I didn't miss that. If the Republican led states choose to play hardball/sore looser and be asshats, that's on their shoulders. It will be a real bone of contention and the electorate may get really pissed off at them and vote for the other guys, except in idiot states like the Alabama.
Will the SCOUS Strike Down Any Part of Obamacare?
- Thread starter onthebottom
- Start date
You haven't answered my question and you claim my point is wrong. To be honest, I don't think anyone still understands whats in this bill as we are still discovering its intended and unintended effects. For you to lecture me about not understanding it and not to mention deflecting my question, when you forcefully and confidently claim that Morris is lying.
You have said nothing to substantiate your claim that what he has stated is a lie or inaccurate. Your statement above reflects what lack of understanding and knowledge of the actual bill itself.
No one is exempt from buying insurance, if they cant pay, the federal government was supposed to let the states expand Medicaid programs. And if they can afford and refuse to buy they will be "penalized" or taxed a percentage of income.
I don't know the actual numbers myself, all I know is some people will be subsidized on varying percentages via tax credits based on income.
I think the point is blackie, aardie here is telling you cash strapped states would be hard pressed to expand Medicaid, now that the sc said they can't be forced to expand, it's up to the federal government now to pay for these people, not the states. It's not about politicking, it's about where's the money.
And I guess your model state would California right? :eyebrows: Oh by the way, a sign of things to come I guess, starting July 1, can't serve foie gras in the golden state. It will all be broccoli soon.....
As it was explained to me, there are people exempt from the penalty/tax; native american, people under certain tax bracket, inmates and another one that skips my mind, oh ya a religious exemption.
Since you seem to not believe anything without a internet reference, try this. Apparently there are exemption according the the insurance industry.
http://www.insureme.com/health-insurance/whos-exempt-2014-health-insurance-mandate
So you claim no one is exempt, but apparently thats not the case.
First the article dates from 2010, second in a bill which was over two thousand pages, it is no wonder there was confusion, third some of the information is a tad disinqenious - for example "Native Americans/First Nations" in federally recognized tribes have free healthcare provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, likewise inmates also have government supplied health care. The Amish are to put it mildly an exception to the rule!
Finally, if the point of this legislation was supposedly to make sure that every American has healthcare, why on earth rather than making sure that statement is true, would Congress say that if the least expensive Health insurance costs more than eight percent of your income you don't need to have health insurance or at least you won't have a penalty for not being able to afford it if you don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid.
Finally, if the point of this legislation was supposedly to make sure that every American has healthcare, why on earth rather than making sure that statement is true, would Congress say that if the least expensive Health insurance costs more than eight percent of your income you don't need to have health insurance or at least you won't have a penalty for not being able to afford it if you don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid.
You're asking me why US government can't speak/write plain english? Unfortunately the US AND Canada have got in the habit of writing laws that always have exclusions, making them very difficult to comprehend or retain.
I'm not more clear on the status on Native Americans on and off the reserve per-say and how various laws pertain to them. Unfortunately in Canada it is different, much as a result of the R. vs DRYBONES in the early 70's. I wonder if I'd dug further, I wouldn't find an article more contemporary, but 2010 isn't that old.
Wow blackie, now you're being too literal here. Sure people can can get exemptions from buying, but they won't number around 12 to 24 million for the above reasons you stated. And people who don't have health insurance right now for just the reason that they are young, healthy, or have other priorities for their money will be required to buy, or else be penalized or taxed as the supreme court has ruled.
You still haven't answered me on how dick Morris was lying.
Then you can't read or comprehend written english, as I have answered it. I chose one example in post #118 and #120 highlighting a direct quote from his column.
As for young people, I assume you mean young professionals, don't buy insurance then they are making a big mistake, as you and yours tend to be healthier and get better rates. As a self employed professional I purchased insurances to cover me on a number of levels over 30 years ago and could only dream of getting the similar rates today as it wouldn't be offered.
the 12 to 24 million figure was mentioned on Reliable Sources or Fareed Zakaria.
Although you have a point that not every scintilla of what he wrote is universally true, for the vast majority of Americans what he wrote is correct.
.... and unfortunately a large majority of the electorate think Obama is not American born. I count myself as one who believes he didn't go far enough with the bill, and not wanting to open the health care debate again, but he tried/hoped for a compromise to get it on the books. I think he's learned this lesson too late.
There are also many who believe this bill will kill jobs, even though in the time it's been on the books jobs have actually increased, yet the Republicans still shout that false factoid every chance they get. Aren't 90% of the US small business under the 50 employees threshold and therefore won't have to offer health care packages, thus increasing business costs, not? So jobs would be hurt how?
Its just the GOP doing what they do best. Picking some fact, misrepresenting its purport and repeating it over and over again until it gains some traction. Its just the death panels all over again.
The system has been tested and it has worked. Just ask Mitt Romney who passed it in Massachusetts.
More republican noise which will increase in the coming months. Really quite comical.
They could taken the minimalist approach and expanded Medicare and Medicaid, or they could have actually tried for some sort of comprehensive plan which either would have attempted to drive prices down - national insurance pools for instance, or single payer. Instead they went for the bastard approach which is Obama Care.
There are but a handful of people who don't have healthcare because they don't want it 99.9 percent it is that they can't afford it.
I am not going that far yet. Roberts has proved, so far, to be pretty friendly to the concept of federal power.
However, he does seem to favour corporate interests more than I would like.
It may be constitutional but it's still not popular:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
Health Care Law
52% Favor Repeal of President’s Health Care Law
Monday, July 02, 2012
The U.S. Supreme Court declared that President Obama’s health care law is constitutional, but they were unable to make it popular.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters favor repeal of the health care law, while 39% are opposed. That’s little changed from a week ago. Indeed, support for repeal has barely budged since the law was passed.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on June 29-30, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
And the SCOUS is less Popular after the ruling:
Supreme Court Update
Approval Ratings for Supreme Court Slip Following Health Care Ruling
Sunday, July 01, 2012
Public opinion of the Supreme Court has grown more negative since the highly publicized ruling on the president’s health care law was released. A growing number now believe that the high court is too liberal and that justices pursue their own agenda rather than acting impartially.
A week ago, 36% said the court was doing a good or an excellent job. That’s down to 33% today. However, the big change is a rise in negative perceptions. Today, 28% say the Supreme Court is doing a poor job. That’s up 11 points over the past week.
The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on Friday and Saturday following the court ruling, finds that 56% believe justices pursue their own political agenda rather than generally remain impartial. That’s up five points from a week ago. Just half as many -- 27% -- believe the justices remain impartial. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
.........
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/supreme_court_update
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
Health Care Law
52% Favor Repeal of President’s Health Care Law
Monday, July 02, 2012
The U.S. Supreme Court declared that President Obama’s health care law is constitutional, but they were unable to make it popular.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters favor repeal of the health care law, while 39% are opposed. That’s little changed from a week ago. Indeed, support for repeal has barely budged since the law was passed.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on June 29-30, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
And the SCOUS is less Popular after the ruling:
Supreme Court Update
Approval Ratings for Supreme Court Slip Following Health Care Ruling
Sunday, July 01, 2012
Public opinion of the Supreme Court has grown more negative since the highly publicized ruling on the president’s health care law was released. A growing number now believe that the high court is too liberal and that justices pursue their own agenda rather than acting impartially.
A week ago, 36% said the court was doing a good or an excellent job. That’s down to 33% today. However, the big change is a rise in negative perceptions. Today, 28% say the Supreme Court is doing a poor job. That’s up 11 points over the past week.
The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on Friday and Saturday following the court ruling, finds that 56% believe justices pursue their own political agenda rather than generally remain impartial. That’s up five points from a week ago. Just half as many -- 27% -- believe the justices remain impartial. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
.........
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/supreme_court_update
So is this 52% in favour of repelling all of it or part of it. The report doesn't seem to make that clear? You tried to slip this by once before and it didn't work.
If you want to believe the act is popular go for it, I think you'll find your position is lacking supporting data.
I guess you couldn't answer my question or I suspect my point was correct. Nice try OTB.
SSSSSHHHHH! He doesn't want talk about that.
He's ranting against a bill that was basically the same he had in Mass and he said was a good thing.
You'd have to look at the polling, my assertion was that the act isn't popular.
Which is the typically myopic way you view things!
Many of those like me dislike it because it didn't go FAR ENOUGH and does NOTHING to reign in the GREED of the Medical Industry by controlling their ever spiraling costs like is done in other countries....:eyebrows:
