JMS

Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

Recommended Posts

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 by AsburySkinsFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Henry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Baculus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by pez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.