PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
so Obama fills one campaign promise by reneging on another......he gives us health care and a new tax on people earning less than $250,000..........
Mandate UPHELD!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
I'm all for compassion, and I've always supported Universal access.But the ill will live.
I guess ( extrapolating) SCOTUS just says "Congress has the power to tax, and decided this is a tax, bill . Yet it isn't. But now it is.
Makes sense to me
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
This must be the new talking point I have seen it in several places already.
Guess what? They are laughing in the white house. Sorry.
apple0154
MEOW
No more slimy than basing a person's access to medical care on what's in their wallet.
apple0154
MEOW
I'm all for compassion, and I've always supported Universal access.
I guess ( extrapolating) SCOTUS just says "Congress has the power to tax, and decided this is a tax, bill . Yet it isn't. But now it is.
Makes sense to me
Universal access would never have passed at this point in time. This is the start to universal access. Now that the government is involved it can and will negotiate prices later on down the road.
You'll take some crap for this post, but no one is likely to deny its the truth....
Only for a finite time.....If there is no profit to be realized, insurance co.'s will die a slow but sure death and gov. will control your very life in a very real and meaningful way....
good luck with that....
"Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government,means the mandate can be regarded as establishing acondition—not owning health insurance—that triggers atax—the required payment to the IRS." - Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts.
That was the ruling. It's why CNN reported that the mandate was unconstitutional.
Mandate = Unconstitutional
Tax = Okay.
SC rules that this is a tax.
OK. so can we all agree this is now a tax law? ( no matter the conflict about how it was passed).
It's a law with a tax component, but it's much more than a tax law.
I know what the Supreme Court said. It didn't say what you said (i.e. that purchasing health insurance is a tax).
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what can and cannot be included in reconciliation bills.
As did a LOT of right wing bloggers, news sites and twitterers.
lol...check out the front page of Drudge. He'll never be the same!
Or they could act responsibly.
Althea
Althea told me...
Didn't Bush ram through his tax cuts via budget recon?
If it affects the budget, it's legal.
Althea
Althea told me...
What exactly would your Univ. HC do to taxes?
cawacko
Well-known member
I'll admit I'm confused. I haven't read every post before this so this may have been discussed until everyone is blue in the face so I apologize for being late to the game. How does it work if the mandate is upheld on the tax law but this isn't a new tax yet you pay a tax if you don't insurance? Am I missing something there?
apple0154
MEOW
This talk about government controlling people's lives is nonsense. Many people don't understand how government medical works.
When one is ill the doctor/hospital contacts the patient's insurance company to see what is and what isn't covered. Also, the insurance company decides on what specific treatment they will pay for. Government insurance does not operate like that. When a treatment is covered by government insurance it means everyone is covered for that treatment and the doctor makes the decision. The government does not decide the appropriateness of a specific treatment in individual cases. That is the fundamental difference.
Ill people and doctors work together with private insurance companies and come to an agreement on what the doctor will do and what the insurance company will pay for. That is not how government insurance works. The doctor does not consult the government about an individual's care because every individual is entitled to whatever care the government plan covers. That is the fundamental difference a lot of people have difficulty comprehending. Furthermore, because government medical/universal care has to cover every citizen it's natural the plan will cover more than any other individual plan.
To use an analogy suppose there was government home owner's insurance/universal home owner's insurance. People who lived in a desert climate would be covered for flood damage because the guy who lived by a river has to be covered. A person living in Hawaii would be covered for snow damage because people in Alaska would require such coverage.
The same principal operates with government health insurance. The person living in a desert is covered for any injuries resulting from a boating accident because the person living in Maine requires that insurance. The person in Alaska would be covered for illness due to heat stroke because the individual in Nevada may require it.
Government medical is nothing like the restrictive, limited coverage offered by private medical plans and this is what Obama is working on. As he said during a brief lunch time address the health care act will be adjusted as time goes on. It's a work in progress.
A reconciliation bill is a bill containing changes in law recommended pursuant to reconciliation instructions in a budget resolution
Reconciliation provisions must meet the strict requirements of the Senate’s Byrd rule, which prohibits a reconciliation bill from containing any provisions that do not affect the revenues or outlays of the federal government, and from containing “recommendations with respect to” the Social Security program. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2010/03/19/the-health-care-reform-reconciliation-bill/
Byrd Rule
Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:
1.if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;2.if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
3.if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
4.if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
5.if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure; and
6.if it recommends changes in Social Security
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Where do tax bills originated?:.All finance bills must originate in the House of Representativesre: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_do_tax_bills_originated#ixzz1z6vLAF5m
In sum the AFHC law is a tax bill that did not originate thru the House, it was "reconcilled" between the Chambers, after fillibustering as a "budget bill. so it did NOT Orignate in the House, as it was not a tax bill-it was a budget bill -until today it did become a tax bill(comment in blus is mine)At issue is a process called budget reconciliation. By writing Obama's health care plan as a budget bill, Democrats can prevent a Republican filibuster in the Senate and advance the bill with a simple majority instead of the 60-vote supermajority they no longer have.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124009985
Last edited: