Thread: Are you "Furious".

Originally Posted by MasterMason03

Gugi,

Have you even read the two op-ed pieces I posted earlier? It is not like I am presenting a picture from a biased source. It is from the Washington Post.

I am not gugi, but I am curious about your response to this:

Originally Posted by HNSB

Awesome.

I hope you realize he did it at the expense of allowing the democrats to tax you for anything they want to.
I know you don't believe for a second that the democrats won't come up with things to tax you for...

Originally Posted by MasterMason03

Gugi,

Have you even read the two op-ed pieces I posted earlier? It is not like I am presenting a picture from a biased source. It is from the Washington Post.

Yes. But if you read post #150, you'd know I didn't learn anything new from them.

BTW another word you want to check the definition of - biased.

Originally Posted by gugi

The only problem is that this cannot happen. The republicans can't have 60 votes in senate, and so the democrats will filibuster any repeal. The republicans can try to negotiate, but what is it that they can offer in exchange? Remember, for the democrats this is the signature bill of decades. The dominating issue in the beginning of 2013 is going to be 'grand bargain' and the next extension of the debt ceiling - that's just the economic reality. If Romney becomes a president I expect the republicans to do about face on some of the 'Obama policies' they now detest and implement them, so that the economy can move forward. The democrats may try their hand at obstructionism but they'll give up in a short time.

Finally, you surely noticed Romney hedging his promise - he will 'act to repeal'.

So, I'd say the law is here to stay, even with Romney president he'll probably end up working to make it work (after some sort of political stunt that would allow him to claim credit).

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think the republicans would need that many. Since the bill was passed through reconciliation, I believe the same process could be used for its repeal. My understanding is that only requires a majority.

No, only few (critical) things were done through reconciliation, you can't repeal it like this. You can probably use reconciliation to damage it to the point where it is destined to fail, but when you're the one who governs that's cutting your nose to spite your face. Romney most definitely doesn't have it in him to do such thing. Remember - he's a successful businessman, so pragmatism trumps ideology every time. The hard-core conservatives missed their chance in the primary, the guys with the deep pockets won.

Originally Posted by gugi

the guys with the deep pockets won.

And don't forget the perfect hair. My God, the hair!

Originally Posted by HNSB

I hope you realize he did it at the expense of allowing the democrats to tax you for anything they want to.
I know you don't believe for a second that the democrats won't come up with things to tax you for...

I always thought that US government had the power of taxation since its infancy.
If the Congress is dominated by democrats they'll try to exercise their progressive agenda - to steal from (rich) Peter and give it to (poor) Paul, so to speak.
If it is dominated by the Republicans then they'll try to cut progressive taxes (and given the recent history, I imagine, to the effect of benefiting the rich / large corporations).

Today's ruling that upheld constitutionality of ACA wasn't at the expense of expanding the power of taxation.
The power has always been there in the first place, to be exercised, if the Congress wills it.
In other words, I don't think this will open the floods gates to new outlandish tax & expenditure scheme.
That has always required Congress to pass a budget bill.

The important thing, at least for people like me, is that now the initial appeal of ObamaCare loses its luster.
The whole premise was more widely distributed health care, at no additional cost - free lunch!
If it's tax, by definition, it's additional cost - and that isn't exactly what I was promised.

I think the best news here for Obama is that with all the new IRS agents this will require, the unemployment rate should be down to 3% before you can say "cometh."

Originally Posted by xuz

The important thing, at least for people like me, is that now the initial appeal of ObamaCare loses its luster.
The whole premise was more widely distributed health care, at no additional cost - free lunch!
If it's tax, by definition, it's additional cost - and that isn't exactly what I was promised.

I don't think that's how this 'tax' works. It's more like a tax on cigarettes - if you don't smoke you don't pay it. If you buy health insurance, you don't pay the tax for not having health insurance. You may ask, why call it a 'tax' and not 'fine', or 'penalty' and according to Roberts it's because it's not particularly burdensome.

But there's never been a free lunch. Covering preexisting conditions, insuring the uninsured, setting up those 'exchanges' where people can buy insurance policies, these things cost money and that's why the bill includes taxes and cuts in other programs. And not insuring those people but requiring they be covered by emergency services costs money too and it's currently paid by the rest of us in the form of both insurance premiums and taxes.

Romney says he'll keep all these popular provisions, just hasn't said how they'll be paid for. Last time he did that when he was governor, he paid for it the same way Obama is paying.

And there are death panels now and will be death panels in the future. As long as you don't have in your pocket the money to pay for your healthcare, somebody else is in charge of deciding how much your health and life are worth (yeah insurance is a contract and the other party can always decide they don't want to honor it and let you fight them in court).

Even staunch supporters of the Volstead Act (Prohibition) eventually supported it's repeal. It took 14 years for the American public to become fed up enough for Congress to act, but the 21st Amendment was finally passed. We'll see how long it takes for Americans to become fed up with another enormous tax burden to pay for something that they don't really want.

Justice Roberts should be commended for exposing the ACA for what it really is, and always was, and for exposing Obama for what he really is.

Reading all these new posts here all I see is folks spinning the facts to their advantage. It's just further proof what trouble this country is in and it's different that before because previously it was over individual issues which once resolved faded away. This is more like the Civil War era with fundamental differences in how and who will run this country.

Several years ago a Russian Historian said within 40 years this country will be split into separate countries broken along regional lines. Anyone doubt that is where we are heading?

Folks better start looking beyond their own limited viewpoints and broaden their horizons.

I'm just saying.

Now you can go back to flogging each other.