Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy


Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

Debating with the enemy


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-10-2012, 04:33 PM   #151
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,544
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
When you can't counter the facts, try to disparage the source....must be straight from Rules for Radicals. If you guys discount Fox, I guess those on the right can discount CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, WaPo, NYT, LAT, etc.
I said they distorted and exaggerated, not that any of their information was incorrect. I used the first point as a example of them saying how the tax on prosthetic limbs was going to cost jobs/research in that area. It's hogwash, and it's simply not the case as noted from the articles I posted.


Isn't the WaPo more conservative leaning? Also, if you think all those media outlets are left leaning then you have no idea what unbiased or neutral is. I had this right winger (a friend at that) tell me that the BBC news was not only liberal, but also anti-american.

Just because they (media) point out Fox's slants and trashy news, doesn't mean they are liberal. It means they are setting the record straight.
__________________
"So let me get this straight. We have the event of the year on TV with millions watching around the world... and people want a punt, pass, and kick competition to be the halftime entertainment?? Folks, don't quit your day jobs."- Matty
NC_Skins is online now   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 07-10-2012, 04:42 PM   #152
Pro Bowl
 
Giantone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,352
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post

- Currently, Americans are allowed to deduct medical expenses on their 1040 form to the extent the costs exceed 7.5 percent of one’s adjusted gross income. The new ObamaCare provision will raise that threshold to 10 percent, subjecting patients to a higher tax bill. This tax will hit pre-retirement seniors the hardest. Over the next ten years, affected Americans will pony up a minimum total of $15 billion in taxes thanks to this provision.

.
...we are allowed but how many hit it?Point is if it 7.5 or 10% I haven't hit it or would have hit it in the last 10 years,THIS WILL NOT EFFECT ME.I am a pre retirment senior,these numbers are thrown out but in reality ....noone knows.If I or the Mrs get sick (God forbid) then yes I might have a higher % to hit but the bill would be smaller and that is what all the anti Obama chicken littles are afraid of that Joe Public will find out.
__________________
....DISCLAIMER: All of my posts/threads are my expressed typed opinion and the reader is not to assume these comments are absolute fact, law, or truth unless otherwise stated in said post/thread.
Giantone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 04:53 PM   #153
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,766
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan View Post
Secondly, this law doesn't cover ALL Americans. It covers approximately 30 million (revised number per CBO). That's it. No undocumented immigrants and no one gets free medical care. No free rides. Period. That said, all Americans insurance plans aren't directly affected by this law. So most of what we're debating isn't what falls under the Patient Bill of Rights Act portion, because if we go point by point, the vast majority of people here -- left and right -- would agree with most of those rights. What we're debating is the individual mandate. Correct? The idea that those who *don't* have insurance should. Okay, that sounds pretty libertarian to me. Pull your own weight, pal. Is that an expansion of the social safety net. Sure. But it's also an economic imperative. Too much of the nations debt, too much of our GDP is driven by healthcare costs. It's ludicrous to say you're a fiscal hawk and want to do absolutely nothing about our broken healthcare system. It doesn't make moral sense or fiscal sense.
As it states, the law provides a tax credit to go toward the purchase of health insurance for those who qualify. Those who don't qualify (earns below a certain amount) will be covered by Medicaid's extended program. So while only 30 million would be covered under the tax credit, you how many more millions now will qualify for Medicaid? Obama has already came out, against his own party's will, and announced rising taxes for those making $250,000/per year and more, so we know that somebody has to cover the expensive of the extension of Medicaid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan View Post
And to that end, I absolutely agree with the court's decision. Whether it falls under the Commerce Clause or the Congress' taxing authority is besides the point in my opinion. It's the law of the land. It was the right thing to do. Republicans believed so in the 90s, Democrats got it passed in the 2000s. This wasn't a unique idea. This wasn't some new radical Obama agenda. Both parties have embraced the idea of universal healthcare at one time or another. The political will power just wasn't there in the past. This time is was and the Supreme Court validated the law passed by the other two branches of government. So you have ALL three branches on the same page regarding a Republican concept.
This kind of sounds like a statement of a card carrying Democrat, lol! So, if it succeeds, it's the Democrats, but if it fails, it was a Republican concept?


Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan View Post
In terms of Nanny State and redistribution of wealth. I touched on this earlier. There are no giveaways under this law. You can't give me one example, under this law, of "free health insurance". In fact, you appear to contradicting yourself. You say Congress is forcing people to buy insurance, then you turnaround and call it free and wealth distribution. Which is it? There are some tax credits for lower income families who decide to purchase insurance. That's hardly Nanny state. I've yet to see a definitive argument that explains how this is redistribution of wealth. I'm open ears if you want to take a stab it.
Of course there's free health insurance. The Supreme Court past the decision that would allow this program to offer Medicaid extensions to cover those who "fall between the cracks" that otherwise before would not qualify for Medicaid. That money HAS to come from somewhere, where you do think the government is going to get that money? Again, President Obama has already came out this week and stated that he's pushing to have taxes raised for those making $250k+ a year instead of just millionaires now. So, even the President realizes that he's going to have to tax more in order to fund this program.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan View Post
The Supreme Court limited the Medicaid provision of the law, basically giving the states ability to deny funding or opt out. In some cases I don't think it's a wise move, but I can live with states making decisions based on the needs of the people and not politics. My biggest concern is how do we address cost containment. I've neither read nor heard anything that says with certainty that costs will come down dramatically because of the law. It's an imperfect law with room for improvement. Just like Social Security and other social programs that passed in their original form. It will be a lot better in the coming years.
We've been waiting for years for social security to improve, and alas, I won't have social security by the time I'm old enough to retire, so that's probably a bad example to compare this "law" to. As far as the Medicaid extension goes, in the end, it doesn't matter if the states have the right to opt out or not, they'll more than likely adopt the program, because it will probably wind up costing the states more in the long run not to.
__________________
"Fire Up That Diesel!"
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 05:00 PM   #154
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,347
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins View Post
Hyperbole anyone? Here is a link from the Aussie gov't on problems they admit they are facing in their own system. Now imagine how those problems will increase exponentially in the U.S with a much larger population.

yourHealth - 2. Problems with our health system today

I'm a Christian and I've got no problem going to church on Sunday and opposing Obamacare. There are already plenty of gov't programs in place to help the very poor. Obamacare is about gov't control, not helping the less fortunate. This clown needs to stop drinking the socialist kool-aid.

Oh, and this,
Austrailian Income taxes:
under $ 18K = $ 0
18-37K = 19%
37-80K = 32.5%
80 - 180K = 37%
over 180K = 45%
plus 1.5% Medicare tax on all
also 10% VAT (sales tax) which goes to the states

US Tax Brackets - Single Filing
$0 – $8,700 = 10%
$8,700 – $35,350 = 15%
$35,350 – $85,650 = 25%
$85,650 – $178,650 = 28%
$178,650 – $388,350 = 33%
Over $388,350 = $ 35%
plus 1.45% Medicare tax on individual, 1.45% on employer.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 05:03 PM   #155
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,766
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins View Post
In a perfect world, we would have a small government that had minimum regulations and restrictions on its people and its economy.

The sad reality of it, is that you have to hold people's hand in order to get them to do the right thing. Don't believe me, take away all laws and see what happens. It always is a double edge sword, but sometimes it is a necessary one.


Remove regulations from banks and corporations. They'll end up collapsing the economy and providing workers with unsafe conditions and petty pay.

Remove EPA regulations and the environment will be destroyed by corporations and businesses trying to make a buck.

Now, I would rather our government not be involved, but it's been proven time and time and time and TIME again that businesses (and people) have to be regulated.

The thing that kills me with most conservatives is that what do they actually think is going to happen when you deregulate? They are allowed to run wild, and that's exactly what they'll do. Why? Because their primary focus is to make as much as money as possible, even if that means using unethical means to do it.


Do we really want to go back to these days? I know the rich elites do.
NC_SKINS:

I don't know of any true conservatives that are for taking away laws altogether. I do know of extremist libertarians who believe in some sort of utopia of sorts where the gov't is skin and bones and any rescue, fire, and police service is all privately ran. Most conservatives that I know realize there needs to be some regulation in terms of protection, but at the same time, too much regulation is detrimental, and I believe that we have way too much regulation in this country which is crippling job growth. for instance, in the state of VA, it is illegal to grow Hemp, but not illegal to sale or buy it. The gov't right now has it on the controlled substance list, but removing it from this list would allow farmers in VA to grow it and create about 10,000 jobs in southside VA. Hemp is used in just about everything nowadays. That's just a small case of regulation that does not need regulation.

As far as regulation of pay, I think that is one area where the government should stay out of the way and allow the free market to decide how much that job is worth. If Company A pays crap, and company B pays better, employees will go to company B. It should be just that simple, but instead, the gov't wants to step in and say company A should pay X amount no matter if they have to cut jobs and downsize to do it. What is worse, getting paid a crappy salary or having no jobs at all? Just ask Southside VA.

But anyways, assuming that conservatives feel there should be no regulation is just plain stupid to me, but there should be a lot of deregulation going on.
__________________
"Fire Up That Diesel!"
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 05:07 PM   #156
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,347
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins View Post
Isn't the WaPo more conservative leaning? Also, if you think all those media outlets are left leaning then you have no idea what unbiased or neutral is. I had this right winger (a friend at that) tell me that the BBC news was not only liberal, but also anti-american.
WaPo is just as left as the NY Times. Wash Times is conservative leaning.

Quote:
Just because they (media) point out Fox's slants and trashy news, doesn't mean they are liberal. It means they are setting the record straight.
Depends on perspective, you & 12th would consider Fox "slanted and trashy", me and those who are conservative would consider CNN, NBC, MSNBC, etc. "slanted and trashy".
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 05:10 PM   #157
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,347
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantone View Post
...we are allowed but how many hit it?Point is if it 7.5 or 10% I haven't hit it or would have hit it in the last 10 years,THIS WILL NOT EFFECT ME.I am a pre retirment senior,these numbers are thrown out but in reality ....noone knows.If I or the Mrs get sick (God forbid) then yes I might have a higher % to hit but the bill would be smaller and that is what all the anti Obama chicken littles are afraid of that Joe Public will find out.
Unfortunatley I've exceeded the 7.5% a couple of years in the last few. Bottom line, is this is an increased tax burden for many Americans.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 05:17 PM   #158
Pro Bowl
 
Giantone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,352
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
I'm a Christian and I've got no problem going to church on Sunday and opposing Obamacare. There are already plenty of gov't programs in place to help the very poor. Obamacare is about gov't control, not helping the less fortunate. This clown needs to stop drinking the socialist kool-aid.

.

The last time I checked it was a religious sect that was serving cool aid to it's memebers and lying to them.My question to you ...what about the not very poor,what about the people who are doing the best they can to hang on but don't qualify as "very poor",Sammy what do they do?
__________________
....DISCLAIMER: All of my posts/threads are my expressed typed opinion and the reader is not to assume these comments are absolute fact, law, or truth unless otherwise stated in said post/thread.
Giantone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 05:18 PM   #159
Pro Bowl
 
Giantone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,352
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
Unfortunatley I've exceeded the 7.5% a couple of years in the last few. Bottom line, is this is an increased tax burden for many Americans.

Maybe but with lower primiums ...then it is offset.
__________________
....DISCLAIMER: All of my posts/threads are my expressed typed opinion and the reader is not to assume these comments are absolute fact, law, or truth unless otherwise stated in said post/thread.
Giantone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 05:26 PM   #160
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,458
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

Skinsguy,

You seem to have your own interpretation of the rules, especially regarding the individual mandate. The mandate isn't specifically for low income people neither do ALL in the pool of 30 million qualify to receive a tax credit.

The Supreme Court's ruling said, the federal gov't under Obamacare cannot dictate to states whether to accept Medicaid funding. Essentially, that's the only portion of the law that was more or less struck down.

Right now the federal government pays for about 57% of total Medicaid costs. That's even before we start debating whether "Obamacare" is a good or bad idea. Medicaid eligibility varies from state to state. Some states have a vastly more complex healthcare delivery system than others. State run hospitals, university hospitals, and other network providers are absorbing the costs and looking toward the state for reimbursement. In other words, states defray costs and foot the bill for covering the uninsured. When times are lean, Medicaid is the typically the first program to see the axe and have eligibility requirements change. The new law, "Obamacare", says you can't change those eligibility requirements for Medicaid. Cut your budgets elsewhere. See where this is going? Now we can debate the merits of Medicaid, but to call it socialized medicine is not the case.

Lastly, I couldn't care less which party get's credit. The facts are the facts. A Democrat passed healthcare reform. Had it been Reagan, Bush, or Roy Rogers I'd acknowledge that.
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 05:35 PM   #161
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,458
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

Oh, what does Obama's proposal to raise taxes, which he's not, have to do with Affordable Care Act? These are two distinctly different pieces of legislation.

I don't want to start a completely different argument in this thread, but...at some point taxes are going to have to go up. So there.
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 05:46 PM   #162
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,347
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan;924128It's not a bill. It's the law of the land and has been for two years. [/quote
some of the "history" of how Obamacare became law:
The American Spectator : Obamacare's Hideous History, Recounted

quote]And to that end, I absolutely agree with the court's decision. Whether it falls under the Commerce Clause or the Congress' taxing authority is besides the point in my opinion. It's the law of the land. It was the right thing to do. Republicans believed so in the 90s, Democrats got it passed in the 2000s. This wasn't a unique idea. This wasn't some new radical Obama agenda. Both parties have embraced the idea of universal healthcare at one time or another. The political will power just wasn't there in the past. This time is was and the Supreme Court validated the law passed by the other two branches of government. So you have ALL three branches on the same page regarding a Republican concept.
Obamacare as it was written (and unread by many in Congress) is certainly no conservative "concept". You can point to Romneycare, however the law that passed in MA was with (8) over-ridded Romney vetos. For those that are interested in the differences in Romneycare vs. Obamacare here's a good link:

The American Spectator : Obamacare vs. Romneycare -- A Crucial Difference

The court killing the Commerce Clause argument was HUGE and absolutely necessary to curtailing an already out of control, over-regulatory, federal gov't. Here's Roberts' opinion, and while I'm no fan of Obamacare being upheld as a constitutional tax, I'l take that loss while the SCOTUS curtails the federal gov'ts expansion of power.

"Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 05:54 PM   #163
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,458
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

Are you saying Romneycare was passed against Mitt Romney's will or what are you saying? And yes, the two plans are damn similar. The president used Romneycare as a template. LOL..so much for conservatism, I guess.
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 05:56 PM   #164
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
Unfortunatley I've exceeded the 7.5% a couple of years in the last few. Bottom line, is this is an increased tax burden for many Americans.

There is no such thing as free lunch and ultimately everyone pays. The real question is when and how does the piper get paid? Is it through the back-door or through the front-door, or will it be through an unmarked envelope under the table?

Bottom line, there are two things certain in life, death and taxes...the bourgeoisie need to be weary of the mob less they want to end up under the guillotine sooner than desirable.
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 06:00 PM   #165
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,458
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

Sammy, you do understand that the Court said Obamacare must fall under the taxing authority of Congress, it did not explicitly state that it was a tax. There's a difference.

There is nothing mutually incompatible about the terms "fee", "penalty" and "tax". Is it a tax. Yes. Is it a penalty? Sure. Is it a fee? Absolutely. It is a cliche of political economics that when governments want to encourage something, they subsidize it; if they want to discourage something they tax it. There is no contradiction there.
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.36034 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25