The ends justify the means, right?

[Care4all]

OBAMATAX...

this should help him get re-elected..

enjoy paying them you all who voted for the liar in chief

Romneycare mandate/ penalty was a TAX as well then...can't see how romney can stand up there and acuse Obamacare penalty of being a tax without admitting that Romneycare mandate penalty and the other fees he raised while in office, were not taxes as well...

he, as in romney, doesn't have a leg to stand on in that argument or tactic.

Just remember this. The American public has a short term memory. Most voters won't remember details of Romney Care. What they will learn is it is now an utter failure and unsustainable in Massatwoshits. They will also hear the Romney call it a mistake to do on the national level and vow to repeal it. That's all that will matter to them. "Whoops, I made a mistake, and won't make another one to hurt you."

That's about a 10 point bump because the public will not bother to look deeper at something that pisses the majority of them off. A tax increase and threat of jail for just existing.

but fitz, Romney's excuse for romneycare being okay was that it was constitutional done at the State level, and his only reason given initially that he had against Obamacare, was that he felt the federal mandate was unconstitutional...now that it is not unconstitutional and even before that.... he has modified and changed his tune a couple of times....(not that I expected a politician, to not do that....)

 

[Big Fitz]

but fitz, Romney's excuse for romneycare being okay was that it was constitutional done at the State level,

It was thanks to the 10th amendment and the broad loosely defined state powers. It is UNconstitutional at the strict narrowly defined federal level powers. Checks and Balances 101 right there.

and his only reason given initially that he had against Obamacare, was that he felt the federal mandate was unconstitutional

And he's still right.

now that it is not unconstitutional and even before that....

The individual mandate is unconstitutional. It must be replaced as a tax in the language so back to congress it goes to 'fix it'. If they can get the changes passed, THEN it will be constitutional. Till then, no individual mandate from the way I understand it. The only thing struck down completely is the language that says the government can stop CURRENT Medicaid moneies. It does not stop FUTURE Medicaid monies though.

he has modified and changed his tune a couple of times....(not that I expected a politician, to not do that....)

Yes. This is true, and now he's being locked into a position that the American people are demanding, not the special interests. His presidency now hinges on his campaign promise to repeal it.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions

The survey results suggest that Republicans are convincing voters to reject Obama's reform even when they like much of what is in it, such as allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26.

Strong majorities favor most of what is in the law.[...]

Support for the provisions of the healthcare law was strong, with a full 82 percent of survey respondents, for example, favoring banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

Sixty-one percent are in favor of allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26 and 72 percent back requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employees.

I also like that insurance companies have to spend a certain percentage of your premium on YOUR Health Care. It's already paying off...

Health care insurers to dole out $1B in rebates to consumers - Jun. 21, 2012

Yes there are good things in it that people like, as I've already stated. Twice.

You still haven't answered my question.

Is the third time the charm?

To use your analogy, why didn't they make a salad that specifically had lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers and ranch dressing in it? Why'd they throw in the kitchen sink and try to pass that off as a salad?

They didn't.

You haven't mentioned what people don't like other than "Obamacare" even though they like everything in it. The one thing that people don't seem to like is the mandate, which is what pays for all the stuff they DO like.

I have a feeling that people's view of that will change with the SCOTUS ruling and the mandate now being described as a tax.

Of course they did. 900+ pages worth.

People don't like the gov't grabbing 1/6 of the economy. Isn't that enough? The mandate does NOT pay for all the stuff they do like. Not by a long shot. Is it your impression that it does? It's wrong.

People are pissed that Obama knew it was a tax and passed it off as not a tax just to get it passed. He owns that.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, Sis, we now have the ability to put health care on a rational basis in this nation, thanks to Justice Roberts. Since we can base it on a tax, then an income tax on all income targeted to the health care system only, is the way to go. A single payer universal system, based this way, would cost far less per capita than our present system. We can clearly see that from the results that other nations have achieved with their systems. Not only would it be less costly, but the results in health benefits would be much better, again, as we have seen in the other industrial nations with universal single payer systems.

It takes a true moron to believe that a Soviet style healthcare system will be cheap, efficient or caring.

 

[bripat9643]

The lie outed from the right side about this bill is that it ois some unconstitutional monster.

that lie is now dead.

Now your party will be seen as the liars you are

No it's not, numb nuts. All this decision proves is that Bush put a statist bootlicker on the court.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Well, Sis, we now have the ability to put health care on a rational basis in this nation, thanks to Justice Roberts. Since we can base it on a tax, then an income tax on all income targeted to the health care system only, is the way to go. A single payer universal system, based this way, would cost far less per capita than our present system. We can clearly see that from the results that other nations have achieved with their systems. Not only would it be less costly, but the results in health benefits would be much better, again, as we have seen in the other industrial nations with universal single payer systems.

It takes a true moron to believe that a Soviet style healthcare system will be cheap, efficient or caring.

Like always

the Left does not judge their efforts by actually outcome
only the "feeling" they have about it

Plus, since most of the Left's programs are failures
they are better off not looking at the results

 

[chanel]

Yep. We've all seen how govt subsidized student loans have made controlled costs and made a positive impact on the economy. Oh wait...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Doesn't matter how many lies Obama told to get to today's results. All that matters is that Obamacare was upheld.

The ends never justify the means. The ACA was enacted in good faith and passed Constitutional muster.

And as a bonus, Obamacare will bring so many headaches with it that when the implementation is finally over politicians will have all the ammo they need to scrap it and move to nationalized healthcare.

If Congress sees fit to enact a single payer program, and that too passes Constitutional muster, then the process has worked and such legislation is appropriate.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes there are good things in it that people like, as I've already stated. Twice.

You still haven't answered my question.

Is the third time the charm?

To use your analogy, why didn't they make a salad that specifically had lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers and ranch dressing in it? Why'd they throw in the kitchen sink and try to pass that off as a salad?

They didn't.

You haven't mentioned what people don't like other than "Obamacare" even though they like everything in it. The one thing that people don't seem to like is the mandate, which is what pays for all the stuff they DO like.

I have a feeling that people's view of that will change with the SCOTUS ruling and the mandate now being described as a tax.

Which is it? They did, as your previous post illustrates, or they didn't?

One must be false.

And, Zoom? No, three times is not a charm.

They made a salad. They put in the ingredients that people like to make a salad, but the people have been led to believe that salad is bad even thought they like everything in it. The one ingredient people don't like is the mandate...which makes the salad work.

What most people don't like about the mandate is forcing people to buy a product from a private company. I join those people in not liking that part of the salad, but that is the reality of America's Health Care system. We don't have a public option, despite 70% of Americans wanting it. The mandate ensures that I'm not paying for the emergency room visit and long term care of some 25 year old with a crotch rocket that thinks he's invincible.

 

[gallantwarrior]

70% of the American people didn't like this bill BEFORE it was a TAX.. think they'll love it now that it is a TAX?

But wait! The WH is now claiming it's not a tax, it's definitely a penalty. WTF?!
White House claims ObamaCare fine a 'penalty,' despite court calling it a 'tax' | Fox News

 

[Seawytch]

Yes there are good things in it that people like, as I've already stated. Twice.

You still haven't answered my question.

Is the third time the charm?

To use your analogy, why didn't they make a salad that specifically had lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers and ranch dressing in it? Why'd they throw in the kitchen sink and try to pass that off as a salad?

They didn't.

You haven't mentioned what people don't like other than "Obamacare" even though they like everything in it. The one thing that people don't seem to like is the mandate, which is what pays for all the stuff they DO like.

I have a feeling that people's view of that will change with the SCOTUS ruling and the mandate now being described as a tax.

Of course they did. 900+ pages worth.

People don't like the gov't grabbing 1/6 of the economy. Isn't that enough? The mandate does NOT pay for all the stuff they do like. Not by a long shot. Is it your impression that it does? It's wrong.

And yet the Affordable Care Act lowers the deficit.

The government isn't owning Health Care (that would STILL be the insurance companies), but I wish they would. You don't like how many pages it is. You want simple (even though Health Care is hardly simple)? Okay by me. I'll bet Medicare for all would be a simple, easy, one page bill. All you gotta do is take the age down to zero. Done.

People are pissed that Obama knew it was a tax and passed it off as not a tax just to get it passed. He owns that.

I knew it was a tax. How come you're surprised? It's a tax on people who want me to pay for their health care even though they can afford it.

The people that are "pissed" are the people that have ODS and just want another excuse to hate on the President.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

People are pissed that Obama knew it was a tax and passed it off as not a tax just to get it passed. He owns that.

Nonsense.

‘People’ aren’t pissed, partisan republicans are pissed because the president is a democrat and major legislation he advocated passed judicial review. The text of the ACA acknowledged the provision as a tax, there was no ‘deception.’ The government maintained the IM was Constitutional based on both the Commerce Clause and Congress’ authority to tax. The Court struck down the former and upheld the latter.

This ‘penalty/tax’ nonsense is just another republican lie contrived as a partisan weapon.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Obamacare remains a bloated, expensive mess. But now the SC has blessed it and the GOP's running a shitty presidential candidate, so this is what we get.

The Dems screwed this up badly. Obama should have spent his first year in office addressing essentially nothing but the economy, WHILE the Dems used that time to create and push a Medicare for all plan that addressed costs and efficiencies that REMAIN ignored. Such a plan would have required:

• Significant tort reform
• Far more outcome-based measures
• A robust free market supplemental structure a la Medicare Supplements and Medicare Advantage (which is not nearly as expensive as is reported)
• Massive cost savings via national electronic records (currently at 14% of the country)

Then we could have had a dynamic national debate on Medicare For All (with the above improvements) versus Free Market Health Care. Fine, a nice compare and contrast conversation on an absolutely critical element of our national economy and standard of living.

Instead we end up with this highly partisan, fucked up piece of legislation that manages to continue to avoid so many important issues.

Our "leaders" continue to fail us.

.

 

[Greenbeard]

Significant tort reform

They took language from a Republican bill and put it into the ACA, leaving tort law as a state prerogative but providing financial support for state development of alternatives to their current tort law. (Interesting proposal from Mitt Romney's current campaign website: "Offer innovation grants to explore non-litigation alternatives to dispute resolution")

Far more outcome-based measures

The federal government is not a measure developing body. The best they can do is provide support to measure development and implicitly endorse existing measures by incorporating their use into the public health insurance programs.

They're doing both under the ACA. Section 3013 ("Quality Measure Development") contains grants and contract opportunities for new measure development, with a priority on outcome-based measures. There's a huge amount of quality reporting and public reporting, some of it tied to payment for Medicare (and, should a state choose, to Medicaid), in the law. HHS is also pulling together a set of adult health quality measures for adults in Medicaid, similar to the measure set for children that was developed after the CHIP reauthorization in 2009--presumably it will be more oriented toward process or patient experience measures at first because that's where the measures are right now, but as more outcomes measures are validated they'll have a place to be incorporated.

A robust free market supplemental structure a la Medicare Supplements and Medicare Advantage (which is not nearly as expensive as is reported)

Are you talking specifically about Medicare? For private (individual) markets, the law is creating robust free market structures.

Massive cost savings via national electronic records (currently at 14% of the country)

This is another area where the primary opportunity for the government is a payer/insurer. They can't make a doctor adopt an electronic health record, but they could give him a a big bonus payment for doing so if he has a sufficient Medicare or Medicaid caseload. Which they're doing now, following the passage of the HITECH Act in 2009. That law also invested in grants to help states build health information exchanges that allow those records to move securely and reliably between facilities or doctors.

 

[Meister]

the lie outed from the right side about this bill is that it ois some unconstitutional monster.

That lie is now dead.

Now your party will be seen as the liars you are

obama lied about the mandate not being a tax, and he lied about not raising taxes on those families making under $250k. You have a helluva lot nerve talking about lies.

poor thing is so brain damaged that she doesn't even know what is going on.

lair!

 

[Meister]

70% of the American people didn't like this bill BEFORE it was a TAX.. think they'll love it now that it is a TAX?

I think they will actually take a look at it now, so they can see how it will actually affect them. Some will not like it, but many will actually like it quite a bit. What those percentages are, we will have to wait to see. At least we have taken a step in a positive direction. There is plenty of time to make changes if necessary.

so as long as we re getting taxed now we shoudl take a wait and see approach?

Wait till we get the UK and Europe type of taxes...Yeah we're going to love it

 

[NYcarbineer]

IT's the liberal way, anything to get it done.

Romney did and said the same thing about the MA mandate, and you people chose him to try to replace Obama.

You, and Romney, have no grounds to complain about this one.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I think they will actually take a look at it now, so they can see how it will actually affect them. Some will not like it, but many will actually like it quite a bit. What those percentages are, we will have to wait to see. At least we have taken a step in a positive direction. There is plenty of time to make changes if necessary.

so as long as we re getting taxed now we shoudl take a wait and see approach?

Wait till we get the UK and Europe type of taxes...Yeah we're going to love it

The Left would love to see tax rates in the 60 70% range, for all.
At that point, people would have so little disposable income
they would have to turn to gov't for help and increase
everyone's "dependency" on gov't.

It would be a gov't created dependency but
dependency nonetheless

Nothing to like to kill the individual spirit and liberty

 

[Zoom-boing]

so as long as we re getting taxed now we shoudl take a wait and see approach?

Wait till we get the UK and Europe type of taxes...Yeah we're going to love it

The Left would love to see tax rates in the 60 70% range, for all.
At that point, people would have so little disposable income
they would have to turn to gov't for help and increase
everyone's "dependency" on gov't.

It would be a gov't created dependency but
dependency nonetheless

Nothing to like to kill the individual spirit and liberty

For crying out loud why don't they just take everything people earn and give us a stipend to live off of? Even at that the leftists won't be happy.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

so as long as we re getting taxed now we shoudl take a wait and see approach?

Wait till we get the UK and Europe type of taxes...Yeah we're going to love it

The Left would love to see tax rates in the 60 70% range, for all.
At that point, people would have so little disposable income
they would have to turn to gov't for help and increase
everyone's "dependency" on gov't.

It would be a gov't created dependency but
dependency nonetheless

Nothing to like to kill the individual spirit and liberty

Uh. No. The Left would like to see the 1% pay about 39% at the absolute highest. You know, like it was before the Bush Tax Cut. Repeal that fucker, and you'll see a lot of us on the Left leave your taxes alone for a long time.