PDA

View Full Version : U B doin' jus dandy Justice Roberts!



Uncle Bill
06-28-2012, 11:44 AM
You knuckled under jus fine, boy! Wen dis here rayjeem gits ree-elektid, we b on are way to da muslimfication of da USA. It's way better'n communists...we got shee-ree-ah! an gun control via da U.N. an immygrayshun up da wazoo, all new voters dat we need...der are only so many braindead fools like sambo.

UB

gmhr1
06-28-2012, 11:56 AM
More taxes more IRS agents that's just what this country needs. Now if you don't have insurance the irs will be on your back. Obama said in 09 this is not a tax just another lie. You don't have to carry papers to prove your citizenship the Feds will take care of you, but as an American you have to purchase health insurance and pay higher taxes. Do you really want four more years of this? I heard in the first hour after announcing this romney raised $ 300,000 online.

paul young
06-28-2012, 11:57 AM
You knuckled under jus fine, boy! Wen dis here rayjeem gits ree-elektid, we b on are way to da muslimfication of da USA. It's way better'n communists...we got shee-ree-ah! an gun control via da U.N. an immygrayshun up da wazoo, all new voters dat we need...der are only so many braindead fools like sambo.

UB

Nice post!-Paul

Daniel J Simoens
06-28-2012, 12:05 PM
now might be a good time to dust off that old Accounting degree and see if I can get a gubmint job. should be easy to make $100/k a year under [robot voice]OUR FEARLESS LEADER [/robot voice] for the next 15 years. pretty soon everybody is going to be working for the gubmint. they'll need that many employees jsut to run their programs.

contemplating my current career at a large health insurer regards :confused:

menmon
06-28-2012, 12:20 PM
So I guess now you know that Obama did not violate the constitutional as so many of you have accused. Thank God our justices uphold the law and are not partisan as you all hoped. Now the spin is doom and gloom going forward and your only hope is electing lying republicans, because I'm still seeking good employees for both my businesses.

Uncle Bill your post shows just how much of a biget and raciest you are. You are not about what is best for americans...you are all about creed and color.

Lets talk hispanics for a minute...you walk into any oil field fab shop in houston and 90% of the employees are hispanic and everyone of them can't hire enough workers. The reason this is...because they are skilled and will work. I think our government should be concern with those folks that are willing to work.

Gerry Clinchy
06-28-2012, 01:18 PM
If the majority of voters really don't like this law, it is going to be a very large campaign issue for the Republicans.

So, it turns out the individual mandate really is a tax ... in spite of the fact the govt kept saying it wasn't; then changed their minds and realized it had to be a tax to stand up to constitutionality.

Prediction was that Kagan and Sotomayor would be very important on the SC, and it has turned out to be that way ... in spades!!

Latinos are very happy with it, since about 15 million are uninsured. Does that mean that they represent 50% of the total without health insurance?

huntinman
06-28-2012, 01:47 PM
So I guess now you know that Obama did not violate the constitutional as so many of you have accused. Thank God our justices uphold the law and are not partisan as you all hoped. Now the spin is doom and gloom going forward and your only hope is electing lying republicans, because I'm still seeking good employees for both my businesses.

Uncle Bill your post shows just how much of a biget and raciest you are. You are not about what is best for americans...you are all about creed and color.

Lets talk hispanics for a minute...you walk into any oil field fab shop in houston and 90% of the employees are hispanic and everyone of them can't hire enough workers. The reason this is...because they are skilled and will work. I think our government should be concern with those folks that are willing to work.

Hey Sambo, are you questioning UB's character?? just askin'

Eric Johnson
06-28-2012, 02:04 PM
If the majority of voters really don't like this law, it is going to be a very large campaign issue for the Republicans.

That's really where we can take heart at this decision.

Roberts said that it was only constitutional if the mandate were a tax. He's removed the Court from the policy debate and returned it to the Congress and the people to decide. Obama claimed it was not a tax. He underlined it....it is not a tax. Now the SCOTUS has said that the Obama act is legal only if it is a tax. Now in the political debate Obama has to recognize that he has increased taxes and the Republicans have to work to re-gain the majority and repeal the law. Basically the majority said that this is a policy decision rather than a constitutional one.

At least that's my first blush response to it.

road kill
06-28-2012, 02:04 PM
So I guess now you know that Obama did not violate the constitutional as so many of you have accused. Thank God our justices uphold the law and are not partisan as you all hoped. Now the spin is doom and gloom going forward and your only hope is electing lying republicans, because I'm still seeking good employees for both my businesses.

Uncle Bill your post shows just how much of a biget and raciest you are. You are not about what is best for americans...you are all about creed and color.

Lets talk hispanics for a minute...you walk into any oil field fab shop in houston and 90% of the employees are hispanic and everyone of them can't hire enough workers. The reason this is...because they are skilled and will work. I think our government should be concern with those folks that are willing to work.

BRAVO SIERRA!!!!

The SCOTUS was charged with determining if the bill was CONSTITUTIONAL!
They did not do that.
They adjusted (legislated) the bill.

I thought legislators legislated, but in "The Post Constitutional America" judges legislate as well.:rolleyes:

Go ahead sambo, pretend like you don't get what I am saying here.

Franco
06-28-2012, 02:27 PM
The fact that Judge Roberts wrote in his opinion that it is a tax just makes it that much easier to overturn. That is if the GOP can win the Senate in November.

If Obamacare lives, it will cost all those that work for a living more. There is no way to add 20-30 million uninsured without someone paying for it! Not only is this another major step towards socialism, this grows the Fed Government by leaps and bounds when we should be cutting the size of the Fed Government.

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/532192_10150917224935954_434096563_n.jpg

M&K's Retrievers
06-28-2012, 02:35 PM
I'm thinking (wishing??) that this will put Romney in the White House.

gmhr1
06-28-2012, 02:39 PM
He has raised one million dollars since it was announced in less than four hours

menmon
06-28-2012, 02:55 PM
Yes it was directed at his charactor.

Like I said before...the court does not want the task of making laws...when one side is unhappy

Whether this is our best solution for healthcare or not, it is at least a move towards fixing what has been a growing large problem. For the republicans, healthcare is a way to win elections, so why fix the golden goose.

I think it hurts Romney...my opinion

All of you have wanted the poor to pay their way...this is a tax on the poor if they don't have healthcare. Please make up your mind...do you want to tax the poor or not?

road kill
06-28-2012, 02:57 PM
Yes that directed at his charactor.

Like I said before...the court does not want the task of making laws...when one side is unhappy

Whether this is our best solution for healthcare or not, it is a least a move towards fixing what has been a growing large problem. For the republicans, healthcare is a way to win elections, so why fix the golden goose.

I think it hurts Romney...my opinion

All of you have wanted the poor to pay their way...this is a tax on the poor if they don't have healthcare. Please make up your mind...do you want to tax the poor or not?
We don't want your the "Post Constitutional Amercan Government" running healthcare!

But then, you already know that............

huntinman
06-28-2012, 03:08 PM
Yes it was directed at his charactor.Like I said before...the court does not want the task of making laws...when one side is unhappy

Whether this is our best solution for healthcare or not, it is at least a move towards fixing what has been a growing large problem. For the republicans, healthcare is a way to win elections, so why fix the golden goose.

I think it hurts Romney...my opinion

All of you have wanted the poor to pay their way...this is a tax on the poor if they don't have healthcare. Please make up your mind...do you want to tax the poor or not?


Well, don't be crying when you get your panties in a wad. By the way, your spelling still sucks.

menmon
06-28-2012, 03:15 PM
I'm a big boy....and my spelling is not getting any better.

Franco
06-28-2012, 03:15 PM
Yes it was directed at his charactor.

Like I said before...the court does not want the task of making laws...when one side is unhappy

Whether this is our best solution for healthcare or not, it is at least a move towards fixing what has been a growing large problem. For the republicans, healthcare is a way to win elections, so why fix the golden goose.

I think it hurts Romney...my opinion

All of you have wanted the poor to pay their way...this is a tax on the poor if they don't have healthcare. Please make up your mind...do you want to tax the poor or not?

This is not a tax on the poor! You and I will pay that tax for thier insurance, they pay zero, nothing, zilich! And, all of those illegals that Obama just declared Amnesty for, I hope you enjoy paying for their healthcare too!

See signature line below.

menmon
06-28-2012, 03:28 PM
No Franco...you have this one wrong. Those new green card holders work and their employers have to pay 60% of their healthcare. If someone ops not to have healthcare...there is a tax of 1% of their income put on them and if they make a lot of money it is higher percentage. If the employer does not do his part, he is taxed.

The point of the program is to make sure people are insured so the others don't bear their cost. Their is nothing free in this program unless you don't work and those have always been covered by medicaid

Raymond Little
06-28-2012, 03:33 PM
So I guess now you know that Obama did not violate the constitutional as so many of you have accused. Thank God our justices uphold the law and are not partisan as you all hoped. Now the spin is doom and gloom going forward and your only hope is electing lying republicans, because I'm still seeking good employees for both my businesses.

Uncle Bill your post shows just how much of a biget and raciest you are. You are not about what is best for americans...you are all about creed and color.

Lets talk hispanics for a minute...you walk into any oil field fab shop in houston and 90% of the employees are hispanic and everyone of them can't hire enough workers. The reason this is...because they are skilled and will work. I think our government should be concern with those folks that are willing to work.


Are you sure you have an MBA? Our Goobment should not worry about those who want to work, they are not the problem. The lazy sumbiches you always cite in your examples are the ones the Goobment needs to try a little tuff love with but then they couldn't buy their votes so easily. The entitlement mentality will eventually crash our system and they(slugs) will eat those who created it,Literally. Keep your powder dry boys, we gonna be playin Cowboys and Slugs very soon.

PMG 131
06-28-2012, 03:37 PM
This is going to kill small business and the middle class. My father now has to let go of 2 employees just to avoid a tax penalry that would cruch is business. In addition there are 21 tax increases and 12 of those fall to people making less than $250,000.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/republicans-ruling-focuses-election-obamas-health-/

Uncle Bill
06-28-2012, 03:51 PM
Uncle Bill your post shows just how much of a biget and raciest you are. You are not about what is best for americans...you are all about creed and color.



Can't tell you how much I hate being called names when the name caller can't even spell them correctly. How would you like it if I kept referring to you as an idjit...or egnorunt...or a socialist, marxist, and not capitalize those descriptive beliefs.

If you weren't such a total fool that's such a member of the sheeple that are blinded by this regime, I would stop making you such an icon of the left. But as toadies go, you really are non-recoverable. God help this nation if the likes of you succeed this fall.

UB

The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but the citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency.
It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency, than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us.
Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.
The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those that made him their President.

huntinman
06-28-2012, 03:55 PM
bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

menmon
06-28-2012, 04:37 PM
Bill you know I hit the bell regarding your belief, so I may not be the sharpest knife but I got that right.

I'm sure your most treasured moments of the day are listening to Rush and Glenn and agreeing with every word of how the liberals are going to destroy us as a nation. And you hang on every word they feed you, a then regurgitate (sp?) on this forum. I happen to be quite sharper than those two folks that earn their money by convencing you and those like you that everything is bad and your mission is to rid the world of the liberals that are trying to end the world as we know it.

When in fact, us liberal are trying to help bigits like you understand that you don't judge men....that God's job. Surely you have one black or hispanic friend, and if you do, would you want them to read what you write on this forum. I'm sure you pretend to be friends with the man that delivers your mail, but you bash him and their profession constantly. For God's sakes....think about what you are saying. And if acting this way is a prerequisit for being a republican, I don't any part of your kind.

road kill
06-28-2012, 04:48 PM
Bill you know I hit the bell regarding your belief, so I may not be the sharpest knife but I got that right.

I'm sure your most treasured moments of the day are listening to Rush and Glenn and agreeing with every word of how the liberals are going to destroy us as a nation. And you hang on every word they feed you, a then regurgitate (sp?) on this forum. I happen to be quite sharper than those two folks that earn their money by convencing you and those like you that everything is bad and your mission is to rid the world of the liberals that are trying to end the world as we know it.

When in fact, us liberal are trying to help bigits like you understand that you don't judge men....that God's job. Surely you have one black or hispanic friend, and if you do, would you want them to read what you write on this forum. I'm sure you pretend to be friends with the man that delivers your mail, but you bash him and their profession constantly. For God's sakes....think about what you are saying. And if acting this way is a prerequisit for being a republican, I don't any part of your kind.

Didn't you just judge Uncle Bill??

Pathetic...........

menmon
06-28-2012, 04:55 PM
No I described him....and yes he is pathetic

road kill
06-28-2012, 04:58 PM
No I described him....and yes he is pathetic
You should be ashamed............this is not the behavior I expect from you and I am dissapointed in you.
And YOU know precisely what I am talking about!!!

Franco
06-28-2012, 05:04 PM
No Franco...you have this one wrong. Those new green card holders work and their employers have to pay 60% of their healthcare. If someone ops not to have healthcare...there is a tax of 1% of their income put on them and if they make a lot of money it is higher percentage. If the employer does not do his part, he is taxed.

The point of the program is to make sure people are insured so the others don't bear their cost. Their is nothing free in this program unless you don't work and those have always been covered by medicaid

Our news department has been looking what the requirements will be for this new Amnesty and we have found no such requirement that they purchase healthcare.

What about the poor, you said they would taxed if they didn't buy insurance? They get a free ride!

Seems like it just isn't worth going to work anymore when the government will provide one with a living at the expense of others.
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/425071_10150979278734454_562990370_n.jpg


and, RP on today's ruling...

"I strongly disagree with today’s decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.

"Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a 'mandate.' The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don’t. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of “Obamacare” without paying a government tribute.
"Those of us in Congress who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national health care law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens. Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity today by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so."


http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/s480x480/581996_167750743358112_1111135983_n.jpg


http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/539369_3823138189809_1216214832_n.jpg

starjack
06-28-2012, 05:25 PM
Bill you know I hit the bell regarding your belief, so I may not be the sharpest knife but I got that right.

I'm sure your most treasured moments of the day are listening to Rush and Glenn and agreeing with every word of how the liberals are going to destroy us as a nation. And you hang on every word they feed you, a then regurgitate (sp?) on this forum. I happen to be quite sharper than those two folks that earn their money by convencing you and those like you that everything is bad and your mission is to rid the world of the liberals that are trying to end the world as we know it.

When in fact, us liberal are trying to help bigits like you understand that you don't judge men....that God's job. Surely you have one black or hispanic friend, and if you do, would you want them to read what you write on this forum. I'm sure you pretend to be friends with the man that delivers your mail, but you bash him and their profession constantly. For God's sakes....think about what you are saying. And if acting this way is a prerequisit for being a republican, I don't any part of your kind.Is that all you can fall back on

huntinman
06-28-2012, 05:31 PM
Bill you know I hit the bell regarding your belief, so I may not be the sharpest knife but I got that right.

I'm sure your most treasured moments of the day are listening to Rush and Glenn and agreeing with every word of how the liberals are going to destroy us as a nation. And you hang on every word they feed you, a then regurgitate (sp?) on this forum. I happen to be quite sharper than those two folks that earn their money by convencing you and those like you that everything is bad and your mission is to rid the world of the liberals that are trying to end the world as we know it.

When in fact, us liberal are trying to help bigits like you understand that you don't judge men....that God's job. Surely you have one black or hispanic friend, and if you do, would you want them to read what you write on this forum. I'm sure you pretend to be friends with the man that delivers your mail, but you bash him and their profession constantly. For God's sakes....think about what you are saying. And if acting this way is a prerequisit for being a republican, I don't any part of your kind.

You are a legend in your own mind... wow! Yes you really impress us daily with how sharp you are. I can't express in words how amazed I am at your intellect.

I don't recall ever bashing a mail carrier??:confused: The only one I can remember bashing is you... and you are a little thin skinned, just like your savior, Obama.

As for my friends, co-workers etc.. you have no clue... The only one I see on this forum that thinks he has it all figured out is you...;)

huntinman
06-28-2012, 05:34 PM
Yes it was directed at his charactor.

How quickly you forget...

BonMallari
06-28-2012, 06:23 PM
So I guess now you know that Obama did not violate the constitutional as so many of you have accused. Thank God our justices uphold the law and are not partisan as you all hoped. Now the spin is doom and gloom going forward and your only hope is electing lying republicans, because I'm still seeking good employees for both my businesses.

Uncle Bill your post shows just how much of a biget and raciest you are. You are not about what is best for americans...you are all about creed and color.

Lets talk hispanics for a minute...you walk into any oil field fab shop in houston and 90% of the employees are hispanic and everyone of them can't hire enough workers. The reason this is...because they are skilled and will work. I think our government should be concern with those folks that are willing to work.


and just yesterday you spoke on another thread about attacking one's character....guess it's only ok if you do it...

I was right you can only dish it out, but you can't take it.....crow all you want about the SCOTUS decision....

LETS SEE WHEN THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SPEAKS ON NOV 6TH

gmhr1
06-28-2012, 06:54 PM
Update two million dollars raised by Romney in less than a day. I think the American people are speaking.

Gerry Clinchy
06-28-2012, 07:27 PM
In case one is interested ... some people have actually read this humongous law now ... and here are some highlights.
It's actually enlightening to see some of the provisions of the law that many of us probably don't know about.

The strike-outs are the items that have changed as a result of the SCOTUS decision.


46 50 Reasons to Repeal ALL of Obamacare NOW

Today the Supreme Court struck down portions of Obamacare as unconstitutional – states cannot be “dragooned” into expanding their Medicaid programs according to the law’s dictates. However, a list of 50 particularly onerous or egregious provisions in Obamacare (with sections from the statute duly noted) reveals just how much of this bad law remains. By the most generous interpretation, the Court struck down only four of the 50 egregious policies, illustrating why Congress should immediately repeal the entire measure once and for all. Among many other bad policies, the law:

1. Imposes $800 billion in tax increases, including no fewer than 12 separate provisions breaking candidate Obama’s “firm pledge” during his campaign that he would not raise “any of your taxes” (Sections 9001-9016)
2. Forces Americans to purchase a product for the first time ever (Section 1501)
3. Creates a board of 15 unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats to make binding rulings on how to reduce Medicare spending (Section 3403)
4. Pays over $800 billion in subsidies straight to health insurance companies (Sections 1401, 1402, and 1412)
5. Requires all individuals to buy government-approved health insurance plans, imposing new mandates that will raise individual insurance premiums by an average of $2,100 per family (Section 1302)
6. Forces seniors to lose their current health care, by enacting Medicare Advantage cuts that by 2017 will cut enrollment in half, and cut plan choices by two-thirds (Section 3201)
7. Imposes a 40 percent tax on health benefits, a direct contradiction of Barack Obama’s campaign promises (Section 9001)
8. Relies upon government bureaucrats to “issue guidance on best practices of plain language writing” (Section 1311(e)(3)(B))
9. Provides special benefits to residents of Libby, Montana – home of Max Baucus, the powerful Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who helped write the law even though he says he hasn’t read it (Section 10323)
10. Imposes what a Democrat Governor called the “mother of all unfunded mandates” – new, Washington-dictated requirements of at least $118 billion – at a time when states already face budget deficits totaling a collective $175 billion (Section 2001)
11. Imposes reductions in Medicare spending that, according to the program’s non-partisan actuary, would cause 40 percent of all Medicare providers to become unprofitable, and could lead to their exit from the program (Section 3401)
12. Raises premiums on more than 17 million seniors participating in Medicare Part D, so that Big Pharma can benefit from its “rock-solid deal” struck behind closed doors with President Obama and Congressional Democrats (Section 3301)
13. Creates an institute to undertake research that, according to one draft Committee report prepared by Democrats, could mean that “more expensive [treatments] will no longer be prescribed” (Section 6301)
14. Creates a multi-billion dollar “slush fund” doled out solely by federal bureaucrats, which has already been used to fund things like bike paths (Section 4002)
15. Subjects states to myriad new lawsuits, by forcing them to assume legal liability for delivering services to Medicaid patients for the first time in that program’s history (Section 2304)
16. Permits taxpayer dollars to flow to health plans that fund abortion, in a sharp deviation from prior practice under Democrat and Republican Administrations (Section 1303)
17. Empowers bureaucrats on a board that has ruled against mammograms and against prostate cancer screenings to make binding determinations about what types of preventive services should be covered (Sections 2713 and 4104)
18. Precludes poor individuals from having a choice of health care plans by automatically dumping them in the Medicaid program (Section 1413(a))
19. Creates a new entitlement program that one Democrat called “a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of” – a scheme so unsustainable even the Administration was forced to admit it would not work (Section 8002)
20. Provides $5 billion in taxpayer dollars to a fund that has largely served to bail out unions and other organizations who made unsustainable health care promises to retirees that they cannot afford (Section 1102)21. Creates a tax credit so convoluted it requires seven different worksheets to determine eligibility (Section 1421)22. Imposes multiple penalties on those who marry, by reducing subsidies (and increasing taxes) for married couples when compared to two individuals cohabiting together (Sections 1401-02)23. Extends the Medicare “payroll tax” to unearned income for the first time ever, including new taxes on the sale of some homes (Section 1402)24. Impedes state flexibility by requiring Medicaid programs to offer a specific package of benefits, including benefits like family planning services (Sections 2001(a)(2), 2001(c), 1302(b), and 2303(c))
25. Requires individuals to go to the doctor and get a prescription in order to spend their own Flexible Spending Account money on over-the-counter medicines (Section 9003)26. Expands the definition of “low-income” to make 63 percent of non-elderly Americans eligible for “low-income” subsidized insurance (Section 1401)
27. Imposes a new tax on the makers of goods like pacemakers and hearing aids (Section 9009)
28. Creates an insurance reimbursement scheme that could result in the federal government obtaining Americans’ medical records (Section 1343)
29. Permits states to make individuals presumptively eligible for Medicaid for unlimited 60-day periods, thus allowing any individual to receive taxpayer-funded assistance ad infinitum (Section 2303(b))
30. Allows individuals to purchase insurance on government exchanges – and to receive taxpayer-funded insurance subsidies – WITHOUT verifying their identity as American citizens (Section 1411)
31. Gives $300 million in higher Medicaid reimbursements to one state as part of the infamous “Louisiana Purchase” – described by ABC News as “what…it take[s] to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform” (Section 2006)
32. Raises taxes on firms who cannot afford to buy coverage for their workers (Section 1513)
33. Forces younger Americans to pay double-digit premium increases so that older workers can pay slightly less (Section 1201)
34. Prohibits states from modifying their Medicaid programs to include things like modest anti-fraud protections (Section 2001)
35. Includes a special provision increasing federal payments just for Tennessee (Section 1203(b))
36. Allows individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines – but only if politicians and bureaucrats agree to allow citizens this privilege (Section 1333)
37. Allows the HHS Secretary and federal bureaucrats to grant waivers exempting people from Obamacare’s onerous mandates, over half of which have gone to members of union plans (Section 1001)
38. Creates a pseudo-government-run plan overseen by the federal government (Section 1334)
39. Removes a demonstration project designed to force government-run Medicare to compete on a level playing field with private plans (Section 1102(f))
40. Gives the Secretary of HHS an UNLIMITED amount of federal funds to spend funding state insurance Exchanges (Section 1311(a))
41. Creates a grant program that could be used by liberal groups like ACORN or AARP to conduct “public education activities” surrounding Obamacare (Section 1311(i))
42. Applies new federal mandates to pre-Obamacare insurance policies, thus proving that you CAN’T keep the insurance plan you had – and liked – before the law passed (Sections 2301 and 10103)
43. Prohibits individuals harmed by federal bureaucrats from challenging those decisions, either in court or through regulatory processes (Sections 3001, 3003, 3007, 3008, 3021, 3022, 3025, 3133, 3403, 5501, 6001, and 6401)
44. Earmarks $100 million for “construction of a health care facility,” a “sweetheart deal” inserted by a Democrat Senator trying to win re-election (Section 10502)
45. Puts yet another Medicaid unfunded mandate on states, by raising payments to primary care physicians, but only for two years, forcing states to come up with another method of funding this unsustainable promise when federal funding expires (Section 1202)
46. Imposes price controls that have had the effect of costing jobs in the short time since they were first implemented (Section 1001)
47. Prohibits individuals from spending federal insurance subsidies outside government-approved Exchanges (Section 1401(a))
48. Provides a special increase in federal hospital payments just for Hawaii (Section 10201(e)(1))
49. Imposes new reporting requirements that will cost businesses millions of dollars, and affect thousands of restaurants and other establishments across the country (Section 4205)
50. Codifies 159 new boards, bureaucracies, and programs

The Supreme Court may have struck some of these onerous provisions, but the only way to ensure that ALL these provisions are eliminated – and never return – is to repeal ALL of this unconstitutional law immediately.

Chris Jacobs
Senior Policy Analyst
Joint Economic Committee
Senate Republican Staff
(202) 224-5171

paul young
06-28-2012, 09:05 PM
I'm sure uncle Bill wasn't making a derogatory post about blacks. Right, Bill? Why how could you think such a thing Sambo?-Paul

caryalsobrook
06-28-2012, 09:17 PM
Like many conservatives, I was stunned by the Court decision. After hearing many explanations of the decision, it seems to me that Justice Roberts does make more sense than one would think. Justice Roberts says it is a TAX and through our representatives, there is NO RESTRICTION on either the type or amount of tax that our representatives can levy. He along with the 4 so called liberal Justices also wrote a scathing rebuke of the government's position that it had the right to take such action under the Commerce Clause. They said that the gov. had no right to control from craddle to grave all conduct of the individual. Ironically, liberals argued the right under the Commerce Clause and conservatives argued it did not. Evidently the court concured concerning this issue. What should be vividly obvious to all now is that the government we elect has unlimited power of taxation and who we elect will now also be aware of that power.

Liberals such as Sambo, Buzz, Yardley, et al have argued for what they call is a single payor system, with the gov. being the single payor. They like to call it a single payor system but I call it a single employer system. When you tell me that doctors can only work for the government. That you cannot hire me and cannot pay me or another doctor for the services you desire and services that I can render, then the gov. has designated me a slave and can tell me only can I charge the gov. for my services, where I can live and who I can treat. I am not a lawyer but it appears to me that the gov. based on this ruling CANNOT implement a single employer system. They cannot tell me who can hire me or who can fire me. They cannot, being the single employer tell me who I can treat nor where I can live. I may be wrong but this is what I understand to be true.

As I understand it, the gov. cannot tell me that I have to work for it. It cannot tell me that I may not be able to work for anyone else. They cannot tell me I have to live where they tell me to live. I can live and work where I choose. I can work for who I choose so long as they choose to hire me. I can even tell the gov. to stick it where the sun don't shine if the try to require me to work for it. I can even tell those of liberal ilk that I will not work for them and take their business somewhere else.

To sumarize, it appears to me that the SCOUS has told the Amrican people that the gov. that they elect has the power to tax anything and everything they see fit so the american people had better be careful who they elect, but the gov. does not have the authority via the Commerce Clause to control the lives of individuals from craddle to grave. To my mind, maybe this is a good thing. The American people will now know what is at stake when they elect their representatives. Maybe the doctors will realize the impact they can have when it comes to Obamcare and the threat to their individual freedoms and the individual freedoms of their patients to hire them. It appears to me that together they can reign in the liberals and their attack on individual freedoms.

I write this as a question. Conservatives, tell me what I can do. Tell me what we can do together to stop this socialist, liberal, progressive, Democrat attempt to restrict our freedoms. I am certainly willing. Liberals, progressives, socialists, progressives, tell me where I am wrong. I am listening.

gmhr1
06-28-2012, 09:22 PM
We are retired military and have Triwest I wonder what changes we can expect?

Gerry Clinchy
06-28-2012, 11:15 PM
No Franco...you have this one wrong. Those new green card holders work and their employers have to pay 60% of their healthcare. If someone ops not to have healthcare...there is a tax of 1% of their income put on them and if they make a lot of money it is higher percentage. If the employer does not do his part, he is taxed.

If I make $50K/year, and have to pay 1% tax (young, single, healthy) ... that's $500. No brainer. The young, single, healthy making $50K, will likely not have insurance, unless it's provided 100% by his employer. Net result: same as now. No change. Except $500 goes into the govt kitty to subsidize those who are eligible for subsidy.

Those who are eligible for subsidy will pay varying amounts based on household income. As I recall, subsidies were to extend up to around $80K/year depending on family size.

The point of the program is to make sure people are insured so the others don't bear their cost. Their is nothing free in this program unless you don't work and those have always been covered by medicaid

The Court also said that the states would not be able to lose their Medicaid funds if they failed to expand Medicaid as proposed by the Fed law. So ... how do we come up with affordable health insurance for those people who still can't afford it and who are not going to become eligible for expanded Medicaid if their state chooses not to expand its Medicaid? They will remain uninsured?

Oh, yes, they will have the state insurance pools ... but what if they still can't afford the premiums even in those pools? Insurance pools for risky drivers are available, but they aren't cheap. I would have to guess that the state insurance pools will also not be a whole lot cheaper than other health insurance plans available. But it should make some jobs for state employee unions. And only those who are already sick will have a sense of urgency for using the pools, since the young, healthy people will still find it cheaper to pay the tax.

And since, in theory anyway, an illegal resident will not be able to be subsidized, will those uninsured still provide a burden on hospital emergency rooms? Will those doctors and hospitals still be stuck with the cost of treating those patients?

I wonder ... will the govt now feel a need to make life insurance and disability insurance mandatory? Mandatory disability insurance would be good. It would take the burden off SS disability, wouldn't it? Life insurance for the breadwinner(s) would be good, too. That would help relieve the burden of social welfare programs in the event of the death of the breadwinner has large impact on the family unit's income.

If the govt can dictate that the insurance companies have to provide contraception coverage at no charge, what other services can they require the insurors to provide at no charge? Seems like the insurance companies either have to raise overall premiums to cover the "free" stuff, or they just change their product mix to something that is more profitable. Maybe some of them simply get out of the health insurance business?

If this works so well in health insurance, how about banking? Maybe the govt can add an extra tax to banks that charge a higher interest rate for home loans than the govt thinks is appropriate? Maybe the govt decides that bank execs' bonuses are too high, and decide that the banks must give refunds to the people who have home mortgages with that bank?

With SS fund failing, maybe govt decides that everyone needs to have a retirement plan, and if you don't, you will be taxed.

Also occurs to me, WRT requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions. With Medicare Part D, you MUST sign up the first year you are eligible, within the prescribed period for signing up, or you are precluded from signing up for the rest of that year. Each year you defer purchasing Plan D coverage (after your year of eligibility), you pay an additional premium "penalty". Since this law is a work in progress, will they do that with Obamacare as well? If so, that could mean that for each year (starting in 2014) that you do not purchase your health insurance, you will pay a higher premium for signing up later.

So, if you are young and healthy and defer for 5 years, 10 years ... when you do get sick and want health insurance your premium will be higher than if you had signed up when you first became eligible. Obviously, the govt already figured out with Medicare that people will defer signing up for Plan D (for medications coverage) until they need to use medications.

As I've said before, and Franco concurs, there is no way to give medical care or medical insurance to 30 million more people and NOT have SOMEbody pay for it. If 1 million of those people need an MRI or CAT scan in a year, SOMEbody is going to pay for it.


I liked Rubio's comment that bad ideas can be legal, but that doesn't change the fact that they are bad ideas.

The SCOTUS has really put the ball back in the legislators' court ... and they have defined that the individual mandate IS a tax.

Gerry Clinchy
07-01-2012, 10:19 AM
From Newsday:


The upshot is that Congress cannot use the Commerce Clause to force you to eat broccoli, but it can tax you into doing so. Huzzah for liberty! To reach this decision, Roberts had to embrace a position denied by the White House, Congress and vast swaths of the legal punditocracy: that the mandate is a tax for the purposes of constitutional consideration but not a tax according to the Anti-Injunction Act (which bars lawsuits against taxes until after they're levied


I surely missed this nuance ... that it IS a tax, but ALSO is NOT a tax.

If that is the correct interpretation of Roberts' opinion, then there is absolutely nothing the govt cannot do to control citizens: they can tax you FOR doing something; or they can tax you for NOT doing something.

Think of it this way: they can tax you for using contraception; or they can tax you for not doing so ... depending on how they would like to control population growth, they can adjust the amount of the respective taxes accordingly.

Since this law is so convoluted, it also occurs to me: if you can't qualify for a "subsidy" for your health insurance (that you are required to have); and if the cost of the health insurance is still too expensive, you will be taxed for not buying the health insurance. While this tax is to be collected by the IRS, it is NOT an earned income tax.

So ... does this mean that even for those people who pay zero in income tax, they will be required to pay this tax anyhow? For example, even people who pay zero in income tax, and receive a paycheck from an employer, are still required to pay into SS and Medicare.

Will seniors on Medicare be required to have supplemental insurance to their Medicare? As we know, there are many expenses that are not covered by Medicare Part A and B; many seniors also pay for additional supplemental coverage. If Medicare payments are modified to pay less of the total bill, will the cost of the supplemental coverage increase? Will that then put seniors in a position of being unable to get the supplemental coverage? Will the 10 or 15 million uninsured now simply trade places with seniors who will end up under-insured? Will seniors who don't buy supplemental coverage be subject to the lack of insurance tax?

While proposals for re-structuring Medicare typically begin for people presently under 55, how does O-care provide for those presently dependent on Medicare if there is no "transition" period?

Does all this really end up leading to a single-payer system after all?

While we may be quick to say that Medicare was a bad idea to begin with, nonetheless, it is now a factor in the health care system. And ... the numbers impacted by Medicare will grow dramatically as the "boomer" generation enters that system.

I believe that saying "the poor will always be with us" also includes, "the OLD and the poor will always be with us."

It always comes back to the basic premise of: there is no free lunch. If someone gets something they didn't have before; someone else is NOT going to have something they DID have before. Just depends on who is doing the choosing of who gets what.

Uncle Bill
07-01-2012, 02:29 PM
You have written some very astute posts, Gerry. As to this query...

"I write this as a question. Conservatives, tell me what I can do. Tell me what we can do together to stop this socialist, liberal, progressive, Democrat attempt to restrict our freedoms. I am certainly willing. Liberals, progressives, socialists, progressives, tell me where I am wrong. I am listening."

...certainly you know the answer...the ONLY answer...we MUST get rid of this sham of a regime. It's totally about "CHANGE"! The type of change we AMERICANS provided in 2010. Only now we MUST finish the job in the Senate AND the White House!

FWIW, I'll post another view on the Robert's decision for your edification. If we wish to be somewhat benevolent towards his thinking, I believe the writer has come up with a legitimate reason for Robert's action.

UB

Uncle Bill
07-01-2012, 02:49 PM
Here's a view of the Robert's decision that I'd like to believe. Most of us conservatives have been in a state of shock ever since he handed down the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare. We just couldn't fathom how he could have changed 'stripes' so quickly. This MAY be the answer, OR it's one dudes spin to allow us conservatives to still have faith in how Roberts will view future decisions.

If indeed this is what Robert's intended, then it is quite brilliant.

As to the MSP exhilaration, saying Roberts sided with the other four lefties, he didn't. This was not a 5-4 decision...it was a 4-4-1. The left had no say in this. If it did, we wouldn't be calling it a "TAX". This was the Chief Justice re-writing the act and making it known to all that it was never about the commerce clause, it was always a TAX, regardless of how vociferous Obama and his toadies in the Democrat party wanted it to NOT BE A TAX.

UB
Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Long-Term Decision With ObamaCare

Bert Atkinson Jr. (http://www.ijreview.com/author/bubba/)

http://www.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/6a00d8341c630a53ef0120a91d0029970b-600wi.jpeg (http://www.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/6a00d8341c630a53ef0120a91d0029970b-600wi.jpeg)

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.
It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever.

The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical.

Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

Brilliant.

SHARE this interesting piece with your friends by clicking the buttons below!
This article, written by I.M. Citizen, gives a much different perspective of Justice Robert’s decision. Comment below and let us know what you think. Also check out I.M. Citizen’s blog (http://www.imcitizen.net/) - quite interesting.

charly_t
07-01-2012, 06:43 PM
Thanks for sharing that, U. Bill. Hope it plays out as this article seems to say it will.

Gerry Clinchy
07-01-2012, 08:53 PM
I read that same piece, Bill ... but what worries me ...

One is the recent post I made that implies that although it was ruled a tax, it will be immune from being challenged (after a the tax is actually in effect). I did not realize that; nor did I realize that it was a possibility to have that occur. In other words, this is it, folks.

A precedent has been set that the govt CAN, indeed, tax citizens for failure to buy or do something the govt has decided is for "the greater good". That is HUGE.

Economists are now beginning to look at who will be most impacted by this. If you're poor enough, you'll get a subsidy. If you're rich enough, you'll just pay the increased costs. The ones who will suffer most are in the middle ... a family, for example, earning around $120K. If the cost of health insurance goes up (as predicted), that tier of taxpayer could also join the ranks of the uninsured.

Most unfair of all is that certain companies and unions will have their employees/members keep the plans they are happy with ... but lots of other people will have to take whatever is left available that they can afford.

Also slipped in there is the increase in deductability qualification for medical expenses. Remember when it used to be 2.5% ... it will now be 10%. Donald Trump may not feel the pain of that, but the fellow making $120K, and two kids to raise (and send to college) certainly could feel some pain.

teddyg
07-02-2012, 01:47 AM
The fact that Judge Roberts wrote in his opinion that it is a tax just makes it that much easier to overturn. That is if the GOP can win the Senate in November.

If Obamacare lives, it will cost all those that work for a living more. There is no way to add 20-30 million uninsured without someone paying for it! Not only is this another major step towards socialism, this grows the Fed Government by leaps and bounds when we should be cutting the size of the Fed Government.

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/532192_10150917224935954_434096563_n.jpg

You are spot on Franco.

Gerry Clinchy
07-02-2012, 08:34 AM
I couldn't help but see the irony in this ...

7766

Is it really too hard to imagine that this will actually occur?

LokiMeister
07-02-2012, 09:48 AM
...it was ruled a tax, it will be immune from being challenged...

Why can't it be challenged?

Gerry Clinchy
07-02-2012, 11:17 AM
Here's Judge Napolitano's view of the ruling. And I guess this was what I was trying to say.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/02/vast-new-federal-power/

He also brings up another point: that a "tax" must originate in the House; and this law did not!



Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts really means what he wrote -- that congressional power to tax is without constitutional limit -- and his opinion is a faithful reflection of that view, without a political or legal or intra-court agenda. But that view finds no support in the Constitution or our history. It even contradicts the most famous of Marshall's big government aphorisms:

The power to tax is the power to destroy.





I wonder whether the chief justice realizes what he and the progressive wing of the court have done to our freedom. If the feds can tax us for not doing as they have commanded, and if that which is commanded need not be grounded in the Constitution, then there is no constitutional limit to their power, and the ruling that the power to regulate commerce does not encompass the power to compel commerce is mere sophistry.

Even The Beatles understood this.



f you drive a car, I'll tax the street, If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.
-- The Beatles in “The Taxman”





Another opinion was that by accepting that the govt can decide, without limit, how much of one's after-tax income we can keep (the O-care tax is from after-tax funds), we are becoming like children who are allotted an allowance by our parents.

Ayn Rand may have been an atheist, but she sure called this one right. The value of the individual is sacrifice to the altar of "the greater good."