Thursday, June 28, 2012

Interlude: Supreme Court Validates Obamacare as the Largest Tax Increase in History of America

By a 5-4 vote, with John Roberts agreeing with the liberal wing of the court, the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is valid.

This becomes the largest tax in the history of our country.   We will now pay our tax monies to private corporations.

What are your thoughts on Obamacare?


Anonymous said...

It's not Obamacare, It is The Affordable Health Care Act. Why is it so awful when all Americans rich or poor get to have health care?

Anonymous said...

Because its a tax. If you want insurance you should pay. If you can't pay for it, what makes you think I can pay fir you?

Anonymous said...

Why does Obama call it Obamacare?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 11:13, you need to reread the affordable Health Care Act.

Erick Rhoan said...

I have mixed reactions to this decision. On the one hand, a type of universal health care is not objectionable and is a necessary thing for all Americans. The SCOTUS also, by default, upheld the Indian Health Law which re-authorizes federal and tribal health-related programs. Also, the nation's populace could not be effectively managed by a patchwork of state-run programs. Only federal legislation could do something about it.

On the other hand there's the usual anti-big government wonks who will bereave this law's affirmation. The language of our Constitution is ubiquitously broad, and while Commerce was not the avenue the Court chose, I'm apprehensive about the Taxation Clause argument.

Bottom line, you were going to pay for someone else's healthcare anyway. Might as well as have a national program that at least provides health care to the ones who need it most, like the working poor who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but cannot qualify for other income-based health programs.

But there's the steady slouch towards institutional bond-slavery that always nags at me with decisions like these. I understand the need for universal health care -- I'm in my 30s, yet I notice I don't bounce back as quickly from things as I did in my 20's. But we came THIS CLOSE to redefining what Commerce meant under the Constitution and I want to underline how important that is. At least Roberts drew a line in the sand and said this is what's NOT commerce. If an expansive view of the Commerce Clause was taken, then the government from the Obama Administration onward would have had another tool at their disposal to increase government presence in our lives with little legal friction.

So, on the whole, a mixed view.

White Buffalo said...

Just to get a sense of who pays what

How many people on this site still go to the rez Indian Health Clinic or Behavioral Health Services on the rez?

How many of you get Medicare or Medical or any other State sponsored aid?

How many of you pay for your own health care via private insurance.

How many of you are uninsured?

I have read the bill. Nowhere in the bill does it say that you are going to have increased taxes for insurance you already have. What it does say is that if you choose not to pay for insurance then you will pay an increased tax.

Before any of you who disagrees with this and get all butt hurt because you do not like what the facts are. Answer the questions I asked. Those that are affected are those without Insurance. Rick is right why we should pay someone else medical. Again the law states that those who choose to NOT get Insurance will be the ones who get the tax increase.

Anonymous said...

True but if you can't afford the insurance how are you going to afford the taxes? Especially for those who just lost their Insurance through disenrollment. It is another way of Obama showing the lower middle class, those who make too much for assistance but not enough to get by, that he does not care about them and the small business owners too. He says he is for one thing but his actions show he is not. The government should focus o those who abuse the system and they would find that they have more money to raise the income amount limits to give more free health care.

Anonymous said...

Who do you think is paying or all the uninsured now?..that's right...taxpayers.....and many people that can afford insurance don't buy it because they know how to play the system,,,,besides...this should actually reduce rates...quit blaming Obama for something hat has been wrong for way too many when Reagan put all the crazies out onto the streets by stopping the payment for care....

White Buffalo said...

I agree there is way too much abuse, from those who know how to work the system all the way up to the insurance companies, who by the way do not care for people like you and me. They just want their monthly premiums payments, but heaven forbid that you actually get sick and need to use you insurance. I agree also that there are some problems especially for the small business owners, yet it is a step in the right direction.

Anonymous said...


I'm wondering how they will have enough doctors to handle 30 million more insured people.

With no insurance, people would go to emergency rooms, but with insurance, those people would now be seeking everyday care. If we are short doctors now, how will we have enough for so many millions? They don't graduate enough doctors.

Anonymous said...

You know that the Pechanga leaders are all trying to figure out if they can cancel the insurance on the employees and make them buy their own...

Anonymous said...

That is a legitimate business option. The fine is only 3,000 per person, where the insurance cost is about $7,000 to the employer.

What is the better option for ANY employer?

Anonymous said...

If your eligible for Indian Health Services your exempt to the requirements for the affordable health care act, as you are already covered.

Anonymous said...

Other than complain about how much money you think you'll pay, what are your reasons for not liking this health care bill and state all facts that support your conclusion.

Also in your answer, please address the benefits or disadvantages of insuring or not insuring children with pre-existing conditions, and stopping insurance providers from discontinuing coverage to people when they become unexpectedly ill.

White Buffalo said...

To the poster on

“June 30, 2012 8:15 AM”

Good question, I have been wondering when someone other than myself would ask that tyoe of question. Unfortunately I do not believe you will get a response here or anywhere else that will be based on fact. The truth about Mitt is out they do not have an answer, so instead they are making up lies like it will cost a trillion more dollars for the health care, when in fact the OMB has done the math for the cost. What the Mittites want to hide is that it will save over 100 billion. This is just one fact.

Anonymous said...

I donr know why this site is always blaming Obama for everything...they got disenrolled under the Bush years...and believe me...a democrat will help them way before a republican will.

Anonymous said...

you stupid people you are already paying for people without ins. go to any emergency room in any hospital and ask around???

Anonymous said...

1. State governments have the rights to set up insurances in their own states.

2. Obamacare does not allow us to search for the best price on insurance.

3. Health INSURANCE should be a choice. Young people will now be required to pay for something they don't need.

4. The bill was not processed under house rules for a TAX bill. Obama's lawyer argued to the Supreme Court that it WAS A TAX, while saying it wasn't.

5. They spent all this time on this bill and did nothing for our economy.

6. We are all paying more for FOUR YEARS, without a benefit.

7. Obama exempted unions from complying with this bill. That way, they'd have more money to donate to his campaign.

8. Mark Macarro was on the DEMOCRATIC PARTY platform committee, his wife Holly worked for Hillary Clinton and Andrew Masiel is the head of the Native American Caucus of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and Corrine GARBANI is VP of same group. That's Democratic party for you.

9. The disadvantages of insuring children are the costs.

10. With this bill, not everyone is covered.

11. This bill provided for no more doctors, in fact ensuring more doctors will leave the profession because they are reducing payments and raising their costs. Leading us to have longer waits.

12. We can't keep our doctors if our companies drop their health care, which some will because the penalty is cheaper.

13. Obama, Pelosi and Reid LIED when they said it would increase our costs. It already has.

14. A 26 year old is a GROWN ADULT and should not be on their parents insurance. Should the right to vote and drink be pushed back to 26?

Anonymous said...

Most of these are biases, opinions, beliefs, and commentary -- not facts. Some are facts (e.g., "With this bill, not everyone is covered;" "State governments have the [right] to set up [insurance] in their own states.") But not enough.

As for "[t]he disadvantages of insuring children are the costs[,]" I assume you are not referring to your own personal costs, but those expended on society as a whole.

Personally, I'm willing to pay these extra costs to make sure the most vulnerable in our society (i.e., the kids) are given access to medical treatment regardless of what their economic backgrounds are. It is the right decision, in my opinion, aligned with proper morals and compassion.