AnimeSuki Forums

Xellos-_^ · 2012-06-28, 09:30

Quote:

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the individual health-insurance mandate that is at the heart of President Obama’s landmark health-care law, saying the mandate is permissible under Congress’s taxing authority. The potentially game-changing, election-year decision — a major victory for the White House less than five months before the November elections --will help redefine the power of the national government and affect the health-care choices of millions of Americans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html?hpid=z1

that was surprising

Mr. DJ · 2012-06-28, 09:31

holy crap o_o

Vallen Chaos Valiant · 2012-06-28, 09:57

Looks like the bill will survive, no matter who wins the presidency next.

Romney and the GOP are not actually against the bill; they are just against Obama. That's why the only way they can fight it is to literally attach Obama's name to it. The courts was the main threat, and it's now gone. Guess you really can't fight progress, even if it took America longer than the rest of the Western world.

GDB · 2012-06-28, 10:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Romney and the GOP are not actually against the bill; they are just against Obama. That's why the only way they can fight it is to literally attach Obama's name to it.

Obviously. If Romney had opposed it on its merit instead of "NOBAMAAAAAAAAA", then he'd have cost himself the election instantly. Instituting the same thing in his state that this is based on, but then bashing its merits? Yeah, he'd have been toast. Though it would have been interesting to see exactly how many die-hards the neo-cons had.

**monir** · 2012-06-28, 10:39

I was watching ABC when they interrupted their regular scheduling to bring Diane Swayer to break the news. I just had to change the channel to FOX as soon as it was clear the ACA (Affordable Care Act) was upheld.

They said 250 House Republicans are in a closed-door meeting after the news broke.

It's good victory for Obama considering how much popularity he has lost for pushing this bill into law. It will give him momentum but he still has ways to go till November. And unlike 2008, the opposition will have the money to go toe to toe with him.

GundamFan0083 · 2012-06-28, 11:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

that was surprising

Not really.
Roberts is a Neo-Con, and the mandate was something they've wanted for a long time.
Through a mandated healthcare system the Neo-Cons can (in the future) dictate how you live your life.
You know, do things like declare homosexuality a health hazard and make you pay a penalty for "high-risk" behavior.
Same with promiscuity, or smoking, being over weight, extra-marital sex, or tatooing, or piercing or whatever a Neo-Con controlled government wants to do, and now they have the power to do it.
The mandate is a social-engineer's wet dream.

This is why the law needed to actually be a tax, not a mandate.
Had it been a tax for a health care system that supports the poor instead of a "royal-degree" from the Imperial government to buy a product, it would not be so dangerous.

flying ^ · 2012-06-28, 11:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

that was surprising

only if you don't listen to Rush!

mangamuscle · 2012-06-28, 11:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

... health hazard and make you pay a penalty for "high-risk" behavior.
Same with promiscuity, or smoking, being over weight, extra-marital sex

TBT smoking, alcoholism, being overweight, having high colesterol/diabetes type 2 due to an unhealthy diet ARE health hazards and people should have to pay higher rates to encourage them into a healthier lifestyle. Whether we like it or not goverments have historically shaped human society.

Xagzan · 2012-06-28, 16:44

Can't say I'm surprised they didn't strike the mandate. It was after all, iirc, a condition of the insurance lobby's that it be included - among various other watering down measures they succeeded in getting.

synaesthetic · 2012-06-28, 16:58

Watch even more people refuse medical care now. They don't have insurance, they'll get fined if they get sick without insurance.

Xagzan · 2012-06-28, 17:35

Just heard a curious suggestion, that Roberts might have voted to uphold it, against the will of conservatives, so that people would be more likely to vote for Romney to repeal it. It's a little conspiracy-ish, but I do think there's the possibility of voters on the right being galvanized for the election thanks to this decision.

mangamuscle · 2012-06-28, 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xagzan

Just heard a curious suggestion, that Roberts might have voted to uphold it, against the will of conservatives, so that people would be more likely to vote for Romney to repeal it. It's a little conspiracy-ish, but I do think there's the possibility of voters on the right being galvanized for the election thanks to this decision.

TBT the people that always vote for the right (or the left) mean squat, it is the people that sometimes vote for either party the ones that will really decide the election, so for this theory to have any credibility many of the non decided voters MUST believe all the lies the republicans have said about the health plan.

Autumn Demon · 2012-06-28, 17:44

The Supreme Court ruled that Congress does not have the power to compel people to buy health insurance. Under Obamacare, it is not a criminal offense to choose not to buy health insurance. Those who don't have health insurance have to pay a "shared responsibility payment", which the Supreme Court labeled a tax, not a mandate.

Urzu 7 · 2012-06-28, 17:57

Isn't it the case that a lot of things that are bad about Obamacare were dictated by the GOP? I'm not sure, that is why I'm asking.

Vallen Chaos Valiant · 2012-06-28, 19:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Watch even more people refuse medical care now. They don't have insurance, they'll get fined if they get sick without insurance.

What?

Do you even know what the law means?

If you are destitute, you get medicaid. If you are struggling, you get a rebate from the government to make your health insurance more affordable depending on your income. If you have insurance already you get refunded whatever the insurance company didn't spend spend on your health care because they have a profit cap of 15%. And if you are rich you wouldn't notice anything.

And in this system EVERYONE gets insurance. No one gets refused at all.

SeijiSensei · 2012-06-28, 19:33

I live in Massachusetts, home of RomneyCare. We have a personal mandate enforced through the income tax, as it will be under the ACA. You must either submit a form certifying you have at least the minimum state-mandated insurance, or you must pay a tax in lieu of insurance that buys you mandatory insurance. At 95%, Massachusetts has the highest percentage of its citizens covered by health insurance of any state.

Now I'll say right away that I don't very much like the mandate and would prefer a "single-payer" system that declares health care a citizen's right. I've always thought the Scandinavian view of "universalism" as a basis for social rights makes the most political sense. America has a penchant for placing the responsibility for social actions on the shoulders of its individual citizens. The mandate makes the individual citizen responsible for carrying health insurance. Personal voter registration makes it the responsibility of the citizen to register herself to vote. Other societies put the burden for providing health care and registering voters directly on the apparatus of the state. I wish America did the same.

The decision by Roberts to cast the deciding vote on this case is strange indeed. I suspect he worries about how future students of the Court will see his term as Chief Justice. Public support for the Court is at its lowest level in 25 years. He wrote a cagy decision, one that provides no support for the constitutionality of the mandate under what's known as the "commerce clause," but finds justification for the requirement in the taxation powers clearly granted to Congress in the Constitution. This is a double-edge sword for the Obama Administration, since it exposes the fact that the ACA actually does impose a tax on some people, and more taxes are most definitely not what the voters want to hear.

Roberts's support for the dissenters' view on the commerce clause sends a signal out there to the institutional litigators to start proceedings to overturn Federal regulatory authority, based on the clause, in areas like conservation and the environment and return those powers to the states. I don't trust most states to do the right thing in these, or many other areas. My views come from growing up in the 1960's when expanding civil rights for African Americans required Federal intervention to demolish the racist institutions of legal segregation at the state level. I also think that national standards on things like air quality make much more sense than a hodge-podge of state standards. I think the Federal Government has a significant role to play in America's future, and to think that "drowning [it] in a bathtub" constitutes any sort of intelligent policy prescription seems to me to be madness.

synaesthetic · 2012-06-28, 20:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

What?

Do you even know what the law means?

If you are destitute, you get medicaid. If you are struggling, you get a rebate from the government to make your health insurance more affordable depending on your income. If you have insurance already you get refunded whatever the insurance company didn't spend spend on your health care because they have a profit cap of 15%. And if you are rich you wouldn't notice anything.

And in this system EVERYONE gets insurance. No one gets refused at all.

Incorrect. I am a full-time student; my official income is 0 (never mind the few hundred bucks of grocery money I make fixing computers and rooting Android phones).

I do not qualify for Medicaid--in order to get Medicaid, you basically need to either have kids or be disabled.

So yeah, I've got no income, but I can't get Medicaid. I guess I'll just get fined taxed. The individual mandate is a travesty, a big fat Christmas gift to the insurance companies, without a public option. Which we didn't get.

Frenchie · 2012-06-28, 20:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Incorrect. I am a full-time student; my official income is 0 (never mind the few hundred bucks of grocery money I make fixing computers and rooting Android phones).

I do not qualify for Medicaid--in order to get Medicaid, you basically need to either have kids or be disabled.

So yeah, I've got no income, but I can't get Medicaid. I guess I'll just get fined taxed. The individual mandate is a travesty, a big fat Christmas gift to the insurance companies, without a public option. Which we didn't get.

You can stay on your parent's insurance until you're 26.

Vallen Chaos Valiant · 2012-06-28, 20:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Incorrect. I am a full-time student; my official income is 0 (never mind the few hundred bucks of grocery money I make fixing computers and rooting Android phones).

I do not qualify for Medicaid--in order to get Medicaid, you basically need to either have kids or be disabled.

So yeah, I've got no income, but I can't get Medicaid. I guess I'll just get fined taxed. The individual mandate is a travesty, a big fat Christmas gift to the insurance companies, without a public option. Which we didn't get.

If you don't have enough income, you don't get taxed. Simple as that.
Do you make $20000 a year? If you do, you get taxed 0.9%. If you don't make that much, no tax at all.

Vexx · 2012-06-28, 20:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frenchie

You can stay on your parent's insurance until you're 26.

You're assuming the parents and the child have some sort of relationship that the parents offer that as an option.

Our current system has many, many, holes in its ragged safety net. Syn is pretty much in one of the holes. My older son is in a similar hole except that he accidentally has parents who are okay with paying for him.... but we can't any longer because he's over 26 and still has no viable options for healthcare insurance.

2012-06-28, 09:57	Link #903
Vallen Chaos Valiant Logician and Romantic Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Within my mind Age: 43	Looks like the bill will survive, no matter who wins the presidency next. Romney and the GOP are not actually against the bill; they are just against Obama. That's why the only way they can fight it is to literally attach Obama's name to it. The courts was the main threat, and it's now gone. Guess you really can't fight progress, even if it took America longer than the rest of the Western world. __________________

2012-06-28, 16:58	Link #910
synaesthetic blinded by blood Author Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Oakland, CA Age: 40	Watch even more people refuse medical care now. They don't have insurance, they'll get fined if they get sick without insurance. __________________ Indie science fiction author and all-around weirdo: Check out my original fiction here! Read an excerpt from my sci-fi novel Binary System!

2012-06-28, 17:57	Link #914
Urzu 7 Juanita/Kiteless Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: New England Age: 40	Isn't it the case that a lot of things that are bad about Obamacare were dictated by the GOP? I'm not sure, that is why I'm asking. __________________

2012-06-28, 19:33	Link #916
SeijiSensei AS Oji-kun Join Date: Nov 2006 Age: 74	I live in Massachusetts, home of RomneyCare. We have a personal mandate enforced through the income tax, as it will be under the ACA. You must either submit a form certifying you have at least the minimum state-mandated insurance, or you must pay a tax in lieu of insurance that buys you mandatory insurance. At 95%, Massachusetts has the highest percentage of its citizens covered by health insurance of any state. Now I'll say right away that I don't very much like the mandate and would prefer a "single-payer" system that declares health care a citizen's right. I've always thought the Scandinavian view of "universalism" as a basis for social rights makes the most political sense. America has a penchant for placing the responsibility for social actions on the shoulders of its individual citizens. The mandate makes the individual citizen responsible for carrying health insurance. Personal voter registration makes it the responsibility of the citizen to register herself to vote. Other societies put the burden for providing health care and registering voters directly on the apparatus of the state. I wish America did the same. The decision by Roberts to cast the deciding vote on this case is strange indeed. I suspect he worries about how future students of the Court will see his term as Chief Justice. Public support for the Court is at its lowest level in 25 years. He wrote a cagy decision, one that provides no support for the constitutionality of the mandate under what's known as the "commerce clause," but finds justification for the requirement in the taxation powers clearly granted to Congress in the Constitution. This is a double-edge sword for the Obama Administration, since it exposes the fact that the ACA actually does impose a tax on some people, and more taxes are most definitely not what the voters want to hear. Roberts's support for the dissenters' view on the commerce clause sends a signal out there to the institutional litigators to start proceedings to overturn Federal regulatory authority, based on the clause, in areas like conservation and the environment and return those powers to the states. I don't trust most states to do the right thing in these, or many other areas. My views come from growing up in the 1960's when expanding civil rights for African Americans required Federal intervention to demolish the racist institutions of legal segregation at the state level. I also think that national standards on things like air quality make much more sense than a hodge-podge of state standards. I think the Federal Government has a significant role to play in America's future, and to think that "drowning [it] in a bathtub" constitutes any sort of intelligent policy prescription seems to me to be madness. __________________ Taking Anime Seriously - Politics by the Numbers - Sports by the Numbers - MAL List - Avatars - Images Last edited by SeijiSensei; 2012-06-28 at 19:47.

2012-06-28, 09:31	Link #902
Mr. DJ Schwing! Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Central Texas Age: 39	holy crap o_o

2012-06-28, 16:44	Link #909
Xagzan Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009	Can't say I'm surprised they didn't strike the mandate. It was after all, iirc, a condition of the insurance lobby's that it be included - among various other watering down measures they succeeded in getting.

2012-06-28, 17:35	Link #911
Xagzan Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009	Just heard a curious suggestion, that Roberts might have voted to uphold it, against the will of conservatives, so that people would be more likely to vote for Romney to repeal it. It's a little conspiracy-ish, but I do think there's the possibility of voters on the right being galvanized for the election thanks to this decision.

2012-06-28, 17:44	Link #913
Autumn Demon ~ Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boston Age: 35	The Supreme Court ruled that Congress does not have the power to compel people to buy health insurance. Under Obamacare, it is not a criminal offense to choose not to buy health insurance. Those who don't have health insurance have to pay a "shared responsibility payment", which the Supreme Court labeled a tax, not a mandate.