Original June 24 Post: The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act this week.
The central issue being considered by the court is whether Congress' power to regulate commerce means that it can mandate people to buy health insurance, The Atlantic reported.
The court could rule the mandate unconstitutional and throw out part or all of the Affordable Care Act, or uphold the act in its entirety, the New York Times reported.
The Weekly Standard reported that the individual mandate goes beyond regulating commerce, and instead compels commerce by forcing individuals to purchase something.
The idea behind the mandate, as NPR reported, was that it would reduce health care costs by broadening the base of those paying premiums and by reducing costs associated with the uninsured who resort to seeking treatment in emergency rooms.
The Atlantic pointed out that although the act mandates health insurance for all, it provides the option for those under 30 to purchase bare-bones catastrophic insurance. The magazine also stated that the same option is available for those over 30 who show financial hardship.
The Atlantic stated that the provisions in the law to minimize the financial burden on individuals was effectively a "limiting principle" for the legislation.
RB, you really are not a very good actor. Acting offended at my comment that President Obama is a marxist is a poor defense of the President. The Executive Branch of the United States Government is charged with enforcing laws enacted by Congress. The Executive Branch does not make laws. Since 2011 when the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives, President Obama has ruled using Executive Orders to circumvent Congress. Laws which the Congress has enacted which the President disagrees with are simply ignored and are not enforced. The President has stated that he believes in the distribution of wealth by government. The President acts if he is above the law and ignores the president's oath of office which requires the President to protect and defend the Constitution (which clearly defines the duties of both Congress and the president). The above is simply a statement of facts. These facts lead to no other conclusion than that President Obama is a marxist. Clearly, President Obama has damaged the American economy with his Administration's economic policies. It appears to many Americans that the damage to the economy is intentional. Conclusion: Obama = Fidel Castro/Hugo Chavez
Mr. Harvey, don't go away mad, just go away. We listened to Mr. Harvey go on and on and on about guns, but didn't see the need to announce that we would no longer be reading his repetitive comments. I guess liberals just need lots of attention. RB call to end this thread is pretty typical of marxists-censorship. Is Barack Obama a marxist? Why do you think that BHO is so secretive about everything? It's not really too hard to figure out. Black Liberation Theology (Reverend Wright-"God damn America") is marxism. Frank Davis Marshall-Communist Party USA. Member of the New Party. Progressives are marxist and Obama is a progressive. Fidel Castro and Barack Obama-two of a kind.
Since you seem to be open to reason and are not dragging the discussion down with partisan rhetoric (e.g. Obama is a Marxist, Bush is an idiot, etc.), We all know that these statements are not true and we only degrade our own credibility when we repeat the lies started by the Beck & Maddow ilk). We already have a system where the young subsidize the old (medicare), the working subsidize the poor (Medicaid), the healthy subsidize the sick (group plans are all based upon claims experience) and we all subsidize healthcare (donations to hospitals are tax deductible so we all suffer because of lower federal revenues). This is a messy patchwork of systems that cost a fortune to administer and many people still fall through the cracks. High risk pools don't work. They are expensive and require direct government subsidies. We all need to be in the same pool. An individual mandate accomplishes just this. It is not a Marxist concept to say that everyone is entitled to the same basic level of healthcare. If you happen to be wealthy and can afford a better plan then that is good for you. Similarly, poor health should not banish you to the poor house. A basic plan should cost every similarly aged man (or woman or child) the same price (however, the market should be open for insurer to compete on price). The individual mandate accomplishes this.
The evidence is outlined above. Reverend Wright ("God damn America"), Frank Marshall Davis and the New Party. Saying that we all know it's not true is your typical leftist way of dismissing evidence to the contrary. Even the slogan "Forward" is marxist. Of course, Me has no problem believing that Mitt Romney is a felon. Who started that attack? President Obama. If Romney is a felon, let's bring charges against Romney on Monday. Put up or shut up-the evidence that Obama is a marxist is laid out above.
But it is socialist to say that other people are required to pay for someone else's healthcare. "Spreading the wealth" through taxation (wealth transfer) is socialist and marxist.
Why demonize Norquist? On account of Bush 41? Son of Prescott Bush who was as dismissive of Reagan before "balancing-the-ticket" as his VP. Romney's dad ran Rockefeller's presidential campaign. Nelson was so far "moderate" as to be liberal. Have you ever heard Margaret Hoover speak? A credit to her ancestor Herbert. This is what conservatives must contend with in the Republican party. Meanwhile the Democrat party Left has been uninhibited finally arriving at Obama who has earned the label "radical". How so? Davis, Ayers, Wright, et. al. His belief in "collective salvation" -straight out of Liberation Theology -- Marxism masquerading as Christianity. His "redistribute wealth" and "fundamentally transform" language. When told raising capital gains tax would result in LESS revenue, he said he favored it regardless on grounds of "fairnness". As if it's fair to punish someone for cashing in a stock. Could a Democrat be more radical? I suppose, but not any more and be elected president. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/19/romney-should-make-runaway-federal-spending-a-key-issue-in-his-campaign.html "Leaving current taxes where they are for “the 99 percent,” the IRS could impose a tax rate of 100 percent—confiscating every penny earned by the top 1 percent (those with adjusted gross Income above $344,000)—and it still wouldn’t come close to covering the cost of keeping the federal behemoth afloat." So who's dishonest on taxes: Norquist or Obama?
Where does it start and where does it end? Me's kids go to school so the public should pay for them (but when the kids graduate it is a different story). Roads are OK because they benefit Me. Fire protection also benefits Me. Me doesn't use public transportation so let Them walk. Me also isn't into music so there is no money for the arts. Me likes the beach so publicly funded lifeguards are a must, let the poor learn how to swim. See, it is all about Me. If the rest of you want anything it is just Socialist. You Richard Schulte are a sick, bitter, pathetic old man who has failed out of society and has now run off to the debtors paradise of Florida were you can snipe at everyone who does not see things exactly as you do. I pity you.
Yes we do have Medicare and Medicaid but they're no wholly paid for by the young and healthy as you suggested. http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Donald-Marron/2012/0615/What-really-pays-for-Medicare A good part of it is paid for by borrowing. That's why for almost as long as it's existed so has fear of it going broke. Of course nothing ever goes broke that can keep on borrowing. At $16 trillion national debt why worry if alls still good at $60 trillion? What a wonderful thing the Federal government is that no amount of debt matters. How stingy of it then not to routinely mail out $millions to every citizen. They have that magical power and yet withold it.
Why the sudden rage? We tolerate Beck and Maddow but not Schulte? The same level of education isn't even desirable much less practical. Between a car mechanic and physician, which one should be brought to the other's educational level and to what purpose? http://socialismdoesntwork.com/misconception-police-fire-road-construction-etc/ http://www.conservative21.net/displayone.cfm?docid=4183 There are answers to why a fire dept. is no justification for rampant socialism. The comment about promoting the general welfare is worth noting as that clause is used as justification for nearly every government program under the sun. More important, I think, than that it qualifies it being general and not to any specific cause, is the word "promote" rather than "provide". What is more to people's welfare than providing for themselves and so isn't that what "We the people" (as the signers of the Constitution described themselves,) meant to promote? Even if it is conceded we have some, even plenty of socialism already, how does that stand as justification for having more even wanting no limit to how much more? Because what we already have has all worked out so splendidly? Because America never prospered without it? Because nations that have embraced it more than we have yet are all so much more prosperous than we are and more prosperous than they ever were without it?
Having employers provide health insurance is a crappy system. Replacing it with an individual mandate was a good idea when the Republicans came up with it and it was a good idea when the Democrats pushed it through. Requiring each person to purchase their own insurance and requiring insurance companies to sell to them at a fair non-discriminatory price is efficient and functional. Given this option, most employers would jump at the opportunity. This will create an opportunity for the private sector to competitively sell individual policies. Check out the website www.comparis.ch where you can see how a good system works, use 6301 for a postcode. Nothing more than a zipcode and year of birth are required for a coverage quote. There is no government involvement. This is what we should be working toward. Instead, we have uninformed idiots running around trying to label people as fascists or marxists without ever actually taking the time to understand what is being proposed.
"Give me liberty or give me death" Patrick Henry John Adams, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Richard Lee, John Hancock, George Washington and many others, collectively known as the Founders, were considered to be traitors and were to be hanged by the British. Being called a "traitor" puts me in good company and I consider it to be a compliment. Perhaps its time for Me, RB, Sully and others to read the Declaration of Independence and the early history of America. I merely advocate that America return to its roots-liberty and justice for all. Black Liberation Theology is marxism. Social justice is marxism. The Progressive agenda is marxism. President Obama is a supporter of Black Liberation Theology, social justice and the Progressive agenda. Hence, President Obama is a marxist. President Obama is intentionally trying to destroy the US economy. Barack Obama is no different from Fidel Castro. Fortunately, the 2nd Amendment has saved us from Obama.
Conservatives are anything but uninformed. Conservatives are highly informed people. Conservative tak radio dominates the air waves, while liberal talk radio has withered and is pretty much non-existent. Conservatives think, liberalism is emotion-based. It's typical of Democrats and the left to name-call. Name-calling is not a substitute for facts and actual thought. When the name-calling starts, you know who has won the debate. Black liberation theology, social justice and the Progressive agenda are all marxist. President Obama is a marxist.
Ahhh, the marxist brothers, RB, Bruce Harvey and Me, are all running for the hills. It's rather amusing how the left has to announce that they will no longer be participating in a discussion, as if anyone would actually care. One can only assume that the reason why the marxist borthers are no longer participating is that the discussion is just a little too close to home. Progressives are marxists.
Me, thank you for your pity-having your pity makes me feel so much better. Imagine somebody who lives in Illinois referring to Florida as a "debtors paradise". The largest city in Illinois, Chicago, is bankrupt and the State of Illinois is bankrupt. A very amusing comment. It sounds like Me is a very angry person. Marxists tend to be angry people. I consider your comments above to be compliments. Looks like my comment that Barack Obama is a marxist hit home.
Over the past four decades, median-income Americans' earnings have risen only 24 percent, while [federal] spending has increased 288 percent. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-02-federal-spending_x.htm That was an unusual article at the time (2006). Mostly Bush got ripped for proposing "cuts" when in fact those proposals were only attempts to slow the growth; of adding a bit less to increased spending. The point seems to be under Bush overspending kept going. We might do better to concern ourselves with putting a stop to it; that is, whose to blame NOW not in the past. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html That is the most significant chart. Considering that Cuba's % of GDP in spending is 78% those who would like the U.S. to model itself after 'compassionate' Cuba should be fairly pleased. The trend over the last 100 years has been unceasingly in that direction. Yet they act as if they've been cruelly down-trodden by opposing forces. We may more easily understand why someone opposed to that trend - someone who wants it reversed - would be displeased; even a 'bitter-clinger', cranky, snide, sarcastic, impolite or whatever. Recall that august statesman Tip O'Neil called Reagan an "amiable dunce". The offense taken by such remarks usually depends on whose ox is being gored.
Since the marxist brothers, RB, Bruce Harvey and Me, are no longer commenting, we should be able to talk some sense, instead of nonsense. What you refer to in your post is the effect of "base-line" budgeting. If I recall correctly, off the top of my head, the base-line assumes a 7 percent increase in each line item in the budget on an annual basis. Since the increase is compounded, the budget for the Federal Government doubles roughly evey 10 years and quadruples roughly every 21 years. With the quadrupling of the budget roughly every 21 years, there is no way that revenue can keep up with spending since the size of the US economy does not grow at a 7 percent rate annually. Eventually spending by the Federal Government will take 100 percent of the annual GDP of the United States. The way to stop the Federal Government beast from devouring everything that is produced in the US is to switch from "base-line" budgeting to "zero-based" budgeting. "Zero-based" budgeting is where every dime of spending by the Government must be justified on an annual basis. No justification for the spending on a particular item, then the budget for that line item is zero dollars. One way to start reducing the budget is to just shut down the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. These two departments do absolutely nothing.
"The latest Quinnipiac poll shows that -- by a 15-point margin -- the Supreme Court's Obamacare ruling makes voters less likely, rather than more likely, to cast their vote for President Obama. Twenty-seven percent of registered voters say that the ruling makes them "less likely" to vote for Obama, while only 12 percent say that it makes them "more likely" to do so. Only 9 percent of independents say that they are "more likely" to vote for Obama because of the ruling, compared to 27 percent who are "less likely." Among Catholics - a large percentage of whom are historically swing voters - 35 percent say that the ruling makes them "less likely" to vote for Obama, while only 10 percent say it makes them "more likely" to vote for him. Most voters (55 percent) say that the candidates' positions on Obamacare will be "extremely" or "very" important in influencing their vote for president. The poll shows that, by a 6-point margin (49 to 43 percent), registered voters want to see Obamacare repealed. Independents favor repeal by an 8-point margin (49 to 41 percent). Catholics favor repeal by a 22-point margin (58 to 36 percent). . . ." Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/my_problem_is_im_too_good.html#ixzz20icKrFCq The more I think about it, the more I think that Chief Justice Roberts got it right. Obamacare is not an issue that should have been decided by the courts, but by the voters.
"[Obama] Promise #1: "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase." Reality: The individual mandate is far from alone on Heritage's lengthy list of Obamacare's new taxes and penalties, many of which will heavily impact the middle class. Altogether, Obamacare's taxes and penalties will accumulate an additional $500 billion in new revenue over a 10-year period. Yesterday, a senior economist for The Wall Street Journal revealed that 75 percent of Obamacare's new taxes will be paid for by American families making under $120,000 a year. Among the taxes that will hit the middle class are the individual mandate, a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices, a 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning, and an increase of the floor on medical deductions from 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income to 10 percent." According to President Obama, you don't raise taxes in a recession.
The link "ME" provided goes to a site about the 'Swiss model'. The above article addresses the same. I think I've given it a fair hearing, if reading Ms. Herzlinger'sl book may count as that. The article dates from two months after Obamacare was signed into law. "worried about the costs to the public treasury—another $2 trillion, she expects, on top of the existing $38 trillion unfunded liability for Medicare, ... she thinks the administration has not begun to properly account for these costs. “The notion that we’re going to find half a trillion dollars from cuts in benefits,” she says, “I think is dubious.” Even if it wasn't that still leaves $1.5 trillion, but Obama still insists it will reduce the deficit. By what slight-of-hand can that happen? "How to discourage insurers from cherry-picking the healthiest cases, Obamacare’s proscriptions notwithstanding? Pay them more for taking on clients in riskier groups." "ME" said that doesn't work, even though it appears to be a centerpiece of the mandating she advocates. (Me is a she, no?)
"Because the subsidies in the exchanges will be richer than what many private-sector workers enjoy today, and the penalty for companies who drop coverage is relatively low, many companies may decide to dump their low-wage employees into Obamacare — exploding the costs of the program for taxpayers." That appears to be the weak point in Helzinger's calculations of Obamacare -- dubious optimism about how the exchanges will work in practice not theory. "Perversely, hospitals and doctors that keep costs down and quality high are actually paid less by programs like Medicare and Medicaid, unlike every other sector of the American economy. The few bright spots in the law that might encourage innovation — like the health-insurance exchanges — will likely be stifled by federal regulations that limit states’ ability to offer truly innovative insurance designs. The flexibility that the exchanges really need — and that many governors have called for — for spurring innovations that offer higher quality care at lower cost is not likely to be forthcoming from the Obama administration."
"The most prevalent myth is that Congress dropped the “public option” from the final version of the bill before it became law. In fact, it re-created the public option in a new form: In 2014, the federal government will sponsor at least two health plans, operating under unique rules, to compete directly against private health plans in every state in the nation." The Obamacare defenders stalking out appear to be sore winners to me as each step of the way the plan has overcome every obstacle. I do not recall anyone arguing that waiting to repeal it was the best way to stop it. At least not until now that it's the only way left; the last and slimmest chance. Conservatives on the whole have mastered the art of being gracious losers, having had so much practice at it, but it's unreasonable to expect it to be a qualifying trait. Idealistically it might be nice if all the uninformed or rude or radical people on the Left & Right went away but the Left will never go for that as it would shrink their ranks the most by far. That is why when someone on the Left complains about "tone" in a discussion, you can bet it means " sit down, shut up, andget out of the way of fundamentally transforming America."
I am neither a Marxist nor a Libertarian. I am a true moderate caught in the crossfire between these two irrational groups. You have willfully omitted an important quote from te article. "But far from leading to a government takeover of health care, as many fear, Herzlinger believes the knock-on effect of Obamacare will be to hasten the emergence of a market for consumers to purchase health care for themselves and their families, rather than relying, as now, on employer-provided plans—the very “consumer-driven” model of health care she has advocated in three books and countless articles and speeches over the last decade. From a system designed around the interests of insurers, hospitals, governments and employers—the leading culprits identified in her latest book, Who Killed Health Care?—Herzlinger sees the beginnings of one that caters to the demands of individual consumers and patients." Did you not come across this when you were reading the book?
The book was published in 2007 which should explain well enough why I didn't read in it an endorsement of Obamacare. Its theme was "consumer-driven healthcare". It was a term she used repeatedly as much as she avoided terms like "universal coverage" and "public option". I do find it suspicious that the Democrats most enthusiastic to pass Obamacare, not the least Obama himself, were career-long proponents of Single-Payer. So they proposed a 4000 page bill of private consumer advocacy? Forgive my skepticism on that. Consumer-driven discussion was found on the Republican side and came to a halt with the Obamacare bill. Rewriting it to over 4000 pages was not the result of compromises with Republicans or else at least ONE Republican would've voted for it. No, it was the most partisan vote ever of such a major legislation. More reason I find something fishy about any supposed moderate endorsing it. http://healthblog.ncpa.org/is-there-a-republican-alternative-to-obamacare/ http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/05/key-obamacare-architect-endorses-paul-ryans-medicare-reform-plan/ No Republican alternative ideas? Without repeal, that of course ends up just another moot point. Another lie told ... but for a good cause, which makes it all OK.