Supremes uphold individual insurance requirement. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Iamsemisweet -> Supremes uphold individual insurance requirement. (6/28/2012 7:21:29 AM)

According to my local paper. Let the knashing of teeth and hilarious conservative diatribes begin.




Iamsemisweet -> RE: Supremes uphold individual insurance requirement. (6/28/2012 7:27:00 AM)

Oh look, it already has. Now the neocons on here are proclaiming that this means Obama can't possibly get re elected. But I thought you were saying before that he couldn't get re elected if the law was overturned. Neocon logic is beyond me.




mnottertail -> RE: Supremes uphold individual insurance requirement. (6/28/2012 7:27:23 AM)

There are currently three threads on this.   Yeah, boy they load the court, and still cant get it done, now they gotta do the birth certificate, roe v wade, and healthcare repeal.

LOLOLOL.  




JstAnotherSub -> RE: Supremes uphold individual insurance requirement. (6/28/2012 7:29:05 AM)

5 threads and counting!




Musicmystery -> RE: Supremes uphold individual insurance requirement. (6/28/2012 7:30:20 AM)

Oh, this is going to go on for MONTHS.




DomKen -> RE: Supremes uphold individual insurance requirement. (6/28/2012 7:45:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

There are currently three threads on this.   Yeah, boy they load the court, and still cant get it done, now they gotta do the birth certificate, roe v wade, and healthcare repeal.

LOLOLOL.  

Roberts not Kennedy sided with the 4 progressive justices. I think this was Roberts trying to save his place in history. Overturning the mandate would have been viewed as a purely political act by an overly politicized conservative Court which would have made stacking the Court with liberals during Obama's second term a foregone conclusion.




Musicmystery -> RE: Supremes uphold individual insurance requirement. (6/28/2012 7:52:52 AM)

quote:

Roberts not Kennedy sided with the 4 progressive justices. I think this was Roberts trying to save his place in history. Overturning the mandate would have been viewed as a purely political act by an overly politicized conservative Court which would have made stacking the Court with liberals during Obama's second term a foregone conclusion.


I think so too. He probably also tried for a larger margin and lost, but he recognizes that, whatever he believes is really true (and I don't know), he recognizes that the credibility of the Court is already on thin ice.




DomKen -> RE: Supremes uphold individual insurance requirement. (6/28/2012 7:56:02 AM)

I'm waiting for the opinions to get posted. The dissents should be hilarious.




DomKen -> RE: Supremes uphold individual insurance requirement. (6/28/2012 9:20:26 AM)

Just got through most of the ruling (Roberts' majority opinion is quite lengthy).

Roberts basically says Congress can pass a tax for just about any reason it wants but the Commerce Clause doesn't allow the mandating of commerce.
Ginsburg's concurring accepts that it is a tax but that it the mandate is also legal by the Commerce Clause.
Scalia's dissent tries to deny the mandate is a tax, denies Congress can pass taxes on lack of action, takes some potshots at Roberts and Ginsburg and whines at length about how the Founders would be opposed to this.
Thomas' dissent agrees with Scalia except to go even further and denies the Commerce Clause has any effect whatsoever.




kalikshama -> RE: Supremes uphold individual insurance requirement. (6/28/2012 9:29:11 AM)

Here? http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf




Winterapple -> RE: Supremes uphold individual insurance requirement. (6/28/2012 10:04:26 AM)

FR
I don't think this is going to have any effect
really on the election. People that feel
strongly either way have already picked
a team. How much influence it will have
on the undecideds is unknown but I'm
sure the right will go into full blown
this is going to lead to detention camps
mode.
Agree with the various thoughts about
Roberts. Ugh Scalia, ugh Thomas.




Nosathro -> RE: Supremes uphold individual insurance requirement. (6/28/2012 10:04:36 AM)

For me the question is since this is going to be a tax, if anyone is having trouble already paying their taxes, how is this going to effect the people trying to pay their taxes. It is estimated that each person works four months just to pay their taxes. How many more monthes will it take to pay them now?




joether -> RE: Supremes uphold individual insurance requirement. (6/28/2012 10:14:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
For me the question is since this is going to be a tax, if anyone is having trouble already paying their taxes, how is this going to effect the people trying to pay their taxes. It is estimated that each person works four months just to pay their taxes. How many more monthes will it take to pay them now?


Do you EVER get your facts straight? Do you EVER even attempt to TRY to get your facts straight? Is it just asking to much for you to get your facts straight?

You want to talk about a tax? How about the Iraq War for those WMDs we never found? I, myself, will have to pay a 'tax' for the amount of money spent on that war. Not only paying the principle but the interest, since that entire war was paid for with borrowed money! I dont see many conservatives bitching about the 'Fiscal Conservative' during the Bush Administration; not even 1% as much as I see them bashing President Obama for the last three years.




papassion -> RE: Supremes uphold individual insurance requirement. (6/28/2012 10:57:18 AM)

Probably some of that bitching has to do with the fact that Obama spent a hell of a lot more than Bush.

As I understand, if you don't buy health insurance you will get a 91 dollar "fine" from the IRS on your tax return, or 1% of your income. Whatever is more. Thats not bad. Since they can't exclude you for pre existing conditions, wait until you need hospital care and then buy it. See, now you can get into the "take advantage of the government club" like the welfare scammers do!




joether -> RE: Supremes uphold individual insurance requirement. (6/28/2012 11:18:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion
Probably some of that bitching has to do with the fact that Obama spent a hell of a lot more than Bush.


I'm just stunned sometimes the manner to which conservatives throw out facts and evidence on an issue, and instead go with falsehoods, lies, and crap told to them by the misinformation machines known as the conservative media. President Obama has had to spend more to get the country out of a recession that was (as of 2009) headed towards a depression. Its a well understood economics theory that states when demand drops off, the price for things will drop as well. Problem the country had in 2009 was a high supply by low demand. So the goverment stepped in and gave an artificial demand to the system, thereby allowing industries to cease the downward spiral and instead making inroads to recovery possible. Some industries even bounced back entirely towards the end of the 2010 end point for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This by the way, is the Ultra-Super-Dupper version of the events and facts. Oh trust me, it gets very complicated and complex (well and above the limited thinking conservatives seem to possess now adays). The important thing to realize from all that, is the country didnt listen to the Republicans who craved and desired a economic depression to befall this nation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion
As I understand, if you don't buy health insurance you will get a 91 dollar "fine" from the IRS on your tax return, or 1% of your income. Whatever is more. Thats not bad. Since they can't exclude you for pre existing conditions, wait until you need hospital care and then buy it. See, now you can get into the "take advantage of the government club" like the welfare scammers do!


In 2014, the number is $285 or 1% of your income. In 2016 that number rises to $2,085/year or 2.5% of your income (which ever is more in both cases).

Welfare 'scammers' as you call them, account for less than 5% in most states, for those that make use of any number of state and federal 'welfare' programs. That means the OTHER 95% of persons actually have a legitimate reason(s) to obtain welfare. I help volunteer with such an organization. Trust me when I say, many of these people would never have thought they landed in their situation in a million years. Some of them really have some very serious problems to which the level of care is not enough. But they are good people. Willing to help others out, even though their help is limited. The grand majority of them would love to get a decent paying job and get out of the situation they now find themselves in. The remainder have so many problems its just not realistic for them to work at a full time job.

So, instead of listening to the conservative 'misinformation machine' all day, how about volunteering for an organization that helps those most likely on welfare? You just might find your views challenged against the stark reality presented to you. Then the question becomes, are you truly a selfish bastard or a compassionate citizen?




Nosathro -> RE: Supremes uphold individual insurance requirement. (6/28/2012 11:23:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
For me the question is since this is going to be a tax, if anyone is having trouble already paying their taxes, how is this going to effect the people trying to pay their taxes. It is estimated that each person works four months just to pay their taxes. How many more monthes will it take to pay them now?


Do you EVER get your facts straight? Do you EVER even attempt to TRY to get your facts straight? Is it just asking to much for you to get your facts straight?

You want to talk about a tax? How about the Iraq War for those WMDs we never found? I, myself, will have to pay a 'tax' for the amount of money spent on that war. Not only paying the principle but the interest, since that entire war was paid for with borrowed money! I dont see many conservatives bitching about the 'Fiscal Conservative' during the Bush Administration; not even 1% as much as I see them bashing President Obama for the last three years.


I have no idea of what you are ranting about....read


"The mandate has been upheld as a tax"

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-issue-obamacare-decision-135554880.html




Musicmystery -> RE: Supremes uphold individual insurance requirement. (6/28/2012 11:42:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

For me the question is since this is going to be a tax, if anyone is having trouble already paying their taxes, how is this going to effect the people trying to pay their taxes. It is estimated that each person works four months just to pay their taxes. How many more monthes will it take to pay them now?

For the dozeneth time, ACA has provisions for hardship and an appeals process.

The "tax" isn't much either.




DomKen -> RE: Supremes uphold individual insurance requirement. (6/28/2012 12:27:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Here? http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Yes.




DomKen -> RE: Supremes uphold individual insurance requirement. (6/28/2012 12:29:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

For me the question is since this is going to be a tax, if anyone is having trouble already paying their taxes, how is this going to effect the people trying to pay their taxes. It is estimated that each person works four months just to pay their taxes. How many more monthes will it take to pay them now?

For the dozeneth time, ACA has provisions for hardship and an appeals process.

The "tax" isn't much either.

Also eligibility for Medicaid has been broadened so people who really cannot afford insurance can get it from the states and still not pay this tax. Realistically no one should pay this particular tax.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125