Sounds like someone who knows what he's talking about. There's a rather simple explanation for why we pay so much for health care that is (arguably) of lesser quality here in the states...
of what, a healthcare system that isn't the most expensive and close to dead last in the OECD rankings? Oh wait, no, a strong federal government will lead to abuses like warrentless wiretapping or shoving prisoners into cruel and unusual treatment. Crickets there though. BUT HEALTHCARE? Skynet is building itself.
The fundamental change is that Congress has been granted the right to tax you as a penalty for not doing any thing. (separated intentionally) Northside mentioned things like adverse selection, but the court didn't use that as justification here. They simply allowed it to stand as a tax. Don't buy X number of health foods per year? Tax. Don't buy electric car? Tax. You don't think the ability to completely regulate your behavior under the threat of tax imposition is a fundamental change?
Flashback to 2005 — Why Then-Senator Obama voted against the Man Who Just Saved His Health Care Law Email0Smaller FontTextLarger Text|Print In September 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama, D-Illinois, voted against the confirmation of now Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, the man who just saved his signature legislation. Why? “…While adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases — what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult,” Obama said. “In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” Obama said that “the problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts’ record and history of public service” was that it was his “personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General’s Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man. He continued, “I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he doesn’t like bullies and he sees the law and the Court as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the Court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting. “The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts’ nomination,” the senator concluded. “I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court’s historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society. I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all ideological stripes.” -jake Tapper and Mary Bruce http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...t-the-man-who-just-saved-his-health-care-law/
Of the idea that you have to pay a tax to a private company instead of to the government. You aren't American. What do you care?
Is this what you thought you'd be triumphantly quoting earlier this morning? How does it feel? Are you into denial-anger-depression-bargaining-acceptance yet? or all of them?
Because universal health-care is a cool thing (as I can testify to), and I'd like my bros in the south to have some. What do you care that I'm not from the country? Solve the first issue with single-payer.
I see your point. I guess the "right" to poop only in public restrooms and drink publicly provided water and not pay any utility bills whatsoever is only upheld for the homeless because it's not bankrupting the country. You better believe the issue would (will?) arise when water gets to be a much more pricey commodity. Everyone but the homeless and nearly-off-grid rural landowners are paying for water and waste handling, one way or another.
I'm not sure I agree that it's a change per say. It's analogous to a deduction. If you don't do something, you don't get the deduction. The complication is because it's going to private insurers. But that's America for you, and it's largely the GOP's fault IMO. Although Obama caved readily on single-payer too so there is some mutual fault there, of a sort.
That's what's so ironic about this. This ruling only further guarantees the trickle up wealth scheme our broken health care system has perpetuated. The biggest winners today are the share holders [dems & repubs alike] of health care industry corps.
S**k on it, bigtexx, basso, and everyone else who make a living out of bashing the president over every single thing he does, whether it's beneficial to the American people or not. You all are so hell-bent on following the checks and balances, the rule of law, then when it doesn't go your way, you cry foul. So, ummm, yes, feels great to gloat. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!
A deduction isn't the same. We tax everyone's income 10%. If you buy a hybrid you can deduct the cost. This is saying we tax everyone's income 10%. We will also tax everyone a new "car" tax that is only avoidable if you buy the hybrid. As long as the item/good/service is legal, there is nothing the government couldn't tell you to buy or pay a tax instead.
I guess I don't see the difference. I have health insurance so I'm taxed at x%. If I don't have health insurance, I'm taxed at x% + y%. Essentially, I'm then taxed at x% + y%, but I've deducted y%. I guess that's more of a tax credit (tax terminology is not my strong suit)
