Starting this thread since I contributed to derailing the other thread.
I’ll toss out a handful to start…
Obama said ACA wasn’t a tax, now it’s been saved by the fact that (apparently) is a tax. Lying Liar! The liberal hypocrisy!
Tea Partiers… what will this reveal about them? I forecast that in a predictable display of consistency with rabid anti-tax and anti-big-gummint sentiment, they will fall on Justice Roberts like a pack of mad ferrets.
Liberals who called John Roberts a partisan hack owe him an apology. Sorry Roberts! Just that whole Citizen United thing had me kind of het up.
Congress had about a gazillion “no’s” to this cobbled-together crapfest of a healthcare act, and chose to ignore them all. The U.S. is too big to carry a one-size-fits-all health plan; this may work overseas, but not here. It should be a state-by-state decision, AND there should be some cost standardization in place.
If I understand correctly, this bill is going to MAKE me buy health insurance which could easily double and triple or more within a year, and TAX ME if I don’t get it?! Did I fall asleep and wake up in a dictatorship?
How exactly do you draw blood from a stone? If I am living with one nostril above the poverty line (not using food stamps, etc.) and barely covering bills and groceries, where exactly do I find the cash to spend on healthcare?
And I thought MA was nuts for making everyone get health insurance…now it’s the whole country??? What the bleeding bloody damn hell is this?
Any provisions to actually collect said tax were gutted out long ago - after liberal complaints, thank you - so they’ll just tsk-tsk you and the American public will still get stuck paying indirectly for any health care services you do use. You know, same as it used to be.
I don’t buy the argument that it’s impractical for the US due to its size, especially not when people compare health outcomes in Andorra and Monaco to Denmark… There are other federal programs which are applicable to all citizens: for instance, social security or the military are not broken up by state. Per capita funding in countries with better outcomes (and admittedly, lower populations, such as Japan’s - 40% of the US) is significantly lower. During the 1950s Russia had a higher life expectancy than the US at 75% of the population - hardly going to convince people terrified of socialist medicine though.
Indeed. In another decision today (Alvarez), Roberts sided with the “liberals” in overturning the law that made it a crime to falsely claim to have been awarded military awards for bravery (especially the MOH). His support of the First Amendment is gratifying. OTOH, Thomas, Scalia, and, of course, Alito were willing to whittle down the First. No surprise about Alito - he was in a minority of one in another First Amendment case, on the Westboro ‘church’, when he would have sacrificed free speech (‘in those circumstances’).
In any case, Roberts showed admirable objectivity twice today.
The one thing that amuses me is the far-lefters who denounce it as an extreme expansion of corporate power but then can’t explain why three conservatives and one moderate (who in their view would be in the pocket of corporations far more than the four liberals) voted against it.
If you can’t afford the tax you will be subsidized for the premium. If heaven forbid u got sick on the old system then we would all have to pay for your healthcare. I’d rather help pay for your premium which you probably won’t use than pay for your emergency room visit. Not that hard of a choice.
Whether you’re for or against this thing, I just want to know how they can say it isn’t legally commanding someone to buy insurance. You don’t buy it, there’s a legal penalty. That makes it a command–buy or pay the penalty. To compare it to paying tax on gasoline or our income is just plain stupid. I am not legally penalized by not doing those things. I pay the tax when I make the purchase or earn the paycheck.
OK, I was betting on an 8-1 decision, give or take a vote. It went 5-4, I was wrong, I admit it. Whom do I owe money?
You realize this close a decision just fired up voters with strong opinions on both sides to vote in the presidential election this year. And so I’m back to thinking we need to delink the chief executive from the courts. Tying the presidency to the courts means the president’s administrative sins are never as important as his appointments.
Not sure what planet you live on but the government in the US on this planet has been doing this sort of thing for a long, long time.
Did the government ask if you want police protection? Fire protection? A military? Homeland Security?
The list is a long one and you have to help pay for it all via your taxes. Nothing new here. Hell, I do not have kids but I have to pay taxes to keep schools running. Should I get to bow out of that if I want? If you choose to have kids why should I pay for it?
Thing is, and this is the part the conservatives never seem to grasp, when someone goes to a hospital who has no insurance and cannot pay for care YOU still pay for that person. You pay for it via higher health insurance premiums and higher health care costs.
Your only option to avoid this is to have hospitals start carding people at the emergency room door and deny service to anyone who cannot prove an ability to pay. They can go sit on the curb in front of the hospital and die.
Also, IIRC, there is a provision to help people pay who do not have enough money to pay for this so if you are poor Uncle Sam will not be taking your last penny via this.
Well, if you’re as poor as you say, not only would you qualify for the previously mentioned government health care, but if not, you can still likely qualify for an exemption. See here for more information.