We already tax every American for Social Security and FICA. The only difference is that this will be put into an exchange where you have the ability to choose your provider (ie a Libertarian's wet dream for SS). If the SC declares this unconstitutional, they would also be declaring any privatization of Social Security to be unconstitutional.
I agree that the Repubicans should have done something when they were in control. Yes it did pass and it could be thrown out in the SC for very compelling reasons. How can you tax somebody for not buying something? BTW thanks, I have not been called a kid in a long, long time.
I think the idea of punishing people for not buying things is an idea we can all support. Signed, Corporate America
Corporate America is one thing but does the Constitution grant the federal government the right to do it? The SC will decide.
Wow, with top legal minds like cml750 and fmullegun on the case, the Solicitor General has his work cut out for him. He might as well just give up.
What is it specifically that you don't know about what's happened here over the last year because of Obama? Hell he even had a Q&A with Republicans about the health care plan. He personally invited them at the SOTU to put forth actual proposals that could be debated. What more do you want? Obama took heat all year long from his own constituents for kissing Republican ass for so long. People have been begging for Obama to tell conservatives to go to hell just like Bush did to liberals for eight years. Finally Obama saw the light that this crew of conservatives, much like terrorists, could not be bargained with and now it's done. I mean you can't be serious here. This bill has no public option (liberal idea), it's not universal (liberal idea), and is not a single payer system (liberal idea). So how the hell is this such a move too far to the left? Hell, real liberals like Kucinich hate this damn bill.
First off this isn't a tax. Secondly you can get taxed without buying something. Consider that if you win big in Vegas you have to report those winnings and pay taxes on them. Thirdly if the Massachusetts law wasn't found unconstitutional that has already set a precendent that the government can mandate for things like health insurance.
That's what I'm trying to figure out with this since I haven't really cared to keep up with it much since it's seemed like its been going on for geez, 8 months? What exactly does this bill plan on doing? I'm in the insurance business (P&C tho) so I understand pooling risks to generate premiums. Is the big deal here that all the high risk individuals who would otherwise have to pay higher end premiums or be denied coverage are going to get lumped with all the healthy/younger individuals and thereby compormising the younger/healthier/less at risk individual's premiums? Are we taking the aging population and lumping them with the younger generation and forcing the insurance companies to abandon previous underwriting criteria that they've used before to generate risk premiums and thereby increasing the premiums on the young and healthy and reducing the overall premiums of the aging and sick? (last I followed, this was being discussed) Thanks in advance.
For the last time the Democrats did not shut out the Republicans. Obama invited them to a meeting before the cameras and asked the Republicans to bring their ideas to the table. The Republicans refused. They demanded that the whole bill be thrown out before the meeting. It was all on television. Instead of going in with the sole idea of their way or no way they could have actually brought some real ideas to the table. They could have asked Obama to include anything they wanted included. They didn't. Furthermore a huge majority of the amendments to the bill were Republican amendments not Democratic ones. Please stop acting like the Republicans were shut out of the process. They had opportunity after opportunity to add to the bill in a meaningful way, but instead you had Jim Demint saying that they wanted to make Health Care Obama's Waterloo. That was before the bill was even formed the Republicans were more intent on defeating whatever the bill was than making it something that could work.
sure is a lot of hate in this thread. i think we should have just done nothing. just let it all go to hell.
"Very compelling". You obviously are getting these crack pot ideas from non-mainstream source. Care to share?
Hey let's start a facebook group to beg Perry and the TX GOP to set us free from pre-existing conditions. I know. They have a "very compelling" reason why this would be "unconstitutional". Fortunatley the right wing S.Ct. has declared that it is very "constitutional" as well as very compelling for insurance companies and their execs to fund this attempt to overturn laws the government passes.
Congress has never passed a law saying you have to go to Vegas. That's the deal. They mandate you have to buy this or pay a fine, tax or whatever you want to call it.
The problem is that the new mandate on pre-existing conditions and allowing children to remain on their parents policy till they are 27 start immediately. This will force the insurance companies to raise premium cost. Once that happens the liberals will demonize the insurance companies and demand price controls. Price controls will drive the insurance companies out of business which will allow the President to step in and "save" us with a single payer government run system. They would have loved have "single payer" in the bill from the beginning but realize the America people don't want it so they are trying this way. Apparently Kucinich is a little slow and did not support the bill until Obama told him about the real plan on Air Force 1. This whole thing is clever of the Dems but not really hard to see through.
This statement should show you clearly what is wrong with your life. You are so insulated from reality that you only hear one side of the issues being discussed today. You have separated yourself so completely from people who believe differently than you that you have not heard a single person talk positively about HCR. Personally, I had at least 8 discussions with people about HCR yesterday, most were happy about the reform specifics and a couple were not so pleased. The point is that it is important to hear more than one viewpoint in order to make an informed decision.
There are over 160 republican amendments in the healthcare bill. And I'll take your non answer to my question (that I asked twice) to mean that you can only be lying about these lifetime democrats that are done with the party because of passing a bill they've advocated for for generations.
