No link yet.
We are so ****ing ****ed.
The Supreme Court has ruled that ObamaCare's individual mandate to purchase health insurance will survive as a tax, with Chief Justice Roberts joining the court liberals to write a majority opinion. The court also placed some narrow limits on federal power to limit state Medicaid funds.Reason (http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/28/breaking-supreme-court-upholds-obamacare)
Update: SCOTUSBlog reports that Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding vote to save the law. Essentially the entire law will stand.
Update: The ruling states that, "The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate. "
Yep, in fact their little legislation operation from the bench moved us even closer to socialized medicine imo.
We will just have to wait for congress and Romney to repeal it. Top reps in congress said yesterday that if it is upheld, they will start the repeal process.
Justice Roberts turned liberal today.
We will just have to wait for congress and Romney to repeal it. Top reps in congress said yesterday that if it is upheld, they will start the repeal process.
Justice Roberts turned liberal today.
So basically, the Constitution is now worthless. Awesome.
That is one ****ing campaign promise Romney had better keep.
And lets hope the Congress critters find a spine and do everything they can NOT to fund this POS.
Yup.
Largest tax increase in American history.
Guys, this isn't the nightmare you think it is. It's a tax increase. Do you realize how easy it will be for Romney to run on Obama increasing taxes on every American? The Commerce Clause is intact, the order has no real teeth, and this will lead to a tea-party/Republican tsunami in November.
Does this mean that now the govt gets to tax those who don't have insurance? those who are already struggling to make ends meet? those that are unemployed or without income?
Largest tax increase in American history.
Guys, this isn't the nightmare you think it is. It's a tax increase. Do you realize how easy it will be for Romney to run on Obama increasing taxes on every American? The Commerce Clause is intact, the order has no real teeth, and this will lead to a tea-party/Republican tsunami in November.
states can opt out!!?!?!?!?
Weird.
Does this mean that now the govt gets to tax those who don't have insurance? those who are already struggling to make ends meet? those that are unemployed or without income?
states can opt out!!?!?!?!?
Weird.
My understanding (And someone please correct me if I am wrong) is that the states can opt out. But you will still be paying the tax for it.But the Court said you don't have to.
Yup. The guy who claimed he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making over 200K just raised taxes on all of us. And by doing so he just flushed what little momentum the economy had.
But the Court said you don't have to.
What a ****ing mess.
I worked last night and stayed up to hear this travesty. I'm a literally sick to my stomach. And I am also the most pissed off I've been in YEARS. I'm with y'all....it was a great country while it lasted. And what about people who work at small businesses that can't afford insurance? Will THEY get taxed? This SUX.
It's GWB's fault
yeah, I saw that too. Let's see the people get out of paying for the tax much like we all get out of paying for other taxes. Last I checked you'll have the IRS crawling up your ass if you opt out of damn tax that you are expected to pay. Cluster**** has finally found it's ultimate meaning n this.Yep.
But the Court said you don't have to.
What a ****ing mess.
Roberts is a genius. He may be smarter than Rove. He preserved the Constitution. Then, he ensured a Republican victory.
There goes the jobs. I don't see why any business would hire anyone now....
There goes the jobs. I don't see why any business would hire anyone now....
Yep.
Wait until the IRS starts witholding Sheniqua and Trayshawn's EIC payments to cover their Obamacare "tax". The hood rats will be pissed.
It will be...give them time!
Unless of course Obama decides now he can "mandate" that employers hire people...They're working on that. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/06/corporate-america-is-sitting-on-the-solution-to-the-jobs-crisis_n_1132445.html)
It gets worse. Companies now see that they can just shitcan everyone's insurance and simply pay the tax/whatever you want to call it and shove people out into the cold. It saves them a shitload of money, and leaves people who are higher risk well and truly ****ed.
They're working on that. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/06/corporate-america-is-sitting-on-the-solution-to-the-jobs-crisis_n_1132445.html)
Absolutely agreed. That's why I think this decision moves us closer to the single payer shit the liberals want. This was a lose for our country as we knew it.
But the Court said you don't have to.
What a ****ing mess.
"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause," Roberts wrote. "That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-individual-mandate-obamacare-survives/#ixzz1z6GjKEDl
What really torques my ass is this--I am part of a union at my work. The current contract ends in December of 2013. Obamacare really kicks into gear in January 2014. Anyone want to guess what they're going to do vis-a-vis our health benefits?
No doubt. :censored:
(http://www.scn.org/~toddt/su-flag.gif)
Stocks extended their losses Thursday, wiping out all of the previous session's gains, amid skepticism that European leaders would be able to form a solution to tackle the ongoing debt crisis and following the Supreme Court’s ruling on the health-care bill.
The Supreme Court upheld the individual health insurance requirement in President Obama's health-care law, a victory for Democrats and Obama. Medicaid-related stocks such as Amerigroup [AGP 65.02 2.62 (+4.2%) ] and Molina [MOH 22.41 1.09 (+5.11%) ] jumped following the announcement.
And hospital stocks including Universal Health [UHS 40.60 1.35 (+3.44%) ], Community Health [CYH 27.29 1.80 (+7.06%) ] and Tenet Healthcare [THC 5.28 0.30 (+6.02%) ] rallied.
But most managed care companies such as Cigna [CI 43.81 -1.59 (-3.5%) ], Wellpoint [WLP 65.54 -3.95 (-5.68%) ] and Aetna [AET 39.32 -1.64 (-4%) ] dragged.
“It’s a pretty clear negative. Until the election [in November], public policy uncertainty was going to be on the rise, dampening business confidence,†Barry Knapp, head of U.S. equity portfolio strategy at Barclays. “This clearly plays into that theme and it leaves a whole bunch of unanswered questions….Markets were going down anyway and this is just going to be a pretty clear negative catalyst over the next or two as opposed to something to stop the bleeding.â€
This will add another payroll deduction. This is the largest tax increase in American history.I suppose your employer will be required to inform the IRS if you have a health insurance plan or not. More paperwork for them ratting out their coworkers.
Senator Mitch McConnel is going to make a statement about repealing it here soon.
I thought of another good thing: If it were 5-4 the other way, there would be a huge, huge mess. Conservatives and republicans won't break shit, we'll just vote to repeal the hell out of theis nightmare.
I suppose your employer will be required to inform the IRS if you have a health insurance plan or not. More paperwork for them ratting out their coworkers.
You guys aren't looking at the BIG picture. For the first time in history a precedent has been set that mandates you to buy something JUST for Damn living. They can now force you to buy ANY ****ing thing. Romney getting elected is going to fix it? Roberts stupid ass was a Damn Bush appointee. R and D. All the ****ing same. Progressive pieces of fly-covered dog shit.
This just in: Eric Cantor has announced that the week of July 9th (When they get back), they will start the repeal process. That is good news.
There's a bright side to all of this.
The left cannot use Romneycare as a hit piece during the campaign. This is going to help Romney, big time.
You guys aren't looking at the BIG picture. For the first time in history a precedent has been set that mandates you to buy something JUST for Damn living. They can now force you to buy ANY ****ing thing. Romney getting elected is going to fix it? Roberts stupid ass was a Damn Bush appointee. R and D. All the ****ing same. Progressive pieces of fly-covered dog shit.
Had the Court ruled that the individual mandate is a proper use of federal power under the Commerce Clause, all hope would have been lost. Taxing is one thing. But the ability to issue regulations and mandates outside of the taxing power would have literally put no limits on the power of the federal government.link (http://www.therightsphere.com/2012/06/what-just-happened-at-the-supreme-court/)
And they can kiss universal healthcare good-bye. If this stands, then it'll be what we have. If it doesn't, it won't be revisited for a long, long time. Either way, no single-payer/universal care.
.
Read above. Doesn't matter if it's repealed. We'll be fighting these mandate battles, for EVERYTHING, till the end of time, 1 step forward, 2 steps back, losing a little liberty at every battle. This nation is done. Stick a fork in us. Ayn Rand was a Damn psychic.
(http://www.scn.org/~toddt/su-flag.gif)
Since we are taxing people for not having health insurance, how about we tax the leaches for not working? :panic:
Reb, No they can't. They can tax you. They always could. Roberts saved the Commerce Clause.
From RB Pundit:
Quote
"Had the Court ruled that the individual mandate is a proper use of federal power under the Commerce Clause, all hope would have been lost. Taxing is one thing. But the ability to issue regulations and mandates outside of the taxing power would have literally put no limits on the power of the federal government."
It only takes 51 votes to repeal a tax.
Racist. /DUmode
You guys aren't looking at the BIG picture. For the first time in history a precedent has been set that mandates you to buy something JUST for Damn living. They can now force you to buy ANY ****ing thing. Romney getting elected is going to fix it? Roberts stupid ass was a Damn Bush appointee. R and D. All the ****ing same. Progressive pieces of fly-covered dog shit.
How's the Dominican Republic this time of the year?Still a Republic. Remember when we had one of those?
No link yet.
We are so ****ing ****ed.
One of my Paulbot friends on facebook is saying that this should be a victory for Ron Paul as a write in. I swear the PaulBots are so stupid!Everything is a victory for Ron Paul!
Reb, No they can't. They can tax you. They always could. Roberts saved the Commerce Clause.
From RB Pundit:
link (http://www.therightsphere.com/2012/06/what-just-happened-at-the-supreme-court/)
It only takes 51 votes to repeal a tax.
So what it looks like to me is that if you don't have the coverage they are going to tax you, but if you do have it, they won't tax you. Either way you look at it, depending on your income, it will be cheaper to pay the tax than it will be to get the coverage.
Please re-read what Splashdown wrote. It makes a lot of sense:
I'm having all kinds of knee-jerk reactions internally over this, but we really need to keep our heads and read up on some analysis.
And NO, I'm not sticking a fork in her. She's worth fighting for.
....and....what happens to the insurance companies when people start dropping coverage?
Romney is speaking now. He said that what the court did not do, he will on his first day in office. That is to repeal obamacare.
Yep, the insurance companies will start to go under. But the question is, what insurance companies? Is there going to be a select group of insurance companies still operating? Will the only choices be the insurance companies that agree with obama, or donate money to his campaign?
....and....what happens to the insurance companies when people start dropping coverage?That is precisely what this whole sordid mess was about, right from the get-go.
That is precisely what this whole sordid mess was about, right from the get-go.
This was NEVER about "healthcare". It was about destroying capitalism and ushering in socialism.
I cannot ****ing believe those dirty rat bastard "conservative" traitorous justices just did this to us.
Problem is, HE can't do that. Only Congress can, and that means GOP supermajorities in both the House and Senate. Only when they pass a repeal of Obamacare can President Romney (oh please, oh please) can he do that.
Problem is, HE can't do that. Only Congress can, and that means GOP supermajorities in both the House and Senate. Only when they pass a repeal of Obamacare can President Romney (oh please, oh please) can he do that.
Theory: Roberts didn't want to let Kennedy be the fall guy AGAIN, so he voted yes, and in doing so he is more assured that we will vote Obama out and have the next SCOTUS appointments? The next ones are HUGE and if this got struck down could it have motivated more people to vote for Obama and/or caused more Indies and Cons to stay home from being pissed off? This *almost* assures us a win on Nov (voter fraud and October surprises notwithstanding)
Well, it looks as though we will all be driving Chevy Volts if Obama gets a second term.
The insured
Because the requirement remains for people to have or buy insurance, the revenue stream designed to help pay for the law remains in place. So insured Americans may be avoiding a spike in premiums that could have resulted if the high court had tossed out the individual mandate but left other requirements on insurers in place.
look what CNN has about what the ruling means to me
:mental:
They are nuts. Do you know how many people are saying even compared to their current rates it's cheaper for them to pay the few hundred dollars in mandate er um tax and just drop insurance and get on the gov. insurance and either eventually buy a supplemental or the excess money saved use it towards any healthcare gaps? So we will look like Canada. Unfortunately, we have no country to run to for operations if the wait is too long or it is denied.
I will laugh if the big companies start trying to drop insurance from union contracts.
YOu and me both. I think this is going to be funny in some ways. Just wish we could watch it under a microscope instead of as a part of it. :thatsright:
Ah, so the remaining private companies will eventually be funded by the government to provide for the people when it gets to the point where everyone drops. What do we call that again? Here's a hint:(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001138887/800px_Italian_Fascist_flag_1930s_1940ssvg_answer_2_xlarge.png)
Which is only a stepping stone to the flag I posted earlier.
Please re-read what Splashdown wrote. It makes a lot of sense:
I'm having all kinds of knee-jerk reactions internally over this, but we really need to keep our heads and read up on some analysis.
And NO, I'm not sticking a fork in her. She's worth fighting for.
look what CNN has about what the ruling means to me
:mental:
The insuredBullshit! My premium just went up 35% last week! :banghead:
Because the requirement remains for people to have or buy insurance, the revenue stream designed to help pay for the law remains in place. So insured Americans may be avoiding a spike in premiums that could have resulted if the high court had tossed out the individual mandate but left other requirements on insurers in place.
Someone educate me here.
This law was the Senate bill but now has been declared a tax.
Tax bills have to start in the House don`t they?
Wouldn`t that make the whole thing unconstitutional?
Bullshit! My premium just went up 35% last week! :banghead:
Very good point. Totally correct. And totally moot in this case.
If someone with standing were to file suit that it was a tax (as decided by the USSC) that originated in the Senate, then you might have something once it finally reached the USSC. Til then, not a relevant argument.
Severely disappointed in the USSRC today. However, I agree that this is Nov. '10 all over again. Leftists may be driven out of politics for a good long time come Nevember. Imagine what we could do; how we could flourish with 4 years of NO DUmmies in high places.
I've just about had it with politics with this vote today. Holder BETTER be found to be in contempt!
When I first heard that Roberts wrote the opinion, I assumed that it was because Kennedy voted to uphold, and Roberts wanted to at least provide an opinion that sort of smacked down the law while upholding it (which he did with throwing saying it was invalid under the commerce clause, but valid under taxing). But Kennedy voted the right way! This is a betrayal by Roberts. :banghead:
Do yall realize the fodder we could bring over here from the DUmp :lmao: It would be EPIC fodder :yahoo:
If that was his reason in voting, that ****er is derelict.
Quote from: 'DaSaintFan'Quote from: 'MonarchManiac'Right now, the federal government can tax individuals in only a few ways: SS, Medicare, and Income tax (which took a friggin constitutional amendment for them to even collect). We just effectively gave them the power to tax us for ANYTHING. You seriously think this is a good idea?
unfortunately Monarch... Article 7 says otherwise..QuoteThe Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
So uhm... all those waivers??? Let's see how the WH spins the "no taxes for some"... argument now.
And if someone like Rand Paul or Jim Demint doesn't point this one out, I'll be really Disappointed in some of our major Fiscal conservatives...QuoteBecause this authority already exists, and yet they pulled this crap, I think it will hurt them... Bad... With independents, and even some democrats
Again, let's see what happens when some voters find out their companies aren't going to be renewing their employee insurance policies...
Yes - BUT - taxation can only come if the use of the funds goes to the General Welfare of the people.
"[T]he [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution. … But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. … [T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare."
So, A) this tax does NOT provide for "General Welfare" it only provides a benefit to a select few (those without health care coverage)
In addition, this is a non apportioned tax. Read the following about the apportionment clause:
Apportionment of direct taxes
Language elsewhere in the Constitution also expressly limits the taxing power. Article I, Section 9 has more than one clause so addressed. Clause 4 states:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Generally, a direct tax is subject to the apportionment rule, meaning taxes must be imposed among the states in proportion to each state's population in respect to that state's share of the whole national population. For example: As of the 2000 Census, nearly 34 million people populated California (CA). At the same time, the national population was 281.5 million people. This gave CA a 12 percent share of the national population, roughly. Were Congress to impose a direct tax in order to raise $1 trillion before the next census, the taxpayers of CA would be required to fund 12 percent of the total amount: $120 billion dollars.
Apportionment and income taxes
Before 1895, direct taxes were understood to be limited to "capitation or poll taxes" (Hylton v. United States)[35] and "taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate" (Springer v. United States).[36] The decision in Springer went further in declaring that all income taxes were indirect taxes—or more specifically, "within the category of an excise or duty."[36] However, in 1895 income taxes derived from property such as interest, dividends, and rent (imposed under an 1894 Act) were treated as direct taxes by the Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. and were ruled to be subject to the requirement of apportionment.[37] As the income taxes imposed under the 1894 Act were not apportioned in such a manner, they were held unconstitutional. It was not the income tax per se, but the lack of a provision for its apportionment as a direct tax which made the tax unconstitutional.
The resulting case law prohibiting unapportioned taxes on incomes derived from property was later eliminated by the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. The text of the amendment was clear in its aim:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Shortly after, in 1916, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad that under the Sixteenth Amendment income taxes were constitutional even though unapportioned, just as the amendment had provided.[38] In subsequent cases, the courts have interpreted the Sixteenth Amendment and the Brushaber decision as standing for the rule that the amendment allows income taxes on "wages, salaries, commissions, etc. without apportionment."[39]
So - this tax has not been apportioned as a Direct Tax. I do not see where the precedent to take this action lies. This is not a good idea.
We will just have to wait for congress and Romney to repeal it. Top reps in congress said yesterday that if it is upheld, they will start the repeal process.
Justice Roberts turned liberal today.
You guys aren't looking at the BIG picture. For the first time in history a precedent has been set that mandates you to buy something JUST for Damn living. They can now force you to buy ANY ****ing thing. Romney getting elected is going to fix it? Roberts stupid ass was a Damn Bush appointee. R and D. All the ****ing same. Progressive pieces of fly-covered dog shit.
What happened today is a tragedy, from now on our government can force us to behave in any way, or buy any product they see fit, all they have to do is classify it as a tax. You still don't want to drive a Chevy Volt? that's cool we won't force you to buy one, but in April we will tax you for driving a gas powered vehicle. :banghead:
The worst part is, one of our own is who made this possible. At least when we can point at the libs and blame them we can still have some faith in our people, but after today who can we trust?
I'd say stick a fork in us, we are done, but I refuse to give up, I may not be able to do much, but when I vote I will vote for people who will promise to take our republic back to being a republic, and away from the 0bama dictatorship that we have become.
Severely disappointed in the USSRC today. However, I agree that this is Nov. '10 all over again. Leftists may be driven out of politics for a good long time come Nevember. Imagine what we could do; how we could flourish with 4 years of NO DUmmies in high places.
I've just about had it with politics with this vote today. Holder BETTER be found to be in contempt!
What bothers me most, is Roberts admitted that under the commerce clause it was not Constitutional, then he goes and fixes the law for them so he can uphold it, by declaring it a tax. :banghead:
What I don't understand is, if it is a tax how could he rule on it before the tax was implemented?
Bingo.
The supremes don't make laws; that's the responsibility of the congress.
Outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,
"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,
"A republic, if you can keep it."
Or can be manipulated to the point it is indeed worthless. Like someone else said, it was a good country while it lasted. Before long, nothing differentiates us from the shitholes that are nearly bankrupt in Europe. :banghead:
I'm sincerely apologize, Mr. Franklin. What you had envisioned has been lost. :(
This.
Though, I wont knock the decision, as it being constitutional under precedent, and in regard to congresses ability to tax. After all, the law is no different than social security, in those regards (except that you can opt-out of the program altogether, if willing to pay a substantial fine).
(Not as if I agree with the law, though. Ideologically, this law is sh!t)
Its been lost since the civil war, and Abe Lincoln's big government @$$...
And what happened yesterday was no different than what has been taking place for over 100 years in this country.
I agree with everything above, you are absolutely correct about what the Civil War did to us, but if we're in the 7th Circle of Hell, is there some reason we needed to be dragged down to the 10th Circle of Hell?
It is not Constitutional under precedent. This law had no precedent in what it set before the Court.
Having to pay a fine to not participate is not what anyone sane understands as "opting out." We are still being COMMANDED to buy a product OR ELSE. Social Security does NOT do that. Believe what you want to believe.
So say you don't pay for your own insurance and you do pay the tax. Does that mean when you get sick you are screwed? You may not go to the ER and get help? You had your chance? Because I think it should mean that if not then wtf does this tax improve in healthcare
This is great news. I can barely afford to keep a roof over my head, food in the fridge and gas in the car and now I have to find some way to pay for health insurance.
I think I'll call it a tax on the un/underemployed.
Thank you John Roberts. What the **** were you thinking?
Why Obamacare Won't WorkThanks to Chris for this short film. It helped me get a little bit better understanding of the situation......
[youtube=425,350]3S9dwP-fV3o[/youtube]
Man I'm so glad Dinglers and Ben have found each other. Match made in heaven.
The wit, it's nearly too much.
The more and more I think about this, the more and more I hope this was done by Justice Roberts to keep Obama from getting re-elected. If not, then he can **** OFF!
No really, I'm serial.
I'm trying to tell myself that too. But, I feel I might be lying.
I think Kyle might be onto something in his line of reasoning. Now that the SCOTUS has called it a 'tax,' even though the Oministration and Romney's aides do not, the Democrats own it lock, stock, and barrel. I've heard Oministration shills say that "the more the American people know about this, the more they will like it," and they must be on LSD or 'bath salts' to be able to say that with a straight face. A majority of the American voting public does not like this, and will vote accordingly in November. Seniors will face the 'death panels,' and they are the most reliable voting bloc there is. Guess what? Yes, Mitch McConnell said it would be 'difficult' to repeal the Obamatax, but it is possible. We need to work our collective fourth points' of contact off to make the political conditions ideal for said repeal, which means that we need to work to elect Conservatives (almost entirely Republican) en masse this November.
I disagree that Obamacare will be difficult to repeal. Repubs just need to pick up 6 or 7 Senate seats and pass it under reconciliation with 51 votes like the Democrats did. Or, Romney can tell business that he will not enforce the mandatory provision. Executive orders work both ways. Plus, any funding to implement Obamacare can be cut off by the House.
RINO's like Boehner, McConnell and Roberts do not want to seem partisan. That kind of thinking will not get the job done.
As I recall, there was a big kerflufle at the time it passed that the dems. allocated funding 10 yrs. out.
Only two more years and we will have government-run health care!!!!!
Personally, I do not believe allowing our government, who has us almost sixteen trillion in the hole, running our health care industry is remotely a good idea.
Then again, I am for less government, not more.
This is a huge victory for most Democrats who want more government.
Personally I would have preferred the government to fix the problem as opposed to shoving everyone aside and going hands-on by now running the health care system. And that problem lies with the health insurance companies.
You see, the free market works best when you have many companies competing against one another. When that occurs, products and services are cheaper and of higher quality. When there are only a handful of competitors, those said products and services have a tendency to suffer from poor quality and be more expensive.
Enter the health insurance industry.
In our current health insurance industry, there are very few competitors, and one of the major reasons the health care industry is in such shambles. Because of a lack of competition, they are allowed to get away with charging outrageous prices and engage in other slimy and shady practices.
And because the insurance companies charge so much, they end up making health insurance difficult for citizens and small businesses to afford. So you wind up having many people uninsured. But those uninsured still get sick and need to occasionally go to the hospital. What happens then? We treat them and send them home with a bill they will never be able to repay. And in turn, this causes the price of health insurance to climb higher and higher, which in turn causes fewer and fewer people to afford health insurance.
It is a vicious cycle that only intensifies and gradually becomes worse.
So what does Obama do? Does he fix the specific problem? Does he find a way to stop insurance companies from charging rates and fees most Americans cannot afford?
Nope. He merely decides the best course of action is for the government, who is about as responsible as Lindsay Lohan on a weekend bender, to run our nation's health care system.
This is bad, bad, bad, ladies and gentlemen. Especially in our current medical climate where there are a shortage of doctors in many fields in this country. With the number of insured citizens suddenly skyrocketing, they will be swamped beyond belief. You will also find this will make the patient/doctor relationship far more distant and strained, as well as create a nightmare waiting list for simple operations and procedures. One thing you will see is many of the doctors will simply leave for the private sector to get away with the chaos of the government running the health care show. You see this quite a bit in Britain. Many of the doctors there merely deal in private as opposed to dealing with the nightmare of the dreaded government/insurance company duo.
I am highly disappointed in Obama for choosing to have the government take over and run the health care industry as opposed to fixing the actual problem, which is the insurance companies.
One thing is for certain; this may wind up helping Romney. The vast majority of people in this country were not in favor of the Supreme Court ruling and do not want Obamacare to see the light of day. Romney has already jumped on this bandwagon and promised to repeal it if he becomes president. I am sure many independents and moderates who oppose Obamacare will vote for Romney in hopes he does indeed repeal the ACA. I just hope those people realize Romney cannot repeal Obamacare if he does not have a Republican-majority Senate.
Ok, who gave Vesta a sock puppet to play with?
Check out Intros and Welcomes. He's our newest newbie! :-)
Check out Intros and Welcomes. He's our newest newbie! :-)
Do I receive some form of patch for that honor?Sorry, it's not in the budget this year.
I know.
Do I receive some form of patch for that honor?
Paul Ryan: "We win, we repeal". http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/05/Paul-Ryan-We-Win-We-Repeal
Hell to the yes.
But those uninsured still get sick and need to occasionally go to the hospital. What happens then? We treat them and send them home with a bill they will never be able to repay. And in turn, this causes the price of health insurance to climb higher and higher, which in turn causes fewer and fewer people to afford health insurance.