Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law

[thereisnospoon]

Low income for purposes of this law is up to $62,000 per year for a family of 4. $66,000 is in the top 25% of all wage earners.
That means about 30% of the wage earners will be funding Obamacare.

That's not correct. Without Obamacare 12% of the population is already covered through Medicaid. Everyone with an income up to $66,000 does not get free insurance. Only those that buy insurance through the exchanges can apply for a tax credit. The exchanges are only available to small businesses and individuals who meet the income qualifications. Employees covered by group insurance not purchased through the exchanges will pay 100% of their premium as will individuals who don't purchase through the exchanges. I haven't calculated the percentage, but certainly a lot more 30% will be paying for Obamacare. You are also neglecting additional revenue raised through excise taxes and Medicare savings.

Yeah sure. That's the popular version forwarded by those in support of PPACA.
Within 5 years of full enactment of Obamacare, there WILL BE NO private group insurance nor will there be any firms self insuring their employees.
What Medicare savings? The same amount if not more people will become eligible for Medicare coverage. Obama care strips $500 billion out of Medicare. That is made up by vastly reduced reimbursements to medical providers.
Already, medical groups are telling their medicare patients that after 2014 they will have to find another provider because Medicare will not pay enough to cover the COST of the care.

So please, stop it.
I must ask....Why are you in support of Obamacare? Your words ONLY. Do not link to a blog. Do not try to explain anything. Don't offer statistics about the number of uninsured that will be covered. Just answer the question in your own words.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife enjoyed $1.6 million dollars in personal income as a result of her role working for groups that led the opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act.

Will he recuse himself for conflict of interest?

And in the meantime both of them enjoy government sponsored healthcare for free.

His wife made the money not him so why should he recuse himself?

Because it's a conflict of interest.

That is your perception.
Now, Justice Kagan has an even bigger problem. She was appointed because she is an ardent supporter of Obamacare. Does this not disqualify her from ruling on the case?
Consider your answer carefully.

 

[candycorn]

If you go deep enough, you'll find conflicts of interest in every case. Nobody should recuse themselves; just judge the case as you would any other.

Must we always assume that the deck is stacked the other way?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Scalia has a conflict of interest because of his wife's income.

Any who denies that basic fact of life is morally malignant.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife enjoyed $1.6 million dollars in personal income as a result of her role working for groups that led the opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act.
Will he recuse himself for conflict of interest?

Since his -wife- made the money, there's no conflict of interest.
:shrug:

Actually, it still is. The reasons for recusing extend to spouses. So he does have a conflict of interest, just as Kagan does.

Unfortunately though, you can't force a SCOTUS Justice to recuse. My opinion remains that Thomas should stay in place as long as Kagan does. If she drops out, he should too.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Now for the idiots that will take what I said out of context, I am not calling for anyone to shoot anyone, take up arms shot the president or what ever wets your dream. I am stating a fact when voting does not help bullets will. When you create laws to enslave people they will resist when they have had enough.

One, we're not there yet. We're not even in the same international calling code as that yet.

Two: I'd be careful. No, you're not inciting or advocating violence. You're spelling out what you think the consequences will be, much like my my post here that netted me some neg rep. However, the line gets blurry the stronger the language gets. There's always idiots that will take a warning that an action will bring violence as a call for violence. The real danger for you personally is if one of those that misinterprets what you posted turns out to be a Secret Service agent.

One it appears that you did not read my last part

When you create laws to enslave people they will resist when they have had enough

There's always idiots that will take a warning that an action will bring violence as a call for violence. The real danger for you personally is if one of those that misinterprets what you posted turns out to be a Secret Service agent

I really don't care. I speak the truth people when forced to do something they do not want to do will fight. If the government can't accept that fact maybe they should stop what they are doing. People will become violent when they feel they have nothing to lose and are being forced into servitude by the government. If people can't accept that fact then they need to revisit a history book. But I do thank you for your concern.

 

[BenNatuf]

Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife enjoyed $1.6 million dollars in personal income as a result of her role working for groups that led the opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act.

Will he recuse himself for conflict of interest?

And in the meantime both of them enjoy government sponsored healthcare for free.

After years of marriage I can tell you with absolutely no doubt that any money the wife earns is NOT your money.

 

[BenNatuf]

Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife enjoyed $1.6 million dollars in personal income as a result of her role working for groups that led the opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act.

Will he recuse himself for conflict of interest?

And in the meantime both of them enjoy government sponsored healthcare for free.

His wife made the money not him so why should he recuse himself?

Because it's a conflict of interest.

If his wife were sitting on the court... yeah it might be. However it is clear that Kagan, Sotomeyer, Bryer, and Ginsburg's open contempt of the constitution is deffinatively a conflict of interest.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ben, you don't understand the canon of ethics. Heck, you can barely think, so I can forgive your idiocy. Yes, it is a conflict of interest for him, unlike your silliness about political philosophy.

You truly do not comprehend how silly you look to the rest of us.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ben, you don't understand the canon of ethics. Heck, you can barely think, so I can forgive your idiocy. Yes, it is a conflict of interest for him, unlike your silliness about political philosophy.

You truly do not comprehend how silly you look to the rest of us.

You can only speak for yourself do not speak for me or others. I believe you have already been told not too do this anymore.

 

[M14 Shooter]

His wife made the money not him so why should he recuse himself?

Because it's a conflict of interest.

If his wife were sitting on the court... yeah it might be. However it is clear that Kagan, Sotomeyer, Bryer, and Ginsburg's open contempt of the constitution is deffinatively a conflict of interest.

You dont get it...

A conservative justice whose wife worked to oppose the bill has a conflict of interest...
...whereas a liberal who openly suports the premise and the specifics of bill does not.

Now, if things were different....

A liberal justice whose wife worked to support the bill has no conflict of interest...
...whereas a conservative who openly opposes the premise and the specifics of bill, does.

In the end, liberals never admit any fault in themselves but always see fault in conservatives, even when there is none.

:shrug:

 

[JakeStarkey]

If Ben and Shooter and bigreb are carrying the flag for the GOP, then the party is in big, big trouble if it is listening to those wacks. Guys, just give your $$$ to the GOP but shut up, please, because you cost the party votes every time you yap.

 

[Flopper]

Low income for purposes of this law is up to $62,000 per year for a family of 4. $66,000 is in the top 25% of all wage earners.
That means about 30% of the wage earners will be funding Obamacare.

That's not correct. Without Obamacare 12% of the population is already covered through Medicaid. Everyone with an income up to $66,000 does not get free insurance. Only those that buy insurance through the exchanges can apply for a tax credit. The exchanges are only available to small businesses and individuals who meet the income qualifications. Employees covered by group insurance not purchased through the exchanges will pay 100% of their premium as will individuals who don't purchase through the exchanges. I haven't calculated the percentage, but certainly a lot more 30% will be paying for Obamacare. You are also neglecting additional revenue raised through excise taxes and Medicare savings.

Yeah sure. That's the popular version forwarded by those in support of PPACA.
Within 5 years of full enactment of Obamacare, there WILL BE NO private group insurance nor will there be any firms self insuring their employees.
What Medicare savings? The same amount if not more people will become eligible for Medicare coverage. Obama care strips $500 billion out of Medicare. That is made up by vastly reduced reimbursements to medical providers.
Already, medical groups are telling their medicare patients that after 2014 they will have to find another provider because Medicare will not pay enough to cover the COST of the care.

So please, stop it.
I must ask....Why are you in support of Obamacare? Your words ONLY. Do not link to a blog. Do not try to explain anything. Don't offer statistics about the number of uninsured that will be covered. Just answer the question in your own words.

Have you read anything about the healthcare law other than right wing opinions? This law will increase insurance company subscribers by of tens of millions. It's the biggest windfall ever for health insurance companies. Unfortunately, they will not be out of business in 5 years.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Your point is precisely part of the plan. That is to destroy the private health insurance industry.

Don't be so dishonest. Such an argument is like saying that government funding for safe sex educational initiatives is "part of the plan" to destroy the private AIDS drug therapy industry.

Since when should private health insurance be deemed 'unnecessary'?

Your complaint here is that people SHOULD suffer from inaccessibility to health care. That's a pretty lame argument to make in opposition to some kind of universal coverage.

If the federal government can pass laws which eliminate private health insurance effectively nationalizing the business, what then is to stop them from doing the same thing to other businesses or industries?

I see. You aren't even willing to frame the issue within honest terms. No sense in debating hypotheticals with someone who won't even give a realistic treatment in the first place.

"is like saying"....No what I posted is Precisely what I meant. In the literal.
If your imagination allows you to make such a stretch, not my problem.\
You said people suffer from inaccessibility to health insurance. I never implied nor stated that. In fact, it's false.
Health insurance is available to everyone. Like any other commodity, it has to be purchased. Those that cannot afford coverage have a number of options available in the form of social programs. We do not need another expensive and impossible to administer entitlement plan.
Those are honest terms. You said so yourself "The market for private coverage would dissolve from a lack of demand, without it being outlawed"....Even you believe the goal of Obamacare is to eliminate private health insurance. Essentially, nationalizing the industry.
What it's called is immaterial. The end result is all that matters.
You're looking at the world with a narrow view. You see a goal ahead of you. Socialized medicine. Obamacare is the first step in that direction.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE]Obama on single payer health insurance - YouTube[/ame].
Don't lecture me about reality.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's the dilly-o.

You can disagree with that contention, but your words really don't trump the words of the President himself in calling for the passage of the ACA and the mandate as a crucial part of it.

how is the mandate different from having to contribute to social security?

It is unfunded. That means everybody has to pay more. And pay for a system they do no want.
Government is creating another entitlement which must be manged by another bureaucracy.
We're not going to end up just paying for insurance. We'll be paying for thousands if not tens of thousands of new government employees. Paying for THEIR wages, THEIR benefits and THEIR pensions.
All this and we get rationed care.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The individual mandate isn't intended or designed to raise revenue. That's a misconception.

that's kind of funny... because all the individual mandate does is require that people purchase insurance so as to spread risk and lower costs.

last i checked, that isn't a "tax" or a means of "raising revenue".

not that ultimately the court will do what it's supposed to given the ethically challenged thomas and scalia, but we can hope.

It is a tax. As is Social Security.

 

[BenNatuf]

Ben, you don't understand the canon of ethics. Heck, you can barely think, so I can forgive your idiocy. Yes, it is a conflict of interest for him, unlike your silliness about political philosophy.

You truly do not comprehend how silly you look to the rest of us.

Too bad for you and your leftist ilk that I don't only understand them, I know where to find them.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4413252-post60.html

And like the idiot I responded to there, please, stop pretending you even know what ethics are.

 

[thereisnospoon]

In that case, the entire tax code is a bill of attainder. It "punishes" people who don't donate to churches, or who don't buy SUVs (actually I'm not sure if that one is still there, anyone?), or people who don't buy special work related goods and services, etc.

I don't think your bill of attainder theory would succeed. First of all, the HC bill doesn't tax people. It levies fines for failure to comply with the law. This is no different than a fine for a speeding ticket. And it certainly is no more an exercise of power than using cameras to fine people for running red lights as a "civil" violation, to which the person is not entitled no process of law.

The ACA law IS a tax. Anytime government takes money from the people to fund government it is a TAX.
Umm, A speeding citation IS a criminal sanction. If the suspect does not pay the fine associated with the citation, the state first can suspend the license. It can go further by issuing a warrant for arrest. The state then has the right to arrest the person and compel him to satisfy the fine plus suffer addtional sanctions for illegally operating a motor vehicle.
If the citation were civil, all that could happen would be a civil judgement.

 

[Greenbeard]

The mandate is designed EXACTLY to raise revenue.

The individual mandate is projected to bring in about $3-4 billion in revenues per year, a comparatively miniscule amount. Its purpose is not to raise revenues.

Yeah sure. That's the popular version forwarded by those in support of PPACA.
Within 5 years of full enactment of Obamacare, there WILL BE NO private group insurance nor will there be any firms self insuring their employees.

Ah yes, just as we've seen the eradication of private insurance in Massachusetts. Oh wait. Not only is 61% of that state's population enrolled in private insurance (compared to 54% for the U.S. as a whole) with 59% of their population in private employer-sponsored coverage (vs. 49% for the U.S. as a whole), their private health insurance plans are ranked among the top plans in the entire United States--in terms of consumer satisfaction and performance--in Consumer Reports ' 2011 national rankings of health insurers.

Come back to the real world. It's not so bad.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If Ben and Shooter and bigreb are carrying the flag for the GOP, then the party is in big, big trouble if it is listening to those wacks. Guys, just give your $$$ to the GOP but shut up, please, because you cost the party votes every time you yap.

The GOP as with the DNC both fit on the same side, the party leaders are elite Statist they both want the same thing. Sorry I won't carry the corrupted flag of either party.