a heart transplant, or liver transplant, do you think Obamacare will put him right to the top of the list? Or will it find that he is not going to be a productive part of society much longer and not worth the cost?
I'm not trying to provide a false choice at all. Just trying to figure out how this is going to work. If it should not be run as a for profit organization, how would you run it? Where would you get the money to run it? Taxation? At what rate? The same for rich and poor? The same for healthy and not? I'm just trying to rationalize how this program gets paid for, or the care it is proposing. There are not enough healty young people not currently insured to make up the difference for even a fraction of the people who are sick and not insured. Especiall when of the 25M we are adding to the rolls are poor and almost poor, (they haven't told us where this line will be) will be subsidized and not pay anything into the system as well.
just the facts:
How do you afford health insurance if you are unemployed? What about if you are underemployeed?
What if the cost of everything goes up, but wages remain stagnant?
What if you have insurance, but the cost of your care has already exceeded the arbitrary limits the insurance company set?
What if your child is sick and you had to quit work to care for them because the salary you were making didn't allow you to pay for a full time nurse?
What if your insurance company denied you a life saving treatment just because they could?
What if you had to care for an elderly parent who required constant care, thus limiting the work you could get?
What if we quit trying to make a buck off of sick folk and decide that healthcare is a human right that we are all willing to pay for and cut some other things, like subsidies for oil companies and loopholes for corporate people?
Why do conservatives always think that everyone else's life should pretty much follow the same script as theirs?
Just askin'.
unemployed/underemployed Medicaid/medicare
all valid points, please still explain or answer if not make a buck, how to pay for the care you outline?
Tax? at what rate? same for young and old? Same for sick and healthy? I'm not proposing a scriptI'm against lifetime benefits, dropping off the rolls, as for leaving work to care for a child or parent, tho heartbreaking not something everyone else whould have to pay for to help your personal situation.
I would like to have all subsidies cut out, it's just buying votes in Washington. I'm against all that. I'm just against big government as well and as much make-up you want to put on this bill, it simply will not work as outlined. I do believe some sort of reform needs to be done, as well as immigration reform and many others, however I do not trust this government as it currently sits (both sides) to make any healthy choices for the people. I enjoy the debate, thanks
just the facts:
It is not about "trusting the government" . . . it is about common sense. People are corruptible, so any organization composed of people can be corrupted.
But the simple fact is that folks are dying under our current health care system, and they are not going to stop dying while we all have esoteric discussions about a perfect system that will never exist.
So, if there are some kinks to work out along the way, that is fine, because nothing is perfect. But burying our heads in the sand and pretending that health insurance companies set up to make money are ever going to put what is in the best interest of the patient over their bottom line is naive at best and criminal at worst.
At least, when it comes to government, we have a voice and a choice, no matter how skewed. Something tells me that Blue Cross doesn't really give a crap about what I think about their business practices.
So I choose action over inaction, warts and all. The time as passed for philosophical chatter, time to take action, and that is what President Obama did . . . and I say it was well past time.
Though I agree the insurance company propably will not choose to give someone the care they need without being paid, this is not what was proposed in this bill, they are proposing that with the additional 25M in new people the companies will recover enough new premium to treat those who are sick. I also am very scared of how it was passed, let's pass it to see what's in it, bribing the at least 2 senators to get on board, not very transparent. If it is so good for the "people" why were even democrats reluctant to sign on? It is very naive of you to think that even with this and or any other government run program that just as many if not more will fall into the cracks and be forgotten. Look at the poor in this country, trillions have been spent on the poor, guess what they're still poor.
just the facts:
So we should consign folks to death because you are "uncomfortable"?
I can't argue with that logic.
You win.
Where did I mention uncomfortable??
Also, just read an editorial from a gut in the NYT at lunch. 71 of the top 100 companies will do better to drop their health care benefits, causeing 20M to lose health care. If they have to get their own policy, you still have not proposed how to pay for those who are currently under care, or need it now. You want all to have coverage but refuse to say how to pay for it. Nothing is free.
just the facts:
You do whatever you have to do to sleep at night . . . you seem to take great comfort in numbers and statistics . . . not so comfortable dealing with the reality of the plight of your fellow human beings . . . good luck with that.
Let's cut the crap. Medicaid has been available for years, and years for people who need it. No one on here has an issue with poor people getting medical coverage, as the libs portray it. The problem, is how it's being done. We're already paying into these programs with our taxes (well, I know I am), and now we're being charged on top of that? It's really not that complicated. All that had to be done, was lower the requirements for Medicaid-problem solved! Boy, that was real hard! I just don't see the connection to a mandate when it comes to Medicaid. Medicaid has been available for quite a while. Also, this perception that if you have healthcare, that you won't have to pay a penalty (tax), is unrealistic. The Fed can't keep up with their debts now. There's no way in this world that they are going to give someone health care for free-there's no such thing as free. I figure the Fed is going to raise taxes to pay for this program, and in 5 years (or whatever it is), when it is handed over to the states, you better believe your taxes are going up! There is no way the states can afford this without raising taxes.
13BVET:
It is somewhat ironic that you start your comment with "Let's cut the crap" and then proceed to make a long list of unsubstantiated assertions that you have pulled right out of your $#@.
People have spent their entire lives studying these issues, and you dismiss it out of hand based on nothing more than your gut feeling?
Weak.
P.S. Your brilliant Medicaid solution is a part of the Affordable Care Act . . . the part that the GOP governor's are trying not to implement . . . so yeah, more empty rhetoric . . . more dead citizens . . . all so some health insurance executive can buy a bigger house. So very sad that folks cannot see the benefit of making sure EVERY AMERICAN has access to health care . . . this is not something that should be debateable . . . and yet here you are . . . defending the indefensible.
13BVET, just because you're too cheap to buy health insurance doesn't mean the rest of us should pay more to cover your unpaid medical bills when you have a serious emergency and don't have a huge bank balance to cover it.
If you do have insurance, I apologize, and then I ask what you are complaining about? You're not going to pay the tax or penalty or whatever this is, because you chose to take personal responsibility and went out and got health insurance.
As for Medicaid, the Supreme Court said the feds couldn't hold a gun to the states' heads and force them to participate in the expansion of Medicaid. The states can opt out of that part of Obamacare, and I suspect most of them will -- because they simply don't have the money and the voters will not tolerate a big increase in state taxes.
Justthefacts, you're right to wonder about who will pay for it. There is, after all, no such thing as a free lunch.
You might keep in mind that the way all insurance works is that when everyone chips in -- including those who don't need the service at the moment -- those individuals who are hit with expenses beyond their ability to pay are helped by the many contributions of those who aren't using their benefits -- yet. (Of course, some day they will.)
You might also keep in mind that our highest federal income tax bracket now is the lowest it's been in generations -- 35%. It was 39% under Clinton, averaged about 50% under Reagan, and was a bit more than 93% under Eisenhower. Some of us can afford to pay more than we're paying now.
Here are some notes on additional sources of money to pay for the ACA.
Costs for implementing the new health care bill should top out at more than $900 billion by the year 2021, the CBO says. It will be paid for in a number of ways, including:
The source for some of this information is
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/health-care-reform-bill-10-32431.html
It's a site run by non-partisan lawyers and answers a lot of questions like yours in plain English. We all ought to consult it because surveys repeatedly show that half of us don't seem to know what's IN the Affordable Health Care Act.
Even if it were considered a tax...it would only kick in for those who can afford health insurance, but are too irresponsible to go out and purchase it...leaving the rest of us on the hook when they find themselves sitting in the ER with a broken leg...or worse.
Naw...I would rather buy a jet ski, or a jacked-up 4 x 4. Because, if I can't see it, touch it, smell it, or RIDE it, it ain't worth my money! ; )
what makes you assume people who dont ahve insurance will always end up in the ER? What makes you assume they wont pay the bill even if they do end up in the ER and dont have insurance?
Sooner or later...we ALL will need medical attention...whether we have health insurance or not.
Those who get hit with catastrophic illnesses, or accidents, and have no health insurance, become so mired in debt they are not able to pay.
Hell...even relatively minor medical procedures cost an arm and a leg. Ex. the average cost of pre-natal, delivery, and post-natal in the U.S. starts at $12,000. This is without a C-Section, which is the case in 40% of pregnancies now. C-Sections add another several thousand to the bill.
Medical Bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States.