PDA

View Full Version : Obama care



REDREX
1/31/2011, 03:01 PM
Unconstitutional per U.S. District judge----Law VOID

MR2-Sooner86
1/31/2011, 03:06 PM
In other news scientist have discovered that water is indeed wet.

soonercruiser
1/31/2011, 03:07 PM
Hopefully it will be in the Supreme Court soon.
(While Constitutionalists are still in the majority)

Back to sleep!
(The government told me I should get more sleep)

soonerscuba
1/31/2011, 03:24 PM
Heh, funny I don't hear the usual cries of activisim on this one.

OklahomaTuba
1/31/2011, 03:30 PM
Maybe the dems should have read it first instead of passing it to see what was in it.

OklahomaTuba
1/31/2011, 03:30 PM
So now Barry's list of accomplishments is...

Destroying the US Economy.

I suppose that's enough for one of his limited abilities. I suppose now he'll try a work-around by having the EPA declare O-care absolutely vital to our existence.

DIB
1/31/2011, 03:34 PM
Heh, funny I don't hear the usual cries of activisim on this one.

I'm not sure you understand the definition of judicial activism.

Sooner5030
1/31/2011, 03:37 PM
had someone not been in such a hurry they could have re-crafted the bill to read "tax" instead of "fine"

all-some

My Opinion Matters
1/31/2011, 03:39 PM
I'm not sure you understand the definition of judicial activism.

:pop:

soonerscuba
1/31/2011, 03:40 PM
I'm not sure you understand the definition of judicial activism.For years, anytime the courts turned over any piece or portion of legislation folks around here cried and cried and cried about activism. They gnashed their teeth and questioned the bejesus out of every person nominated to the bench about it. Now, without knowing anything about the opinion out of FL, there will be people on here celebrate the decision to overturn this piece of legislation.

I understand activism, and actually support the concept, I just find the hypocrisy of people on this board lauding it now to be beyond amusing.

DIB
1/31/2011, 03:43 PM
For years, anytime the courts turned over any piece or portion of legislation folks around here cried and cried and cried about activism. They gnashed their teeth and questioned the bejesus out of every person nominated to the bench about it. Now, without knowing anything about the opinion out of FL, there will be people on here celebrate the decision to overturn this piece of legislation.

I understand activism, and actually support the concept, I just find the hypocrisy of people on this board lauding it now to be beyond amusing.

It appears that some of the people you're "pwning" with your mad posting skills do not understand the definition of judicial activism, either.

soonerscuba
1/31/2011, 03:49 PM
It appears that some of the people you're "pwning" with your mad posting skills do not understand the definition of judicial activism, either.There is no hard definition, which is the glory of the term. It generally applies whenever you want it, and for a lot of folks around here the very act of legislation is above review, thus when it is reviewed, the courts are being activist. For the record, I don't like this shot at healthcare, and would be totally cool with it being overturned, even by a court. However, I haven't spent time decrying the very method used to suit me.

47straight
1/31/2011, 03:49 PM
Heh, funny I don't hear the usual cries of activisim on this one.

That's because overturning laws like this flies in the face of the activism that let the definition of interstate commerce swallow the rest of the constitution in the first place. Kthx.

OklahomaTuba
1/31/2011, 03:59 PM
‎"If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power”

The only real activism here was in this POS law forcing everyone in America to buy something from an insurance company, or else.

DIB
1/31/2011, 04:06 PM
There is no hard definition, which is the glory of the term. It generally applies whenever you want it, and for a lot of folks around here the very act of legislation is above review, thus when it is reviewed, the courts are being activist. For the record, I don't like this shot at healthcare, and would be totally cool with it being overturned, even by a court. However, I haven't spent time decrying the very method used to suit me.

The most basic definition of judicial activism is when courts do not confine themselves to reasonable interpretations of laws, but instead create law.

soonerscuba
1/31/2011, 04:07 PM
That's because overturning laws like this flies in the face of the activism that let the definition of interstate commerce swallow the rest of the constitution in the first place. Kthx.I am merely making the point that for years this board swam with cries of activism regarding literally any judicial intrepretation that went counter to their desire, especially if it came from legislative bodies. While I disagree with this as legislative bodies cannot be counted on to operate within the framework of the Constitution, thus am very willing to give the courts the ability to overturn legislation, I guess I am just cool with a court being involved with the political process even if means I don't get my way.

Also, I tend to think that the commerce clause is extended beyond what the framers had in mind, but I cannot ignore the good that has come out of its existence.

I Am Right
1/31/2011, 04:08 PM
Maybe the dems should have read it first instead of passing it to see what was in it.

LOL

OklahomaTuba
1/31/2011, 04:09 PM
"It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place."

Ouch.

Love the Tea Party reference.

Redshirt
1/31/2011, 04:15 PM
I stopped carrying car insurance a while back. I mean, most other people have it and what are the chances of actually being in a wreck? If I run into someone I am sure that their own insurance will cover them, right?

I Am Right
1/31/2011, 04:17 PM
I stopped carrying car insurance a while back. I mean, most other people have it and what are the chances of actually being in a wreck? If I run into someone I am sure that their own insurance will cover them, right?

LOL

Sooner5030
1/31/2011, 04:18 PM
you're not required to insure YOUR car......just liability insurance for anything you may damage with your car.

2121Sooner
1/31/2011, 04:18 PM
Terry Schiavo approves of this thread.

JohnnyMack
1/31/2011, 04:18 PM
Ouch.

Love the Tea Party reference.

Yeah. Cause you're such a tea-partier.

The Profit
1/31/2011, 04:22 PM
I would have no problem with scrapping the only unconstitutional portion of the health bill (i.e. mandatory coverage). At the same time, I think we should pass a federal law forbidding hospitals to admit anyone into an emergency room without cash payment upfront or suitable insurance. In other words, no cash or insurance? You die. Simple as that. Then, the rest of us, who have insurance, will not have to pick up the tab for the idiot sob's, who choose to not have coverage.

Just to show that I am not cruel, anyone falling below the poverty line would have government paid insurance just like the type enjoyed by members of congress.

bigfatjerk
1/31/2011, 04:23 PM
Maybe the dems should have read it first instead of passing it to see what was in it.

You have to pass the bill before you see what's in it!

2121Sooner
1/31/2011, 04:25 PM
You have to pass the bill before you see what's it in!

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Pelosi_Rangel_Laughing09022.jpg

Redshirt
1/31/2011, 04:36 PM
you're not required to insure YOUR car......just liability insurance for anything you may damage with your car.

So, kind of a minimum insurance is required to keep a level playing field?

Sooner5030
1/31/2011, 04:39 PM
So, kind of a minimum insurance is required to keep a level playing field?

no....a vehicle (with its weight and high speeds) can damage a lot of property....so if you CHOOSE to purchase/build a car and use state/federal public roads then you are required to have liability insurance.

Redshirt
1/31/2011, 04:48 PM
no....a vehicle (with its weight and high speeds) can damage a lot of property....so if you CHOOSE to purchase/build a car and use state/federal public roads then you are required to have liability insurance.

Just in case something went wrong and you couldn't pay for it out of your own pocket?

Sooner5030
1/31/2011, 04:51 PM
Just in case something went wrong and you couldn't pay for it out of your own pocket?

no....in case your act or omission of an act while operating the vehicle was the proximate cause of property damage. You'd have the comparison you're fishing for if you want to require individuals to carry insurance for the injuries they cause to others when they collide on the sidewalk.

SpankyNek
1/31/2011, 05:06 PM
no....in case your act or omission of an act while operating the vehicle was the proximate cause of property damage. You'd have the comparison you're fishing for if you want to require individuals to carry insurance for the injuries they cause to others when they collide on the sidewalk.

Or the requirement of any company with "X" # of employees being forced to purchase unemployment insurance.

Just increase the income tax by $300 and give a credit to all that have proof of coverage...problem averted.

KABOOKIE
1/31/2011, 05:07 PM
Not to mention I, as a tax payer, ain't footing the bill for a democrat's car insurance. Fuggers get a job.

OklahomaTuba
1/31/2011, 05:09 PM
Just increase the income tax...It's always just that easy for a liberal.

OklahomaTuba
1/31/2011, 05:11 PM
All those unions and democratic special interests that paid, er, donated for Obamacare waivers have to be really pi$$ed right about now.

SpankyNek
1/31/2011, 05:14 PM
It's always just that easy for a liberal.

It's just that easy to make it Constitutional. Liberal or not.

BTW considering precedent set by this court when it was more conservative than today, if a municipality is empowered to take private property (=money)for the purpose of installing a strip mall (=greater good), I wouldn't be holding my breath on this ruling to hold up under appeal.

sappstuf
1/31/2011, 05:30 PM
I would have no problem with scrapping the only unconstitutional portion of the health bill (i.e. mandatory coverage). At the same time, I think we should pass a federal law forbidding hospitals to admit anyone into an emergency room without cash payment upfront or suitable insurance. In other words, no cash or insurance? You die. Simple as that. Then, the rest of us, who have insurance, will not have to pick up the tab for the idiot sob's, who choose to not have coverage.

Just to show that I am not cruel, anyone falling below the poverty line would have government paid insurance just like the type enjoyed by members of congress.

I bet you would. Unfortunately the Dems were not bright enough to put a severability clause in the bill that would easily allow that to happen. The severability clause is found in 99% of legislation. But not this one. The judge specifically mentioned why he found the entire bill unconstitutional.


In the final analysis, this Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch, and that seems to fit. It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed. There are simply too many moving parts in the Act and too many provisions dependent (directly and indirectly) on the individual mandate and other health insurance provisions — which, as noted, were the chief engines that drove the entire legislative effort — for me to try and dissect out the proper from the improper, and the able-to-stand-alone from the unable-to-stand-alone. Such a quasi-legislative undertaking would be particularly inappropriate in light of the fact that any statute that might conceivably be left over after this analysis is complete would plainly not serve Congress’ main purpose and primary objective in passing the Act. The statute is, after all, called “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” not “The Abstinence Education and Bone Marrow Density Testing Act.” The Act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker.

If Congress intends to implement health care reform — and there would appear to be widespread agreement across the political spectrum that reform is needed — it should do a comprehensive examination of the Act and make a legislative determination as to which of its hundreds of provisions and sections will work as intended without the individual mandate, and which will not. It is Congress that should consider and decide these quintessentially legislative questions, and not the courts…

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

Edit: If you don't want to read all of that from the judge, it boils down to, 'Congress and Obama passed such a complete pile of **** it cannot be fixed.'.

jkjsooner
1/31/2011, 05:35 PM
I'm not sure you understand the definition of judicial activism.

Yes, it means anything one doesn't agree with...

soonercruiser
1/31/2011, 05:50 PM
For years, anytime the courts turned over any piece or portion of legislation folks around here cried and cried and cried about activism. They gnashed their teeth and questioned the bejesus out of every person nominated to the bench about it. Now, without knowing anything about the opinion out of FL, there will be people on here celebrate the decision to overturn this piece of legislation.

I understand activism, and actually support the concept, I just find the hypocrisy of people on this board lauding it now to be beyond amusing.

Sorry Scuba!
Wrong interpretation of the ruling.
The law starts with the Constitution. And, any time a judge sticks with the Constitution, and rules based on the freedoms and limits on govment in the Constitution, he/she is doing their job to keep govment in check.

After all -there are some Dems who think that the three branches of the govment are the House, the Senate, and White House....Duh!

jkjsooner
1/31/2011, 05:53 PM
"It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place."

Isn't this done via the tax code? Doesn't Congress have the ability to levy taxes via the taxing and spending clause?

Whether you like it or not, it seems to me that Congress found a way to do this within the bounds of the Constitution.

The wording above screams of judicial activism. The judge substituted what he "imagined" the founders would want for what is actually written in the text. Just because it seems right to you and the law seemed un-American (as it did to me as well) doesn't mean it's not judicial activism on the part of this judge.


BTW, the democrats wanted universal healthcare. This was a compromise. The only way they could protect those with pre-existing conditions would be to require that everyone at least pay some type of price so the incentive to wait until you get sick to get insurance would be lessened. It was far from an ideal solution but it was at least an attempt to address of the Republican's concerns.

47straight
1/31/2011, 05:54 PM
I am merely making the point that for years this board swam with cries of activism regarding literally any judicial intrepretation that went counter to their desire, especially if it came from legislative bodies. While I disagree with this as legislative bodies cannot be counted on to operate within the framework of the Constitution, thus am very willing to give the courts the ability to overturn legislation, I guess I am just cool with a court being involved with the political process even if means I don't get my way.

Also, I tend to think that the commerce clause is extended beyond what the framers had in mind, but I cannot ignore the good that has come out of its existence.

You shouldn't let your fellow SO's define such things for you. :)

sappstuf
1/31/2011, 06:20 PM
That judge is not very nice using Obama's own words to support the ruling....


I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house

StoopTroup
1/31/2011, 06:27 PM
So now Barry's list of accomplishments is...

Destroying the US Economy.

I suppose that's enough for one of his limited abilities. I suppose now he'll try a work-around by having the EPA declare O-care absolutely vital to our existence.

As long as you believe that....everything is gonna be OK. It's good to know our Founding Fathers created a system that would let one man or woman completely destroy our Country.

BTW....how is your 401k doing the last 2 years compared to the 8 year's of the Bush administration?

okie52
1/31/2011, 06:28 PM
That judge is not very nice using Obama's own words to support the ruling....

Unscrupulous!!!

soonerscuba
1/31/2011, 07:06 PM
You shouldn't let your fellow SO's define such things for you. :)I am far too lazy to form my own opinions, so here we are.

cccasooner2
1/31/2011, 07:40 PM
Gee, maybe this means no tickee, no washee. Send all the uninsured to the Pelosi personally funded health care unit. I can dig it. :D

bigfatjerk
1/31/2011, 08:31 PM
I bet you would. Unfortunately the Dems were not bright enough to put a severability clause in the bill that would easily allow that to happen. The severability clause is found in 99% of legislation. But not this one. The judge specifically mentioned why he found the entire bill unconstitutional.



Edit: If you don't want to read all of that from the judge, it boils down to, 'Congress and Obama passed such a complete pile of **** it cannot be fixed.'.

I think there's things in the law that aren't that bad ideas. But the individual mandate thing basically destroys the entire thing and it's the backbone of the bill. But how any HC bill comes to congress and doesn't even solve the main problem.

The main problem of our health care in this country is that we basically have very little choice and very little competition for health care. We have more competition for life and car insurance than we do for health care. Why don't we just make it to where all health care companies across the country can compete with each other.

Saul Good
1/31/2011, 08:39 PM
I think there's things in the law that aren't that bad ideas. But the individual mandate thing basically destroys the entire thing and it's the backbone of the bill. But how any HC bill comes to congress and doesn't even solve the main problem.

The main problem of our health care in this country is that we basically have very little choice and very little competition for health care. We have more competition for life and car insurance than we do for health care. Why don't we just make it to where all health care companies across the country can compete with each other.

Wrong. The biggest problem with health care is not health insurance although they are joined at the hip. It is the cost of delivering the care that is the problem. If the costs weren't so astronomical, the talking heads in DC wouldn't be reforming this particular industry.

bigfatjerk
1/31/2011, 08:42 PM
Wrong. The biggest problem with health care is not health insurance although they are joined at the hip. It is the cost of delivering the care that is the problem. If the costs weren't so astronomical, the talking heads in DC wouldn't be reforming this particular industry.

I don't disagree. But if you could sell more types of insurance against others it would make the cost much cheaper. Yes some of the best medicine will always be very expensive but that's with just about anything new. There's also always cheaper alternatives to the expensive medicines. If we had more competition for this stuff though it would bring down prices. Right now there are companies that have a monopoly on these things that make them more expensive.

AlbqSooner
1/31/2011, 08:42 PM
Terry Schiavo approves of this thread.

Obamacare would have had not effect on the Terry Schiavo case. NONE!

Saul Good
1/31/2011, 08:47 PM
I don't disagree. But if you could sell more types of insurance against others it would make the cost much cheaper. Yes some of the best medicine will always be very expensive but that's with just about anything new. There's also always cheaper alternatives to the expensive medicines. If we had more competition for this stuff though it would bring down prices. Right now there are companies that have a monopoly on these things that make them more expensive.

While I agree that competition will help. I am all for it. I also think you are getting at transparency. I think you should know what a procedure costs PRIOR to going to the hospital/doctor. Now, you just go wherever and there can but enromous differences between facilities costs for the same procedure.

Again, I just think that is treating the symptom and not the root cause. We have two issues. Medical inflation is waaay to high. Why is that? And as a society we are waaaaaaay too unhealthy. You have to pay the piper eventually and with our sedintary lifestyle and poor eating habits, more often than not it rears its ugly head with health issues/claims/increased utilization and thus higher insurance premiums.

soonercruiser
1/31/2011, 11:55 PM
Wrong. The biggest problem with health care is not health insurance although they are joined at the hip. It is the cost of delivering the care that is the problem. If the costs weren't so astronomical, the talking heads in DC wouldn't be reforming this particular industry.

Since we seem to be working backwards towards the source......
If the vulture lawyers weren't so free to file frivolous law suits, docs would be able to provide care much less expensively!
Oops! I spilled the hot coffe on myself. Who should I sue?
:rolleyes:

47straight
2/1/2011, 12:59 AM
Since we seem to be working backwards towards the source......
If the vulture lawyers weren't so free to file frivolous law suits, docs would be able to provide care much less expensively!
Oops! I spilled the hot coffe on myself. Who should I sue?
:rolleyes:

What kind of country do we live in where doctors are held accountable when they kill people with their ineptitude?

delhalew
2/1/2011, 02:32 AM
While I agree that competition will help. I am all for it. I also think you are getting at transparency. I think you should know what a procedure costs PRIOR to going to the hospital/doctor. Now, you just go wherever and there can but enromous differences between facilities costs for the same procedure.

Again, I just think that is treating the symptom and not the root cause. We have two issues. Medical inflation is waaay to high. Why is that? And as a society we are waaaaaaay too unhealthy. You have to pay the piper eventually and with our sedintary lifestyle and poor eating habits, more often than not it rears its ugly head with health issues/claims/increased utilization and thus higher insurance premiums.

This would be solved with healthitr savings accounts that Democrats have made all but made extinct.
These accounts turn us all into consumers. Suddenly you give a damn what those labs are gonna cost, or who has the most affordable MRI.

Collier11
2/1/2011, 02:49 AM
I just wanted to quote this again

"I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house "

This makes me smile...not cus I dont want everyone to have access to healthcare cus I really do, but just cus its funny

sooner59
2/1/2011, 03:18 AM
What kind of country do we live in where doctors are held accountable when they kill people with their ineptitude?

Held accountable, fine. Attacked continuously because of people wanting perfection when it isn't reality? Not so much. I know plenty of doctors, residents, and med-students....and I am going through the application process to get into med-school. It is really scary nowadays because of the lawsuits. Many people think that doctors are machines that fix things that are not going well. Doctors are human. Some make unnecessary mistakes and those are subject to scrutiny as they should be. The problem is that sometimes, everything that could be done, is done. And the result isn't what someone wants and so they sue. Frivolous lawsuits are another thing that drives up cost of healthcare, because of the use of defensive medicine and malpractice premiums. Not all bad results are because of ineptitude. Most of the time, a professional does their best. They use their training to the best of their ability. Tort reform would be nice. Then you will find a lower price for healthcare.

SoonerNate
2/1/2011, 03:56 AM
Question: If his healthcare bill is overturned by the courts, will it wreck his re-election efforts?

I mean, what will he be able to run on?

And secondly, if it is overturned what reason will the GOP have to compromise with him if they can simply wait out his election before acting?

Collier11
2/1/2011, 03:58 AM
He will then become another lame duck Prez just like GW in his last yr, thus is why the 2 party system is FAIL

SoonerNate
2/1/2011, 04:12 AM
Here is my prediction:

The Supreme Court will rule the bill unconstitutional. Everything else on the matter will rest until the elections in 2012 and the following will result:

If Obama is re-elected, There will be a bi-partisan healthcare bill that both sides can agree upon that will be passed early in 2013.

If Obama is defeated, their will be a watered down bill with provisions to purchase across state lines and tort reforms.

SpankyNek
2/1/2011, 10:05 AM
There have been multiple US judges uphold the law, and only one that has seen it differently.

There is no way (When taking into account SCOTUS precedence)this bill is ruled unconstitutional.

BTW, the reason that this bill is even approaching scrutiny is due to Obama's reconciliation with conservatives to destroy the public option...had the bill been passed in its original form, and not watered down in an effort to appease the elected minority (And those on the left that saw this compromise as an opportunity to get re-elected...see where that got them?)..it would be withstanding all legal objection.

The Profit
2/1/2011, 10:14 AM
I bet you would. Unfortunately the Dems were not bright enough to put a severability clause in the bill that would easily allow that to happen. The severability clause is found in 99% of legislation. But not this one. The judge specifically mentioned why he found the entire bill unconstitutional.



Edit: If you don't want to read all of that from the judge, it boils down to, 'Congress and Obama passed such a complete pile of **** it cannot be fixed.'.




Then, no problem. We will just write a new bill for single payer and do away with the corrupt insurance companies.

Sooner5030
2/1/2011, 10:18 AM
Then, no problem. We will just write a new bill for single payer and do away with the corrupt insurance companies.

yes because the government version will be free of corruption!

BLWAAHHAHAH

REDREX
2/1/2011, 10:29 AM
Then, no problem. We will just write a new bill for single payer and do away with the corrupt insurance companies.---Then we could go broke faster AND have poor medical care

sappstuf
2/1/2011, 10:31 AM
There have been multiple US judges uphold the law, and only one that has seen it differently.

There is no way (When taking into account SCOTUS precedence)this bill is ruled unconstitutional.

BTW, the reason that this bill is even approaching scrutiny is due to Obama's reconciliation with conservatives to destroy the public option...had the bill been passed in its original form, and not watered down in an effort to appease the elected minority (And those on the left that saw this compromise as an opportunity to get re-elected...see where that got them?)..it would be withstanding all legal objection.

Two have ruled for it and two have ruled against it.

soonerscuba
2/1/2011, 11:30 AM
Politically, I think this works out very well for Republicans. They get to tout repeal without the messy business of actually voting to deny 40m people health care. This rests on the assumption that this falls 5-4 unconstitutional.

Sooner5030
2/1/2011, 11:33 AM
They get to tout repeal without the messy business of actually voting to deny 40m people health care.

those 40m are free to go and purchase the best plan available. No one is denying them anything.

soonerscuba
2/1/2011, 11:35 AM
those 40m are free to go and purchase the best plan available. No one is denying them anything.Sky blue in your world? Have you seen the going rate of private plans?

Sooner5030
2/1/2011, 11:39 AM
The rates are the same for "free" care. Someone else has to pick up the tab though. Do you know how behavior and decisions change when it's someone else's money? Johny's got the sniffles....let's go to the ER!

SpankyNek
2/1/2011, 11:43 AM
The rates are the same for "free" care. Someone else has to pick up the tab though. Do you know how behavior and decisions change when it's someone else's money? Johny's got the sniffles....let's go to the ER!
This is a fallacy, presuming that because someone HAS coverage that they will go to the ER for treatment is not based on rational thinking.

The ER is overrun due to lack of coverage not the opposite.

TitoMorelli
2/1/2011, 11:44 AM
Sky blue in your world? Have you seen the going rate of private plans?

Have you seen how many of the 40K are young, well employed and wish to spend their hard-earned cash on things other than health care? Or how many of the 40K shouldn't be in this country in the first place?

This plan is a travesty, and it sets a sorry precedent when our elected officials choose to pass major legislation (against the wishes of the majority), knowing that it is seriously flawed, with the idea that they can always try to fix it later, or at least grant waivers to "qualified" entities (=Obama's supporters).

Sooner5030
2/1/2011, 11:50 AM
The ER is overrun due to lack of coverage not the opposite.

80% are there for non-emergencies.

SpankyNek
2/1/2011, 11:56 AM
80% are there for non-emergencies.

They would happily go to private doctors for this care if they weren't excluded based upon their ability to pay.

At least ER docs still believe in the Hippocratic Oath they took.

Sooner5030
2/1/2011, 12:02 PM
At least ER docs still believe in the Hippocratic Oath they took.

That's why they see them. But most are not admitted......just sent away with motrin, tyle or a script. meanwhile they clog the system. They could have opted for care by making an appointment at the local indigent care facility. There should be a small ER surcharge to limit this abuse.

okie52
2/1/2011, 12:03 PM
yes because the government version will be free of corruption!

BLWAAHHAHAH

To a socialist the government is never corrupt.

Saul Good
2/1/2011, 12:09 PM
They would happily go to private doctors for this care if they weren't excluded based upon their ability to pay.

At least ER docs still believe in the Hippocratic Oath they took.


Then why not have government run "free" Clinics and Hospitals for the people who need CARE as opposed to needing INSURANCE if the folks in Washington feel so stongly about helping out those 40 million? Set poverty levels where the people too poor to afford insurance have access to care? Isn't that what your clammoring here? Access to CARE that people can't get based on lack of money? Why force everyone to purchase health insurance so a small percentage of people can have access to said insurance?

Heck, Medicaid levels are higher than they ever have been. Very little reason for people to not be able to qualify there. Instead of having them supplemented by private industry (which they are), give them their own hospital (VA-like). Then once private industry is no longer paying for the payment shortfalls of the government entitlement programs, maybe we can start attacking some of the true issues with the cost side of health care.

(please note this is an overly simplistic example of a solution)

Sooner5030
2/1/2011, 12:12 PM
Then why not have government run "free" Clinics and Hospitals for the people who need CARE as opposed to needing INSURANCE if the folks in Washington feel so stongly about helping out those 40 million?

these already exist. But some do not qualify as they have spent their discretionary income on I-things, beer, cigarettes. The gubment provides huge grants to hospitals and clinics that provide indigent care.....to those that qualify.

sappstuf
2/1/2011, 12:13 PM
This is a fallacy, presuming that because someone HAS coverage that they will go to the ER for treatment is not based on rational thinking.

The ER is overrun due to lack of coverage not the opposite.

If that is true then why did ER visits in Massachusetts jump by 9% after universal healthcare was enacted?

soonerscuba
2/1/2011, 12:15 PM
I actually think the French system essentially works in a similar manner. There is a gov't provided minimum standard of care which includes a small co-payment, but people are pooled by employers to purchase gap insurance beyond that. So, there is a higher standard of care for those that are compelled and can afford it alongside a minimum standard of care that most industrialzied desire along with a small amount to at least prevent some people from abusing the system.

Collier11
2/1/2011, 12:16 PM
Two have ruled for it and two have ruled against it.

Oh those facts, always getting in the way of just throwing crap out there :D

jkjsooner
2/1/2011, 12:28 PM
I'm still searching for someone to explain to me why the insurance requirement that is attached to the tax code is unconstitutional.

I don't see anywhere in the constitution that says the government can't require me to do something. Is it against our traditions? Yes. Is is explicitly forbidden? I don't think so.

Does the federal government have power in these matters? Well, they have the power to tax and that is where they're deriving this authority.

I expect any Supreme Court justice who will vote to strike this down to also strike down the various regulations put on states that limited federal funding to states that don't follow certain federal guidelines (drinking age, etc.) If not then they're hypocrites.

In the drinking age ruling:


However, in the majority opinion authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the power of Congress to withhold federal funds in pursuit of national policies, such as the drinking age, was upheld.

I see no reason why using the tax code in the same way is any different. I'm sure the libertarians will argue that both cases should be unconstitutional. That's fine. I'm not asking you to change your mind. I'm asking the Supreme Court to be consistent. Otherwise, the conservatives on the court are just as guilty of judicial activism as the liberals.

Sooner5030
2/1/2011, 12:31 PM
I don't see anywhere in the constitution that says the government can't require me to do something. Is it against our traditions? Yes. Is is explicitly forbidden? I don't think so.

[do not have a JD]they can regulate an "activity" that you choose to engage in but living is not an activity that you choose. Also, this was not worded as a tax but instead a penalty. A tax would have to be uniform also.[/do not have a jd]

jkjsooner
2/1/2011, 12:38 PM
[do not have a JD]they can regulate an "activity" that you choose to engage in but living is not an activity that you choose. Also, this was not worded as a tax but instead a penalty. A tax would have to be uniform also.[/do not have a jd]

Whether it was worded as a tax or penalty, it was in the tax code I believe. I don't care about the word they used.

They are not regulating living. You have every right to not get insurance and pay the tax penalty.

Sooner5030
2/1/2011, 12:51 PM
it will be settled by the SCOTUS regardless of what you and I might think. I will not get too emotionally attached to the decision. We became a leech society+plutocracy+crony capitalists years ago and there is no turning back......either insolvency or a tax grab is in our future. I can only do my part to follow the the laws of the land but do everything I can to prepare for my family and starve the beast if possible.

sappstuf
2/1/2011, 01:00 PM
Whether it was worded as a tax or penalty, it was in the tax code I believe. I don't care about the word they used.

They are not regulating living. You have every right to not get insurance and pay the tax penalty.

If I don't want to pay car insurance, I can "opt out" and not buy a car and not pay a single dime. By what manner can I "opt out" of Obamacare? Submit or die!!

The principle behind Obamacare is that just about everyone will eventually get sick and so they should have to pay in now for services that will eventually be needed and it is good for the country if everyone has healthcare.

But what if the government decided that it would be good for everyone in the country to own a home? After all, home ownership is a good thing right?

But you didn't want to buy a home. So instead the federal government forces you to pay a penalty for refusing to buy a home so that services to buy a home will be available to you in the future.

If Obamacare is constitutional, what would/could stop mandatory homeownership being passed by congress?

TitoMorelli
2/1/2011, 01:05 PM
Whether it was worded as a tax or penalty, it was in the tax code I believe. I don't care about the word they used.

They are not regulating living. You have every right to not get insurance and pay the tax penalty.

In other words government has the right to constrain its citizens in any way it chooses by use of the tax code? And the imposition of taxes and/or penalties has no coercive effect on the choices we make?

TitoMorelli
2/1/2011, 01:13 PM
But what if the government decided that it would be good for everyone in the country to own a home? After all, home ownership is a good thing right?

But you didn't want to buy a home. So instead the federal government forces you to pay a penalty for refusing to buy a home so that services to buy a home will be available to you in the future.

If Obamacare is constitutional, what would/could stop mandatory homeownership being passed by congress?

Funny you should say that--

"Here's the concern. If you haven't made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don't buy a house is they don't have the money."

--Senator Barack Obama, in a February 2008 interview

jkjsooner
2/1/2011, 02:01 PM
In other words government has the right to constrain its citizens in any way it chooses by use of the tax code? And the imposition of taxes and/or penalties has no coercive effect on the choices we make?

I'm not asking you to agree with it. I'm asking you to ask our Supreme Court to be consistent. If these tactics are unconstitutional then they should all be unconstitutional.

texas bandman
2/1/2011, 02:26 PM
As long as you believe that....everything is gonna be OK. It's good to know our Founding Fathers created a system that would let one man or woman completely destroy our Country.

BTW....how is your 401k doing the last 2 years compared to the 8 year's of the Bush administration?

+1

My 403b's doing fine now!

Sooner5030
2/1/2011, 02:41 PM
bragging about nominal growth from your retirement account doesn't really capture your increase/decrease in value over the last 2 years.

You paid x cotton/pork/rice/corn/beef/milk/gold/silver for an equity security in 2008 and now it's worth .8x even though the $ price went from $20 share to $24.

SpankyNek
2/1/2011, 02:43 PM
If I don't want to pay car insurance, I can "opt out" and not buy a car and not pay a single dime. By what manner can I "opt out" of Obamacare? Submit or die!!

The principle behind Obamacare is that just about everyone will eventually get sick and so they should have to pay in now for services that will eventually be needed and it is good for the country if everyone has healthcare.

But what if the government decided that it would be good for everyone in the country to own a home? After all, home ownership is a good thing right?

But you didn't want to buy a home. So instead the federal government forces you to pay a penalty for refusing to buy a home so that services to buy a home will be available to you in the future.

If Obamacare is constitutional, what would/could stop mandatory homeownership being passed by congress?
Do homeowners get tax credits/subsidies/programs not available to those that do not own their homes?

Therein lies your answer.

If you choose to rent a home for $1000/month you will pay considerably more in income taxes(penalty) than if you have a $1000/month mortgage.

TitoMorelli
2/1/2011, 02:48 PM
I'm not asking you to agree with it. I'm asking you to ask our Supreme Court to be consistent. If these tactics are unconstitutional then they should all be unconstitutional.

Then why even have a court if everything becomes so cut and dried? Either the government has no business in any of our business, or it has business in all of it. Seems to me that's where such logic leads.

I'm just not sure I agree that we can compare legal drinking age with compulsory purchase of health insurance as being the same kind of issue.

delhalew
2/1/2011, 02:49 PM
I'm not asking you to agree with it. I'm asking you to ask our Supreme Court to be consistent. If these tactics are unconstitutional then they should all be unconstitutional.

The mandate is not a tax...except when it is.

Obama stumped for the bill saying it was not a tax for both political and procedural reasons. If the mandate had been a tax, it would not have passed in the first place. Not that it is in jeopardy, Obama says it's a tax.

This bill was so convoluted, that it cannot stand without the mandate. That is Democrats fault. The mandate also funds the damn thing. Except that McDonalds and a ton of other select Obama buddies (unions) are exempt because the cost would cripple them. Well what about the rest of us?

You are either pulling a Leroy, or you are a fool.

EnragedOUfan
2/1/2011, 03:16 PM
After the Supreme Court votes against Obamacare, I just hope something is done for the whole dropping people due to Cancer, or denying coverage to folks with preexisting medical conditions. Otherwise, our system is set up for people to fail miserably, and our politicians could give two sh&ts less.........

Because I lived there for 4 years and had a child born there, I think we should mock the German healthcare system. Yes, Germany is a Socialist country, but it works quite well. We can all kid ourselves, but eventually everyone will need to go to the doctor. For those who decide not to insure themselves, once they break their arm over the weekend and have to go to the ER, their SOL because eventually the bill will come to them by mail. That's why I think its not a bad idea for a public type of healthcare option, or even for a Government offered plan for people making $8.00 an hour with one or two kids because this would prevent doctors from not being able to receive their money.....

It easy to poke fingers at the less fortunate, a person can either succeed or fail in a Capitalistic society. Its too easy to succeed and certain choices and bad luck can make you fail quickly. I have no sympathy for people who abuse the system and live on welfare, I witnessed it first hand back in high school while working at a grocery store. I would see people purchase their groceries with food stamps only to have their groceries loaded into a Lincoln Navigator....But I do have sympathy for people who are just not fortunate in life. Some people just have bad luck, made some dumb choices early in life, are physically handicapped, had a spouse injured on the job and get sucked dry for lawyer fees to legally battle the employer, etc. Those are the people who I feel should be able to get help when the times get hard. I hope something positive will come from this Congress, and not just Republican politics aimed at giving two sh%ts less about the lower class, to keep the money flow from the lobbyists, and for their next reelection...

sappstuf
2/1/2011, 03:21 PM
Do homeowners get tax credits/subsidies/programs not available to those that do not own their homes?

Therein lies your answer.

If you choose to rent a home for $1000/month you will pay considerably more in income taxes(penalty) than if you have a $1000/month mortgage.

Small business owners get tax credits/subsidies/programs that are not available to those that do not own their own businesses... What is your point?

No one is being forced to participate in anything they do not want to like Obamacare.

TitoMorelli
2/1/2011, 03:37 PM
Do homeowners get tax credits/subsidies/programs not available to those that do not own their homes?

Therein lies your answer.

If you choose to rent a home for $1000/month you will pay considerably more in income taxes(penalty) than if you have a $1000/month mortgage.

Is an adult child who moves back in with his parents after graduation and pays nothing for room and board forced to pay any penalty to the government for not having a home with mortgage?

(describing a typical whorn grad, of course) :D

bonkuba
2/1/2011, 03:42 PM
Unconstitutional per U.S. District judge----Law VOID


Actually Obama anything makes me want to void my bowels...does that count? :D

SpankyNek
2/1/2011, 03:43 PM
Small business owners get tax credits/subsidies/programs that are not available to those that do not own their own businesses... What is your point?

No one is being forced to participate in anything they do not want to like Obamacare.

I guess I should have truncated your original quote to perpetuate conversational flow.


But what if the government decided that it would be good for everyone in the country to own a home? After all, home ownership is a good thing right?

But you didn't want to buy a home. So instead the federal government forces you to pay a penalty for refusing to buy a home so that services to buy a home will be available to you in the future.

If Obamacare is constitutional, what would/could stop mandatory homeownership being passed by congress?

My statement above was simply stating that the Federal Government has already made these things (Home ownership, or as you mentioned, small business ownership) mandatory to avoid tax penalty. It can be argued that those of us that do not own homes are not being penalized, rather home owners are being rewarded, but it's mainly semantics.

Allowing all who want to be treated to have access to VA clinics and hospitals (Or other government run entities) would have been my preferred resolution. Or simply putting a price tag on Medicaid services, and allowing anyone to purchase it if they so choose..(The price tag would see great reduction with additional subscribers...we all tend to forget that that the health insurance industry is a profitable venture)

SpankyNek
2/1/2011, 03:47 PM
Is an adult child who moves back in with his parents after graduation and pays nothing for room and board forced to pay any penalty to the government for not having a home with mortgage?

(describing a typical whorn grad, of course) :D

At this point, he would not see any benefit.

However.

I would like to see "Civil Contract Status" applied to all who share a household.

REDREX
2/1/2011, 03:52 PM
I guess I should have truncated your original quote to perpetuate conversational flow.



My statement above was simply stating that the Federal Government has already made these things (Home ownership, or as you mentioned, small business ownership) mandatory to avoid tax penalty. It can be argued that those of us that do not own homes are not being penalized, rather home owners are being rewarded, but it's mainly semantics.

Allowing all who want to be treated to have access to VA clinics and hospitals (Or other government run entities) would have been my preferred resolution. Or simply putting a price tag on Medicaid services, and allowing anyone to purchase it if they so choose..(The price tag would see great reduction with additional subscribers...we all tend to forget that that the health insurance industry is a profitable venture)-I own a home and have no mortgage how am I being "rewarded " by the Gov't ?

SpankyNek
2/1/2011, 03:56 PM
-I own a home and have no mortgage how am I being "rewarded " by the Gov't ?

You can write off improvements, energy efficient appliance upgrades, rent your home to section 8 folks, etc...

In addition, you were able to get subsidy during your mortgage period.

SpankyNek
2/1/2011, 03:56 PM
You can write off improvements, energy efficient appliance upgrades, rent your home to section 8 folks, etc...

In addition, you were able to get subsidy during your mortgage period.

None of these are available to lessees.

REDREX
2/1/2011, 03:58 PM
You can write off improvements, energy efficient appliance upgrades, rent your home to section 8 folks, etc...

In addition, you were able to get subsidy during your mortgage period.---I never had a mortgage period----and how do I write off improvements?

OutlandTrophy
2/1/2011, 03:59 PM
Where do you renters send your penalty check for renting an not owning? Do you mail it to the IRS or just deduct it from any refund owed?

OutlandTrophy
2/1/2011, 04:02 PM
can a homeowner simply wait a few months for their lease to run out and then move to a new city like a renter can?

okie52
2/1/2011, 04:04 PM
---I never had a mortgage period----and how do I write off improvements?

Dadgum oily.

SpankyNek
2/1/2011, 04:08 PM
---I never had a mortgage period----and how do I write off improvements?

Tax Deductions for Home Improvements


Interest and Points on Home Improvement Loans:

Interest paid, on a home equity loan or a home equity line of credit availed for the purpose of making capital improvements on the home, are fully tax deductible. Capital improvements are those that increase the worth of the home, prolong its depreciable life or adapt it to new uses. Points purchased for obtaining a home improvement loan, at a favorable rate of interest, are also fully tax deductible provided the following conditions are met:

The loan or the line of credit is secured by the main home

Points purchased are in accordance with the established practice of buying points

Points purchased were not more than the points usually paid for availing such loans

The tax payer uses the tax method of accounting



Expenses on Home Improvements on account of Medical Reasons:

Medical expenses, that one pays for oneself, one's spouse and dependents, qualify for tax deductions. Home improvements, that have been undertaken for medical reasons, also qualify as medical expenses and are thus tax deductible. For instance, people suffering from heart ailments can install an elevator in the house, to avoid climbing the stairs, and can claim a tax deduction citing medical reasons. Improving the home’s air filtration system by installing central air-conditioning or removing a drywall that may be damp and moldy can help abate the symptoms of asthma in people experiencing breathing difficulty. The doctor may have to provide a letter stating the necessity of making these improvements. All reasonable costs, incurred to accommodate a handicapped individual, qualify for deductions. Constructing entrance and exit ramps for the home and widening the doorway at the entrance and the exit to the home in order to help handicapped people living in the home; installing railings and support bars along stairway and in the bathroom; modifying the kitchen to make it easily accessible to people with disabilities; modifying electric outlets and fixtures; installing lifts and leveling the ground are some of the capital expenses that are deductible.

Expenses for home improvement - Increase in the value of the home because of improvements = Amount that qualifies for a tax deduction

This is in addition to tax credits that can be obtained by improving energy star ratings.

SpankyNek
2/1/2011, 04:11 PM
Where do you renters send your penalty check for renting an not owning? Do you mail it to the IRS or just deduct it from any refund owed?

Renters simply do not qualify for specific credits and write-offs.

Does a lessor reimburse the lessee for this?

It is, again, a matter of semantics as to what we are labeling a penalty.

REDREX
2/1/2011, 04:11 PM
Tax Deductions for Home Improvements - Home Improvement Tax Deductions

Interest and Points on Home Improvement Loans: Interest paid, on a home equity loan or a home equity line of credit availed for the purpose of making capital improvements on the home, are fully tax deductible. Capital improvements are those that increase the worth of the home, prolong its depreciable life or adapt it to new uses. Points purchased for obtaining a home improvement loan, at a favorable rate of interest, are also fully tax deductible provided the following conditions are met:
The loan or the line of credit is secured by the main home
Points purchased are in accordance with the established practice of buying points
Points purchased were not more than the points usually paid for availing such loans
The tax payer uses the tax method of accounting
Expenses on Home Improvements on account of Medical Reasons: Medical expenses, that one pays for oneself, one's spouse and dependents, qualify for tax deductions. Home improvements, that have been undertaken for medical reasons, also qualify as medical expenses and are thus tax deductible. For instance, people suffering from heart ailments can install an elevator in the house, to avoid climbing the stairs, and can claim a tax deduction citing medical reasons. Improving the home’s air filtration system by installing central air-conditioning or removing a drywall that may be damp and moldy can help abate the symptoms of asthma in people experiencing breathing difficulty. The doctor may have to provide a letter stating the necessity of making these improvements. All reasonable costs, incurred to accommodate a handicapped individual, qualify for deductions. Constructing entrance and exit ramps for the home and widening the doorway at the entrance and the exit to the home in order to help handicapped people living in the home; installing railings and support bars along stairway and in the bathroom; modifying the kitchen to make it easily accessible to people with disabilities; modifying electric outlets and fixtures; installing lifts and leveling the ground are some of the capital expenses that are deductible.

Expenses for home improvement - Increase in the value of the home because of improvements = Amount that qualifies for a tax deduction

This is in addition to tax credits that can be obtained by improving energy star ratings.---Great----None of those things apply to me--I did get a new roof show me how to deduct that

SoonerNate
2/1/2011, 04:13 PM
edit

SpankyNek
2/1/2011, 04:16 PM
---Great----None of those things apply to me--I did get a new roof show me how to deduct that

If you used an energy star rated shingle or metal roof here is some info:

Qualified roof products reflect more of the sun's rays, which can lower roof surface temperature by up to 100F, decreasing the amount of heat transferred into your home.


Tax Credit Amount: 10% of the cost, up to $500
Requirements
"Metal roofs with appropriate pigmented coatings" and "asphalt roofs with appropriate cooling granules" that also meet ENERGY STAR requirements.

Tax Credit does NOT include installation costs.

sappstuf
2/1/2011, 04:16 PM
I guess I should have truncated your original quote to perpetuate conversational flow.



My statement above was simply stating that the Federal Government has already made these things (Home ownership, or as you mentioned, small business ownership) mandatory to avoid tax penalty. It can be argued that those of us that do not own homes are not being penalized, rather home owners are being rewarded, but it's mainly semantics.

Allowing all who want to be treated to have access to VA clinics and hospitals (Or other government run entities) would have been my preferred resolution. Or simply putting a price tag on Medicaid services, and allowing anyone to purchase it if they so choose..(The price tag would see great reduction with additional subscribers...we all tend to forget that that the health insurance industry is a profitable venture)

Mandatory? Sounds like having babies is mandatory under your system. I'm sure the pro-choice crowd won't be happy about that.

REDREX
2/1/2011, 04:19 PM
If you used an energy star rated shingle or metal roof here is some info:

Qualified roof products reflect more of the sun's rays, which can lower roof surface temperature by up to 100F, decreasing the amount of heat transferred into your home.


Tax Credit Amount: 10% of the cost, up to $500
Requirements
"Metal roofs with appropriate pigmented coatings" and "asphalt roofs with appropriate cooling granules" that also meet ENERGY STAR requirements.

Tax Credit does NOT include installation costs.---What a deal I put on a $30,000 roof and I can get a $500 tax credit

SCOUT
2/1/2011, 04:21 PM
Renters simply do not qualify for specific credits and write-offs.

Does a lessor reimburse the lessee for this?

It is, again, a matter of semantics as to what we are labeling a penalty.

So are property taxes a reward for home ownership too? I recognize that it is a state tax vs. federal but taxes are taxes.

OutlandTrophy
2/1/2011, 04:22 PM
Renters simply do not qualify for specific credits and write-offs.

Does a lessor reimburse the lessee for this?

It is, again, a matter of semantics as to what we are labeling a penalty.

it's not semantics. In Obamacare you will have to mail the IRS a check if you don't want insurance.

If renters had to mail the IRS a check it would then be similar to the person not wanting insurance having to mail the IRS a check.

Saul Good
2/1/2011, 04:38 PM
Im not ususally a big fan of stupid e-mails but I just received this one today and thought it was somewhat appropriate for this thread. Did not fact check so don't jump on me. Just made me chuckle so I thought I would share. Enjoy!!

Let me get this straight . . . . We're going to be 'gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't. Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says that he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that did not read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare all to be overseen by a Surgeon General who is OBESE, and financed by a country that is BROKE! What the **** could possibly go wrong?!?

Saul Good
2/1/2011, 04:39 PM
Also want to add that there is a HUGE difference in my book between tax incentives and plain old taxation. Its a lot more than just semantics.

soonerscuba
2/1/2011, 04:48 PM
If I want wildly inaccurate musings and complaining, I'll open the 10 emails I get a day from my aunt.

Saul Good
2/1/2011, 04:50 PM
If I want wildly inaccurate musings and complaining, I'll open the 10 emails I get a day from my aunt.

Touche. Although I see a lot more I know is correct than is inaccurate.

TheHumanAlphabet
2/1/2011, 04:52 PM
Love it! Oblahmacare is dead.

Bourbon St Sooner
2/1/2011, 05:05 PM
Im not ususally a big fan of stupid e-mails but I just received this one today and thought it was somewhat appropriate for this thread. Did not fact check so don't jump on me. Just made me chuckle so I thought I would share. Enjoy!!

Let me get this straight . . . . We're going to be 'gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't. Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says that he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that did not read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare all to be overseen by a Surgeon General who is OBESE, and financed by a country that is BROKE! What the **** could possibly go wrong?!?


This should be its own thread. And when you post it, USE A LOT OF CAPS. People like scuba LOVE this sort of THING.

SoonerNate
2/1/2011, 05:16 PM
Love it! Oblahmacare is dead.

Isn't it great?

And they call him a "constitutional scholar" LOL

soonerscuba
2/1/2011, 06:51 PM
Isn't it great?

And they call him a "constitutional scholar" LOLUnlike you who obviously knows how bills are drafted and passed through the legislative process as evidenced by this post.

soonerscuba
2/1/2011, 06:55 PM
This should be its own thread. And when you post it, USE A LOT OF CAPS. People like scuba LOVE this sort of THING.See, I heard that the reason his China trip was 1 billion dollars a day is because he is actually recruiting an ARMY of IRS AGENTS who are also CHINESE spies so that he can AUTOCRATICALLY bring down America.

SpankyNek
2/1/2011, 08:07 PM
it's not semantics. In Obamacare you will have to mail the IRS a check if you don't want insurance.

If renters had to mail the IRS a check it would then be similar to the person not wanting insurance having to mail the IRS a check.

I believe you have the option to defer it to your tax refund...if you properly calculate your withholding, you will not have to mail in any extra payments.

SoonerNate
2/1/2011, 09:08 PM
Unlike you who obviously knows how bills are drafted and passed through the legislative process as evidenced by this post.

You gonna be okay?

jkjsooner
2/1/2011, 10:53 PM
Then why even have a court if everything becomes so cut and dried? Either the government has no business in any of our business, or it has business in all of it. Seems to me that's where such logic lead

I'm just not sure I agree that we can compare legal drinking age with compulsory purchase of health insurance as being the same kind of issue.

I agree they're not the "same kind of issue" but such gut feelings should not sway judges lest they be guilty of judicial activism.

One is a little harder to swallow but I can't find anything in the Constitution that would make one within the scope of the federal government and the other not within the scope.

As far as I can tell (and I could be wrong) the question is the role of the federal government. In both the federal government uses a trick (taxation and spending) to push an agenda. If they can do it in one place they can do it in the other.

OutlandTrophy
2/2/2011, 12:03 PM
I believe you have the option to defer it to your tax refund...if you properly calculate your withholding, you will not have to mail in any extra payments.

that's like saying that you don't pay federal income taxes because they get taken out of your paychecks.

jkjsooner
2/2/2011, 02:19 PM
that's like saying that you don't pay federal income taxes because they get taken out of your paychecks.

I believe answer was in the context of your question:


Where do you renters send your penalty check for renting an not owning? Do you mail it to the IRS or just deduct it from any refund owed?

You implied that the two are different. Spanky pointed out that they are essentially the same. Both are simply part of your tax calculation. Nobody is sending a separate check for either. All of these things are part of the larger formula. At the end you either send a check for taxes owed or you get a refund.

StoopTroup
2/2/2011, 04:27 PM
Small business owners get tax credits/subsidies/programs that are not available to those that do not own their own businesses... What is your point?

No one is being forced to participate in anything they do not want to like Obamacare.

One thing I find sad is that many politicians say they are for small business but the small business gets a lot less break than say a huge Corporation that cuts a deal for bring a few jobs into a State. If the playing field for Corporations and Small Businesses were the same you'd see things get better IMO and if you had a playing field that was the same as a Business in China....the Corporations and Small Businesses in American would do better. Of course there might be a time where many of the current Businesses might have some trouble with the change in the climate of competition.....

We are at War with these other Countries now. We borrow money for our debt after selling off all of our Manufacturing to them. Energy Providers are rich after feeding off our excess and now we need them to help get our Country back on track. After we began using cheap power in our Country by building dams and nuclear power....our Country flourished. Now oil and coal are very expensive and energy is a huge expense for many Companies. It's hard to believe that we are selling off our Country instead of finding ways to bring cheap Power to the backbone of our Country.

pphilfran
2/2/2011, 04:47 PM
One thing I find sad is that many politicians say they are for small business but the small business gets a lot less break than say a huge Corporation that cuts a deal for bring a few jobs into a State. If the playing field for Corporations and Small Businesses were the same you'd see things get better IMO and if you had a playing field that was the same as a Business in China....the Corporations and Small Businesses in American would do better. Of course there might be a time where many of the current Businesses might have some trouble with the change in the climate of competition.....

We are at War with these other Countries now. We borrow money for our debt after selling off all of our Manufacturing to them. Energy Providers are rich after feeding off our excess and now we need them to help get our Country back on track. After we began using cheap power in our Country by building dams and nuclear power....our Country flourished. Now oil and coal are very expensive and energy is a huge expense for many Companies. It's hard to believe that we are selling off our Country instead of finding ways to bring cheap Power to the backbone of our Country.

EIA's cost projections in 2016...Coal is anything but expensive...only NG is cheaper...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo10/electricity_generation.html


http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/eleccost.jpg

StoopTroup
2/2/2011, 04:59 PM
Do you have the chart that compares US Coal to Chinese Coal prices?

pphilfran
2/2/2011, 05:04 PM
Do you have the chart that compares US Coal to Chinese Coal prices?

Nope...but cost should be similar...

StoopTroup
2/2/2011, 05:12 PM
Nope...but cost should be similar...

I guess it must be if you consider who's actually paying for it. My theory is that if the Gov't is subsidising you in China....the playing field isn't the same. Beleive what you want.


Using various measures such as tax reductions, rebates, fiscal subsidies, greater access to credit, and direct government expenditures, China is targeting almost all sectors of the economy: real estate/construction, transportation and power infrastructure, agriculture, social services, heavy and light industry, Sichuan earthquake reconstruction, technology advancement, and rural development. In light of the government’s goals for energy security and energy efficiency, China is using its stimulus package through vehicles such as tax breaks, advantageous lending rates, and a foreign exchange fund to encourage state-owned oil companies to expand upstream investments abroad, increase downstream refining capacity, and augment crude and oil product stockpiles.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/Background.html

pphilfran
2/2/2011, 05:22 PM
I guess it must be if you consider who's actually paying for it. My theory is that if the Gov't is subsidising you in China....the playing field isn't the same. Beleive what you want.


What's that got to do with the cost of coal in China...:O

I thought yourr point was that coal was expensive...it is not...though as far as China is concerned I am sure their cost will be somewhat lower...regulations are fewer...labor costs less...

Now if your point was that electrical costs are higher here then that is a completely different animal to discuss...

pphilfran
2/2/2011, 05:23 PM
Now, what "cheap" power do you suggest to switch over to?

StoopTroup
2/2/2011, 05:31 PM
What's that got to do with the cost of coal in China...:O

I thought yourr point was that coal was expensive...it is not...though as far as China is concerned I am sure their cost will be somewhat lower...regulations are fewer...labor costs less...

Now if your point was that electrical costs are higher here they that is a completely different animal to discuss...

Companies in the US who are in direct competition with a similar Chinese Manufacturer do not compete at the same levels. Throw out the thought that Chinese Labor is cheaper idea....the amount they pay to produce their products are cheaper than what US Companies have to spend. Now....this may not be true in every case but don't think that the Chinese aren't hacking away at everyone of our Companies that stand in their way. Bottom line for me is that we continue as a Country to let many of these Companies die instead of find ways to combat losing. Our products usually are better made and will last longer than anything we see them make and yet we continue to lose our hold on many things we should protect. Once the jobs are gone....they are gone forever. Sad.

pphilfran
2/2/2011, 05:47 PM
Companies in the US who are in direct competition with a similar Chinese Manufacturer do not compete at the same levels. Throw out the thought that Chinese Labor is cheaper idea....the amount they pay to produce their products are cheaper than what US Companies have to spend. Now....this may not be true in every case but don't think that the Chinese aren't hacking away at everyone of our Companies that stand in their way. Bottom line for me is that we continue as a Country to let many of these Companies die instead of find ways to combat losing. Our products usually are better made and will last longer than anything we see them make and yet we continue to lose our hold on many things we should protect. Once the jobs are gone....they are gone forever. Sad.

It sounds to me like you have concerns about some trade agreements and tariffs...

If so, we are in agreement...

They walk a fine line when signing those agreements...

We want the emerging markets to grow and want our products...we want to suck some money from outside sources for a change...

I have no details about any trade agreements...though it looks as though they tend to favor the other guy more often than not...

okie52
2/2/2011, 05:56 PM
Companies in the US who are in direct competition with a similar Chinese Manufacturer do not compete at the same levels. Throw out the thought that Chinese Labor is cheaper idea....the amount they pay to produce their products are cheaper than what US Companies have to spend. Now....this may not be true in every case but don't think that the Chinese aren't hacking away at everyone of our Companies that stand in their way. Bottom line for me is that we continue as a Country to let many of these Companies die instead of find ways to combat losing. Our products usually are better made and will last longer than anything we see them make and yet we continue to lose our hold on many things we should protect. Once the jobs are gone....they are gone forever. Sad.

Well the Chinese have a government that is working with their industries...not against them. The US has the largest coal reserves in the world and it is still "conventionally" the cheapest energy source on the planet. China and India are building a new coal plant every week. China just put 4 nukes on line in the last few years....The US...none in the last 30 years. China is trying to tap all of its energy sources while the US has had 2/3 of its offshore reserves untouched for over 30 years.

US labor isn't going to compete with $1 a day labor...he11, they won't compete with illegal labor in this country at 50 times that rate.

pphilfran
2/2/2011, 05:59 PM
Well the Chinese have a government that is working with their industries...not against them. The US has the largest coal reserves in the world and it is still "conventionally" the cheapest energy source on the planet. China and India are building a new coal plant every week. China just put 4 nukes on line in the last few years....The US...none in the last 30 years. China is trying to tap all of its energy sources while the US has had 2/3 of its offshore reserves untouched for over 30 years.

US labor isn't going to compete with $1 a day labor...he11, they won't compete with illegal labor in this country at 50 times that rate.

I love you man...

OutlandTrophy
2/2/2011, 06:02 PM
I believe answer was in the context of your question:



You implied that the two are different. Spanky pointed out that they are essentially the same. Both are simply part of your tax calculation. Nobody is sending a separate check for either. All of these things are part of the larger formula. At the end you either send a check for taxes owed or you get a refund.

I don't understand how you think not getting a discount is the same thing as paying a penalty.:confused:

StoopTroup
2/2/2011, 06:30 PM
Well the Chinese have a government that is working with their industries...not against them. The US has the largest coal reserves in the world and it is still "conventionally" the cheapest energy source on the planet. China and India are building a new coal plant every week. China just put 4 nukes on line in the last few years....The US...none in the last 30 years. China is trying to tap all of its energy sources while the US has had 2/3 of its offshore reserves untouched for over 30 years.

US labor isn't going to compete with $1 a day labor...he11, they won't compete with illegal labor in this country at 50 times that rate.

Labor rates have little to do with products that are made by machines.

StoopTroup
2/2/2011, 06:32 PM
It sounds to me like you have concerns about some trade agreements and tariffs...

If so, we are in agreement...

They walk a fine line when signing those agreements...

We want the emerging markets to grow and want our products...we want to suck some money from outside sources for a change...

I have no details about any trade agreements...though it looks as though they tend to favor the other guy more often than not...

Well....yes. But we also could talk about how we've given away nearly every lo to mid tech job in America too. This all got really out of hand when outsourcing began.

okie52
2/2/2011, 06:54 PM
Labor rates have little to do with products that are made by machines.

Ya think?

And what industries that we are losing are not saddled with labor costs?

StoopTroup
2/2/2011, 07:34 PM
Ya think?

And what industries that we are losing are not saddled with labor costs?

Go down to Wally World....pick an aisle and then point to a product.

StoopTroup
2/2/2011, 07:39 PM
Back to Obamacare....

Thank God for places like St. Judes or we'd have a ton of John Q's.

http://torontoist.com/attachments/toronto_davidf/2009_0707_johnq.jpg

okie52
2/2/2011, 07:52 PM
Go down to Wally World....pick an aisle and then point to a product.

And, which of those products don't involve labor costs? Domestic products have a built-in advantage because of shipping costs but that isn't going to beat huge labor differentials.

Guess what "labor", equipment and materials we export to China?

Good ole oilies, and their technical expertise, rigs, muds, chemicals, pipelines, etc...

The US still has the best explorationists in the world but often they have to go to other countries to prove it.

StoopTroup
2/2/2011, 07:58 PM
And, which of those products don't involve labor costs? Domestic products have a built-in advantage because of shipping costs but that isn't going to beat huge labor differentials.

Guess what "labor", equipment and materials we export to China?

Good ole oilies, and their technical expertise, rigs, muds, chemicals, pipelines, etc...

The US still has the best explorationists in the world but often they have to go to other countries to prove it.

Your pet rock. I'm not going to argue with folks who work in the energy business. Please don't think I'm trying to put you guys in jeopardy....what you all do is not what I'm argueing. I just think many folks would be able to create more start ups and really have a better way to compete with China Companies. If Explorationist need to leave to get a job....that's one thing. If you leave so you can make enough dough that you don't have to work when you come back....that's your choice. I know plenty of folks in my own field who have left the US because of greed instead of a steady job. There are no steady jobs that once you get on....you can expect to retire from. It's a thing of the past. We really are argueing about how the US has failed to compete and instead has moved to make as much dough as fast as possible with as little risk as possible. Problem is...when prices rise....the money you made when you started might not be worth as much either. It's all a crap shoot. Our Country is being swindled.

okie52
2/2/2011, 08:46 PM
Your pet rock. I'm not going to argue with folks who work in the energy business. Please don't think I'm trying to put you guys in jeopardy....what you all do is not what I'm argueing. I just think many folks would be able to create more start ups and really have a better way to compete with China Companies. If Explorationist need to leave to get a job....that's one thing. If you leave so you can make enough dough that you don't have to work when you come back....that's your choice. I know plenty of folks in my own field who have left the US because of greed instead of a steady job. There are no steady jobs that once you get on....you can expect to retire from. It's a thing of the past. We really are argueing about how the US has failed to compete and instead has moved to make as much dough as fast as possible with as little risk as possible. Problem is...when prices rise....the money you made when you started might not be worth as much either. It's all a crap shoot. Our Country is being swindled.


We may be talking around each other. I am for our government protecting domestic industries from other countries whose governments manipulate their currency or subsidize their industries to create artificially low prices to saturate (and capture) a market. I would be for our government to do the same thing with labor wages if they could get the rest of the world to sign on to such an agreement but emerging economies won't do it (kind of like cap and trade).

So you are left IMO with labor in this country being forced to specialize and/or provide unique services that will not be readily subject to competition from emerging economies.

StoopTroup
2/2/2011, 09:20 PM
We may be talking around each other. I am for our government protecting domestic industries from other countries whose governments manipulate their currency or subsidize their industries to create artificially low prices to saturate (and capture) a market. I would be for our government to do the same thing with labor wages if they could get the rest of the world to sign on to such an agreement but emerging economies won't do it (kind of like cap and trade).

So you are left IMO with labor in this country being forced to specialize and/or provide unique services that will not be readily subject to competition from emerging economies.

We really are pretty close as far as what we think is wrong. I could help you figure out the rest. You be a good guy to help me when I take over the world. :D ;)

okie52
2/2/2011, 09:43 PM
We really are pretty close as far as what we think is wrong. I could help you figure out the rest. You be a good guy to help me when I take over the world. :D ;)

Sure, as I just want to rule a few countries;)

SoonerNate
2/3/2011, 03:01 AM
Must suck to have your signature Presidential feat go completely up in flames as unconstitutional when the only job you've ever held was as a constitutional professor!

No public option for you KC.

soonercoop1
2/3/2011, 07:23 PM
Must suck to have your signature Presidential feat go completely up in flames as unconstitutional when the only job you've ever held was as a constitutional professor!

No public option for you KC.

Doesn't seem to matter as all the liberal/progressives in power are just ignoring the ruling thus ignoring the rule of law...sedition?

StoopTroup
2/3/2011, 08:18 PM
Must suck to have your signature Presidential feat go completely up in flames as unconstitutional when the only job you've ever held was as a constitutional professor!

No public option for you KC.

There's more than one opinion out there Nate. It's funny to see so many idiots run around calling it unconstitutional once they have one Judge in the Country make a decision. You help make a case for you being a Communist. :D

Curly Bill
2/3/2011, 08:37 PM
Must suck to have your signature Presidential feat go completely up in flames as unconstitutional when the only job you've ever held was as a constitutional professor!

No public option for you KC.


Now, come on Nate, you're being unfair. Don't forget that Brack has also been a community organizer, and isn't the USA sorta just one really big community? ;)

StoopTroup
2/3/2011, 09:10 PM
I think Curly should run for Office in South Central. I'd like to see footage of him on a baby kissing, hand shaking campaign there. :D Nate....you should go with him....lol ;)

Curly Bill
2/3/2011, 09:15 PM
I think Curly should run for Office in South Central. I'd like to see footage of him on a baby kissing, hand shaking campaign there. :D Nate....you should go with him....lol ;)

Curly doesn't go anywhere with a regional-sounding name like South Central. And if he did he'd be packin as much heat as his permit allowed him...and I don't think there is a limit. ;)