SCOTUS Interpretation

Comments

No republican voted for it.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm

No, of course they didn't. They forgot about the old "no more freeloaders" line Romney used to sell it in MA. They want to call it a tax when the taxpayer/consumer will pay a lot less in taxes than in premiums, saving that "tax" difference. So, it is an effective tax reduction, but only if you want to talk about the real bottom line instead of pretend that this Heritage Foundation plan is a Socialist Takeover of "Fill in the Blanks."

The cult political behavior of the clones passing for Representatives in the GOPimp Party sets a new low for hypocrisy and cynicism. The fact that people want to believe that their American "democratic" political system works serves the cynicial tactics two ways. First, people are not ready to believe and to attribute to the thugs "evil intentions" rather than political differences. When they find out how badly money has corrupted the politics, they get discouraged about the character of the politicians instead of dealing with the structural problems of "the greatest country in the history of the world."

Second, blaming the "critics" and "reformers" for being "unAmerican" rather than proud patriots gives them cover against having to deal with any of the real problems we face. Delay and distract is dispiriting. It is another "voter suppression" tactic designed to make us give up hope that any positive change can happen soon or on a scale that matters. Stay entertained, of course. Don't think about why the political system does not work or what it would take to have one that did. Just be pissed off at politicians and whomever else you add to the brew.

We may see voters reject the cynicism and even resist the power of money's messaging. We may see a rebirth of desire to have democracy connected to a will to do the work it requires. Or, we may see the Truman Show get more and more Unreal as the operating reality. I do not think the cynics can win forever. At some point we get tired of this crap and stop taking the crack offered to dull the pain.

Why no Republicans voted for this very moderate conservative Republican program simply because Obama signing what Congress compromised into less than wonderful would still be a win for Obama is what is puzzling. Do they really think that we will continue to pay more for less and be shoved under the bus to the bottom line of health insurance companies? They are very good with the pr, but do they really think that it has no half-life? I think they are that blind.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote drc2:

I think they are that blind.

I think they see just fine.... A bill so fucked up they had to lie cheat and steal to pass it, A bill that is specfically design to fail. And in that failure lays the liberal wet dream of universial healthcare. Becuase by the time of the Failure, the US will be trillions more in the hole and too entrenched.

In that, They see very clearly and acted accordingly

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm

This is almost as looney as the Fast and Furious Obama conspiracy to take away their guns. A Liberal plot to pass a health reform bill so bad it will pay off the privateers and pharms and get us into a hole so deep we will have to go to universal healthcare. I hope I have gotten this as you meant it, but I am having a hard time figuring out who "they" are and how doing what you suggest could have any positive effect for Democrats or advocates of civilized healthcare policy in America.

In the first place, the Democrats compromised with GOPimps, so the "design" was either to catch Republicans out in the failure of their ideas or to go as far as compromise required to get a bill no matter how stupid what the GOPimps required was. I think a simpler explanation is that Obama's team bet on the idea that getting something out of Congress was better than losing a fight for a superior health care plan. They were aware that Hillarycare had been criticized for by-passing Congress, so they let Congress do the legislative trading and sausage grinding. Obama was not doing much public lobbying for any particular product. He was holding off the Progressive, Single Payer advocates with increasingly fragile rhetoric. They had good reason to feel sold out.

If you want to criticize the nature of Congressional horse-trading and acting out, fine. However, in this case it applies to those insisting that Obama not "win" anything that is not sufficiently booby-trapped to work. The idea that Obama planned to get a bill so bad that it would fail and produce a demand for universal public healthcare is insane. It would require enormous faith in "the people" waking up to abuse "this time" when they have not in the past. It would also require knowing in advance that the GOPimps would be so completely over the edge and beyond reason or patriotism.

Otherwise, well-intenioned bi-partisan approaches to policy might have done a lot more to turn things around. Were cons ready to look closely at the failure of their low tax, dereg economics and appreciate that public spending can be as value-added as stimulation in the private sector, we could have some reasonable disagreements about approach and particular items. These compromises would not be the inclusion of toxic poison pills or partisan attacks. They would be about common ground.

Anyway, let us agree that Single Payer, universal healthcare is what most human societies have adopted when dealing with their national healthcare. In the wake of all this fear of Socialized Medicine rhetoric and images, Americans still like this idea better than any other. What they don't like is exploited with utter hypocrisy when we are told that somebody from the government will be between us and our doctors. We already hate the insurance guy, so if the government guy wants to come and take out the insurance goon, it will be a gain to have him there with us. Truth is that it gets the insurance guy out of the game. Now, my doctor and I can deal with medicine and health knowing that there is a set system of coverage and payments at work regardless.

I think the GOPimps saw their masters' signals clearly and acted accordingly. No sanity was involved in this process.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote drc2:

This is almost as looney as the Fast and Furious Obama conspiracy to take away their guns. A Liberal plot to pass a health reform bill so bad it will pay off the privateers and pharms and get us into a hole so deep we will have to go to universal healthcare. I hope I have gotten this as you meant it, but I am having a hard time figuring out who "they" are and how doing what you suggest could have any positive effect for Democrats or advocates of civilized healthcare policy in America.

I love your fake acting... so endearing. Not Grammy worthy. You already knew this bill was the stepping stone to universal. Not because the Bill was great, but solely because it was a clusterfuck. For you to pretend otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.

You already know the penalty/tax is too insignificant and has no teeth to offset the huge jump in cost of healthcare. The Bill takes the structural problems of the current system they have screwed up and put it into overdrive. By 2020. the system will collapses.

In the wake of all this fear of Socialized Medicine rhetoric and images, Americans still like this idea better than any other

Ironically if it were really true, we'd already have it. But it's not. The US is and will remain for the forseeable future a conservative majority country. I'm you would love have mommy take care of all your needs so that you may pursue your hobbies, the majority however do not want big brother controlling everything.

.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm

I believe it is not officially a "tax" untill it is actually collected in 2014. At that point it can go back to SCOTUS for a decision. I think someone has been duped.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am

I was wondering that too. It seems to me that once 5 justices determine it's a tax, they should have dismissed the case. Probably since they'd already had the briefs and the oral arguments, Roberts figured they might as well decide.

So it seems to me that someone else could sue in 2014-2015, although it wouldn't make a difference unless there is a new makeup of the Court, Romney's elected, Ginsberg dies, etc.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Faux News, Romney, McConnell, Boehner, Ryan, Limbaugh, the entire tea party, the under informed voters in this country, many of the users of Thom's message board, and most of the analysts I have heard discuss the Supreme Courts ruling on Obamacare have missed the point : Obamacare and the individual mandate itself are not a tax; the tax is invoked as a penalty for not buying health insurance. The republican voices that you hear calling this the largest tax increase since 1993 are full of it.

The health insurance companies themselves actually like Obamacare, except they feel the penalty for not buying their over priced health insurance is too low. The more people choose to pay the penalty instead of buying health insurance, the lower the profits for the insurers will be.

I had mixed feeelings leading up to the ruling; I would rather see Medicare for all or single payror a public option, but will settle for Obamacare , for now.

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

It is not a tax until you pay it. You only pay it if you don't have coverage, or policy. So it is a voluntary tax and perfectly legal. Everyone covered through their employer is unchanged.

A teenager on a bicycle confronts a ptotestor in front of a gas station. "What's the beef? Why the protest? The state wants to raise gas taxes to help pay for new bike paths" Teenager says "get me a sign, taxes are bad, I don't want to pay more taxes, and I get my license in 4 years"

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

As usual not making much sense

Quote Capital.0:And in that failure lays the liberal wet dream of universial healthcare. Becuase by the time of the Failure, the US will be trillions more in the hole and too entrenched.
Well we already KNOW the free market approach is neither efficient nor can it provide universal coverage. So why are you complaining when Obama and the Dems are trying the approach first advocated by the HERITAGE FOUNDATION back in 1989? It's just what Righties like you love... using government taxing authority to make private corporations rich. You should be happy that at least it's not the TRUE solution to our problem: Single Payer.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Pierpont, I am very glad for the fact that this should shelve the "single payer" option for at least a while.

See this opinion that the states that perhaps the ruling might not be as big a win for the left as first thought.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0701-chapman-20120701,0,6645496.column

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm
Quote Pierpont:

As usual not making much sense

Quote Capital.0:And in that failure lays the liberal wet dream of universial healthcare. Becuase by the time of the Failure, the US will be trillions more in the hole and too entrenched.
Well we already KNOW the free market approach is neither efficient nor can it provide universal coverage. So why are you complaining when Obama and the Dems are trying the approach first advocated by the HERITAGE FOUNDATION back in 1989? It's just what Righties like you love... using government taxing authority to make private corporations rich. You should be happy that at least it's not the TRUE solution to our problem: Single Payer.

I opposed the fake opposition Heritage Foundation's approach back then too. I'm not a Righty. I don't want the government to have any taxing authority for that matter. I know it's difficult to extricate yourself from the Left/Right paradigm but it's vital. Why do you assume that anyone who opposes the Left must be a Righty? (and vice versa)

TheFirstLeftist's picture
TheFirstLeftist
Joined:
Mar. 23, 2012 2:33 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system