Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 06-28-2012, 11:53 AM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
Obamacare Decision

The high court is legislating from the bench by expanding the authority of the congress and calling the Individual Mandate a tax. It seems Obama avoided calling it a tax when convenient but now the court thinks a tax is OK. Let's start by defeating Obama in November and figure out where to go from there. People gave blood for our freedom let's not so easily toss it aside.
Quote:
Health Care Reform Decision
12:00pm:
South Carolina Attorney General Alan
Wilson issued the following statement regarding today's U.S. Supreme
Court ruling on the Health Care Act:


"While the Supreme Court agreed with the states that the Act violates
the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, it carved out new authority to
accomplish the same goal under Congress' taxing power - despite the
Obama Administration and Congress' own efforts to avoid calling the
Individual Mandate a tax on Americans. The Obama Administration,
through Congress, has now been allowed to
pass this tax on all Americans. It was, and is, a wolf in sheep's
clothing. Congress must now repeal this tax and draft a solution that
will actually help the health care problems this country faces. Further,
for states like South Carolina, a catastrophic new reality
emerges. Under the Act, the states will be forced to expand their
Medicaid rolls to unprecedented levels. While the Court ruled today that
existing federal money used to fund Medicaid cannot be cut, any new
money necessary to fund this explosion of new recipients could be
withheld from any state that does not fall in line with Congress'
wishes. Many states will simply not be able to afford this new onerous
mandate."


11:58am:
Today, U.S. Senator DeMint (R-South Carolina) made
the following statement:


?The Supreme Court may have failed to stop this government takeover of
health care, but the American people will not. Since the day this law
was rammed through Congress, the American people have demanded repeal,
and today?s ruling doesn?t make Obamacare any less dangerous to our
nation?s health. Freedom-loving Americans are disappointed, but we
cannot be discouraged.
The President?s health care law must be fully repealed as all of its
promises have proven false. We were told it was not a tax hike, but this
ruling confirms it is an unprecedented and enormous tax on the poor and
middle class Americans. President Obama needs to explain why he is
enacting this middle class tax hike over the objections of the American
people during the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.
We were told it would lower health costs, but health care premiums are
exploding. We were told that Americans could keep their personal health
plans, but millions will now lose it. We were told it would improve our
economy, but it is now the largest obstacle to employers hiring new workers.
This government takeover of health care remains as destructive,
unsustainable, and unconstitutional as it was the day it was passed,
unread, by a since-fired congressional majority. Now as then, our first
step toward real health care reform and economic renewal remains
Obamacare?s full repeal, down to the last letter and punctuation mark.
I urge every governor to stop implementing the health care exchanges
that would help implement the harmful effects of this misguided law.
Americans have loudly rejected this federal takeover of health care, and
governors should join with the people and reject its implementation.
The President?s health care law will not reform anything, but is
already undermining what does still work in America?s health care
system. We cannot build a free market health care system on this flawed
structure of centralized government control, we must repeal all of it
and start over with commonsense solutions that make health care more
affordable and accessible for every American. We can allow Americans to
purchase lower cost plans from other states, support state high-risk
pools to cover those with pre-existing conditions, medical-malpractice
reform to end frivolous lawsuits, and tax equity so Americans who don?t
get their health insurance from an employer are not penalized.
Today?s decision, however unfortunate, nonetheless represents an
opportunity to all Americans, to claim their right to create a health
care system of, for, and by the people, not government or special
interests. The American people now have the chance and Congress has the
responsibility to fully repeal this Washington takeover and reform
health care ourselves, together, around the principles of individual
liberty, not government mandates.
The same freedom that made America strong and prosperous will make us
healthier, too, so long as politicians remember that the health care
system is supposed to serve our people, and not the other way around.?


11:55am:
Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (R-North Carolina) issued the
following statement today upon the Supreme Court?s ruling upholding the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obamacare:


?I am greatly troubled by the Supreme Court?s decision today validating
the President?s unprecedented overreach into the lives of American
citizens, and recasting Obamacare as a tax on the American people.
This decision on its face establishes a number of troubling precedents
our country will wrestle with for years to come. Among them, that
government can compel its citizens, under threat of tax, to make
purchases and decisions as though they were subjects, redefine the
limits of federalism, and establish itself or its delegates as the
unquestionable arbiters of patient care. The American people
resoundingly disapprove of the President?s attempt to redefine the
relationship between citizens and government in those terms, and I had
hoped our Justices would see that our Constitution aggressively shields
this foundational relationship from such federal expansion.
More than two years ago when President Obama and Democrats ramrodded
Obamacare through Congress, I was appalled. The President?s promises for
openness and transparency with the American people were broken in a
process that excluded the public from having a say in health care
reform. That broken process, overseen by the President, was a precursor
to the broken way in which the federal government will handle patient
care? with patients on the periphery and a select few in Washington
calling all the shots.
President Obama and the proponents of his health law promised it would
cut health care costs, expand insurance, and not raise taxes. But even
prior to its full implementation, Obamacare has proved to be a
hindrance, not a help, to the health care market and to broader economic
recovery. Health care premium costs are up over $1,000 per family, 20
million are at risk of losing their current health insurance, 48% of
businesses aren?t hiring to brace for rising health care costs and
latent tax increases, and by 2021, the Congressional Budget Office
estimates there will be 800,000 fewer jobs because of the President?s
health law.
America?s health care objectives haven?t changed since the President?s
law passed, but today they are far more distant from being realized. We
still want greater access to quality, affordable patient-centered care,
and the best way we can go about achieving those ends is through
repealing Obamacare in its entirety and starting fresh on health care
reform with the American people as our partners. This is, and will
remain, among my top priorities in Congress.?
__________________

__________________
I remember when power tools and small appliances had flexible cords.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 12:02 PM  
Administrator
 
samfloor's Avatar

Missouri
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,845 | Kudos: +114
I guess we must vote Reublican to repeal this law. The scary part is, much of this was based on the insurance plan Romney pushed through as governor.
__________________

__________________
AKA....Rusty, Floorist, etc.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 06:01 PM  
Administrator
 
samfloor's Avatar

Missouri
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,845 | Kudos: +114
Missouri is one of the states that already has the expanded Medicaid. For example a single person with $1120. a month income would pay $293. a month for Medicaid or slightly more than 25 percent of their income. If they don't sign up, they would pay a penalty.
And they are not eligible for food stamps or any other aid.
__________________
AKA....Rusty, Floorist, etc.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 07:04 PM  
AK 47 toting Liberal!
 
rainbow's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 309 | Kudos: +17
I'll stick with Obama thank you. Romney would simply contrinue to screw the poor while giving to the rich which is exactly what people like E T want. Anyone who lives on a small forum such as this, trolling and pitching crap, just to raise hackle feathers from people who live in actual reality obviously doesn't actually work for a living. Life at the golf course country club must be grand!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 07:10 PM  
Administrator
 
samfloor's Avatar

Missouri
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,845 | Kudos: +114
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainbow View Post
I'll stick with Obama thank you. Romney would simply contrinue to screw the poor while giving to the rich which is exactly what people like E T want. Anyone who lives on a small forum such as this, trolling and pitching crap, just to raise hackle feathers from people who live in actual reality obviously doesn't actually work for a living. Life at the golf course country club must be grand!
Yeah right, I have been a flooring installer for 40 years. Guarantee you I don't belong to a country club. And I have always voted democratic for president. I just don't think Obama is doing a good job, but really don't like Romney either. I just can't see how Obamacare will help anyone.
__________________
AKA....Rusty, Floorist, etc.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 08:19 PM  
AK 47 toting Liberal!
 
rainbow's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 309 | Kudos: +17
Well, it's rather simple in my opinion. People without health insurance who get cancer or parkensons or what have you, with no assets, have the taxpayers pay the bill for care, or........ if you have assets, simply put, you loose them. The home you worked your whole life to pay off.......gone. By requiring insurance, we taxpayers don't have to cover the uninsured no more, and those with homes get to keep them. It's like auto insurance. Accident? Your covered. Simple as that and the only one that has to pay is the already bloated and totally fiunacially secure insurance companies. They can afford it. i'm done with this fly by night forum. you rich guys continue to whine about it. I've got more important things to do, like sit on the toilet and read my book.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2012, 01:59 AM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
The individual mandate is far superior to either the mostly-privatized system we have now and it's far superior to the fully-nationalized health care systems in most other countries. It maintains the benefits of a privatized system (economic forces at work in the marketplace) while providing the important benefits of a nationalized healthcare system (near-universal coverage). The government won't be rationing health care; the market will be doing that. We should avoid the months/years waiting list for routine procedures that has become common in countries with nationalized systems.

What it means for the responsible among us is lower premiums. Healthy people now have a hell of an incentive to purchase coverage throughout their lifetime, instead of only when they start to get sick. Insurers are required to spend a very large percentage of premium payments on benefits. If they fail to do so, they are required to credit us the difference. So premiums are pretty much guaranteed to drop.

All in all, it's good for the rich, it's good for the poor, it's good for the middle class, it's good for doctors, it's good for insurance companies. It's bad for people who have been gaming the system in that they will now be required to participate, but other than them, it's an improvement for just about everybody.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2012, 02:13 AM  
AZ Resident

Surprise, Arizona
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 90 | Kudos: +18
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainbow View Post
Well, it's rather simple in my opinion. People without health insurance who get cancer or parkensons or what have you, with no assets, have the taxpayers pay the bill
Until a certain age - Page 272. Section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rainbow View Post
By requiring insurance, we taxpayers don't have to cover the uninsured no more, and those with homes get to keep them.
Of course, it's free!
Oh, don't forget these little gems:

Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. Residents, even if they are here illegally.

Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)

Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

Many if not most companies with 50 employees or more will "Opt Out" of the plan and just pay the fine leaving people like me holding the bag. My family and I won't be able to afford the plan or the fine.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2012, 09:31 AM  
Administrator
 
samfloor's Avatar

Missouri
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,845 | Kudos: +114
"page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. Residents, even if they are here illegally"

This is absolutely not in the health care law.
__________________
AKA....Rusty, Floorist, etc.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2012, 09:59 AM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Wild, please link the document you're citing. You've misstated a number of provisions.

For instance:
"Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts."

The government already has this power. It's regulated in accordance with the 4th amendment, but with due process, they do have the power to seize assets.
__________________

__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.