Toe Jam Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 There's no way Palin wrote that. Too many big words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) My question to Conservatives, is Justice Roberts the Constitutional expert that the Right proclaimed him to be? If so then, maybe his interpretation is the correct one. Nah....couldn't be. Edited June 28, 2012 by AsburySkinsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcl05 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I really don't get how this encourages companies to drop insurance for their employees. It seems to explicitly penalize them for doing so. They didn't generally do it when there weren't penalties, so why would they now that there are? Is there something real that I'm missing, or are the right-wingers just talking nonsense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 If at this late date you think Obama is a liberal much less a socialist, you really aren't subject to reality and thus should not effect the debate at all. You are going to twitch when they poke the vodoo doll and vote GOP and go back to your dark damp hole in the ground and lement some makebelieve occurance...The dirty little secret nobody is taliking about is liberals in the democratic party are pretty unhappy with Obama. He's basically a competent Bush. Don't get me wrong that's better than the incompetent Bush, But it still makes him pragmatic and right leaning guy as head of a centrist left leaning party. The flip side to this is Mitt Romney who first ran for Senator in Ma to the left of Ted Kennedy, and was a pro choice, pro gay rights governor of one of the most liberal states (common wealth) in the uniion. A left of center moderate guy at the head of the right wing party. It seems to me if you voted on these guys records, Mitt makes a stronger Democratic case and Obama makes a better Republican case.... Which is why I say Americans today don't vote based upon the candidates. This election cycle for most Americans is purely driven by their distrust and loathing for the other party. A competent Bush? What makes you see President Obama as a Competent Bush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I really don't get how this encourages companies to drop insurance for their employees. It seems to explicitly penalize them for doing so. They didn't generally do it when there weren't penalties, so why would they now that there are? Is there something real that I'm missing, or are the right-wingers just talking nonsense? I'm wondering the same thing. I always thought companies offering insurance was an incentive to attract employees. Why would they get rid of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I really don't get how this encourages companies to drop insurance for their employees. It seems to explicitly penalize them for doing so. They didn't generally do it when there weren't penalties, so why would they now that there are? Is there something real that I'm missing, or are the right-wingers just talking nonsense? Now when have they ever been known to do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I'm wondering the same thing. I always thought companies offering insurance was an incentive to attract employees. Why would they get rid of it? But see, the Rightwing talking points say that companies (whom we're suppoesed to trust BTW) are going to drop their employee coverage rather than provide better coverage as an incentive to recruit and retain talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I really don't get how this encourages companies to drop insurance for their employees. It seems to explicitly penalize them for doing so. They didn't generally do it when there weren't penalties, so why would they now that there are? Is there something real that I'm missing, or are the right-wingers just talking nonsense? I submit that you just did an excellent job of answering your own question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 But see, the Rightwing talking points say that companies (whom we're suppoesed to trust BTW) are going to drop their employee coverage rather than provide better coverage as an incentive to recruit and retain talent. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) It will slam every business owner and every one of the 50% of Americans who currently pay their taxes. ... so 50% of Americans don't pay their taxes? Edited June 28, 2012 by Henry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I love days like these.. I've been following the Supreme Court rulings, precedents, etc. closely for 4 years. I'll throw it out there that I seriously thought of mounting some type of lawsuit against the Treasury Department for the TARP and the Federal Reserve for some of their programs [and after all these years while convinced I could achieve some type of legal victory, it would turn out to be phyrric vicotry, as Congress clearly doesn't care about the Constitution, either side... they care about getting re-elected and would defend those involved]. Hence, my interest in understanding the legal system, the courts, etc. I find it funny to see people throwing knip-fits. They struck down the individual mandate and the fact that the government could force you to each broccoli. Roberts did a number of things to narrow the opinion, and leave Obamacare in place. I have a harder time buying the argument that "Congress never intended this as a tax" when they wrote the IRS as enforcing the law. Additionally it seems like the dissent focuses on the fact that the law is bad policy, and when combined with severing the penalties for the states participation in Medicare create a slew of issues... but it's always in Congress' court to fix these things, and not the Courts! Either way, after the Arizona case I said "impeach John Roberts!" for siding with the liberals... it's funny that maybe we'll be hearing more of that refrain (probably tongue in cheek). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 ... so 50% of Americans don't pay their taxes? Its Palin we're talking about here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) I'm wondering the same thing. I always thought companies offering insurance was an incentive to attract employees. Why would they get rid of it? I am also trying to figure out the logic in this one (and several of my Facebook friends have made the same claim). It's as if some people are hoping this would happen, just out of spite. Presumably, this is a talking point on some conservative TV or radio show, and their audience is just parroting what they hear. ---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 08:17 PM ---------- ... so 50% of Americans don't pay their taxes? Apparently state and payroll taxes aren't, in fact, taxes, in their world. Edited June 28, 2012 by Baculus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I am also trying to figure out the logic in this one (and several of my Facebook friends have made the same claim). It's as if some people are hoping this would happen, just out of spite.Presumably, this is a talking point on some conservative TV or radio show, and their audience is just parroting what they hear. ---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 08:17 PM ---------- Apparently state and payroll taxes aren't, in fact, taxes, in their world. Ok, so here's the theory behind it: Supposedly the penalty for not offering insurance is less than the cost to the company of providing insurance. So, companies will choose to pay the penalty and not offer insurance to their employees. There are tons of holes in this theory. For instance, that employees won't go to jobs that offer insurance. Or that people won't be able to buy insurance on the exchange even if this happens. But, its the theory that the GOP likes to throw out there, so that's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 ... so 50% of Americans don't pay their taxes? She's presumably talking about the job creating Americans (and corporations) who hide income offshore and have no tax liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBnotBlades Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I am also trying to figure out the logic in this one (and several of my Facebook friends have made the same claim). It's as if some people are hoping this would happen, just out of spite.Presumably, this is a talking point on some conservative TV or radio show, and their audience is just parroting what they hear. I've been trying to ask this question to every conservative who might be able to give me an answer, but no luck thus far. I realize now that it has to come from twisting some portion of the law out of context, but I can't figure out what portion that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Ok, so here's the theory behind it:Supposedly the penalty for not offering insurance is less than the cost to the company of providing insurance. So, companies will choose to pay the penalty and not offer insurance to their employees. There are tons of holes in this theory. For instance, that employees won't go to jobs that offer insurance. Or that people won't be able to buy insurance on the exchange even if this happens. But, its the theory that the GOP likes to throw out there, so that's it. I think all of us understand that theory. But its just so bone stupid you kind of think you must be missing something. It's hard to wrap your brain around so many people witlessly repeating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I think all of us understand that theory. But its just so bone stupid you kind of think you must be missing something. It's hard to wrap your brain around so many people witlessly repeating it. There are a lot of dumb people in the world with basic cable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBnotBlades Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Yea, I get what you're saying TSF, but I agree with JilboDMan that there has to me more to it. I mentioned something about it earlier. Wait a second, why would a company who already provides insurance drop their insurance plan once the tax was in place? If they were that concerned with saving money they would have already dropped their insurance plan when there was no tax to pay for doing so, like right now. Also, I keep reading about how the bill will pull people away from their doctors. Does anyone know why that is the case? I thought you would be able to keep whatever health care play you had? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Here's Randy Barnett with some pretty valid points: http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/06/28/randy-barnett-court We understand that you’re claiming victory, too. Why is that? It’s very weird. We won on the two major issues that we litigated in this case. One is that the individual mandate is beyond the power of Congress under the commerce clause. There were five votes; the majority of the court said we were right in every one of our arguments about the commerce clause power. Congress does not have the power to compel an individual to engage in commerce so that they may exercise it. We won on that issue. We also won on the issue of coercion of states. It’s unconstitutional to withhold Medicaid funding if the states don’t agree to expand their Medicaid coverage. That’s the first limit on the spending power that we’ve seen in decades. So we won on these two major issues, and then at the end of the day, the Affordable Care Act is upheld as a tax. The court rewrote the mandate as a tax and allowed it to be enforceable as a tax, so we lose on the outcome. It’s just very weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 "The court rewrote the mandate as a tax and allowed it to be enforceable as a tax, so we lose on the outcome. It’s just very weird." the court didn't re-write anything. they called a spade a spade, even though the administration kept referring to it as a shovel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Ok, so here's the theory behind it:Supposedly the penalty for not offering insurance is less than the cost to the company of providing insurance. So, companies will choose to pay the penalty and not offer insurance to their employees. There are tons of holes in this theory. For instance, that employees won't go to jobs that offer insurance. Or that people won't be able to buy insurance on the exchange even if this happens. But, its the theory that the GOP likes to throw out there, so that's it. That's pretty much what I surmised from conservatives' argument as well on this particular point, but it doesn't really seem to boot their position at all. It also shows why a single-payer system is preferable if the current employee-based one can be undermined whenever a business deems benefits to be expendable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Because the Affordable Care Act, despite its flaws, is better than no Affordable Care Act. The intent of this law is not to compel an individual to engage in commerce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 That's pretty much what I surmised from conservatives' argument as well on this particular point, but it doesn't really seem to boot their position at all. It also shows why a single-payer system is preferable if the current employee-based one can be undermined whenever a business deems benefits to be expendable. All true also. Conservatives have no answer for how to "fix" health care. Actually, Obamacare was their fix until Obama proposed it. Its just a sad story of politics at this point. Anything else is going to be more "liberal" than Obamacare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pez Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Can someone please educate me here, as I understand Obamacare consists of the following: 1 - People with insurance are unaffected 2 - People without insurance that can afford it are penalized (most likely fines/taxes) 3 - People without insurance that cannot afford it are provided with healthcare (fully? or are they given a discounted rate?) Where does the money come for option 3 ? I have heard everything from fines collected from option 2. rom fines levied against companies that don;t offer insurance. Fines levied against insurance companies with high premiums, etc.... whats the real deal? Edited June 28, 2012 by pez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now