Thursday, June 28, 2012

Supreme Court upholds Obamacare

With some provisos, apparently. The Mandate is a "tax", not a requirement to purchase a product (could've fooled me). Despite the fact that Obama emphatically denied it was a tax, in order to provide political cover to get the bill passed...

The federal government can make you buy anything it wants, and just call it a tax. And the Supremes bought it. The Constitution is just an old piece of paper.

Looks like we're going to have to take back our freedoms at the ballot box.

November.

21 comments:

  1. Right. Vote for the guy who beat Obama to ObamaCare in his own state!

    ReplyDelete
  2. So it's a done deal?
    Time to shift some of my portfolio. I am going to attempt to make some fast money on pharmas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a done deal. We're now a step closer to the rest of the civilized world.

      Delete
    2. I sincerely hope you're right, Oleg.
      Let's hope they work out the bugs and get a functional system up... and fast.

      Delete
  3. As I am reading the reports, it seems a lot of people are upset this was a decision made by a court and not the representatives.
    Is this the REAL issue at debate here, perhaps? The issue of presidential power and the power of the courts as opposed to congress and senate?
    The method, as opposed to the law itself?
    If so, I can see why the majority of people would be upset by that. And it explains Dr Egnor's posting when he says "The Constitution is just an old piece of paper. "
    Could they have not put it to a plebiscite or referendum? Is that legal in the US?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “As I am reading the reports, it seems a lot of people are upset this was a decision made by a court and not the representatives.”

      The law was passed by “he representatives you ding-dong.

      -KW

      Delete
    2. The law was passed bt a one-vote margin in the Senate on a strict party-line vote, and it has been wildly unpopular with the American public since. Senators were bribed to vote for it ("Missouri compromise,Louisiana purchase,Cornhusker kickback", etc).

      Most lawmakers who voted for the bill never read it (2700 pages), and Nancy Pelosi, who presumably read it, said we couldn't know what what was in it anyway until it was law.

      The American public threw out the Democrats in 2010 largely because of this scam, and we're gonna throw out a lot more Democrats in November.

      Payback is just beginning.

      Delete
    3. "The law was passed by “he representatives you ding-dong."
      Right you are. I mixed up my branches. Thanks for pointing that out, you dong-dinger.

      Delete
    4. So, what are you gonna do? The repeal vote scheduled for June 11 in the House isn't going anywhere: the Republicans don't have the votes in the Senate and will need a supermajority to overcome a Presidential veto. So this attempt is just for political show.

      Even assuming Romney gets elected in November, his options to dismantle ACA, and also the amount of time to do so, are very limited.

      Delete
    5. Republicans can dismantle ACA by simply refusing to implement and enforce it, just like Obama dismantes immigration law by refusing to enforce it.

      Defund ACA. Refuse to enforce it. We have precedent.

      Delete
    6. You have no idea what you're proposing, Mike, do you?

      Delete
    7. I am not so sure this kind of politics (non implementation) is the sane or moral route. Reform, would seem to me the best way. Put it to the people. Why not have a PUBLIC vote on the repeal, if it is an issue that is so contentious?
      Let the PEOPLE decide directly, then they have no one to blame or credit but themselves.
      That seems the sane and democratic approach to me.
      Just a thought.

      Delete
    8. "You have no idea what you're proposing, Mike, do you?"

      Sure I do, oleg. I've been watching Obama's immigration policy for 3 years.

      Delete
    9. So, do you want to enlighten us with some details of your bold plan? Like who does what?

      Delete
    10. Do exactly what Obama does on immigration.

      Congress refuses to appropriate money to hire the tens of thousands of pencil pushers required for all of the new regulations.

      President Romney issues an executive order barring prosecution of any person or company who violates the ACA.

      Obama has already exempted hundreds of his corporate cronies in the private sector from Obamacare. Just make the exemptions broader. Say, any person or company whose name begins with a letter from A to Z.

      Call it "Amnesty".

      Delete
    11. Oh, I am sure it will work to your satisfaction! LOL

      Delete
    12. Senators were bribed to vote for it ("Missouri compromise,Louisiana purchase,Cornhusker kickback", etc).

      Oh noes!! Legislation was passed using the same tactics used since the founding of the Republic! Surely this will cause catastrophe and cats and dogs living together!

      Delete
  4. Nancy Pelosi, who presumably read it, said we couldn't know what what was in it anyway until it was law.

    No, she didn't. Lucky the Supreme Court decided today that lying was constitutionally protected; otherwise Egnor'd be in trouble.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is slander and libel, Anon? Quit calling people liars. They could be mistaken, misinformed, or just plain wrong. But calling people 'liars' all the time just makes you look like a nut...or worse: A Lawyer.

      Delete
    2. CrusadeRex,

      OK. Michael is usually mistaken, misinformed or just plain wrong, most of the time and often all 3 simultaneously.

      From what I've read, Obama's reform isn't any big deal. It just requires all Americans to have medical insurance, or face financial penalties. When he was campaigning for the Democratic nomination, he was proposing a system similar to Australia's, with a single insurance provider.

      I think he would have done better adopting Australia system (which is similar but more uniform than Canada's). The central federal government funds most of health care (through taxation). The states receive grants from the federal government and run the public hospitals.

      There's also private hospitals, the cost of which can be offset by private health insurance (a previous conservative government made private health insurance virtually compulsory for high income earners such as I by instituting financial penalties if I didn't have it).

      A Medicare levy on income (around 1.5%) covers most of visits to doctors in their private rooms, and also provides a safety net for pharmaceutical prescriptions. Patients are generally required to pay around $30 per script or the cost of the medication, whichever is less. Most people pay the full price for many pharmaceuticals, including oral contraceptives. The idea is that the scheme is to protect people from the cost of very expensive medications, which may cost $1000 a month.

      If a person needs a lot of scripts over a year, then those over 18 are free.

      Australia's healthcare costs 9% of GDP (America's costs 16%) and gives better results.

      Delete
  5. Bach,

    "OK. Michael is usually mistaken, misinformed or just plain wrong, most of the time and often all 3 simultaneously."
    Change that 'usually' to frequently and include ALL of us, and you might be a little closer to the mark.

    "From what I've read, Obama's reform isn't any big deal."
    The Americans sure think it is. But, I think what folks outside the states don't really get is that this debate is more about the methods than the program itself.

    "It just requires all Americans to have medical insurance, or face financial penalties."
    This is a beef I have heard many times: They are being FORCED to by a service.

    "When he was campaigning for the Democratic nomination, he was proposing a system similar to Australia's, with a single insurance provider."
    Actually, I believe the model was the UK's NHS.

    "I think he would have done better adopting Australia system (which is similar but more uniform than Canada's)."
    The problem with that is twofold. Firstly the process for doing so would require a bipartisan support and that is almost impossible these days on any such contentious issue. The second is that the Americans would (rightly so) want a system THEY have designed to suite their demographics and huge population. But, I understand what you mean. I often wonder why the models of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are not examined with proper care by people looking to design an American system.

    As for your description of the Australian system, it does seem like a more centralized version of the Canadian one's.
    Your national system sounds very much like Ontario or Quebec's provincial systems. Perhaps some of the states would benefit from such a system, and others would be better off with a two tier or private system.

    ReplyDelete