Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

[Moonlight J]

Many of us want single payer, but there was absolutely no chance of that happening. The polls from July 2011 showed the national support for a Single Payer health care system at just 35%. Although the number varies a lot, depending on how the question is asked. When asked about single payer, the support is 35%, but when asked for a system like Medicare, the support is closer to 50%. It will take more time for the country to evolve on this, just as we have seen with Don't Ask, Don't Tell and gay marriage.

evolve...be educated....either way

Keep government out of my medicare. smh

[Lucky]

The tax angle also provide Romney with some ammunition about what Obama will be bring about in increased taxes to the middle class.

I'm torn on this issue, as I see the need to have everyone insured, but see this as something that does take away people's independence to make decisions about how they want to engage in this area of commerce.

Yeah, I think you're missing something here. If it is a tax in Obama's health care plan, then it was a tax in Romney's health care plan. Every time he tries to hang the tax albatross around Obama's neck, he will be shooting himself in the foot. Oh, there will be some kind of distinction without a difference the Rovian pundits will dream up, but it's either a tax with both or a tax with neither.

[Judge Jude]

"it's either a tax with both or a tax with neither."

yeah, I would think so.

[Moonlight J]

BREAKING: Supreme Court Upholds 20-Year-Old Republican Healthcare Solution; GOP Vows to Fight

[In the Corn]

I'm curious, though. In what way did this "take away people's independence to make decisions about how they want to engage in this area of commerce"? You mean, people who didn't want to have any insurance at all, and therefore have their health costs passed directly to other taxpayers, now have to purchase it (or get it for free, depending on finances)?

Yup. I'm not saying it's right, but it is a restriction in people's freedom to choose, IMO.

Yeah, I think you're missing something here. If it is a tax in Obama's health care plan, then it was a tax in Romney's health care plan. Every time he tries to hang the tax albatross around Obama's neck, he will be shooting himself in the foot. Oh, there will be some kind of distinction without a difference the Rovian pundits will dream up, but it's either a tax with both or a tax with neither.

I don't think Romney's Health Care in MA is something he's constituents hear. The other part of that is people don't care how it effect someone else, only how effects them.

I'm not a Romney fan, so please don't think I'm defending him.

[dslaw]

Yeah, I think you're missing something here. If it is a tax in Obama's health care plan, then it was a tax in Romney's health care plan. Every time he tries to hang the tax albatross around Obama's neck, he will be shooting himself in the foot. Oh, there will be some kind of distinction without a difference the Rovian pundits will dream up, but it's either a tax with both or a tax with neither.

Quit trying to think about the issues and just accept what the politicians say. When Romney says his plan was great because it was just for a state and Obama's is terrible because it was for the whole country you are supposed to cheer and wave your "Down with Obamacare" sign, not say "But aren't they basically the same thing?"

[Lucky]

Quit trying to think about the issues and just accept what the politicians say. When Romney says his plan was great because it was just for a state and Obama's is terrible because it was for the whole country you are supposed to cheer and wave your "Down with Obamacare" sign, not say "But aren't they basically the same thing?"

Duly noted. Working on my sign now.

[Moonlight J]

Does anyone have the details on what Rmoney would put in place if he were to repeal the act? I can't believe he wouldn't take questions today after giving his opinion speech today.

[Moonlight J]

tax or not a tax?

The Anti-Injunction Act provides that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person," 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that those subject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individual mandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a "tax" for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a "penalty," not a "tax." That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit. Pp. 11-15.

[The Feral Slasher]

BREAKING: Supreme Court Upholds 20-Year-Old Republican Healthcare Solution; GOP Vows to Fight

Almost as ridiculous:

BREAKING: Supreme Court Upholds 20-Year-Old Republican Healthcare Solution; Dems Hail Bill as Greatest Achievement of "Progressive" President

[cardboardbox]

Does anyone have the details on what Rmoney would put in place if he were to repeal the act? I can't believe he wouldn't take questions today after giving his opinion speech today.

I dont believe romney would completely repeal it.

[Moonlight J]

Almost as ridiculous:

BREAKING: Supreme Court Upholds 20-Year-Old Republican Healthcare Solution; Dems Hail Bill as Greatest Achievement of "Progressive" President

this wasn't enough for a true progressive -- just look at those of us in here that kept insisting for a push for single payer.

[Moonlight J]

“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right,” Sen. Rand Paul said.

I'm 10000% certain he would have used the same language had the decision gone the other way.

[Moonlight J]

good read here

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...The+New+Yorker

[chancellor]

Yeah, I think you're missing something here. If it is a tax in Obama's health care plan, then it was a tax in Romney's health care plan. Every time he tries to hang the tax albatross around Obama's neck, he will be shooting himself in the foot. Oh, there will be some kind of distinction without a difference the Rovian pundits will dream up, but it's either a tax with both or a tax with neither.

Romney may shoot off a toe in the argument, but it'll be a shot in the vital organs to Obama. Romney didn't do an interview with George Stephanopolous that clearly stated the health care bill was not a tax. Romney's not the one who, in the 2008 campaign, said he'd not increase taxes on those making less than $200,000. And there's probably a myriad of other examples I can't remember off the top of my head.

From a campaign/political view, this is manna on the ground for the Romney campaign. SCOTUS upheld ObamaCare, so Romney will get redoubled support from the Tea party side. He gets to put Obama in the unenviable position of defending what the Supreme Court has clearly called a tax. Conflated further, he or his allies will get to state that all this time and effort spent on increasing taxes was at the expense of job creation. And to top it off, the majority all but gutted using the Commerce Clause for similar arguments in the future.