SCOTUS Strikes Down ObamaCare Individual Mandate

[Tsigos]

Ok I lied, this is going to by my next post.

Step 4, eat some more bacon!

See, we can find common ground.

 

[PKendall317]

See, we can find common ground.

Last post I promise! Lol. Yeah, provided it doesn't involve politics.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

You know, other countries have nationalized healthcare systems, and as far as I'm aware, they haven't gotten up in arms about it the way people are currently doing about Obamacare.

We, sir, are not "other countries".

We, sir live free. Or at least we try to.

If I wanted to live like "other countries", sir, I'd move there.

 

[.45 Dave]

Yeah. Business people never use lawyers. They never ask for legal advice or use a lawyer to exploit tax loopholes. The people we select to make laws and draft legislation should be inventors and producers of widgets. They are the most qualified.

Actually I think you missed the entire point of my post. If you want to get an economy going would you rather have a legal brief or legislation or some one who has actually run a business? Electing someone who hasn't even run a lemonade stand but has a Harvard law degree hasn't really worked out too well for us has it?

 

[semperfi211]

 

[rugertoter]

Damn! Roberts has sold out the American people and sided with the libs!!! The individual mandate SURVIVES but as a tax. The m..... f..... is going to get his way. This is a HUGE POLITICAL VICTORY for BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA. This likely gives Obama the WH in November.

A sad day for America.

Or, he handed the voters a reason, as if we need another one, to vote these idiots out of office.

 

[j706]

Or, he handed the voters a reason, as if we need another one, to vote these idiots out of office.

Bingo!!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

don't play around, we know you are voting for anyone, except Sam Shaw.

does anybody outside Bedford know Sam?

 

[Indy317]

I do. Lots of small business people make money in that range and higher and they are solidly in the middle class. Many middle class couples pull down that, or more and they're middle class.

If one makes $330K/year, and pays their basic taxes, they aren't middle class at all. That is a take home pay of $100K/year. Now if you factor in that they are somehow saying this is business money, and that $100K/year (at least that) they clear in take home pay also goes toward business expenses, than they could be called middle class.

The wife and I have never made close to $100K/year, but did make over that. Since we have no children, and actually saved our money instead of jaunting off to Mexico, Europe, buying new cars ever two years, etc., I would even have a hard time saying we are middle class.

It all goes to what folks do with their money. I know couples who make $150K/year, and try to basically claim they are near poverty. Just because you make it, doesn't mean you need to spend it. I know, I know....'but if I make $150K/year, I should be able to afford a $300K home!'

My only problem with my Dad, who is by no means a millionaire, ....And I wouldn't call him greedy, but I would definately call him frugal.

One thing to ask, does your dad use his SSN as his TIN (taxpayer identification number). Some people, who make good money, do. One major issue is that those who do could "make" on paper $500K/year. The problem is that the amount they make is used to buy supplies, pay a worker, maybe two, etc.. This is part of the issue many small business owners will fall under. I'm not exactly clear on the specifics, but this is what I get from media sources.

He isn't a millionaire, it doesn't matter. Obama just raised your dad's taxes, because he dared to open a business and hire people. Your dad will either pay money to the government, or money to a healthcare management company.

The employees will then have to buy insurance themselves, or they will also pay a tax. If they don't make much money, then they will go on Medicaid. This will repeat over and over, causing a huge spike in those on government healthcare. Everyone will pay more taxes for the millions jumping on Medicaid and using ERs as their Doctor's office.

We have a PROGRESSIVE income tax in this country.

We don't have a true progressive income tax. A single millionaire pays the same 10% on the first part of their $8,700 as a person who makes $30,000.

You know, other countries have nationalized healthcare systems, and as far as I'm aware, they haven't gotten up in arms about it the way people are currently doing about Obamacare.

Many of these are European countries. Have you seen Europe, at least part of it, lately? I've seen general photos of buildings and "high schools" from some parts of Europe. If we had high schools in this country, outside the inner city, parents would be going nuts. We are talking exposed, chipping paint brick/stone walls maybe over one hundred years old, etc.. Europe spends on their healthcare. The problem is, some of the "poor" (ie: Greece, Portugal, and maybe Spain) want more and more, yet they want to give nothing for it. We have yet to see this come to head. Canada is having issues as well. More and more of the rich want our style of healthcare, and they are willing to pay for it (even after paying upwards of 50% in national taxes). In both counties, people are rioting for "more." National healthcare takes lots of money, huge amounts. That leaves very little for others things, like new schools, new hospitals, new roads, unemployment benefits, etc..

 

[jamil]

The source is the 2005 U.S. Census Bureau. Feel free to find something to disprove me but please don't simply call my support inaccurate without your own backup. At least I took the time to backup my point unlike most of the misinformation in this thread.

Everyone has a different definition of middle class and it's usually one that places themselves as being near the top of what they consider "middle class". I would not consider anyone in the top 10 or 20% of earners to be "middle class" but I would say that the vast majority of high wage earners deal with issues not all that different from the "middle class". The real difference is between the wealthy and non-wealthy. Unfortunately, the wealthy have used their money to convince the non-wealthy to argue against their own interests.

Perhaps that's true, but long term it is never in one's best interest to be owned by government, which seems to be the predominant alternative.

 

[hornadylnl]

Where to even begin.



Romney to campaign as only hope against "Obamacare" - Yahoo! News

Note the sign on Romney's podium. Repeal and Replace

"This is great politically. Bad for the country, but great politically," a Romney adviser said.

Good to see that the Romney campaign has their priorities in order.


Romney cast his opposition to the law in economic terms, arguing that its tax increases and new regulations would hurt job creation and the overall size of the program would increase the national debt.
"If we want good jobs and a bright economic future, for ourselves and for our kids, we must replace Obamacare," he said.

Here we have that replace thing again. We'll end up with an even more convoluted mess if Romney manages to change anything about Obamacare.

 

[churchmouse]

All I can say is just wait until they don't get the money they expected in their tax returns. Then suddenly they'll understand.

You have to deliver a
"Gibbs" smack to the head so these people will wake the hell up and see we are truly in trouble. The cheese, bread and circus routine is going to stop and then they will be wondering what the hell hit them. Folks like this rely on the tax return to get them kick started into summer. I see it in my kids friends. New stereo equipment, cloths and that oh so important latest version of cell phone whatever and a pair of pumped up kicks. We have to effect the thinking at their
level or this will never get any better, only worse.

 

[churchmouse]

Where to even begin.



Romney to campaign as only hope against "Obamacare" - Yahoo! News

Note the sign on Romney's podium. Repeal and Replace

"This is great politically. Bad for the country, but great politically," a Romney adviser said.

Good to see that the Romney campaign has their priorities in order.


Romney cast his opposition to the law in economic terms, arguing that its tax increases and new regulations would hurt job creation and the overall size of the program would increase the national debt.
"If we want good jobs and a bright economic future, for ourselves and for our kids, we must replace Obamacare," he said.

Here we have that replace thing again. We'll end up with an even more convoluted mess if Romney manages to change anything about Obamacare.

Will not hold my breath about this guy totally repealing this bad legislation.

 

[jamil]

So this issue is blowing up on faceobook as much as on here but there's a lot more lefty libtards out there. I'm trying to be civil in my disagreement and I can tell that soon my "FB friends" will resort to name calling, claiming I'm a racist, blocking me, deleting me, etc... They are already calling me missinformed, some rich guy that doesn't need health insurance, claiming I have some other motivation...

Am I wrong to believe it's my responsibility to take care of my family, my bills and not the .gov?

These lefties truly have no sense of personal responsibility. Even some of the people that work in health care don't see that they themselves are part of the overall cost of healthcare.

SmileDocHill pointed out a bumper sticker a couple weeks ago that said "Health care for profit is immoral". I had to LOL at that mentality.

Lefties seem to have this intellectual superiority complex. If you don't agree with them, you're just simple. Politics are way too complex for simple people to understand. Better leave it up to complex people like Bill Maher to explain for us. But it hasn't occurred to them yet that maybe it really is that simple.

It's been my experience that the truly intellectually superior folks can break the most complex subjects into simple terms. I've had several lessons in college and life where truly great people have made complex concepts very simple to understand.

But in this case, people are trying to make the simple seem very complex. The simple thing is that we can't make healthcare free. Health care professionals don't work for free, and the medicines and equipment they use aren't free. Someone has to pay for it. Obama claimed that his system is revenue neutral. But the CBO disagrees, and when we are bleeding off more than $1 trillion per year, into an alarmingly increasing bucket of debt, our nation just can't afford it. It's that simple.

Another unnecessary complexity liberals throw in the mix is the philosophical idea that people have a *right* to free health care. The logical conclusion of that is, people then have a right to make other people serve them with no compensation. A right can't make slaves of other people. If people have a right to make other people serve them with no compensation, then plantation owners in the old south had a right to make other people work for them with no compensation? So then, who are the racists?

 

[88GT]

1. Whether or not I stay up late is none of my Father's damn business!
2. I never said I didn't have a problem living in a country that tells other people how to spend their money, and have already said I don't agree with the government requiring people to buy health care.
3. Give me an example of which laws violated the amendments I mentioned?
4. History is one of my favorite subjects

1. Lighten up, Frances. I was simply targeting you for your age.

2.But you don't have a problem with a country that tells other people how to spend their money because you support "reasonable" but higher rates on those who earn more income. I could add that you support a government that steals from its citizens. Tsk. Tsk.

3. For the First: McCain-Feingold; For the 2nd: GCA '68; For the 4th: NDAA, Patriot Act, numerous individual SCOTUS rulings that chip away at the protections of our person and property; For the 5th: SCOTUS decision Kelo v. City of New London; FOr the 8th: Pelosi; For the 9th: every damn piece of legislation that seems to come from Congress these days; For the 10th: SCOTUS ruling on SB1070 though honestly, every act of Congress these days is an overstep of its authority and therefore a de facto violation of the 10th.

(Granted, I expanded the level of violations to include SCOTUS decisions, but since they have the force of law, but sometimes SCOTUS decisions are worse since they can't be repealed.)

4. Then I respectfully submit that you do not proffer information or insights into subjects in which you have not sufficient knowledge. To do so makes you look like a fool. To repeat those insights in the face of overwhelming contradictory information makes you look like an idiot.

I'd be interested to see if there are any polls or data out there that ask wether or not the people who live in countries that already have a nationalized healthcare system are happy with it and the higher taxes that I'm sure they pay for it.

Are you not familiar with the British health care system? I strongly suggest you look it up and see what's going on over there. I don't imagine people are happy about dying because the government is controlling their health care access, but maybe I'm just the odd girl out on that one.

Step 1, delete your Facebook account

Step 2, eat some bacon

Step 3, spend time and effort on those who actually have an open mind to the truth

Step 3 has an unsupported and illogical premise in it. Though I have deactivated my account (for other reasons), there is a significant presence of libertarians and freedom-minded individuals on FB. FB is also a very potent medium to spreading the news.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The only group that should pay a larger share are those that make a buttload more than the others, so long as it is at the same rate.

I've always been on the fence about this. On one hand I believe that "fair" is I pay 10% so the next guy should pay 10%.... but then on the other hand, if I pay 10% and my income is $20,000, that 10% would hurt much more than the $20,000 a guy making $200,000 is taxed. So my question is, is fair the same percent, or the same "hurt" to the pocket?

 

[88GT]

I've always been on the fence about this. On one hand I believe that "fair" is I pay 10% so the next guy should pay 10%.... but then on the other hand, if I pay 10% and my income is $20,000, that 10% would hurt much more than the $20,000 a guy making $200,000 is taxed. So my question is, is fair the same percent, or the same "hurt" to the pocket?

This just speaks to the oppressive level of taxation here. And the absolute immorality of taxing income.

 

[Kutnupe14]

don't millionaires and billionaires employ people... who pay taxes?

don't millionaires and billionaires buy big expensives houses, cars and toys? Built by people who work for somebody... who pay taxes?

again, we don't have an revenue problem, we have a SPENDING problem

Do they? Or better yet, "where" are these people they employ paying taxes? In line with free market thinking, I'd rather employ people making 50 cents/hr in Malaysia than $10/hr in Martinsville. And a great many American "millionaires" make their money on the backs of foreign workers with no benefit to the nation. It, IMO, is one of the great flaws of the free market.

 

[PKendall317]

1. Lighten up, Frances. I was simply targeting you for your age.

2.But you don't have a problem with a country that tells other people how to spend their money because you support "reasonable" but higher rates on those who earn more income. I could add that you support a government that steals from its citizens. Tsk. Tsk.

3. For the First: McCain-Feingold; For the 2nd: GCA '68; For the 4th: NDAA, Patriot Act, numerous individual SCOTUS rulings that chip away at the protections of our person and property; For the 5th: SCOTUS decision Kelo v. City of New London; FOr the 8th: Pelosi; For the 9th: every damn piece of legislation that seems to come from Congress these days; For the 10th: SCOTUS ruling on SB1070 though honestly, every act of Congress these days is an overstep of its authority and therefore a de facto violation of the 10th.

(Granted, I expanded the level of violations to include SCOTUS decisions, but since they have the force of law, but sometimes SCOTUS decisions are worse since they can't be repealed.)

4. Then I respectfully submit that you do not proffer information or insights into subjects in which you have not sufficient knowledge. To do so makes you look like a fool. To repeat those insights in the face of overwhelming contradictory information makes you look like an idiot.






Are you not familiar with the British health care system? I strongly suggest you look it up and see what's going on over there. I don't imagine people are happy about dying because the government is controlling their health care access, but maybe I'm just the odd girl out on that one.


Step 3 has an unsupported and illogical premise in it. Though I have deactivated my account (for other reasons), there is a significant presence of libertarians and freedom-minded individuals on FB. FB is also a very potent medium to spreading the news.

All I know about the British health care system is that it is a nationalized one. Other than that I am completely ignorant regarding it.

Ok, now I have alot of legislation to look up, thanks for providing me with new reading material 88! . But I do remember when the PATRIOT Act passed and a lot of my adult friends weren't too happy about it, I was too young to be interested in politics at the time.

 

[drillsgt]

I do. Lots of small business people make money in that range and higher and they are solidly in the middle class. Many middle class couples pull down that, or more and they're middle class.

That's just because they live beyond their means buying crap they don't need and at the end of the month don't have any more to show for it then someone making 30K a year.