1876 replies to this topic

[Nate River]

13 Attorneys General sue over Health Care Bill

This could be good or bad depending on an individuals situation, but we'll see where it goes, if anywhere. It kind of reminds me/makes me think of the states that tried to secede from the union because they didn't like President Lincoln.

This is nothing close to that.

Besides, it's primarily under the Ninth and Tenth Amendent. I can't see it working. The most vulnerable provision is probably the individual mandate, but that's easy right now. The States probably don't have standing to sue, since they aren't being forced to buy anything. Finding an individual willing to sue will be easy, but I wonder if a Court will here it at this time because they can always say the issue isn't ripe since no one has been required to buy insurance yet.

[Dreamer]

Hence the ' ' around the word 'historic'.

I apologize Shauna, i failed to see that.

[Nee-sama]

I know it's not like that, I'm not an imbecile. I'm just saying that it has similarities that made me think of it.

[Nate River]

I know it's not like that, I'm not an imbecile. I'm just saying that it has similarities that made me think of it.

I apologize, I don't mean to treat you like one. I didn't like the comparision because it implies things about what they states are doing now versus what they did then that simply aren't true,

[Sakura Blossoms]

I apologize Shauna, i failed to see that.

Lol, no reason to apologize, my friend

[Pite]

Wouldn't the 10th Amendment be as valid as would the right of the Federal Government to regulate interstate trade? I mean aren't Insurance companies interstate companies. I can see the 10th Amendment there since it was not clearly defined in the Constitution about health. But wouldn't Education be also under state jurisdiction, while there is such legislation such as "NCLB" and the Arnie Duncan reform of that.

[ciardha]

http://riverdaughter...-womens-rights/

http://www.reclusive...ll-going-to-do/

[Dreamer]

So do lot of you guys think the health care bill will help or bring the economy down? I heard that they added additional taxes at the end of the bill before it passed.

[Sakura Blossoms]

So do lot of you guys think the health care bill will help or bring the economy down? I heard that they added additional taxes at the end of the bill before it passed.

I don't appreciate being forced to get healthcare, and getting charged a frigging fee if I don't. I don't like that they're cutting billions out of the Medicare program to pay for this crap. And there are a number of other things that I don't like or appreciate about this bill that got passed, but what can we do. What's done is done. Obama has had his 'historic' bill passed. He's happy.

At the rate he's going he's going to get booted out of office in 2012, and drag all the other Democrats out of office with him.

[True]

So do lot of you guys think the health care bill will help or bring the economy down? I heard that they added additional taxes at the end of the bill before it passed.

The bill costs $940 billion over the first 10 years and will reduce the deficit by $130 billion during that time. In the second 10 years (2020-2029) it will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion. This is calculated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) which is a non-partisan organization. However, these estimates are at a 50/50 point since the reform is a highly complicated matter that is very large and hard to break down Source. You will just have to "wait and see" for results.

The main taxes that will pay for the bill are:

• Cadillac Tax: Insurance companies will pay a 40% tax on high-end insurance plans worth over $27,500 for families and $10,200 for individuals. (This will start in 2018)
• Medicare Payroll Tax: Charges a 3.8% tax on investment income for families making more than $250,000 and $200,000 for individuals per a year. (This will start in 2012)
• Tan Tax: 10% increase for using indoor tanning salons

Of course there are many other taxes included but these are the major ones for now. This bill will rely heavily on fixing the current medicare system and using it efficiently. Also as the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan being to settle down the U.S. will be able to allocate its budget heavily since a significant proportion of it is devoted to the Military (the second biggest portion, second only to Social Security). Source

That's true. I was just curious because I have quite a bit of friends accusing him to be Socialist or Communist, and they have been following the bill closer than I, so despite my willingness to stop the accusations, I'm not going to because I lack the knowledge anyway.....

If you want good unbiased info (without being accused as a socialist/communist or a teabagger) PolitiFact and Fact Check are good sites to gather and understand information.

[Nate River]

The bill costs $940 billion over the first 10 years and will reduce the deficit by $130 billion during that time. In the second 10 years (2020-2029) it will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion. This is calculated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) which is a non-partisan organization. However, these estimates are at a 50/50 point since the reform is a highly complicated matter that is very large and hard to break down Source. You will just have to "wait and see" for results.

That's merely the CBO estimate. Problem is, it's full of accounting gimmicks and assumptions that everyone knows will never materialize.

The most notorious is that the its based on 10 years of taxes versus six years for the majority of benefits. Even the CBO openly stated that if the doc fix is included it immediately goes into the red. Dems won't cut medicare (which is also required to get that number). The projected revenue from the taxes must meet what the say.

Put it another way...have medicaid/medicare come close to projected costs....hell no.

The CBO score is only worth the assumptions its given by those asking for the score no matter how fraudulent those assumptions are.

[Sakura Blossoms]

Well if you believe in polls, it seems that Democrats are actually gaining support for the Healthcare bill now that it's been passed:

http://news.yahoo.co...huffpost/510563

[True]

That's merely the CBO estimate. Problem is, it's full of accounting gimmicks and assumptions that everyone knows will never materialize.

The most notorious is that the its based on 10 years of taxes versus six years for the majority of benefits. Even the CBO openly stated that if the doc fix is included it immediately goes into the red. Dems won't cut medicare (which is also required to get that number). The projected revenue from the taxes must meet what the say.

Put it another way...have medicaid/medicare come close to projected costs....hell no.

The CBO score is only worth the assumptions its given by those asking for the score no matter how fraudulent those assumptions are.

Oh I highly agree. Many of the conditions depend on Congress actually putting its commerce to good use and well..we all know how that works out.

My biggest grip would be to simply tax the rich and expect it to pay around $87 billion dollars over the next ten years. However, with the Medicare tax on investment income, it supposed to rise to $210. But of course we all know how easy it is to track and enforce taxes on "unearned" income, the whole issue is bound to become confabulated as the most likely payer of the reform would be China. With the Baby Boomer generation nearing retirement and social security waning as thin as it is, fixing Medicare/Medicaid will become highly crucial and the most important issue to resolve as it combined with Social Security make up about a third of the budget. The bill is asking heavily for the government to run at maximum efficiency to pull this thing through and that is a nervous thought.

Come November during midterm elections I don't believe this health care reform will matter since most of it doesn't take effect until 2014 anyways. The biggest issue by then will be on Unemployment which still is stuck around 10%. If either party wants to gain support of the voters, that number will have to drop significantly in the next few months.

[Insurrection]

Come November during midterm elections I don't believe this health care reform will matter since most of it doesn't take effect until 2014 anyways. The biggest issue by then will be on Unemployment which still is stuck around 10%. If either party wants to gain support of the voters, that number will have to drop significantly in the next few months.

The problem with November is the politics, whoever puts up the more centrist candidate will win. The Democrats are unpopular but they're not going to lose the way everyone says. What's going to happen is the Republicans will have primary issues with the Tea Party and those who wish to move further to the right. Either the republicans put people in place who's rhetoric turns off everyone or the tea party puts up a challenger causing the vote to split, thereby letting the opposition to them win.

Unemployment, Forclosure and Economic policy is what is going to influence the November elections you're right on that, but who the hell is actually going to hear them talk about it? No one wants to cover the issue, they want the fight.

The boomers are another story all together, people state that the younger always blames the older generation, but how much crap has happened in the past 30-40 years?

Edited by Insurrection, 24 March 2010 - 05:31 PM.

[Sakura Blossoms]

*lets out a disgusted sigh*

I wonder if these Republicans realize that their misguided personal 'backlash' attacks, will just create backlash against their entire party:

http://news.yahoo.co..._politico/34907

[Insurrection]

*lets out a disgusted sigh*

I wonder if these Republicans realize that their misguided personal 'backlash' attacks, will just create backlash against their entire party:

http://news.yahoo.co..._politico/34907

Uh, I'm going with no. Even if Boehner tried covering his ass today, if it expands they're screwed.

Edited by Insurrection, 25 March 2010 - 04:54 AM.

[Sakura Blossoms]

Sour grapes:

Republicans didn't like the bill and don't like the law. And they voted against it. Fine.

But trying to refight the last war, on the same battlefield and with the same forces, isn't dedication; it's political stupidity.

Obviously, repeal is not possible now with Democrats controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House, and by demanding repeal, Republicans look like a bunch of spoiled children who didn't get their way rather than adults focused on fixing a problem. Voters won't like that.

From a political point of view, it's an amateurish mistake. In fact, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has been goading Republican candidates into taking a stand on repeal for months, understanding the damage that Republicans could do to themselves by making the midterm elections a referendum on themselves, instead of on the president and Congress.

That doesn't mean Republicans should forget about health care, of course.

Polling has long shown that the public isn't crazy about the law (forget the quick post-passage polls that reflect short-term events), and as long as Republicans don't make their quest for repeal into this cycle's version of the Clinton impeachment zoo, the GOP stands to benefit from the issue in many states and districts this fall.

Now that the bill has been enacted into law, Republican political leaders and candidates should talk about the overhaul's problems and relate those problems back to the public's larger concerns, whether growing debt, higher taxes or government intrusion into people's lives. But talking about the law's ramifications and keeping the focus on the Democrats' performance is very different than ranting about repeal.

More importantly, Republicans probably shouldn't forget what Democrats unwisely did for a year -- that Americans care more about jobs than anything else.

The 2010 elections are likely to be about jobs and the economy, and that's what Republicans should be talking about as they criticize the Obama administration and Democratic Congress, whether they are talking about health care, cap-and-trade or the 2009 economic stimulus bill.

By demanding repeal immediately after passage, Republicans resemble unsuccessful candidates who keep challenging election results and refuse to concede. Voters don't like candidates who sound like sour grapes, and they won't like a party that sounds that way either.

Stuart Rothenberg is editor of the Rothenberg Political Report (rothenbergpoliticalreport.com)

[Dreamer]

More than likely the person who wrote that was biased like Michael Moore. I just don't think that's entirely true for the "whole" republican party. Sure every party has some facists that show up when things get ugly and not in their favor but one of the reasons i believe their fighting against it is one of the republicans main drives is to keep maternal aburtion from being legalised and the tax cuts for the middle class, Which some of them think this bill will oppose their strong beliefs.

[Insurrection]

The problem is they alienated others by not explaining their rhetoric in a comprehensive way. Yeah, there are always wackos but when the public face is the wacko itself socitey doesn't like it. Screaming terms and talking points all the time will help you none of the time.

Edited by Insurrection, 25 March 2010 - 04:46 PM.

[Nate River]

The problem is they alienated others by not explaining their rhetoric in a comprehensive way. Yeah, there are always wackos but when the public face is the wacko itself socitey doesn't like it. Screaming terms and talking points all the time will help you none of the time.

That's simply not true. The Health Care Summit is a case in point. They explained their opposition extensively. They have offered alterntives. The trope about them just saying no and offering nothing is pure garbage.

By demanding repeal immediately after passage, Republicans resemble unsuccessful candidates who keep challenging election results and refuse to concede. Voters don't like candidates who sound like sour grapes, and they won't like a party that sounds that way either.

That's a good one. Seriously, it is. A significant number of liberals still haven't gotten over 2000 election or George W. Bush, and yet, here they are.

I don't know who this guy is. But if he is a Democrat or liberal, then it is the dispensing of advice from someone who obviously doesn't have your best interest at heart. I'd be like Barack Obama asking for re-election advice from Karl Rove.

Same thing if he supported the bill.